Boys Club

Wests Tigers Discussion
Post Reply
User avatar
jrtiger
Member
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun 19 Apr, 2015 5:17 pm

Boys Club

Post by jrtiger » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 4:47 pm

Bit of an interesting thought here...

Back in 2010-2012 a lot of people seemed to believe that the closeness between the players (Ryan/Heighington/Gibbs/Marshall/Farah/Moltzen etc) was bad for team culture and believed it to be one of the reasons that that premiership window effectively closed with little-to-no success.

It seems as if bonding and coming together as a group seems to be one of Cleary's major philosophies, and Benji actually touched on it while talking to MMM that he believed that it's only a good thing for the squad as a whole.

What's everybody's overall thoughts?? Can teammates get too close to one another or is it that the tighter that the squad is on a personal sense the better it is for a team and ultimately that team's success??


jadtiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 8:12 am
Location: bayview

Post by jadtiger » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 4:53 pm

Winning teams seem to have a close bond ,the problem with our teams in that period was Sheens didnt keep a close enough rein on the squad.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 22828
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 5:40 pm

Being mates is fine. It’s when they try and start playing politics.

Eddie
Member
Member
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 3:05 pm

Post by Eddie » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 5:58 pm

The boys club is created by the coach really. Sheens was a great coach but he didn't have hard pre seasons or treat every player the same. Thats where guys like Benji and Farah got too big for their boots at time. Its why when all of a sudden Potter came in with a different mentlaity it did not resonate with them. Because it was not like they were used to. Now Benji has been with Bennett and now Ivan. He has seen both sides. Im not bagging Sheens just saying how things can play out differently.

Sco77y
Member
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri 12 Jul, 2013 2:22 pm

Post by Sco77y » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 6:19 pm

There’s a healthy bond, where every team member considers themselves an equal part of the team, with the same unselfish, big picture goal in mind. Then there was the Tigers of old where a handful basically segregated themselves from the remainder of the group and as others have said thought they were bigger than the team and the coach. It’s a bond, sure, but the wrong kind for success in a team.


TrueTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5509
Joined: Thu 14 Aug, 2014 11:22 am

Post by TrueTiger » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 6:29 pm

Sco77y wrote:
Mon 12 Mar, 2018 6:19 pm
There’s a healthy bond, where every team member considers themselves an equal part of the team, with the same unselfish, big picture goal in mind. Then there was the Tigers of old where a handful basically segregated themselves from the remainder of the group and as others have said thought they were bigger than the team and the coach. It’s a bond, sure, but the wrong kind for success in a team.

Absolutely nailed it Sco77y......
You may see me struggle...but you will never see me quit... :D

User avatar
Kul
Member
Member
Posts: 5947
Joined: Sat 04 Jul, 2009 12:24 am
Location: London

Post by Kul » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 6:49 pm

Two different things.

The last thing you want is cliques.
We had those in the rugby club I play for, it left people resenting others and on the field that translated into the lack of desire to be there for your team mate.
It's toxic.
Founder - WestsTigersForum.com

User avatar
Swordy
Member
Member
Posts: 1962
Joined: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 9:34 pm

Post by Swordy » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 6:53 pm

Inclusive of everyone are the key words.

Im with sco77y and Kul. Its the cliques that destroy every workplace.
Sunshine Coast resident.
Tigers fan since birth in 1969.
Fond memories of Leichhardt Oval every home game as a kid with my Dad!

Marshall_magic
Member
Member
Posts: 4312
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 5:33 pm

Post by Marshall_magic » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 7:05 pm

The guys being close is fine with me. But it shouldn't effect who does and doesn't get selected. The coach shouldn't fear the wrath of players because he drops their mates.

larrycorowa
Member
Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri 19 Feb, 2010 1:47 pm

Post by larrycorowa » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 7:16 pm

Honesty and accountability are crucial. If friendships get in the way of this it becomes a problem. Also players play, coaches coach and administrators administrate....

User avatar
Sabre
Member
Member
Posts: 6958
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:06 pm
Location: Tiger Town

Post by Sabre » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 8:03 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Mon 12 Mar, 2018 5:40 pm
Being mates is fine. It’s when they try and start playing politics.
This sums it up perfectly.
What was meant by a Boys Club at the time was a few players banding together and taking control. This meant other players and coaches being alienated.

That's a far different thing to having a good bond between players and staff.

Telltails
Member
Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri 18 Apr, 2014 3:24 pm

Post by Telltails » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 10:26 am

If players are taking control that is not a "boys club problem that is management/leadership issue - which when it comes down to it was where all our problems stemmed from at the time - a board divided with players in the crossfire.
To suggest that we had a boys club problem separate to what happens at any club is widely exagerrated and not substantiated.

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29861
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW..

Post by Geo. » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 11:27 am

Lunches have never been the same since Heighno left... :cry: :cry:
Wests Tigers don't need a Coach.. The playing group has taken over..
happy tiger wrote:
Thu 25 Oct, 2018 12:17 am
OK I was wrong
happy tiger wrote:
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 12:13 am
I know at times I'm not always the brightest light in the kitchen

Post Reply