Spot on DJC....the Voss stamp on things is pretty clear IMHO. He was a ruthless competitor. Saw Chris Scott on The Front Bar a couple of weeks back and he said as much when asked about who was the best of the Lions in those years. It's strange when you think back to late last year when all the talk was about who would be coach. I wasn't sold on Voss at the time but geez he hasn't done much wrong. There's still a few things to be ironed out but when you consider the players that we've had unavailable throughout the year, it's a pretty good result to be one game off the top of the ladder. I think 11 wins is on a par with 2013 and we've still got 6 games to go.
I think a bit of the indifference towards Voss last year stemmed for the fact that some may have still regarded him as that young Brisbane coach, fresh from playing. He would have grown and learned a lot in the subsequent years. Like players, you develop with the experience.
The successful Carlton coach was always going to have a bit of luck attached to it. The right man, in the right place, with the right list, at the right time. We're not totally there yet, but there's every indication that the 'planets might just have aligned' to produce that outcome.
I'm not sure if either of these have been mentioned but there were a couple of little moments that gave me an indication that this is a real 'team' who acknowledge the good and console the not so good. , One was when Curnow kicked a goal after a good bit of lead-up (chase and kick) from McKay. As McKay came to embrace him Curnow pointed at him as if to say this is the bloke responsible for that goal.
The other was when Cripps made a bad blue and Jack gave him a quick talking and encouragement probably saying something along the lines of.... "Don't worry lets, get on with it."
We used to worry about leadership. We don't need to worry anymore. We have it on every line.
Momentum changes are part of the game. Over recent years we've become experts at identifying (and fearing) them. The issue for us is the 'gap' between our best and worst, and a lot of that is down to attitude rather than skill.
The football we played in the first quarter would blitz most teams. For a while we forgot to work as hard as the opposition.
The best part of the game for me was the last quarter which in many respects was built on recognising we would have to regain that work effort to win.
The test will be if we can do it against the best. We get a chance to test that out next week
You just need to weather the storm when you lose the momentum. Ideally you have a flashy middle, followed by a flashy end......but we can't play North Melbourne every week.
The ability to score quickly is a string to our bow, and it helps us when we are all but out of games. Sometimes its almost unfortunate that we do so well straight out of the gate, rather than in the last quarter to put it beyond a doubt, but its better than not doing it at all.
When people make comments like this it makes me look back to 12 months ago. As soon as you see where we were, and then you look at where we are.....i find it hard to get too upset. This year was always going to be a transition year of sorts, we are WELL ahead of schedule. So sure, we are not odds on flag favourites and still have a bit to learn.....but did you expect otherwise?
I've no problem with where we are in terms of improvement. It's dramatic. We should probably play finals...even if we lose this one. I'd back us to win a couple of those we're not necessarily expected to win. But we're just not ready to progress too far.
The problem with the flashy starts is that it has the effect of giving the players a sense that it's all pretty easy. When the inevitable pressure comes we're too slow to counter it. You even picked it. I did too. Don't get carried away with sensational first quarters. There is too long in the match to go,
We're a team of 'showponies' When the going gets tough we just disappear.
That's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of these flashy starts because were always at risk of the momentum change. And once that's lost it is very hard to get it back...almost impossible to the level we played at in the first quarter.
One of the aspects of having a number of injuries is that it throws an extra burden on the remaining players. They not only have to perform their own roles but pick up the extra slack caused by a missing team-mate. That's not such a difficult task for a week or two. But if it's an increasing injury list over an extended period that eventually wears a side (and individuals) down.
So we need to look not just at the injury list but how players are coping with the extra responsibilities. Just as a example, Jack Silvagni is a player who gives 110%. He bleeds Navy Blue. He can perform multiple roles and as such is a valuable asset. But he's starting to show signs of a bit of wear and tear, both in his general play and his frustration levels (Opposition players just want to get in blues with him.) That's probably playing out to some extent across the squad. It's why games like West Coast will be challenging whatever the repective ladder positions.
The thing we need most with our injury issues is a bit of stability. We don't want players in and out of the side....and there is the dilemma
Players coming back need a few games to get back up to speed. Guys like Cera and Honey will get a bit of grace. A player like Weitering comes back in as soon as he's able. Lesser lights get a few games at the lower level
I suspect there is a bit of an agenda with Dow. Either we're giving him enough exposure to keep suitor clubs interested. They'd be aware of his performance in VFL games. or He has certain performance indicators that he's just not meeting, and that's not necessarily dependent on statistics such as disposals.
Here's a tip for free, stay away from Facebook footy pages. They are utter puss, every last one of them.
You're absolutely right. The reason I look at them is they often pick up on a breaking news story in the media, like an injury...sometimes long before we get the confirmation on the Official site.
Gee, there has been some absolute rubbish written on Carlton fan pages and forums since the loss. The trolls are out in force. A lot of them are obviously not Carlton folk. I'm not talking about here. We seem to be a fairly stable group (that may bite us in the bum long term as we need some fresh blood). But the big point of difference is that even when we're a bit critical or disagree we put forward arguments to support our point of view. Sorry for the rant but what set me off was some goose on a Facebook site reckoned we should trade Hewett because he's not damaging. Moral of the story is... never let a mug upset you.😉😁
The old its never as good as it seems and its never as bad as it seems?
Pretty much. It was a bit concerning last week to hear the commentary around the Freo game. The question that was asked in just about every panel show was... Can the Blues win it....and the answers were usually...Yes they can!
While I think, and it's conventional wisdom, that you take the opportunity to play finals and win flags whenever you can I reckon we're probably still about 12 months off really challenging. Playing finals, finishing top 4, would be great for the experience, and once you're there you never know. But there's a part of me that feels that in the long run, the slow more sustainable build to that position is where we're heading.
Last night was a bit of a reality check. Inaccuracy, the effect of injuries, being just that 5% off all take a toll. We were the better side for large parts of the game, and on reflection there was lot of opportunities that went begging just because of a few a few crucial mistakes. We lost it, as much as they won it. It wasn't as bad as it might appear. I'd be confident we'd have their measure with just a few of our injury inclusions.
Just on the defence. We still haven't had a 100 points kicked against us by any side this year...and a fair bit of their score came late. Defending wasn't really the problem last night....it was more the attacking from defence that is usually a strong part of our game. And a pretty shambolic and inaccurate forward line with a few players well down.
I think we may have got more credit for the Freo win than was warranted....and I suspect we'll get more criticism than is warranted for this performance. At the end of the round we'll probably sit on the ladder exactly where we should be.
It's one of those games where by rights there shouldn't be any thoughts of losing. They're often the games that don't go as planned, and there's a fair bit of nervousness across Carlton fan social media. It would be good to put it away early and have a relaxing night, That's what a genuine top side would do with a game like this.
1. Context is this. They are human, they feel the way they do. It does not affect anyone else in society. So why push back? Accept and deal. (This is not directed at you, but society as a whole)
This recent debate probably started from a discussion regarding the fairness of transgender athletes competing in women's competition. So in respect of that it's probably the fact that there may possibly be a disadvantage to a section of society...the female opponent of the transgender athlete.
That's the dilemma.... Equality of opportunity for the trans athlete v fairness for their possible female opponents and integrity of records.
I'm beginning to feel a bit like Baggers It's a can of worms.
And perhaps it’s to the credit of female former high-level athletes that they don’t use their highly-honed techniques to dominate masters events too. Masters footy isn’t dominated by ex-AFL stars mainly because they don’t play Masters footy. Libba does and he was dominating in the 35s category when he was over 50. Not only did his technique serve him well, he was fitter than his opponents as well.
It's interesting...and I can only speak in terms of Masters Track and Field. While that's only a small section of the sporting landscape it is relevant from the point of view that most competition involving transgender athletes will be at that lower than elite, or at a community level.
I'd personally would love the opportunity to compete against a Daley Thompson or Bruce Jenner in Masters competition through their 40s, 50s and 60s. I'd like to know whether that age factor narrowed a considerable gap between us.
But it's a fact that not many elite athletes compete in their later years. I suspect that has a bit to do with not continuing with the sacrifices to training and competition they made at their peak, but also it's a case of 'been there done that'.
I know through discussions with female Masters athletes they'd also like to compete against champions of the past Here's the thing though.... I'm not sure those same female athletes in the womens 70-75 division would share that enthusiasm if Jenner was in the start lists.
But here's another complicating factor to consider.... From my understanding Jenner has taken medication and had some facial surgery but retains her male bits. There's a very good chance she wouldn't meet the requirements for competition as a female transgender athlete.
A lot of organisations are now producing rules and standards for transgender competition. Here's the most recent one for Track and Field.
Quote
Definition of Transgender
The term ‘Transgender’ is used in these Regulations to refer to individuals whose gender identity (i.e. how they identify) is different from the sex designated to them at birth, whether they are pre- or post-puberty, and whether or not they have undergone any form of medical intervention.
Participation is encouraged with conditions
World Athletics recognises that Transgender athletes may wish to compete in Athletics in accordance with their gender identity. World Athletics wishes to encourage and facilitate such participation, on conditions that go only so far as is necessary to protect the safety of all participants and to deliver on the promise of fair and meaningful competition offered by the division of the sport into male and female categories of competition.
Conditions of participation
A Transgender athlete who wishes to participate in an International Competition, or to be eligible to set a World Record in a competition that is not an International Competition, agrees, as a condition to such participation:
· To comply in full with these Regulations
· To cooperate promptly and in good faith with the Medical Manager and the Expert Panel in the discharge of their respective responsibilities under these Regulations, including providing them with all of the information and evidence they request to assess his/her compliance and/or monitor his/her continuing compliance with the eligibility conditions referred to in these Regulations;
Procedure for applying for eligibility: male transgender athletes
· A transgender male athlete must provide a written and signed declaration, in a form satisfactory to the Medical Manager, that his gender identity is male.
· As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of such declaration, the Medical Manager will issue a written certification of that athlete’s eligibility to compete in the male category of competition in International Competition and to set a World Record in the male category in a competition that is not an International Competition.
Procedure for applying for eligibility: female transgender athletes
A transgender female athlete must meet the following to the satisfaction of an Expert Panel
· She must provide a written and signed declaration, in a form satisfactory to the Medical Manager, that her gender identity is female
· Along with this she must provide a comprehensive medical history
The Medical Manager will refer the file (in anonymised form) to the Expert Panel for assessment
· She must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Expert Panel (on the balance of probabilities) that the concentration of testosterone in her serum has been less than 5 nmol/L3 continuously for a period of at least 12 months
· Also, she must keep her serum testosterone concentration below 5 nmol/L for
so long as she wishes to maintain her eligibility to compete in the female category of competition.
If the Expert Panel decides that the Transgender Female Eligibility Conditions have been met, the Medical Manager will issue a written certification of that athlete’s eligibility to compete in the female category of competition in International Competition (and to set a World Record in the female category in a competition that is not an International Competition).
That eligibility will be subject in every case to the athlete’s continuing satisfaction of the Transgender Female Eligibility Conditions, including continuously maintaining her serum testosterone at a concentration of less than 5 nmol/L.
The following are NOT required:
· Legal recognition of the athlete’s gender identity as the athlete’s sex
· Surgical anatomical changes
Clearly, although they state they encourage participation, such rules would be quite restrictive and even prohibitive for the average community athlete to comply with and are designed for international competition. But there is an acknowledgement that there is some point where a transgender female athlete does have an advantage over their opposition and must take steps to enable eligibility. No such regulations apply to the male transgender athlete.
That's just a snapshot of one sport. Translate that over numerous sports and you get a feeling of some of the hurdles for transgender participation.
Here's one article that's very thorough, a bit wordy but puts into perspective the problems with the debate as the author seems to wrestle with their own thoughts on the issue.
