Captaincy 2020

[sue 9,107]

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

But it wasn’t bad luck that our bad form was in 1965 and onwards. It was shocking management. The signs were there already and the old stale board that pulled the strings did SFA about it. 
Weak Leadership. 

I agree.  Just couldn't have happened at a worse time.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

10 minutes ago, sue said:

I agree.  Just couldn't have happened at a worse time.

It wouldn’t have happened if strong leadership had been running the Club. 
That’s the point, and it is what still concerns me about last year. How strong is our leadership right now?

Big Year this one coming up...

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

On 1/6/2020 at 2:41 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

But North will always be a small club regardless of Media. 
 

We, The MFC were a Powerhouse who completely miss read the new Broadcasting of the 1960’s (as well as some other things)

We had the Power and gave it up. 
a Completely different scenario 

I agree with most of what you say about the MFC's poor management from 1965 onwards and the impact that has had. However, I'm curious about the claim that "MFC were a powerhouse". Clearly we were the best perfroming onfield team for a decade through the late 50s and early 60s, but were we also considered to be an off-field "powerhouse" club at the time? To me, the expression today could apply to Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond meaning that irrespective of where they finish on the ladder, they still have huge followings and influence over AFL and media decision makers. Is that the sort of club we were pre-1965? (I'm too young to remember). 

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with most of what you say about the MFC's poor management from 1965 onwards and the impact that has had. However, I'm curious about the claim that "MFC were a powerhouse". Clearly we were the best perfroming onfield team for a decade through the late 50s and early 60s, but were we also considered to be an off-field "powerhouse" club at the time? To me, the expression today could apply to Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond meaning that irrespective of where they finish on the ladder, they still have huge followings and influence over AFL and media decision makers. Is that the sort of club we were pre-1965? (I'm too young to remember). 

Speaking with my Uncle over the years (he has now passed on) as a Richmond Supporter, he often told me how big and hated The MFC was. Up until 1964 it was the MFC and The Filth followed by everyone else. 
We had won 6 flags in 10 years and been Runners Up twice. We were hated, make no mistake. Sad to think how far we have fallen, through poor management over 50 + years

[Damo 3,362]

A work colleague was shaking his head and upset early last year and I asked him what was the problem. He is of Macedonian descent and he said problems in the homeland and renaming of Macedonia. I asked when the problems started and he said "Recently? 1821"....

[ManDee 7,162]

Sorry what was the topic? ?

[Diamond_Jim 12,598]

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

However, I'm curious about the claim that "MFC were a powerhouse". Clearly we were the best perfroming onfield team for a decade through the late 50s and early 60s, but were we also considered to be an off-field "powerhouse" club at the time?

Suppose the measure for powerhouses then and now are different. Attendance wise we were ahead by miles simply because we had the MCG. Supporters of opponent teams pencilled in their MCG match simply because it was their one day of "comfort" in watching the football.

Moneywise the teams were still relative amateurs I assume with the weekly pay be a few pounds at most. Training was twice a week after work etc. You didn't need big money to run a footy club perhaps.

And of course at the time we were a subset of the MCC who probably controlled our purse-strings.

And then we get to the big question.. geography... up until some point a teams following was largely determined by which suburb you lived in. Controlling got the northern suburbs. Carlton won the immigrants etc. Did Melbourne benefit or did we just get the male children of the silvertails who registered their kids for school and clubs at birth. Stereotype perhaps but there is a shred of truth.

So I suppose we were a powerhouse in an era when perhaps it didn't matter as much.

[Demons1858 1,762]

Viney for captain. Worst case co-captain. Sends a poor message to players that we change our captains on a whim. Our recent history in this regard is poor. What happens if Max repeats his 2017 season where he admitted later that he wasn't doing everything he could to get back to form, do we then replace him next season with a fit Viney after he wins the B&F !?!? Need to back in your young captains, provide support, and help them develop their leadership

Edited January 8, 2020 by Demons1858

[Macca 17,009]

Captaincy is overrated anyway.

Without real talent and lots of it, teams will rarely, if ever, win big.  The best examples in any sport are the dynasty teams - lots of talent on an ongoing basis.  And that is not us. 

Over a 26 year stretch we contested 13 GF's and won 10 Flags but that had everything to do with talent levels - we often had more talent than the other teams so therefore we won more often.  Even Smith couldn't win big with an average list ('65 - '71 - Demons & Swans) 1 solitary finals appearance in that stretch. 

And Smith didn't suddenly lose the ability to coach.  In fact,  one of his greatest achievements might have been lifting the very average Swans into the finals in 1970.  But they got smashed in a SF because of a lack of real talent. 

The same sort of argument could be used for the Hawks with regards to their success.

Since our halcyon years we've never had a great list and I'd argue we've never gone close to having a great list.  Therefore,  we've lost a lot of games.  When we have played finals,  the list quality was quite good,  but never great. 

I reckon all our captains have done about as well as they could have done. 

In the one time in the last 13 years where we managed to play finals and win 2 finals, Jones & Viney were the captains.  Do we give them credit for that achievement?  I haven't seen it here very often. 

Coaching is a whole other argument but the same above principles apply in most cases.

As for our current list,  we look ok on paper but being good on paper will never deliver a dynasty.  You have to be great in order for that to be a possibility. 

So the answer lies with recruiting.  And since the halcyon days,  we've not been very good at recruiting.  If we were good at recruiting,  we should have been able to create a great list in the last 50+ years (As it was from the late '30's through to the mid '60's)

Of course,  the zones we were handed from the early '60's through to the late 80's weren't very fruitful but since the dawn of drafting,  we've still fallen well short   Again,  nothing to do with whoever is captain. 

Going right back none of Hassa Mann,  Frank Davis,  Stan Alves,  Greg Wells,  Carl Ditterich were able to captain the team into the finals whilst Flower had 7 years at the helm with only 1 year where we played finals in that time ('87)

By contrast Greg Healy captained for 3 years only but we played finals in each of those 3 years ('88 - '90)

 

[dpositive 1,669]

16 hours ago, Macca said:

Captaincy is overrated anyway.

Without real talent and lots of it, teams will rarely, if ever, win big.  The best examples in any sport are the dynasty teams - lots of talent on an ongoing basis.  And that is not us. 

Over a 26 year stretch we contested 13 GF's and won 10 Flags but that had everything to do with talent levels - we often had more talent than the other teams so therefore we won more often.  Even Smith couldn't win big with an average list ('65 - '71 - Demons & Swans) 1 solitary finals appearance in that stretch. 

And Smith didn't suddenly lose the ability to coach.  In fact,  one of his greatest achievements might have been lifting the very average Swans into the finals in 1970.  But they got smashed in a SF because of a lack of real talent. 

The same sort of argument could be used for the Hawks with regards to their success.

Since our halcyon years we've never had a great list and I'd argue we've never gone close to having a great list.  Therefore,  we've lost a lot of games.  When we have played finals,  the list quality was quite good,  but never great. 

I reckon all our captains have done about as well as they could have done. 

In the one time in the last 13 years where we managed to play finals and win 2 finals, Jones & Viney were the captains.  Do we give them credit for that achievement?  I haven't seen it here very often. 

Coaching is a whole other argument but the same above principles apply in most cases.

As for our current list,  we look ok on paper but being good on paper will never deliver a dynasty.  You have to be great in order for that to be a possibility. 

So the answer lies with recruiting.  And since the halcyon days,  we've not been very good at recruiting.  If we were good at recruiting,  we should have been able to create a great list in the last 50+ years (As it was from the late '30's through to the mid '60's)

Of course,  the zones we were handed from the early '60's through to the late 80's weren't very fruitful but since the dawn of drafting,  we've still fallen well short   Again,  nothing to do with whoever is captain. 

Going right back none of Hassa Mann,  Frank Davis,  Stan Alves,  Greg Wells,  Carl Ditterich were able to captain the team into the finals whilst Flower had 7 years at the helm with only 1 year where we played finals in that time ('87)

By contrast Greg Healy captained for 3 years only but we played finals in each of those 3 years ('88 - '90)

 

Great work Macca, and while I agree with all you say, I would add that in agreeing with the statement "captaincy is overrated" I would add that leadership is not.

Leaders are not always appointed or elected but often emerge. I can't provide supporting references without a lot of research through my library of HR, business and management sources, but I assure you my own experiences verify that conclusion.

i would imagine that the examples you provide would identify a leader or lack thereof in every circumstance.

The difficulty that this organic emergence created combined with the diversity of circumstances that require  leadership may have had something to do with the multi structure models that were promoted for business and political purposes.

Control and command models which are again being promoted in the current bushfire situation and embraced by politians to justify their existence can be fine and n some circumstances but are restricting in others.

Still the considerations of these models will continue and it will be interesting to see how MFC deal with this.

Good discussion starter.

[Macca 17,009]

20 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Great work Macca, and while I agree with all you say, I would add that in agreeing with the statement "captaincy is overrated" I would add that leadership is not.

Leaders are not always appointed or elected but often emerge. I can't provide supporting references without a lot of research through my library of HR, business and management sources, but I assure you my own experiences verify that conclusion.

i would imagine that the examples you provide would identify a leader or lack thereof in every circumstance.

The difficulty that this organic emergence created combined with the diversity of circumstances that require  leadership may have had something to do with the multi structure models that were promoted for business and political purposes.

Control and command models which are again being promoted in the current bushfire situation and embraced by politians to justify their existence can be fine and n some circumstances but are restricting in others.

Still the considerations of these models will continue and it will be interesting to see how MFC deal with this.

Good discussion starter.

Leadership on the field is overrated as well

See ball get ball,  be highly skilled and play as a team.  That goes for each and every player ... footy isn't rocket science.

However,  I'm a great believer that the club needs great leadership from the Board through to the FD.  But the plan needs to be a great plan.  Talk is cheap. 

Onfield success requires pure talent and lots of it.  Without lots of pure talent the best onfield leaders and captains won't be successful at what they are doing. 

Our current list has it all in front of them ... and we have any number of weaknesses that need to be overcome.  Time will tell.

Sport works differently to how businesses and companies work.  The same rules don't apply.

I have owned and operated my own business more than once so I know what you're talking about ... but I see sport in a different way.

Throughout my time supporting the team our biggest weakness has been that we've never been talented enough.  Not even close in fact.

A good example is the cricket test team ... when the team has 11 top players,  we are hard to beat.  But when it's down to just a half dozen or less,  we struggle to win.

[binman 43,138]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Leadership on the field is overrated as well

 

Sorry macca cannot agree at all with this. In fact to be accurate I strongly disagree.

Yes talent is critical. No team in any elite sport has any chance of sustained sucess without it. And yes the dees have lacked talent for decades.

But on field leadership is a critical element of success. There are any number of examples across all team sports. In footy Hodge at the lions is one such example. He simply would not have got  a game last year if it were not for his leadership.

Interesting you mention cricket. Paine was brought into the side solely for his leadership. And remains in it because of his leadership. On talent he would struggle to make a second 11 oz team. He doesn't make enough runs and is a good but not great keeper. But such has been his leadership he has been basically guaranteed the job for the foreseeable future.

A similar example in cricket was Brearly many tears ago. Crap batsmen, brilliant leader.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Leadership on the field is overrated as well

See ball get ball,  be highly skilled and play as a team.  That goes for each and every player ... footy isn't rocket science.

Onfield success requires pure talent and lots of it.  Without lots of pure talent the best onfield leaders and captains won't be successful at what they are doing.

 

37 minutes ago, binman said:

Sorry macca cannot agree at all with this. In fact to be accurate I strongly disagree.

Yes talent is critical. No team in any elite sport has any chance of sustained sucess without it. And yes the dees have lacked talent for decades.

But on field leadership is a critical element of success. There are any number of examples across all team sports. In footy Hodge at the lions is one such example. He simply would not have got  a game last year if it were not for his leadership.

Surely out of all teams' supporters WE should have learned that talent isn't the be all and end all. I don't want to open the 'development' can of worms again, but to suggest talent is the only factor seems pretty strange IMO.

Sure it's not an exact science, but we were rated as the most talented side in the comp last year, and how did that end?

And if you look at the premiership history of the AFL, it's not the most talented team that wins it every year.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Lord Nev

[Macca 17,009]

36 minutes ago, binman said:

Interesting you mention cricket. Paine was brought into the side solely for his leadership. And remains in it because of his leadership. On talent he would struggle to make a second 11 oz team. He doesn't make enough runs and is a good but not great keeper. But such has been his leadership he has been basically guaranteed the job for the foreseeable future.

A similar example in cricket was Brearly many tears ago. Crap batsmen, brilliant leader.

You and others overplay leadership & Captaincy

And you are wrong on Paine ... he came into the team as the best keeper out of Shield cricket

As for Brearley ... an outlier argument. 

By the way,  I didn't say that captaincy or leadership isn't important.  Just overrated.

[Macca 17,009]

Talent isn't a top end draft pick number either

Although you'd never know it on this site ... the buy-in and belief systems in drafting is astonishingly over the top

No amount of great coaching from any number of great coaches would have turned Toumpas,  Gysberts,  Morton,  Cook and a stack of others into decent players

They along with numerous other top 20 picks were good under 18 players only

And the facts and results bear that out.

[binman 43,138]

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

You and others overplay leadership & Captaincy

And you are wrong on Paine ... he came into the team as the best keeper out of Shield cricket

As for Brearley ... an outlier argument. 

By the way,  I didn't say that captaincy or leadership isn't important.  Just overrated.

I'm not sure what your metric for leadership being over rated is. However what I do know is that based on your comments I am of the view you significantly underrate the value and impact of leadership. 

I would argue that there have been periods in the the time i have followed the dees where we had the talent but lacked the on field leadership to go all the way.

I'd also argue there were (much fewer) periods where we had on field leadership that helped us perform better than we would have otherwise would have. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

Talent isn't a top end draft pick number either

Although you'd never know it on this site ... the buy-in and belief systems in drafting is astonishingly over the top

No amount of great coaching from any number of great coaches would have turned Toumpas,  Gysberts,  Morton,  Cook and a stack of others into decent players

They along with numerous other top 20 picks were good under 18 players only

And the facts and results bear that out.

While I agree there can be an overstating of the importance of the draft, it's literally the most "talented" players in the country in order.

Kinda goes against your argument that talent is king tbh.

[Macca 17,009]

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

While I agree there can be an overstating of the importance of the draft, it's literally the most "talented" players in the country in order.

No,  not at all

Drafting is flawed so I have often advocated swapping draft picks for proven talent

There's my answer and if you want proof of what I have got to say on drafting do a search on my posts and topics on drafting. 

It is entirely possible to bring in lots of A grade talent without ever drafting those types of players.

Leadership groups,  captaincy & even coaching are overplayed and overrated in footy.

And often the actual talent on a list is overrated to a point where we end up blaming the coaches,  captains & leadership groups.  Like a dog chasing its tail.

It has happened here on this site a stack of times but my original point stands ... we have never gone close to having a great list in my time following the club.

And that is why we don't win big.

[Macca 17,009]

36 minutes ago, binman said:

I'm not sure what your metric for leadership being over rated is. However what I do know is that based on your comments I am of the view you significantly underrate the value and impact of leadership. 

I would argue that there have been periods in the the time i have followed the dees where we had the talent but lacked the on field leadership to go all the way.

I'd also argue there were (much fewer) periods where we had on field leadership that helped us perform better than we would have otherwise would have. 

When did we ever have the talent levels of a great team?

A premiership type list that was better than all the other teams. 

[Macca 17,009]

1 hour ago, binman said:

I'm not sure what your metric for leadership being over rated is. However what I do know is that based on your comments I am of the view you significantly underrate the value and impact of leadership.

No ... I just don't overrate leadership roles like many others do

Again,  without an abundance of talent,  it's hard to even win 1 flag in a 5 year period. Plenty of clubs have fallen short with excellent lists.  Or just got the 1 flag with a top list

In my time following the club we have never had a great list of players.  Not even close

It is possible to win big with a less than great list but you'd need the other clubs to be in the same boat

Another outlier situation and not to be relied on

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

39 minutes ago, Macca said:

No,  not at all

Drafting is flawed so I have often advocated swapping draft picks for proven talent

There's my answer and if you want proof of what I have got to say on drafting do a search on my posts and topics on drafting. 

It is entirely possible to bring in lots of A grade talent without ever drafting those types of players.

Leadership groups,  captaincy & even coaching are overplayed and overrated in footy.

And often the actual talent on a list is overrated to a point where we end up blaming the coaches,  captains & leadership groups.  Like a dog chasing its tail.

It has happened here on this site a stack of times but my original point stands ... we have never gone close to having a great list in my time following the club.

And that is why we don't win big.

Drafting isn't flawed as such. It's a rating of talent, not a fool proof predictive tool. That is why 'talent' will never overtake development, coaching and culture as the key ingredient in a premiership. Were the Bulldogs of 2016 the most talented team in the AFL? Hardly.

And I don't understand how you can say "drafting is flawed" and 'talent on a list can be overrated' whilst still maintaining talent is king? Seems inconsistent to me.

We had the number 1 rated list in the comp last year. Judged by the premier sporting statistical agency using in-depth methods. I don't mean to pick, but I think they would have a better method for determining such a thing than 'Macca from Demonland'.

While I agree that often coaches can cop an unbalanced amount of blame for poor performing teams, if you watched the game comprehensively over the last 30 years you just simply could not devalue the importance of good coaching. Maybe you're from the glory days where the coaches job was to bench players and give half time rev ups, but they control so much of what happens now compared to them. 'Soldier in, soldier out' and 'play your role'. How many times do you hear that from the successful teams now?

Talent is not the main reason we have not won big. It's a far too simplistic look at the situation that the MFC has been in.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

48 minutes ago, Macca said:

When did we ever have the talent levels of a great team?

A premiership type list that was better than all the other teams. 

"Champion Data have rated Melbourne’s list as the best in the AFL.

And if you look across every line it’s clear to see why."

Melbourne Demons’ best 22 for 2019: The list every team will be out to beat

[binman 43,138]

51 minutes ago, Macca said:

Leadership groups,  captaincy & even coaching are overplayed and overrated in footy.

 

In your opinion.

And yes i know that it is given given forums are places to state opinion. But you sometimes run the risk, it seems to me, of confusing fact and opinion. 

[binman 43,138]

53 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Drafting is flawed so I have often advocated swapping draft picks for proven talent

 

The statistics do no back this comment up. In so far as top 20 draft picks have a significantly statistical greater chance of playing AFL football. 

The correlation between how high draft picks are with numbers of AFL games played is clear. The higher the pick the higher the likelihood that players reaching 100 games. Whilst numbers of games played is not an exact measure of talent it is not a bad one. Few poor players reach 100 games. 

[Macca 17,009]

52 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

"Champion Data have rated Melbourne’s list as the best in the AFL.

And if you look across every line it’s clear to see why."

Melbourne Demons’ best 22 for 2019: The list every team will be out to beat

And they got it horribly wrong

Well done  Champion data