Development or Winning

[_RT_]

Reading through the board over the last few dayss it would appear that posters are torn between what they want from this year. Plenty of posters were jumping up and down that we failed to win on Thursday night, while some were pleased to see a performance that, overall, was an improvement on our previous 4 outings against the Blues.

So I thought I would try and get a discussion going on what people want to see from this year. The question is what would you prefer from this year, the team trying to win as many games as possible, which may see development of the kids being overlooked ?

Or

Would you prefer to see us focus on developing as many kids as possible and taking what ever wins come our way as a result of this?

Personally, while I would like to win games, I find myself increasingly wanting to see us focus on developing the next group of players that will hopefully push us up the ladder and make us a genuine contender for the flag in a few years time. In all honesty I don't think I would care about winning 6 games again this year, especially if it meant that we have got games into as many kids as possible and found ourselves some players that can take us to where we want to go.

 

[Groupie_]

Winning and development.

Have our cake and eat it too.

 

[_RT_]

Winning and development.

Have our cake and eat it too.

As long as we're winning while playing kids I've got no problem with this sort of attitude, what I would have a problem with is if we forego playing the kids and developing them in important roles just so we get to enjoy a few extra wins.

 

[Bazzar]

Winning is development.

 

[Roachy8]

I'm definitely into a development phylosophy, partly because I don't reckon we have the perhaps 'more seasoned players' on our list who if given preference, would jag some unlikely wins anyway.

For example, IMO Miller only plays if a couple of our key forward prospects are injured.

With what we saw from Conca & Batchelor & to a lesser degree Helbig then the first 2 are pretty close to our best 22 anyway... certainly in relation to footy smarts & skills.

(& of course I am banging on about getting Lids back into the action in the middle rather than continuing to 'stop up a gap in the back half'.)

With the right development the wins will come anyway...

 

[RFC7]

At the start of the season i think priority should be given to winning games, not in the extreme way still play some kids, but play tuck, king and maybe miller for the 1st couple games and go from there.

2nd half of the season if were 4-8 then i think most supporters aren't really too fussed if we're playing an under 21's side coz we'll probably arse a couple of wins anyway.

 

[telsor]

I don't think it's either/or, but rather how you balance them.

Last year was (almost) all about development..call it 90/10.

Thsi year, I'd like it a bit more balanced, but still leaning strongly towards development...say 70/30.

Next year, well, learning to win is part of development, so I'd be hoping for something like 40/60.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Short term focus: Develop

Long term focus: Winning

 

[turtle27]

Development. None of us will give a stuff what happened in Round 1 2011 when the 2013 finals series comes around.

 

[CoggaRules]

As long as we're winning while playing kids I've got no problem with this sort of attitude, what I would have a problem with is if we forego playing the kids and developing them in important roles just so we get to enjoy a few extra wins.

At the end of the day its all about the graph pointing north, and year 1 is the basis of that graph. Now as far as R1 is concerned, the team was pretty much 40% brand new from what we had last year.
There has to be a plan, when you think that players like Tuck & Nason and to a lesser extent Farmer, O'reilly, Webberley, Dea and Thurst were left out.
The pleasing thing is that the graph is already pointing up, i.e. 80% not 47% and that with a 40% brand new line up.
The next 3 weeks is the real test of where we are at. Lets see what the brains trust do with the structure of the team and what the team does on the scoreboard. I can safely bet we go 0-4, but even at 0-4, if we maintian a % above 75 then we are improving.

 

[tugga]

Winning consistently won't come without development first.

 

[middy]

Who would answer winning? Have we learnt nothing over the past 30 years? Too many times have we been on the right path, only to then opt for the quick fix, which inevitably fails, which then puts us right back were we started. Let's continue on the path Dimma and Co. have started on and the winning will eventually come with it.

 

[Bazzar]

Who would answer winning?

Me, because its the same thing. Developing a winning mentality should be our prime objective. I wonder how our coaching staff would vote on this poll? like me, i susspect they would be more inclined to want to tick both boxes.

Also, who said winning was a quick fix. In the past you can make a water tight case for that, but no now that we have had such a massive clean out. Tiges said 2010 was transition and 2011 development, and as far as i see development also = winning as much as we can.

 

[middy]

But at the expense of developing our kids?

 

[brjafi]

Winning has everything to do with development! Isn't the goal finals in 2012?

 

[Bazzar]

Winning has everything to do with development! Isn't the goal finals in 2012?

Spot on. And how can we expect to play finals in 2012 if we forget winning this year but just develop.

 

[PHX]

Winning is development.

I agree with this.

We are no longer at the stage when we can say we dont have any or enough young kids so from now on winning is development.

Sure we still wont do it much but now isnt about the fact we can't win with the list we have it's that they dont know how to win and that was on show in the last quarter of Thursday night's game.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Me, because its the same thing. Developing a winning mentality should be our prime objective. I wonder how our coaching staff would vote on this poll? like me, i susspect they would be more inclined to want to tick both boxes.

Dimma was on the radio last week and mentioned how we had cost ourselves on the scoreboard last year in a few games, where we could have made some structural changes on the ground to stop teams running over the top of us, but they preferred to stick to their guns from a learning point of view.

He also said they'd be more inclined this year to take defensive measures now that the squad has progressed.

Also, who said winning was a quick fix. In the past you can make a water tight case for that, but no now that we have had such a massive clean out. Tiges said 2010 was transition and 2011 development, and as far as i see development also = winning as much as we can.

I kind of agree with this. Our squad is basically young. Whatever team we pick, it will be a young team which is always developing. People will whine and moan about this or that player, but overall we will be putting young developing teams on the park. One of the worst things you can teach a team is that losing is ok, regardless of the process.

 

[tunksy]

Personally I think dimma wanted to win this game. And we havent had a better time to do it with alot of their team missing. winning games develops a winning culture and gives the kids belief. having said that you can have your cake and eat it. play kids while trying to win games.

 

[smasha]

Winning is development.

I agree.

I'm torn with this.

Losing all the time wouldn't be good for the mindset of the players.

 

[_RT_]

Me, because its the same thing. Developing a winning mentality should be our prime objective. I wonder how our coaching staff would vote on this poll? like me, i susspect they would be more inclined to want to tick both boxes.

Also, who said winning was a quick fix. In the past you can make a water tight case for that, but no now that we have had such a massive clean out. Tiges said 2010 was transition and 2011 development, and as far as i see development also = winning as much as we can.

I'm sure we would all like to tick both boxes, but what I'm asking is which one would you prefer when it comes to achieving what Hardwick and Gale have set out to achieve which is sustained success.

 

[tunksy]

I'm sure we would all like to tick both boxes, but what I'm asking is which one would you prefer when it comes to achieving what Hardwick and Gale have set out to achieve which is sustained success.

reiterated well

 

[tigerdan]

Way to start a flame war!
All we need is Bentleigh to come back and make an ass of himself.

 

[Greggy]

The way I see it is, we should be playing our best possible team to win games, while developing youngsters in the 2nd's. We slowly introduce the best youngsters as they deserve it, they come into a competitive team and may be part of a few more victories then they would've if we were playing young guys purely based on the 'getting games into them' mentality.

 

[Rustof]

The thing is I don't see it as something that's black or white. ATM we don't have a best 22 that would go into a game 9 times out of 10, we barely have a settled best 22 to start with. As for developing kids, were developing kids in positions that we are weak in, it's not like we're playing Post instead of Jack to give him experience as a FF, we're playing Astbury instead of like Thursty.