I carry around this philosophy I call the "ticket to enter". Ridiculously enough, I developed this in selecting my Melbourne Cup picks, so I'll explain how it works in that context.
I used to bet pretty seriously as a young adult. My bedroom was a sea of form guides, videos, ratings charts, etc. I did ok - well enough to get myself through uni without having to get a real job. When I finally got a real job and then a missus, I gave up the punt but now I only bet on a couple of races each year. I'm very much an all-or-nothing person. If I can't do something full on I wouldn't do it at all. So when those big races came around, I'd return to my old habits. As soon as the Melbourne Cup fields came out, I'd bunker myself down with a form guide and try and learn as much about every horse as I could in two days, work out my speed maps, etc, etc. It was a strategy doomed to fail, you cannot hope to replicate in two days a strategy that previously worked because you lived and breathed it. Then when I had kids, my own business, this websites, etc, my time to work out my Melbourne Cup bets progressively withered to the point where the old approach wasn't even feasible. So I had to come up with a new approach.
My new approach was my "ticket to enter" philosophy. You identify three to four key criteria that any prospect must meet before you'll even consider then. And then you just without fear or favour you eliminate everybody that does meet that criteria. From those criteria I would invariably be left with about a half-dozen horses, whom I'd then analyse more closely before deciding which to bet on and at what level.
I now apply this to everything I do. I first work out my "ticket to enter" criteria, and force myself to work within those parameters. I had good success having a few bets on the Eels this year, because I defined my ticket to entry - 1) Hayne had to play 2) We had to be at home 3) The team needed a reason to be 'up' for the game. And only from those games, I'd analyse if we were good value or not.
Anyway, long story to explain that I think you have to take this approach to selecting Rugby League players. My "ticket to enter" in recruiting any player would be:
1) A fervent desire to win and succeed
2) The will/physical ability/technique to tackle and hold your line
3) The intelligence, commitment and discipline needed to follow a game plan/rules
Without the first, you will never have a team of committed performers. Without the second, you can never play football because you are never confident of being able to hold your line, without the third you'll ultimately fail because Rugby League requires players who are able to play a part in a larger machine.
You then start to work on your team, knowing that you have the three basic elements of a successful Rugby League team in place. Suddenly, everything gets so much easier when you're working from that kind of platform.
Yes, you'll miss out on talented players. Which is tough, because I also believe you have to have gamebreakers in your side and often these players don't match up to those criteria. But what it forces you to do is wait for the right marquee players. And when you get those brilliant players who also carry their ticket to entry, that is when you have the nucleus of a successful football side. You never let those players go.
I think there are a few of our highly paid players who wouldn't yet have their ticket to enter my side. If I were Ricky I'd be giving certain players a pretty short space of time to demonstrate they deserve their ticket to enter. And until they do, I wouldn't let them near the first grade squad. We've bought players recently, who clearly didn't hit all three of those criteria in the hope that we could teach those kind of attributes. Leopards seldom strange their spots. It's easier to get players who fill the criteria and develop their skill levels than to have players who have higher skills levels and expect them to change who they are. Reading Hindy's biography, it was pretty clear that even from his junior days these kinds of attributes were what caught the attention of the club and we've seen them on the paddock ever since.
Replies
And if I am not mistaken it was Lee Trevino who invented "percentage" golf in tournaments, and the rest as they say - is history.
I see many parallels with your 'ticket'.
I would suggest to balance a team then the ticket with percentage is a better proposition.
I do not see how you will get an entire team to tick all your requirements Phil, so as long as your 1, 6, 7, 9, 13 and possibly a couple more do meet your ticket to entry requirements we then could go to a percentage play for game breakers and the rest of the team.
1) - Must have = non negotiable
2 & 3) - Must have at least one of these.
A plus 70% minimum criteria.
I agree but I would say that you can maybe carry one player, usually a halfback, who isn't the worlds greatest tackler due to simply not being physically big enough to consistently tackle well one on one.
If that be the case though you have to be getting a lot out of that player in attack, obviously I am talking about Sandow here and if he is to hold his place he needs to be aiming up in terms of directing the team around. Not just flashes of brilliance.
Also you have to develop a way to protect that player usually by ensuring he doesn't have to make too many one on one tackles.
I think most of our roster is familiar with "Ticket To Ride" by the Beatles rather than your philosophy.
My experience is this whole idea falls down as soon as your start making compromises. Again I'd go back to my Melbourne Cup example. Yeh, sure he hasn't proven the ability to run 2400m in high pressure conditions, but he did win strongly over 2000m and he's got the right bloodlines so there's a chance he'll run the distance. Suddenly, you start making excuses for your options and all of a sudden you don't have six options, you've got half the field and everything is complicated again.
So just to reference back to the example, I just gave I'll miss out on picking Jeune who did exactly what I just described and stepped up from 2000m to win over 3200m. But you have to accept that you're going to miss out occasionally - the aim of the game is to be right most of the time. In punting, that means you make a long-term profit, in football that means your consistently successful.
Let's be clear there are players who fit these criteria and who are game-breakers. I can't accept that its not possible to put together a team who all have their ticket and which contain the number of game-breakers you need. You look at a team like Melbourne over the years and they've been able to achieve it.
[Somehow Des Hasler manages to defy this. He is one of the few coaches I've ever seen who can bring in players and somehow get them performing up to the standards of his core group]
In Ricky we trust.
Ricky does have a winners mentality
Good on ya Phil, Great mentality. Ticket to Enter, I love it.
Most of our players shouldnt have a ticket at all based on thier perfomances, They do show the physical ability, but lack the desire, the dicipline and the commitment.
Thankfully points 1 and 2 are alot to do with self esteem and personal development and with good training, the players who posess the right mentality can obtain and improve upon these traits.
Sorry I should have said 1 and 3.
Phil, another excellent post as always.
This team is a complete basket case. If last Sunday wasnt the bggest game of 2012 for them to be up then nothing was. I still have this image of BLAIR letting a try in and just walking past HINDMARSH dropping his head and then going on as if life is was fine. As a coach, I would have blown a stack at the lack of attitude coming from most of the side and the lack of desperation and desire to hold teams out. Defence is attitude and self believe. Manly have in bucket loads. Their line is sacred.
Ricky is very good at that attitude adjustment and consequences. However, he drops someone and the cupboard is bare. Once we get some depth and form , he will wield the axe and we might get a more consistant atttude back.
What is your TIP for the Melbourne Cup this far out ? I like Sincero for the Cox Plate .
I was looking at what kind of team, I'd put together after I wiped out the people that didn't fit with the criteria. I struggled in the outside backs and would probably consider moving Rory Brien back to the centres to beef that up.
Not sure whether he has got the pace for centre 1EE. No doubting his D and his work ethic but I just think he might be found out a bit there.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next