November 29, 2006
What makes a Football Club successful?
As raised in a recent post by Charlie White…what makes a club successful? This is a very complex question for many reasons. What criteria do you use to measure success? Is it purely results on the park, and if so, is it for the top team only?
Personally, I think the question is not as simplistic as just measuring the result of your top team (be that Premier, Div.1 or other). I say this only because a club generally does not consist of just one team, but I’m only too well aware that there are some clubs that see success of a certain club team as the best way to measure the club’s success.
The other side of the coin is clubs such as Clarence & Kingborough (only by way of example, I’m sure there are others too), who appear to measure their club’s success on playing numbers on the park, the establishment and maitenance of a development pathway, etc.
So, a two pronged question:
1. How does your club measure success, and
2. How should success be measured (in local football)?
I can’t believe NO ONE has said anything on this topic.
Are people that intimidated or is it just a sad reflection on the confusion of just what is deemed as successful these days.
Comment by Blackjack — December 5, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I am of the same opinion as you Blackjack, if your club takes what it can from a season and any teams success then at least have the guts to say it. Are we that devoid of clubs that actually want to have longer lasting success and measures than simply a premiership? If that is the case we must have some very unhappy clubs each year, since there can only be “one winner”. Maybe some of those older clubs who have experienced success in the past have no other way to measure it than by past glories. That would mean that there are some very barren times ahead for the old trophy cabinets…
Comment by charlie white — December 5, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
This topic sounds as though it is a sad indictment of the game in Tasmania. In my humble opinion there is too much emphasis placed on winning premierships and not on developing winning players. Even our beloved governing body (FFT) has placed the emphasis squarely on winning titles (National Championships) rather than developing individual players.
The Coaching & Development Manager has stated emphatically that he wants to see Tasmania become a ‘force’ in Australian football. Although this concept has merit it fails to recognise individuals, and at national championships individuals are the focus rather than how well a state team does. Afterall it’s ONLY individual players who are identified, not state teams. So the FFT development policy (if a state team does well in any particular year) is somewhat of an ego trip for FFT…it makes them look good.
The FFT goal of Tasmania becoming a force, also fails to recognise the population (or lack of) in Tassie. You can’t realistically expect Tasmania to become a consistent force with the population we have. Hockey can’t do it, cricket can’t do it, not even Footie consistently ranks, so how can Football realistically expect to do something all other sports can’t manage? It’s not like we have the bee’s knees in terms of facilities and personnel to force things along.
Success, in my opinion, is doing what you can to assist the kids attain their individual goals, eg. Ben Harbinson, Chris Sanita, James Sherman, etc.
Comment by Lionheart — December 9, 2006 @ 9:54 am
It depends on who you are and who you play for, obviously If chelsea dont win something this year than that is not a success in their eyes, but if Watford avoid relegation then i would suggest that thats a success for them. Even if that is not local competition is still competition, others will view winning as the only option when they are in a position to win, others will view that blooding youngsters is a win when they are in the position to blood youngsters.
Comment by James Sherman — December 27, 2006 @ 4:24 pm