Our development program

[PicaBoo]

Injuries are not exactly part of the Program.

Hawks have had lot better luck with Injuries then us Recently. That would help the older players

I can see Treloar going past Swan quite Quickly

Let's see Treloar first recover from his injury and play for a few months.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Also provides insight into why the club was perpetually frustrated with Karnezis. Performance aside, he might not have been the type who was comfortable with a tightly structured program. It doesn't suit everyone. Probably wouldn't have worked with Swanny in his early years either, if at all!

Good point - what happens to players like Karnezis (or Aish, Adams, Treloar, etc) who have spent their early years in another clubs' program (or lack of program). How do they catch up?

 

[76woodenspooners]

The lack of a structured plan for seasons after season four along these lines may also account for the relative stagnation after four years in our program, and that slowed and in many cases stop in individual growth.

A good objective for the post four year players would be to work on developing leadership skills outside the club, becoming leaders in greater society.

That could take many different forms - working with disadvantaged, running school clinics, setting up a foundation, joining a chamber of commerce, etc, etc ...

 

[Anzacday]

Funny how a positive article like this can only muster 2 pages of supportive response from the BF faithful but if a sleazy journo sets a barb about "Bucks tenure" or "Swanny's latest blooper" or a "Freeman" type leaving the club and we go into meltdown. Sorta shows me why lots of people get on here!

Loved the article btw Emma....its always nice to get a closer look inside a club than traditional journalism ever looks.

Not to mention dick pics!!

 

[Vicky Park]

Before Christmas, the new players are taught the fundamentals of the game plan...They can study more of it with their coach, watching vision or using an app the club has developed, but they are generally taught the more intricate parts of it in game simulation sessions, by the other players:

I missed this the first time around. The club has developed an app which the players use to study the game plan? Quite a few on here would like to see that!!

 

[76woodenspooners]

I missed this the first time around. The club has developed an app which the players use to study the game plan? Quite a few on here would like to see that!!

Yeah, I managed to get my hands on that gameplan app ...

Spoiler: Confidential Collingwood IP, go away if you're not a Collingwood supporter

 

[JB1975]

Also provides insight into why the club was perpetually frustrated with Karnezis. Performance aside, he might not have been the type who was comfortable with a tightly structured program. It doesn't suit everyone. Probably wouldn't have worked with Swanny in his early years either, if at all!

Also begs the question - what happens when a really good footballer doesn't thrive under such a structure, and is forced to conform. Do they go? Did that happen with Beamer? Is the program flexible enough to cope? The article does emphasise that each player has a tailored program, to suit their personality, level of maturity, etc.

I have these sorts of questions, too. As other posters have pointed out, many elements in the article are quite generic and would be replicated across the competition. But the rigidity of the structure might be more variable, and the way in which Collingwood demands that younger players begin to drive the standards after four years in the system seems quite particular.

My sense of team chemistry is that it is not (unlike chemistry) a science, and that it shouldn't be reduced to a set of 'one size fits all' principles. The article suggests that allowances are made according to the maturity and temperament of each footballer, but I have to wonder whether such an environment might not actually distract players from focusing on what they do best, or whether it might prevent them from getting the best out of themselves in their own way.

I'm especially curious about how much and in what ways this development program would influence our recruitment strategies. Footballers are a diverse bunch, and I think that some of the great teams of the past have actually thrived on such diversity, but it would seem that the demands of the game (and perhaps the more particular demands of the club's development program) are 'flattening' the profile of lists. Dane Swan is an interesting example. Would we have recruited him under present conditions? Even though the system evidently makes allowances for him now, would he have thrived in his own idiosyncratic and understated way within the confines of such a program?

My thoughts on this are a bit convoluted (but perhaps no more convoluted than most theories of team management and psychology). I don't have a full picture of what's actually going on at our club, let alone at each club across the comp. This makes it awfully hard to assess our approach. But fragments I've heard elsewhere and Emma's article depict a bit of a straitjacket, above and beyond the rigours of modern football, and it leaves me to guess at what the implications of it might be.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Emma Quayle does great work, great on draft stuff, junior footy etc.
By far, for me, a better journalist than C Wilson.

Great work Emma

 

[Pie eyed]

There's a terrific article by Emma Quayle in The Age today about our development program. Also provides insight into Davoren and what he does. Its so good and insightful, it deserves a thread of its own.

Its titled 'How to build an AFL footballer', and starts with this:

'It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes a team of people to turn a teenage draftee into a fully formed AFL footballer. "It's collaborative," says Bill Davoren, Collingwood's high-performance manager: there's the coaches, the welfare manager, the doctor, the physios, the nutritionist and the rest.

"There's no one person in this building saying, this is the definitive pathway for this particular player. It's discussed, negotiated. It fluctuates. It's never done independently," Davoren said.'

See more here.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-to-build-an-afl-footballer-20160229-gn66qg.html

Quayle is fast becoming a very good football journalist.
Streets ahead of horse face and her grandstanding gibberish and endless self promotion.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Emma Quayle does great work, great on draft stuff, junior footy etc.
By far, for me, a better journalist than C Wilson.

Great work Emma

I think she would be great on TV too, no bullshit just reports the story and digs deeper than almost anyone

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think she would be great on TV too, no bullshit just reports the story and digs deeper than almost anyone

And knows her stuff

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I have these sorts of questions, too. As other posters have pointed out, many elements in the article are quite generic and would be replicated across the competition. But the rigidity of the structure might be more variable, and the way in which Collingwood demands that younger players begin to drive the standards after four years in the system seems quite particular.

My sense of team chemistry is that it is not (unlike chemistry) a science, and that it shouldn't be reduced to a set of 'one size fits all' principles. The article suggests that allowances are made according to the maturity and temperament of each footballer, but I have to wonder whether such an environment might not actually distract players from focusing on what they do best, or whether it might prevent them from getting the best out of themselves in their own way.

I'm especially curious about how much and in what ways this development program would influence our recruitment strategies. Footballers are a diverse bunch, and I think that some of the great teams of the past have actually thrived on such diversity, but it would seem that the demands of the game (and perhaps the more particular demands of the club's development program) are 'flattening' the profile of lists. Dane Swan is an interesting example. Would we have recruited him under present conditions? Even though the system evidently makes allowances for him now, would he have thrived in his own idiosyncratic and understated way within the confines of such a program?

My thoughts on this are a bit convoluted (but perhaps no more convoluted than most theories of team management and psychology). I don't have a full picture of what's actually going on at our club, let alone at each club across the comp. This makes it awfully hard to assess our approach. But fragments I've heard elsewhere and Emma's article depict a bit of a straitjacket, above and beyond the rigours of modern football, and it leaves me to guess at what the implications of it might be.

The difficulty for any group of say 46 players, say ten coaching staff, other club people is keeping the whole show on the road.
With any group of people it's almost impossible to keep everyone on the same page let alone happy enough.

So we have a team called Collingwood. Aim to win football matches.
Imagine if you will everyone can do what they like, no real conformity, all individual programs, all individual allowances....

Game day? How do they function as a co ordinated team?
Doesn't happen as there must be some level of conformity and team discipline, direction etc overall in team life before games. Stands to reason.

Conflicted players? Especially the non elite, Often the door is shown to them, the other side.
In other words you not happy at the direction etc, please see the other side of the door, oh and how does that work out for you.

 

[JB1975]

The difficulty for any group of say 46 players, say ten coaching staff, other club people is keeping the whole show on the road.
With any group of people it's almost impossible to keep everyone on the same page let alone happy enough.

So we have a team called Collingwood. Aim to win football matches.
Imagine if you will everyone can do what they like, no real conformity, all individual programs, all individual allowances....

Game day? How do they function as a co ordinated team?
Doesn't happen as there must be some level of conformity and tram direction overall in life before games.

I wasn't advocating chaos in my post. That should be pretty clear.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I wasn't advocating chaos in my post. That should be pretty clear.

No you weren't
I was just taking an extension of allowing individuals to go off the farm so to speak.
Your post was more a springboard so to speak, was thought provoking.

 

[JB1975]

No you weren't
I was just taking an extension of allowing individuals to go off the farm so to speak.
Your post was more a springboard so to speak, was thought provoking.

Thanks SV. Sorry, Sunday morning...still clearing some cobwebs from my head.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Thanks SV. Sorry, Sunday morning...still clearing some cobwebs from my head.

Me too!

 

[Justlokan]

I
I'm especially curious about how much and in what ways this development program would influence our recruitment strategies. Footballers are a diverse bunch, and I think that some of the great teams of the past have actually thrived on such diversity, but it would seem that the demands of the game (and perhaps the more particular demands of the club's development program) are 'flattening' the profile of lists. Dane Swan is an interesting example. Would we have recruited him under present conditions? Even though the system evidently makes allowances for him now, would he have thrived in his own idiosyncratic and understated way within the confines of such a program?

Recruitment will still be based on long standing principles:

• Can the kid play?
• Can the kid add to our list? does he meet our needs
• Is he a good citizen? (he doesn't necessarily have to be a leader)
• Is he resilient?

Having been through Leading Teams in a corporate scenario, I don't think there's any issue with lack of diversity, as one of the key messages is to encourage team members to challenge the status quo with the unique knowledge and perspective you bring.

And to answer the Dane Swan question, it's clear that he continues to do well under the "confines" of the program (age and natural decline notwithstanding). If his "fit" was going to be an issue he surely would've left by now. For others like Heater and Beams it was probably more a case that they didn't get along with Bucks rather than the system.

 

[JB1975]

Recruitment will still be based on long standing principles:

• Can the kid play?
• Can the kid add to our list? does he meet our needs
• Is he a good citizen? (he doesn't necessarily have to be a leader)
• Is he resilient?

Having been through Leading Teams in a corporate scenario, I don't think there's any issue with lack of diversity, as one of the key messages is to encourage team members to challenge the status quo with the unique knowledge and perspective you bring.

And to answer the Dane Swan question, it's clear that he continues to do well under the "confines" of the program (age and natural decline notwithstanding). If his "fit" was going to be an issue he surely would've left by now. For others like Heater and Beams it was probably more a case that they didn't get along with Bucks rather than the system.

I appreciate your insights. I admit that the apparent suitability of Leading Teams to a corporate environment makes me question its fitness for a football club. But I suppose that so long as the club remains a (cohesive) patchwork of different personalities and strengths, then the LT framework might well be a positive thing.

To be honest, I suspect that my reservations are as much about modern football itself more than Leading Teams, and the sense/fear that the demands of the game are sanitising it too much. Dane Swan does indeed have a place in the system, but the fact the he's regarded as a rather unique 'character' of the game is quite telling.

The bolded bit interests me. Whether someone's going for a job or looking to be drafted, being a 'good citizen' is important. In a football context, what does it mean? Matt Rendell got in trouble a few years ago at Adelaide for suggesting that clubs were veering away from Indigenous players, because they were considered a higher 'risk'. I think that the calculation of risk has changed quite dramatically over the past 10-15 years, and it might be wondered what other sorts of backgrounds are considered in these calculations.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I appreciate your insights. I admit that the apparent suitability of Leading Teams to a corporate environment makes me question its fitness for a football club. But I suppose that so long as the club remains a (cohesive) patchwork of different personalities and strengths, then the LT framework might well be a positive thing.

To be honest, I suspect that my reservations are as much about modern football itself more than Leading Teams, and the sense/fear that the demands of the game are sanitising it too much. Dane Swan does indeed have a place in the system, but the fact the he's regarded as a rather unique 'character' of the game is quite telling.

The bolded bit interests me. Whether someone's going for a job or looking to be drafted, being a 'good citizen' is important. In a football context, what does it mean? Matt Rendell got in trouble a few years ago at Adelaide for suggesting that clubs were veering away from Indigenous players, because they were considered a higher 'risk'. I think that the calculation of risk has changed quite dramatically over the past 10-15 years, and it might be wondered what other sorts of backgrounds are considered in these calculations.

How would implementing Leading Teams prevent players like Swan from being recruited?

 

[JB1975]

How would implementing Leading Teams prevent players like Swan from being recruited?

I made it quite clear that I don't know enough about the operation and practice of LT to make such an assessment, and the part of my quite which you've bolded does not make that link.

 

[JB1975]

I made it quite clear that I don't know enough about the operation and practice of LT to make such an assessment, and the part of my quite which you've bolded does not make that link.

Mistake: You didn't do the bolding, I did. My point remains the same, though.

 

[Quicky]

I have these sorts of questions, too. As other posters have pointed out, many elements in the article are quite generic and would be replicated across the competition. But the rigidity of the structure might be more variable, and the way in which Collingwood demands that younger players begin to drive the standards after four years in the system seems quite particular.

My sense of team chemistry is that it is not (unlike chemistry) a science, and that it shouldn't be reduced to a set of 'one size fits all' principles. The article suggests that allowances are made according to the maturity and temperament of each footballer, but I have to wonder whether such an environment might not actually distract players from focusing on what they do best, or whether it might prevent them from getting the best out of themselves in their own way.

I'm especially curious about how much and in what ways this development program would influence our recruitment strategies. Footballers are a diverse bunch, and I think that some of the great teams of the past have actually thrived on such diversity, but it would seem that the demands of the game (and perhaps the more particular demands of the club's development program) are 'flattening' the profile of lists. Dane Swan is an interesting example. Would we have recruited him under present conditions? Even though the system evidently makes allowances for him now, would he have thrived in his own idiosyncratic and understated way within the confines of such a program?

My thoughts on this are a bit convoluted (but perhaps no more convoluted than most theories of team management and psychology). I don't have a full picture of what's actually going on at our club, let alone at each club across the comp. This makes it awfully hard to assess our approach. But fragments I've heard elsewhere and Emma's article depict a bit of a straitjacket, above and beyond the rigours of modern football, and it leaves me to guess at what the implications of it might be.

This is a really interesting observation. I wonder how personal expression lives within this system? How do our 'looser' characters go within it? Or does it weed them out? Is that to our benefit or detriment as a club? I think you want standards but you don't want it to stifle or crush people. I would love to hear from the club about how they balance this, because I think it would be a balancing act.

 

[JB1975]

This is a really interesting observation. I wonder how personal expression lives within this system? How do our 'looser' characters go within it? Or does it weed them out? Is that to our benefit or detriment as a club? I think you want standards but you don't want it to stifle or crush people. I would love to hear from the club about how they balance this, because I think it would be a balancing act.

Yep, I've got more questions than answers, but the issues are interesting ones.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Mistake: You didn't do the bolding, I did. My point remains the same, though.

OK I understand, these may assist you
http://www.leadingteams.net.au/
https://hbr.org/topic/leading-teams

 

[Justlokan]

I admit that the apparent suitability of Leading Teams to a corporate environment makes me question its fitness for a football club.

My own view is that Leading Teams is less suitable for the corporate environment than sports clubs. Too simplistic and doesn't account for the fact that corporate employees are motivated by a diverse range of reasons, not a singular focus on winning a flag

The bolded bit interests me. Whether someone's going for a job or looking to be drafted, being a 'good citizen' is important. In a football context, what does it mean? Matt Rendell got in trouble a few years ago at Adelaide for suggesting that clubs were veering away from Indigenous players, because they were considered a higher 'risk'. I think that the calculation of risk has changed quite dramatically over the past 10-15 years, and it might be wondered what other sorts of backgrounds are considered in these calculations.

Totally agree with this - drugs, social media and greater dependence on sponsorship have made it more likely that clubs will prefer to avoid players who come from troubled backgrounds (Dayle Garlett)
I don't know what the answer is although it helps to have a strong player group etc. Although in the case of Garlett that didn't help either