How important is a winning culture to a club?

[ThePuppetMaster]

Melbourne have a tanking culture?

FFS we tanked two games in one season.

Massively misconception.

There are perfectly good reasons young and developing teams have massive ups and downs (admittedly Melbourne's this year go a bit deeper).

IMO you don't have a 'losing culture', you have a 'weak culture'... the tone of the culture is set by the leadership.

Did Melbourne's 'tanking culture' seem to effect them last year when they pushed top four teams in three games and smashed a top 8 team by 70 odd points? A year after tanking and with the youngest list in the competition?

 

[Buddy Magic]

They didn't win a premiership for nearly 30 years!

Good example.

lol, you can't win 'em all, but I'd say 29 flags including 2011 and 4 Grand Finals in the last 10 years is pretty strong

 

[The_Reaper]

lol, you can't win 'em all, but I'd say 29 flags including 2011 and 4 Grand Finals in the last 10 years is pretty strong

Port Melbourne do not have 29 flags.

This year was their 16th.

 

[beenreal]

Port Melbourne do not have 29 flags.

This year was their 16th.

Perhaps Buddy is confusing with Port Adelaide, who've won 37 Flags.

Now that's a winning culture.

 

[The_Reaper]

Perhaps Buddy is confusing with Port Adelaide, who've won 37 Flags.

Now that's a winning culture.

Or the other great port club, East Fremantle who do have 29 flags.

 

[Buddy Magic]

DOW! My mistake, misread article... but 16 is still huge!

 

[Old Spice]

I'm pretty sure Collingwood were still favourites for the replay, we were missing our no.1 ruckman in Gardiner and had a few other sore and injured players. Collingwood were fresher with less injury problems so it probably wasn't a surprise that they ran over the top of us in the replay.

No, pretty certain everyone was saying Saints would have the Pies measure. We also lost Presti on the eve. However, that's not particularly relevant.

Gentleman Jeff asked what if everyone has a winning culture. It's a good question, but the fact is that not everyone does. Maloney's bar-room behavior was not disimilar to our own issues with our rat pack in the early 2000s. Swan has admitted that Buckley basically told him to piss off and ignored him because he was just a jack the lad.

The cultural turnaround for us was giving Shaw and Didak an extended holiday in 2008, even though we were contenders. Wellingham had to pay for his stupidity by public humiliation. Taz was shunted off to WA, while Swan faced his own footy mortality.

More imprtantly perhaps was the inclusion of Maxwell who just wouldn't accept mediocrity and faced derision in 2009 for publicly stating we wanted to and expected to win a flag. Just putting it out there was huge. You'd think that internally we had that winning attitude and weren't coasting, but that is just not correct. As Josh Fraser was quoted as saying in Maxwell's book, he was ****ing sick of no-one talking about winning a premiership.

You set a standard, expectations and a goal and that can really turn things around for a club. It happened at Geelong in 2007, it happened with us in 2009 and no doubt Worsfold was not happy to go down the route of the slow rebuild and steady as she goes.

I'm not saying that's the alpha and omega for club success, but to downplay it is ludicrous.

I get the sense here that the subtext is the wealthier clubs get the best of everything and ergo they are more likely to be successful. Well the greatest era for Collingwood did not coincide with enormous club wealth. In fact Collingwood had a spartan pay regime in which big wage demands were rejected, losing us some great players like Dan Minogue.

Formally speaking, every club will give lip-service to winning, but that doesn't mean they have a great culture. A poisonous relationship within / between footy departments, boards, coaches, players can screw a club and that is a culture issue.

In short if the human relationships are not good, i.e. a culture, then a side will never get the most out of their latent talent.

 

[beenreal]

No, pretty certain everyone was saying Saints would have the Pies measure. We also lost Presti on the eve. However, that's not particularly relevant.

Gentleman Jeff asked what if everyone has a winning culture. It's a good question, but the fact is that not everyone does. Maloney's bar-room behavior was not disimilar to our own issues with our rat pack in the early 2000s. Swan has admitted that Buckley basically told him to piss off and ignored him because he was just a jack the lad.

The cultural turnaround for us was giving Shaw and Didak an extended holiday in 2008, even though we were contenders. Wellingham had to pay for his stupidity by public humiliation. Taz was shunted off to WA, while Swan faced his own footy mortality.

More imprtantly perhaps was the inclusion of Maxwell who just wouldn't accept mediocrity and faced derision in 2009 for publicly stating we wanted to and expected to win a flag. Just putting it out there was huge. You'd think that internally we had that winning attitude and weren't coasting, but that is just not correct. As Josh Fraser was quoted as saying in Maxwell's book, he was ****ing sick of no-one talking about winning a premiership.

You set a standard, expectations and a goal and that can really turn things around for a club. It happened at Geelong in 2007, it happened with us in 2009 and no doubt Worsfold was not happy to go down the route of the slow rebuild and steady as she goes.

I'm not saying that's the alpha and omega for club success, but to downplay it is ludicrous.

I get the sense here that the subtext is the wealthier clubs get the best of everything and ergo they are more likely to be successful. Well the greatest era for Collingwood did not coincide with enormous club wealth. In fact Collingwood had a spartan pay regime in which big wage demands were rejected, losing us some great players like Dan Minogue.

Formally speaking, every club will give lip-service to winning, but that doesn't mean they have a great culture. A poisonous relationship within / between footy departments, boards, coaches, players can screw a club and that is a culture issue.

In short if the human relationships are not good, i.e. a culture, then a side will never get the most out of their latent talent.

Fos William's might have said it shorter but probably couldn't have said it better.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

I actually think it's just backstory. If Milne had won possession of the ball and kicked the goal, people would be writing about the Collywobbles culture today. If Swans beat West Coast in 2006 people would be saying the Eagles' party culture robbed them of premiership success. Vice versa, had West Coast won 2005, people would be saying the Swans were a team destined to win nothing, given their streak would now be running towards 80 years without a premiership.

That's not to say poor culture doesn't exist. There certainly are some clubs who have had bad culture for years: Freo and Richmond are two excellent examples. But these clubs barely make finals. A club that makes grand finals and gets close but ultimately falls short doesn't have a poor culture. That's just schoolboy analysis. Something fans tell themselves so they feel like the club they support has positive intangible qualities that reflect on them as a supporter.

 

[Contra Mundum]

A winning culture is determined ex post facto.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Perhaps Buddy is confusing with Port Adelaide, who've won 37 Flags.

Now that's a winning culture.

FFS, there is no such thing as a winning culture or a losing culture. there is no mythical spirit driving certain clubs to win and others to lose.

a strong culture is developed, implemented, and enforced by the people at the organisation. An organisation will only as good as the people there now operating it, not those who have left. Most importantly, a strong culture has to be demonstrated by the key personnel in the joint if it is to spread right through the place. In particular but not necessarily, the leaders of the organisation. At an AFL club, the positions people will look to are the CEO, Football Manager, Coach and Assistants, Captain, Leadership group and other senior players, and finally, any other person who has a charismatic personality who people are drawn to and can be persuaded and influenced by. The most important person in a sporting team is the head coach. He/she is the person in most contact with the staff/players. AN organisation can be turned around by one charismatic, influential and persuasive figure who demonstrates strong values, ethics and clearly communicate what's required so everybody knows what the objectives are and how they will be achieved so everybody knows their job, how to do it and moves the organisation in the direction towards the goal. It can also be destroyed by a personality who is a flip-floper, or a leader who doesnt practice what they preach or does not discipline breaches of behaviour contrary to the preferred values or expel threats to the this . They will not garner respect and will not influence troops, or even influence adversely.

It is accepted that Mick Malthouse is one such personality. Leigh Matthews is another. Paul Roos, Kevin Sheedy, etc. They all achieved the respect of the majority of their players (there will always be personality issues or issues with people who do not share the same values).

In world sport, great examples are Alex Ferguson and Bill Belichick. The latter in particular is astounding considering the parity conditions in the NFL yet he has won 3 superbowls in 5 years with the Patriots they have remained competitive for more than a decade despite a myriad of personnel changes.

 

[Skeppersap]

A winning culture is determined ex post facto.

Not always. I would have thought St Kilda 2008-2011 would have been an example of ex ante determination.

 

[Plugger35]

I actually think it's just backstory. If Milne had won possession of the ball and kicked the goal, people would be writing about the Collywobbles culture today. If Swans beat West Coast in 2006 people would be saying the Eagles' party culture robbed them of premiership success. Vice versa, had West Coast won 2005, people would be saying the Swans were a team destined to win nothing, given their streak would now be running towards 80 years without a premiership.

That's not to say poor culture doesn't exist. There certainly are some clubs who have had bad culture for years: Freo and Richmond are two excellent examples. But these clubs barely make finals. A club that makes grand finals and gets close but ultimately falls short doesn't have a poor culture. That's just schoolboy analysis. Something fans tell themselves so they feel like the club they support has positive intangible qualities that reflect on them as a supporter.

I agree.

As I said earlier in this thread when you have Grand Finals that are decided by a kick or two it comes down more to luck with the bounce of a ball here and a goal umpiring decision there. To say that the winning team won because they have a winning culture and the losing team lost because they didn't is simplistic and naive.

People say that Geelong have developed a winning culture since turning the corner in 2007, which I believe they have, but did they have a different culture in 2008 and 2010 because they didn't win premierships as opposed to 2007 and 2009 when they won premierships. They basically had the same culture and personnel the whole way through but luck or the respective strength of their opponents meant that the level of success differed through those years.

In world sport, great examples are Alex Ferguson and Bill Belichick. The latter in particular is astounding considering the parity conditions in the NFL yet he has won 3 superbowls in 5 years with the Patriots they have remained competitive for more than a decade despite a myriad of personnel changes.

Craig Bellamy at the Melbourne Storm is another good example. They have always been a strong, successful club with him as coach and it wasn't just because of their salary cap breaches. Even this year when they weren't breaching the salary cap they were still minor premiers and one of the favourites for the premiership. The Storm under Bellamy have a knack of taking seemingly average players from elsewhere and turning them into very good players.

You could say that the Storm have developed a winning culture but a lot of that comes down to Bellamy as coach, without him I doubt they would have the same winning culture.

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

A strong winning culture definitely has an influence on a club's overall success. Like someone said earlier in the thread, it has nothing to do with premierships and winning percentage, a winning culture is more a mindset which pushes a club to continually strive to achieve, to extend themselves beyond their current level of performance.

Im not trying to attack Richmond here but when you look at their club in contrast with Essendon (personal bias), you can begin to understand the importance of having such culture. One club seems to be accepting in mediocrity whilst one continually pushes to changes to better themselves on and off the field.

Richmond this year seem to illustrate the losing mentality. With the upcoming stars in Cotchin, Martin and Riewoldt, many of their supporters seemingly excused their club in a loss by casting a positive image for their future. "For a young team, it was a good effort and we showed alot today etc" Im not sure if their coaching staff embody this approach but a club with a winning culture would not be satisfied with "a honourable loss" and state to their players that close enough is not good enough. More importantly it needs to be made clear to the younger generation coming through that age does not excuse them and should not be a copout for them.

Essendon on the other hand, a club seemingly immersed with success illustrates the other end of the spectrum. In 2010, the club was at rock bottom. Supporters were growing impatient and began singling out the coach as the root of all the problems. Sure if would have been perfectly accepted to see out Knights' contract and hope for natural progression to move the club back up the ladder but instead the club chose to take action, implementing a entirely new coaching panel through the likes of Hird, Thompson, Goodwin and McCartney. Essendon were in danger of becoming mediocre but the board were proactive in their moves and as result where shown substantial reward this year.

 

[royals1922]

I'll probably get bagged but here's my penny's worth.

Collingwood regained their successful ways when - after Mick Malthouse came over from the Eagles where he'd had success.

Geelong turned the corner when Cook who'd had success with the Eagles ( and various WAFL sides as a coach) came to Geelong. Geelong also had and have successful premiership players as a coach in Thompson and now Scott.

The Eagles, and I have no love for them, have been successful for 20+ years winning only one wooden spoon and appearing in numerous prelims. And who have been their coaches premiership players in Worsfold, Sumich, Micale ( 3 WAFL premierships in a row).

Collingwood win the premiership in the 80s with Leigh Matthews as a coach. Matthews previously had won numerous premierships with a hardened Hawks side and then went on to turn a perenial losing Brisbane side into a side that won 3 premiership sides in a row.

Hawthorn employ Clarkson after his successful time with Port and he takes them places that even the Hawks cannot imagine.

Now you can compare this to sides that have had numerous top 10 draft picks and never succeeded. Melbourne who had a great winning culture under Smith who have done nothing in recent years despite their great draft position. The Bulldogs who've done jack in recent years and sacked their most premiership credentialled player in Akermanis in favour of the cliques at the dogs. Richmond who in the 1970s who had a perenially good side and then have done nothing - although having Harwick as a premiership player may change that - despite numerous high draft picks.

The Saints who have had a culture of party boys since Barker's days have won nothing. Fremantle who have employed a succession of nonentity nonachieving coaches employed Harvey who has a premiership background and then takes them to a final. Ross Lyon might have escaped the morass that is St Kilda but let's see how goes with perenially bad Fremantle. I suspect with his background at a successful club like the Swans he may be able to impart that success to the Fremantle boys.

I'll put my crash helmet on now.

 

[grogan]

I would say that the saints recent forays at the flag have been due to culture, This was instilled by GT and RL. Picking up top draft picks who only want to win helps as well. We lost those GF's due to not being good enough on the day , we got to successive GF's due to a winning culture and desire .
Let's hope that desire and culture (though only in infancy) carries through to the next group and coach and build up[on what are fairly solid foundations.

 

[The Punter]

Essendon were slipping, so they hire Thompson, Hird, et al and change things around.

They changed the people, people. Get it?

As for Richmond, Damien Hardwick played for who?

It's pretty difficult to get a consistent argument among the "culture" people around here.

A commitment to winning (or success) is created by the leaders of an organisation.

If people aren't committed to working hard enough, you get new people. Essendon did. Last year, and in 1981.

The Lions were the product of the Bears and Fitzroy! Explain that one! (Oh, right, they got Matthews - in other words, they changed the people.)

Some sort of mythical cloud that hangs over clubs belongs in the land of fairy tales. No club parties more than any other club - it's about individuals.

 

[beenreal]

Essendon were slipping, so they hire Thompson, Hird, et al and change things around.

They changed the people, people. Get it?

As for Richmond, Damien Hardwick played for who?

It's pretty difficult to get a consistent argument among the "culture" people around here.

A commitment to winning (or success) is created by the leaders of an organisation.

If people aren't committed to working hard enough, you get new people. Essendon did. Last year, and in 1981.

The Lions were the product of the Bears and Fitzroy! Explain that one! (Oh, right, they got Matthews - in other words, they changed the people.)

Some sort of mythical cloud that hangs over clubs belongs in the land of fairy tales. No club parties more than any other club - it's about individuals.

But that's the point of the whole "culture" debate. Good clubs with a strong Culture get the WRONG people out and get the RIGHT people in.

Why? Because they've set a standard of behaviour.

And that applies to the President right down the the Bootstudder. (Quote Foster N. Williams)

 

[The Punter]

Daniel Motlop is clearly "the wrong people".

There have been plenty of "the wrong people" at clubs like Essendon, whose supporters worship their "culture".

Dean Wallis is an Essendon person, and the club endeavoured to support him after his rank stupidity.

Winning covers up a multitude of sins.

A successful college basketball coach was asked what was the most important factor to success. He said "personnel".

No club can claim they have a winning "culture", only that they have successful people working for them. No club has a mortgage on "success".

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I don't believe there's any such thing.

Geelong hadn't won a GF since 63 in 07, they could now get their 3rd in 5 years.

People claim St Kilda's "culture" cost them the flags. No a dodgy goal umpiring call and the bounce of the ball cost us. I don't think the ball bounced that way or the goal umpire is an idiot because of our culture.

Culture is just one of those bigfooty buzz words used to pump up your own tires and deflate someone elses. It's now what minnow was in 2009.

I don't think so, it's been used as long as I've been following football, over 40 years.

Geelong seemed to accept that near enough was good enough. It was ok to lose as long as Gary had kicked a bag. The club was almost down for the count.

Enter, Brian Cook, a winner from West Coast
Enter, Mark Thompson, a winner from Essendon
Enter, Frank Costa, a winner in private enterprise.
Enter, hard edged pricks like Scarlett and Chapman

When they've all left the Cats, hopefully they'll leave that hard edged, winning culture that subsequent generations of players and administrators pass down the line.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

That sounds more like when a team has the 'wood' over another team rather then having a losing culture if they were the second best team in the world...

It sounds more to me like the Captain of a side saying from the start that's it's ok to lose.

It sows the seeds of doubt right from the get go.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

When they've all left the Cats, hopefully they'll leave that hard edged, winning culture that subsequent generations of players and administrators pass down the line.

But that's the thing. When they leave, will it remain?

Look at Carlton for an example of how a culture can go down the tubes when quality people leave the club. Or to a similar extent, Brisbane.

I remember the Brisbane juggernaut being invincible. In 2003, it looked like a power club (similar to the Eagles in the early 90s) had emerged up north. Since 2004, they've struggled massively. Right now, they are veering very close to being a broken footy club, and they have their hard-edged, leader of men, as coach.

 

[beenreal]

Daniel Motlop is clearly "the wrong people".

There have been plenty of "the wrong people" at clubs like Essendon, whose supporters worship their "culture".

Dean Wallis is an Essendon person, and the club endeavoured to support him after his rank stupidity.

Winning covers up a multitude of sins.

A successful college basketball coach was asked what was the most important factor to success. He said "personnel".

No club can claim they have a winning "culture", only that they have successful people working for them. No club has a mortgage on "success".

Port Adelaide haven't done things right for a few years now. But at least it's been recognised and changes are being made. I'm a Motlop fan, but I don't know what's going on at inner sanctum level.

As for Wallis, let's see if he's still at the club next year?

And perhaps "winning" is the problem at St. Kilda. Your club has won lots of battles, but hasn't had the culture to win the war. No offence intended.

 

[MarkT2]

Well it's easy for people to look back in hindsight and say what Milne should have done in that situation but I still think the bounce would have beat him no matter how hard he went at the ball, it virtually bounced at right angles which was difficult to predict.

That's the point. The ball bounced forst to beat Johnson and second to beat Milne - hence my original post.

Luck did not decide the GF.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

But that's the thing. When they leave, will it remain?

Look at Carlton for an example of how a culture can go down the tubes when quality people leave the club. Or to a similar extent, Brisbane.

I remember the Brisbane juggernaut being invincible. In 2003, it looked like a power club (similar to the Eagles in the early 90s) had emerged up north. Since 2004, they've struggled massively. Right now, they are veering very close to being a broken footy club, and they have their hard-edged, leader of men, as coach.

We'll see. After Scarlett, Mooney, Chapman, Milburn and Ling, those tough, hard nosed, soul of the club types are all gone. Will Scott and Selwood be able to hold it and build it again.