Can anyone explain to me why...

[royboy42]

Maybe ROK it's because you love to turn threads towards a discussion about YOU!! And lots of people are sick of it.

[ROK Lobster]

Maybe ROK it's because you love to turn threads towards a discussion about YOU!! And lots of people are sick of it.

Another insightful contribution ORB Generally I start threads about something that I have an opinion on. If they are not mainstream I tend to get abused. That's when the attention turns to me. I am not sure that I have ever turned a thread to a discussion of me, though have had a few giggles on the sandpit with ROK Lobster responds, and the song threads. I would love for you to post a link or two to a thread where it has become about me because I have turned it that way.

[ScottH]

Another insightful contribution ORB

Don't mix your Royboys, Lobster.
ORB = OldRoyboy!!

[Nico]

...it is now OK to suggest that maybe the "Spirit of the Bloods" is not without its flaws? Seriously, the threads that are discussing both issues are bubbling along with rational, sceptical discussion, unlike the angry, hysterical outcries that have followed such suggestions before. What difference has a 1 point Rd 1 loss made?

No I cant, but you are the guru, so I wait with baited breath for your incisive opinion on this one.

[ROK Lobster]

I wasn't specifically referring to you. I can't recall any threads from you addressing the culture. Not that I'm saying you haven't started such - just that I cannot specifically recall any that you have begun.

But for me your message often gets lost amidst the way you seem to find fault in almost everything Roos does, even while acknowledging you respect him in some regards. It all comes across as a bit personal.

FWIW I don't think that the Bloods culture had anything to do with the reasons the team lost on Saturday. From my perspective, it was about not enough Swans attacking the ball with purpose in the first half, too few of them truly willing to put their heads over the ball, and too many passes that caused players to stop and prop, thereby slowing down ball movement and allowing the Eagles to get all 18 players behind the ball.

There was a noticeable increase in intensity and fluency in the second half and I don't believe that the Bloods culture was suddenly rediscovered during the 15 minute half time break. It was just about basics of playing footy.

That doesn't mean that the Bloods culture can't be discussed. However, it is such an internal thing to the club - the media soundbites we get are just that, soundbites - that I think it is very hard for us to assess what impact it does or does not have.

If anyone really is interested in it, they should go and read Ray McLean's book if they haven't already. Only two or three pages are dedicated to the Swans. A much larger portion describes his work with Central Districts in the SANFL and with St Kilda. But it does give you a gist of the principles he has developed and why they have worked better in some organisations that others. It is a fairly lightweight book in terms of style compared to many management tomes but definitely worth a read.

I had a bit to say about the Bloods culture specifically following the grand final in 05 and last year during Davisgate. Then, as now, I was not saying that the Bloods code (or more particulalry the leadership arrangements at the club) were causing immediate problems (I don't think anyone is saying that they caused the loss on Sat night, though I have not read every post since then) but rather that the problems that may be inherent in the system are exposed at certain times. If Jude and Benny M continue to play the way they did on Sat night it will prove a huge challenge to the leadership/selection structure at the club. IN the recent past, the injuries to Maxfield and Williams have been mixed blessings as retirement has been forced upon them. Willo was clearly struggling last year (though that was probably in part due to the injury he was carrying) and Stuey was simply past it. Ball possibly went a season before he had to. SO the hard decisions (other than dropping Davis) have not really had to have been made. Jude and Benny provide a challenge (or will if they continue to under perform) because they are not of retirement age, and their bodies are not falling apart. In that much lauded speech printed in the Tele, Kirk spoke of the importance of respect. I am sure that both players have plenty in the club. How important is it, and how much more important is it than performance. Time will tell - and I think that challenges like this will ultimately determine the value of an ethos than has overwhelmingly been applauded without having really been tested. That the club culture and unity of the playing group have contributed to recent success is beyond question. But I think that that comes with any unifying iidea or idelogy, or core vision, or whatever you want to call it. It is not solely dependant, sometimes not dependant at all on the content of the philosophy, it matters more that there is one. The content will be tested as the challenges described above arise. The potential for a larger problem arises when the philosphy is regarded as the primary force behind the success, even if it isn't, and those that own it - or those left with its burden - refuse to let it go because it is remembered as the reason for the success. That is why I do not like the "Spirit of the Bloods". It attempts to reduce something incredibly complicated - why a club won a flag after 72 years - to pretty much a single idea. That is to oversimply things and will do the club no favours in the not too distant future.

[ROK Lobster]

Don't mix your Royboys, Lobster.
ORB = OldRoyboy!!

Apologies to ORB. All references above should be to RB42.

[Nico]

No I cant, but you are the guru, so I wait with baited breath for your incisive opinion on this one.

Sorry old mate I didn't mean to be a smart@rse. I would have held back on the humour if I had read the rest of the posts first.

Gee you wouldn't want to fall over in a crowd at the footy. The boots would be sunk in from all angles ala Basil Fawlty.

[ROK Lobster]

No I cant, but you are the guru, so I wait with baited breath for your incisive opinion on this one.

Why don't you have a go? You are happy enough to have an opinion on most things, some I agree with some I don't but at least you have something to say with good reason behind your opinions and never fly into hysterical abuse. I think most enjoy reading what you have to say Nico, why not give us your two bobs worth (though no references to anything that happened before BonBon was born).

[DST]

The "Bloods" culture has given our club a framework and a path to success through unity of purpose.

It provides everybody at the club with a clear path to get the best out of themselves and everyone around them and it is not only just an on field exercise but is now implemented within the whole club at all levels.

I had the pleasure of hearing Tony Morwood speak at a private function recently about where the club is at and how it got to where it is.

One of the most startling topics discussed was that the club from year dot in Sydney (and previously at South Melbourne) never had a clear definable framework for success. People sometimes call it "culture", and we as a club never really had that culture to say enough is enough and to take that step from being so close to expecting success in everything we do.

The code on it's own is not going to win or lose you games of football, but it will allow you to set a framework where it will give you the best shot at achieving what you set out to do.

As for flaws, nothing is perfect but as long as the players and the club stick to the spirit of the code then it will remain a living and changing thing. Players and coaches come and go, the framework and how it is implemented will change with this. What will not change is the fact we as a club have a clearly defined path for success.

DST

[ROK Lobster]

The code on it's own is not going to win or lose you games of football, but it will allow you to set a framework where it will give you the best shot at achieving what you set out to do.

As for flaws, nothing is perfect but as long as the players and the club stick to the spirit of the code then it will remain a living and changing thing. Players and coaches come and go, the framework and how it is implemented will change with this. What will not change is the fact we as a club have a clearly defined path for success.

DST

Well said DST. As I said ^^^ sometimes the fact that there is a code is much more important than its content. If it does continue to change and adapt then I think that it is a good thing. It remains to be seen if it will - and that is the challenge.

[Nico]

Here is my 2 bobs worth.

I have no problem with the Spirit of the Bloods. It provides something different for the players to hang their hats on, gives a bit of something away from the traditional mainstream methods of motivation. You could say it is unique to us. I dont know what Ross Lyon could call it at St Kilda, maybe the Spirit of 66.

However, I think what ROK says in that, will it be enduring, will it need to be changed down the track, how long does it's affect last, is very valid indeed.

My worry right now is the dynamics of the whole concept, given that it appears it is harder to get out of the leadership group than it is the Australian test team. That they are there for as long as they want. With any leadership group there has to be people coming and going from it to keep it and it's ideas fresh. If potenetial leaders are locked out they then become disillusioned, opposing groups form and division occurs. The concept falls apart.

We are not privy to the working of the "Bloods" and their "club" rules. It may be there are mechanisms in place for the group to say to one of their own it is time to make way for someone else based on form. But is form or off field behaviour the only criteria for a change in personnel.

As far as mentoring it is hard to tell the affect. Is it that the players in the group keep the private lives of other players sqeeky clean. It seems to have a bonding effect, however, all the mentoring under the sun wont dampen the disappointment of a young footballer who should be getting a game at the expense of one of the chosen ones.

If it used as the basis of the club ethos, and not envelope the club with over importance, then lets go with it if it breeds success.

So I say if it continues to work then we are the beneficiaries, but I only hope that members of the group have the moral courage to recommend the sacrifice of one of there own if the circumstances warrant it. I guess it is "watch this space" as time goes by.

[ROK Lobster]

Here is my 2 bobs worth.

Worth every cent.

[DST]

Here is my 2 bobs worth.

I have no problem with the Spirit of the Bloods. It provides something different for the players to hang their hats on, gives a bit of something away from the traditional mainstream methods of motivation. You could say it is unique to us. I dont know what Ross Lyon could call it at St Kilda, maybe the Spirit of 66.

However, I think what ROK says in that, will it be enduring, will it need to be changed down the track, how long does it's affect last, is very valid indeed.

My worry right now is the dynamics of the whole concept, given that it appears it is harder to get out of the leadership group than it is the Australian test team. That they are there for as long as they want. With any leadership group there has to be people coming and going from it to keep it and it's ideas fresh. If potenetial leaders are locked out they then become disillusioned, opposing groups form and division occurs. The concept falls apart.

We are not privy to the working of the "Bloods" and their "club" rules. It may be there are mechanisms in place for the group to say to one of their own it is time to make way for someone else based on form. But is form or off field behaviour the only criteria for a change in personnel.

As far as mentoring it is hard to tell the affect. Is it that the players in the group keep the private lives of other players sqeeky clean. It seems to have a bonding effect, however, all the mentoring under the sun wont dampen the disappointment of a young footballer who should be getting a game at the expense of one of the chosen ones.

If it used as the basis of the club ethos, and not envelope the club with over importance, then lets go with it if it breeds success.

So I say if it continues to work then we are the beneficiaries, but I only hope that members of the group have the moral courage to recommend the sacrifice of one of there own if the circumstances warrant it. I guess it is "watch this space" as time goes by.

All very valid points Nico, but Tony Morwood pointed out that this framework gives the players as a collective group the very chance to impose it's will on the leadership of the club to make the changes they feel is necessary.

For far to long clubs have hidden behind match committees, coaches and leadership groups when making difficult decisions for the collective good.

DST