The Secret of My (club’s) Success
The AFL is quickly moving away from the old model of what makes a good team (or more accurately, a good club. This distinction will become clear later.) Over the past few years, commentators have correctly made the point that it’s often a team’s bottom six players that get you over the line in finals. Most clubs have accepted that star players can only do so much, and when up against more evenly matched competition, it is how the lesser lights perform, how far the drop off is, that will bring success. In 2009, Lenny Hayes and Jimmy Bartel both played excellent Grand Finals, but Shannon Byrnes probably had a better game than Adam Schneider.
With today’s taxing forward press, a shortened bench and an extended season, the model is changing again. But let’s step back for a moment.
Over the past 10 years we’ve seen the flood evolve to the forward press, mid-fielders go from a group of about five to 15 and the bench change from a place of punishment or inadequacy to a self-regulated tool aimed at increasing effectiveness. The result of all this was more high-intensity play, more ground covered by the players, more bench rotations and the accepted knowledge that the game was, each year, becoming “faster than ever”.
The AFL’s governing body acknowledged all this and reacted by shortening the amount of interchange players and implementing the substitution rule. The idea of which, it seems, was to force exhausted players to remain in the game and thus lower the intensity, for periods at least, which would allow the game to “open up”; if players are too tired to constantly chase their opponent or effectively deploy a full press, then free-flowing play and goals should be easier to come by. In short, the AFL wanted to improve the spectacle.
As a fan, and initially a sceptic of the sub rule (or at least sceptical of it being brought into the season proper with a pre-season trial) I can say that the rule has pretty much achieved what the AFL hoped it would: The games are great to watch and they usually do open up in the second half as players begin to fatigue. Plus, there is the bonus of a return to the old-school tactic of your best on-ballers “resting” in the forward pocket, and the extra, interesting tactical angle of whom to make the sub and when to deploy him. The players, however, do not seem to be as enthusiastic.
Considering this is the first season of the sub rule, most times a player does media he is asked about it. And the prevailing sentiment is, “we are tiring more quickly and more thoroughly”. Indeed, as the players and AFL have been conducting their collective bargaining, the issue has come up: Players would prefer an extra bench player, a short season and shorter games (as well as more money).
So it appears we have the game itself looking as good and as entertaining as it ever has, only it’s coming at the expense of the player’s fitness and (perhaps) career longevity. Players are going to wear out as the year goes on, or may even submit to “fatigue” injuries more readily. So how does this impact the success and/or failure of the teams we support? (That’s right, I’m finally getting around to my point and the flimsy Michael J. Fox title tie-in.)
One of the great successes of Chris Scott in his first half a season of coaching (apart from not losing, of course) has been his embracing of change. Each week the Cats have made 3-4 changes, something that would normally be counterintuitive to the idea of team and continuity, but which has had a positive, two-fold effect on the team: One, he has regularly rested experienced players (only Joel Corey and Travis Varcoe have played every game thus far) and he has continued to promote and then maintain the younger brigade. What Scott is doing, essentially, is applying the English soccer model of managing a squad rather just playing the best available team. But this isn’t the secret I’m talking about.
The secret lies in the AFL’s ugly stepsister, the VFL. Only two AFL clubs run their VFL counterparts: Geelong and Collingwood. What this does is give the player a consistent message and experience, not only week to week, but also season to season. Obviously other AFL clubs and their affiliates would have plenty of communication and insight into each other but it cannot compare to the all-encompassing experience Geelong and Collingwood players receive.
Going back to the VFL for most players means a different coach, different instructions, perhaps a different position, new teammates, a different location and different expectation. For the Cats and Magpies, the message, the methods and feedback are consistent and continuous all the way through. That has to be a massive advantage: Even simple things such as training together and getting to know each other help build a team.
It’s even worse for the SA and WA teams; their players not only go back to the local state league of competition, but they all go to different teams. (Not surprisingly, I recently read that the Eagles have been in discussion with the WAFL to operate their own team next year, mirroring the Geelong a Collingwood experience. A wise move, it would seem.)
When Geelong made seven changes to their side last week, given the opposition and home ground advantage, most still expected them to win. What was surprising, however, was how seamlessly guys who either hadn’t played seniors at all (Mitch Brown) or haven’t played in over a year (Motlop, Gillies, Simpson) slotted in and looked like senior players: They knew exactly what was expected of them as lesser parts of a greater whole.
The AFL is quickly moving away from the old model of what makes a good team (or more accurately, a good club. This distinction will become clear later.) Over the past few years, commentators have correctly made the point that it’s often a team’s bottom six players that get you over the line in finals. Most clubs have accepted that star players can only do so much, and when up against more evenly matched competition, it is how the lesser lights perform, how far the drop off is, that will bring success. In 2009, Lenny Hayes and Jimmy Bartel both played excellent Grand Finals, but Shannon Byrnes probably had a better game than Adam Schneider.
With today’s taxing forward press, a shortened bench and an extended season, the model is changing again. But let’s step back for a moment.
Over the past 10 years we’ve seen the flood evolve to the forward press, mid-fielders go from a group of about five to 15 and the bench change from a place of punishment or inadequacy to a self-regulated tool aimed at increasing effectiveness. The result of all this was more high-intensity play, more ground covered by the players, more bench rotations and the accepted knowledge that the game was, each year, becoming “faster than ever”.
The AFL’s governing body acknowledged all this and reacted by shortening the amount of interchange players and implementing the substitution rule. The idea of which, it seems, was to force exhausted players to remain in the game and thus lower the intensity, for periods at least, which would allow the game to “open up”; if players are too tired to constantly chase their opponent or effectively deploy a full press, then free-flowing play and goals should be easier to come by. In short, the AFL wanted to improve the spectacle.
As a fan, and initially a sceptic of the sub rule (or at least sceptical of it being brought into the season proper with a pre-season trial) I can say that the rule has pretty much achieved what the AFL hoped it would: The games are great to watch and they usually do open up in the second half as players begin to fatigue. Plus, there is the bonus of a return to the old-school tactic of your best on-ballers “resting” in the forward pocket, and the extra, interesting tactical angle of whom to make the sub and when to deploy him. The players, however, do not seem to be as enthusiastic.
Considering this is the first season of the sub rule, most times a player does media he is asked about it. And the prevailing sentiment is, “we are tiring more quickly and more thoroughly”. Indeed, as the players and AFL have been conducting their collective bargaining, the issue has come up: Players would prefer an extra bench player, a short season and shorter games (as well as more money).
So it appears we have the game itself looking as good and as entertaining as it ever has, only it’s coming at the expense of the player’s fitness and (perhaps) career longevity. Players are going to wear out as the year goes on, or may even submit to “fatigue” injuries more readily. So how does this impact the success and/or failure of the teams we support? (That’s right, I’m finally getting around to my point and the flimsy Michael J. Fox title tie-in.)
One of the great successes of Chris Scott in his first half a season of coaching (apart from not losing, of course) has been his embracing of change. Each week the Cats have made 3-4 changes, something that would normally be counterintuitive to the idea of team and continuity, but which has had a positive, two-fold effect on the team: One, he has regularly rested experienced players (only Joel Corey and Travis Varcoe have played every game thus far) and he has continued to promote and then maintain the younger brigade. What Scott is doing, essentially, is applying the English soccer model of managing a squad rather just playing the best available team. But this isn’t the secret I’m talking about.
The secret lies in the AFL’s ugly stepsister, the VFL. Only two AFL clubs run their VFL counterparts: Geelong and Collingwood. What this does is give the player a consistent message and experience, not only week to week, but also season to season. Obviously other AFL clubs and their affiliates would have plenty of communication and insight into each other but it cannot compare to the all-encompassing experience Geelong and Collingwood players receive.
Going back to the VFL for most players means a different coach, different instructions, perhaps a different position, new teammates, a different location and different expectation. For the Cats and Magpies, the message, the methods and feedback are consistent and continuous all the way through. That has to be a massive advantage: Even simple things such as training together and getting to know each other help build a team.
It’s even worse for the SA and WA teams; their players not only go back to the local state league of competition, but they all go to different teams. (Not surprisingly, I recently read that the Eagles have been in discussion with the WAFL to operate their own team next year, mirroring the Geelong a Collingwood experience. A wise move, it would seem.)
When Geelong made seven changes to their side last week, given the opposition and home ground advantage, most still expected them to win. What was surprising, however, was how seamlessly guys who either hadn’t played seniors at all (Mitch Brown) or haven’t played in over a year (Motlop, Gillies, Simpson) slotted in and looked like senior players: They knew exactly what was expected of them as lesser parts of a greater whole.
Developing that squad of 35 or so players, all together, has seen the adjustment period not only shortened but seemingly removed completely. Granted, it is only year one of the substitution rule and of Chris Scott, but if the first 3 months are anything to go by, we are literally on a winner.
posted by the captain at 4:51 pm
18 comments
