The Bloods Code's Achilles Heel

[Alibi Monday]

I'm the first to acknowledge the dramatic difference the Bloods Code has bought to the club. I think Kirk's speech underlines it's value and strength, however I think it may be tested this year on a couple of levels:

The Leadership Group (aka Hall, Kirk, Barry, J Bolton, C Bolton, Mathews, Goodes)

How is the leadership group decided on?
What happens when a member of the leadership group is out of form?
How honest are they about themselves?
Do they really put the club in front of themselves when it comes to their own livelihood?

Barry, J Bolton and Mathews have been terrifc servants for this club for many years, but they are going to come under increasing pressure to hold their ground throughout 2007 (especially if tonight was anything to go by). Whilst these guys may well be very good mentors and role models, but leadership is also about performance.

Barry is in trouble if he's asked to hold down a KP such as full back. He hasn't dominated an opposition player consistently since 2005. The fact is Barry is on a downhill slide simply because of the rule changes and the natural deterioration of his famed mobility

Mathews just shouldn't be in the team. He was graceful enough to drop himself last year, but do you think he should do it after tonight? He adds nothing proactive to the team other than forcing a stoppage or attempting to shut down a fringe midfielder - which hardly augers well for the club when other on-ballers (Schmidt and Moore) are not being exposed to the elite game. Mathews best was never great, but now it's just a fade out of mediocrity that occurs week-in week-out.

Jude Bolton is in trouble. At his age now, there is no improvement, just consolidation. Unfortunately he's just not at the standard I think he or the club would like him to be. The scary thing is that he's traditionally a quick starter in the year, but he just doesn't look fit, sharp or confident. Like Mathews (albeit a higher standard), he is in real danger of just fading out his career with no more high-class performances. In his last 14 games, he has only managed to get over 20 possesions 4 times - not enough for a starting midefielder who doesn't kick goals.

Sydney have a couple of young natural leaders that should be in this group now or soon (O'Keefe, Kennelly and Malceski come to mind) and it would be ridiculous to keep extending the leadership group to over 50% of the starting lineup. Therefore, how does this change occur without offense? Or once you are in the leadership group are you in until retirement? Will Roos drop you if you are in the LG or do you have to nominate yourself to be dropped?

Will a member of the leadership group (and I'm staring directly at you Ben), step down and let a kid play, which I feel is a unanimous sentiment across all SSFC supporters? Or will Roos have the guts to drop a leader, not under the 'injury' cover, but on form?

Thoughts?

[liz]

Thoughts?

The leadership group is elected by the players. So one would presume that the playing group still considers those three you've named to be amongst the best leaders on and off the ground. If they don't, and they are just voting for them because they feel obliged to, there does seem to be something wrong with the Bloods' ethos, given that honesty is a key part of it.

As outsiders who know nothing about the internal dynamics of the playing group, I'm inclined to take things on face value and presume its the former. And I only think that one of those three you've named has significant question marks over their recent onfield contribution.

[Alibi Monday]

The leadership group is elected by the players. So one would presume that the playing group still considers those three you've named to be amongst the best leaders on and off the ground. If they don't, and they are just voting for them because they feel obliged to, there does seem to be something wrong with the Bloods' ethos, given that honesty is a key part of it.

As outsiders who know nothing about the internal dynamics of the playing group, I'm inclined to take things on face value and presume its the former. And I only think that one of those three you've named has significant question marks over their recent onfield contribution.

1) I tend to suspect that this is what is actually happening and that players are voting out obligation to avoid the risk of internal politics from the fallout. We haven't seen anyone from the leadership group rotate since it's inception (to my knowledge) other than through retirement. We also haven't seen any player in the leadership group being dropped on form alone. Admittedly, we're all too far away from the process to know how it really works, but I suspect there's leadership inertia that's not based on performance.

2) Yeah, I agree Liz. I think I've made that clear, but I do think that the other two may well be under pressure quicker than we'd all like. I am also pre-empting the mechanics of such a shift, how the club will handle it and whether the process is in place to safeguard a balance of results and future player developments.

[Frog]

We haven't seen anyone from the leadership group rotate since it's inception (to my knowledge) other than through retirement. We also haven't seen any player in the leadership group being dropped on form alone.

Perhaps not, but from memory, a few years back, Paul Williams was invited to that group and declined. What happens then? (Or am I mistaken and was Paul a member of the leadership group?)

[ROK Lobster]

I'm the first to acknowledge the dramatic difference the Bloods Code has bought to the club. I think Kirk's speech underlines it's value and strength, however I think it may be tested this year on a couple of levels:

The Leadership Group (aka Hall, Kirk, Barry, J Bolton, C Bolton, Mathews, Goodes)

How is the leadership group decided on?
What happens when a member of the leadership group is out of form?
How honest are they about themselves?
Do they really put the club in front of themselves when it comes to their own livelihood?

Barry, J Bolton and Mathews have been terrifc servants for this club for many years, but they are going to come under increasing pressure to hold their ground throughout 2007 (especially if tonight was anything to go by). Whilst these guys may well be very good mentors and role models, but leadership is also about performance.

Barry is in trouble if he's asked to hold down a KP such as full back. He hasn't dominated an opposition player consistently since 2005. The fact is Barry is on a downhill slide simply because of the rule changes and the natural deterioration of his famed mobility

Mathews just shouldn't be in the team. He was graceful enough to drop himself last year, but do you think he should do it after tonight? He adds nothing proactive to the team other than forcing a stoppage or attempting to shut down a fringe midfielder - which hardly augers well for the club when other on-ballers (Schmidt and Moore) are not being exposed to the elite game. Mathews best was never great, but now it's just a fade out of mediocrity that occurs week-in week-out.

Jude Bolton is in trouble. At his age now, there is no improvement, just consolidation. Unfortunately he's just not at the standard I think he or the club would like him to be. The scary thing is that he's traditionally a quick starter in the year, but he just doesn't look fit, sharp or confident. Like Mathews (albeit a higher standard), he is in real danger of just fading out his career with no more high-class performances. In his last 14 games, he has only managed to get over 20 possesions 4 times - not enough for a starting midefielder who doesn't kick goals.

Sydney have a couple of young natural leaders that should be in this group now or soon (O'Keefe, Kennelly and Malceski come to mind) and it would be ridiculous to keep extending the leadership group to over 50% of the starting lineup. Therefore, how does this change occur without offense? Or once you are in the leadership group are you in until retirement? Will Roos drop you if you are in the LG or do you have to nominate yourself to be dropped?

Will a member of the leadership group (and I'm staring directly at you Ben), step down and let a kid play, which I feel is a unanimous sentiment across all SSFC supporters? Or will Roos have the guts to drop a leader, not under the 'injury' cover, but on form?

Thoughts?

You obviously hate Paul Roos and want the club to be as unsuccesful as I do.

[Alibi Monday]

hahaha! No ROK, I'm just concerned that self governance may not be the silver arrow it's built up to be as it yet to face some of the hard hurdles that await, although it's damn site better than every other club.

[Nico]

1) I tend to suspect that this is what is actually happening and that players are voting out obligation to avoid the risk of internal politics from the fallout. We haven't seen anyone from the leadership group rotate since it's inception (to my knowledge) other than through retirement. We also haven't seen any player in the leadership group being dropped on form alone. Admittedly, we're all too far away from the process to know how it really works, but I suspect there's leadership inertia that's not based on performance.

2) Yeah, I agree Liz. I think I've made that clear, but I do think that the other two may well be under pressure quicker than we'd all like. I am also pre-empting the mechanics of such a shift, how the club will handle it and whether the process is in place to safeguard a balance of results and future player developments.

Fantastic thread. Well worded and right on the mark.

The reality is the leadership group must be rotated otherwise the whole concept falls apart. You have to have new people in there and it is inevitable that some of those players will fall off the pace.

I have been a critic of Barry over the years more for his dumbness, but he does have a nack of improving after the first few games. Last year Lloyd towelled him up in the first game, yet he played a pretty handy season apart from his abilty to give away a stupid free at the worst moment of a game.

Your stats are damning on Bolton. Not only doesn't he get anywhere near enogh of the ball for a midfielder, what he does get he disposes of way below an exceptable level. When he gets inside 50 he is a horrible converter.

Mathews, if the only way this bloke is to be removed from the team is to drop himself again, then heaven help us.

[Nico]

hahaha! No ROK, I'm just concerned that self governance may not be the silver arrow it's built up to be as it yet to face some of the hard hurdles that await, although it's damn site better than every other club.

I think the self governance is OK as long as there is honesty from within the group and it is not just an elite clique. It cant be just warm and fuzzy, there must be some mechanism whereby players in that group are not seen as a protected species.

[Legs Akimbo]

Good and timely post. I have been saying this for more than 12 months now. It's called a 'strong culture' and it has positives in the sense that it is binds to a cause and therefore improves output from higher levels of commitment. I believe our last two seasons are in part a result of the bloods ethos (e.g. self sacrifice for team cause, self empowerment, not letting each other down - basically discipline). Interestingly, it would also seem that the Weagles scum also have a strong culture, but from what we read in the media, is a 'work hard play hard', success driven culture.

Strong cultures can also cause major problems. They can result in rigidity and resistance to change, formation of insider and outsider groups, and distortion of reality (i.e. it's okay to take drugs if you win the grand final) due the 'us vs. them' mentality invariably created. There are many examples of companies that had strong cultures, which resulted in periodic or terminal declines in their market relevance due to a failure to adapt (e.g. Kodak, HP, IBM).

The above is not informed comment on the Swans FC, but rather a comment on organisational culture per se. Let's hope that the Swans 'insiders' are big enough to set aside their interpersonal loyalties for the sake of the club. Anyone see Brett Kirk as the next Robert Mugabe?

BTW, I'd give Jude the benefit of maybe 3-4 games last night before he gets the arse. Personally, I think his deficiencies are becoming more apparent as his strengths wane with age. As for Benny. He's just a @@@@ing inept stoppage creater.

[Nico]

Bolton's skills have always been poor. I have said this for years now and many times been howled down. His GF display was fairly spineless for mine.
He has been forgiven in the past by many for the assumption he got plenty of the ball. The stats mentioned make that a misconception.

So if he is getting less of the footy and what edge to his game is declining then why keep playing him.

When reading the Swans mag it is clear he is the darling of the club and more than just one of the boys. I dont give a damn how good a club man he is if his value to the team ceases to exist on the field.Surely the time comes when we stop carrying these guys and get with the continuos rebuilding as they always talk about.

[Alibi Monday]

I think the self governance is OK as long as there is honesty from within the group and it is not just an elite clique. It cant be just warm and fuzzy, there must be some mechanism whereby players in that group are not seen as a protected species.

Look I'm not accusing anyone of mistreating the system as such, but I am starting to see signs that are universal in all politics and governance - the self trappings of power and the untouchable status. Democracy is supposed to be the great arbiter, which the ethos has instigated. However, as mentioned before and Liz raised as an option, I belief democracy under obligation voids the integrity of the system which I suspect is happening.

It would seem that on the surface that the verbiage is fine regarding the Bloods Code and Leadership Group, however I cannot reconcile the continual mediocre field influence of one individual in the leadership group. I also can't see how this situation will resolve itself under the current process should the underlying principle be that a member of the leadership must also be a leader on the senior field. If the assumption be that all in the leadership group play seniors, then we have an unanticipated conflict of interest that's not likely to be resolved under self-assessment - particularly when the issue is about talent, not endeavour. Should this be the case, then the system has a significant weakness.

[NMWBloods]

I find the Bloods culture and the game plan intertwined, and I think it makes them a team of automatons as I commented on last year. http://redandwhiteonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15307