11-26-2015, 11:27 PM
The dynamics of the playing group are a bit of a mystery to supporters.
In the main you get the feeling that guys like Murphy Gibbs Jamison, even Judd in his day, aren't strong leaders.
Then you look at the guys that have left the club and you wonder how much influence the leaders had in seeing them off.
I've had the feeling for some time that the playing group hasn't been a cohesive unit but rather a group of little cliques.
I think there's been a group or two of dedicated professional players and a group who haven't really invested in the cause.
Is it poor leadership to not be able to keep the group together and on the straight and narrow?...probably
Is it poor leadership not to be able to turn troubled players around...or for some guys is that just a futile exercise and just not worth the effort.
Could it be the case that those who haven't been totally committed to the cause have been isolated...I get the feeling that's what happened with Yarran.
He couldn't wait to get out of the place.
There would be reasons for that.
With the turnover we start with a pretty clean slate.
The fringe players that have been retained are in the main players who have shown a good attitude and effort.
The players we've recruited seem to be of a similar stock.
Curnow may have made an off-field mistake 'just prior to the draft but if his on-field efforts are anything like his brothers he'll be fine.
Developing leaders is a long term strategy.
While the current and recent crop may have been lacking in some areas it's something to build on.
It's our next generation of leadership that looks to have a fair bit of potential.
In the main you get the feeling that guys like Murphy Gibbs Jamison, even Judd in his day, aren't strong leaders.
Then you look at the guys that have left the club and you wonder how much influence the leaders had in seeing them off.
I've had the feeling for some time that the playing group hasn't been a cohesive unit but rather a group of little cliques.
I think there's been a group or two of dedicated professional players and a group who haven't really invested in the cause.
Is it poor leadership to not be able to keep the group together and on the straight and narrow?...probably
Is it poor leadership not to be able to turn troubled players around...or for some guys is that just a futile exercise and just not worth the effort.
Could it be the case that those who haven't been totally committed to the cause have been isolated...I get the feeling that's what happened with Yarran.
He couldn't wait to get out of the place.
There would be reasons for that.
With the turnover we start with a pretty clean slate.
The fringe players that have been retained are in the main players who have shown a good attitude and effort.
The players we've recruited seem to be of a similar stock.
Curnow may have made an off-field mistake 'just prior to the draft but if his on-field efforts are anything like his brothers he'll be fine.
Developing leaders is a long term strategy.
While the current and recent crop may have been lacking in some areas it's something to build on.
It's our next generation of leadership that looks to have a fair bit of potential.