Engorged Onion
Life Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Engorged Onion
-
Apologies Lucifer - I know you didn't - I was mixing others previous commentary into your post! -
Maybe I am a bit ragey this morning, but here is Port Adelaides Ladder position since 2013 under Ken. Now if winning games is indicative of good culture (which is isn't, that is just mythologised and a conceptual way for us to make sense of what drives performance) I highly doubt there must have been some 'magical' cutural changes between October 2019 and March 2020... So if it is not culture, what is it that's propelled the change?? 55% winning rate. 2013 7th 2014 6th 2015 10th 2016 10th 2017 10th 2018 5th 2019 10th 2020 1st (currently)
-
Until it doesnt. Plenty of examples where that is the case.
-
Seriously, clubs review formally and informally every. single. week. Also, if anyone is an expert in culture and change management on this forum - walk us through what 'weak culture' is and what are the steps to remedy it. I want to be enlightened.
-
I had 3 years overseas and came back to this for my first game. I thought Reiwoldt had a lucky game I thought Brad Miller was the new prototype forward.... heh heh heh.
-
Jahhhheesus @Lucifer's Hero - that's a long bow. Connors was packed off early. You got to remember all players come from all sections of society. There are 38 others and all the staff that are on the north side of being decent, caring, compassionate, passionate people. So I think it's unfair to tarnish others, just because they work for the same organisation. Posters on this site bemoan that we don't have mongrel, that 'we're not hard enough'... that the soft culture is cancerous ([censored] hilarious analogy that one). But on the flip side it's a fine line between prickish or arrogant behaviour, or self belief. We flogged off Jack Watts, Jesse Hogan et al for 'cultural reasons'.... as we're erred on the side of caring for the welfare of said indivduals and erring on the side of trying to curb influences that would poorly affect performance...ie: genuine commitment. The trade off is always individual talent and what that contributes to the team overall, whilst trying to mitigate poor elements of said individuals personality and its influence on others. Ps... if it's in our 'DNA' - then we all understand that we can't change it.... so supporting our club is fatalism at it's finest whilst the world collapses around us
-
So what, if we're making up numbers - every [censored] team every [censored] year are essentially making up the numbers if they finish 5-8. It's a marker of where you are... Onwards and upwards.
-
Far from me to tell you what to do, but I've blocked him... and then I open his blocked posts and my confirmation bias is proved right. It's as though he is personally offended that the club owes him something...always posting version of harden the [censored] up, or #noexcuses. If you're angry at someone - 100% of the time you're actually angry at yourself. I've posted it before - but when I read @Sir Why You Little posts - I alway have this bloke in my head 'Hardest man' in the world voice, for the 'hardest bloke on Demonland'
Tbh @Skuit I’ve been scratching my head all day trying to think of what drove the performance last night - it didn’t make sense from a ‘players are mentally fragile’ perspective or the ‘coach is [censored]’ or ‘game plan sucks’ perspective. What you said rings true. context matters greatly - and you’ve provided great context. cheers
Great acknowledgement there @deanox - the subtleties and nuance of playing your role (vs merely playing on your man, which feels as though you need to think about less) is immense from a cognitive perspective. But also being able to contextualise it to what is happening around you. Now, I don't subscribe to the fact that one error (or even multiple errors) are indicative of the talent of a player - if structures break down up the field (ie: workrate) - then it makes your job so much harder as there is very little pressure applied to the person delivering the ball. As you said here, the problem is essentially if a ball is being delivered easily, it's not the defenders fault, it never was - the fault has already occurred and they're doing their best to remedy it. I would give my left (anatomically correct spelling of 'nut') to have some decent tactical commentary when I watch a game, how it is not a legitimate part of calling the game really upsets me. I also understand the need to appeal to the lower denominator who are viewing... making it 'palatable' -but its to the detriment of the knowledge of the broader communities understanding of the mechanics of the game. I also understand that quite literally in my life time (another 40 years or so hopefully) it will not change. (which feeds me into my only broad stab here, that the conversation in this thread, the depth and richness ALSO seems to interest only some people, whilst others continue their black and white statements in other threads, and thank gawd for that).
Correct - happy to invest in Petty. reliable kicking, pace and endurance - (the holy trinity??) is what we/all clubs need.
I don't normally overtly bleat about umpiring, but I watched the first quarter yesterday - granted I was looking only for Melbourne free kicks paid or not paid, jeez I felt there were a lot of holding the balls not paid, a lot of tackles around the neck slipping down not paid, and even some marks not paid. Is it my bias...seriously, or are the rules not rules, just interpretations these days?
When I think of Trent, I think of him, on the field, from a first person lens looking down field 100 metres away in the forward 50 arc, seeing ol' mate Jacko's head (chariots of fire style), bounding joyously towards a perfectly placed lace out 55m bullet off the right for the next decade. Time and time and time and time again And it brings a warm glow to my soul
A broad few questions for those upset that we lost the midfield. Is it ok to lose clearances, and win the game? Is it ok to lose clearances from time to time throughout the season ever? Does it mean that there are systemic problems? Is it meaningful from a belief, structure, effort perspective, that we lost the midfield and won the game? Signed Perplexed.
Help me understand why some people need to keep referencing this, each and every time we play the Saints? Will the thread re open next time we play them? Help me understand why on earth I felt the need to comment on this? Ridiculous for me to do so.
I know you're been playful here - but it's not Woo woo - it's as if genuinely feeling your strong uncomfortable feelings is problematic in certain contexts! Not when there is death or grief as an example...but on the football field, well THAT's problematic (i say with a rye smile) - only because coaches, players, etc have it culturally embedded not to show 'weakness' whatever version of weakness that is. I once said to a premiership player what would it be like for your entire team to genuinely accept the fact that football, and finals campaigns was arduous, and at times anxiety provoking, and it could be spoken about ie: pre game in the rooms Have a read through these two vignettes - is there a different vibe? P1: How you feeling? P2 : Pretty anxious mate! P1: Yeah , I get it, that makes sense, well, have your anxiety and go out and smash it vs P1: How you feeling? P2 : Pretty anxious mate! P1: [censored] mate, harden up, dont worry about it, you'll be fine Id argue there is a marked difference, in how P2 would have felt Anyway, the players response to me was "it would have been liberating" If you're all on the same page (power structures from captains who talk about their anx) about the emotional reality of being under scrutiny week after week, then all of a sudden, the emotion (in this case anxiety) becomes less problematic in of itself.
From experience in a previous life, reflective practice has looked a bit like this. Players will go and look at vision with their line coach where they made errors...Im dumbing down a bit but... Coach: "What happened here" Player: " I don't know, or, I made an error" ? Ok, next time do x, y z, let's work on that this week P ""ok" Or In a group environment - when the debrief is on, players don't necessarily want to shame themselves, so don't admit to anxiety, or not wanting to make errors...which of course means, they're not reflecting, and processing, to then become aware of when it shows up next time..(this is anecdotal evidence.) So in some sense, the process in the football club is still a bit... "you [censored] up, what can you do differently next time (behaviourally), ok go practice it" Now Richardson's response could have been a straight bat to a question in a public sphere, and they really DO drill down into sense making - so yes CQI (which i have no idea about as a measurement tool) would be an apt analogy I am big on how the subtlety of language effects accountability - and the notion of 'we're off a bit' to me is diminishing what responsibility you can take irrespective of how you feel, but also the cultural lexicon of football clubs that 'this happens'. Which is true, you cannot have a team at the peak throughout the year...but as a tool of explanation, is not deep enough. @binman, id PM you some other information re: the bolded bit, but alas, you have no PM.
100% it's mindfulness. It's often taught to calm down/relax. But this is problematic as it teaches experiential avoidance. What's the nature of sport? It's uncomfortable, we know it intellectually, but when the experiences arise (anxiety, fatigue etc) - we don't necessarily want to have it, and we engage in internal or external behaviours that move us away from what's useful. Essentially, if you don't know where you head is at, you've got no capacity to bring your attention back on to the relevant task at the time. That's the notion of performance consistency - its not about NOT getting caught up in things, you will, but noticing that you are to bring you attention back time and time and time and time again, irrespective of what is showing up...and shortening the gap of how much time you are NOT aware of what you're getting caught up in. Then it starts to feel easier, and you are executing, and as a consequence, feeling better, more confident, and the upwards spiral.
So this is how I would work through point one - in an elite environment (yeah sounds arrogant I know) The bolded part in point one - should be asked post game/review any way. But, link it to metrics that are typically gathered. More importantly is understanding the gap between what the metrics show and what it felt like...and its never because someone is 'weak minded' Questions like - why did it feel a particular way, what made it harder, what made it easier at times etc. That exploration allows the individual to reflect, make sense and most importantly choose action 'next time' when they're fatigued, or feel they cannot be arsed, for what ever reason is showing up for them...'the vibe' of the day, feeling anxious, not wanting to [censored] up etc It's a much more important to understand (oh oh! Values work coming up here) - what the individual wants to stand for, and how do their efforts (behaviours) move them towards and away from that ideal. It's easy to act in line with your values when you are comfortable (Oliver running away from packs) vs when you are not (dinky handballs) - but the key from any psychological perspective - is to be aware of your discomfort as its occuring, and choose the more useful action... then of course, when it pays off, it becomes easier and easier to replicate. Essentially, if you don't know what your thinking, you've got no choice over your behaviours - particularly when the stress and pressure is on. The only reason ANYONE is willing to have anxiety, fatigue etc, is in service of what matters.... Know your values, be more consistent when it counts not just when its easy, because you're more willing to do the uncomfortable behaviour (which is often the most useful). ie: A consistent follow through on your kick, when you are 30metres out, yet your brain is telling you not to [censored] up - so you either - try to 'guide it through' or kick too hard, just to get the act over and done with, to remove your anxiety. Another example - particularly to fatigue (and Binman's idea of asking players to rate their effort out of 10 post game) - would be to get someone who has rated themselves exhausted... so essentially 10/10 given... they then go home to their family, and low and behold a man with a gun is there aimed at your head... he says... 'go run a further 10km champ' Well, you would do it wouldn't you ...now its not just due to 'adrenaline' - you're willing to have the pain and fatigue (recalling that you're 10/10 exhausted) - in service of what matters, and there is a genuine acceptance of the fatigue and emotional experinces that will arise along the way of running your 10km... this is what is missing for the notion of consistency of effort. - as you said @binman Actually, evolutionary wise - your brain would rather you be on your couch drinking beers, eating pizza (CONSERVING ENERGY) rather than expending it (so it makes sense there is a dissonance between what we feel we can give vs what we actually can give)... you brain does this...just in case their is a bear back in your cave and you need to run. Essentially it always stores more energy than you need, in case you need some more in special circumstances.
