4 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

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. 

I am not talking about going in and writing "vision" and "brand" on a whiteboard. People take it quite literally and like we saw with Schwab and co when you do that you turn a philosophical approach to vision into a literal one that is difficult to articulate. 

But know what you stand for, who you want to be. What you want to achieve. Setting realistic goals around a centralised vision is a viable and successful mantra. 

Besides, it is not up to the players to create this vision. This is why we have a head coach. His messaging should underline this philosophy to drive success.

You would be surprised how many talented people there are in the world that simply "phone it in": if you're getting paid regardless for achieving personal goals and targets then what does it matter if the team succeeds or not?

I've no doubt a large cross section of the AFL playing community falls into that basket. If you can't build a team of players that buy into the same vision of winning, and are simply satisfied with a nice paycheck, then you are going through the motions. I've no doubt players get disappointed and frustrated at losing. But you can separate the winners, from those phoning it in, and the perennial losers. Find a middle ground and a vision those players can buy into.

you might think it's all rubbish but the psychology of team success is nothing new. players may laugh when they run someone through it, the messaging delivery may be wrong but the idea of vision and brand is inherently embedded in successful teams. If you can't separate yourself from your competitors then you will never succeed. A "brand" is a way of playing football is a metaphor for "what about their playstyle differentiates them?" What is the one element of their game that propels them above others? If you can't answer that then your brand is [censored]. And your vision is failing.

what's to say that team that laughed, has not changed its approach based on that idea of vision?

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by praha

4 hours ago, 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

That's true, my comment was more addressing the allegation that he sacrificed 2 defenders for this tactic which was untrue. He sacrificed 2 forwards.

3 hours ago, Matsuo Basho said:

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.

Big reputation for winning one premiership.

53 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's true, my comment was more addressing the allegation that he sacrificed 2 defenders for this tactic which was untrue. He sacrificed 2 forwards.

You're point that he is has been anything but conservative tacticaly is spot on.

8 hours ago, 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 .

The two back flanks would rush the bounce to create more numbers at the fall of the ball and the opposition had to choose whether their forwards would run in with those players or stay back to create a 6 on 4 in our backline which they labelled the "Diamond Defence".
This was due to the 4 players guarding space in a diamond formation.
All good when when won the clearance, not so good when we didn't, or turned it over.
Russian roulette stuff.

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Fork 'em

I heard by chance part of an interesting discussion on SEN with Dermot Brereton this afternoon about the hiring of Clarkson for the position of senior coach at Hawthorn (Brereton was on the committee). Clarkson presented his idea of a game plan for the team which Brereton was sceptical about, but he was still hired (of course!). After 6 weeks into the season Clarkson realized his game plan wasn't working and threw it away. He came up with a new one to suit the type of players he had in his team. He built his plan around the players available to him, instead of trying to impose an unworkable plan onto the players. He was flexible in other words. This is what I got from what Brereton was saying about Clarkson, and he was praising him as a great coach for being clever about working with what he had and getting the type of players he needed to fit into his plans (of course he was praising him, being a Hawthorn person through and through).

However, this sounded like the secret to Clarkson's success. The ability to see what things are not working and the intelligence to come up with something else which would succeed for his players. Building a successful team in this way also attracts players to want to play for this team.

I also read a quote from Roos about coaching. He said one of the most important things for coaches to remember is what it's like to be a player. "Jack Watts (once) said to me 'we just want to be treated like human beings'. I was quite shocked by that."

How bad was this club's psyche when he took over? Has it gone backwards again? I pray it hasn't.

Half the reason I think Goodwin plays "Chaos Ball."
Knows the players he has can't hit targets to save themselves.

 

Edited August 1, 20195 yr by Fork 'em

18 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

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. 

So finals  in about 2022. Is that right?