The "No DH" policy is a myth.

[Big Al]

The so called no DH policy doesn't exist pretty much because it is unworkable. What is a dickhead anyway? Is there a definition anywhere? Is there a list of behaviors that typifies a DH?

Also tell me if you had 42 people in an office what are the odds one or two would be in your definition, a DH. Pretty high I would have thought. So if the Swans had a no DH policy then some of our players are in trouble. No, what the Swans want is a player that conforms to the culture of the club and play his role on and off the field. That doesn't preclude a so called DH from being recruited and nor should it. If the Swans believe that Player A makes them a better footy team then that should be all that matters.

[ScottH]

We have a no DH policy on RWO.
But I think that failed.

[bondy]

To be honest Al I think it exists, and i think that's a core reason our culture is the envy of other clubs. For one reason or another our team seems more committed to each other on the field (the Richmond game notwithstanding). It seems as though our club is a tighter unit than most and willing to sacrifice themselves for the team (think Smithy's role etc). As an outsider just seeing the results on the field there is something about our team that makes them play for each other. It only takes one or two DHs to fray the team fabric.

[AnnieH]

To be honest Al I think it exists, and i think that's a core reason our culture is the envy of other clubs. For one reason or another our team seems more committed to each other on the field (the Richmond game notwithstanding). It seems as though our club is a tighter unit than most and willing to sacrifice themselves for the team (think Smithy's role etc). As an outsider just seeing the results on the field there is something about our team that makes them play for each other. It only takes one or two DHs to fray the team fabric.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
No. Really.
I couldn't have.

[jono2707]

To be honest Al I think it exists, and i think that's a core reason our culture is the envy of other clubs. For one reason or another our team seems more committed to each other on the field (the Richmond game notwithstanding). It seems as though our club is a tighter unit than most and willing to sacrifice themselves for the team (think Smithy's role etc). As an outsider just seeing the results on the field there is something about our team that makes them play for each other. It only takes one or two DHs to fray the team fabric.

What he/she said.

I also think the policy puts a name on the team-first ethic we have build over recent years and makes it clear to players that the club is bigger and more important than any individual regardless of what they may like to think.

[ScottH]

The Club can still have a No DH policy, without actually having a No DH policy.

Recruiting on talent and demeanour would be a start.

[Big Al]

To be honest Al I think it exists, and i think that's a core reason our culture is the envy of other clubs. For one reason or another our team seems more committed to each other on the field (the Richmond game notwithstanding). It seems as though our club is a tighter unit than most and willing to sacrifice themselves for the team (think Smithy's role etc). As an outsider just seeing the results on the field there is something about our team that makes them play for each other. It only takes one or two DHs to fray the team fabric.

Your telling me we don't have one DH on our list. Not one. That would be a miracle I reckon. Also if it only takes 1 or 2 DH's to fray the team fabric then the culture wasn't strong in the first place. A strong culture ensures that people of different levels of "niceness" function in the best interests of the team.

Leigh Matthews in an interview once said something that always stayed with me and considering he was part of some incredible Hawthorn success I think his statement is worth thinking about. He said that you weren't always friends with your team mates and with some of them you certainly didn't socialise but when it came to football you pulled together. That was said in response to a question about his prickly relationship with Don Scott. What I've heard of Don Scott was that he wasn't the easiest person to get along with but the culture at the Hawks was so strong it didn't matter. That's what I think is happening at the Swans. I have no doubt we have DH's at the Swans but the culture is so strong that it doesn't matter.

[Triple B]

The 'No DH' policy/statement as I understand it came from Barham in a discussion about draftees.

He more or less said that when looking at potential picks in the draft there was as much credence put in the general character of the young man as in his football ability. He claimed that it was even more important for Sydney because 99% of players drafted to the Swans meant leaving family and friends and moving to the largest city in Australia, a huge upheaval for a shy country lad. It was their opinion that being a solid level headed young fellow was vital in making that transition a possibility with less chance of them finding trouble or having problems with the whole relocation thing.

In other words, 'We won't draft DH's' who pose a risk in as much that they may never reach their potential because they are, well, DH's.

That's a bit different to trading for known yet established dickheads who can improve the team...

[R-1]

Yeah, Triple B, that's how I've understood it too. When you look at the gems we've unearthed from lower draft picks I think it shows it's a pretty sound strategy to focus a lot on character, not just talent.

[stellation]

The 'No DH' policy/statement as I understand it came from Barham in a discussion about draftees.

He more or less said that when looking at potential picks in the draft there was as much credence put in the general character of the young man as in his football ability. He claimed that it was even more important for Sydney because 99% of players drafted to the Swans meant leaving family and friends and moving to the largest city in Australia, a huge upheaval for a shy country lad. It was their opinion that being a solid level headed young fellow was vital in making that transition a possibility with less chance of them finding trouble or having problems with the whole relocation thing.

In other words, 'We won't draft DH's' who pose a risk in as much that they may never reach their potential because they are, well, DH's.

That's a bit different to trading for known yet established dickheads who can improve the team...

That's always been my understanding of it as well, they're really looking at the draft and the logic seems to be "you're a long odds enough to make it as an AFL level footy player, little point in bringing you in if you're going to possibly cause problems as well". If there's an existing DH that may cause problems, but already has shown they are an AFL level footy player then it's a different story.

I actually use basically the same technique when interviewing people, I use a 70/30 split with 70=skills/experience/capability and 30=character/will they cause problems; so you could have a 100% match skills/experience/capability wise but who seems like they could be a handful and get about a 25% match for character versus someone who is about a 75% skills/experience/capability match but is 100% for character. I expect the club uses a similarly weighted reasoning, albeit with a greater emphasis on skills etc.

[goswannie14]

The so called no DH policy doesn't exist pretty much because it is unworkable. What is a dickhead anyway? Is there a definition anywhere? Is there a list of behaviors that typifies a DH?

Also tell me if you had 42 people in an office what are the odds one or two would be in your definition, a DH. Pretty high I would have thought. So if the Swans had a no DH policy then some of our players are in trouble. No, what the Swans want is a player that conforms to the culture of the club and play his role on and off the field. That doesn't preclude a so called DH from being recruited and nor should it. If the Swans believe that Player A makes them a better footy team then that should be all that matters.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Al.

My understanding is that during an interview Barham, in response to a question said "You won't find a DH on our list". From there the myth grew.

[AnnieH]

"Myth" or not.
The whole of the footy world knows our culture doesn't leave a lot of room for DHs.
If you are a DH and you want to play for us, you know that you have to pull it in.

[goswannie14]

"Myth" or not.
The whole of the footy world knows our culture doesn't leave a lot of room for DHs.
If you are a DH and you want to play for us, you know that you have to pull it in.

Are you admitting there could be DH's on out list Annie???

[jono2707]

Are you admitting there could be DH's on out list Annie???

There is only one DH on our list and I hope it stays that way for the time being.....

[aardvark]

There is only one DH on our list and I hope it stays that way for the time being.....

Come on, name names or it didn't happen !