Playing to win vs Playing to develop? Early season.

[shanegrambeau]

I’m interested to know what fellow SS members think about team selections, especially in the early part of the season. I’m especially curious about whether others accept the trade off about development for the future and getting four points on match day on a week-by-week basis.

Imagine a score of 100 given to a team selected on the imaginary basis that this is the last game on earth and the future of mankind depended on us winning it. There would be no concern about giving training or getting games into youth etc.

In the either end of the scale is 0 which means the outcome of the game is not a binary proposition of win loss, but the outcome is measured on the development of players along every parameter, so that in the future they will become better players or that the team as a whole will be better off.

Give Tanking a score of 40 or below, I think it is fair to say that late season games, round 17 on, are often on the province of a 60s-70s score for teams that can longer contend. But what about now? Do you believe we should be absolutely 100 for trying to win each game as it comes?

Does the dropping of Brown bring the imaginary score down or does it push it up?

[Sainter_Dad]

WTF - I know what you are trying to say - but Damn Dude!

Games 1 - 4 - we were at 90
I would imagine the next 2 games will be at 50 - 60

Depends after these next games whether we go back to 90 or down to 40

[Yorkeys]

Player development is tied to team/club development. Develop a winning culture then players develop with it. It seems to me we are moving towards a winning culture (not necessarily defined by game wins but effort/Gangnam style/some wins) and that selection this year has been based on form (bad = out), upside potential, the future (see upside potential) and team balance. Last year and possibly previous years' selection was stodgy; like why change: player x will come good, the VFL guys are untried/learning...blah, blah. This year it seems you under perform you are on notice, do it again you are gone and there are more opportunities for the squad as a whole. The success of Parker and Wilkie has possibly broken the AR ceiling for a lot of the squad. White must be getting frustrated but, thinking what do I have to do (ans. be patient, an injury is only a contest away. And its too late to become a forward Brandon (?)). And when Oscar C comes back to his early season form that will be the double: playing2win&develop.

[Scollop]

I was probably his harshest critic after Adelaide, but I also feel that we would be better off with Brown playing. I might be totally wrong with the following and there may be standards that Nathan didn't meet so perhaps it's as simple as that, but I thought I'd share my thoughts once again.

What if the dropping of Brown is more to do with coach/coaches looking for a scapegoat. When you are talking about careers on the line and people trying to protect their way of life and their huge salaries, you can't discount the politics.

What if the dropping of Brown is Richo turning over a new leaf and playing more the tough coach-angry coach routine rather than everyone's mate good guy coach? Richo might be seeing the writing on the wall with all the injuries mounting and he might be desperate to get enough wins to mount a case to retain his job. Fear is a good motivator. Fear of missing a match payment also hurts players back pocket

Perhaps it was Richo that put his foot down and perhaps it was a coaching outfit that voted on it and Richo agreed to go with the majority. Like I said, I could be totally overthinking things and hopefully it could be a watershed positive moment that creates more positives than negatives.

I hope that it works and I hope it's the right decision in the short term and the long term, but I have a feeling that with all the injuries to key position defenders that we really needed as many experienced heads in the backline as possible.

[Toy Saint]

Outstanding question.

I'm thinking about 75-80 is about the right.

Possibly a good example might be David Armitage vs Hunter Clark. Being objective, I'd say the two would be quite close in projected output, but Hunter gets the nod in the name of development.

[samuraisaint]

We don't have a choice - we have to play to develop now. But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The long list of players who will not play at all this season, and a shorter list of players who will not be back until the last few rounds of the season means that we must play the best of the available talent we have, without pushing people into games before their time. Let the players' Sandy Zebras form be our guide.
Gears is 30, Stuv is 29, Robbo is 28, Big Jake is 28, Hannebury is 28, and Brown is 31, so they will need to be replaced by younger players coming through at some stage anyway.
Some of the players the club have brought in this year have been great for us, and Clark, Coffield, Joyce and Phillips are only going to get better the more games they play.
The club can look at this as an injury crisis, which it probably is, or they can look at it as an opportunity to give newer, younger players blocks of games in a season in which we are actually winning a few games, rather than the season we had last year when plenty of inexperienced, young players were playing and getting beat every week.
I don't think we'll win today, but we are a red hot chance next week against the Eagles over here. Imagine the self-belief the players will get if they can get over the reigning premier!

[Cairnsman]

I was probably his harshest critic after Adelaide, but I also feel that we would be better off with Brown playing. I might be totally wrong with the following and there may be standards that Nathan didn't meet so perhaps it's as simple as that, but I thought I'd share my thoughts once again.

What if the dropping of Brown is more to do with coach/coaches looking for a scapegoat. When you are talking about careers on the line and people trying to protect their way of life and their huge salaries, you can't discount the politics.

What if the dropping of Brown is Richo turning over a new leaf and playing more the tough coach-angry coach routine rather than everyone's mate good guy coach? Richo might be seeing the writing on the wall with all the injuries mounting and he might be desperate to get enough wins to mount a case to retain his job. Fear is a good motivator. Fear of missing a match payment also hurts players back pocket

Perhaps it was Richo that put his foot down and perhaps it was a coaching outfit that voted on it and Richo agreed to go with the majority. Like I said, I could be totally overthinking things and hopefully it could be a watershed positive moment that creates more positives than negatives.

I hope that it works and I hope it's the right decision in the short term and the long term, but I have a feeling that with all the injuries to key position defenders that we really needed as many experienced heads in the backline as possible.

I reckon they should have tours of the club that show the average punter how an elite sporting organisation works. I reckon most punters would be surprised to learn it's not run like a cheap reality TV show where amateurs get to play politics.

[samuraisaint]

I was probably his harshest critic after Adelaide, but I also feel that we would be better off with Brown playing. I might be totally wrong with the following and there may be standards that Nathan didn't meet so perhaps it's as simple as that, but I thought I'd share my thoughts once again.

What if the dropping of Brown is more to do with coach/coaches looking for a scapegoat. When you are talking about careers on the line and people trying to protect their way of life and their huge salaries, you can't discount the politics.

What if the dropping of Brown is Richo turning over a new leaf and playing more the tough coach-angry coach routine rather than everyone's mate good guy coach? Richo might be seeing the writing on the wall with all the injuries mounting and he might be desperate to get enough wins to mount a case to retain his job. Fear is a good motivator. Fear of missing a match payment also hurts players back pocket

Perhaps it was Richo that put his foot down and perhaps it was a coaching outfit that voted on it and Richo agreed to go with the majority. Like I said, I could be totally overthinking things and hopefully it could be a watershed positive moment that creates more positives than negatives.

I hope that it works and I hope it's the right decision in the short term and the long term, but I have a feeling that with all the injuries to key position defenders that we really needed as many experienced heads in the backline as possible.

I reckon they should have tours of the club that show the average punter how an elite sporting organisation works. I reckon most punters would be surprised to learn it's not run like a cheap reality TV show where amateurs get to play politics.

They've got a selection committee, but I don't think they always get it right.

[samuraisaint]

Outstanding question.

I'm thinking about 75-80 is about the right.

Possibly a good example might be David Armitage vs Hunter Clark. Being objective, I'd say the two would be quite close in projected output, but Hunter gets the nod in the name of development.

Armo stays in the magoos to help the younger players develop. He is a great clubman Armo, and acting as a mentor to the young guys. I know he isn't on our list anymore but it's great that Gilbo is down there too.

[Ghost Like]

I must admit I am a little confused SG, not a feeling new to me, but I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. I look at teams that have been very good over the past few years, Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn and Richmond. All these sides have been able to bring in youth that have thrived and developed within their team structures. The biggest reason being their core of senior and very good players have allowed the younger players the scope to play well whilst building their confidence and understanding of that team's system and how their skills fit in.

Our loss of Roo, Joey, Dal, Dempster from the 09 / 10 list really hurt in this respect which showed our lack of succession planning and development ability.

I do not think our present list has a clear best 25, this is good and bad. For example, Armo v Dunstan v Clark, all 3 offer different values to our 22 on a given day. To play Clark would not detract dramatically but the future looks a lot better with Clark. Probably similar if we were to compare Brown v Joyce v Clavarino. Whilst we have not seen Clavarino in action, snippets of intel suggest they all offer different skill sets for a given day but given the chance Clavarino will be the best once fit and playing seniors. Not losing a great deal presently but making our future brighter.

I think we can find examples of this in every position. I see our list as very even across the field, we will not lose a great deal to try our kids but by doing so will be a massive win for our future.

[samuraisaint]

I must admit I am a little confused SG, not a feeling new to me, but I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. I look at teams that have been very good over the past few years, Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn and Richmond. All these sides have been able to bring in youth that have thrived and developed within their team structures. The biggest reason being their core of senior and very good players have allowed the younger players the scope to play well whilst building their confidence and understanding of that team's system and how their skills fit in.

Our loss of Roo, Joey, Dal, Dempster from the 09 / 10 list really hurt in this respect which showed our lack of succession planning and development ability.

I do not think our present list has a clear best 25, this is good and bad. For example, Armo v Dunstan v Clark, all 3 offer different values to our 22 on a given day. To play Clark would not detract dramatically but the future looks a lot better with Clark. Probably similar if we were to compare Brown v Joyce v Clavarino. Whilst we have not seen Clavarino in action, snippets of intel suggest they all offer different skill sets for a given day but given the chance Clavarino will be the best once fit and playing seniors. Not losing a great deal presently but making our future brighter.

I think we can find examples of this in every position. I see our list as very even across the field, we will not lose a great deal to try our kids but by doing so will be a massive win for our future.

Spot on Ghost like, and the reality off our situation is, we don't have a Riewolt, a Joey Montagna, a Nick Dal Santo, a Brendon Goddard, or a Steven Milne in our team at the moment, and the few stars we do have are long term injured anyway, so this is a fat opportunity for young players' form at Sandringham to be rewarded with blocks of matches. And the upside is; we're actually winning a few games this season and we're not a basket case, so the kids will get the all important confidence you get from a winning environment.

[Scollop]

I was probably his harshest critic after Adelaide, but I also feel that we would be better off with Brown playing. I might be totally wrong with the following and there may be standards that Nathan didn't meet so perhaps it's as simple as that, but I thought I'd share my thoughts once again.

What if the dropping of Brown is more to do with coach/coaches looking for a scapegoat. When you are talking about careers on the line and people trying to protect their way of life and their huge salaries, you can't discount the politics.

What if the dropping of Brown is Richo turning over a new leaf and playing more the tough coach-angry coach routine rather than everyone's mate good guy coach? Richo might be seeing the writing on the wall with all the injuries mounting and he might be desperate to get enough wins to mount a case to retain his job. Fear is a good motivator. Fear of missing a match payment also hurts players back pocket

Perhaps it was Richo that put his foot down and perhaps it was a coaching outfit that voted on it and Richo agreed to go with the majority. Like I said, I could be totally overthinking things and hopefully it could be a watershed positive moment that creates more positives than negatives.

I hope that it works and I hope it's the right decision in the short term and the long term, but I have a feeling that with all the injuries to key position defenders that we really needed as many experienced heads in the backline as possible.

I reckon they should have tours of the club that show the average punter how an elite sporting organisation works. I reckon most punters would be surprised to learn it's not run like a cheap reality TV show where amateurs get to play politics.

They've got a selection committee, but I don't think they always get it right.

The unrest within the club was real last year because of a number of issues including questionable selection policy from the head coach. Hopefully 2018 is behind us and so far so good in 2019

I agree with the notion of tours of the club, but some of us members and supporters aren't interested in a sales pitch

We are intersted in good coaching, good development and on field competitiveness leading to a chance to play finals