One thing that comes up time and again on footy forums is the concept that "our team " should be building for the future, so that they can emulate they latest fashionable in form team. Failure to do so is considered in this black and white armchair world as unforgivable. But is this realistic? Are we not operating in the real world and not in a vacuum where everybody else stands still?
Cant we entertain the idea that there is a certain amount of luck in the players , coaches that get combined to form formidable teams? After all, all teams are all trying to do the same thing, and with few exceptions failure to get close is not really all the fault of the administration. More, its a combination of many things that can conspire against a list to perform to their ability. Injuries can lay waste to the best of plans.
Culture is an obvious intangible that every team strives for. A winning culture breeds success and confidence, it also attracts potential players from other clubs.
But how many sides in the past modern AFL period, lets say from 2000 on, can really lay claims to being a dominant team? I am not talking here of sides that may have popped up for a great year only to sink back out of finals contention within 12 18 months, I am talking about sides that others have looked at with envy, tried to emulate, rebuilt their sides to compete with, changed coaches in the hope that they can be like them? How many of these types of sides have their truly been in the past 13 years?
Here is my quick analysis, open for debate but irrespective it shows the relatively small number of truly dominant sides there have been.
2000: Essendon*
2001: Essendon* , brisbane
2002: port adelaide, brisbane
2003: port adelaide , brisbane
2004: port adelaide, brisbane
2005:
2006:
2007: geelong
2008: geelong
2009: geelong
2010: collingwood, geelong
2011: collingwood, geelong, hawthorn
2012: hawthorn
2013: hawthorn, geelong
Now apart from Geelong, who has been there for half of the 13 years, there are only 5 other clubs to rival their dominance, albeit for shorter reigns.
Essendon* 2000
Brisbane , port early 2000's
Collingwood, hawthorn , since 2010
In all 6 sides have dominated in the 13 years.
Put another way, from 2000-2005 there were 3 dominant sides in the 6 years. Not a high percentage.
From 2006-2010 just 2 dominant sides in 5 years
The last 3 years there have ben 3 dominant sides
So what is the relevance of all this? Well in my opinion we are looking at our performance the wrong way. We all tend to look at the short term. "The blues wont make the 8 this year, sack the coach", "player x is useless " despite being injured, "our recruiting is terrible" but ignoring the game changes rapidly occuring that make players less relevant. Etc etc. But what if we want to create a geelong like dynasty?
So should we be aiming for a dominant team, or just a team that can realistically have a go in the finals and be competitive?
Should we be judging ourselves against the geelongs and brisbanes? If so then we are in very good company, in not being able to emulate their dominance and culture since 2000.
What does history show, who really remembers the also rans? Playing off in a grand final may sell memberships eg collingwoods two losing grand finals against the lions, but in the end you are not judged to be a great team by history.
Should we put our faith in malthouse to rebuild our list, even though we may miss finals next year, or do we succumb to the seduction of the finals siren? Even if he does rebuild, and we are able to rebound, do we have the right to expect to be able to become the next geelong/ brisbane given the extremely low odds of becoming such a dynasty.
In times past we could make our own luck through chequebook trading, in the end we created dynasty's around this. Our culture attracted players from far and wide. We cant do that now.
What we need to do is have faith, faith that we have made the right choice . With the exception of brisbane under mathews, all dominant sides had shown faith in their various coaches, let them develop a list capable if dominating, over a long period of time.
The problem is , its difficult to give coaches this time. Supporters , sponsors and even players, expect quick results. And there needs to be real leaders in place that are capable of accurately assessing whether the coach is on the right track or not. Do we have those leaders in place? It would seem not given the overly long contacts given to ratten and some of the players in recent times. But isnt that the problem, judgements made can seem right at the time but possibly be wrong. For example those calling for mark thompsons head many years ago, before the geelong of today emerged. History shows that he proved them wrong, even though at the time it was a very widely held view that he wasnt up to it.
It seems now that we have given faith to malthouse, he looks to be settling in for the long term. Lets hope we have made the right choice.
|
