Rumour Adelaide Crows camp

Remove this Banner Ad

CrowToon said:
Correct, some people like being pushed, others don't. Some people get inspired by a softly delivered speech charged with emotion, others like it screamed in their face. Everyone has differing levels of resilience and motivation. The club and those they hired needed to have been far more proactive in understanding and meeting those needs. Extra care above that should also have been afforded to considerations of culture.

What is most important from there is that lessons were learned. The media seem to want their pound of blood and to further their own careers off the back of sensationalist journalism and being offended on someone else's behalf.
Click to expand...
Were lessons learned though? It seemed as though the club spent most of it's time defending the training and rolling out players to say how great it was.

I think that Betts is right to tell about his experience, and the media are within reason to report it. I don't see how that is sensationalist. And it is worth doing. There are 18 teams in the competition, and you never know when some clown in management will be taken in by a 'guru' and decide to employ them and their other entirely unqualified buddies to run pseudo psychological exercises that produce nothing other than humiliating players and ultimately decimating the team.
 
largebus said:
Gotta lol that this is still up, yet Caro and McClure's report had to be taken down and apologised for when all of what Eddie says basically confirms their story.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Click to expand...


Their eyes are dead in this video. Cult like
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bluelegs said:
It's pretty remarkable how experienced administrators and professionals can buy into the most insane quackery.
Click to expand...
In my 42 year involvement in football at state league level, I can say that, with some exceptions most of these ‘administrators and professionals’ would struggle to prepare enough daily meatballs in a Subway franchise.
 
I just find the two different styles and contrasting fortunes of Richmond and Adelaide fascinating.

Richmond at the end of 2016 learnt to be open, vulnerable and comfortable with themselves via triple H sessions (hero, hardship and highlight) led by Emma Murray.
It was the catalyst for tightening the bond between the playing group and having 110% trust amongst one another for success.
It meant someone like Cotchin could be comfortable being a comfortable in his own shoes as a captain and not trying to be artificially masculine or someone he simply isn’t in his human nature.


Meanwhile Adelaide we’re trying to mould the entire playing group into macho men and tough guys who had to run through the banners like bulls before a game…
All of this I can just picture Tex dribbling down on a scrap piece of paper with crayons thinking what a great idea this will be to lead to success.

I take great pride in what Richmond did with a Emma Murray and you can really tell how much the players enjoyed being at work and could sense it was a big reason on how they played to their ceiling of output from this level of enjoyment and enthusiasm.
 
Punt Road Feral said:
I just find the two different styles and contrasting fortunes of Richmond and Adelaide fascinating.

Richmond at the end of 2016 learnt to be open, vulnerable and comfortable with themselves via triple H sessions (hero, hardship and highlight) led by Emma Murray.
It was the catalyst for tightening the bond between the playing group and having 110% trust amongst one another for success.
It meant someone like Cotchin could be comfortable being a comfortable in his own shoes as a captain and not trying to be artificially masculine or someone he simply isn’t in his human nature.


Meanwhile Adelaide we’re trying to mould the entire playing group into macho men and tough guys who had to run through the banners like bulls before a game…
All of this I can just picture Tex dribbling down on a scrap piece of paper with crayons thinking what a great idea this will be to lead to success.

I take great pride in what Richmond did with a Emma Murray and you can really tell how much the players enjoyed being at work and could sense it was a big reason on how they played to their ceiling of output from this level of enjoyment and enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
I won't say this again.....but I'm glad Richmond won that first flag. It means that authenticity was deemed the key to success as opposed to bravado bull s**t. Imagine the crows won on the back of the "power stance" and then we all spent a while believing macho puffed out chests and fake masculinity was the key.
 
dangerwood said:
I won't say this again.....but I'm glad Richmond won that first flag. It means that authenticity was deemed the key to success as opposed to bravado bull s**t. Imagine the crows won on the back of the "power stance" and then we all spent a while believing macho puffed out chests and fake masculinity was the key.
Click to expand...
Similar to how Leading Teams became a fad after Geelong's success, imagine if every club started using Collective Minds.
 
Lemme get this right- two years after the Adelaide playing group had fought through the trauma of having their coach murdered they managed to finish top of the ladder (albeit falling short at the final hurdle) yet instead of celebrating their progress and the acceptance they'd need to tinker with the game plan the powers that be decided to subject them to a psychologically harrowing exercise?
From afar I'd say they were one of the most resilient playing lists in recent memory and the camp completely destroyed the camaraderie. Farcical that Ricciutto is still at the club in any capacity
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

YouBeauty said:
Click to expand...


The standout take from that video is all of the strategies discussed would've been better implemented by a qualified psychologist, who, more importantly, would've much better handled the fallout from the strategies implemented. That's where the program failed - dealing with collateral damage. Anybody can put a mind training program together. The products of it, particularly the negative, are the domain of trained professionals. CM were not.
 
2020suns said:
If the camp was so bad why didn’t betts walk out of the club straight away rather than playing on and was dropped for form issues then blames the camp


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you understand how mental trauma, power structures, resilience and all of that works.

Why don't abused partners just leave?
Why don't people getting a hard time at work just leave?

Sometimes it's a hard decision. Sometimes you fear what other options you have. Maybe you want to give the club the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it takes a while to realise the damage that has happened.
 
dangerwood said:
I won't say this again.....but I'm glad Richmond won that first flag. It means that authenticity was deemed the key to success as opposed to bravado bull s**t. Imagine the crows won on the back of the "power stance" and then we all spent a while believing macho puffed out chests and fake masculinity was the key.
Click to expand...

Well said.

It beggars belief that the administrators saw a very good team absolutely blitz their opposition up until halfway through the 2nd quarter of the GF when they s**t the bed mentally and weren't able to respond, and said 'you know what this team needs? MORE corny faux tough guy bullshit.'
 
kickazz said:
I'm not sure you understand how mental trauma, power structures, resilience and all of that works.

Why don't abused partners just leave?
Why don't people getting a hard time at work just leave?

Sometimes it's a hard decision. Sometimes you fear what other options you have. Maybe you want to give the club the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it takes a while to realise the damage that has happened.
Click to expand...

It's a particularly crap question to ask when Betts goes into detail about the responsibility he felt to his younger indigenous teammates and the pressure he felt to prove himself - as an indigenous man - as worthy of his leadership position in the excerpts quoted.

In short, he didn't leave because that wouldn't have helped the teammates he felt a responsibility to protect, and because he was in the leadership group and trying to conform to the expectations of the club. The fact that he lost his leadership position after raising it through club-endorsed channels alone justifies any decision he made to continue with the camp.

This isn't an attack on Adelaide as a club, just on the individuals involved in approving all this. Ricciutto was a great player but I fear he's out of his depth in his current role and that his status as a club legend may see others reluctant to challenge him on some of his decisions.
 
Punt Road Feral said:
I just find the two different styles and contrasting fortunes of Richmond and Adelaide fascinating.

Richmond at the end of 2016 learnt to be open, vulnerable and comfortable with themselves via triple H sessions (hero, hardship and highlight) led by Emma Murray.
It was the catalyst for tightening the bond between the playing group and having 110% trust amongst one another for success.
It meant someone like Cotchin could be comfortable being a comfortable in his own shoes as a captain and not trying to be artificially masculine or someone he simply isn’t in his human nature.


Meanwhile Adelaide we’re trying to mould the entire playing group into macho men and tough guys who had to run through the banners like bulls before a game…
All of this I can just picture Tex dribbling down on a scrap piece of paper with crayons thinking what a great idea this will be to lead to success.

I take great pride in what Richmond did with a Emma Murray and you can really tell how much the players enjoyed being at work and could sense it was a big reason on how they played to their ceiling of output from this level of enjoyment and enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
Great post.

On one hand, the individual is respected. The program is tailored to get the best out of them based on who they are.

The other one, we hear "oh it worked for some, shame about the others". It didn't respect the individual and their differences and had a more cult like feel. Even the organisation's title "Collective Mind" is a big red flag.
 
I have attended many conferences where external facilitors have been bought in, in an attempt to provide motivation and improve performance. Some have been good and others have been downright strange and went to places I think they shouldn't go.

A big issue that is not just related to sport is that the overwhelming majority of people who facilitate these events are simply not qualified due to the fact that the life coaching/motivation industry is completely unregulated. The guy running creative minds does not have a pyshc degree he has a business degree. IMO he has no place running mind training courses.

The common narrative with all of these organisations when they come in and run a course is that is you don't conform and challenge their views you are often ostracised in front of you peers, made to believe you have a bad attitude and are not prepared to "get out of your comfort zone" to help your team make the next steeps.

In my experience the majority of people who work as life coaches/motivators etc are frauds.
 
dangerwood said:
I won't say this again.....but I'm glad Richmond won that first flag. It means that authenticity was deemed the key to success as opposed to bravado bull s**t. Imagine the crows won on the back of the "power stance" and then we all spent a while believing macho puffed out chests and fake masculinity was the key.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it also highlights the inequality of the modern day AFL system.
Adelaide finished higher on the ladder at the end of the home and away season, in all fairness, they should have hosted the Grand Final at AO, if this was a truly fair and equitable national competition.

Having said that, i do believe Richmond would have won it over there anyway, so not trying to cast any shade at the Tigers 2017 which was well earned and deserved, but just highlights how arachic the current Grand Final system is.

As we have seen in recent years, interstate venues make for perfectly good and acceptable Grand Final venues.

I think eventually it will happen (top ranked team who makes the GF hosts it) unfortunately probably not in our lifetime.
 
Elmer_Judd said:
Maybe so, but it also highlights the inequality of the modern day AFL system.
Adelaide finished higher on the ladder at the end of the home and away season, in all fairness, they should have hosted the Grand Final at AO, if this was a truly fair and equitable national competition.

Having said that, i do believe Richmond would have won it over there anyway, so not trying to cast any shade at the Tigers 2017 which was well earned and deserved, but just highlights how arachic the current Grand Final system is.

As we have seen in recent years, interstate venues make for perfectly good and acceptable Grand Final venues.

I think eventually it will happen (top ranked team who makes the GF hosts it) unfortunately probably not in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

Are you lost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
What the heck? Archtect of Infamous Crows Camp May Be A Child Sex Offender.
Replies
4
Views
188
Pea Nut
Pea Nut
Dazb86
Rumour Dodoro to Port Adelaide?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Outtatym
O

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top