 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | uncanny wrote: | Gerard Whateley the ABC commentator has Nathan Buckley in the commentary box tomorrow, as he did last week. I hear Gerard say on radio earlier in the week what a privilege it was to have Bucks on hand during the call for the Hawks Power clash. He put it as having a hotline to the coaches box.
Gerard described a debate between Bucks and Mark Maclure in the last q before power made their charge. Maclure said power should go shorter and faster in the forward line. Bucks gave him all these logical reasons why it shouldn't happen. Stick to the structure. They went small and power came storming home. Footy instinct and smarts over structure and process was the way to go.
Nathan is as honest as the day is long and meticulous in his planning. Embracing LT goes with this mindset. This is a great strength of his. I think we need more balance though. Footy clubs thrive on fun and characters. Remember the brat pack? It threw up problems every now and then but they got the job done and imbued a winning spirit into the team. Could we look at the Australian Cricket team's recent experience as a guide? The ultra professional, process driven methods of Mickey Arthur didn't cut it. Boof Lehmann comes in and relies on challenging and backing players to harness their talent, ensuring all players buy into the team spirit and play like mates. a key philosophy is that it's got to be fun if you are going to play well. It reminds me of the football instincts of a Ken Hinkley and his forthright manner empowering his players to take the game on, all the while playing for each other might be what's lacking with the pies.
Let's not throw out LT and the methods employed but can we overlay it with more passion, magpie spirit and mateship? |
That highlighted passage is what I find most surprising and worrying about Buckley as coach.
It's completely the opposite to what I expected from him when appointed coach.
His constant selection of some players and comments about rewarding effort when it comes to team selection earlier in the year only adds wait to the Whateley observations. |
process is very important when you're dealing with inexperience or learning the trade. following a process should produce the same outcome each and every time. |
On the other hand, its exactly what I expected when he became coach. Following a process rigidly might lead you to create some nice paint by numbers water colours of some flowers in a vase but it will never lead you to produce a Van Gogh, or any other masterpiece. That is one glaring difference between Buckley and Malthouse. Malthouse had intuition and process; Buckley's only got process. Leading Teams can't create intuitive thinking; I doubt it can even enhance it. Will LT help the players then? Such processes based on organisational/group psychology are more hit and miss than many give them credit. They work best when their workings aren't somehow revealed. They fail particularly when the message they promote contradicts or is undermined by the workings of the official working culture that has hired the change agents in the first place.
Apart from sacking Buckley (and okay this isn't the thread to advocate that I concede), the best solution is to surround him with more intuitive football thinkers and give them carte blanche to challenge his thinking whenever they see fit. Obviously in front of the players may not be appropriate but such a solution maybe the only way to get him to think outside his small process/effort driven box. Would it work? Maybe. Intuition isn't innate, it is learnt. Perhaps even Buckley could evolve under such a regime. |
I'm not sure that Buckley is the completely process driven, non-intuitive coach that many seem to think he is, but I agree that he is a very process driven coach. Fwiw, I think Malthouse was also. He was stubborn in sticking to his game-plan and processes even when they clearly weren't working. That stubbornness cost us the 2011 Premiership imo.
Nevertheless, I agree with the thrust of your argument RR. Good coaches need to be surrounded by strong assistants with the courage and encouragement to question. For mine, I'd love to one day get Choco Williams as an assistant. |
the only times a process does not work is if someone does not follow it or it is a flawed process to begin with.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
 |
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | uncanny wrote: | Gerard Whateley the ABC commentator has Nathan Buckley in the commentary box tomorrow, as he did last week. I hear Gerard say on radio earlier in the week what a privilege it was to have Bucks on hand during the call for the Hawks Power clash. He put it as having a hotline to the coaches box.
Gerard described a debate between Bucks and Mark Maclure in the last q before power made their charge. Maclure said power should go shorter and faster in the forward line. Bucks gave him all these logical reasons why it shouldn't happen. Stick to the structure. They went small and power came storming home. Footy instinct and smarts over structure and process was the way to go.
Nathan is as honest as the day is long and meticulous in his planning. Embracing LT goes with this mindset. This is a great strength of his. I think we need more balance though. Footy clubs thrive on fun and characters. Remember the brat pack? It threw up problems every now and then but they got the job done and imbued a winning spirit into the team. Could we look at the Australian Cricket team's recent experience as a guide? The ultra professional, process driven methods of Mickey Arthur didn't cut it. Boof Lehmann comes in and relies on challenging and backing players to harness their talent, ensuring all players buy into the team spirit and play like mates. a key philosophy is that it's got to be fun if you are going to play well. It reminds me of the football instincts of a Ken Hinkley and his forthright manner empowering his players to take the game on, all the while playing for each other might be what's lacking with the pies.
Let's not throw out LT and the methods employed but can we overlay it with more passion, magpie spirit and mateship? |
That highlighted passage is what I find most surprising and worrying about Buckley as coach.
It's completely the opposite to what I expected from him when appointed coach.
His constant selection of some players and comments about rewarding effort when it comes to team selection earlier in the year only adds wait to the Whateley observations. |
process is very important when you're dealing with inexperience or learning the trade. following a process should produce the same outcome each and every time. |
On the other hand, its exactly what I expected when he became coach. Following a process rigidly might lead you to create some nice paint by numbers water colours of some flowers in a vase but it will never lead you to produce a Van Gogh, or any other masterpiece. That is one glaring difference between Buckley and Malthouse. Malthouse had intuition and process; Buckley's only got process. Leading Teams can't create intuitive thinking; I doubt it can even enhance it. Will LT help the players then? Such processes based on organisational/group psychology are more hit and miss than many give them credit. They work best when their workings aren't somehow revealed. They fail particularly when the message they promote contradicts or is undermined by the workings of the official working culture that has hired the change agents in the first place.
Apart from sacking Buckley (and okay this isn't the thread to advocate that I concede), the best solution is to surround him with more intuitive football thinkers and give them carte blanche to challenge his thinking whenever they see fit. Obviously in front of the players may not be appropriate but such a solution maybe the only way to get him to think outside his small process/effort driven box. Would it work? Maybe. Intuition isn't innate, it is learnt. Perhaps even Buckley could evolve under such a regime. |
I'm not sure that Buckley is the completely process driven, non-intuitive coach that many seem to think he is, but I agree that he is a very process driven coach. Fwiw, I think Malthouse was also. He was stubborn in sticking to his game-plan and processes even when they clearly weren't working. That stubbornness cost us the 2011 Premiership imo.
Nevertheless, I agree with the thrust of your argument RR. Good coaches need to be surrounded by strong assistants with the courage and encouragement to question. For mine, I'd love to one day get Choco Williams as an assistant. |
the only times a process does not work is (a) if someone does not follow it or (b) it is a flawed process to begin with. |
Or both. Or because (b) leads to (a) as a means to circumvent (b). There is another reason processes don't work is that the premises that lead to the process being adopted either didn't exist or have changed. In football no one process can work in every situation. Permutations of processes and alternate processes need to be in place to allow players to have flexibility in their decision making and to keep opponents guessing. There is a virtue in also just letting a player take the game on when that's needed. Processes that destroy initiative and flair are as destructive as having no processes at all. Intuition and feel in coaching are important and every coach has that to a greater or lesser degree. I feel process alone is not enough - in coaching as in every creative endeavour - it is a mix of process and intuition that brings the best results.
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | uncanny wrote: | Gerard Whateley the ABC commentator has Nathan Buckley in the commentary box tomorrow, as he did last week. I hear Gerard say on radio earlier in the week what a privilege it was to have Bucks on hand during the call for the Hawks Power clash. He put it as having a hotline to the coaches box.
Gerard described a debate between Bucks and Mark Maclure in the last q before power made their charge. Maclure said power should go shorter and faster in the forward line. Bucks gave him all these logical reasons why it shouldn't happen. Stick to the structure. They went small and power came storming home. Footy instinct and smarts over structure and process was the way to go.
Nathan is as honest as the day is long and meticulous in his planning. Embracing LT goes with this mindset. This is a great strength of his. I think we need more balance though. Footy clubs thrive on fun and characters. Remember the brat pack? It threw up problems every now and then but they got the job done and imbued a winning spirit into the team. Could we look at the Australian Cricket team's recent experience as a guide? The ultra professional, process driven methods of Mickey Arthur didn't cut it. Boof Lehmann comes in and relies on challenging and backing players to harness their talent, ensuring all players buy into the team spirit and play like mates. a key philosophy is that it's got to be fun if you are going to play well. It reminds me of the football instincts of a Ken Hinkley and his forthright manner empowering his players to take the game on, all the while playing for each other might be what's lacking with the pies.
Let's not throw out LT and the methods employed but can we overlay it with more passion, magpie spirit and mateship? |
That highlighted passage is what I find most surprising and worrying about Buckley as coach.
It's completely the opposite to what I expected from him when appointed coach.
His constant selection of some players and comments about rewarding effort when it comes to team selection earlier in the year only adds wait to the Whateley observations. |
process is very important when you're dealing with inexperience or learning the trade. following a process should produce the same outcome each and every time. |
On the other hand, its exactly what I expected when he became coach. Following a process rigidly might lead you to create some nice paint by numbers water colours of some flowers in a vase but it will never lead you to produce a Van Gogh, or any other masterpiece. That is one glaring difference between Buckley and Malthouse. Malthouse had intuition and process; Buckley's only got process. Leading Teams can't create intuitive thinking; I doubt it can even enhance it. Will LT help the players then? Such processes based on organisational/group psychology are more hit and miss than many give them credit. They work best when their workings aren't somehow revealed. They fail particularly when the message they promote contradicts or is undermined by the workings of the official working culture that has hired the change agents in the first place.
Apart from sacking Buckley (and okay this isn't the thread to advocate that I concede), the best solution is to surround him with more intuitive football thinkers and give them carte blanche to challenge his thinking whenever they see fit. Obviously in front of the players may not be appropriate but such a solution maybe the only way to get him to think outside his small process/effort driven box. Would it work? Maybe. Intuition isn't innate, it is learnt. Perhaps even Buckley could evolve under such a regime. |
I'm not sure that Buckley is the completely process driven, non-intuitive coach that many seem to think he is, but I agree that he is a very process driven coach. Fwiw, I think Malthouse was also. He was stubborn in sticking to his game-plan and processes even when they clearly weren't working. That stubbornness cost us the 2011 Premiership imo.
Nevertheless, I agree with the thrust of your argument RR. Good coaches need to be surrounded by strong assistants with the courage and encouragement to question. For mine, I'd love to one day get Choco Williams as an assistant. |
the only times a process does not work is (a) if someone does not follow it or (b) it is a flawed process to begin with. |
Or both. Or because (b) leads to (a) as a means to circumvent (b). There is another reason processes don't work is that the premises that lead to the process being adopted either didn't exist or have changed. In football no one process can work in every situation. Permutations of processes and alternate processes need to be in place to allow players to have flexibility in their decision making and to keep opponents guessing. There is a virtue in also just letting a player take the game on when that's needed. Processes that destroy initiative and flair are as destructive as having no processes at all. Intuition and feel in coaching are important and every coach has that to a greater or lesser degree. I feel process alone is not enough - in coaching as in every creative endeavour - it is a mix of process and intuition that brings the best results. |
This is one of the things that scares me about 'our' coach - he has almost zero 'flare' factor (and as far I can see he's biggest flare move was moving Reid back to the Fwrd line, and as we all know... he was drafted as a fwrd anyway but at the time he couldn't play the position for one reason or another.).
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
For me, my biggest gripe of this year was our decision making and our ball use.
I know our guys are young, but I'd like to see our ball use improve and our decision making improve.
For me, that's a good start.
_________________
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey, we want some Bayley! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
For me it's fitness above everything else. Our running ability was terrible all year and needs to improve significantly. The list as it stands isn't really up to it, so we need to be bringing in more of the right types and it's for this reason that I'm really not concerned that Beams wants out, it gives us a great opportunity. Skills are way down the list of priorities. Once you have your players running into space, ball movement becomes a breeze.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | For me it's fitness above everything else. Our running ability was terrible all year and needs to improve significantly. The list as it stands isn't really up to it, so we need to be bringing in more of the right types and it's for this reason that I'm really not concerned that Beams wants out, it gives us a great opportunity. Skills are way down the list of priorities. Once you have your players running into space, ball movement becomes a breeze. |
Bucks has said as much. |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | For me it's fitness above everything else. Our running ability was terrible all year and needs to improve significantly. The list as it stands isn't really up to it, so we need to be bringing in more of the right types and it's for this reason that I'm really not concerned that Beams wants out, it gives us a great opportunity. Skills are way down the list of priorities. Once you have your players running into space, ball movement becomes a breeze. |
with better fitness comes better decision making.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
The_Staunton
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Location: Hobart
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Didn't we here the same from Essendon before they embarked on whatever it takes?
Let's hope things work out well for our players in the off season, the preseason & the season in 2015.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | For me it's fitness above everything else. Our running ability was terrible all year and needs to improve significantly. The list as it stands isn't really up to it, so we need to be bringing in more of the right types and it's for this reason that I'm really not concerned that Beams wants out, it gives us a great opportunity. Skills are way down the list of priorities. Once you have your players running into space, ball movement becomes a breeze. |
with better fitness comes better decision making. |
Let's hope it's as simple as being fitter.
If it is then Carlton are completely stuffed under Buttifant.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | uncanny wrote: | Gerard Whateley the ABC commentator has Nathan Buckley in the commentary box tomorrow, as he did last week. I hear Gerard say on radio earlier in the week what a privilege it was to have Bucks on hand during the call for the Hawks Power clash. He put it as having a hotline to the coaches box.
Gerard described a debate between Bucks and Mark Maclure in the last q before power made their charge. Maclure said power should go shorter and faster in the forward line. Bucks gave him all these logical reasons why it shouldn't happen. Stick to the structure. They went small and power came storming home. Footy instinct and smarts over structure and process was the way to go.
Nathan is as honest as the day is long and meticulous in his planning. Embracing LT goes with this mindset. This is a great strength of his. I think we need more balance though. Footy clubs thrive on fun and characters. Remember the brat pack? It threw up problems every now and then but they got the job done and imbued a winning spirit into the team. Could we look at the Australian Cricket team's recent experience as a guide? The ultra professional, process driven methods of Mickey Arthur didn't cut it. Boof Lehmann comes in and relies on challenging and backing players to harness their talent, ensuring all players buy into the team spirit and play like mates. a key philosophy is that it's got to be fun if you are going to play well. It reminds me of the football instincts of a Ken Hinkley and his forthright manner empowering his players to take the game on, all the while playing for each other might be what's lacking with the pies.
Let's not throw out LT and the methods employed but can we overlay it with more passion, magpie spirit and mateship? |
That highlighted passage is what I find most surprising and worrying about Buckley as coach.
It's completely the opposite to what I expected from him when appointed coach.
His constant selection of some players and comments about rewarding effort when it comes to team selection earlier in the year only adds wait to the Whateley observations. |
process is very important when you're dealing with inexperience or learning the trade. following a process should produce the same outcome each and every time. |
On the other hand, its exactly what I expected when he became coach. Following a process rigidly might lead you to create some nice paint by numbers water colours of some flowers in a vase but it will never lead you to produce a Van Gogh, or any other masterpiece. That is one glaring difference between Buckley and Malthouse. Malthouse had intuition and process; Buckley's only got process. Leading Teams can't create intuitive thinking; I doubt it can even enhance it. Will LT help the players then? Such processes based on organisational/group psychology are more hit and miss than many give them credit. They work best when their workings aren't somehow revealed. They fail particularly when the message they promote contradicts or is undermined by the workings of the official working culture that has hired the change agents in the first place.
Apart from sacking Buckley (and okay this isn't the thread to advocate that I concede), the best solution is to surround him with more intuitive football thinkers and give them carte blanche to challenge his thinking whenever they see fit. Obviously in front of the players may not be appropriate but such a solution maybe the only way to get him to think outside his small process/effort driven box. Would it work? Maybe. Intuition isn't innate, it is learnt. Perhaps even Buckley could evolve under such a regime. |
I'm not sure that Buckley is the completely process driven, non-intuitive coach that many seem to think he is, but I agree that he is a very process driven coach. Fwiw, I think Malthouse was also. He was stubborn in sticking to his game-plan and processes even when they clearly weren't working. That stubbornness cost us the 2011 Premiership imo.
Nevertheless, I agree with the thrust of your argument RR. Good coaches need to be surrounded by strong assistants with the courage and encouragement to question. For mine, I'd love to one day get Choco Williams as an assistant. |
the only times a process does not work is (a) if someone does not follow it or (b) it is a flawed process to begin with. |
Or both. Or because (b) leads to (a) as a means to circumvent (b). There is another reason processes don't work is that the premises that lead to the process being adopted either didn't exist or have changed. In football no one process can work in every situation. Permutations of processes and alternate processes need to be in place to allow players to have flexibility in their decision making and to keep opponents guessing. There is a virtue in also just letting a player take the game on when that's needed. Processes that destroy initiative and flair are as destructive as having no processes at all. Intuition and feel in coaching are important and every coach has that to a greater or lesser degree. I feel process alone is not enough - in coaching as in every creative endeavour - it is a mix of process and intuition that brings the best results. |
i have often thought it somewhat incongruous that a game such as aussie rules played by 36 men, with an odd shaped ball and large open spaces was getting wrapped up in processes, structures and systems.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
The_Staunton
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Location: Hobart
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
Didn't we here the same from Essendon before they embarked on whatever it takes?
Let's hope things work out well for our players in the off season, the preseason & the season in 2015. |
Well they definitely suffered short term pain for long term pain...
_________________
We just got nutted at the clearances... |
|
|
|
|
Az
Joined: 25 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| At least Bucks identified that our disposal was horrible and placed the blame on himself. It makes sense. A man who was one of the most naturally gifted elite kicks of a football ever probably doesn't see so much importance on kicking drills when his never required that much work. |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Couldn't we argue really.... that all the disagreement and debate on here is down to one very simple issue..... "That we just are not a great team anymore....that we have been overtaken by a number of other sides, and that as both a fan base, and a club, we are struggling (for the moment) to accept that for the next few seasons we may well be in the bottom eight?
_________________
"To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
Az
Joined: 25 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can accept we will be a bottom half team for some time as long as I know the club is being lead back to greatness. As far as I can tell, it seems we are. You see a team like Hawthorne who could well and truly be on their merry way to 3 flags in a row if things go right for them, and it's hard not to be jealous of their success. They had a plan, they executed it, and even when a major spanner was thrown in their works (Buddy departing) they still emerged on top. What I see when I look at our club is a plan, and we're in the process of getting there. There are much much better footy brains behind these decisions than myself even if I tend to think otherwise at times, and at the end of the day I will place my trust in those minds on the basis that they too are bent on driving us back to greatness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
