Roast Do Crows have a toxic exclusive clique culture?

[MileraMagic]

It's definitely the latter.

That is worrying.
When's his contract up?

 

[Saethiaal6]

Yeah i feel like this is true but has been overblown a lot, look back to when mcleod and edwards played together. They passed the ball to each other no worries, pretty sure in mcleods episode of open mic he said its all instinct and it doesnt matter if you like the bloke or not because you dont have time to think about it during a game.

 

[FantasticShirt]

Yeah i feel like this is true but has been overblown a lot, look back to when mcleod and edwards played together. They passed the ball to each other no worries, pretty sure in mcleods episode of open mic he said its all instinct and it doesnt matter if you like the bloke or not because you dont have time to think about it during a game.

Agreed. I think there's certainly some truth to levels of favoritism, just like there is in every organization. But I don't see any evidence to suggest it's at the levels
suggested. Especially not to the level that players are ignored, half the SANFL team at times this year have been development squad players. What interest would they have in passing to specific crows players (or ignoring them) to keep an AFL player in the senior team?

Thommo has played 1 game at the expense of a player being rested. A huge % of the football community and media "experts" were calling for Thompson inclusion. It was hardly a left field selection.

Mackay is on the fringe. He's been dropped and as Seedsman etc continue to put in performances his job security lessens.

Greenwood is getting games and he hardly strikes me as some boys club lad. He's a openly religious, former basketballer. Hardly some bloke drinking piss with Campo, Sloane and the Crouch Beos working out how to keep douglas in the side.

I like Menzel but his output has hardly been consistent or amazing. He put in some very average performances AFL games this year, has had some injuries and I'm not sure he's an improvement on our current forwardline.

In short - there's probably some favoritism in that experienced players shortcomings are overlooked more so than inexperienced players. This occurs everywhere. We're currently top of the ladder so we're hardly some massive failure. Sounds more like Wigg's family and friends rate their son/mate more than the coaches do. Hardly surprising. My mum probably thinks I should be the CEO of the company I work for. Funnily enough the executive board see things differently.

 

[Heafy83]

Sounds a bit like a disgruntled family of a son who they think should be an AFL star who in reality is SANFL standard.

Would believe it more if it was Milera's family.

Wigg is a nice stat padder but has barely dominated an SANFL game and it is his fourth year in the system.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Agree 100%

There are so many young players thriving in that AFL side it makes no sense. Milera, Crouch x 2, Atkins, Greenwood, Lever, Cameron

None of these guys are senior players part of the 'boys club'.

If you are good enough you make it. Simple!

 

[Crow Envy]

Agree 100%

There are so many young players thriving in that AFL side it makes no sense. Milera, Crouch x 2, Atkins, Greenwood, Lever, Cameron

None of these guys are senior players part of the 'boys club'.

If you are good enough you make it. Simple!

What if you don't get given an opportunity?

 

[Heafy83]

What if you don't get given an opportunity?

Players that are not given the opportunity are not up to it. Simple

Its EXTREMELY rare a player gets through the cracks. Usually if they don't get first 22 games or very few and eventually delisted then thats it. Career is over.

Im talking at all AFL clubs not just Crows

 

[DD#23]

Players that are not given the opportunity are not up to it. Simple

Its EXTREMELY rare a player gets through the cracks. Usually if they don't get first 22 games or very few and eventually delisted then thats it. Career is over.

Im talking at all AFL clubs not just Crows

if Cheney and Doedee hadn't been injured this year Kelly probably would have been looking down the barrel of a delisting.

sure a talent like Lever is unlikely to miss out altogether but there would be plenty of solid players missing out on solid AFL careers when the doors don't slide in their favour.

 

[Heafy83]

if Cheney and Doedee hadn't been injured this year Kelly probably would have been looking down the barrel of a delisting.

sure a talent like Lever is unlikely to miss out altogether but there would be plenty of solid players missing out on solid AFL careers when the doors don't slide in their favour.

Injuries always happen and provide opportunity. Its how a lot of players make a name for themselves. You just have to wait for your chance and if you are good enough you will take it. There has been plenty of players get opportunities and simply not been up to it.

Kelly has only kept his spot because he is good enough. If he wasn't Cheney would have been rushed back into that side or Otten would have swung back permanent.

Its very rare players who are good enough that don't make it. I'd say less than 0.05% of players who have been in the system. Even then they are only fringe players. First 22 players always find a spot on a list.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Injuries always happen and provide opportunity. Its how a lot of players make a name for themselves. You just have to wait for your chance and if you are good enough you will take it. There has been plenty of players get opportunities and simply not been up to it.

Kelly has only kept his spot because he is good enough. If he wasn't Cheney would have been rushed back into that side or Otten would have swung back permanent.

Its very rare players who are good enough that don't make it. I'd say less than 0.05% of players who have been in the system. Even then they are only fringe players. First 22 players always find a spot on a list.

What you're saying there is that coaches can't have an impact on players

A player is just as good as they are and they'll reach their level no matter what

 

[slice]

What is particularly amazing is that we can't even get the players who make their way in the clique to stay.

 

[Ramify]

I agree this happens at every club at every level,to the point that players deliberately avoid using another player on gameday at AFL level Im not so sure. Training I dont doubt.

In all my years playing and being around footy clubs/people(in the workplace also) it is the times within clubs when the leadership within said group has had the ability to get different cliques interacting that have reaped the most success. Ive seen this happen plenty. Seen plenty of star studded teams fail as well because their egos wont allow them to mingle with what they consider underlings.

Starts at the very top. Cliques within the football department can be just as poisonous.
Great leaders bridge the cliques and that attitude filters down through all levels.

A "boys club" culture never works as resentment is not an attitude conducive to success.

 

[Heafy83]

What you're saying there is that coaches can't have an impact on players

A player is just as good as they are and they'll reach their level no matter what

For a first 22 player yes. I'd say 99% of the time that is correct. Eventually a player that needs to be nurtured and coached in a special way will make it under most coaches. Most of the time though these are high draft picks/recruits that clubs have paid high amounts for that clubs are willing to put time into because of their cost. Anything outside of the first 2 rounds I doubt would be given the time, because they are simply not good enough, and not worth the investment. Then they are eventually delisted and that's it. Game over.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

For a first 22 player yes. I'd say 99% of the time that is correct. Eventually a player that needs to be nurtured and coached in a special way will make it under most coaches. Most of the time though these are high draft picks/recruits that clubs have paid high amounts for that clubs are willing to put time into because of their cost. Anything outside of the first 2 rounds I doubt would be given the time, because they are simply not good enough, and not worth the investment. Then they are eventually delisted and that's it. Game over.

What do you mean a first 22 player?

Coach X will pick a different 22 than Coach Y out of the same group of players.

 

[Heafy83]

What do you mean a first 22 player?

Coach X will pick a different 22 than Coach Y out of the same group of players.

A player who is good enough to play first 22 consistently. This does not vary much from coach to coach but over time there will be changes of course as new better talent is filtered in.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

A player who is good enough to play first 22 consistently. This does not vary much from coach to coach but over time there will be changes of course as new better talent is filtered in.

I'm not really following your argument sorry.

Surely you understand that coaches rate players differently?

There's no universally agreed upon 'best 22' standard.

 

[dogs105]

I'm not really following your argument sorry.

Surely you understand that coaches rate players differently?

There's no universally agreed upon 'best 22' standard.

Only about 12 are agreed as best 22

 

[Heafy83]

I'm not really following your argument sorry.

Surely you understand that coaches rate players differently?

There's no universally agreed upon 'best 22' standard.

No there's not but there is def a core group of players who are best 22 under most coaches. As in any coach could walk into the club and say probably pick 15-18 players who a def starting 22 in a 100% healthy list. From there there are fringe players, say another 12 fighting for 4 spots in that 22. You could swap in and out between them and not make too much difference to the quality of that 22 that plays each week. Then the rest are at this point in time not up to it.

Now as we all know the list is rarely 100% healthy. Also players can jump between brackets up and down. CEY for example, when fit, was in that bracket of 12 players fighting for that last 4 spots in the side. He was never going to be any better than that and definitely never a core 22 player. We know this because he had spent 5 years on our list starting as a pick 100+ in the draft and couldn't cement a spot. Laird as another example started at a 100+ draft pick but quickly proved either this was either wrong, he matured late or needed to be nurtured. He was given a shot, took it and was proven good enough.

CEY was given ample amounts opportunity and lot of investment. Sadly things wont go his way and he likely to be delisted never to play an AFL game again.

Basically what I am saying is if you are good enough you will make it in the AFL system. Regardless of a 'boys club' nature or not. Our record shows players we delist and who do not make it 99.99% of time thats it. They don't enter the system again. Meaning despite what people think on an internet forum they are not AFL standard.

 

[Crow Envy]

Players that are not given the opportunity are not up to it. Simple

Its EXTREMELY rare a player gets through the cracks. Usually if they don't get first 22 games or very few and eventually delisted then thats it. Career is over.

Im talking at all AFL clubs not just Crows

So how dumb are we then to give Wigg another year if he's not up to it?

I saw the other day that you don't want any more debutants and we should stick with the same best 22 irrespective of their form.

This type of thinking is short sighted. So let's assume that we cop 2 injuries to our inside mids, who comes in? Thommo who clearly is past it? Or do we then debut Wigg to play his first game in the finals?

 

[Crow Envy]

No there's not but there is def a core group of players who are best 22 under most coaches. As in any coach could walk into the club and say probably pick 15-18 players who a def starting 22 in a 100% healthy list. From there there are fringe players, say another 12 fighting for 4 spots in that 22. You could swap in and out between them and not make too much difference to the quality of that 22 that plays each week. Then the rest are at this point in time not up to it.

Now as we all know the list is rarely 100% healthy. Also players can jump between brackets up and down. CEY for example, when fit, was in that bracket of 12 players fighting for that last 4 spots in the side. He was never going to be any better than that and definitely never a core 22 player. We know this because he had spent 5 years on our list starting as a pick 100+ in the draft and couldn't cement a spot. Laird as another example started at a 100+ draft pick but quickly proved either this was either wrong, he matured late or needed to be nurtured. He was given a shot, took it and was proven good enough.

CEY was given ample amounts opportunity and lot of investment. Sadly things wont go his way and he likely to be delisted never to play an AFL game again.

Basically what I am saying is if you are good enough you will make it in the AFL system. Regardless of a 'boys club' nature or not. Our record shows players we delist and who do not make it 99.99% of time thats it. They don't enter the system again. Meaning despite what people think on an internet forum they are not AFL standard.

Things didn't go CEY way when Walshy passed away. He was getting a game under Phil and then what do you know under Campo he is banished. Doesn't that prove the point that's being made? Campo has his favourites and bad luck if you're not one of them?

 

[Mego Red]

Only about 12 are agreed as best 22

Agreed to by who?

We've had three coaches in the last five years and they've all pretty much agreed on the same group.

Coaches change, but playing groups don't change much when that happens.

 

[Heafy83]

Things didn't go CEY way when Walshy passed away. He was getting a game under Phil and then what do you know under Campo he is banished. Doesn't that prove the point that's being made? Campo has his favourites and bad luck if you're not one of them?

He was getting a game due to injuries. Sloane, Douglas, B Crouch etc all had injuries during that time.

It just happened to line up that after Walsh passed these injured players were made available again.

 

[Heafy83]

So how dumb are we then to give Wigg another year if he's not up to it?

I saw the other day that you don't want any more debutants and we should stick with the same best 22 irrespective of their form.

This type of thinking is short sighted. So let's assume that we cop 2 injuries to our inside mids, who comes in? Thommo who clearly is past it? Or do we then debut Wigg to play his first game in the finals?

Who's saying we will?

I'm also not saying every player needs to be cut/delisted after 2-3 years on the list, but their longevity in the system is limited if they don't improve. Wiggs has the potential to be first 22. Needs to work on a few things to do that but potential is there. Obviously coaches are seeing this too.

 

[Crow Envy]

He was getting a game due to injuries. Sloane, Douglas, B Crouch etc all had injuries during that time.

It just happened to line up that after Walsh passed these injured players were made available again.

Yeah it was all a coincidence

 

[Crow Envy]

Who's saying we will?

I'm also not saying every player needs to be cut/delisted after 2-3 years on the list, but their longevity in the system is limited if they don't improve. Wiggs has the potential to be first 22. Needs to work on a few things to do that but potential is there. Obviously coaches are seeing this too.

Saying we will what?

We have had Wigg on our list for 3 years, that's 3 years without ONE game. Meanwhile he's been performing well in the SANFL over this period. Meanwhile we have had senior players in ordinary form.

So what happens if we cop injuries to our inside mids or our established players hit a form slump, who are you bringing in?

 

[Redleg Crow]

That was a bit different. They were a rabble.

Whereas the Suns are...