binman

Agree. Having leaders who can provide on field direction is super important in any team sport, but perhaps even more so in footy given the challenge a coach of getting a message (even more of challenge with the stupid restriction on runners) to players, the size of the playing field and the complexity of having 18 players on the ground. I reckon another key element is players who show leadership with their effort. It has always been the case but more than ever lazy players are exposed in modern footy and it infests the team. In the latter third of the season, Fox and 7 were using more down the ground shots and when watching games i started using the Telstra tracker on the AFL live app (thanks for the tip on that Deaonox). Both reminded me of how many players are within a 50 metre radius of the footy at when the ball is in motion (something you can see siting high in the stands at games), how much running is involved and how critical hard running is in term of both offensive and defensive transition (in particular defending the switch). There is a well established psychological theory called social loafing. Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort (unconsciously or consciously) when working collectively as part of a group compared to performing a task alone. Applied to sports it can be the difference between winning and losing, particularly I would have though in sport like AFL where a team has 22 players (as opposed to say 10 playing basketball) so plenty of scope for loafing. Leaders play a key role in mitigating against social loafing as the two key strategies to address it are accountability and team cohesion. True leaders apply maximum effort (in games and training), which serves as an important benchmark and supports accountability ('people can see i'm not working as hard as Steve May, i better lift my game'). Their work rate also means leaders are more able to hold team mates accountable for not working hard enough - hard to challenge a teammate for not working hard enough if you don't. His teammates wouldn't have been down on May for giving Frost an on field bake, but i can't imagine they'd be too thrilled with Gus giving anyone a bake (or Melksham for that matter- who seems to do his fair share of on field criticism, which reckon would rankle a bit) And leaders play a critical role in building and maintain team cohesion. During a game of footy this might manifest with the sort of direction BW511 notes, or reinforcing team rules, or standing up for a teammate who has been roughed up, or words of encouragement to a player who who has made a mistake or at quarter time huddle. Conversely something known as the sucker effect suggests if one person starts social loafing more group members will then social loaf. Colin Sylvia was the perfect example of this phenomenon I reckon.

Yep, I think you're right.

Yep, particularly May. He was awesome this year. Most of all because of his incredible leadership, desire and a hatred of losing. A team man. In some respects his season reinforced to me how much we have lacked that sort of leadership over the years. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on Jones but could argue you need to go back to neita for that level of leadership. I reckon Maxy is getting there and , viney too. So to have three such leaders in this current team is a real positive.

Wowsa? It goes without saying that developing and implementing game plan is a key responsibility of a senior coach, but I wasn't making a list of the responsibilities of a coach. I was responding to a comment about about our appalling performance in the two games in cairns. Sure Goody has to bear some responsibility for preparation and poor selection etc but those losses were down to the players, pure and simple. The game plan was barely a factor. In the Freo game the players were simply to too lazy to stop Freo's spread, just as they were against the dogs. Against the Swans, not for the first time they played stupid football in the wet and windy conditions. Is that on Goody? In both games they were clearly not switched on. Of course Goody plays a role in getting them ready but these guys are professional footballers playing at the elite level. Being ready to play is ultimately their responsibility. An AFL player expecting the coach to take responsibility for them being ready is amateursville. And JG, without wanting to open a post Omac argument front, it is just nonsense to suggest Goody has been slow to make changes to the game plan since 2018. The fundamentals haven't changed (contest out, win the ball at the contest, pressure) but our game plan has changed quite markedly over the 2019 and 2020 seasons. I'm surprised you think otherwise. In my view the players have really struggled with the evident change in game plan and this was big factor in our poor 2020 season. And arguing we have selected the same side for too long equally nonsensical, given it is palpably untrue. I mean in 2019 injury made this impossible and i don't think we once had the same team run out. I'm pretty sure we had the most changes of any club in 2019. This season injury was not an issue and from the get go goody elected to chop and change players, positions, set ups and structures and continued to do so all season (eg selecting Preuss to play as a forward in Cairns). Indeed i was critical of his fluid approach to selection all year and would have loved it if he 'selected the same side' week in, week out and kept players in the consistent positions. And to say Goodwin is largely responsible for where we are as a club? Wowsa. Sure he bears his share of responsibility but largely responsible? Please. By that logic Hardwick is largely responsible for the tiger's success. And Clarkson - for both the success of the hawks and the more recent failure. In the book I referenced previously in this thread - the Captain Class - its author, Sam Walker, set out to identify the greatest sports teams of all time and answer the question as to what makes a great team? He devised a formula, then applied it to tens of thousands of teams from different sports leagues all over the world, going back to the 1850s. He ended up with a list of the 16 greatest teams ever, what he refers to as tier one, and 106 tier two teams who were close. There are two Australian teams in tier one: the 1993 -2000 Women's hockey team and the Collingwood 1927-30 VFL team. In the book he specifically addresses the role of the coach and the question of how big a factor they are in making a team great. His answer, based on more than decade of research and hundreds of interviews, was not a very big factor at all and certainly not as influential as most would assume. He noted that whilst of course coaches play an important role, the biggest factor in teams success is it players and in particular inspirational leaders. In terms of the ability of the coaches for his tier one and tier two teams (so in his considered opinion the 131 greatest sports teams of all time) he had this to say in an interview: "I never imagined I’d be saying this, but the evidence was remarkably clear. The coaches of these elite teams were all over the map. Some were successful, inspirational, or tactically brilliant, but others were decidedly not. Most had unremarkable records before (and after) they took over these exceptional teams, or had little to no coaching experience. Several teams even changed coaches. It’s not that coaches are irrelevant – far from it. But even the most revered ones – Vince Lombardi, Alex Ferguson, Bill Belichick and Phil Jackson – achieved their best results in partnership with a captain who didn’t always do what he was told'. In terms of my comment that once the game starts it is 95%, maybe more, on the players, this quote from Alex Ferguson (soccer's Vince Lombardi) makes my point well: “As hard as I worked on my own leadership skills, and as much as I tried to influence every aspect of United’s success on the field, at kickoff on match day things moved beyond my control.”

Yep, that's footy. Interestingly in tbe book I referenced, The Captain Class, walker noted some research a US university had done on the outcome of sacking a coach across mutiple codes and decades (as part of his analysis of the impact of the coach). The data showed that overall sacking a coach got slightly worse results.

Yes a coach is responsible for motivation and creating the optimal environment that supports a win. And of course selecting the right players. But when it is all said and done, once the game starts it is 95%, maybe more, on the players. And doubts about goody should not obscure the fact that the players selected in those two games failed and let the club and fans down. They have to wear it. I'd hate to see blame disproportionately sheeted to goody rather than where it should go- the players.

Agree. The tiger's system, the player's total belief in it and their ability to implement it (which incorporates their commitment to playing their designated role)is why they have been so successful. I am even more pusuaded of this view by an excellent book I am currently reading, Captain class by Sam walker, that aims to answer why the greatest sports team are so great. He looks at the question of how significant the coach is. The short answer is not nearly as much is widely thought. Suggests the Lombardi effect has an outsize influence. Its about the players and he posits in terms of the best of the best specifically the captain.

Why? Surely many coaches improve in all sorts of ways, including game day coaching, as they gain experience. Goody has made a point about being a life time learner so I can't see why he can't improve his coaching.

I think an important variable is how much goody, if at all, improves as a coach. Much harder to gauge improvement of a coach than a player as so much of their work is largely unseen by fans and the kpis are less black and white (other than wins of course - but how much is on field success down to the players and how much the coach - an age old question).

100% agree. Even if Tmac lost weight and regained his mobility he would still be too slow for the wing. Tomlinson at full fitness is too slow for the wing too. Which is amazing given we seemingly recruited him specifically to play wing. And Harmes, whist probably having the pace simply doesn't strike me as winger. To be honest Harmes is conundrum. Was terrible on the half back flank this year. And we have a surfeit of mids. His best position seems to be as a run with tagger but its not clear goody, like many coaches it seems, wants to use a tagger. When he first started i thought he looked a natural forward. Good overhead, ok kick, good one on one. Maybe he takes Hannan's spot, Or Melkshams if he refuses to tackle or commit his body again next season.

This sort of completely rude, pointless post is a stain on this generally pretty good site. Just rubbish and it says all I need to know about who you are a person. And it is one of your more innocuous posts. As I have posted before I put very few posters on ignore. Mostly with posters such as yourself who add little but angst i just don't bother with their posts, or if I do use sarcasm to make a point. But this rudeness is the straw 'dr d' and on ignore you go. It has been a tough long year for everyone. Who needs to see such dull negativity.

Do you think Caleb Daniels is wasted in defence? I don't. He his arguably the dogs most valuable player. Bowey is exactly the sort of player we need in that same role. We have kozzie, spargo and now Laurie for small forwards. Seems like they identified a clear need and Taylor filled it.

Agree with this. And he is not alone, unfortunately. Last year Hannan, Melksham, Vandenburg, Baker, Neal Bullen, Spargo and Hunt all had the same issue. Kozzie too but i'm less fussed at this stage about him given his age and role (and skill set).

Who?

Or Mack. As in in the Mack the (Bowey) knife.

You're probably right. He had only finished up a few days before the members forum and perhaps it was bit of a surprise. The AGM is in February, so plenty of time to process and make sure they acknowledge his contribution.

Underexposed yes (but more so in vic as the other states played junior footy this year), but they track kids from under 11s so I suspect they have a pretty good handle on who is the group of say the best 80-100 players for the following years draft in any given year. The challenge this year would have been ranking that group.

So ziggy would be a bit of a long bowey?

I just saw that. On the face of it a smart move by Melbourne United, as: covid has likely forever changed Melbourne in terms of the numbers of people who will work in the CBD. More people will will work from home, at least some days in the week, meaning population in areas like Casey and even down towards Philip Island and into Gippsland will increase Casey and the surrounding areas (with the exception of the Mornington Peninsula) are pretty culturally diverse so likely soccer is a pretty popular sport in the main the new fans they are looking to attract don't support another A league team, or if they do not rusted on support, meaning they have fertile ground for building their fan base (unlike us where we would be relying mainly on convincing young kids to support the dees)

Id be really interested in his thoughts about where the game is heading in terms of game style, tactics etc and what implications that has for the sort of players and attributes clubs will be looking to draft (Note: I reckon he is a terrific footy brain and this sort of forward thinking would be a big part of a good recruiter's tool kit ie not simply focused on short term needs of the club they work for. I suspect selecting rosman might be informed by that sort of forward thinking. And same goes for Jackson lsdt year - talls that are super athletes and can play mutiple roles and positions).

I was wondering if not having a Watson on the list made is less likely we were actually keen.

Stop making excuses for them.

So am I right to say that in your view the club making excuses contributes to poor performance?

Interestingly burgess, before responding to a question on surgeries returned to a previous question from 'james' about the Cairns schmooze and arriving on the day and with a fair bit of feeling said it was certainly not their choice, it was the afl. And noted the opposition had two days prep in Cairns. Sounded pretty annoyed.

Goody got super nervous/anxious it seems. He is definitely not a natural public speaker. No crowd there so who knows what the issue is.