JackWorrall wrote:
JackWorrall wrote:
Quote:
St Kilda have had a losing culture for their history, which no-one would deny, and I think it would be reasonable to presume that it would have had a bearing on the performances of their recruits down the years.
Carlton has had a winning culture. Hawthorn has had one from the 1960's proving these cultures can be changed.
Tyrants wrote:
Quote:
Yes.... but not really relevant to this debate. We're talking about results affecting mindsets. Organisational culture definitely affects mindset.... I completely agree: in fact I made that point earlier on. Thats why my theory is based on a culture of "talent" and "effort": being bold, but always running and putting in, and that "outcomes" are not defined as success on the field, but effort expended.
It is relevant. Culture is both about individuals and organisations and results have an impact on the culture and mindset of both. If I exist in an environment where no matter how much effort I put in the team loses, then it follows that I may become dispirited and have a belief that no matter what I do, I can't prevent losses.As I said, it depends on your cultural definition of success or win/loss, and how on-field results articulate into coaching technique. The other fact is that onfield success in modern AFL standards is very temporal, and so is loss. Having a bad on-field season ends in September. Next season is a new game and new challenges. A culture where effort and excitement are encouraged will overcome a bad onfield season because of the knowledge of player development. Hawthorn performed very badly on the whole, this season, and finished 3rd last. I don't expect to see a disspirited Roughead or Franklin in 2007.... partly because Hawthorns culture is one of rebuilding, of opportunity and growth. Clarkson will be pushing this in the off season, not despair.
Quote:
JackWorrall wrote:
Quote:
aside from the immeasurable psychological impact of being belted around each week
Tyrants wrote:
Quote:
Again, this cannot be proven.
That's the whole point, these things can't be proven (hence why I used the word 'immeasurable'), just as you can't prove your theory is correct. Asking for proof in this context is futile.
Just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it isn't possible or correct.Quite true. My theory cannot be proven either. I said as much 2 pages back or so. My apologies. I read "immeasurable" in the colloquial sense of "too many to measure".
I think there are 3 forces playing on a player's confidence:
- Self
- Team culture (coaches/team mates)
- Media (inc fans etc)
Media can be avoided, and Team culture is the property of the coaching staff and backroom staff. A culture of effort is important when having a youthful team. That can be controlled.
Self is trickier, and that is the factor I imagine you're talking about where confidence can take a hit. Even this, in my argument, can be managed through the efforts of the coaching staff. In the least, this can be managed and monitored. My personal, anecdotal opinion is that this element (though variable from player to player) can be managed by the coaching staff effectively in the right culture, and that self-motivation, a trait highly regarded by our recruiting men, should be encouraged as the conquerer of on-field failure.
Quote:
JackWorrall wrote:
Quote:
It is possible that it's appropriate for a young bloke to play every game. It was possibly, maybe even probably, right for Deledio to play every game last season. But, just because it was right for him, doesn't make it right for Murphy.
Tyrants wrote:
Quote:
I see that as the reason to at least give him a go to play everygame as long as the effort is there. Incidentally, I haven't said anything about Bower or Edwards et.al playing every game. Just Murphy. Just the pick of the bunch, and the kid with the most talent (ala DeLedio).
"Talent" and "Effort"
Just because someone is talented, doesn't necessarily mean they're right to play, nor does the fact that they'll make the effort. These things have to be combined with the other factors discussed, such as physical and mental development.
My three-year-old daughter shows great talent for language, and makes the effort everytime we read a book or recite the alphabet, but it doesn't mean I'm going to send her to do a PhD in literature.[/quote]
Thats right. I said earlier in this thread that the "effort" of Murphy et.al is based on an assumption, and not at all tied to talent. Where the coaching staff perceived insufficient effort, he should be dropped. On the face of it, and "based on reports" both of character and training performance, "effort" is not something Murphy lacks.... but obviously its up to him to display it.
Your analogy with your daughter does not pertain, because you're using a PhD in literature as an outcome not the topic, which is literacy. I could argue that she actually IS on the road to a PhD in literature, should she choose that outcome. She IS on the path to literacy, in the same way I'm proposing Marc is on the path to football competency, just as he was on that path as an under 12.
If your daughter had sufficient "talent" for literacy at age 17, I suppose she may look toward the path to a PhD in literature when she goes to Uni.... by starting an Arts degree. The Arts degree is like playing games 0-50. ... her Masters games 100-200, and her PhD playing 300+!
I suppose a Nobel Prize is the Brownlow.... and having a novel published like making the All Australian?
Your daughter and literacy, AND Marc and his debut season has similarities, if the factors are defined correctly
Login
Register
FAQ
