Boys Club

[jrtiger]

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]

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.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

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

 

[Eddie]

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]

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]

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…...

 

[Kul]

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.

 

[Swordy]

Inclusive of everyone are the key words.

Im with sco77y and Kul. Its the cliques that destroy every workplace.

 

[Marshall_magic]

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]

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….

 

[Sabre]

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]

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.

 

[Geo]

Lunches have never been the same since Heighno left…