Leadership group dropped Crouch - picked team V Port

[liz]

None of us knows the whole process they went through, so it is hard to draw conclusions.

Maybe (and I am speculating) the process went something like this:

Roos: For this week, guys, you get to pick the team. But if Jude, Benny and Goodsey* you pick yourselves and you don't deliver this week, you'll be back in the twos for a month, minimum. If you think you need a week back there now, just to sharpen up, then that's fine and I'll look at you again next week on the merits of how you played in the twos and how the senior team went.


* those players used as an example because I doubt anyone would have argued that the spots of Craig Bolton, Hall, Kirk or Barry were ever in question.

[Danzar]

Fact is that the Tele and Herald (or Age) called it a little differently and that small difference was significant.

Tele: Roos let the leadership group pick the team and Crouchy didn't mind being dumped by his mates as he knew he deserved to be dumped by his mates. Plus, his mates didn't mibnd dumping him either.

Herald - Crouchy says he's ready for Aker. Oh, as a side note, Roos said the leadership group had a significant role in the selection of last weeks team and the decision to drop Crouchy. Now, that doesn't mean they actually made the specific calls but they did take part.

[NMWBloods]

Personally I think it is a stupid idea.

Same. It should be the coaching panel's job to select players based on form and matchups.

[Young Blood]

It was the right decision to drop Crouch, whoever made it.

[giant]

You cant see the conflict of interest of players picking players ?

I already commented to that effect.

[Mel_C]

Same. It should be the coaching panel's job to select players based on form and matchups.

On the Melbourne radio station SEN Roos said that the senior players were involved in the team selection for last weeks game ONLY. The coaching panel were also involved in this.

Roos said that normally it is only the captains that are involved in the selection process but because of the team's performace it was decided to have the senior players involved as well.

[Jewels]

Maybe people would be happy if the idea had worked and we had actually won the game

Ummm, I thought we did!

[hammo]

None of us knows the whole process they went through, so it is hard to draw conclusions.

It seeemed quite clear from the Tele article

"We had the whole leadership group pick the team last Wednesday so we just sat and watched,'' Roos said.

[ROK Lobster]

Weren't the leadership group the ones that dropped Davo, and decided when he could come back.

I have suggested that Roos does not like taking responsibility for the less than glorious. Again, it seems that when players need to be dropped, the leadership group pick the team. When Roos picks the team, no one gets dropped.

Surely Crouch is dreaming if he thinks one week in the 2's is enough.

The man with no friends is on the outer I would reckon - unlike Davo, taggers can be replaced.

[swansrule100]

i dont think roosy just waits outside while they pick the team. It not uncommon practice amongst clubs to give some ownership of the team to the playing group. Parkin did it successfully at carlton for instance. As long as its not total control then theres no problem, it opens the team up and creates poetentially a better unit. It has worked pretty well so far.

in fact its not uncommon in all walks of life, empowerment is a common strategy.

[liz]

It seeemed quite clear from the Tele article

Not really. That one sentence tells us nothing about the criteria that the leadership group was given nor what consequences were set out for them if they got it wrong.

[reigning premier]

Not really. That one sentence tells us nothing about the criteria that the leadership group was given nor what consequences were set out for them if they got it wrong.

I'd didspute that. For mind, the way the article read was that they (the leadership group) picked the entire team. That was the team that played on Sunday. No changes by coaching staff and/or selection panel.

[hammo]

Same here. Roos said that he was going to play the 22 names he was given, regardless of who they were. So there was no need to know the consequences if they got it wrong - there was no wrong as far as he was concerned.

SEN panelist Tim Watson asked the coach on air: "Would you have gone with their 22 regardless of who they picked?''

"Absolutely,'' said Roos.

[liz]

Same here. Roos said that he was going to play the 22 names he was given, regardless of who they were. So there was no need to know the consequences if they got it wrong - there was no wrong as far as he was concerned.

Of course there were consequences and a need for the players involved to understand those consequences. It wasn't just about picking 22 players. It was about picking 22 players who could deliver (which this week, at least, they did). It was about retaining the trust of the coaches about their ability to pick a side that can deliver, with all the resulting consequences for how much input they will have in future weeks and for some, maybe short and long term career consequences. It was about retaining the trust of their team mates to understand what was needed for the team to get back to its best.

One result doesn't indicate they got it right. We need to see more sustained performance at that level. But equally well, we have no evidence yet that they got it wrong, nor that the coaches were wrong for giving them the responsibility.

This club has done an awful lot right in the last few years. Successive GFs and a premiership are testament to that. And with a squad that many outside pundits - and even some fans - thought wasn't good enough to achieve that.

Maybe we should give them all a bit of credit for having some idea what they're doing.

[NMWBloods]

I'm curious to know what the point is of getting 6 blokes within the team to pick the team (which they changed by one player).