"The right image"

[Throughandthrough]

Was talking to some officials involved in a SANFL club last week about a junior player who has been playing some solid footy in the under 19's, with regular best's recently.

The discussion of drafting came up, and the statement "he doesn't have the right image" and the Crows won't take him came up.

I didn't think about that much at the time, but thinking after the lad does have a big mop top of hair (like 90% of the players in the TAC final friday night....)

Can I dismiss the thought that the crows take hair cuts as a subject to consider when drafting someone? What else is there to image? (Not attitude, that's not the subject)

I know that sounds obvious, but a 10 second think and the Rookies and Newbies running around in the SANFL all have "nice" hair IIRC!

(No, he's not a Glenelg player)


PS Adam Cooney had a shocking haircut when drafted by the WBU...

 

[ManInTheArena]

I'm not really sure if it's about hair cuts or physical appearance. For example, even though Brendan Fevola had a hair cut he still doesn't have a good image because he is an untidy drunk. Maybe the player is undisciplined outside of football with little chance of his behavior changing.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I am getting just so sick and tired of this right image bullshit that seems to be going on at AFC lately.

Lets look at some of the greatest players that have played this game, Carey, Ablett, Modra, Lockett, Cousins, Matthews, Brereton, Diesel and I am sure there are MANY more that escape me ATM

None of those players were angels. Hell they were all dare devils but they were BRILLIANT footballers that teams built their team around. Of course in the perfect world you would want a gun footballer that has the right image and is quiet as a church mouse when it comes to his behaviour. But seriously, sometimes I question whether or not we would ever have gone for McLeod if the current hierarchy was in place back in 1994 or 1995?! I would be taking an educated guess and say that we wouldn't have picked him up for the same reason Neesham (sp?) made an ass out of himself. McLeod didn't exactly have the right image back them.

Are we limiting our selves far too much here. While its great to present the right image, we also need some characters in the game. Every player I mentioned was a "character" in one way or another and they dared to do something against the team rules on the field, they dared to show some flair and take stupid risks but thats what made them great.

So enough of this, right image bullshit and pick the players that can actually play. We are not building a church choir, we building a ****ing football team that has to win a premiership.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Spot on Stiffy

The "right image" for me is someone who can get the ball, use it well and is hard as nails.

 

[coast2coast]

I am getting just so sick and tired of this right image bullshit that seems to be going on at AFC lately.

Lets look at some of the greatest players that have played this game, Carey, Ablett, Modra, Lockett, Cousins, Matthews, Brereton, Diesel and I am sure there are MANY more that escape me ATM

None of those players were angels. Hell they were all dare devils but they were BRILLIANT footballers that teams built their team around. Of course in the perfect world you would want a gun footballer that has the right image and is quiet as a church mouse when it comes to his behaviour. But seriously, sometimes I question whether or not we would ever have gone for McLeod if the current hierarchy was in place back in 1994 or 1995?! I would be taking an educated guess and say that we wouldn't have picked him up for the same reason Neesham (sp?) made an ass out of himself. McLeod didn't exactly have the right image back them.

Are we limiting our selves far too much here. While its great to present the right image, we also need some characters in the game. Every player I mentioned was a "character" in one way or another and they dared to do something against the team rules on the field, they dared to show some flair and take stupid risks but thats what made them great.

So enough of this, right image bullshit and pick the players that can actually play. We are not building a church choir, we building a ****ing football team that has to win a premiership.

Great post.

Neil Craig needs to reassess his recruiting priorities. I've heard him on a number of occassions talking about players who have shown compassion, empathy and humility in their pre-draft interviews.

Memo Neil: we're looking for footballers, not priests!

I'd rather him look for players with ruthlessness, mongrel and a even a touch of arrogance.

And while we're at it, how about recruiting players with great footskills and the abililty to find the pill instead of blokes who can score 15 on a beep test but have played about the same number of games of footy in their entire life.

 

[ManInTheArena]

The AFC have built their team, leadership and culture around Ray Mclean's methods. So have various other AFL clubs although the AFC were the first (or maybe it was Sydney and AFC Second), the first club to actually use the methods were Central Districts in the SANFL and they had a remarkable turnaround which is why some AFL clubs jumped on it.

I agree that we should pick people on talent and not on "image" and I think the club culture can change the behavior of the person. NC has said previously that it would be very interesting to see if the AFC club culture could change the behavior of a player and I think if Didak were on the table they would back in the culture to change his behavior.

Why do you think Spider changed his behavior, it is because of Ray Mclean's methods. Aker stopped doing his hand stands (because it took the win away from a team performance) because of Ray Mclean's methods.

The methods are a very brutal 360 degree evaluation, interestingly enough Collingwood doesn't use the method's because Mick Malthouse thought it would damage the players self confidence.

From what NC has said a couple of times, he would be interested to test the culture with a difficult person and I would suggest if the player was talented enough he would.

 

[WALL-e]

I feel we need more Taylor Walker and Ivan Maric types.

Neither are dirty, but Taylor will trash talk and add a little moungrel, while Ivan will run through his own mother to get the ball and be first in if someone lays a finger on a player.

Pure footballers (walker) tend to have a touch of arrogance about them, as they've come through the ranks beating everyone fairly easily, doing things that make team mates say wow!

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to draft self obsessed arrogant duds either, plenty of them.

But tough, footy players are needed.

Outside of the AFC my favourite player for the last 2 years has been BY FAR Luke Hodge.

This is what we should go after. Anyone see him restrain Campbell Brown to stop him mouthing at an ump because it will give away 50! That's tough leadership. Throws himself at the ball and skills are sublime.

 

[crowsup]

Great post.

Neil Craig needs to reassess his recruiting priorities. I've heard him on a number of occassions talking about players who have shown compassion, empathy and humility in their pre-draft interviews.

Memo Neil: we're looking for footballers, not priests!

I'd rather him look for players with ruthlessness, mongrel and a even a touch of arrogance.

And while we're at it, how about recruiting players with great footskills and the abililty to find the pill instead of blokes who can score 15 on a beep test but have played about the same number of games of footy in their entire life.

You are right! The AFC should always go for players with a bit of mongrel in them as well as some ability. I vote that we should look for draftees of L. Angwin's character and ability. **** drafting " Do Gooders".

 

[ManInTheArena]

Lets look at some of the greatest players that have played this game, Carey, Ablett, Modra, Lockett, Cousins, Matthews, Brereton, Diesel and I am sure there are MANY more that escape me ATM

With the evolution of the game and the spotlight on players constantly, they can't afford to keep doing stupid things because it really gives the club a bad image. Could you imagine now if an elite player grabbed a womans jubblies and said "why don't you go and get some bigger ****" what would happen?

We need a bit of arrogance and toughness, not tossers.

 

[cmndstab]

I think a lot of people are just reciting hearsay here. The Crows don't try to draft "super nice" people. They simply put great emphasis on people of strong character, which is a good thing. No point drafting someone who doesn't take it seriously.


As for not drafting people with silly haircuts, did you actually SEE Kite or Cook this year? Not to mention Kite's own coach cast aspersions on Kite's attitude.


Just because many of our current players are blue collar doesn't mean that that's the club's ethos.

 

[coast2coast]

I think a lot of people are just reciting hearsay here. The Crows don't try to draft "super nice" people. They simply put great emphasis on people of strong character, which is a good thing. No point drafting someone who doesn't take it seriously.

You've got to be careful not to take it too far though. The draftees are school kids. Some will be rough around the edges. Some will be little shits. And they're applying to to become professional footballers, not social workers or plumbers or teachers or doctors. Not all of them are going to be straighty-180 A-grade students.

Sure, heed the lessons of the past and identify and weed out potential Laurence Angwins. But don't throw the Cyril Riolis out with the bathwater.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

From what NC has said a couple of times, he would be interested to test the culture with a difficult person and I would suggest if the player was talented enough he would.

Good post and it highlights a real contradiction in us supposedly drafting/recruiting players who have the "right" attitude and our leadership program. Recruiting players that don't need any feedback or any behaviour modification surely defeats the purpose.

The purpose of having this leadership program and a strong club culture is surely so that we can get a group of talented footballers to work together, improve together and play good football. Recruiting a bunch of well behaved model citizens and then claiming to have a great culture is cheating.

Maybe it is a case of being once bitten twice shy. Angwin - talented player but a ****head. Picioane - talented player but a big head (literally and figuratively). Ladhams - arrogant without any reason whatsoever for being so. Watts - bed wetter. Now we pick on character so as not to repeat these "mistakes" of the past. In doing so we ignore the much, much longer list of great, hard-working blokes we've picked who couldn't play football for shit.

 

[coast2coast]

^^^ What he said

 

[cmndstab]

You've got to be careful not to take it too far though. The draftees are school kids. Some will be rough around the edges. Some will be little shits. And they're applying to to become professional footballers, not social workers or plumbers or teachers or doctors. Not all of them are going to be straighty-180 A-grade students.

Sure, heed the lessons of the past and identify and weed out potential Laurence Angwins. But don't throw the Cyril Riolis out with the bathwater.

I don't think that the Crows are trying to pick the "straighty-180 A-grade students". They are simply placing importance on work ethic and maturity. However, they have shown a number of times already they are willing to look past that to pick a player if they feel the player is the right choice.


If we had selected Cyril Rioli he would be back in Melbourne before you can blink.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't think that the Crows are trying to pick the "straighty-180 A-grade students". They are simply placing importance on work ethic and maturity. However, they have shown a number of times already they are willing to look past that to pick a player if they feel the player is the right choice.

I guess the question is though, what can be developed in a player and what does a player need to bring with them?

Do we take an athlete and then try to teach them footy smarts?
Do we take a disciplined, hard-worker and then try to teach them to play with flair?
Do we take a mature, natural leader and then try to improve their skill level?

Personally I would rather do it in reverse. The system that is currently in place for identifying, assessing and selecting young players is one that rules out players like Jason Porplyzia and Sam Mitchell. And that's wrong.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I don't think that the Crows are trying to pick the "straighty-180 A-grade students". They are simply placing importance on work ethic and maturity. However, they have shown a number of times already they are willing to look past that to pick a player if they feel the player is the right choice.


If we had selected Cyril Rioli he would be back in Melbourne before you can blink.

Can you say that with 100% certainty?!

No you can't! Rioli was a 18 year old kid, how many of us knew what we really wanted at 18?! Not many, if any?!

People were saying the same thing about Reilly and I am yet to hear him say, that he wants to play anywhere else but Adelaide!

Sometimes, too much emphasis is placed on this. AFC went with Lance Picione instead of Nick Stevens because Stevens threatened to go back to Victoria as soon as his initial contract was up and Lance had no problem with moving to Adelaide. He was used to moving all the time because his old man was in military so it has been part of his life since he can remember.

We ended up with a dud, Port ended up with a good player who spent 6 years in Adelaide.

Whenever you pick up a player there is risk of them wanting to leave. Who is to say that Dangerfield won't bolt home at the end of next year?!

Just pick the damn best talent and work on other things. Its easier to change someone's attitude (especially at a younger age) and make them more settled in their new environment, than it is to teach them football talent and genuine ability and flair. Those are the things you either have or you don't. You can't teach Bryce Campbell flair and match breaking ability, but you can teach Cyril Rioli discipline and you can make it much easier for him to settle into his new environment. FFS, we had more issues with McLeod than any other player when it came to homesickness, especially early on in his career but I sure as hell and glad we went down that path.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I guess the question is though, what can be developed in a player and what does a player need to bring with them?

Do we take an athlete and then try to teach them footy smarts?
Do we take a disciplined, hard-worker and then try to teach them to play with flair?
Do we take a mature, natural leader and then try to improve their skill level?

Personally I would rather do it in reverse. The system that is currently in place for identifying, assessing and selecting young players is one that rules out players like Jason Porplyzia and Sam Mitchell. And that's wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

Its easier to teach discipline than it is to teach flair.

Maturity and leadership is something that comes with time and experience....pure skill doesn't!

We are forgetting that we are drafting 17 and 18 year old kids. None of us were mature at that age, not many of us had the work ethic and I very much doubt we had the discipline. We achieved those when we experienced different things in life and learnt from it.

These are kids, their attitudes and maturity can be shaped significantly at that age, their skill level....well not as much!

 

[RoosterLad]

We will only draft players with peroxide hair.

 

[Mismatched]

Good post and it highlights a real contradiction in us supposedly drafting/recruiting players who have the "right" attitude and our leadership program. Recruiting players that don't need any feedback or any behaviour modification surely defeats the purpose.

The purpose of having this leadership program and a strong club culture is surely so that we can get a group of talented footballers to work together, improve together and play good football. Recruiting a bunch of well behaved model citizens and then claiming to have a great culture is cheating.

Maybe it is a case of being once bitten twice shy. Angwin - talented player but a ****head. Picioane - talented player but a big head (literally and figuratively). Ladhams - arrogant without any reason whatsoever for being so. Watts - bed wetter. Now we pick on character so as not to repeat these "mistakes" of the past. In doing so we ignore the much, much longer list of great, hard-working blokes we've picked who couldn't play football for shit.

I think the thing thats happened is, is that over the past few years, we've been trying to develop the foundations of this strong culture, over the past few years, especially in the Ayres era, we tried to recruit a lot of these "highly talented" but suspect players and just failed miserably in making them footballers.

We have taken the likes of Angwin, Meesen, Watts, Pfeiffer, Reilly even, really talented players and perhaps not researched into their "mental states" enough and barring Reilly, who is still struggling to show his true worth, none of these 1st rounder, potential gun players are still with us. The only players that have really succeeded with us, are those with good work ethics, more solid citizens and taken later in the draft, which may have dampened egos.

I think you're right CS when you say that we've been bitten once too many times and as such, we've really focused on building up a good culture, so that we can recruit these types of players, bring them in and be confident that the support structure is there to make sure that they succeed and don't become failures like so many before. I think we'll find that moving into this draft, we may be inclined to go for a less "politically correct" type player, Craig hinted as much when he mentioned that he'd like to bring in a player such as Didak, to test the strength of the club culture.

Oh and for what its worth, why did we bother recruiting Taylor Walker if we've got a big image problem, Bernie Vince ain't perfect, Porplyzia isn't the fittest bloke out there, look at the hair on the likes of Kite, Cook and Moran, look what Scotty Thompson did at the beginning of the year, Simon Goodwin the beginning of last year, oh and are we still complaining about the recruitment of Dangerfield, granted he didn't play 22 games with us this year, but IMO, has the ability to become a much more important player than Rioli and is a potential future captain. Oh and we made such a bad call recruiting VB, why on earth do we just recruit these athletes, I mean what can he do other than run all day, its not as if he finds much of the ball, has shocking disposal, weak as piss, no wait!!!

Yes we place a lot of emphasis on psych evaluations, but then so many complain about our recruiting record with 1st rounders over the past how many years, but then I'm sure a fair number are coming back here and complaining about how we didn't take a risk on Rioli. Now maybe I'm wrong and you're all happy to continue drafting Angwins, Pfeiffer's, Meesen's etc, who knows maybe we'll get one right one day, but I have not been impressed at all with our handling of first round draft picks, especially under Ayres, even NC isn't out of the woods there though, so I'm happy to go with a Dangerfield over Rioli, if it means we're less likely to be burnt again.

Okay, thats enough, I'll climb down from my soap box now.

 

[Sekaj]

Maybe people should just get over Rioli. After we picked Dangerfield he was gone by our next pick so we were never in a position to pick him anyway unless you're suggesting we should have picked Rioli ahead of Dangerfield.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Maybe people should just get over Rioli. After we picked Dangerfield he was gone by our next pick so we were never in a position to pick him anyway unless you're suggesting we should have picked Rioli ahead of Dangerfield.

Which is what we were leaning towards, until Rioli stank it up in the interview!

I think people think that some are pissed off that we didn't pick Rioli. The discussion here is NOT Rioli Vs Dangerfield. Rioli was used just as an example of the certain case where what happened in the interview heavily swayed our decision in the other direction.

Who knows, how these 2 will turn out in 5 or 10 years time. What people are questioning here is the merit of fitting the criteria of "right image" and "right maturity" and how much consideration should be given to that criteria.

Rioli's skinfolds were bad, his interviewing was shithouse, has that really impacted his ability to play the game at the highest level?! I don't think it has. We are just questioning what is of greater importance, pure football talent, or fitting the "right image" criteria. I think talent has to be favoured in this scenario.

And please before anyone else starts thinking its Rioli VS Dangerfield thing again. IT IS NOT! Rioli is used just as an example here.

 

[Mismatched]

Which is what we were leaning towards, until Rioli stank it up in the interview!

I think people think that some are pissed off that we didn't pick Rioli. The discussion here is NOT Rioli Vs Dangerfield. Rioli was used just as an example of the certain case where what happened in the interview heavily swayed our decision in the other direction.

Who knows, how these 2 will turn out in 5 or 10 years time. What people are questioning here is the merit of fitting the criteria of "right image" and "right maturity" and how much consideration should be given to that criteria.

Rioli's skinfolds were bad, his interviewing was shithouse, has that really impacted his ability to play the game at the highest level?! I don't think it has. We are just questioning what is of greater importance, pure football talent, or fitting the "right image" criteria. I think talent has to be favoured in this scenario.

And please before anyone else starts thinking its Rioli VS Dangerfield thing again. IT IS NOT! Rioli is used just as an example here.

Yes, but not at the expense of the "image" as you put it, quite often there would be so little separating the talent in the first round or at your current pick for example, that its not worth taking the risk on the one with slightly more talent, if the analysis of his mental state suggests that he is a much greater risk.

Oh and I'm interested to hear a couple of other recent examples of where we've passed up on a player because of this "image". Clearly Sellar had a "great" image when we drafted him, Wonaemirri (however its spelt), we clearly weren't the only ones to pass him up, clearly we made a mistake picking up VB for his good "image", I see Petrenko as a similar situation to Melbourne picking Wona, Vince probably wasn't the perfect "image", yet we picked him early because he was just such a great talent, why is Perrie gone if we are so strung up about "image". Now I can probably go on, but perhaps I'm missing your point re "image" here Stiffy_18, so please enlighten me on other examples where we've focussed too much on "image" and I'll bow to your greater wisdom.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Dangerfield should be left out the debate. He is the right "image" but that's not the reason we picked him up, it's just the bonus along with the fact that he's an absolute gun.

Now that I think of it I don't think we have actually drafted many players that were the right "image" since NC. I just think the club culture has changed a lot of players and kept them in check.

 

[-CG-]

This topic reminds me of an article I saw in the paper a couple of days ago:

Power, Crows brands 'bland'
MICHELANGELO RUCCI September 26, 2008

ADELAIDE has become politically correct, making the Crows just as bland off the field as they are dour in their AFL action.

And Port Adelaide has to decide just what it is - and not rely on 172 words in Fos Williams' 1962 creed to sell its club's image.

SA's two AFL clubs have had their branding and imaging severely assessed by market analyst Simon Hammond.

The executive creative chairman of the Belong agency has ranked the Adelaide Football Club's brand as the AFL's third worst, behind Sydney and Melbourne.

"Bland on and off the field," Hammond says of the Crows.

He adds the club's image has suffered rather than been enhanced by coach Neil Craig's determination to build solid character in his clubhouse and solid citizens outside the club.

"Political correctness is terrible for football. It pleases the sponsors but it loses the fans who want their football to be filled with characters, gladiators who are wild," he says.

Hammond has ranked Collingwood as the AFL's No. 1 brand and argues bad boy Alan Didak, with his association with bikies and his recent drinking binge and car crash, has enhanced rather than damaged the Magpies' brand.

"Everyone knows what Collingwood stands for - their supporters are tough, their club is tough and their president, Eddie McGuire, is tough, standing up to the AFL," he says.

"You can sum up Collingwood in one word - and that is the essence of a great brand."

Hammond says Port's "Live the Creed" branding for next season is "a step in the right direction". "But 172 words for a creed is too many," he says.

"And the essence of that creed is too vanilla and too generic.

"Every club has the values of that creed.

"Port Adelaide needs to find something that will make it stand out from the rest.

"The creed has to be tested against the three Bs - does it hold up with 'belief' inside the club, does it make the supporters 'belong' and does the club 'behave' to the creed?

"Port Adelaide's behaviour is questionable when it gives up half way through a season.

"Since the Power entered the AFL (in 1997) it gave up too much - its jumper, it colours, its nickname."

Hammond measured the Crows and Power by the appeal of their players beyond their home markets.

"Their image does not travel well interstate because they do not have too many characters," he says.

"No scandals, no wild men. They do not have players who draw the crowds through the gates interstate," he says.

"They are boring brands."

 

[coast2coast]

I think people think that some are pissed off that we didn't pick Rioli. The discussion here is NOT Rioli Vs Dangerfield. Rioli was used just as an example of the certain case where what happened in the interview heavily swayed our decision in the other direction.

Spot on.

While I'm yet to buy the book, I was concerned to read excerpts of Emma Quayle's 'The Draft' from another thread. Apparently we ruled Rioli out after his interview because of "his poor testing and the possible psycholgical pressure of moving states".

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Rioli played every game for the year's eventual premiers and finished second in the rising star. He would have been a walk-up start into our best 22 and plays a position we desperately need to fill. But we put a line through his name because we're worried he might get a little homesick?

Yeah, it's great we got Dangerfield at pick 10. But if he'd gone by our pick, according to Rendell's rankings we would have selected Lobbe ahead of Rioli.