Roast Player development

[Scodog10]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/player-claim-for-2018-brayden-sier.1181813/

I read the article posted in the above thread bump and it got me thinking about where our club sits in terms of development. I’ve been a critic for the better part of three years, but I’ve only been looking at the symptoms, guys just not coming on. Now though I believe I’ve found a trigger point and it has to be discussed, IMO.

Only 2 and a bit years ago we took Sier as our first selection in the draft and it was only towards the end of his second season that he was put under the microscope for his professionalism. What exactly were the development coaches doing to allow a guy to have a “less than professional attitude” after 18 months in the system? Why were they not working on that with him sooner? If they were working on it with him what on earth were they doing if all it took was a chat with the senior coach for him to turn the corner? That’s not the coaches role and if this is happening on a regular basis (a chat with Aish has apparently had a similar impact) no wonder he’s failed with such poor support. The first question I’d also be asking of the development coaches as senior coach is why it took so long for this to be rectified? As fans should we be accepting that time frame? Where’s the process management?

I’m trying not to make this about Sier because everyone matures at a different rate. This is more about what the club is doing to cater for those different rates of maturity. If it’s happening with Sier who’s to say it isn’t happening with others on the fringe like Kirby or Broomhead? It also doesn’t absolve Buckley totally of blame because he should be identifying these issues with his coaching group and working with Walsh to clear out the dead wood within that group if they don’t have the skills to handle them. It’s poor leadership from top down, IMO.

When I, and others, have banged on about our terrible development this is the reason. We almost lost a guy to the system simply because the development coaching group couldn’t make any inroads with a sub par attitude. Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? Winners find solutions and losers find excuses! We’ve been losers for too long

FWIW don’t get me started on the shit quality of the journalism. If they were even halfway decent these days they’d have asked those questions themselves to create an actual debate.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The only assumption I’d somewhat query is: why after 18 months are they now questioning his professionalism?

We just don’t know how often and when he has been spoken to and encouraged.

We don’t know the steps taken or not. We just don’t know.

Whilst I agree development is vital the various progress reports should be happening feedback on all aspects given, notwithstanding we don’t know all that happens.

What we do know is development could be improved.

And to me the bigger concern is why do most of our players (most) reach an age of about 30 and fall off the cliff so to speak.

 

[Bored_Pie]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/player-claim-for-2018-brayden-sier.1181813/

I read the article posted in the above thread bump and it got me thinking about where our club sits in terms of development. I’ve been a critic for the better part of three years, but I’ve only been looking at the symptoms, guys just not coming on. Now though I believe I’ve found a trigger point and it has to be discussed, IMO.

Only 2 and a bit years ago we took Sier as our first selection in the draft and it was only towards the end of his second season that he was put under the microscope for his professionalism. What exactly were the development coaches doing to allow a guy to have a “less than professional attitude” after 18 months in the system? Why were they not working on that with him sooner? If they were working on it with him what on earth were they doing if all it took was a chat with the senior coach for him to turn the corner? That’s not the coaches role and if this is happening on a regular basis (a chat with Aish has apparently had a similar impact) no wonder he’s failed with such poor support. The first question I’d also be asking of the development coaches as senior coach is why it took so long for this to be rectified? As fans should we be accepting that time frame? Where’s the process management?

I’m trying not to make this about Sier because everyone matures at a different rate. This is more about what the club is doing to cater for those different rates of maturity. If it’s happening with Sier who’s to say it isn’t happening with others on the fringe like Kirby or Broomhead? It also doesn’t absolve Buckley totally of blame because he should be identifying these issues with his coaching group and working with Walsh to clear out the dead wood within that group if they don’t have the skills to handle them. It’s poor leadership from top down, IMO.

When I, and others, have banged on about our terrible development this is the reason. We almost lost a guy to the system simply because the development coaching group couldn’t make any inroads with a sub par attitude. Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? Winners find solutions and losers find excuses! We’ve been losers for too long

FWIW don’t get me started on the shit quality of the journalism. If they were even halfway decent these days they’d have asked those questions themselves to create an actual debate.

How do you know they weren't already chating with Sier about his "less than professional attitude" prior to the end of the season?
Yes it seems we could be better at development but seriously, we don't know what happens at the club with these things. Injuries also can stall players and it's happened to Broomhead and others.

 

[Scodog10]

How do you know they weren't already chating with Sier about his "less than professional attitude" prior to the end of the season?
Yes it seems we could be better at development but seriously, we don't know what happens at the club with these things. Injuries also can stall players and it's happened to Broomhead and others.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/player-claim-for-2018-brayden-sier.1181813/

I read the article posted in the above thread bump and it got me thinking about where our club sits in terms of development. I’ve been a critic for the better part of three years, but I’ve only been looking at the symptoms, guys just not coming on. Now though I believe I’ve found a trigger point and it has to be discussed, IMO.

Only 2 and a bit years ago we took Sier as our first selection in the draft and it was only towards the end of his second season that he was put under the microscope for his professionalism. What exactly were the development coaches doing to allow a guy to have a “less than professional attitude” after 18 months in the system? Why were they not working on that with him sooner? If they were working on it with him what on earth were they doing if all it took was a chat with the senior coach for him to turn the corner? That’s not the coaches role and if this is happening on a regular basis (a chat with Aish has apparently had a similar impact) no wonder he’s failed with such poor support. The first question I’d also be asking of the development coaches as senior coach is why it took so long for this to be rectified? As fans should we be accepting that time frame? Where’s the process management?

I’m trying not to make this about Sier because everyone matures at a different rate. This is more about what the club is doing to cater for those different rates of maturity. If it’s happening with Sier who’s to say it isn’t happening with others on the fringe like Kirby or Broomhead? It also doesn’t absolve Buckley totally of blame because he should be identifying these issues with his coaching group and working with Walsh to clear out the dead wood within that group if they don’t have the skills to handle them. It’s poor leadership from top down, IMO.

When I, and others, have banged on about our terrible development this is the reason. We almost lost a guy to the system simply because the development coaching group couldn’t make any inroads with a sub par attitude. Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? Winners find solutions and losers find excuses! We’ve been losers for too long

FWIW don’t get me started on the shit quality of the journalism. If they were even halfway decent these days they’d have asked those questions themselves to create an actual debate.

Broomhead’s lack of development has little to do with his injuries.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Another aspect about development that is difficult is the players that for them their playing careers are not central to their being.

We are all different, and for some players it’s nice to play AFL but it’s not their life. And that becomes a challenge.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

There is a reason why Hawthorn employs so many teachers - they are trained in how we learn and develop

We seem to employ too many nice-bloke-former-players at development level

 

[Saintly Viewed]

There is a reason why Hawthorn employs so many teachers - they are trained in how we learn and develop

We seem to employ too many nice-bloke-former players at development level

But even the teachers couldn’t teach Vickery

 

[cleomenes]

I don't really agree with the thrust of this. Peoples attitudes and professionalism are really intangible things, and for another individual to influence them is a long, slow and difficult process. Just identifying where in the individual's makeup the problem lies (once you have seen that it is indeed a problem) is too hard for most people.
After identifying the problem and its (probable) cause, you next have to communicate the nature of it to the player, and then get him to understand that it is real and at the heart of his shortcomings on the field. This takes a lot of time, and assumes that the player will actually reach this point of understanding.
Finally you have to communicate a method by which that particular player can change his situation. The success of this is heavily personality dependent, and any coach will only get through to some of his charges, while his approaches will leave others unmoved. The trick is then to find another of the staff who can get through to the player in question. You may not have that person.
The criticism of our player development process may be valid. I don't know. The evidence of a few interviews is pretty flimsy to hang wholesale criticism on.
For reference, I was a teacher, and was too many times struck by the contrast between the ease with which I got through to some students (not always the easiest ones) and my inability to make clear what was needed to others (sometimes very good students).
Some coaches are really great with most players, but nobody is great with them all. And above all, work on attitudes is very slow.

 

[Scodog10]

There is a reason why Hawthorn employs so many teachers - they are trained in how we learn and develop

We seem to employ too many nice-bloke-former-players at development level

Personally I think Hawthorn have slipped I just want to clear the air on that, but do we have any recent examples of Clarko needing to step in and have frank one on one discussions with individuals about their application? There’s been two publicly documented cases of that happening at Collingwood this off-season. That to me indicates a flaw in either the identification of the problems or implementation of the remedy.

What are we doing differently at Collingwood that it needs to get to that point? That’s what I’d like to know. How rigorous is the upward communication to relay these sore spots?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I don't really agree with the thrust of this. Peoples attitudes and professionalism are really intangible things, and for another individual to influence them is a long, slow and difficult process. Just identifying where in the individual's makeup the problem lies (once you have seen that it is indeed a problem) is too hard for most people.
After identifying the problem and its (probable) cause, you next have to communicate the nature of it to the player, and then get him to understand that it is real and at the heart of his shortcomings on the field. This takes a lot of time, and assumes that the player will actually reach this point of understanding.
Finally you have to communicate a method by which that particular player can change his situation. The success of this is heavily personality dependent, and any coach will only get through to some of his charges, while his approaches will leave others unmoved. The trick is then to find another of the staff who can get through to the player in question. You may not have that person.
The criticism of our player development process may be valid. I don't know. The evidence of a few interviews is pretty flimsy to hang wholesale criticism on.
For reference, I was a teacher, and was too many times struck by the contrast between the ease with which I got through to some students (not always the easiest ones) and my inability to make clear what was needed to others (sometimes very good students).
Some coaches are really great with most players, but nobody is great with them all. And above all, work on attitudes is very slow.

Outstanding post.

 

[CFC2010]

 

[Scodog10]

I don't really agree with the thrust of this. Peoples attitudes and professionalism are really intangible things, and for another individual to influence them is a long, slow and difficult process. Just identifying where in the individual's makeup the problem lies (once you have seen that it is indeed a problem) is too hard for most people.
After identifying the problem and its (probable) cause, you next have to communicate the nature of it to the player, and then get him to understand that it is real and at the heart of his shortcomings on the field. This takes a lot of time, and assumes that the player will actually reach this point of understanding.
Finally you have to communicate a method by which that particular player can change his situation. The success of this is heavily personality dependent, and any coach will only get through to some of his charges, while his approaches will leave others unmoved. The trick is then to find another of the staff who can get through to the player in question. You may not have that person.
The criticism of our player development process may be valid. I don't know. The evidence of a few interviews is pretty flimsy to hang wholesale criticism on.
For reference, I was a teacher, and was too many times struck by the contrast between the ease with which I got through to some students (not always the easiest ones) and my inability to make clear what was needed to others (sometimes very good students).
Some coaches are really great with most players, but nobody is great with them all. And above all, work on attitudes is very slow.

Despite all that being understandable and correct the article hints strongly that a one on one chat was the trigger of that understanding for Sier. The next logical step for me is to consider why it took 18 months to realise that? Is that par for the course? And if so can we improve that process?

I recently watched a Ted talk on fear setting and it resonated for me in this instance because the fear I have is that we lose talented individuals before they’ve had the opportunity to realise it (and he was out the door pre-chat). What are we doing to navigate that fear? Are we having enough courageous conversations?

Given our poor development and dipping results on field there is a problem so I’m not on the same page and would hope we’re continuously improving our processes.

 

[Robroy22]

Haven't there always been players who just didn't "get it" in terms of professionalism though?
Swanny and Johnno, Dids and even Daics in the early days ...some just cruise and enjoy the ride for a while. Often times injury or accident forces them to align with the program, but sometimes (Rene Kink, Phil Carman)...they just never get there.
Lots of better coaches than Buck's have had trouble reigning in the unprofessionals....even at Hawthorn!

 

[JB1975]

What are we doing differently at Collingwood that it needs to get to that point? That’s what I’d like to know. How rigorous is the upward communication to relay these hot spots?

I think that the thread is interesting and valid, but for myself I just don't feel equipped to answer the questions we're raising. The fact is that I don't know enough about the Collingwood's development pathways, and I'm not sure that any of us do, and we'd all be even more in the dark about what's going on at other clubs.

On the instances of Sier and Aish, I admit that I don't necessarily see it as a problem that such players might require the encouraging words or vague wisdoms of a head coach to spur them on. If a player --and especially a low-confidence player-- needs to be properly convinced that (a) they're not quite on the right path, and/or (b) that jumping through a certain number and type of hoops will bring them the desired results, then it makes sense that those words will be far more effective coming from the person you most need to impress.

Despite the above, I think that most professional/organisational environments can do better at identifying potential problems among their personnel, and in this I think that Walter's point about Hawthorn has merit, even if Hawthorn itself isn't travelling as well as it was. Good teachers don't just teach, they work out what it is which makes an individual want to learn, as well as bringing techniques which can help that individual to learn better. Once the individual knows how to get them best out of themselves, they are in a far better position to give their best to the team. People with a psych background could be a value for similar reasons.

 

[Scodog10]

Haven't there always been players who just didn't "get it" in terms of professionalism though?
Swanny and Johnno, Dids and even Daics in the early days ...some just cruise and enjoy the ride for a while. Often times injury or accident forces them to align with the program, but sometimes (Rene Kink, Phil Carman)...they just never get there.
Lots of better coaches than Buck's have had trouble reigning in the unprofessionals....even at Hawthorn!

Yep definitely and I touched on that in the OP. The discussion I’m attempting to generate though is more around what can/ has been done to prevent the need for a “light bulb moment” and what’s the next step in that process to ensure follow through.

Let’s say that’s exactly what was needed in this, and other instances, and ask why it took 18 months of training within that professional environment and not 6-12? What if this isn’t the moment where it turns around what are we doing if the initial burst of regeneration from that chat with Bucks doesn’t see a permanent shift? Is another chat required? If so, when?

 

[CFC2010]

Despite all that being understandable and correct the article hints strongly that a one on one chat was the trigger of that understanding for Sier. The next logical step for me is to consider why it took 18 months to realise that? Is that par for the course? And if so can we improve that process?

I recently watched a Ted talk on fear setting and it resonated for me in this instance because the fear I have is that we lose talented individuals before they’ve had the opportunity to realise it (and he was out the door pre-chat). What are we doing to navigate that fear? Are we having enough courageous conversations?

Given our poor development and dipping results on field there is a problem so I’m not on the same page and would hope we’re continuously improving our processes.

Just my opinion Sco but I don't think "Bucks get's it yet"........I know he understands what makes a coach (great) but he is not within grasp.

Leading teams was a fail at Collingwood this time around that cannot be disputed or else it would still be in place.
I know it is a team sport/enviroment but one thing Malthouse was brilliant at doing was finding out what made each individual tick.
I think Bucks learnt heaps last year about himself and more importantly about the group.

Lets all hope it translates on the field this year........its sounds like the feeling around the Club is a lot better in comparison to previous.

Great read below if anyone has not read with Bucks in 2016.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...l/news-story/e5a747b3e0ccfe7a9cb1d8a7a19d434b

 

[Jasper84]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/player-claim-for-2018-brayden-sier.1181813/

I read the article posted in the above thread bump and it got me thinking about where our club sits in terms of development. I’ve been a critic for the better part of three years, but I’ve only been looking at the symptoms, guys just not coming on. Now though I believe I’ve found a trigger point and it has to be discussed, IMO.

Only 2 and a bit years ago we took Sier as our first selection in the draft and it was only towards the end of his second season that he was put under the microscope for his professionalism. What exactly were the development coaches doing to allow a guy to have a “less than professional attitude” after 18 months in the system? Why were they not working on that with him sooner? If they were working on it with him what on earth were they doing if all it took was a chat with the senior coach for him to turn the corner? That’s not the coaches role and if this is happening on a regular basis (a chat with Aish has apparently had a similar impact) no wonder he’s failed with such poor support. The first question I’d also be asking of the development coaches as senior coach is why it took so long for this to be rectified? As fans should we be accepting that time frame? Where’s the process management?

I’m trying not to make this about Sier because everyone matures at a different rate. This is more about what the club is doing to cater for those different rates of maturity. If it’s happening with Sier who’s to say it isn’t happening with others on the fringe like Kirby or Broomhead? It also doesn’t absolve Buckley totally of blame because he should be identifying these issues with his coaching group and working with Walsh to clear out the dead wood within that group if they don’t have the skills to handle them. It’s poor leadership from top down, IMO.

When I, and others, have banged on about our terrible development this is the reason. We almost lost a guy to the system simply because the development coaching group couldn’t make any inroads with a sub par attitude. Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? Winners find solutions and losers find excuses! We’ve been losers for too long

FWIW don’t get me started on the shit quality of the journalism. If they were even halfway decent these days they’d have asked those questions themselves to create an actual debate.

Interesting points but it's a very one sided view. Sier was 17, playing school footy and reportedly living a very unprofessional lifestyle when drafted. Now 18 months later he has apparently turned a corner and got his act together via our development program. You complain that we nearly lost him. But we didn't lose him, so who gets the credit for saving his career? If anything your knock should be on us using second round picks on underdeveloped kids who have never been in a professional sporting environment.

Why are you choosing to single out Sier as a poster boy for our development and ignoring the professionalism of players taken around the same time in Moore, Maynard, Daicos, Brown and Mclarty?

Who are you roasting here? The current coaching setup or the one 2 years ago? The club has since brought on Hocking and Maxwell who are both known to be great with player development, so it looks like the club have identified a need and are setting about making changes. So what else would like done for future management or is this a complaint about the past program?

This occurs at every club (which I can list if you really want) and it's short sighted to think that only Collingwood has this problem. Even the current premiers who apparently have great culture and development, just lost a first round pick in Ben Lennon under similar circumstances. Previous premiers just lost Stringer because of his unprofessional attitude. So what happened there?

Last thing. Do you want a discussion or for people to just agree with you?

"Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? "

Because this sounds like you're trying to shutdown anyone who has a different opinion to your own.

 

[Scodog10]

I think that the thread is interesting and valid, but for myself I just don't feel equipped to answer the questions we're raising. The fact is that I don't know enough about the Collingwood's development pathways, and I'm not sure that any of us do, and we'd all be even more in the dark about what's going on at other clubs.

On the instances of Sier and Aish, I admit that I don't necessarily see it as a problem that such players might require the encouraging words or vague wisdoms of a head coach to spur them on. If a player --and especially a low-confidence player-- needs to be properly convinced that (a) they're not quite on the right path, and/or (b) that jumping through a certain number and type of hoops will bring them the desired results, then it makes sense that those words will be far more effective coming from the person you most need to impress.

Despite the above, I think that most professional/organisational environments can do better at identifying potential problems among their personnel, and in this I think that Walter's point about Hawthorn has merit, even if Hawthorn itself isn't travelling as well as it was. Good teachers don't just teach, they work out what it is which makes an individual want to learn, as well as bringing techniques which can help that individual to learn better. Once the individual knows how to get them best out of themselves, they are in a far better position to give their best to the team. People with a psych background could be a value for similar reasons.

It’s certainly a reasonable point, but I didn’t create the thread to solve the AFL world’s football development mysteries rather have the discussion around potential outcomes.

For example many on here post glowingly of Adams captaincy potential. What I’d like to think is happening is that Adams is picking up on the cues of a guy like Sier and his application on the track, he’s then raising as a discussion topic in leadership meetings and solutions are being thrown around. If that’s taken place it’s a big tick for the leadership group, but we’d then need to consider what the follow through was. Perhaps they made note of it with Sier’s development coach, Lockyer, who didn’t have the skills to communicate the solutions the leadership group came up with. It was then flagged with Buckley at a later point and we end up with the situation we’re currently in.

At each step along that process of developing an individual that’s struggling to apply themselves we have opportunities to improve. I’d like to think we’re all equipped with the skills to discuss a potential situation like that and how we’d like to see it handled. All the while we know we haven’t got the background knowledge to discuss it in absolutes and as long as we accept it when people slip into that language (I’m as guilty as any of it) the discussion can be enlightening, IMO.

 

[Scodog10]

Interesting points but it's a very one sided view. Sier was 17, playing school footy and reportedly living a very unprofessional lifestyle when drafted. Now 18 months later he has apparently turned a corner and got his act together via our development program. You complain that we nearly lost him. But we didn't lose him, so who gets the credit for saving his career?

If we want to assign credit, Sier does.

If anything your knock should be on us using second round picks on underdeveloped kids who have never been in a professional sporting environment.

Why are you choosing to single out Sier as a poster boy for our development and ignoring the professionalism of players taken around the same time in Moore, Maynard, Daicos, Brown and Mclarty?

Because there was an article on him. I also wouldn’t use any of that group as poster boys of a successful development program except maybe Maynard.

Who are you roasting here?

The development coaching group. Apologies I thought I’d made that clear

The current coaching setup or the one 2 years ago?

2014-17 again I thought that was clear when I mentioned the timeframes. Coaching changes form part of the discussion. I can’t yet talk on their impact though. What I can talk about is that one guy that was central to Sier’s development has been promoted.

The club has since brought on Hocking and Maxwell who are both known to be great with player development, so it looks like the club have identified a need and are setting about making changes. So what else would like done for future management or is this a complaint about the past program?

Personally I’d like to see a change to the process that means we’re taking 18 months to get to that point. I don’t think that time frame is acceptable in a professional sporting environment where the average career span is what 4 years?

This occurs at every club (which I can list if you really want).

That’d be great and add some real value to the discussion I just can’t remember any specific examples off the top of my head!

and it's short sighted to think that only Collingwood has this problem.

I don’t.

Even the current premiers who apparently have great culture and development, just lost a first round pick in Ben Lennon under similar circumstances. Previous premiers just lost Stringer because of his unprofessional attitude. So what happened there?

I’m not sure perhaps they had rigorous debate behind the scenes as a result and determined avenues to prevent similar occurrences?

Last thing. Do you want a discussion or for people to just agree with you?

I’ll be a long time dead before I I get universal agreement even then I don’t even know if my POV is correct. As I’ve said 5 times now this is just to generate discussion. For all I know someone will present the issue from an angle that spins my whole POV on things.

"Yes I realise there will be plenty on here ready and willing to find an excuse for the ineptitude of that coaching performance (I expect it to be based around my interpretation of the article/ circumstances/ “it’s a long bow to draw” type comments), but does that excuse really benefit the discussion or the club? "

Because this sounds like you're trying to shutdown anyone who has a different opinion to your own.

No. It’s my attempt at pre-empting go nowhere discussion points. You’ve challenged my views, hold a different opinion and have done so without resorting to the sort of response I received in the first post. Also I created the thread so I’m personally invested in keeping the discussion flowing and that seems counter intuitive to me...

Simply because it fits the narrative you have of me and my posting doesn’t necessarily mean it’s accurate. I guess another way I can approach this is to ask whether you’d make the same comment if it was say Magpiebat that made the exact same comments?..

 

[No SPIN]

There are a number of factors that have made Siers development unusual as other have alluded to, such as his age, pathway to the AFL, personal circumstances, and litany of injuries over the period.
There have also been reports that because of the above he took a while to "fit in".

Given that he was NOT therefore a typical recruit but hugely talented, its is not surprising that he was cut more slack than normal.
So I see the circumstance above explaining these "development issues", and not necessarily our program.

Remembering that many here have bagged the cooky cutter approach where ALL personalities/players are treated the same, I think the treatment of Sier may well suggest otherwise.
Ultimately he was "saved" and I think that's the story.

So I would not use Sier as an example of a poor development program - for me Aish, Broomhead, Crocker are better examples.

 

[TradeDraft]

Player Develpoment under Bucks has Been Disgusting hardly any players really have come on the Bucks Regime

 

[sr36]

Agree that we haven't been developing players anywhere near as well as we used to. The 2010 Premiership was built from player development. So many of those players entered the AFL with some pretty large deficiencies, but every year we watched the blokes from that team get visibly better. This consistent improvement appears to have vanished, with many guys looking promising and then seeming to regress.

In terms of your premise though, I think you are jumping too quickly to the conclusion that the development coaches were negligent and all it took was a few words from Bucks to cause his attitude to improve. I suspect that his soon to expire contract and the imminent demise of an AFL opportunity was a much bigger factor in him changing his approach. I don't think it's uncommon for blokes new to the system to ignore advice and take until the dream is about to die for them to realise that they'd like to remain in the system and thus begin working harder.

 

[jackcass]

Personally I think Hawthorn have slipped I just want to clear the air on that, but do we have any recent examples of Clarko needing to step in and have frank one on one discussions with individuals about their application? There’s been two publicly documented cases of that happening at Collingwood this off-season. That to me indicates a flaw in either the identification of the problems or implementation of the remedy.

What are we doing differently at Collingwood that it needs to get to that point? That’s what I’d like to know. How rigorous is the upward communication to relay these sore spots?

Maybe we just don't hear about the Hawthorn cases because nobody actually gives a flying phark about them. Not sure why you'd consider any club immune to it.

I think most generally accept development over the last few seasons hasn't been as it could or should have been but I'm not sure what we gain by re-dredging that discussion ad-nauseum in response to even the slightest hint of it in a media article. We started 2018 with a clean slate and much of the vibe of the media is positive. Not sure why we need to try and turn them into a negative all the time.

 

[Scodog10]

Player Develpoment under Bucks has Been Disgusting hardly any players really have come on the Bucks Regime

Posted with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer TD

 

[Jasper84]

Player Develpoment under Bucks has Been Disgusting hardly any players really have come on the Bucks Regime