binman

Which is why I said at the risk of generalising Subjective? Yes - which is why i prefaced my comment with 'i think' Stereotyping? Maybe. Is a positive stereotype (assuming you think compromise and preparedness to share power are postive) better than a negative one?

Their CEO (i don't even know who it is) and board must be in the firing line atm. I mean they commissioned the report. It's hard not to think this was strategic in terms of responding to Lumumba's accusations and getting ahead of potential compensation claims. Their own report is then incredibly scathing and includes the finding that club’s racism resulted in 'profound and enduring harm' to many individuals, families, & communities. Which aint going to help them in any compensation case. They sit on the report. For two months. In all likelihood it is leaked because of this decision. So they lose complete control of the narrative. They then green light Eddie to freestyle and respond at length to the leaked report, and try to spin it as a proud day for the club. I mean what were they thinking agreeing to let Eddie front the media (i understand his power - but that is part of the problem). And once they green light Eddie to be the club's spokesperson surely to goodness the CEO is also at that presser. Or even better they release a carefully worded written response and schedule a presser for say Friday to create some space and control. What a complete shambles from a governance perspective.

A shocking rule. As you say it is totally random in its application. Not just because different umpires interpret it differently, but sometimes it paid when the player with the ball happens to turn one way or when a player tricks his opponent. And like all really bad rules (in sport and life) the penalty almost always outweighs the potential impact of the actual infraction.

1. That doesn't shock me. There is however a school of thought that in business there is significant pressure on women who are ambitious and seek leadership positions to play the 'man's game' and adopt the behaviors that go with that game 2. True. I wasn't suggesting men have a mortgage on wanting to hold onto power. At the risk of generalizing, I do think though that at women are better at comprise and sharing power and not as interested in influence or status for its own sake

He's a funny bugger: https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/eddie-mcguire-no-need-to-thank-me-for-ending-racism-globally

This may well be true hem. And some suggest that it is one reason why women make better leaders. However i think the real issue is that it is an undeniable fact that in almost every western, democratic society (and others too no doubt) that men are the ones who have the power, influence and status. And it is equally true that most men are in no hurry to cede their power, influence and status.

I can't see this ever changing - unless they implement some sort of radical netball style zones with only designated players allowed in the 50 metre arcs. Which I sincerely hope never happens because that idea contradicts the foundation of Australian rules football - the philosophy that it is a 360 degree game and unlike all other football codes (with the possible exception of Gaelic football) players can go wherever they want on the field. I also don't mind contested, crowded footy but understand the desire for more one on one contests and with it more scoring. My issue is that this desire (harking back to a perceived golden era in footy in the 1980s before footy became uber professional - a time we are not going back to by the by) has driven almost all of the rule changes in the last decade. Which is all well and good - except for the fact that, perhaps with a handful of exceptions, the changes have been spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of increasing scores or one on ones. And almost all the rule changes - and almost as significantly, changes to how some rules are interpreted - have had unintended consequences that more often than not have made the game less attractive and more messy (third man in says hi) I'm not against rule changes per se, but I'm definitely in the camp of minimizing rule changes and letting the game find its level and sort itself out. The way footy evolves is one of things i most like about it. I'm no expert on soccer or gridiron but my feeling is that AFL football evolves more fluidly. I'm sure those other codes are constantly evolving but AFL seems never to stand still tactically. Perhaps it is function of the sport having been fully professional for only 30 odd years (as opposed to 50 plus for gridiron and soccer) and maybe the size of the ground, the aforementioned 360 degree nature of the game and the number of participants are all factors but footy seems to be in a constant state of evolution. I have heard coaches say footy evolves tactically within seasons, let alone year to year. Look at last year. After 5 rounds people were going crazy about the chip and mark, go slow tactic teams were employing and the resulting low scores. The sky was falling. Footy was dead. But by the end of the season coaches took a more aggressive tack, the ball was moving faster, there was much more switching, more run and carry, scores went up and the issue was forgotten. And that quicker ball movement meant that across the board there were more one on ones inside 50 as teams could not flood back as effectively. That tactical shift happened without any intervention by the AFL in terms of rule changes. Freo was the perfect example of this shift - unfortunately for us, as they decided to be more aggressive with their switching and ball movement when they played us. And we were hopeless and shutting their movement down.

The term the 'boy's club' seemingly refers to the idea jobs goes to 'good blokes' who are connected and that those in the club ALWYAS have each other's back. It seems to me in Melbourne (and perhaps Australia) the 'boys club' also incorporates the powerful network of private school boys where power is jealously guarded. But it seems that more often than not the term 'boys club', whilst it is usually used as a criticism, it is almost always a pretty weak criticism. (not saying that's how you are using it JD). That's to say it is used to explain a scenario (like Healy reflexively defending Eddie) but that's are far as it goes in terms of critiquing the poisonous impact of the concept. But really the 'boy's club (which might as well be called the white anglo boys club) is at the heart of issues such a systemic racism and systemic gender inequality. It is rife in Australian business and even more so in our big sporting codes. With the AFL it infects the clubs, the AFL (polo anyone, or perhaps drinks at the Warrnambool carnival?) and the media that reports on it. And the motto of The Boys Club? Status Quo

These quotes from Eddy further make your point AOB: 'If we were found wanting in the past' The past? - At the same presser, Peter Murphy, a member of the Collingwood integrity committee said though Collingwood has improved in some areas 'they 'still have a long way to go'. 'we’re not a racist club' Isn't that precisely what the report's finding is? About Lumumba: “What we want to do more than anything is put our arms around him and take the heat out of this constant race debate.” Code for make it all this yucky business go away. What 'we want'? Lumumba has made it crystal clear that he doesn't want them to put their 'arms around him'. How typically patronizing. He doesn't want to be mollified. Or comforted like a toddler who has stubbed his toe. He is angry. And people are uncomfortable with that. What about acknowledging what Lumumba wants - addressing the systemic racism at the CFC. Take the heat out of this constant race debate? Really? Take the heat out? Read dismiss it and hide all this unpleasantness away. Constant race debate? Poor old Eddie, the constant desire for some people to constantly bang on about race and racism must be so tiring. Um Eddie, i don't want to be the bearer of bad news but the annoying little race debate 'ain't going anywhere soon, as much as you and your ilk would love it to. For someone who makes living in the media Eddie is remarkably poor at communicating messages - or hiding his true colors. Never has the phrase 'part of the problem, not part of the solution' been more apt.

That's an interesting point AOB - a valid one i reckon. I was listening to a podcast (the excellent fivethirtyeight podcast) yesterday that made similar point about the republican party in the states ie the Republican party claim not to have a racism 'problem' but have essentially stood still on the issue for 20 years whilst the Democrats (and the society as a whole) have shifted considerably towards a greater acceptance of the reality and impact of systemic racism

The truth?

That's the first recent photo i've seen of him. Jeez he looks like his dad. McQ, do you know if if Freo have any interest in Kobe and if not why not? Alos am i right to assume Kobe and his Dad still live in Perth? If so its pretty big commitment to be over in Melbourne for a whole preseason.

The skills are so much better accross the board as young women who have played multiple seasons at junior level come into the league. Bannon, for example, is a completely natural footballer. Exhibit A was tge free she won herself near the end of tbst quarter by not taking possession of the ball and getting tackled without it. They must be loving playing in perfect conditions. It feels like 75% of our games have been in windy or wet conditions. Sometimes both.

Footy is back. Go dees.

No you're right, it's swallow. Or perhaps it is Spallow.

Would be harsh on maxy, but to be honest it wouldn't surprise me.

Becoming one of my all time favourite demons.

Too bloody right. I wouldn't have let the [censored] in. How likely is it that someone who has down played the severity of the virus with his view of vaccinations and seemingly very cavalier about transmission risk (by the by all of which is pretty easy when you are a spoiled rich boy) that him and sycophantic entourage will follow the quarantine requirements in Oz?

How did you find a photo of me?

Agree pollyana. As I think bing181 noted the dees have lacked strong on field leadership for a long time. I think we are heading in the right direction in tgis regard but I fully concede that could be wishful thinking.

Thanks Dworship, interesting stuff (the post and the clip). My takeaways are: It reinforces the importance of coaching, however as you suggest more in terms of the importance of coaching as it relates to the development of players, particularly personal development Nick Saban does not explicitly make this point but implies that the development of players is a team effort, with the involvement of range of coaches and key staff Nick Saban emphasizes that helping players develop than elite mindset is critical - they need to have 'champion' mindset The top of the pyramid (the team goal) is not winning a championship - it is everyone being the best they can be, a champion team 9and a team of champions?) and a winning mindset (eg dominating their opponents). The implication being winning will take care of itself with these other things in place Saban doesn't mention himself as one of the key parts of the winning 'pyramid' or things about tactics, game style, technique etc etc (he might have them as elements, he just didn't mention them) Your post and the Saban clip reinforce the good points that Deespencer made about success being a function of any number of detail, samll and lareg - eg admin, governance, resourcing, facilities, development, etc etc And finally, perhaps it is is confirmation bias, but it also reinforces that the key element of success is the players. As Suban notes ,it is the exception, not the norm that some people want to be the very best they can be and strive for excellence. Of course development is critical but the base he is working from is players who want to be the best. Good development program gives players the best chance of realising that goal - but no amount of development will make up for a lack of personal drive. Which is why elite sports put so much emphasis in the drafting process on character. And the other related point is development and indeed tools such as mindfulness area all about preparing the players for optimal performance on game day. Development as investment. But once the whistle blows it is pretty much all down to the players to ensure their performance reflects that investment and they perform at their optimal level.

Good lord jimmy, you seem not to have understood what I have said at all. Perhaps I was unclear, so i'll give it another go. 1. I just don't see how this theory can be correlated with our current state as a footy side. The theory is that the evidence suggests the coach does not play a very big factor in making a great team. Which to be clear, is not to say the coach is not important - the role of the senior coach in an AFL tis critical. But players make great sides, not coaches. And i don't need Sam Walker to tell me that. I have 40 odd years of watching the dees fail under some pretty good coaches (Barrasi says hi) and other teams win flags (Scott says hi) to come to the same conclusion . 2. The players aren't ready to perform consistently due to a variety of reasons. Sure, but at the end of the day they are professionals and just like i am responsible for my performance at work, not my boss, so are they. Once a game starts the buck stops with them not the coach. That said, I noted the coach is responsible for motivation and creating the optimal environment and of selecting the right players. And in response to you critique that 'I missed out' key responsibilities, also noted that it goes without saying that developing and implementing the game plan is a key responsibility of a senior coach. 3. You speak about it in such simple terms. Really? I wouldn't have thought so, but maybe I need to simplify things even more given it appears you've misunderstood what i wrote. 4. Using your example of the two games that in your view were the reason we didn't play finals last year, your diagnosis is that the players simply didn't 'turn up'..?! Where did I say those two games were the reason we didn't play finals last year? I mean, I might have at the time, given losing those two games were in fact the reason we didn't play finals (personally I think the dogs game was the killer), but not in this thread. And why are you using quotes around the phrase 'turn up'? Are you quoting me? If so, i'm not sure why given I never wrote those words. Perhaps they were paraphrasing quotes, if there is such a thing. If so, still wrong, given my 'diagnosis' for the two losses in Cairns was not 'the players simply didn't turn up'. What I did say was that the players were clearly not switched on. That is on them as pros. Unforgivable. Particularly the second game. But sure let them off the hook and blame Goody. I'm sure the players would love that. Or at least some. Steve may not so much. But the players not being ready to play a season defining game was not the only 'diagnosis' for losing those games. I also said the players were simply too lazy to stop Freo's spread, just as they were against the dogs, and against the Swans they played stupid football in the wet and windy conditions. I also noted that once a game starts it is 95%, maybe more, on the players. Sure that is subjective, but I stand by it and I'm glad to have Sir Alex Ferguson (and any number of other coaching luminaries) in my corner on that. And by the by the other 5% provides plenty of scope for the coach to be the reason a team losses a given game. 5. It's far more nuanced. Good to know, i'll factor that into my analysis of footy from now on. 6. Just as it was when we consistently played an underdeveloped and underperforming Oscar McDonald for the amount of time we did in our side. These things fall on Goodwin. Selection, gameplan, connection, player positions, gameday strategy, messaging, communication etc etc. You seem not to be able to let Omac go. Touching. I totally agree that selection, game plan, connection, player positions, gameday strategy, messaging, communication etc fall on Goodwin as coach. But not being facetious here (i promise) - it would be too simple to say it falls totally on him (noting that you didn't say that). There are many other pieces of the puzzle and other people who have key responsibilities, which is why we have spent big on getting people like yze to the club. 7. Honestly, use google to find the evidence binman. It's there. And if you didn't hear it, then maybe you don't watch enough football. People from Ross Lyon to Jason Dunstall and many in between have made comment on how easy we are to play against. What is this business about evidence of people saying we are easy to play against? You're right, there's probably plenty of examples to back up that argument. But that is not the the assertion I asked for evidence of. Your assertion I asked you to provide some evidence for was (my emphasis): 'there are many footy experts both in the media and or who work within the AFL who know full well that Goodwin's shortcomings as a coach in a variety of areas are the main contributing factor as to why we are a middle of the road side right now'. And, no i won't do the work to find the evidence. You can do that. 8. A head coach takes full responsibility for moulding a team over a period of time to play a certain way. He/she might well do and as Old Dee noted the buck stops with the head coach. Which is why, historically they get sacked when success doesn't come (by the by this seems to be shifting somewhat - Hardwick being the obvious example - as AFL clubs start to realise the coach isn't the key factor at play). But whilst they might take full responsibility, they are not in fact fully responsible for moulding a team over a period of time to play a certain way. Sure they are the most important element but as I noted there are many other pieces of the puzzle. For example Jennings had fair bit of responsibility for our game plan up to the end of 2018, McCartney was critical in terms of instilling a certain approach and guys like Yze and Williams will have similar responsibilities. 9. He has been too slow to make change to the list in general, positional change and change in the way play. I agree that under goody (and Roos) the club has recruited too many similar type players - contested ball winners. And that we have not recruited enough outside players or elite kicks. That's not all on him - again there is a team behind such decisions but he sets the agenda no doubt. But collectively they brought in Lever and May to address the defensive weaknesses you highlighted and last year recruited Langdon to fill a glaring gap. May and Langdon are probably in the top 10 players we have recruited in the last 50 years in terms of impact. And they went outside the square in selecting Kozzie and Jackson, two players with x fact that are a million miles from the glass eaters they have previously recruited. And in Rivers they have look to address the need for elite kicks, something they have continued to focus on this season with Bowey and Laurie. Rosman is another x factor selection and Brown represents another pretty big change to the list given it signaled Tmac was unwanted. So in the last two years, half of his time as coach, Goody has hardly been slow to make changes to the list. As for being slow to make positional changes and changes to the way play are we watching the same team? I mean seriously, it is actually quite remarkable how much our game style (not the fundamentals) has changed since Goody started coaching us. To be honest if you can't see that i can't be bothered pointing out how. But the players we have recruited give a clue, as does the scores we concede, how much we now score and our scoring to possession ratio, amongst a myriad of other indictors. And slow to make positional changes? Perhaps you mean positional changes during games. If so, then it is true he doesn't make many but it is really a subjective thing as to whether this is a bad thing or not. But if you mean playing players in different positions week to week, he has been anything but slow to try different options. Tmac from back to forward, Petty from back to forward, Gus from the center to the wing (and back), Jones all over the shop, Harmes mid/tagger/half back, Smith forward/back, Weed as back up ruck in 2018 and then not again, etc etc. 10. We've been losing in an almost identical manner for three years now under Goodwin, No we haven't. Goody has coached for four seasons. In 2017 and up to about the mid point of the 2018 season the common dominator of our losses was the best teams opening up and hurting us on the rebound by punishing us for our super aggressive high press and [censored] foots skills. We ran up big scores against the mid rung teams but the best teams not only beat us they did so by 5 or six goals. We then made significant changes to our game plan, stopped being so aggressive with our press and stopped running players of the half back line. From that point to the end of the 2018 season we became the hardest team to score against in the league. And in 2019 and 2020 we remained pretty hard to score against, which is reflected in the fact we have less blow outs (even in 2019 when we had so many injuries). Another difference to the way we have lost in the four seasons Goody has been coaching is that a factor in our losses in 2019 and 2020 has been our woeful inside 50 to scoring ratio. That was not such an issue in 2017 and 2018, when we were much more efficient, a fact reflected in our high scoring. So no, we haven't been losing in an almost identical manner under Goodwin, unless you mean the opposition has scored more than us in those losses, which if the case is an issue we have struggled with for 165 years. What i would say is there is certainly repeating themes about our losses (and many of our wins for that matter). Probably one theme that has been there throughout Goody's tenure is our propensity to give up runs of unanswered goals. And i would argue another consistent theme in our losses is too many lazy players who don't put in the required effort. Other themes include turning the ball over too much, gifting easy goals to the opposition and failing to hit targets inside 50. The other obvious theme in 2019 and 2020 is so much effort for so little reward. To be clear as senior coach Goody has a responsibility to address all these weakness and you could argue his game plan might magnify them. By the same token the player have to take level of responsibility and once the game starts most of the responsibility.

Nah, i'ts money is the root of all evil and it is a quote from from one of the dub/reggae greats: https://youtu.be/lgrMCxvEQUw

Sam Walker was the founding editor of The Wall Street Journal's sport section and its global sports editor for a decade, covering elite sport around the world. For the book he spent over a decade analyzing data and records and interviewed hundreds of people (coaches, players, managers, owners, administrators etc etc) involved in elite sporting teams across the planet, including Collingwood. Sure its ones man's opinion but he has done the work to back up that opinion. And it is pretty convincing argument I have to say. Don't worry about the essay on why Goodwin is the majority reason of our stagnation. But can you provide some evidence there are 'many footy experts both in the media and or who work within the AFL who know full well that Goodwin's shortcomings as a coach in a variety of areas are the main contributing factor as to why we are a middle of the road side right now'. It shouldn't be difficult to do so since apparently there are so many football experts who hold this view.

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.