Which is more important - talent or effort?

[meher baba]

In reading this forum over the past few days, it is interesting to see a strong flavour of the Calvinist work ethic among many posters.

Leaving aside those Dal-bashers who are probably trolls (perhaps Bombers fans still dreaming of what might be), what really seems to irk many on this forum about Dal is that he allegedly doesn't work hard enough.

Likewise, one reads a lot of posts on here talking about how players like CJ or Birss have "earned" their spot in the senior side, or how Eddy is going to be a great player because he "puts in". Likewise, Fiora is universally despised for not having a crack.

Now, clearly, the ideal sort of footballer is one like Harves or Lenny or Roo who have lots of talent and also give a 150 per cent effort in almost every game.

Fine: a team with 22 such players would probably dominate the AFL world for a decade or more.

But, as we all know, most teams can only expect to have a handfull of these superhuman types. Otherwise, they are filling up their team with a mix of reasonable KPPs, GOP midfielders and of other players with one or more shortcomings: hard runners with poor disposal skills, talls who lack mobility, etc.

Of the players with shortcomings, the most frustrating type for coaches and fans (and other players) are the highly-talented, inconsistent, "enigmatic" players who have so much talent that they seem hardly to be trying. They about in all forms of sport: for instance, Mark Waugh and David Gower were classic cases from the cricket world.

Goal sneaks are almost always inconsistent, "enigmatic" players, so this attribute is generally tolerated in the likes of Milne. It also (perhaps in a form of inverse racism) used to be accepted more in the case of Indigenous players, although this now seems to be changing as the game is throwing up Indigenous players playing not just in the role of lightning fast outside players, but in virtually every position on the park.

Dal is the quintessential example of an "enigmatic" player. He has wonderful hand-eye coordination and a first-rate disposal of the ball. He is also a good tackler. He plays with the appearance of having extremely low intensity, although his average stats indicate that he is more productive than most (which was also true of David Gower and, for the most part, Mark Waugh in cricket).

The problem for Dal and other sportsmen of his type is that, when they lose form, they look far worse than other out-of-form players because they not only are not producing, they don't even look like they are trying.

But I think it is a mistake for footy fans to get too carried away about hard work alone. Jason Blake is the quintessential hard worker, but every time he gets the ball he is still only at best a 60/40 chance of disposing of it in a way that will cause any damage to our opponents. Whereas, regardless of his contribution so far in a game, Dal is only ever one possession away from cutting our opponents apart.

For this reason, I think that we should collectively reassess our preoccupation with hard work and remember that the sort of talent that a Dal possesses is something that can't be achieved through coaching or hard work.

And that, if you don't have a few players in a team who can do the sorts of things Dal does, it doesn't matter how hard you all work, you are not going to win important AFL games.

Watching us play against Freo on Friday night, I didn't come away with the feeling that we didn't have enough hard working players. I saw heaps of guys really putting in: Maxie, Sam Fisher, Gwilt, Lenny (while fit), Bally, Harves, Dempster, Riewoldt, CJ, Eddy, etc. But only a few who looked really dangerous with the ball in their hands: Riewoldt, BJ, Grammy, Lenny, Harves (to some extent) and others on odd occasions (Sam Fisher, Gwilt, Ball once or twice).

I think the lack of damaging ball players is our major problem ATM, not lack of effort across the ground. It's why we ended up scoring fewer than a dozen goals in a home game against an interstate club at the bottom of the table.

It's why we need the likes of Dal, Raph, Kosi and Milne (and X, if he can regain fitness) in our top 22 over the next few weeks and not a preponderance of the CJ, Birss, Geary, Eddy, Dempster, Blake type of player. It's why we need to structure our team so that BJ and Grammy get to run free out of the backline rather than Sam Fisher and Gilbert. It's why we need Milne crumbing inside the forward 50 and not running up and down the ground.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

While I certainly agree with the sentiment of the post (which was a good read btw), I think we have to recognise it cuts both ways... the ultra-talents do need to buy into team strategies and tactics or they're quite capable of letting the whole team down.

There are many, many approaches to making best use of players of sublime skills. If we look at Sydney as a prime example of team ethos, we see a couple of different methods applied. Nick Davis is a phenomenal kick. Used as an "impact player" he has been very effective at turning games... yet he remains tied to this role, and unable to even continually hold a spot, because he's been at times unwilling, and times unable, to contribute to the man-on-man workrate for your mates blue collar ethic that the team demands... while a star such as Barry Hall has contributed and largely benefited from making his game team forst rather than me-first as it oft used to be. One wonders whether Kirk would or could have developed into an A grade midfielder just about anywhere else.

On the reverse side, the way they deploy Adam Goodes shows they do recognise the difference in his talent level, and don't want to use a ferrari as a tow-truck. They demand that he get's back to defend, but he's encouraged to go on his long runs taking full advantage of his endurance, and is cut loose from the general accountability that defines each and every other Swan... certainly doesn't hurt him that his opponent is generally following him around regardless, but there's certainly a recognition that the role which most of their mids play would be an absolute waste of Goodes.

To apply it to the Dal situation, whether we agree with the decision around him or not, the message sent is that Dal is not contributing enough offensively to have the blithe attitude to his man that Goodes has. I heard Dermot say on Friday night he has trouble at the beginning of games working out who Dal's man is because Dal doesn't want to go near them... that surprised me, as generally you can spot them poking their head out of Dal's pocket... he moves off as an effort to get away. The message would seem to be stop doing that, if you find yourself up against Ling et al, the 1st effort is not to get away, it's to make sure that if they keep you to 15 touches, you keep them to 12, and contribute to the defensive side.

I personally find it frustrating the way that Dal is often employed, what strengths it seems to suit it seems to balance by going straight to his weaknesses - I'm not a fan of Dal Santo in the back half. I think he's good enough that if he's not on the ball, his strengths up forward offer us far more than his weaknesses can be exploited... however Lyon's opinion would seem to be that Dal's fundamental weaknesses must be adressed before his strengths can be of full use to the team.

On one hand, I look at Schneider, Dal, Joey, Milne I even look at Hayes to an extent and I see their creativity languishing as they have defensive roles they're not suited to demanded of them. Raph, L Fisher, and others seem to have been re-cast in ways that have robbed them of bright potential to turn them into below average players... however, St Kilda did make a decision after 2006 that we needed more accountability in order to be a great team instead of a very good one. There's a perspective there that this is exactly the kind of decision and ethic Ross Lyon was hired to make and deliver.

While I certainly am among those who bemoan the lost potential of so many who are not up to the demands of the new regime, we could certainly look at it as a demonstration that these players were/are not up to delivering what needs to be in order to really achieve... if we can get more players to complete the re-definition that's being demanded of Birss, we'd be a better team for it.

As the saying goes, a champion team will beat a team of champions. Regardless of Geelong's playing style compared to ours, this is IMO the biggest difference between their '06 and '07/'08 editions - they gained that team ethic. And while I question what the need to drop a Dal Santo says about Ross Lyon's leadership, I can certainly see a perspective where he personally stands a better chance of results of he can play 22 guys who will do what he tells them... and play as a team. In the short term, my hope is that everyone, especially the sublimely skilled, with buy into the calvinism, as for the next 11 rounds, it represents our greatest chance of getting anywhere,

We can assess the results in october and decide on calvinism or not, as Lyon's "line in the sand" almost certainly signals a fork in the road at that time, depending on results.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

effort without talent will only get you so far tallent without effort just annoys the hell out of the fans

at this stage of the year i would be hoping for effort over tallent but in the long run you cant teach tallent but you can enforce effort

[aussiejones]

I am beginning to believe that naturally tallented players are an embarrasment to Lyon.

It seems he would rather a team of GOP's that slavishly follow his ugly game plan

[Winmar7Fan]

Very good points and I agree totally with what you are saying but are they the only options ie is there no such thing as a player who’s a bit lazy or have the wrong negative attitude or are all of our players giving 100 percent and some look like they are doing it with less effort. I believe a rot has set into some of our players. Why is it good teams not with star lists like Nth Melbourne play with a disciplined intensity with all 22 players from start to the final siren (and win a lot of games purely because of it)?

I watched the Bulldogs and Collingwood Game and all 48 players seemed to be focused and giving everything right down to Paul Medhurst who’s a perfect example of someone who’s attitude has totally changed since at Collingwood . Our players overall show more of a lack of interest than these other teams and confidence im sure is part of it but but I do believe we may lack the discipline they have as well.

After the game Rohan Smith commented to Eade about him being frustrated with the side and he said yeah I get very frustrated when they don’t carry out instructions and I thought gee he's tough I would love us to play as undisciplined as them but i guess thats one reason they are where they are and us where we are.

[Mr Magic]

I am beginning to believe that naturally tallented players are an embarrasment to Lyon.

It seems he would rather a team of GOP's that slavishly follow his ugly game plan

No, he would prefer to win ugly than lose prettily.
What so many on here seem to refuse to want to accept (or understand?) is that he believes the way to be ultimately successful is to 'fix' the defensive side first.

He obviously perceives that we as a team are not good enough defensively.

[meher baba]

I am beginning to believe that naturally tallented players are an embarrasment to Lyon.

It seems he would rather a team of GOP's that slavishly follow his ugly game plan

No, he would prefer to win ugly than lose prettily.
What so many on here seem to refuse to want to accept (or understand?) is that he believes the way to be ultimately successful is to 'fix' the defensive side first.

He obviously perceives that we as a team are not good enough defensively.

And I guess the Coles $64,000 question (in 1960s $$: I'm showing my age) is whether or not Lyon is - in the process of turning us into a better defensive team - also throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't think any of us can be entirely sure of the answer at this stage.

Let's face it, if we win 3 of our next 4 - which really ought to be achievable with our current list - then Lyon will have a great chance of showing us all how his defensive style will provide us with a winning edge in the crucial end-of-season period.

I guess my problem has always been that I don't believe in the religion that says that great defence will win you the end of season games. Yes, it took the Swans to two successive GFs, one of which they won (extremely luckily, if you remember that Hall shouldn't have been playing and that the Eagles missed a load of easy shots in front of the sticks). However, while some of the other top teams of recent times - the Crows, Geelong, the Lions, the Dogs, us in 2004-05, the Eagles - also had strong defences, I don't think that their defences were their critical strength.

Take Geelong for example. They have been strong defensively for the best part of a decade. But what defines the current team is how effective they are in turning backline and midfield dominance into points on the scoreboard. They weren't able to do this during 2004-06.

Likewise the Bulldogs. The big difference this season has not been at the back, but the advent of Welch, the improved form of Aker, and the increased attacking output from players like Cooney and Minson.

As for the Swans, I often wonder if they might not have been more dominant in recent years if they hadn't been obsessed with playing such a tightly-controlled, lock down style of play. After all, they have had a fabulous run with injuries, have one of the top 2 or 3 stars of the game in Goodes, have a gun forward line in Hall, O'Keeffe and O'Loughlin, first rate running players in Kennelly and Nicoski, are fantastic in the clearances. The only thing they don't have is a highly creative midfield unit: but's that been a matter of choice more than anything else. And even the existing Swans' midfield has been looking far more creative this year, with the result that they have started to score many more points.

How would they have gone with a Leigh Matthews as their coach? Who knows, they might currently be lining up for their fourth straight premiership.

That's why I have always been worried by the possibility that we drew the wrong conclusions from the 2005 PF loss: that, rather than simply accept that we were outplayed on the night, we concluded that there was something fundamentally wrong with our entire strategy, and that we needed to become less like what we were and more like the Swans.

But what if that wasn't the case? Then we have been heading in the wrong direction for the best part of 2 years. That's what worries me.

[spert]

As in all top teams over the years, a combination of talent and workrate wins premierships, and a player who steps up to the elite level, displays both. There's also the other big factor: teamwork. Top teams usually have a few good rather than elite players, but they have great workrate and play for the team..as does RL's old club.. a good example of this. The top players lead by example.
We seem to have a handful of extremely talented players, and quite a few good players, but not playing as a unit, not backing each other up, or supporting each other..last Fri night did show a big improvement in that area, with our experienced players showing better leadership than previous weeks.

[ctqs]

Really good, interesting posts covering both sides of the coin.
I subscribe to the theory that you can have all the skill and ability in the world, but it means little unless you've got the courage, discipline and work ethic to put it into practice. Spider Everitt is a classic example of that. He may have won us games when he was "on", but he could cost us as well, when he couldn't be bothered.
It's all about rewarding those who put in the effort and do the hard yards required, in whatever form that takes. Obviously, ideally, a player should have both. But for them it is their full-time job these days, and like most of us, there are days we can't be bothered. While I'm critical of that, I'm also realistic enough to know it's a fact of life that gets to just about all of us at one stage or another, myself included.
Eric Cantona was a prime example of someone who had both (kicking rival fans aside) Sir Alex Ferguson actually said Cantona was the hardest trainer and would do extra work before and after to practice free kicks, etc. During games, he would always do the team thing and make the easy pass (soccer's version of the first option) and would only pull something out of the top shelf if he had to.
But from a global, team perspective, you need a balance between spit and polish. I think our biggest problem this season has been a lack of confidence. That can make you look scared, tentative, soft, lazy, selfish, when the truth is you don't want to stuff it up.
Confidence can be inspired by someone on the team, with a bit of mongrel, making a statement. Lenny was our heartbeat on Friday night. Needless to say, when the heartbeat ceased, we were playing like we were on life support. How good was it when King and BJ lead the boys into that mellee, after Ball was collected?
We need a number of Hamill/Powell/Baker-type enforcers to compliment those who a tough but fair (Harvey, Ball, Hayes, though we could do with a few more of them, too) to blend with the "outside" types.
If the balance gets thrown out of whack either way .. well we've seen what happens, both in the 1980s where we struggled for polish, and now, when we struggle for spit.
But I'd rather watch a team full of blokes giving it their all, instead of a team of those who drift in an out of games and get pats on the back for moments of brilliance, rather than a team performance.

[yipper]

[quote="meher baba

But what if that wasn't the case? Then we have been heading in the wrong direction for the best part of 2 years. That's what worries me.[/quote]

I think that is simplifying things a tad. I have my concerns - but I have expressed those to the President and not on here. FWIW I think we are caught between 2 phases. I think we are still trying to find the right balance. There was/is a strong need for more accountability within the StKilda team - but in trying to impose this, we have lost our attacking and creative flair. I think the end result that RL is trying to achieve will be a highly disciplined, accountable team that can win games without relying on individuals as much as we perhaps have previously. But is this the right way to go? Are they capable of achieving this? How long is it going to take? And what will it cost us? Those are the pertinent questions lingering - I think, for the very first time since he has been here, RL put his own stamp on the game on Friday night. He had the players play as a team and start to execute this game he wants them to play over the whole 4 quarters. He hadn't achieved this at all until last week. So maybe things are starting to turn upwards for him - I hope so. But, those questions will linger awhile longer yet..

[tweedaletomanning]

Effort without talent - Blake

talent without effort - Dal

Talent and effort - Roo

No talent & no effort - Me

[supersaints]

Excellent post, , I am hoping that a lot of the way we are playing is due to the results of a decimated backline in RL's tenure. Teams like Geelong have a top backline, and a fit backline at that .
Due to injury we have Fisher and Gram playing more of key defensive position, so we do not get our running drive off the backline as we did previously,
BJ is another who has been required down back , while he itching to get in the center and push into the forward line. I agree with Meher totally about Dal and personally I would like to see him running free and creating in the forward line.
He just runs so smooth he doesn't appear to be trying. I just hope RL realises what a talent he is.
I don't see a short term remedy to our backline issues unless Kosi can hold down the spot, or Gwilt can step up- then at least we should get more drive as the weeks go buy

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I think, for the very first time since he has been here, RL put his own stamp on the game on Friday night. He had the players play as a team and start to execute this game he wants them to play over the whole 4 quarters. He hadn't achieved this at all until last week. So maybe things are starting to turn upwards for him - I hope so. But, those questions will linger awhile longer yet..

One of the things that really interested me about the way we played Friday night is it's the first time in Lyon's tenure I've really seen the Saints control the tempo in a close game, without there being an aspect of the game going there as a result of 2 sides being happy for it to do so (Sydney round 1, the infamous Hawthorn game last year... where I'd argue we were a bit like Freo was on Friday). Freo was happy to throw up a midfield zone, but they weren't intent on guarding goals like we were and we definately were.

What fascinated me about it is that it was confirmation of Lyon's style (for all the speculation). We've seen it on occasions (like the above), but it's been hard to see where the chicken and egg came from in the creation of the game. No doubt, Friday night the game was ugly because the Saints made it ugly.

He got the buy in from the players, and they won. It will be interesting to see whether the same buy in comes to the fore on Saturday against the roos, and to what effect. I'd bet Lyon will preach it, and if we can win playing it, then to the sorrow of many, it looks like the Saints are going to flood and make no apologies (they're then going to try and run it up the ground - if they can just get that part right, they may go somewhere doing it).

[Saintgaz]

Great discussion going on here.
I think you hit the nail on the head Meher by saying we want a supremely talented team giving 150%. But like you said, it's impossible.
I think it's important to recognise that any one running onto an AFL field has more talent than 99% of the population.
I still wonder how guys can get to the top level and not be able to kick properly, but that's me saying that while I kick down the park and not having sprinted 10 km's been tackled 10 times etc.
I'm happy at the moment for the guys lower on talent but who are working hardest to get games. Because hopefully it'll mean the really talented ones will push themselves more in order to get a game.
But this is probably a reflection on a person who's not the greatest at sport and realises he needs to go harder to get the best out of himself.

[Solar]

without going into coaches and game plans, I think the most important question is in the OP.

talent or effort.

I think it comes back to courage.

Courage comes in different shades, especially on the football field.

Throwing yourself at a pack despite the chances of injury, playing on injured, looking Barry hall in the eye when he wants to belt people.

But I think sometimes a certain courage goes un-noticced. It's one Robert Harvey has had in spades, all the great players have it. You can't teach talent, ability to read the play, know where to kick it before the player gets there. But you can teach a player to give himself to a cause.

Gut running, being able to run, run, then sprint. Have a look at last friday and you will see this courage in the likes of harvey among others. Players were out on their feet, we had a reduced bench so most players had not got the small rests needed. Yet certain players were sprinting to make space. Harvey was doing this, eddy was, CJ did.

Gut running and effort gets you to more contests. The more contests you get to means you have a better chance at affecting the outcome of these contests, and therefore the game.

Ablett was asked to lift in this regard at the end of the 2006 season. He dug deep and found this courage to run his guts out. Now he is the best player in the comp.

No reason the likes of dal can do this.

But I would take effort over talent every day of the week. At least with effort you will get to the contest. You can't win contests without getting to them.

[Ghost Like]

Terrific thread.

When I was in Sydney for the recent game I had the pleasure of sitting next to a Sydney listed player who had just played in the curtain raiser. During the match we got to talking about the Saints and I asked him his opinion on what's holding the Saints back, the players or the coach?

Without missing a beat, he looked up from reading the Record and simply said: "The Saints have a very talented list but that means nothing." He then went back to reading his Record. I guess this is the Sydney ethos, part of which Lyon is endeavouring to instil at St Kilda.

Possibly identifies what is rated higher at Sydney, FWIW.

[meher baba]

if we can win playing it, then to the sorrow of many, it looks like the Saints are going to flood and make no apologies (they're then going to try and run it up the ground - if they can just get that part right, they may go somewhere doing it).

I completely agree with this point. It's the ability to run the ball up the ground - and, most importantly, up the middle of the ground - that sets apart Geelong, the Dogs, the Swans and, spasmodically, the Lions and the Pies from the rest of the competition at the moment (I'm not a believer in the Hawks just yet: I think they have a fair way to go).

We still mainly crept up around the edges on Saturday night. But we did straighten up on a few critical occasions. And it was two key players who did this for us in my recollection: Gram running and bouncing, and BJ and - once or twice - Gwilt and Sam Fisher by foot. And Riewoldt was typically the target for the movement of the ball by foot.

I'm starting to feel that flooding isn't really a problem as long as you can straighten up coming out of defence and you have hard-running, mobile players who can receive the ball up the ground. If Lyon can get this bit right, we'll be a serious threat.

[bergsone]

Effort without talent - Blake

talent without effort - Dal

Talent and effort - Roo

No talent & no effort - Me

Dont sell yourself short mate.Talented post

[Corkin Ocean]

Agree with you MB. Hard work alone is going to beat very few sides going around at the moment. We played one of them last Friday for a low scoring close win.

However, rather than Calvinist work ethic, may I suggest that our coach seems intent on Maoist re-education. If you don’t tow the party line, you are condemned and punished.

By demanding everyone adopt the ethic of the workers and banishing independent thought and action, the Cultural Revolution stifled innovation and progress in China and severely set the country back.

Lyon was brought in ostensibly to take the team the next step – not to engage in wholesale re-education of our best players. Chairman Ross has not produced any Great Leap Forward – quite the contrary.

A team is made up of individuals. A good coach recognizes this and gets the best out of each. Rather than say, MB, that Dal is the quintessential “enigmatic" player, perhaps he is the quintessential individual – both on and off the filed. When he runs and tackles, he never looks like he is busting a gut and never has looked that way. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that he isn't trying. He is still covering a lot of ground with a very high work-rate usually while tagged.

Dal is our most naturally talented attacking mid-fielder and a potential match winner. He is experienced, uninjured, durable, loyal, a good PR face for the club and seems intelligent and responsive to reason – an absolute asset to a club. Anyone in any doubt should ask supporters of other clubs whether they would want him at their club if available. And he is an individual. If you quash his individuality, you are in danger of quashing the source of his talent.

Under our current coach, rather than developing his attacking flair and talent creatively in the team, he has been condemned and punished for not being defensive enough. But the potential value of his creative talent far outweighs the value of his defensive side (which hasn’t been all that bad anyway). If Dal becomes the best defensive player on the list and loses his attacking flair the team is worse off.

Milne is clearly also an individual. The one thing that should be clear to everyone by now is that with Milney you know what you get - a specialist goal sneak who is not good when he has to stop and think. This could be improved, perhaps, by telling him when he has a set shot to not think and just do and the team will accept the outcome. But the coaching decision is not whether we drop him because he can’t play well defensively in the back pocket (you can’t really change him) but whether we want a specialist goal sneak – who also happens to be our top goal scorer – even though he may do some crazy things sometimes. With so few goal scorers available at the moment, the answer is a no-brainer.

It took China some years after Mao to overcome the stifling of individuality and innovation. How long it will take the Saints to recover from Chairman Ross will depend on how far he goes down the path of his re-education campaign. Maybe he can change and show some innovation and responsiveness to individuals so that he develops each of them into a team. But I have my doubts. I would say things are already starting to look pretty drab. Don’t be surprised if little red books are handed out at training soon.