COLLINGWOOD. NEXT 5 YEARS?

[Fat Jesus]

Yeah I reckon they will give him 2 more years to just play the game, probably at 2027.

28/29 I think. Just my opinion.

 

[loki04]

28/29 I think. Just my opinion.

Yeah potentially might depend on Moore.
Or if a list rebuild happens might want a fresh face leading it.

 

[sr36]

Yeah potentially might depend on Moore.
Or if a list rebuild happens might want a fresh face leading it.

I think Nick will be calling the shots in the midfield as early as this year, but let Moore keep the public face part of the role as long as he wants it.

 

[loki04]

I think Nick will be calling the shots in the midfield as early as this year, but let Moore keep the public face part of the role as long as he wants it.

Maybe a VC role see how the players vote.

 

[76woodenspooners]

That post sums up a lot of what is wrong with the world.

If you break that down, the 2023 had little to do with the coaches and players.

Not saying that.

Just saying that the people who appointed the coaches and recruited the players, etc, etc had a very key role to play in determining success or failure.

Consider a motor car, pick a particular motor car. Imagine all the work that went into creating it …

Do you think of the people on the production line doing manual labour? Or do you think about the designers with their clay models? Or do you think about the engineers solving complex problems of Computational Flow Dynamics and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis? Or do you think of some executive in an office who sits behind a desk who is making the big decisions and bringing all the departments together?

Now consider whether you believe the brand of that motor car is a good brand or not relative to others in the market? How long have you felt that way about that brand? Now which role up and down the chain do you think has most contributed to you feeling that way?

It was down to the brilliance of Korda and co - for selecting the selection panel that then selected McRae. Great job old chap.

We’ll likely never really know the individual contributions, but key on that panel were -

• Wright, who was appointed under Ed.
• Anderson, who was appointed under Ed.
• Murphy, who was lauded for his work on the 2017 review. And had subsequently been invited onto the board by Ed.

I’m not lionising Ed here, because without Korda & co we might not have moved Buckley on.

You just knew that person you placed on the panel would make all the difference. There was no luck involved at all.

Absolutely there is luck.

There is the luck of which way the ball bounces. But if your team isa lot better than the other team, then it doesn’t matter which way the ball bounces.

It’s all about maximising your luck.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think the captaincy of Collingwood will be annouced at the 2025 season launch and its Darcy Moore to hand the batton to Nick Daicos be like the hand over around the xmas break.
Moore will be vice captain tho.
But its Nick as Pies captain.

Nick is a great player, but there’s no rule that says your best player would or should be a good captain. Nick Maxwell was never our best player and yet he was a great captain.

Having a 22 year old lead a bunch of 30+ year olds doesn’t sound like a great idea? Imposing leadership on a young athlete often impacts their game, and would we want to risk that with N.Daicos? What competitive benefit would we get out of it?

IMO Maynard would make a great captain.

Maybe when N.Daicos gets to around 26 (4 years time) is when he’ll come into consideration for captaincy. That’s around the age Moore and Pendlebury were when they became captain.

 

[sr36]

Not saying that.

Just saying that the people who appointed the coaches and recruited the players, etc, etc had a very key role to play in determining success or failure.

Consider a motor car, pick a particular motor car. Imagine all the work that went into creating it …

Do you think of the people on the production line doing manual labour? Or do you think about the designers with their clay models? Or do you think about the engineers solving complex problems of Computational Flow Dynamics and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis? Or do you think of some executive in an office who sits behind a desk who is making the big decisions and bringing all the departments together?

Now consider whether you believe the brand of that motor car is a good brand or not relative to others in the market? How long have you felt that way about that brand? Now which role up and down the chain do you think has most contributed to you feeling that way?



We’ll likely never really know the individual contributions, but key on that panel were -

• Wright, who was appointed under Ed.
• Anderson, who was appointed under Ed.
• Murphy, who was lauded for his work on the 2017 review. And had subsequently been invited onto the board by Ed.

I’m not lionising Ed here, because without Korda & co we might not have moved Buckley on.



Absolutely there is luck.

There is the luck of which way the ball bounces. But if your team isa lot better than the other team, then it doesn’t matter which way the ball bounces.

It’s all about maximising your luck.

There's no doubt that upper mmt can have a massive impact, particularly when implementing change, and I don't mean of personnel.

However one thing that recruiting in footy should teach us is that there is no one with a magical eye who just knows - all recruiting departments have their big successes and big failures. And thats in a realm where individual performance is so much more visible and measurable than it is when employing managers, where there is and has to be a lot more vibe based guessing involved. Upper management get lucky when they appoint someone who goes on to be outstanding - just as player recruiters do, but yes some set up better systems and criteria and are better decision makers who are more likely to appoint well. But to attribute all success to those decision makers rather than the people who actually get it done is warped - old school British class thinking adopted by the corporate world. **** Shakespeare's contribution to Macbeth - lets credit the bloke who commissioned him to perform a play.

 

[sideswipe]

Not saying that.

Just saying that the people who appointed the coaches and recruited the players, etc, etc had a very key role to play in determining success or failure.

Consider a motor car, pick a particular motor car. Imagine all the work that went into creating it …

Do you think of the people on the production line doing manual labour? Or do you think about the designers with their clay models? Or do you think about the engineers solving complex problems of Computational Flow Dynamics and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis? Or do you think of some executive in an office who sits behind a desk who is making the big decisions and bringing all the departments together?

Now consider whether you believe the brand of that motor car is a good brand or not relative to others in the market? How long have you felt that way about that brand? Now which role up and down the chain do you think has most contributed to you feeling that way?



We’ll likely never really know the individual contributions, but key on that panel were -

• Wright, who was appointed under Ed.
• Anderson, who was appointed under Ed.
• Murphy, who was lauded for his work on the 2017 review. And had subsequently been invited onto the board by Ed.

I’m not lionising Ed here, because without Korda & co we might not have moved Buckley on.



Absolutely there is luck.

There is the luck of which way the ball bounces. But if your team isa lot better than the other team, then it doesn’t matter which way the ball bounces.

It’s all about maximising your luck.

Another one of your special ones - equating footy club personnel with that of a car manufacturer. How do you come up with these?

In earlier times, there was a saying that derived from the auto industry but also began to applied, in the misogynistic ways of those days, to beautiful women. The saying, intended to be complimentary, was that "you must have been built on a Wednesday".

The idea behind this was that manufacturing staff were too hungover earlier in the week and too eager for the weekend as the week reached its end. So the manufacturing line was at its best on a Wednesday. They are important.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Another one of your special ones - equating footy club personnel with that of a car manufacturer.

There is a subtle but very distinctive difference between “equating”, “drawing equivalence” and “using an analogy to explain an idea”.

 

[sideswipe]

There is a subtle but very distinctive difference between “equating”, “drawing equivalence” and “using an analogy to explain an idea”.

Whatever Trevor - your analogy was as boneheaded as your statement,

"IMO Footy is a competition fought between club officials and administrators. The 2.5 hours we see on the weekend is the output of their strategy, wisdom and guile."

Doesn't say much for our AFLW footy department, because outside of that, they have the same club officials and administrators as the AFL team.

 

[sr36]

There is a subtle but very distinctive difference between “equating”, “drawing equivalence” and “using an analogy to explain an idea”.

To run with your factory analogy.

They're small factories that produce collaboratively hand made artisan products. The recruiters select the artisans. THe coaches design the production line and what the produts will look like and then train and supervise the artisans to manufacture quality components and adhere to the production line. And roughly once a decade, those at the top decide to sack the recruiters or coaches or get an external review if the products aren't up to scratch. THey sometimes then appoint new coaches or recruiters who then clear out the current artisans and replace them - if they think the artisans aren't good enough, or alternatively change the desgin of the product or the production line.

Yes those once a decade decisions are vital. But success and failure relies on the coaches, recruiters and artisans. ANyone who thinks that footy is a competition between administrators is kidding themselves and looking to bestow platitudes on the wrong people when success does occur. Which also often results in those at the top forgetting their station, becoming overly self important and meddling in the footy department decisions - usually with a negative consequence.


Footy is different from than industry as the product and not profit is king. Whilst those above oversee the coaches, hire them and fire occasionally, their day to day is serving the coaches or at least should be as the coaches are in charge of the product - all that actually matters.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Doesn't say much for our AFLW footy department, because outside of that, they have the same club officials and administrators as the AFL team.

Agreed

 

[Finnishpie]

While I’m not trying to diminish the quality he brings, Elliott hasn’t even made an AA 40 man squad so I’m interested in how you justify that claim.

The others all have AA honors, but there’s been a bit of water under the bridge since they achieved them, Pendles the most recent of the 3 in 2019. We aren’t looking to replace the players they were 5+ seasons ago, and it doesn’t have to be their direct replacements who replace that quality in the team. That could be a player obtained under FA in 2025 or beyond. It could also be argued we’ve already replaced a couple of those AA quality pieces with the drafting of the Daicos brothers, and the trading of Houston.

I justify Elliot by noting that injuries -- that back injury especially -- meant he was never able to play at his best for an entire year. There are plenty who have missed out because of injuries interrupting them.

 

[Finnishpie]

Can I put it to you that this potential cliff that you saw last year, was looming a couple of years before that. When Fly was appointed, the overwhelming majority assumed he was going to have to rebuild. And I have little doubt that some of the applicants would have pitched themselves as the man to oversee a rebuild.

Thankfully, the selection panel didn't think like you do and appointed a coach who advocated winning and getting us straight back up the ladder after a shit year. Otherwise we'd already be off the cliff.

The way I see it, our mature recruiting has already extended a team that was due for a re-build if that was your mentality. And this latest off season should see it extended beyond the initial wave of retirees. And I think we'll be able to continue to extend our period of contention for a while to come.

I love what they're doing.

That is a fair point. I accept that. I personally am guilty of overestimating the likelihood in recent years.

But..... I think it'll come at some point.

 

[Mollythedolly]

That is a fair point. I accept that. I personally am guilty of overestimating the likelihood in recent years.

But..... I think it'll come at some point.

Nostradamus suggested 2000 didn’t he? We might have slipped past it.

 

[sr36]

That is a fair point. I accept that. I personally am guilty of overestimating the likelihood in recent years.

But..... I think it'll come at some point.

I do too. A bit of a drop Post Moore, Bruz, Crisp, JDG, but bounce back quickly and then we might have to rebuild post Nick Daicos if we haven't added young guns beneath him, but that's a lot to play out.

 

[76woodenspooners]

To run with your factory analogy.

They're small factories that produce collaboratively hand made artisan products. The recruiters select the artisans. THe coaches design the production line and what the produts will look like and then train and supervise the artisans to manufacture quality components and adhere to the production line. And roughly once a decade, those at the top decide to sack the recruiters or coaches or get an external review if the products aren't up to scratch. THey sometimes then appoint new coaches or recruiters who then clear out the current artisans and replace them - if they think the artisans aren't good enough, or alternatively change the desgin of the product or the production line.

Yes those once a decade decisions are vital. But success and failure relies on the coaches, recruiters and artisans. ANyone who thinks that footy is a competition between administrators is kidding themselves and looking to bestow platitudes on the wrong people when success does occur. Which also often results in those at the top forgetting their station, becoming overly self important and meddling in the footy department decisions - usually with a negative consequence.


Footy is different from than industry as the product and not profit is king. Whilst those above oversee the coaches, hire them and fire occasionally, their day to day is serving the coaches or at least should be as the coaches are in charge of the product - all that actually matters.

It’s not just once a decade decisions, there’s also how people are being held to account

For example, there’s a likelihood that leadership will meet at the start of the year and review expectations. Where is the team expected to be at various phases of the season? And there would be progress reviews at various stages (probably monthly). And if it’s tracking behind forecast, then why? And what can be done to address it to prevent it from getting out of hand? And if / how the gap can be made up? Not dissimilar to sales / production reviews against forecasts in industry.

And this probably wouldn’t just be tracking wins and losses, but also state of injuries, progress with staff recruitment, other resourcing, maybe some kind of pulse surveys, etc, etc, and no doubt a bunch of other measurable things that footy depts to deal with.

 

[76woodenspooners]

"IMO Footy is a competition fought between club officials and administrators. The 2.5 hours we see on the weekend is the output of their strategy, wisdom and guile."

Doesn't say much for our AFLW footy department, because outside of that, they have the same club officials and administrators as the AFL team.

Some people see wars as being fought between soldiers. Some see them as being fought between Generals. Or scientists and engineers. Or economies.

None of those perspectives is wrong.

 

[sr36]

It’s not just once a decade decisions, there’s also how people are being held to account

For example, there’s a likelihood that leadership will meet at the start of the year and review expectations. Where is the team expected to be at various phases of the season? And there would be progress reviews at various stages (probably monthly). And if it’s tracking behind forecast, then why? And what can be done to address it to prevent it from getting out of hand? And if / how the gap can be made up? Not dissimilar to sales / production reviews against forecasts in industry.

And what does that actually do? Do you think that Chris Scott and his coaching team don't know when the Cats are underperforming and don't come up with plans to improve unless those above meet with them?

 

[76woodenspooners]

And what does that actually do? Do you think that Chris Scott and his coaching team don't know when the Cats are underperforming and don't come up with plans to improve unless those above meet with them?

Sure, maybe in a perfect world management wouldn’t be needed. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

Risks get identified, risks become realised, unforeseen risks occur, people become burnt out, people have 1000 things they could be doing but only time and resources to do 100 of them, money needs to be spent, etc, etc.

 

[sr36]

Sure, maybe in a perfect world management wouldn’t be needed. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

Risks get identified, risks become realised, unforeseen risks occur, people become burnt out, people have 1000 things they could be doing but only time and resources to do 100 of them, money needs to be spent, etc, etc.

That's my view too. They're an important safety net.

The significant difference with footy to a corporation is that performance rather than profit is the goal of an AFL club, which shifts the whole hierarchy of importance. Rather than the factory floor existing to make money for the top of the corporation, the mmt of a footy club exists to support the footy team. And the coaches and players control the thing that actually matters - performance.

 

[sideswipe]

Some people see wars as being fought between soldiers. Some see them as being fought between Generals. Or scientists and engineers. Or economies.

None of those perspectives is wrong.

You are better off expounding your bullshit around board governance.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[76woodenspooners]

You are better off expounding your bullshit around board governance.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why do you think clubs are bucking the efforts of equalisation over the long term? Both those that are perennially competitive and those that are perennially rubbish?

Do you think it’s all just random luck? (IMO the people at the top of sporting organisations are striving to make their own luck, and some are either more committed to it and/or better at it)

Or the AFL aren’t sincere about equalisation? (IMO equalisation is good for business, and the AFL does what is good for business)

Or …? What’s your opinion?