Leadership group dropped Crouch - picked team V Port

[Lucky Knickers]

This kind of concept is pretty typical in many workplaces. Managers (Captains/Leaders) are often asked to rank and rate their staff to senior management (Coaches) to see who gets promoted/pay rise and bonus. Is this really any different?

[Zlatorog]

I was just wondering who would take a full responsibility if something does go wrong? Roos, coaching stuff or the leadership team?

[Yakety_Yak]

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.

Nah, I reckon it went:

"GeeZZus apparently the experts on RWO want us to bring in the kids ... hell I dunno has anyone here got these... interwebs?

Look I value being close to ya all, but there is only a certain "close" I can get... you won a premiership with your togetherness and have your own code... so if you have got any recommendations or ideas ... YOU KNOW I and coaching staff will listen!

As I have told you a zillion times... we can't kick the goals for you but this is A MUST WIN"

[Carolyn]

What if they had lost? Would Roosy have blamed the leadership group?

[originalswan]

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.

That's the concept that most critics seem to forget or simply neglect. Do these critics seriously believe that their simplistic philosophies are better than the path the "TEAM" is taking.

First we cry that the team doesn't take chances or always sticks to the same philosophies/players/tactics, then when they do something different they are criticised.

Sorry Swans but you can never win with some people!

[barry]

That's the concept that most critics seem to forget or simply neglect. Do these critics seriously believe that their simplistic philosophies are better than the path the "TEAM" is taking.

First we cry that the team doesn't take chances or always sticks to the same philosophies/players/tactics, then when they do something different they are criticised.

Sorry Swans but you can never win with some people!

Perhaps the opposite is true.

Could we have won two flags in a row through playing more players through 2006 such that we werent reliant on some injured players come GF time.

Could we be 4-4 and have given a lot more game time to all these fringe players who dominated week in week out in the 2's instead of playing Mcveigh, Crouch and a few others.

[originalswan]

Perhaps the opposite is true.

Could we have won two flags in a row through playing more players through 2006 such that we werent reliant on some injured players come GF time.

Could we be 4-4 and have given a lot more game time to all these fringe players who dominated week in week out in the 2's instead of playing Mcveigh, Crouch and a few others.

The critical word is "perhaps". There simply is no proof that any other system would have worked better.

Here's an article on AFL website, the last few sentences indicates that last week was different but not to a large degree from the previous four years.

http://sydneyswans.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/7106/Default.aspx?newsId=43831

[swansrule100]

Perhaps the opposite is true.

Could we have won two flags in a row through playing more players through 2006 such that we werent reliant on some injured players come GF time.

Could we be 4-4 and have given a lot more game time to all these fringe players who dominated week in week out in the 2's instead of playing Mcveigh, Crouch and a few others.

we could be 0-8 if we did that, the club has had methods in place that have been working and you dont need to keep changing them every time you lose a game.

[barry]

The critical word is "perhaps". There simply is no proof that any other system would have worked better.

Here's an article on AFL website, the last few sentences indicates that last week was different but not to a large degree from the previous four years.

I think a lot of people are excusing being 9th after 8 rounds because they believe (or hope) that form will improve just like it did the last 2 years. But there is 100 years of previous history which hasnt acheived a 2nd half of the season turnaround.

To the other poster. There is plenty of proof that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh because their stats are almost identical.
So to say we'd be 0-8 is certainly the pesermist speaking. Perhaps with some players who have half decent kicks we could have easily beaten WC and Adelaide. and be 6-2 with an awesome future ahead of us.

Anyone happy with just one flag out of this era is starting to piss me off.

[ernie koala]

[QUOTE=barry;308723]

To the other poster. There is plenty of proof that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh because their stats are almost identical.


Moore, Schmidt, Tommy from down the street....anybody !!

[liz]

To the other poster. There is plenty of proof that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh because their stats are almost identical.

I've had my say on McVeigh's current form in recent weeks, but to suggest that stats prove that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh is a bit daft. Schmidt and McVeigh are completely different shapes, have different physical and footballing attributes and play different positions within the midfield. There is no way known that Schmidt could have shut down Pearce the way McVeigh did, for example.

And pure stats can never prove anything on their own.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I've had my say on McVeigh's current form in recent weeks, but to suggest that stats prove that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh is a bit daft. Schmidt and McVeigh are completely different shapes, have different physical and footballing attributes and play different positions within the midfield. There is no way known that Schmidt could have shut down Pearce the way McVeigh did, for example.

And pure stats can never prove anything on their own.

I hope you have the stats to back that up!!

[barry]

I've had my say on McVeigh's current form in recent weeks, but to suggest that stats prove that Moore or Schmidt could have permanently replaced McVeigh is a bit daft. Schmidt and McVeigh are completely different shapes, have different physical and footballing attributes and play different positions within the midfield.

Correct. McVeigh has a body shape not suited to AFL footy. He is too light, gets bumped off the ball and jumps around like a jack rabbit. His kicking is woeful, and I cant remember the last time I saw him take an overhead mark.

There is no way known that Schmidt could have shut down Pearce the way McVeigh did, for example.
.

Peace wasnt 100% fit, so I cant see how you can back that statement up.
Anyway, Schmidt/Moore dont have to play as taggers. How about some offense ?

[Captain]

Correct. McVeigh has a body shape not suited to AFL footy. He is too light, gets bumped off the ball and jumps around like a jack rabbit. His kicking is woeful, and I cant remember the last time I saw him take an overhead mark.

lol so true

[NMWBloods]

Anyway, Schmidt/Moore dont have to play as taggers. How about some offense ?

Yep - we have enough taggers. We need some ball winners and users.