Earlier this week The
Guardian’s Craig Little had an article which basically argued that
Hawthorn’s current position on top of the AFL ladder was an illustration that
‘culture’ is more important to success than statistical analysis.
“At the risk of being
crucified by gangs of statistical leviathans … ,” Little wrote, “Hawthorn’s
greatest achievement this year may be reducing the reams of data to the mootest
of points … There is not a category in which they are ranked ahead of the rest
of the competition – notwithstanding of course, what ultimately matters: wins.”
Little then went on to ascribe the Hawks success this season to having the
competition’s strongest ‘culture’, whatever that is.
Little’s article is
well-written, but I disagree with most of it. Hawthorn is no doubt the greatest
club of the past three seasons. The Hawks are more than a small chance of
winning their fourth premiership in a row. They are also 5-0 in matches this
season decided by less than 10 points. If they lose even two of those matches
they are in seventh place, and does the article even get written?
Ah … but isn’t their ability
to always win those close matches a testament to their battle-hardiness, their
‘culture’ of success, allowing them to frequently get over the line when the
pressure is on? Utter codswallop. If the Hawks are so much better than other
clubs at winning when matches are close why did they go 1-4 in matches decided
by 10 points or less last season? That team had already won two premierships;
what changed so much after a third other than this season they have been
luckier? Alas for the purpose of my post they beat Sydney in another close
match this week, perpetuating the myth for some that the Hawks ‘just know how
to win the close ones’.
And if I hear one more time
(which unfortunately I will) a club’s ‘culture’ being used as the main
explanation for its success or lack of … What even does that mean? No really,
when someone appeals to a club’s ‘culture’ they should be immediately asked how
that ‘culture’ is specifically manifesting itself in anything that is happening
on the ground. (Little at least links the Hawks’ ‘culture’ to their capacity
for innovation and their willingness to spend on their football department.)
I often hear that my club
Richmond has a ‘culture problem’ compared to a club like Hawthorn. I see that,
among other things, the Tigers do not hit their targets when kicking the ball
around the ground as much as the Hawks do. So what does that point to then: a
‘culture’ of bad kicking? More likely Hawthorn built a game plan and recruited and
developed players to help them execute that plan than those ubiquitous ‘culture
differences’ are the culprit.
Perhaps what some people mean
they talk about a ‘cultural problem’ are players not performing to the best of
their abilities. But if so then how exactly? Are they turning the ball over
more often than you would expect? Are they not as good at winning contested
possessions? I don’t see how ‘culture’ is an explanation for much at all
really.
I guess I must be one of those
‘statistical leviathans’ the article is talking about … But then, given that I
run a weekly ‘Power Rankings’ system based purely on a statistical formula, you
probably already knew that …
[P.S. When discussing this
post with my wife she said that a good ‘culture’ could help in recruiting and
retaining players. Good point, my wiser-and-better-half (she asked to be
referred to as that). I concede that one. Perhaps I’ll accept that reports of a
‘good culture’ had some part in the Hawks recruiting Shaun Burgoyne, Josh Gibson,
Jack Gunston, James Frawley, and Ben McEvoy from other clubs. On the other hand
it didn’t keep Buddy Franklin there.]
2 comments:
Great rebuttal- I think your better half's point actually wraps up the discussion pretty well in that culture DOES have a part to play, just not on the field on game day.
I agree - it was a good point. My better half appreciated your seconding it.
Post a Comment