Strategy Incoming High Performance Manager

[jmac70]

Off the top of my head the following all had injuries with either prolonged rehab time frames or in controlled environments.

Nathan Freeman.
Ben Reid.
Ben Sinclair.
Brayden Sier.
Adam Oxley.
Tim Broomhead.
Jackson Ramsay.
Tom Langdon.
Jamie Elliott.

It cost two their career, almost a third and another two have had there’s severely impacted.

That’s before the stuff that can’t be aired publicly. Any other club you can name with a similar injury profile over the past 4 years? You understand that he was sacked for a reason, yes? Or are you suggesting he wasn’t doing poorly and the club erred?

Yes, I understand he was sacked for a reason, but I don’t think his performance was as bad as is being portrayed.

 

[Apex36]

Yes, I understand he was sacked for a reason, but I don’t think his performance was as bad as is being portrayed.

Why? Was there any single area that was improved upon while he was in charge? Strength? Endurance? There seems to be a lot of evidence that he did a poor job and none available to suggest he did particularly well in any facet of his duties.

 

[jmac70]

Why? Was there any single area that was improved upon while he was in charge? Strength? Endurance? There seems to be a lot of evidence that he did a poor job and none available to suggest he did particularly well in any facet of his duties.

I’ve no idea. Can you say though that we’ve declined in those areas? It was poor kicking that cost us a finals chance in 2017.

 

[Scodog10]

Yes, I understand he was sacked for a reason, but I don’t think his performance was as bad as is being portrayed.

Why then are you engaging in this discussion? It’s coming across as you arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence simply to argue. The least you could do is provide evidence to support your counter opinion. It’s these exact discussions that make this place that much more unbearable on top of the other inconsistencies...

 

[jmac70]

Why then are you engaging in this discussion? It’s coming across as you arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence simply to argue. The least you could do is provide evidence to support your counter opinion. It’s these exact discussions that make this place that much more unbearable on top of the other inconsistencies...

I think you are over reacting a bit.

 

[Apex36]

I’ve no idea. Can you say though that we’ve declined in those areas? It was poor kicking that cost us a finals chance in 2017.

Strength, absolutely. Stamina? Certainly hasn’t improved despite Davoren apparently specializing in the area. Injury recovery went drastically backwards. Skills wasn’t Davorens dept so the poor kicking is irrelevant.

 

[jmac70]

Strength, absolutely. Stamina? Certainly hasn’t improved despite Davoren apparently specializing in the area. Injury recovery went drastically backwards. Skills wasn’t Davorens dept so the poor kicking is irrelevant.

He’s been let go so it’s fair to say he wasn’t setting the world on fire. I just find it hard to believe in the view he was incompetent. Little point me continuing the discussion, as I’m apparently bringing down the mood of the board.
Hopefully the new guy does a better job.

 

[Gone Critical]

He’s been let go so it’s fair to say he wasn’t setting the world on fire. I just find it hard to believe in the view he was incompetent. Little point me continuing the discussion, as I’m apparently bringing down the mood of the board.
Hopefully the new guy does a better job.

You are absolutely 100% correct here jmac.

First thing to understand how to assess Davorens performance is to understand what we don't know. If you don't know what you don't know you will be condemned to draw conclusions based suspect evidence. His reputation gets trashed in these threads where evidence to draw such absolute conclusions doesn't exist.

Your approach is right for mine. Accept it was decided by the club they were better going forward with a new appointment and he wasn't achieving what we wanted even if it may not have been completely in his control.

Anyone who understands quality of evidence would understand that any conclusion in this area, even usually by the club, has to be qualified and that absolute statements should be avoided.

 

[Gone Critical]

I could succinct it by saying

You won't draw back and white answers when you understand the evidence is grey.

 

[jmac70]

You are absolutely 100% correct here jmac.

First thing to understand how to assess Davorens performance is to understand what we don't know. If you don't know what you don't know you will be condemned to draw conclusions based suspect evidence. His reputation gets trashed in these threads where evidence to draw such absolute conclusions doesn't exist.

Your approach is right for mine. Accept it was decided by the club they were better going forward with a new appointment and he wasn't achieving what we wanted even if it may not have been completely in his control.

Anyone who understands quality of evidence would understand that any conclusion in this area, even usually by the club, has to be qualified and that absolute statements should be avoided.

Thanks GC.
I reckon good old fashioned bad luck has also played a part in some player injuries and recovery times during Davoren’s time at the club.

 

[TKiL]

.......Anyone who understands quality of evidence would understand that any conclusion in this area, even usually by the club, has to be qualified and that absolute statements should be avoided.

Good point and good luck revolutionising this site

 

[Gone Critical]

Thanks GC.
I reckon good old fashioned bad luck has also played a part in some player injuries and recovery times during Davoren’s time at the club.

No doubt

 

[Justlokan]

Reading the article, he served under Buttifant and Davoren?

Not sure how I feel about that. It can be good or bad. Maybe he gleans the good stuff and infuses his own philosophies? Or maybe he continues the bad practices. Who knows.

Fingers crossed.

Have no problem with that - at least there won't be a "getting to know you" phase for KW as he should be familiar with all the current players.
There seems to be a broader focus on continuity (as evidenced with our inactivity during the trade period and keeping Bucks) throughout the club which I like.

 

[Justlokan]

He’s been let go so it’s fair to say he wasn’t setting the world on fire. I just find it hard to believe in the view he was incompetent. Little point me continuing the discussion, as I’m apparently bringing down the mood of the board.
Hopefully the new guy does a better job.

You are absolutely 100% correct here jmac.

First thing to understand how to assess Davorens performance is to understand what we don't know. If you don't know what you don't know you will be condemned to draw conclusions based suspect evidence. His reputation gets trashed in these threads where evidence to draw such absolute conclusions doesn't exist.

Your approach is right for mine. Accept it was decided by the club they were better going forward with a new appointment and he wasn't achieving what we wanted even if it may not have been completely in his control.

Anyone who understands quality of evidence would understand that any conclusion in this area, even usually by the club, has to be qualified and that absolute statements should be avoided.

Politely disagree. As Apex36 and others have mentioned, our standards in terms of strength and stamina have dropped. And while not blaming Davs for the poor kicking skills, there is correlation between stamina/strength and the ability to execute skills (and I exclude those with flawed techniques like Cloke and Sinclair from this discussion).
Yes, none of us may be experts in the field of sports science but supporters can clearly see what's happening on the field. And our inability to hold on after building leads (eg QB v Melb, drawn match V Adel) must be related to our declining stamina and strength.

And to be fair, I don't think people are solely trashing Bill's reputation - but his results are clearly poor. Yes he's not solely to blame for our woes but he's played his part so I'm happy to see the back of him.

 

[Quicky]

You are absolutely 100% correct here jmac.

First thing to understand how to assess Davorens performance is to understand what we don't know. If you don't know what you don't know you will be condemned to draw conclusions based suspect evidence. His reputation gets trashed in these threads where evidence to draw such absolute conclusions doesn't exist.

Your approach is right for mine. Accept it was decided by the club they were better going forward with a new appointment and he wasn't achieving what we wanted even if it may not have been completely in his control.

Anyone who understands quality of evidence would understand that any conclusion in this area, even usually by the club, has to be qualified and that absolute statements should be avoided.

Would you expect so many injuries in controlled environments?

I know you question the grey in this, which is fair, but I think a few have details of some of these injuries from club connections.

 

[jmac70]

Would you expect so many injuries in controlled environments?

I know you question the grey in this, which is fair, but I think a few have details of some of these injuries from club connections.

Problem is that they won’t divulge any detail. We are expected to accept their view without actual evidence.

 

[Gone Critical]

Politely disagree. As Apex36 and others have mentioned, our standards in terms of strength and stamina have dropped. And while not blaming Davs for the poor kicking skills, there is correlation between stamina/strength and the ability to execute skills (and I exclude those with flawed techniques like Cloke and Sinclair from this discussion).
Yes, none of us may be experts in the field of sports science but supporters can clearly see what's happening on the field. And our inability to hold on after building leads (eg QB v Melb, drawn match V Adel) must be related to our declining stamina and strength.

And to be fair, I don't think people are solely trashing Bill's reputation - but his results are clearly poor. Yes he's not solely to blame for our woes but he's played his part so I'm happy to see the back of him.

We are probably not far off agreement really. My difference is I see assessing our strength and stamina from our on field performance is weak evidence. You have no solid start points or end points to reach conclusions and no accurate measures. That's just a start, there are so many variables other than Davoren involved it's very hard to tease out his role here. As long as you realise the conclusions you draw are every chance of being wrong also because we don't have an accurate measure we are on the same page.

I don't mind the opinion or conclusion you have I just see the weakness of the evidence also.

 

[Gone Critical]

Would you expect so many injuries in controlled environments?

I know you question the grey in this, which is fair, but I think a few have details of some of these injuries from club connections.

I would expect some injuries in a controlled elite sports environment. How many is too many I have no idea. Do I have concerns re our injury rate in recent seasons? Yes but would immediately qualify it by saying this is a hunch and I have no expertise or good evidence to back my concern. Truth is despite my concerns I really have no idea whether Collingwood are leading edge or back of the field in this area. Truth also is that Collingwood wouldn't have any good quality evidence to answer these questions with any certainty themselves. It's not a matter of the club not divulging the evidence won't exist.

By its nature management of much of conditioning, injury management etc is an on the run everchanging feast which for that reason can never be truly assessed with great accuracy. Results and success will keep you going but is wise to understand that any evidence used here has inherent flaws.

 

[Justlokan]

We are probably not far off agreement really. My difference is I see assessing our strength and stamina from our on field performance is weak evidence. You have no solid start points or end points to reach conclusions and no accurate measures. That's just a start, there are so many variables other than Davoren involved it's very hard to tease out his role here. As long as you realise the conclusions you draw are every chance of being wrong also because we don't have an accurate measure we are on the same page.

I don't mind the opinion or conclusion you have I just see the weakness of the evidence also.

Fair enough - but i see what I see and the one conclusive stat I can quote is the number of finals appearances we've made in the last few years.
I accept I have no "solid start points" (none of us do) but in my opinion Davoren is only one of a series of dysfunctional puzzle pieces - the others being gameplan/coaching panel and list management, which I'm pleased to see steps being taken.

Like I said, I'm not attacking Bill personally and am not laying all the blame on him - I just don't see him being up to his job.

 

[sr36]

Why then are you engaging in this discussion? It’s coming across as you arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence simply to argue. The least you could do is provide evidence to support your counter opinion. It’s these exact discussions that make this place that much more unbearable on top of the other inconsistencies...

I'd suggest that what you are calling overwhelming evidence others would call anecdotes and hunches. JMacs original point was just because he didn't succeed, it doesn't mean that everything he did was crap and that nothing could be learned from him.
FWIW, my hunch is that overall he was crap. Blokes who weren't fit enough for full training doing nothing other than continually running laps, is ridiculously unprogressive.

 

[TKiL]

Fair enough - but i see what I see and the one conclusive stat I can quote is the number of finals appearances we've made in the last few years......Davoren is only one of a series of 1. dysfunctional puzzle pieces - the others being 2. gameplan/coaching panel and list management, 3. which I'm pleased to see steps being taken.......

1. If we have "dysfunctional puzzle pieces", (and we proably have had), it's going to be difficult for anyone - inside / outside the club to unravel, get to "solid start points", obtain reliable evidence etc. Snippets of info / gossip from "club sources" whilst they may be titillating, don't rate as evidence.

2. So many inter-connected variables in a football club. I'm coming around to the view that Buckley has been operating in a well ... a shitty environment, so it's hard to assess his coaching ability per se

3. Agree - signs are club has taken positive steps to remediate its lack lustre on field performance of recent years

 

[Quicky]

I would expect some injuries in a controlled elite sports environment. How many is too many I have no idea. Do I have concerns re our injury rate in recent seasons? Yes but would immediately qualify it by saying this is a hunch and I have no expertise or good evidence to back my concern. Truth is despite my concerns I really have no idea whether Collingwood are leading edge or back of the field in this area. Truth also is that Collingwood wouldn't have any good quality evidence to answer these questions with any certainty themselves. It's not a matter of the club not divulging the evidence won't exist.

By its nature management of much of conditioning, injury management etc is an on the run everchanging feast which for that reason can never be truly assessed with great accuracy. Results and success will keep you going but is wise to understand that any evidence used here has inherent flaws.

It seems to me we need someone that is able to assess these things separate from the strength and conditioning unit. 76woodenspooners mentioned the qualifications of a board member with comparable expertise?

Another point, I think sport science is becoming less of a crap-shoot. I don't think we should be accepting it as an on the run everchanging feast. You look at the world leaders in this field like the Pheonix Suns and they don't operate that way. There is a big emphasis on injury screening and modification of training programs to correct issues before they occur. I'd love to know what we're doing in this area? But currently it appears very little. Which if true would mean we're behind the best.

 

[Gone Critical]

Fair enough - but i see what I see and the one conclusive stat I can quote is the number of finals appearances we've made in the last few years.
I accept I have no "solid start points" (none of us do) but in my opinion Davoren is only one of a series of dysfunctional puzzle pieces - the others being gameplan/coaching panel and list management, which I'm pleased to see steps being taken.

Like I said, I'm not attacking Bill personally and am not laying all the blame on him - I just don't see him being up to his job.

Pretty much puts us in full agreeable. Glad he is gone but understand our ability to assess what we suspect isn't very strong. Really essentially what JMac was originally asserting

 

[Gone Critical]

It seems to me we need someone that is able to assess these things separate from the strength and conditioning unit. 76woodenspooners mentioned the qualifications of a board member with comparable expertise?

Another point, I think sport science is becoming less of a crap-shoot. I don't think we should be accepting it as an on the run everchanging feast. You look at the world leaders in this field like the Pheonix Suns and they don't operate that way. There is a big emphasis on injury screening and modification of training programs to correct issues before they occur. I'd love to know what we're doing in this area? But currently it appears very little. Which if true would mean we're behind the best.

As much as Jack Kennedy would love 76woodenspooners idea and be in full agreement with it he would still be hamstrung by the quality of the evidence. It will always be flawed in a sporting club environment. As long as you recognise that is the real issue.

I am getting too pedantic sorry but even the best sports programs are beset by this problem. There is no way around it because sports organisations are always by there nature an on the run ever changing feast. It's the basis of the saying if you are standing still you are going backwards. In that environment there can never be time to properly assess the evidence. All you really need to do is understand that to be true.

Even in the medical world where we can be conservative and considered and only take on new measures when they are fully evaluated good quality evidence is extremely hard to produce. Massive amounts of time and money is put into trying to achieve this with mixed success. Look at the Cochrane data base to understand this. In a sports environment it's just not possible.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Had a guess it was going to be Dugina, but happy with White........... so long as he doesn't micro manage and that takes away from other training like skills, strategy etc. However even that would be better than Davoren "one size fits all" training loads