Roast Player development

[Gone Critical]

I re-read the article and there is no mention of it I am guessing that I’ve muddled it up with Aish.

I’m also not on the same page that it forms a “major part” of my criticism of player development on the whole. In fact it forms a very minor part of it sort of like a guard being killed off in GOT. My assumption would be that if it were a major part someone would have picked up on the hole in my thinking prior to you given you’ve been present since it was originally posted (based on your like of Cleomenes post at 10 am).

I’d also have personally thought if it were that important you’d have pointed this out sooner...

I dont want to be too critical. Especially as my views on Bucks as a coach and development of our young players isn't terribly different to yours.

You started this tread saying you had read the Sier article and then saying

"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."

Then you postulate Siers problems not being solved stem from the development team not doing there job properly and use the example of Bucks talk to him , a talk that didnt that didn't happen, to bolster your argument.

The trigger you found doesnt seem to be. I reckon you are trying too hard to make facts fit your hypothesis not the other way around. I understand you are very consumed by the worry about our development but that may be affecting the balance of your arguments. In this case the evidence just doesnt fit your claims. Doesnt meant the claims are wrong and as I said I share your concerns

 

[jackcass]

This is where we differ. Motivation plays a role in development no doubt, but no more so than skill acquisition, teaching or leadership.

Even then a lot of what I’m discussing isn’t relevant to what people that deal specifically in the motivational space work with people on. Much of my direction, not all, in this thread is around the process and improvements in that space. You aren’t exactly getting Tony Robbins in to present on the discussion I raised re Adams and what could be done from within the playing group.

Using a practical example Maxwell has been employed in a leadership capacity and whilst I would say he has the skills to develop an individuals leadership, and in turn assist their general development, I’m not so sure he’s as equipped to speak on motivation? Does that therefore negate his appointment if motivation plays a significant role in development?

I’m not buying what you’re selling on that front personally. That’s not to discourage those from that space commenting more that I’m not sure it warrants the emphasis you’ve given it.

I'm not trying to sell anything, merely asked a question. I've never suggested motivation was the be-all, end-all of development, only that it's a significant part. As are all the other area's you've mentioned. Hence I was happy to broaden the scope to include any person working in any area of development. To date, JB1975 is the only person to suggest he has any experience to bring to the discussion but I'd question the merit of his "learn by mistakes" ethos if practiced in isolation of other doctrines. EDIT: Add Frizzle to the list but not sure he'll be much help.

I personally claim no relevant experience in the field but I'd suggest my 11 years at DHS in both the disability and drug and alcohol fields, including 12 months with the Behaviour Intervention Support Team gives me a better than average understanding of the psychology of change, task analysis, and environmental analysis from which I conclude we don't know enough to draw conclusions let alone form definitive positions. It's a nice hypothetical discussion and I know it's a hobby-horse of yours so I'll leave it there.

 

[Scodog10]

I agree with your concerns about development, but come on Sco, it was the premise of your opening post:

This is how I read your post.

Paragraph 1 - Sier's article suggests a major issue with player development.
Paragraph 2 - The article suggests that the development guys did stuff all, as all it took was a chat with Bucks to turn him around.
Paragraph 3 - The same is probably happening with other blokes.
Paragraph 4 - Our development sucks.

I agree with Paragraph 4, but I wouldn't necessarily be pointing the finger at our development coaching. I'd link it with the ridiculously long form slumps that players have had. I reckon both our lack of development and form slumps stem from an attempted move to a culture of continual self-evaluation and self-criticism, designed to become a continual striving for excellence - an approach that worked fabulously for Buckley himself as a player and someone like Pendlebury, but an approach that doesn't work for all. Players have lost confidence and the growing culture of self - criticism has resulted in them struggling to gain or re-gain their confidence. There hasn't been enough tyre pumping going on and thus those who need to feel like their shithot in order to get the best out of themselves, haven't progressed.

Whether I agree or otherwise is largely irrelevant given how the thread has evolved so I’m not sure of the point behind it. Other than an attempt at one upmanship...

The bolded is a point I’d like to drill down on though. In the Goldsack thread myself and Dead Eye Didak commented on Goldsack for his comments toward JDG. By all reports he’s had a smashing pre-season and those comments, as innocuous or possibly even as accurate as they were, can’t have helped especially in relation to the area you’ve highlighted.

We also have Phillips publicly stating that Buckley is no longer as full on or overbearing. If that’s spilling over into his coaching peers it’s a cause for concern and something we can be critical of.

 

[Scodog10]

I dont want to be too critical. Especially as my views on Bucks as a coach and development of our young players isn't terribly different to yours.

You started this tread saying you had read the Sier article and then saying

"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."

Then you postulate Siers problems not being solved stem from the development team not doing there job properly and use the example of Bucks talk to him , a talk that didnt that didn't happen, to bolster your argument.

The trigger you found doesnt seem to be. I reckon you are trying too hard to make facts fit your hypothesis not the other way around. I understand you are very consumed by the worry about our development but that may be affecting the balance of your arguments. In this case the evidence just doesnt fit your claims. Doesnt meant the claims are wrong and as I said I share your concerns

Thank you Dr. Phil!

The funny thing is that you stated that our opinions aren’t terribly different then proceed to state that the balance of my argument is being impacted by an interpretation of facts to suit my opinion. Perhaps the overthinking on this occasion hasn’t actually been on my end? After all this is just an Internet forum for people to debate their views and hypothesise we aren’t curing cancer!

I’m happy to discuss the thread of the discussion further and bring you up to speed on things, if you still feel like you’ve missed something, considering our views supposedly aren’t far apart, but let’s leave the psychoanalyst stuff to the side. Especially given it was an honest error

In terms of what you think you’re interpreting perhaps we can go further into what you think the symptoms of poor development are? Or whether you can work backward to determine a fix if those symptoms can be identified?

 

[Anzacday]

I do. I'd like to tell everyone all about it, but I just can't be stuffed.

Feeling a little unmotivated?

 

[JB1975]

I'm not trying to sell anything, merely asked a question. I've never suggested motivation was the be-all, end-all of development, only that it's a significant part. As are all the other area's you've mentioned. Hence I was happy to broaden the scope to include any person working in any area of development. To date, JB1975 is the only person to suggest he has any experience to bring to the discussion but I'd question the merit of his "learn by mistakes" ethos if practiced in isolation of other doctrines.

Well if by 'experience' you mean a lifetime of immaturity, backwardness, and perhaps a refined type of stupidity, then sure, I've put forward some credentials...

 

[sr36]

Whether I agree or otherwise is largely irrelevant given how the thread has evolved so I’m not sure of the point behind it. Other than an attempt at one upmanship...

The bolded is a point I’d like to drill down on though. In the Goldsack thread myself and Dead Eye Didak commented on Goldsack for his comments toward JDG. By all reports he’s had a smashing pre-season and those comments, as innocuous or possibly even as accurate as they were, can’t have helped especially in relation to the area you’ve highlighted.

We also have Phillips publicly stating that Buckley is no longer as full on or overbearing. If that’s spilling over into his coaching peers it’s a cause for concern and something we can be critical of.

My point on confidence, isn't suggesting that 'tyre pumping' is necessary or appropriate for all. I reckon a differentiated approach is the only way to go. When a lack of confidence isn't an issue, some guys need a whack to help them focus and get the best out of themselves. I'm probably wrong, but I suspect that a lack of confidence is not an issue for Degoey (I'm not suggesting Goldsack gave him a whack, I reckon that was a bit of creative sensationalist journalism).

What I'm suggesting is that for those who lack a bit of confidence at a particular point in their career, the old adage 'confidence is king' applies and their form declines until something causes their confidence to return or for them to begin playing without fear. I don't think we've been paying enough homage to the king. I think the intended culture shift to one of continual self-evaluation to strive for excellence hasn't been applied well enough to equip blokes who need some self praise rather than self criticism. Thus the elongated form slumps and the lack of development of players.

I'm not sure what you mean with the Phillips example and why you think that Bucks being less full on is a concern. I think the opposite. I see it as a positive, as I suspect that Bucks being full on and overbearing was undermining the confidence of some and making them overly focussed on errors.

Maybe I'm clutching at straws and seeing what I want to see, but I reckon the two articles that you've referenced about Sier and Aish were a really good sign. Both articles had a similar message of - 'He may have had a bad year, but he's knuckled down and is ready to show us that he has got the goods.' From what I've seen and read, these two are desperately in need of confidence. Last year, Aish's lack of confidence was so obvious that you could almost see it take physical form and restrain him every time he went near the footy. Training reports which have occasionally suggested that Sier appears to always be on the peripherary also suggests that he lacks confidence and doesn't yet feel like he truly belongs. I'm hoping that these articles are a move to start pumping up the tyres of those who need their tyres pumped.

 

[Bored_Pie]

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

Every time Broomhead has gone on to establish himself in the 22 he's been injured.

 

[mike123]

It's a good discussion because this area will be crucial to us improving this year, especially since our only recruit was Murray.

 

[dirts]

Honestly many great points have been made here by everyone. Based on the lists of ‘developed or not’ players, and general opinion I’d venture to say that our development is definitely neither the worst, and nor is it very good. In fact I think it probably reflects our ladder positions over the recent years.

What I do think has been missed slightly in this discussion however is that the players lacking development seem to have been absolved of guilt. In reality they’re the ones who have the most control over their professionalism. So if we’re to give Sier any credit at all for turning things around, he should be damned for failing to do so earlier. But then I’ve never seen the point in holding overly negative opinions about our players, I save that for Carlton.

And the players leadership group, not just the new kids coming in.

 

[whiskeytown]

Probably been said already here... but even if he showed some late spark, Sier should've been rookie listed rather than given a 1yr deal to break into a side with a stacked midfield like ours.

As for the development debate. All players should have a monthly interview with the gaffer to discuss their performance, attitude thoughts, etc. Sounds like Sier needed an ultimatum well before he got one.

 

[sr36]

Every time Broomhead has gone on to establish himself in the 22 he's been injured.

I don't reckon he's ever gone on to establish himself in the 22, but agree that his injuries have given him little chance to establish himself.

 

[Gone Critical]

Thank you Dr. Phil!

The funny thing is that you stated that our opinions aren’t terribly different then proceed to state that the balance of my argument is being impacted by an interpretation of facts to suit my opinion. Perhaps the overthinking on this occasion hasn’t actually been on my end? After all this is just an Internet forum for people to debate their views and hypothesise we aren’t curing cancer!

I’m happy to discuss the thread of the discussion further and bring you up to speed on things, if you still feel like you’ve missed something, considering our views supposedly aren’t far apart, but let’s leave the psychoanalyst stuff to the side. Especially given it was an honest error

In terms of what you think you’re interpreting perhaps we can go further into what you think the symptoms of poor development are? Or whether you can work backward to determine a fix if those symptoms can be identified?

No psychoanalysis just a question of the quality of the evidence.

Our opinions and concerns are similar but in the specifics of the arguments you used to commence this thread we clearly differ. No overthinking.

You claimed to have found the trigger point for our development woes but its based on a very general answer by Bucks re Sier. It contains no mention of the development team but you have made a number of statements about them from that laced with a story that you concede was a mistake. Essentially in this instance there is nothing to base your claims on

I share your concern that we may have fallen behind as a club in player development but given we have next to no knowledge about what our team does compared to the other 17 its really hard to make any meaningful or specific comment. All that information is in house at the 18 clubs and we remain in the dark. The symptoms are those of the slower than expected development of some of our younger players and the quick fall off of some older guys. How much this is related to the development coaches not being top shelf is almost impossible to accurately gauge but I am concerned.

 

[Vicky Park]

This thread touches on an important topic, and the OP makes some valid points. I also see this as an area where we really dont know what goes on at the club, as others have noted. We are thrown a bone by the media, who could be misrepresenting whats going on. We also pick up on hints and references in interviews. But we have nothing like the whole picture.

I'd be really concerned if 'sorting out' young players fell to Bucks alone. I'd also be concerned if it took one 'man to man' talk to turn a player's career around. Surely our football department is structured and staffed so as to identify players with a poor attitude, or struggling with training and commitment, and address it comprehensively? Or does it go the character of the players we draft - or their level of maturity? Immature lads can also turn into fantastic footballers.

I dont know the answers to these questions. I suspect the same goes on at other clubs. And there are examples of players who have thrived and really come on at our club, Howe being a notable example.

But Sier was a relatively high pick for us. And JDG, with some currently questioning his attitude, even higher. We cant afford to have wasted these picks on guys who have issues. It's a real handicap for the coach.

 

[Jasper84]

This thread touches on an important topic, and the OP makes some valid points. I also see this as an area where we really dont know what goes on at the club, as others have noted. We are thrown a bone by the media, who could be misrepresenting whats going on. We also pick up on hints and references in interviews. But we have nothing like the whole picture.

I'd be really concerned if 'sorting out' young players fell to Bucks alone. I'd also be concerned if it took one 'man to man' talk to turn a player's career around. Surely our football department is structured and staffed so as to identify players with a poor attitude, or struggling with training and commitment, and address it comprehensively? Or does it go the character of the players we draft - or their level of maturity? Immature lads can also turn into fantastic footballers.

I dont know the answers to these questions. I suspect the same goes on at other clubs. And there are examples of players who have thrived and really come on at our club, Howe being a notable example.

But Sier was a relatively high pick for us. And JDG, with some currently questioning his attitude, even higher. We cant afford to have wasted these picks on guys who have issues. It's a real handicap for the coach.

The real issue with Sier is that he was drafted too high. A top 40 pick should be reserved for a total professional, absolute elite talent or both. Sier was neither and really should have been a hail mary rookie pick at best. Hine specials should be reserved for pick 50 and above.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The real issue with Sier is that he was drafted too high. A top 40 pick should be reserved for a total professional, absolute elite talent or both. Sier was neither and really should have been a hail mary rookie pick at best. Hine specials should be reserved for pick 50 and above.

Just on this, I’d venture round 1 or even top 20 is the main area of draft gold.
Starts to fall away, unless lucky.
Once you’re past top 20 of a given year, that’s 20 players, you’re picking players with some flaws you’d think. Or injury concerns etc.

As I understand Sier was going to go around our pick (obviously a bit after), with a couple of clubs (bulldogs?) quite keen.
Brett Anderson I think it was, has said this. So we just pulled the trigger on Sier.

As always it matters not where Sier was picked by us BUT who came afterwards that we would have taken?
And are they any good just the same?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

After Sier in 2015 we took

Tom Phillips
Rupert Wills
Ben Crocker

So you’d think no Sier we might have taken Phillips anyway.

Unknown but it’s always who is left that matters and more importantly who we would have actually taken.

Sier was what 32 pick, at that range they tend to be hit and miss.

(This year we got a likely beauty late in Nathan Murphy.)

 

[CFC2010]

The real issue with Sier is that he was drafted too high. A top 40 pick should be reserved for a total professional, absolute elite talent or both. Sier was neither and really should have been a hail mary rookie pick at best. Hine specials should be reserved for pick 50 and above.

Without putting words in Sco’s mouth this is the point.......even if Hine made a “mistake” initially by drafting him so high why did we then offer him a senior list spot again?

Same as Oxley last year (and this) development is key if we want to get up the ladder we need to get better at it.

The Coaches need to realize that sometimes the stick is better than the carrot and vice versa.

It’s a balancing act we have to get better at.

 

[Help My Club]

I was thinking Black White and Help My Club

?

You betcha.

And when I motivate/educate - its fun.

Talking about motivation, I recall a newly appointed senior coach back in the day making reference to motivation not being part of the senior coaches' role. I wonder if there is a nexus between this mindset and bottom tier player development. Just wonderin'.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

You betcha.

And when I motivate/educate - its fun.

Talking about motivation, I recall a newly appointed senior coach back in the day making reference to motivation not being part of the senior coaches' role. I wonder if there is a nexus between this mindset and bottom tier player development. Just wonderin'.

As long as you believe that, who could possibly doubt it.

 

[left at home]

Without putting words in Sco’s mouth this is the point.......even if Hine made a “mistake” initially by drafting him so high why did we then offer him a senior list spot again?

Same as Oxley last year (and this) development is key if we want to get up the ladder we need to get better at it.

The Coaches need to realize that sometimes the stick is better than the carrot and vice versa.

It’s a balancing act we have to get better at.

May be he was heading for total delisting, so there is your stick first

 

[left at home]

The development at our club probably has not been what it should have been, but hoping with the extra coaches this year that it has been rectified.
But only time will tell

 

[Gone Critical]

After Sier in 2015 we took

Tom Phillips
Rupert Wills
Ben Crocker

So you’d think no Sier we might have taken Phillips anyway.

Unknown but it’s always who is left that matters and more importantly who we would have actually taken.

Sier was what 32 pick, at that range they tend to be hit and miss.

(This year we got a likely beauty late in Nathan Murphy.)

Agree with what you say. Sier was picked at that point because Hine considered him the appropriate player to go through. Pick 32 is far from a certainty so we punters will again struggle to gain the information that really allows us to know whether this was a reasonable decision.

Even what you say here about Murphy is mainly based on hyperbole from the club. To me I hope he is a late beauty but we have no real idea about that yet.

 

[Gone Critical]

In terms of what you think you’re interpreting perhaps we can go further into what you think the symptoms of poor development are? Or whether you can work backward to determine a fix if those symptoms can be identified?

To further flesh out my view I suspect we can get better with development but have no real evidence to back that view.

However my view is there are bigger problems. Our biggest issue for mine is we are a bottom half of the ladder list talent wise. We lack top end class in particular and are unbalanced. Also as much as I love Bucks I don't rate him as a coach. I don't think his footy IQ stands up well compared to the top coaches. He sounds great to us punters but I see no innovation, no fresh thoughts, no great game plan tweaks or match day performances. He is up against the best of the best and I suspect we lack footy IQ right across the coaches box.

So overall we sit about where I would expect on the ladder as end of 2017. I would be very happy to be wrong on this but more than anything I doubt finals occur until we either pick up or develop within the club players become top end players. Part of that lies with the talent v development argument.

 

[sr36]

The real issue with Sier is that he was drafted too high. A top 40 pick should be reserved for a total professional, absolute elite talent or both. Sier was neither and really should have been a hail mary rookie pick at best. Hine specials should be reserved for pick 50 and above.

Supposedly It was a weak draft. Pick whatever he was would have been beyond 50 in most drafts