HawkXNtric
18 Jun 2007, 22:56
Myth: That (insert name of any club not presently challenging for the premiership) is currently in a "rebuilding" phase.
Background: In recent years it seems that any club not finishing in the Top 4 claims to be "rebuilding". Do clubs really "re-build"? Or, do they simply do a few "minor renovations"? Considering that most teams turn over 5 to 6 players each and every season, when can a team genuinely claim to be "rebuilding"? Is this just an excuse trotted out by jaded supporters and club officials?
My Opinion: I think that this is pretty much busted. I won't discuss it in-depth here but will leave it to others to fill in their opinions. I reckon the whole "rebuilding" line has been done to death. Personally I think that you have to appoint a new senior coach, replace at least half your coaching panel, clean out one-half of your playing list over a 3-year period, and go for youth, youth and youth. Sort of like the Hawks have done, but not many others have - clubs like the Tigers have talked the talk but then gone off walking somewhere else...:D
Your Opinion: True, plausible or busted?
PS: This is the last of my 'myth-buster' posts for the time - just thought that I would stimulate a bit of 'non-urgent' discussion while we all struggle through the 2-week break with no footy of any note. Cheers;)
Background: In recent years it seems that any club not finishing in the Top 4 claims to be "rebuilding". Do clubs really "re-build"? Or, do they simply do a few "minor renovations"? Considering that most teams turn over 5 to 6 players each and every season, when can a team genuinely claim to be "rebuilding"? Is this just an excuse trotted out by jaded supporters and club officials?
My Opinion: I think that this is pretty much busted. I won't discuss it in-depth here but will leave it to others to fill in their opinions. I reckon the whole "rebuilding" line has been done to death. Personally I think that you have to appoint a new senior coach, replace at least half your coaching panel, clean out one-half of your playing list over a 3-year period, and go for youth, youth and youth. Sort of like the Hawks have done, but not many others have - clubs like the Tigers have talked the talk but then gone off walking somewhere else...:D
Your Opinion: True, plausible or busted?
PS: This is the last of my 'myth-buster' posts for the time - just thought that I would stimulate a bit of 'non-urgent' discussion while we all struggle through the 2-week break with no footy of any note. Cheers;)