The cycle of success

[lachy]

There are numerous threads on this board and others where the short term thinking of supporters which sometimes flows through to the clubs upsets this cycle almost terminally in the environment of Drafts, trading and salary caps.

I would argue as a club whilst not being ultimately successful we have had more success than others which given our impediments should not be undersold. Each cycle runs around 10 years and I will explain ours.

In 1999 for the third year in a row we finished top 4 on the ladder but fell short, each year getting progressively worse. Plough made some tough choices trading out Montgomery and Powell, getting in a bloke called Eagleton and also getting the board to appoint Clayton as team manager. His draft that year:
Murphy
Hahn
Gilbee
Giansiracusa
Hargrave

We continued our trip down south on the ladder, which while uncomfortable for supporters is necessary.
Over the next couple of years we picked up a bloke called Harris. Unfortunately, we also ran into money difficulties primarily due to a stadium deal and the first thing we did is slash funds to the football department. for those of you who bag Plough it was this that led to his resignation.

We continued heading down hitting the bottom of our cycle in 2003. There were slight improvements in 2004 but during this time we picked up a couple of handy players in Cooney and Griffen.

Over half way through 2005 and it looked like our improvement was marginal, then it clicked. Despite a hiccup in 2007 when besides other things we put more money back into the football department we were ready to challenge again. under the final 8 system if you are there at the prelim you are there when the whips are cracking. We topped up with Aker, Welsh and Hudson and had a crack.

By 2010 we had fallen way behind the top 3 a the same cycle begins. We bottomed out mid 2013 so late 2013 early 2014 are our 2004. late 2014 is our first part of 2005.

Geelong, Hawthorn and St.Kilda all went through similar cycles. Why did there's go deeper and not drop off as much?

Geelong father and sons, Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins. Hawthorn and St kilda their gun draft picks were KPP's not mids. Their core of top players were slightly better than ours and there were slightly more of them. Hawthorn and Geelong have better resources. Their carry over players from prior eras were slightly better.

What is different this time for us. Unlike for Plough, Clayton and Eade the current board has invested heavily in the football department, we even have a list manager nearly 10 years after hawthorn appointed one. We have our own VFL team for development. so this time we may be able to develop a bigger and stronger core to have us competing for longer and stronger.

So it is different. It is not just one person and it does not happen in a week or even 3 years. And for those of you who say this is crap then consider these teams and their resources that have played in less prelims or none over the last 10 years and consider how they have tried to work their long term cycles:

Essendon
Carlton
North Melbourne
Adelaide
Richmond
Melbourne
Brisbane
and from the end of this year Port Adelaide

Will we end up with the ultimate success, sometimes it is just a kick, free kick bounce of the ball determines what might have been, but i believe we will be there when the whips are cracking prelim week from 2017

 

[fronkalicious]

Here's the real goal. To be a winning, competitive, successful team, regardless of premiership windows and cycles. That's what the great clubs do. Great coaching, program's and cultures will ultimately win out over draft picks and cap space. This is the goal. So no matter where we are in the cycle, we 're fighting for the 8 and winning games of footy.

 

[Reptilia]

If you get your list management, draft picks and develop your players right.. you will be at the top of the cycle indefinitely.. like Geelong and Hawthorn..

Smart clubs that are in premiership contention may have their eyes on the now.. but they also have their eyes on the future..

No longer are the outdated ways of Essendon, Brisbane, st Kilda and us.. of the years those teams were in contention.

 

[DexterTan]

If you get your list management, draft picks and develop your players right.. you will be at the top of the cycle indefinitely.. like Geelong and Hawthorn..

Smart clubs that are in premiership contention may have their eyes on the now.. but they also have their eyes on the future..

No longer are the outdated ways of Essendon, Brisbane, st Kilda and us.. of the years those teams were in contention.

And have lots of money and members.

 

[lachy]

Here's the real goal. To be a winning, competitive, successful team, regardless of premiership windows and cycles. That's what the great clubs do. Great coaching, program's and cultures will ultimately win out over draft picks and cap space. This is the goal. So no matter where we are in the cycle, we 're fighting for the 8 and winning games of footy.

If you get your list management, draft picks and develop your players right.. you will be at the top of the cycle indefinitely.. like Geelong and Hawthorn..

Smart clubs that are in premiership contention may have their eyes on the now.. but they also have their eyes on the future..

No longer are the outdated ways of Essendon, Brisbane, st Kilda and us.. of the years those teams were in contention.

Fronk and M4B there are goals and there are realities imbedded in the system. According to your definitions there are no great clubs. There are however great era's built through the cycles. Neither Hawthorn nor Geelong of recent examples have spent the last 10 years fighting for a place in the 8. In fact 10 years ago Hawthorn finished second last and Geelong didn't bottom out due to a good breeding program.

There is no example of a team at the top of the cycle indefinitely.

Unless you have the resources it is impossible. Geelong are hanging in there, we will see how they go in the next couple of years once the Bartells and Stevie Johnsons are finished up. Their key players are still those recruited during the 10 year cycle. Hawthorn also definitely fits this category. They simply had a larger core of better players than we did, with more money and resources.

The only club that does not have this long term cycle is Sydney, but $1mill extra under the salary cap helps out with this. And even they between 2006 and 2012 were not serious flag contenders.

In fact if the past 10 years are anything to go by, there is a good argument to say merely challenging for the 8 each year precludes you from setting up for a genuine sustained challenge

 

[TedDougChris]

If you get your list management, draft picks and develop your players right.. you will be at the top of the cycle indefinitely.. like Geelong and Hawthorn..

Smart clubs that are in premiership contention may have their eyes on the now.. but they also have their eyes on the future..

No longer are the outdated ways of Essendon, Brisbane, st Kilda and us.. of the years those teams were in contention.

You are forgetting (no disrespect intended) the most important factor. Money.

The teams that have stayed at the top for longest, without bottoming out are the ones that can invest the most money (both salary cap, on-field and recruiting wise) into the club.

There was an article a few years back (wish I could find it) that had the top 8 spenders in terms of football department spending where in positions 1 - 10 on the ladder. The two outliers were the Dogs and Saints (in our PF/GF era respectively) - and we know how that has ended for both of these clubs. This is why equalisation is such an issue. Don't believe Eddie, off-field equalisation or capping football department spending will be a massive benefit to the struggling clubs.

 

[lachy]

You are forgetting (no disrespect intended) the most important factor. Money.

The teams that have stayed at the top for longest, without bottoming out are the ones that can invest the most money (both salary cap, on-field and recruiting wise) into the club.

There was an article a few years back (wish I could find it) that had the top 8 spenders in terms of football department spending where in positions 1 - 10 on the ladder. The two outliers were the Dogs and Saints (in our PF/GF era respectively) - and we know how that has ended for both of these clubs. This is why equalisation is such an issue. Don't believe Eddie, off-field equalisation or capping football department spending will be a massive benefit to the struggling clubs.

Spot on TDC. In saying that even Collingwood are caught in the cycle despite their off field position

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Here's the real goal. To be a winning, competitive, successful team, regardless of premiership windows and cycles. That's what the great clubs do. Great coaching, program's and cultures will ultimately win out over draft picks and cap space. This is the goal. So no matter where we are in the cycle, we 're fighting for the 8 and winning games of footy.

That is more rhetoric than reality, Hawthorn has been good at poaching other good players from other clubs going right back to the 80s. They have been doing the same thing to fob off the necessity to do a rebuild, including Lake, Burgoyne, Hale, Gunston, Gibson in the recent crop, not a bad way to stave off a rebuild. There has been a lot of money poured into their football department as well.

Geelong, well they have had the benefit of an armchair ride with their father sons, and even the draft picks they got for losing Gazza. I think they have some good kids, but some of them are very average, and once the golden premiership players retire, they will drop off a bit. However, they are still pursuing players to keep topping up much like Hawthorn ie pursuing Boak last year.

 

[TedDougChris]

Spot on TDC. In saying that even Collingwood are caught in the cycle despite their off field position

But they won't be finishing 15th or 18th in a hurry. And their current position is a result of some unfortunate injury problems they have had, such as missing their CHB until Round 18 or 19....

 

[Butane]

Agree with TDC. The correlation between money and sustained success is much higher than any time period or 'cycle'. Sure there are 'windows' but even spiders can crawl through cracks if positioned well enough.

Only 9 players played in both 2008 and 2013 Hawks premierships teams. Is that a cycle, or a window?

 

[lachy]

Agree with TDC. The correlation between money and sustained success is much higher than any time period or 'cycle'. Sure there are 'windows' but even spiders can crawl through cracks if positioned well enough.

Only 9 players played in both 2008 and 2013 Hawks premierships teams. Is that a cycle, or a window?

True but who were the 9? Were they recruited in the early stages of the cycle, the answer is yes. Once they are gone how far will they fall, who knows, resources do cushion the fall a bit

 

[lachy]

But they won't be finishing 15th or 18th in a hurry. And their current position is a result of some unfortunate injury problems they have had, such as missing their CHB until Round 18 or 19....

However, looking at it from the longer term cycle where did they finish in 2004 and 2005 coming off Grand finals in 2002 and 2003?

 

[TedDougChris]

However, looking at it from the longer term cycle where did they finish in 2004 and 2005 coming off Grand finals in 2002 and 2003?

Different eras IMO. If you look back over the last 15 years or so, name the poorer clubs to win Premierships. Ones that weren't at or close to the top of football department spending or had salary cap concessions.

Port in 2004 and North in 1999 are the last two.... Geelong, Hawks, Swans, Pies, WCE, Brisbane, Essendon - all spending big money on players and off-field..

 

[lachy]

Different eras IMO. If you look back over the last 15 years or so, name the poorer clubs to win Premierships. Ones that weren't at or close to the top of football department spending or had salary cap concessions.

Port in 2004 and North in 1999 are the last two.... Geelong, Hawks, Swans, Pies, WCE, Brisbane, Essendon - all spending big money on players and off-field..

TDC I actually agree that money does have an impact, however but for a toe poke and a bad bounce St.Kilda would have won 2 and all they did was build through cycles

 

[lachy]

Different eras IMO. If you look back over the last 15 years or so, name the poorer clubs to win Premierships. Ones that weren't at or close to the top of football department spending or had salary cap concessions.

Port in 2004 and North in 1999 are the last two.... Geelong, Hawks, Swans, Pies, WCE, Brisbane, Essendon - all spending big money on players and off-field..

Also you mention Essendon, despite their money the core was built from the early 90's and since 2001 how many preliminary finals have they played in?

 

[TedDougChris]

TDC I actually agree that money does have an impact, however but for a toe poke and a bad bounce St.Kilda would have won 2 and all they did was build through cycles

Understand that viewpoint, but you could argue if they had additional money, they may have been able to get that slight extra edge that they needed to not need that toepoke and bad bounce...

 

[TedDougChris]

Also you mention Essendon, despite their money the core was built from the early 90's and since 2001 how many preliminary finals have they played in?

Agree with this. You can spend money badly, there is no doubt - look at WCE recent fluctuations in form.

But the issue is, if you don't have it, you can't spend it. If you don't spend it, you wont be successful....

 

[lachy]

Understand that viewpoint, but you could argue if they had additional money, they may have been able to get that slight extra edge that they needed to not need that toepoke and bad bounce...

Don't disagree, which is also why our part of the cycle is different this time with the extra funds into the football department and our VFL team.

I am not saying this will prove successful, just believe it will give us a better chance than last time through our cycle. Also, I am saying considering all of the impediments with funding and resources we do actually fight above our weight and have done so since the failed merge.

We as supporters on this forum are to quick to blame individuals when we are in an extremely tough environment, yet work diligently through our cycles to try and compete with the big boys who despite their resources have cycles too only they tend to not bottom out as much, though they can.

 

[stefoid]

I think not bottoming out is more about not making mistakes - drafting, trading, coaching, business, etc... You can do that without money, but its harder.

There is no doubt the clubs that are consistently near the top of the ladder consistently draft, trade and are coached well over the long term.

 

[TedDougChris]

I think not bottoming out is more about not making mistakes - drafting, trading, coaching, business, etc... You can do that without money, but its harder.

There is no doubt the clubs that are consistently near the top of the ladder consistently draft, trade and are coached well over the long term.

it's easier to continue success cycles when you pump money into player recruitment, development and retention.... it's not rocket science. Pick the correct players, have a succession plan in place, develop your kids to play your style of play and make sure they are well compensated and want to stay....

Simples.... in theory....

 

[lachy]

I think not bottoming out is more about not making mistakes - drafting, trading, coaching, business, etc... You can do that without money, but its harder.

There is no doubt the clubs that are consistently near the top of the ladder consistently draft, trade and are coached well over the long term.

Stefoid over the last 10 years which teams have been consistently near the top without a spell outside of the 8?

 

[fronkalicious]

Eras, cycles, windows. Call it whatever you like. Truly great clubs (yes, clubs with money) are always competitive and always regenerating at the same time.

Wait until gazza leaves, wait until Scarlett and Harley retire, wait until ling goes, wait until chapman and pods move on, good luck when ottens and rooke retire. Mooney, wojo, josh hunt, Byrnes. And on and on and on. And they're 14-4 on the season.

Collingwood has moved on daisy, shaw, Dawes, wellingham, didak etc and are still in the 8.

And then there's us and the saints. Consistent top 4 finishes and then the ass falls out of the list. Fingers crossed we're building something more sustainable

 

[lachy]

Eras, cycles, windows. Call it whatever you like. Truly great clubs (yes, clubs with money) are always competitive and always regenerating at the same time.

Wait until gazza leaves, wait until Scarlett and Harley retire, wait until ling goes, wait until chapman and pods move on, good luck when ottens and rooke retire. Mooney, wojo, josh hunt, Byrnes. And on and on and on. And they're 14-4 on the season.

Collingwood has moved on daisy, shaw, Dawes, wellingham, didak etc and are still in the 8.

And then there's us and the saints. Consistent top 4 finishes and then the ass falls out of the list. Fingers crossed we're building something more sustainable

Again Fronk short to medium term agree. However Collingwood in the last 10 years finished 4th and second last. Geelong in the 10 year period finished 10th and in the 11 year period finished 12th. The difference without money is you will likely not stay up as long and you will go further down.

All teams except the heavily funded and massive excess salary cap of the Swans will have a down cycle in a ten year period. Even they had 5 years where they were not a serious challenger.

No team in the last 10 years has not had a downward cycle no matter how great their resources or artificial advantages are. It is the system and it is difficult. My point is too much focus is put into the short term resulting in knee jerk reactions, whereas in reality all teams go through cycles. An Era occurs at the top of a cycle and a window is approaching the top of a cycle, they are not the same things.

The only thing that may disrupt the cycle in the short term is free agency, however given the salary cap this will be a short term disturbance.

 

[stefoid]

Stefoid over the last 10 years which teams have been consistently near the top without a spell outside of the 8?

Drafting, trading, coaching, development, business - only one of these things, arguably the most important, has strong cyclic tendencies - Drafting. Obviously the more successful you are, the harder it is to draft good players, and vice-versa.

However, the draft effect can be diluted a fair bit by coaching and development. Some footy-type person was commenting that the consistently good teams had very strong team 'structures' that meant when one player went down, they could plug another one in to play the same role, and the overall ability of the team didnt suffer as much. Whereas less 'well-drilled' teams tended to rely more on a number of champion players to get them over the line, and when one of those players when down, the team suffered. The old champion team vs team of champions thing.

Maybe this is why when Geelong loses Ablett or whoever, they dont crash and burn. To be consistantly good, I reckon you need a deep list of decent foot soldiers to play their part in the structure when neccessary.

 

[lachy]

Drafting, trading, coaching, development, business - only one of these things, arguably the most important, has strong cyclic tendencies - Drafting. Obviously the more successful you are, the harder it is to draft good players, and vice-versa.

However, the draft effect can be diluted a fair bit by coaching and development. Some footy-type person was commenting that the consistently good teams had very strong team 'structures' that meant when one player went down, they could plug another one in to play the same role, and the overall ability of the team didnt suffer as much. Whereas less 'well-drilled' teams tended to rely more on a number of champion players to get them over the line, and when one of those players when down, the team suffered. The old champion team vs team of champions thing.

Maybe this is why when Geelong loses Ablett or whoever, they dont crash and burn. To be consistantly good, I reckon you need a deep list of decent foot soldiers to play their part in the structure when neccessary.

.

True in a lot of ways. However, I would say every consistently good teams builds a core of great players early in a 10 year period, adds to them during that period then eventually succumbs to the system. No team has remained consistently competitive particularly top 4 but even top 8 since the salary cap, trade and draft came into play. If Geelong are still there by 2017 they will have been the first to buck the trend. Even Sydney with all of their artificial advantages finished 12th in 2009.