Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I will take ability any day. Character is over rated
As Nathan Burke wrote in an article recently...
"Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
No player arrives at a club unskilled, why would you pick a player with no ability but one with good character? Was king picked on his character alone? So lukosius was picked on his character first and not his ability to play the game. How many players are walk up starts when they arrive at a club?...plenty.You are trying to defend the indefencible.......What you said and what you quoted in N.Burkes article are 2 different things..
I never said you would pick a player with no skill but with good character.
I said it's a myth that the Saints had a strategy to pick nice boys over talented boys.
And in also said that character is number 1 for recruiters. Meaning, it's the deciding factor.
It's a myth we have had a 'good kid from a good family' recruiting policy.
But it's a fact that we, like all clubs, put character as the differentiating factor.
Whether you think it's overrated or not, it's a fact that AFL clubs do not.
saintadamski wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 8:52am
It's not the deciding factor at all for other clubs
But as far as the Saints go, we had a female run psychology test where only 'nice guys' passed.
Petracca for example, failed this. He was considered too arrogant... absurd
Why would having a female run psychology test be geared to nice guys only? The club had had a very bad run after selecting a number of d!ckheads over the years, I'm sure our recruitment policy was geared around avoiding them, which is quite different to suggesting we focus on recruiting nice guys only. Trout's good kids from good homes commentary is just poorly worded, we don't want anything different to what any other club wants out of their recruits in terms of motivation and competitiveness.
All I can say about Petracca is he must have sounded some major alarm bells...has still only played a handful of decent games for the Dee's too!
I will take ability any day. Character is over rated
As Nathan Burke wrote in an article recently...
"Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
No player arrives at a club unskilled, why would you pick a player with no ability but one with good character? Was king picked on his character alone? So lukosius was picked on his character first and not his ability to play the game. How many players are walk up starts when they arrive at a club?...plenty.You are trying to defend the indefencible.......What you said and what you quoted in N.Burkes article are 2 different things..
I never said you would pick a player with no skill but with good character.
I said it's a myth that the Saints had a strategy to pick nice boys over talented boys.
And in also said that character is number 1 for recruiters. Meaning, it's the deciding factor.
It's a myth we have had a 'good kid from a good family' recruiting policy.
But it's a fact that we, like all clubs, put character as the differentiating factor.
Whether you think it's overrated or not, it's a fact that AFL clubs do not.
It is not a fact at all, your making stuff up. I know a state recruiting officer for an AFL club and he has worked at one other club as well and has always said that they look for players with ability, who can mark, kick goals, have foot speed and a skillset relevant to their age bracket and experience. Character does not get a mention unless the player is a down and out thief or a heavy drug user or has assaulted people more than once and those rules applies to any employment.
I will take ability any day. Character is over rated
As Nathan Burke wrote in an article recently...
"Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
No player arrives at a club unskilled, why would you pick a player with no ability but one with good character? Was king picked on his character alone? So lukosius was picked on his character first and not his ability to play the game. How many players are walk up starts when they arrive at a club?...plenty.You are trying to defend the indefencible.......What you said and what you quoted in N.Burkes article are 2 different things..
I never said you would pick a player with no skill but with good character.
I said it's a myth that the Saints had a strategy to pick nice boys over talented boys.
And in also said that character is number 1 for recruiters. Meaning, it's the deciding factor.
It's a myth we have had a 'good kid from a good family' recruiting policy.
But it's a fact that we, like all clubs, put character as the differentiating factor.
Whether you think it's overrated or not, it's a fact that AFL clubs do not.
It is not a fact at all, your making stuff up. I know a state recruiting officer for an AFL club and he has worked at one other club as well and has always said that they look for players with ability, who can mark, kick goals, have foot speed and a skillset relevant to their age bracket and experience. Character does not get a mention unless the player is a down and out thief or a heavy drug user or has assaulted people more than once and those rules applies to any employment.
I agree with Rodger. No player can get near the AFL unless they have good football skills. If you had two players of equal skill, the club would choose the player with the better drive, dedication, perserverance, even leadership potential, etc - CHARACTER. They are the ones more likely to develop into a good, consistent AFL player.
I think the issue has been tainted due to Trout, who was not a great media performer, trotting out the "good kid, stable, great family" line for nearly every recruit. I think that was media speak for the view of the recruiting team that the player had the character to make the most of his skills and become a valuable player for the club. The club never had a simple "nice kids" recruiting policy - "character" is a lot more complex than that, and is a major criteria in selecting recruits.
I don't think too many on here have mentioned the "nice kids" policy....maybe a couple. But it has got some traction and in Trouts view it was his own motto by the sound of it. Character is important to a degree but will never come first in a selection policy.
Better drive, dedication, perserverance all mean the same thing. Thats just padding out to support your argument. So thin that out a bit and whats left? Leadership....how do you know that when a kid is 17/18 unless they are a total standout.
chico2001 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 10:38am
I don't think too many on here have mentioned the "nice kids" policy....maybe a couple. But it has got some traction and in Trouts view it was his own motto by the sound of it. Character is important to a degree but will never come first in a selection policy.
Better drive, dedication, perserverance all mean the same thing. Thats just padding out to support your argument. So thin that out a bit and whats left? Leadership....how do you know that when a kid is 17/18 unless they are a total standout.
How do you know that a kid with all the skills in the world is going to make it in the tough world of AFL? You have to look at his character as well to give you a better idea. Very important.
chico2001 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 10:38am
I don't think too many on here have mentioned the "nice kids" policy....maybe a couple. But it has got some traction and in Trouts view it was his own motto by the sound of it. Character is important to a degree but will never come first in a selection policy.
Better drive, dedication, perserverance all mean the same thing. Thats just padding out to support your argument. So thin that out a bit and whats left? Leadership....how do you know that when a kid is 17/18 unless they are a total standout.
How do you know that a kid with all the skills in the world is going to make it in the tough world of AFL? You have to look at his character as well to give you a better idea. Very important.
Exactly.
All kids in the first round have skills. Talented, skillful junior footballers are a dine a dozen.
How skillful and talented you are as a child, is not always indicative of how good a footballer you will become. AFL clubs believe that 'character' is what determines how good you will become, and how much you will make of your ability.
chico2001 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 10:38am
I don't think too many on here have mentioned the "nice kids" policy....maybe a couple. But it has got some traction and in Trouts view it was his own motto by the sound of it. Character is important to a degree but will never come first in a selection policy.
Better drive, dedication, perserverance all mean the same thing. Thats just padding out to support your argument. So thin that out a bit and whats left? Leadership....how do you know that when a kid is 17/18 unless they are a total standout.
"Most good recruiters have their tricks on how to make this assessment, but in the end it often comes down to just doing your homework.
For instance this year I had the privilege of working each Tuesday with the leadership group at the undefeated Haileybury College first XVIII team.
Five of the boys (Andrew Brayshaw, Luke Davies-Uniacke, Charlie Constable, Oscar Clavarino and Jackson Ross) in the team are highly draftable commodities with three a chance to go in the top 10 picks.
Of the 18 clubs that have a chance at drafting the boys only six made the effort to make contact and find out about their leadership qualities.
They asked questions like whether leadership came naturally to each of them, how engaged they were in the program, were they the drivers of the team or simply picked because they were talented?
They wanted stories on when the boys saw a threat to the team and how they came up with solutions to overcome any obstacle that would derail the season. They wanted to know how the boys handled success and maintained focus in an unusual season whereby the team was undefeated.
The questions were in depth and essentially they wanted to know if the kid had the ability to think outside of himself and his own performance.
Could they perform as a player while being mindful of driving the team forward?
Thankfully I could give every kid in the leadership team a tick because they were an outstanding bunch of young men who would be an asset to any AFL team.
These methods are very direct, however some methods are far sneakier.
One of the common tricky ones is what I call the warm-up test and may be run at something like the draft camp.
On day one the boys are given a drill that requires cones, bibs and small groups of players. Everything is set up for them and they are told exactly what to do.
The next day they will be asked to do the same drill, but without the detailed instructions.
They can then observe which have a good memory and are self-starters, getting the drill going and helping those who have forgotten the instructions from the day before.
On day three the cones, bibs and balls are left on the side of the oval.
They then observe which kids, when told to warm up, have the wherewithal to organise the equipment and players efficiently, and who stands around with no clue what to do.
How is this useful?
Well if two kids have similar talent and physical attributes you need something to separate them.
Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
"Beatson, who helped assemble the Brisbane Lions player group that played in four consecutive Grand Finals, admitted his biggest recruiting mistakes in the past have been selecting highly-skilled players with a “questionable attitude”.
“With that character, there’s a real link between their level of competitiveness and that character — you look for things like that,” Beatson told FOX FOOTY.
“All the good players that I can think of, all the greats — they’re all competitors, massive competitors.
“That’s what we’re all trying to find, that linked with their skill and athletic capabilities."
So how do we reconcile character - which in this context seems to mean being highly competitive/hate losing; able to take the initiative; lateral/strategic thinker thinker; can remember where the witches hats go et al - with playing a role, sticking to the coaches specific instructions, "don't think, do" (Kennedy Snr) and consistently following a game plan that has/is proven to lose more games than it wins. I suspect some guys with great character have to be pragmatic about displaying it for a few years to get a game. Or until there is a coaching change.
Where has it ever been stated or confirmed that the Saints only picked good kids from good homes?
I think you will find that the majority of 18 year old kids that get drafted are good kids in general and do the right things in life and they do come from decent homes. Its probably one of the reasons they get drafted in the first place. Good family and parent support goes a long way with any kids.
Posters that have admitted they were wrong about Hanna's gastro and the club didn't create a cover story.
Total = 1.
chico2001 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 10:38am
I don't think too many on here have mentioned the "nice kids" policy....maybe a couple. But it has got some traction and in Trouts view it was his own motto by the sound of it. Character is important to a degree but will never come first in a selection policy.
Better drive, dedication, perserverance all mean the same thing. Thats just padding out to support your argument. So thin that out a bit and whats left? Leadership....how do you know that when a kid is 17/18 unless they are a total standout.
"Most good recruiters have their tricks on how to make this assessment, but in the end it often comes down to just doing your homework.
For instance this year I had the privilege of working each Tuesday with the leadership group at the undefeated Haileybury College first XVIII team.
Five of the boys (Andrew Brayshaw, Luke Davies-Uniacke, Charlie Constable, Oscar Clavarino and Jackson Ross) in the team are highly draftable commodities with three a chance to go in the top 10 picks.
Of the 18 clubs that have a chance at drafting the boys only six made the effort to make contact and find out about their leadership qualities.
They asked questions like whether leadership came naturally to each of them, how engaged they were in the program, were they the drivers of the team or simply picked because they were talented?
They wanted stories on when the boys saw a threat to the team and how they came up with solutions to overcome any obstacle that would derail the season. They wanted to know how the boys handled success and maintained focus in an unusual season whereby the team was undefeated.
The questions were in depth and essentially they wanted to know if the kid had the ability to think outside of himself and his own performance.
Could they perform as a player while being mindful of driving the team forward?
Thankfully I could give every kid in the leadership team a tick because they were an outstanding bunch of young men who would be an asset to any AFL team.
These methods are very direct, however some methods are far sneakier.
One of the common tricky ones is what I call the warm-up test and may be run at something like the draft camp.
On day one the boys are given a drill that requires cones, bibs and small groups of players. Everything is set up for them and they are told exactly what to do.
The next day they will be asked to do the same drill, but without the detailed instructions.
They can then observe which have a good memory and are self-starters, getting the drill going and helping those who have forgotten the instructions from the day before.
On day three the cones, bibs and balls are left on the side of the oval.
They then observe which kids, when told to warm up, have the wherewithal to organise the equipment and players efficiently, and who stands around with no clue what to do.
How is this useful?
Well if two kids have similar talent and physical attributes you need something to separate them.
Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
You have just printed the Nathan Burke document again or part therof...!!!!!!!!!, is that the full justification as to why you said that character comes first? your opposing argument is inadequate Rodger...…...I hope you don't quote Burkery for a 3rd time.
tedtheodorelogan2018 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 2:44pm
Where has it ever been stated or confirmed that the Saints only picked good kids from good homes?
I think you will find that the majority of 18 year old kids that get drafted are good kids in general and do the right things in life and they do come from decent homes. Its probably one of the reasons they get drafted in the first place. Good family and parent support goes a long way with any kids.
I will take ability any day. Character is over rated
As Nathan Burke wrote in an article recently...
"Who would you rather have in your team; the self-starter with leadership qualities or the kid who needs to be spoon-fed? I know which player I would prefer on my list.
Having future draftees understand the importance of these attributes is as important as getting them to sharpen their skills, mainly because AFL clubs don’t expect to draft a finished product.
They know they will have to improve a player’s skills, which is why they spend so much on development coaches these days.
With this in mind they have to make sure they draft a kid with the right attitude and willingness to take the development opportunities afforded to him."
Right so everyone take note from good ol roger dodger- it's all about whether you're a 'self starter' vs 'spoon-fed'
It has nothing to do with talent, pace, strength, leap, ferocity, field vision, skill, or any other of those qualities that make a great footballer
Now I see it all so clear - it's all about 'self starter' vs 'spoon-fed'....which are vague incoherent terms to describe character in the first place
So now that I know that character is defined (very very simply) by a 'self starter' vs 'spoon-fed'
I now know that character has NOTHING to do with being:
- Adventurous
- Affable
- Capable
- Charming
- Confident
- Conscientious
- Cultured
- Dependable
- Discreet
- Dutiful
- Encouraging
- Exuberant
- Fair
- Fearless
- Gregarious
-Humble
- Helpful
- Imaginative
- Independent
- Keen
- Meticulous
- Observant
- Persistent
- Reliable
- Trusting
- Valiant
Thanks for clearing that up for me Roger....PHEW - I had it all wrong there for a minute or two! lmao
?
Are you responding to me? I never said any of that stuff that you posted.
Last edited by rodgerfox on Mon 03 Dec 2018 5:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
You have just printed the Nathan Burke document again or part therof...!!!!!!!!!, is that the full justification as to why you said that character comes first? your opposing argument is inadequate Rodger...…...I hope you don't quote Burkery for a 3rd time.
I said character is the number 1 factor at all AFL clubs. That was in response to a post that stated we had a strategy of only picking nice kids from nice families, or something to that effect.
I merely pointed out that firstly, that was never our strategy. Any secondly, the concept of selecting players with good character over others players that may have better 'skill' as a child, is the norm at all AFL clubs.
I never gave my personal opinion on 'character versus skill' at all. Certainly never entered an argument about it.
tedtheodorelogan2018 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 2:44pm
Where has it ever been stated or confirmed that the Saints only picked good kids from good homes?
I think you will find that the majority of 18 year old kids that get drafted are good kids in general and do the right things in life and they do come from decent homes. Its probably one of the reasons they get drafted in the first place. Good family and parent support goes a long way with any kids.
You tell me where it was stated?
"we went through a only drafting 'nice guys'"
"we had a female run psychology test where only 'nice guys' passed"
"rather than Trouts "good kid from a good family" garbage"
tedtheodorelogan2018 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 2:44pm
Where has it ever been stated or confirmed that the Saints only picked good kids from good homes?
I think you will find that the majority of 18 year old kids that get drafted are good kids in general and do the right things in life and they do come from decent homes. Its probably one of the reasons they get drafted in the first place. Good family and parent support goes a long way with any kids.
You tell me where it was stated?
"we went through a only drafting 'nice guys'"
"we had a female run psychology test where only 'nice guys' passed"
"rather than Trouts "good kid from a good family" garbage"
Just on Page 1 of this thread alone.
Good.....well pass that onto your f*ckwits mates then ....."dude" especially.....the suckhole.....ted
No point telling people to f*cking chill out, what does that achieve? We debated an issue and you were proved wrong......so f*cking man up instead of looking for excuses like a kid in the playground.
tedtheodorelogan2018 wrote: ↑Mon 03 Dec 2018 2:44pm
Where has it ever been stated or confirmed that the Saints only picked good kids from good homes?
I think you will find that the majority of 18 year old kids that get drafted are good kids in general and do the right things in life and they do come from decent homes. Its probably one of the reasons they get drafted in the first place. Good family and parent support goes a long way with any kids.
You tell me where it was stated?
"we went through a only drafting 'nice guys'"
"we had a female run psychology test where only 'nice guys' passed"
"rather than Trouts "good kid from a good family" garbage"
Just on Page 1 of this thread alone.
Good.....well pass that onto your f*ckwits mates then ....."dude" especially.....the suckhole.....ted
No point telling people to f*cking chill out, what does that achieve? We debated an issue and you were proved wrong......so f*cking man up instead of looking for excuses like a kid in the playground.
?
Have you been drinking?
I don't even know where to start with that epic melt.
Firstly, who are 'my mates'?
Secondly, you clearly do need to chill out. Clearly.
Thirdly, we never debated an issue. You got your frilly panties all twisted up about a topic that I never even offered my opinion on.
Fourthly, what excuses am I looking for?? I've clearly and succinctly responded to posts. Nothing more.
