Who thinks Demetriou is an idiot?

[rayven]

So if we were in this good financial position everyone credits him for, why is there a blockbuster tax and rude sponsorship deals with bookies?

 

[Huntercrow]

I think he lost the plot with the Rendell saga and hasn't looked forward since.

 

[ManInTheArena]

I don't think he's an idiot but he's got a very frustrating decision making process that excludes proper consultation and communication.

It seems to go like this; Consult with internal committees. Make the decision that we want. Tell all stakeholders that its happening.

It should go like this; Through the committee, think about the end result we want. Consult with stakeholders discussing the end result needed and why the end result is needed (backed up by evidence). Offer our solutions. Genuinely listen the other solutions and modifications to our solutions. Make a decision using all of this data and more evidence if required. Tell all stakeholders the decision (usually modified or changed) and why that decision was made.

It's not a good decision making process to not involve stakeholders properly. If your not confident enough in the reasons and evidence for your decision, then why are you doing it? It should stand up to rational stakeholder criticism and evidence, if it doesn't then it may need to change or be reconsidered. By not allowing input, the door is closed to improving the outcome.

I used to think Demetriou was okay but over the last two years, and especially the last year, he's totally lost me.

 

[Vader]

I don't think he's an idiot but he's got a very frustrating decision making process that excludes proper consultation and communication.

It seems to go like this; Consult with internal committees. Make the decision that we want. Tell all stakeholders that its happening.

It should go like this; Through the committee, think about the end result we want. Consult with stakeholders discussing the end result needed and why the end result is needed (backed up by evidence). Offer our solutions. Genuinely listen the other solutions and modifications to our solutions. Make a decision using all of this data and more evidence if required. Tell all stakeholders the decision (usually modified or changed) and why that decision was made.

It's not a good decision making process to not involve stakeholders properly. If your not confident enough in the reasons and evidence for your decision, then why are you doing it? It should stand up to rational stakeholder criticism and evidence, if it doesn't then it may need to change or be reconsidered. By not allowing input, the door is closed to improving the outcome.

I used to think Demetriou was okay but over the last two years, and especially the last year, he's totally lost me.

Here's what they have done..

Firstly, he/they identified that a problem existed - teams were still being disadvantaged when they lost players due to injury, despite the introduction of the 3+1 bench. The 3+1 rule helped, but more needed to be done, particularly in the case where teams lost multiple players in the same game. Note that the interchange bench was originally intended to provide a pool of replacement players should someone get injured - the reasons for increasing it from 2 to 3, then later to 4 players, was to provide a larger pool of replacements. The subversion of the interchange bench, by coaches introducing ridiculously high rotation rates, significantly reduced the effectiveness of the bench's primary purpose - as an injury equaliser.

He then consulted with an internal committee - the rules committee, of which KB and Leigh Matthews are both members. They came up with two options - going to a 2+2 bench, or capping the number of interchanges.

He/they then shopped the options around with the various stakeholders. They were basically given two options - going to a 2+2 bench, or capping the number of interchanges. The clubs & players almost unanimously rejected the 2+2 bench, leaving the cap as their preferred option.

He/they then trialled the new rule during the MMC, noting that the H&A rounds are not the place to be testing new rules. It wasn't popular with the coaches, who had developed game plans based around high rotations - and who would have to go back to the drawing board if/when the cap was introduced. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

He/they then announced that the cap was going to become a permanent rule, in 12 months time - thereby giving the coaches a whole year of advance notice. This should be more than enough time for them to modify their game plans accordingly. It's not as if he's dropped a bombshell on them, forcing them to make radical changes overnight. They have a whole year to get ready.

The facts are:

• The primary purpose of the interchange bench is to provide a pool of replacement players, in the event that one or more should be forced from the ground due to injury. Any other usage of the bench is secondary.
• High rotation rates are a recent coaching innovation. It was only 5 years ago that the average number of rotations per game was less than 80. We're not talking about an unreasonable cap here, it's a cap that the coaches were quite happy working with until very recently.
• Teams with multiple injuries are placed at an extreme disadvantage, because of their reduced bench size. They are unable to match the rotation rates of their opponents, thus their players become more fatigued. Capping the number of interchanges will limit the advantage enjoyed by the team without the injuries.

Looks to me as if Dimwit has actually jumped through most of the hoops you set for him.. yet nobody is happy with the solution.

This isn't about changing the way the game is played, fatiguing the players and limiting the effectiveness of the zone & flood - that it addresses those issues is a bonus, but they are very much secondary. It's about restoring fairness to the game, for teams who suffer multiple injuries. That's why a rule change is required, rather than letting the game evolve naturally, with coaches finding their own solutions to the zone/flooding problems.

 

[Mattrox]

This isn't about changing the way the game is played, fatiguing the players and limiting the effectiveness of the zone & flood - that it addresses those issues is a bonus, but they are very much secondary. It's about restoring fairness to the game, for teams who suffer multiple injuries. That's why a rule change is required, rather than letting the game evolve naturally, with coaches finding their own solutions to the zone/flooding problems.

Why should bad luck on one team effect the coach of the other team? This is primary school thinking that every little thing has to be "fair".

And why does the AFL guy they get on the radio talk about these measures as a help to reduce injury?

And why would Vlad slag off Roos for an ugly game style but then get rules in that will help teams with this game style.

I can see how it mitigates blow out results between the top and bottom teams.

 

[Vader]

Why should bad luck on one team effect the coach of the other team? This is primary school thinking that every little thing has to be "fair".

In that case why does the AFL bother with the two equalisation policies - the salary cap and the draft? Why does it bother with trying to prop up clubs which would be broke without AFL assistance?

The primary purpose of the interchange bench was always to provide replacements for injured players. It's not the AFL's fault that the coaches have subverted this to their own evil purposes.

And why does the AFL guy they get on the radio talk about these measures as a help to reduce injury?

Probably because the AFL's annual injury report for 2012 was published in the last couple of days, giving them something to talk about.

And why would Vlad slag off Roos for an ugly game style but then get rules in that will help teams with this game style.

Come on, Roos has been gone for how long? The fact that this rule change will (hopefully) open the game up a bit more is secondary to it's primary purpose, which is removing the disadvantage suffered by teams with multiple injuries.

 

[Mattrox]

In that case why does the AFL bother with the two equalisation policies - the salary cap and the draft? Why does it bother with trying to prop up clubs which would be broke without AFL assistance?

This is the difference between making a level playing field so that clubs have the tools to achieve success on the macro level. But surely on game day things do not need to be micro managed.

The primary purpose of the interchange bench was always to provide replacements for injured players. It's not the AFL's fault that the coaches have subverted this to their own evil purposes.

Why are the coaches purposes evil? I don't buy that at all.

Probably because the AFL's annual injury report for 2012 was published in the last couple of days, giving them something to talk about.

I agree and this is a diversion.

Come on, Roos has been gone for how long? The fact that this rule change will (hopefully) open the game up a bit more is secondary to it's primary purpose, which is removing the disadvantage suffered by teams with multiple injuries.

I used to Roos example because Vlad was "outraged" for want of a better word at the "ugly" footy. Yet I do not think this rule change will result in more open footy. It encourages the ball to be moved Neil Craig style back and sideway so players are not using up energy running too much. It encourages flooding back or a forward press which has resulted in some games looking like an ugly under 9s game. Keep the ball locked in the zone so we don't have to run.

Some of the best games I have watched are when teams "spread" and get players into space so a running player can recieve, carry and deliver the ball. That is exciting footy. That is footy that requires resting players, and players that have big tanks. I fail to see how this game style is evil. Teams that are rebuilding can get thumped, but that has always been the case . But why should a footy club who has poured resources into developing players and rising up the ladder then be brought hindered on game day?

With all the "spread the wealth" programmes and drafting and trading concessions that have been used over the years, why penalize clubs that have been efficient with their draft picks, effecient in their player development, their game day strategy. That is part of the competition, drafting and developing the players into skillful AFL footballers without bottoming out.

I see the game day as the final exam. You give all kids the chance to learn to the best of their ability, but come exam day you can't give some kids hints and help just because they don't have academic ability, just to be egalitarian. Are the teachers who consistenly give their kids an advantage over others before the exam through better teaching and learning techniques evil? Coaches using the interchange bench is really no different.

In the end the best teams will still win, there will still be a large gap between the top and bottom teams and there will still be ugly footy and the exciting brand of footy that fans like to watch will diminsh. Nothing tangible will be achieved with this rule change. I see it as bureaucrats justifying their positions.... look at all these good measures we are putting into place to "better" the game.

The number one thing that would make the game better is a consitent interpretation and application of the rules. And leave the rules the bloody same for long enough so the umpires don't need to adjust the interpretation almost every year. Accompanied by taking the mircophones away from the umpires, they are their to adjudicate not give a running commentary.

I agree that a cap of 80 won't "kill" the game but when when there are seemingly more important issues that go unfixed, this seems a little smug to me.

 

[Vader]

This is the difference between making a level playing field so that clubs have the tools to achieve success on the macro level. But surely on game day things do not need to be micro managed.

At the end of the day the AFL wants the best teams to win, not the luckiest teams. They want games to be determined by skill, not who has the least injuries. This rule change is all about reducing the advantage enjoyed by the team which escapes injury.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Secondly, the game is likely to slow down as players won't be able to go off for 30 seconds to re-charge their batteries, before resuming at full pace. This should result in fewer impact injuries.

Is that what their data tells them? That higher fatigue results in fewer impact injuries?

I'm sure I heard someone from the AFL say this once.

 

[Vader]

Is that what their data tells them? That higher fatigue results in fewer impact injuries?

I'm sure I heard someone from the AFL say this once.

It's a bit extreme (dodgy journalism at it's finest), but you might appreciate this take on it:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-coaches-warned/story-e6frg6n6-1226591108214

 

[Slippery Pete]

That page needs a log-in.

I get the gist of it though.

 

[Vader]

That page needs a log-in.

I get the gist of it though.

Just google the article's title, and click on the first link that comes up. This gets around the newscorp paywall.

 

[Mattrox]

How many people played competetive sport at a reasonable level? I know from experience that unless exhausted to the point of collapse, when there was a contest I would bust a gut to beat the other bloke. In my case I was running and no impact injuries would occur. But if this same desparation is made by a tired body the precision and agility is gone. The impact is going to happen, may be not at top speed, but occurs in a manner that the player can't make evasive manouvers. If a player like Dangerfield for example gets to a contest in traffic he will not back out. "Usually" (humour me a little as I am not using statistics and data) he will extract the ball and either burst through or maybe side step a tackle. If fatigued this reaction time slows and the evasive manouvre is late and impact is worsened. .... Imagine a slow boxer trying to dodge a jab but judges wrong and leans into the hook....

I know it is a hypothetical, but for every impact that is slowed there is a new scenario created where an alternative injury can occur.

Fatigue slows reation times. Fatigue clouds judgement. These two things have the potential to increase impact injuries. The slower pace at the end of the game may reduce the impact of a collision but my hunch is that there will be more impacts in total. If you remember your high school chemistry it is akin to lowering the reaction temperature but increasing concentration.

I also don't see the point in trying to take the "luck" out of sport. How amazing is the half-court shot in Basketball to win a game when the opponent has been the better team all game? What about the hole-in-one? What about the gruelling win depite carring an injured player (97 final against the Doggies)?

While injuries are unfortunate 1) I'm not sure this will reduce them 2) they will still happen and the team with injury is still at a disadvatage.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Here's what they have done..

Let's run this through then and see how Demetriou goes. I removed the parts that are completely irrelevant to the consultation process as I have never argued for or against the merits of the decision. I dislike the process Demetriou goes through. I think it's dictatorial, arrogant, forceful and does not produce the best result.

Through the committee, think about the end result we want.

Firstly, he/they identified that a problem existed...

He then consulted with an internal committee...They came up with two options - going to a 2+2 bench, or capping the number of interchanges.

Tick.

Consult with stakeholders discussing the end result needed and why the end result is needed (backed up by evidence). Offer our solutions.

He/they then shopped the options around with the various stakeholders. They were basically given two options - going to a 2+2 bench, or capping the number of interchanges. The clubs & players almost unanimously rejected the 2+2 bench, leaving the cap as their preferred option.

He/they then trialled the new rule during the MMC, noting that the H&A rounds are not the place to be testing new rules...

Fail. Consultation does not mean mandating one of two options. Do you want a punch in the face or a kick in the balls?

Genuinely listen the other solutions and modifications to our solutions.

Fail.

Make a decision using all of this data and more evidence if required.

Fail.

Tell all stakeholders the decision (usually modified or changed) and why that decision was made.

He/they then announced that the cap was going to become a permanent rule, in 12 months time - thereby giving the coaches a whole year of advance notice...

Maybe a tick, if he's lucky.

Looks to me as if Dimwit has actually jumped through most of the hoops you set for him.. yet nobody is happy with the solution.

Looks to me like he jumped through two hoops; make a decision and tell everyone what it is, just like I described him.

It seems to go like this; Consult with internal committees. Make the decision that we want. Tell all stakeholders that its happening.

I haven't changed my mind. It doesn't matter who advises the dictator or if he gives two options. Think about any dictator in history; they all had advisers and committees, and they all forced their decision on people who had no say in the matter. Demetriou is so delusional he thinks listening to internal committees and the commission, then making a decision and forcing it on people, makes him consultative.

 

[LiquidCrow]

Think about any dictator in history; they all had advisers and committees, and they all forced their decision on people who had no say in the matter. Demetriou is so delusional he thinks listening to internal committees and the commission, then making a decision and forcing it on people, makes him consultative.

The other thing to consider is that those people he has consulted with are probably too afraid of the consequences of saying anything against him - surrounded by "yes" men for want of a better term.

 

[Vader]

I haven't changed my mind. It doesn't matter who advises the dictator or if he gives two options. Think about any dictator in history; they all had advisers and committees, and they all forced their decision on people who had no say in the matter. Demetriou is so delusional he thinks listening to internal committees and the commission, then making a decision and forcing it on people, makes him consultative.

I agree that he's arrogant and dictatorial. I think he himself is probably the only person on the planet who fails to see him this way.

That said, I do see the method in his madness. Rightly or wrongly, he has identified a serious flaw in the game which has been exposed by the changing tactics of the coaches - a change which does not look like reversing any time soon. He has employed sports scientists to examine the problem, proposing two solutions, with Vlad implementing the less unpopular of these two options.

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

It's a bit extreme (dodgy journalism at it's finest), but you might appreciate this take on it:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-coaches-warned/story-e6frg6n6-1226591108214

Not the media's best work

 

[Team DJ]

I agree that he's arrogant and dictatorial. I think he himself is probably the only person on the planet who fails to see him this way.

That said, I do see the method in his madness. Rightly or wrongly, he has identified a serious flaw in the game which has been exposed by the changing tactics of the coaches - a change which does not look like reversing any time soon. He has employed sports scientists to examine the problem, proposing two solutions, with Vlad implementing the less unpopular of these two options.

Is it really a flaw?

Last year we interchanged a shit load. Tex still kicked bags and Danger racked em up.
WHo cares about the bench

 

[Vader]

Is it really a flaw?

Last year we interchanged a shit load. Tex still kicked bags and Danger racked em up.
WHo cares about the bench

I think you've missed the point, by focusing on this single post, without the context provided by my previous posts.

Yes, it's a flaw. It's a major advantage to those sides which are able to maintain high rotation rates.

Teams with a single injury can cover reasonably adequately using the substitute player. Teams with multiple injuries get run off their feet later in the game, as they are unable to rest their players as frequently due to the limited number of interchange positions available for them to rotate through. This is a major disadvantage to these teams. Note that the primary (indeed the only) reason for the existence of the interchange bench is to provide a pool of replacement players, in the event that one or more of the starting 18 get injured. The bench is supposed to provide adequate equalisation for the loss of up to 4 players - right now it's barely sufficient to cover 1, with teams losing 2 or more at a severe disadvantage.

 

[Team DJ]

I think you've missed the point, by focusing on this single post, without the context provided by my previous posts.

Yes, it's a flaw. It's a major advantage to those sides which are able to maintain high rotation rates.

Teams with a single injury can cover reasonably adequately using the substitute player. Teams with multiple injuries get run off their feet later in the game, as they are unable to rest their players as frequently due to the limited number of interchange positions available for them to rotate through. This is a major disadvantage to these teams. Note that the primary (indeed the only) reason for the existence of the interchange bench is to provide a pool of replacement players, in the event that one or more of the starting 18 get injured. The bench is supposed to provide adequate equalisation for the loss of up to 4 players - right now it's barely sufficient to cover 1, with teams losing 2 or more at a severe disadvantage.

Why dont we just become Gridiron when they bring all 53 blokes to a game.

Bad luck is just that.
Cop it on the chin and move on

 

[Vader]

Why dont we just become Gridiron when they bring all 53 blokes to a game.

Bad luck is just that.
Cop it on the chin and move on

Read the thread.. you're recycling arguments again.

 

[Elite Crow]

The AFL commission will decide if there is a cap next year and Vlad is only one vote on the commission. His announcement that it was a done deal flies in the face of what the rest of the stakeholders were told. They were told there would be another season of data analysis. Vlad announces its a done deal after what 1 week of trialing it in the NAB cup? So either they bullshitted the stakeholders last year or Vlad believes his shit doesn't stink and what he says goes.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The AFL commission will decide if there is a cap next year and Vlad is only one vote on the commission. His announcement that it was a done deal flies in the face of what the rest of the stakeholders were told. They were told there would be another season of data analysis. Vlad announces its a done deal after what 1 week of trialing it in the NAB cup? So either they bullshitted the stakeholders last year or Vlad believes his shit doesn't stink and what he says goes.

Vlad is making a habit of announcing things of late before doing any proper homework. Has become a lazy, arrogant CEO.

 

[maxlilly]

Here is a good article from Darren Jolly, asking the powers that be, to involve the players & coaches.
Don't just run the show as a dictactorship.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/listen-to-the-players-andrew-20130310-2fu6j.html

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Here is a good article from Darren Jolly, asking the powers that be, to involve the players & coaches.
Don't just run the show as a dictactorship.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/listen-to-the-players-andrew-20130310-2fu6j.html

Great common sense article, with some great quotes. This one summed it up for me:

What's going to look better: Teams being able to rotate as many times as they want so the superstars who the fans come to see can play the game at a higher intensity for longer? Or players being so tired they just chip it around and flood the back line?

If teams run out of interchanges, they will be forced to slow down the play.

Jolly has always come across as one of the better football minds & hope he plays a role in the game when he retires.

Vlad's arrogant, dictator style without true consultation of all stakeholders on such an important issue, suggests his time is up.