On 31/07/2019 at 07:18, Sir Why You Little said:

Winning teams keep Sponsors

Losing teams get thrown what’s left

 

thanks for that, but I asked for a list of the 'brand' of winning teams.  Does you dodging the request indicate the list would be fatuous as I suggested?  I'm still happy to be proven wrong when I see your list.

  On 01/08/2019 at 02:58, sue said:

thanks for that, but I asked for a list of the 'brand' of winning teams.  Does you dodging the request indicate the list would be fatuous as I suggested?  I'm still happy to be proven wrong when I see your list.

It’s a word. A winning “Brand”

We had it decades ago and let it go. 

The Brand of Power if you like....

 

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:05, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s a word. A winning “Brand”

We had it decades ago and let it go. 

The Brand of Power if you like....

 

If  all that talk about a 'brand' is a just a synonym of 'winning', then talking about our brand adds nothing to the discussion.  I presume that most people who talk about a brand have something more in mind, like a 'never say die' brand etc.  And I doubt very much that there are any of those which mean much. 

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:30, sue said:

If  all that talk about a 'brand' is a just a synonym of 'winning', then talking about our brand adds nothing to the discussion.  I presume that most people who talk about a brand have something more in mind, like a 'never say die' brand etc.  And I doubt very much that there are any of those which mean much. 

You can give it any name you like. 

Winning teams have Power. A Brand Sponsors sign long term deals with...

the rest struggle as we all know...

It’s rather poor form that Paul Roos picks on his successor who he had a hand in choosing, from a position of power without accountability in the news media.

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:35, Skin Deeamond said:

It’s rather poor form that Paul Roos picks on his successor who he had a hand in choosing, from a position of power without accountability in the news media.

At the time Roos stated that he chose Goodwin because their footballing philosophies were very similar.
Roos was always ultra defensive whereas Goodwin has proven to be all out attacking sacrificing 2 defensive players to rush the bounce from the back of the square, relentlessly playing on and bombing the ball inside F50 anyway you can.
Their philosophies are polar opposites.
 Roos was duped.

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Fork 'em

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:47, Fork 'em said:

At the time Roos stated that he chose Goodwin because their footballing philosophies were very similar.
Roos was always ultra defensive whereas Goodwin has proven to be all out attacking sacrificing 2 defensive players to rush the bounce from the back of the square, relentlessly playing on and bombing the ball inside F50 anyway you can.
Their philosophies are polar opposites.
 Roos was duped.

That’s how i see it

Roos and Goodwin are like a mirror image of each other in terms of philosophy. 

Goodwin played under Blight for his 2 flags, so i can understand where his ideas grew from...

Fascinating Preseason coming up...

"Brand" is generally a meaningless term. The winning comes first. Third parties apply a "brand" after that, possibly in an attempt to make sense of why the winners are winning. Winners almost never try to apply a brand to themselves. (They're usually too busy with the business of winning.)

 

"Brands" in the AFL?

"The family club" ...  meaningless really, says nothing about the way they play, which (when they were winning flags) was hard and mean

"We are Carlton, f*** the rest" ... is a kind of brand but more about the off field than on

"Shinboner spirit" ... something to that

 

I'm at a loss after that.

 

 

What do we think of when we consider the prominent winning clubs around now?

 

Eagles: they win games. Brand ....... ? (Bueller? Anyone?)

Cats: they win games

Tigers: they win games

Lions: they've started winning. People may try to apply some kind of brand to them if they keep winning.

 

Brands always come second. The winning comes first. If you're not winning you by definition have no brand. But even winners don't always have a brand.

  On 01/08/2019 at 04:11, Mazer Rackham said:

"Brand" is generally a meaningless term. The winning comes first. Third parties apply a "brand" after that, possibly in an attempt to make sense of why the winners are winning. Winners almost never try to apply a brand to themselves. (They're usually too busy with the business of winning.)

 

"Brands" in the AFL?

"The family club" ...  meaningless really, says nothing about the way they play, which (when they were winning flags) was hard and mean

"We are Carlton, f*** the rest" ... is a kind of brand but more about the off field than on

"Shinboner spirit" ... something to that

 

I'm at a loss after that.

 

 

What do we think of when we consider the prominent winning clubs around now?

 

Eagles: they win games. Brand ....... ? (Bueller? Anyone?)

Cats: they win games

Tigers: they win games

Lions: they've started winning. People may try to apply some kind of brand to them if they keep winning.

 

Brands always come second. The winning comes first. If you're not winning you by definition have no brand. But even winners don't always have a brand.

Essendon - Drug cheats
Weagles - Methcoke
Saints - Party Boys
Carlton - Arrogant
Melbourne - Basketcase

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Fork 'em

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:47, Fork 'em said:

At the time Roos stated that he chose Goodwin because their footballing philosophies were very similar.
Roos was always ultra defensive whereas Goodwin has proven to be all out attacking sacrificing 2 defensive players to rush the bounce from the back of the square, relentlessly playing on and bombing the ball inside F50 anyway you can.
Their philosophies are polar opposites.
 Roos was duped.

He never sacrificed two defensive players, those players were two extra defenders who played off the back of the centre square. We haven't been able to do it this year due to the 6/6/6 rule. If it was two defenders we would just keep doing it .

  On 01/08/2019 at 03:57, Sir Why You Little said:

That’s how i see it

Roos and Goodwin are like a mirror image of each other in terms of philosophy. 

Goodwin played under Blight for his 2 flags, so i can understand where his ideas grew from...

Fascinating Preseason coming up...

He also played under Craig for a large chunk of his career under the "Crow-bots" so not just all out attacking philosophy through is whole career

  On 01/08/2019 at 05:12, Dr. Gonzo said:

He also played under Craig for a large chunk of his career under the "Crow-bots" so not just all out attacking philosophy through is whole career

But wasn’t Craig’s sides fairly free flowing?

it goes back a while, my memory is a bit cloudy. I know they won a hell of a lot of games without snagging a 3rd flag

  On 30/07/2019 at 03:06, iv'a worn smith said:

To whack Roos for expressing an opinion with his media hat on is off the mark.

In my view he is 100% correct.  His and PJ's jobs were to stabilise the MFC's business and footy culture which was so damaged by the previous administration.  To a large extent, they got that done.  But I have to wonder, despite what they said when their tenures were apparently over, did they really want to leave when they did?

I have a sneaking suspicion that over the last 18 months or so, there have been a few 'captain's' calls made, which have not gone down that well with many inside the club.  ..... And I don't mean the captains on the playing field.

 

Just a gut feel or a bit more than that Iva?  Care to elaborate a little?  

"Brand" is a vision. A "vision" is a direction. 

Where are you now?

Where are you going?

How will you get there?

Strong and successful teams regardless of the working environment always have a strong vision with buyin. 

Many of you think "Brand" is meaningless. You're thinking too one dimensionally. Think of Brand as an idea: What do we want to represent and will it help us in our vision?

Our "brand" is *supposed* to be that we are ruthless, we battle hard for the ball and we win it the hard way. 

But if that brand is unsuccessful then you need to change your vision because you're going to the wrong destination. 

Yes it is all corporate gobbledygook, but it has weight. 

When people thinking of Hawthorn of the past decade, or Geelong, or even Brisbane this year, we know what their "brand" is: it is to win at all costs. Not just on the field. Off the field too. Make sacrifices and win. win win win.

I am not saying we are not trying to make that our brand but our current branding is not working or doesn't exist. 

what do we stand for? what do we represent? Can anyone answer these questions?

If you can't then you're in no position to mock the idea of "brand".

  On 01/08/2019 at 05:46, praha said:

"Brand" is a vision. A "vision" is a direction. 

Where are you now?

Where are you going?

How will you get there?

Strong and successful teams regardless of the working environment always have a strong vision with buyin. 

Many of you think "Brand" is meaningless. You're thinking too one dimensionally. Think of Brand as an idea: What do we want to represent and will it help us in our vision?

Our "brand" is *supposed* to be that we are ruthless, we battle hard for the ball and we win it the hard way. 

But if that brand is unsuccessful then you need to change your vision because you're going to the wrong destination. 

Yes it is all corporate gobbledygook, but it has weight. 

When people thinking of Hawthorn of the past decade, or Geelong, or even Brisbane this year, we know what their "brand" is: it is to win at all costs. Not just on the field. Off the field too. Make sacrifices and win. win win win.

I am not saying we are not trying to make that our brand but our current branding is not working or doesn't exist. 

what do we stand for? what do we represent? Can anyone answer these questions?

If you can't then you're in no position to mock the idea of "brand".

Sounds like you came up with the initial concept of 'brand' @praha, or at least, hold on to it quite dearly.

I know last year a new position was opened up at another club whereby said person in this position wrote team values/brand in the training area (actually got a graphic artist) - was outwardly and inwardly mocked by players... the team was knocked out in the finals last year and are finals bound this year (if not the favourite). Team branding/values are redundant... the team (anyteam) is already branded merely by wearing certain colours, and playing within the afl industry. 

Whether brands are worthy or not only work within a post hoc analysis sense if you(r) team is winning, otherwise all branding's/language around what we/the team stand for, doesn't stack up.

Goodwin has repetedly said in his tenure that his way is about  building from the contest out... typically we smash the contest and deliver into the 50 enough... this is the part that the entire club is working on now - not the contest anymore, the delivery, the two way running etc etc. 

The rationale behind this philosophy of course is because it is the way finals are played, people tighten up, people dont want to [censored] up , dont want to make errors, skills get worse etc... 

That's fair enough isn't it, to allow time for the building to continue?? Because that is what he and the other employee's will do.

Personally, I am backing Goodwin and his philosophy - it's stage 2.5 of about 5. 

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Engorged Onion
further rambling

  On 30/07/2019 at 01:24, At the break of Gawn said:

I honestly hope someone in the media brings up the idea of Roos returning to Melbourne as a football director. Goodwin clearly needs help. He is way out of his depth. It's like when an operations manager takes over a particular department that he was in for years where everything was running smoothly or at least, they knew the problem and knew it would be improved over time. He's never seen things go pear shape and see how the previous manager responded to this.

Goodwin has had no training when the wheels start to fall off - he doesn't know how to rectify things and get things back on track. Goodwin should put his hand up and ask for an experienced football director to help him solve this problem. It's clear that McCartney has not assisted Goodwin with his reign. 

Are you saying he willngly hasn't (to whatever degree) and that if he did things would have turned out better BOG? or are you saying that he has and it's had a poor or nil effect? 

  On 01/08/2019 at 05:33, Rusty Nails said:

Just a gut feel or a bit more than that Iva?  Care to elaborate a little?  

I am too acutely aware of defamation laws to go down that path, but there are some drums beating from within I believe and that's all I am prepared to say.

 

  On 01/08/2019 at 05:11, Dr. Gonzo said:

He never sacrificed two defensive players, those players were two extra defenders who played off the back of the centre square. We haven't been able to do it this year due to the 6/6/6 rule. If it was two defenders we would just keep doing it .

He stopped running players off the back of the square half way though last season. Goodwin noted this in an interview when asked if his use of players off the back of the square would make the 666 rule a challenge for us (his answer was that basically wouldn't impact us much). 

I maintain the 666 rule has made almost no difference to us or other clubs. The biggest non event since AFLX

  On 01/08/2019 at 06:59, binman said:

He stopped running players off the back of the square half way though last season. Goodwin noted this in an interview when asked if his use of players off the back of the square would make the 666 rule a challenge for us (his answer was that basically wouldn't impact us much). 

I maintain the 666 rule has made almost no difference to us or other clubs. The biggest non event since AFLX

I cant see it as nothing..the age old go-to of stacking and crowding the backline to slow  down a torrent of attacks is removed. Yes  at centre bounces only but if your opposition  is piling on goals they surely are the ones that matter. 

Put Roos’ blame casting in the context of him angling for a cushy high paying mentoring role at Carlton and you can see why he said those things. Slippery character Paul. I never felt he 100% bought into Melbourne. Always one eye on his exit strategy.

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Matsuo Basho

  On 01/08/2019 at 07:38, beelzebub said:

I cant see it as nothing..the age old go-to of stacking and crowding the backline to slow  down a torrent of attacks is removed. Yes  at centre bounces only but if your opposition  is piling on goals they surely are the ones that matter. 

They flood back into he backline as soon the ball is bounced. So teams have about 5 seconds, less maybe, to get an uninterrupted clearance into a on one forward line. And statistically very few such entries.

Which is exactly why it has not achieved the AFL reason for introducing it - to increase scoring.

Roosy was in the office today, trying to sell his high performance culture business to the boss... unfortunately i was unable to bale him up on all things Dees.

  On 01/08/2019 at 06:00, Rusty Nails said:

Are you saying he willngly hasn't (to whatever degree) and that if he did things would have turned out better BOG? or are you saying that he has and it's had a poor or nil effect? 

The latter of the two. I think the intention was for him to be the guiding mentor but they’ve clashed. But who knows, maybe Goodwin is a bit of a control freak and only likes doing things his own way.

  On 01/08/2019 at 06:14, iv'a worn smith said:

I am too acutely aware of defamation laws to go down that path, but there are some drums beating from within I believe and that's all I am prepared to say.

 

Fair enough Iva ✌?

  On 01/08/2019 at 09:38, At the break of Gawn said:

The latter of the two. I think the intention was for him to be the guiding mentor but they’ve clashed. But who knows, maybe Goodwin is a bit of a control freak and only likes doing things his own way.

Ok thanks BoG