Great Victorian Hope?

[Smyth94]

The only reason why teams win flags past or present or future is because of a top-to-bottom synergistic organization that is success-proven or success-built. The only reason why teams continue to disappoint or even suffer decades of failure is because of a top-to-bottom synergistic organization that is NOT success-proven or success-built.

It's not purely talent. Not purely coach. Not purely management. etc. It's the combined effect of all those all pulling in the same direction and the direction being an obsession to win.

Name any sport in any league in any nation on Earth. The 'Carlton/Essendons', the 'StKildas', the 'Ports', 'the Glenelgs'....they're all evidence of this. Dallas Cowboys/Pittsburgh Steelers vs Arizona Cardinals/New Orleans Saints. New York Yankees vs Chicago Red Sox. Etc. It's the same in business and in personal emotional success. Etc.

The difference between winning and losing is not talent. The world is full of unfullfilled talent. It's not anything but mental attitude at the core. When all the right minds are put together and working cohesively, the achievments follow accordingly.

A perfect quick example is Fremantle vs West Coast. The way those two organizations have been running for a decade now there's a clear distinction why WCE have succeeded and Fremantle have failed. The 'culture' lives in the club (somehow) despite changes of personnel and players over the years.

Port Adelaide in the sanfl another example.

Some teams just end up being the b1tches of other clubs over the years. They'll nab a flag here and there but ultimately the over-riding system implementations keep failing. South Sydney in RL recently versus South Sydney in RL in the 1950's. Melbourne in the 1950's versus Melbourne in the 1980's. Etc.

It cannot be denied. St Kilda, Geelong, and Melbourne are examples of that recently. Why is Cwood 'constantly' stumbling in GFs??? Across 50 years! How many different players and coaches and management??? Culture. Why is Glenelg the same?? Things like this, which are seemingly hard to explain, when you pinpoint the reason, become explainable. And it is the same reason why the opposite occurs - Port dominating the sanfl, Carlton dominating the VFL, Dallas/Pittsburgh dominating the NFL. Etc.

You can disagree with me, and that's fine. But that's why I don't think the whole "culture of success" theory is bullsh1t.

I know this is a bit "anal" but can you please use Australian spelling? I mean this is an Australian board and I seriously hate "Americanisation" therefore "organisation"

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Doggies!

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Immediate Finals Contenders

St Kilda: Have made the finals in the last three years an the core group of players is yet to peak. Many variables (Gardiner could be AA or could end up in gaol, Lyon could do a Neil Craig or a Tim Watson, could have more injuries to key players or could do a Sydney) but should make top 4. Have the talent, have a very even team (good defence, midfield and forward line) and decent resources. IMO have the biggest chance of any Victorian team in 2007, and if guys like Watts/Gilbert can cover the retirements of Gehrig/Hudghton will be a force for many years to come.

Bulldogs: Are young, improving, skilled, fast...but just not that good. Even with the return of Darcy/Williams/Murphy and the recruitment of McDougal, their KPPs aren't good enough. Harris is a liability, they have no CHB and no good KPFs. Have an excellent midfield but not to the extent of West Coast. West, Gia, Griffen, Cooney, Ray, McMahon etc will win you plenty of games, but not premierships. They REALLY struggle against more traditional setups with good key forwards. Are a big chance for top 4, but I don't think they can have an impact in finals. Won't be able to compete with Freo, St Kilda and Sydney.

Melbourne: Will be in finals for a few years to come, but like the Bulldogs; they're not that good. Have an ok defence, ok midfield and a good forward line. If they lose any of Carrol/White/Neitz they're screwed, and many of their best players (Bruce, Johnstone, Robbertson) go missing too often. Need a good run with injuries and a big season from Miller if they are to be any chance of a top 4 spot, but I still can't see them having a big impact.

Collingwood: Only there because of their yearly easy draw. Slow, aging defence, crap midfield, average ruck stocks and crap forward line. They look great against top teams when Rocca can push aside teenagers, Fraser can run loose and their midfielders can dish it out to Buckley in space, but they cannot cut t against a half decent team. No chance for top 4, may sneak into finals. Will go backwards in the next few years.

Chances in 3-4 years

Hawthorn: Great young list, lots of talent, but still incomplete and inexperienced. Need to draft a couple more quality defenders, midfielders and forwards to compliment what they've already got if they are to become a true power side. Only concern is that they might have a too "traditional" set up that is exposed by the freakish midfields. Finals in 2009.

Richmond: Are a poor man's Bulldogs. Many people predicting them to be a power side in the next couple of years but I can't see it happening. If they draft a few good KPPs then they would be a good chance for finals in 2009 but otherwise I don't think they will be able to cut it. No decent KPPs whatsoever. Truly stupid to overlook Franklin. Have a few good midfield prospects but nothing else.

Essendon: Will have to draft very, very well but they will be around the mark in a couple of years. Retirements of JJ, Hird, Fletcher, Lucas and Llyod will stop them from being a real force in the next 4 years but once their high draft picks start maturing they will be able to build a side around Watson/Stanton/Ryder/Dempsey etc. They will not make the finals if Mark Bolton gets a game.

Basket Cases

Carlton: Have crumbled to bits, but after they've replaced all the dead wood with number one draft picks they might have a chance. They do have some very talented players but they need someone to get some order at the club.

Kangaroos: Laidley's trading has set their development back 3 years so don't expect them to have any impact until 2010-2011. Probably have the least amount of young talent of any club and that's a very worryng sign when you finish 14th.

Oh yeah..I forgot Geelong. They suck too.

 

[exe ex machina]

I know this is a bit "anal" but can you please use Australian spelling? I mean this is an Australian board and I seriously hate "Americanisation" therefore "organisation"

A bit anal indeed. Lol. In good spirits here, but I'll write how I'm accustomed to. At least I try to be grammatically correct. There are far worse efforts out there, which an anal one could focus on more. Or how about play the ball and comment on the subject matter?

What is it with the English hating America/Americans/Americanizations so much?

 

[parrot]

Immediate Finals Contenders

St Kilda: Have made the finals in the last three years an the core group of players is yet to peak. Many variables (Gardiner could be AA or could end up in gaol, ....

The Saints list is aging badly now. Rely on quite a few "oldies". The Saints peaked 2 years ago, and would have won the flag if it wasn't for a few extraordinary GT coaching mishaps. Recruiting a 28 year with chronic injuries knee and soft-tissue may pay off. But most realise that the Saints window of opportunity has closed now.

 

[Bazza2332]

Best chance in order next year:

Dogs
Dees
Saints
Tiges
Hawks
Cats
Pies
Blues
Dons
Roos

 

[yulong]

I'll write how I'm accustomed to. At least I try to be grammatically correct.

Not trying to be anal, just amused.

 

[mad-saint-guy]

The Saints list is aging badly now. Rely on quite a few "oldies". The Saints peaked 2 years ago, and would have won the flag if it wasn't for a few extraordinary GT coaching mishaps. Recruiting a 28 year with chronic injuries knee and soft-tissue may pay off. But most realise that the Saints window of opportunity has closed now.

We have just 4 players over 27 in our best 22 and 10 players in our best 22 are 22 or under.

Quality Players yet to peak
Koschitzke 24
Riewoldt 24
S.Fisher 24
Birss 23
X.Clarke 23
Ball 22
Dal Santo 22
Maguire 22
Gram 22
L.Fisher 22
Montagna 22
Brooks 22
Goddard 21
R.Clarke 21
McQualter 21
Watts 21
Gilbert 20

Quality Players in their Prime
Gardiner 27
Hayes 26
Baker 26
Milne 26

Oldies
Harvey 35
Thompson 34 (not in best 22)
Gehrig 30
Hudghton 30
Hamill 29
Voss 28

Best 22
B: S.Fisher, Hudghton, L.Fisher
HB: Gram, Maguire, X.Clarke
C: Baker, Hayes, Montagna
HF: Harvey, Riewoldt, Goddard
F: Koschitzke, Gehrig, Milne

Foll: Gardiner, Ball, Dal Santo
Int: Birss, Brooks, R.Clarke, Hamill

Emg: Voss, McQualter, Schwarze

When the core group of players (Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Ball, Maguire, Dal Santo, X.Clarke, Montagna, Goddard, L.Fisher, R.Clarke, Brooks, Watts, Gilbert) are all between 25-28 is when we'll really peak. 2010 is about the time I'd expect to see them at their best.

Th oldies we'll lose over the next three years are Harvey, Gehrig, Hudghton, Hamill, Voss and Thompson. We have adequate replacements for each.

Harvey - Irreplaceable, but probably pick 9
Gehrig - Watts/Brooks/Koschitzke
Hudghton - Gilbert/Ferguson
Hamill - Ferguson/Sweeney/Gwilt/R.Clarke
Voss - Ferguson/L.Fisher/Gwilt/R.Clarke
Thompson - McQualter/Birss

 

[borgy]

briss is a dud theres no way he will make stk best 22, no pace, little skill, i cant see him making it

 

[borgy]

i would love to say the dogs, and we can we just need murphy to come back to his best, same with hahn and willams to get up and big darce to get confidence back in his knee and be out perminent FF. if they happen we should make the GF in the coming years.

if not whats not to like about the hawks. got rid of everitt which was the best move they could have done seeing he has only 1 year left in him and is on the decline, got a great list of young players, with some great old players.
i would hate to play the hawks in about 3-4 years, they will be like brisbane 3 years back, unstoppable!

 

[Smyth94]

A bit anal indeed. Lol. In good spirits here, but I'll write how I'm accustomed to. At least I try to be grammatically correct. There are far worse efforts out there, which an anal one could focus on more. Or how about play the ball and comment on the subject matter?

What is it with the English hating America/Americans/Americanizations so much?

Don't want to pick on you but I assumed you're an aussie and Australians are taught how to spell with the British dictionary - its just one of my pet hates