So already two of last seasons leaders have left the club (Gibbs and Armfield) opening up a couple of spots. Who are people hoping to see form our leadership group of 2018? Members of the 2017 group who are still on the list are: Murph, Simmo, Crippa, Doc and Ed.
Will Murph retain the Captaincy? Who will be his deputies?
Personally, i’d like to see Murphy keep the Captaincy for one more season before handing over to Doc. But given Doc’s injuriy and Simmo’s age, I would like to see Crippa and Ed be VC’s this season.
As for elevations, I reckon Matty Wright and maybe one of the young blokes like Weiters would be good inclusions.
Murphy captain if he still wants it... ? he's just had a baby so maybe time to step back ala Judd at the end of his career ?
If Not Murphy - Ed Curnow capatain for a year or 2 ... then Doc and Cripps next in line. 2019-20.
I reckon Murphy will go around again as skipper. There was some discussion of transitioning or succession planning in one of the recent videos on the club website. I expect that a focus for Murphy this year will be preparing his successor. I wouldn't be surprised if the club follows the AFLW team's lead and appoints Murphy vice-captain in 2019, but a lot of water has to flow under the bridge before then.
I think that the two compulsory changes will be it, unless Simpson wants to step down. Docherty should keep his spot even though he won't be on the park.
I wonder if Kreuzer will step up; he seems to exert a bit of influence, in his quiet manner. If not, Wright may be a chance as he appears to be a natural leader on the field.
I think one of the younger players will be given an opportunity and Weitering seems likely. However, I wouldn't rule out Plowman.
As for vice-captain, I'd give it to Ed Curnow.
Its the wrong time for Murph to pass on the batten as there is no clear candidate.
If there was one, it probably would've been Doc...but that serves no point this season. So, again, no clear candidate.
Murph as capt. again for this year I think too. Would not be surprised to see Cripps playing a strong on field leadership role this year as a part of his development as DOC won't be there.
From the outside in, it looks like Murphy will probably be captain, but... with Doc out.. It might be worth considering someone like Curnow. The thing about Murphy is he appears to be a decent captain and he speaks well, but he might be just a touch too much of a nice guy. I don't know this for sure, but you want a captain that takes full authority in my view.
If Murphy was a superb captain, I would suggest it is crazy too change captains... but as he is an 'okay' one, I don't think we risk a lot by taking the captaincy and giving it to someone else.
As I said, I think they will go Murphy, but I really would not mind a look at an alternative, not 'just for changes sake', but to see if there is someone really ready to step in
With Docherty's unavailability then Murphy should go around again...if he wants it... and doesn't think it might be time for a break and change himself.
Carlton approach is to go with marquee player's as the captain.....I'd be real surprised if they went with a Joe average profile player like Curnow.
I dont have a problem with Curnow being captain and reckon he would do a good job but it would be a change in direction and marketing style IMO for it to happen.
Cripps and Murphy are the players whose images are used most often in advertising and I would have Cripps as favourite for next captain...
From the outside in, it looks like Murphy will probably be captain, but... with Doc out.. It might be worth considering someone like Curnow. The thing about Murphy is he appears to be a decent captain and he speaks well, but he might be just a touch too much of a nice guy. I don't know this for sure, but you want a captain that takes full authority in my view.
If Murphy was a superb captain, I would suggest it is crazy too change captains... but as he is an 'okay' one, I don't think we risk a lot by taking the captaincy and giving it to someone else.
As I said, I think they will go Murphy, but I really would not mind a look at an alternative, not 'just for changes sake', but to see if there is someone really ready to step in
The playing group and Bolton's coaching panel have determined that Murphy is our best option for captain two years in a row and I think that will be the case again.
I think that our leadership program has improved our leadership depth and the leadership of Cripps, Curnow, Simpson, Docherty and Murphy but I'm not sure that the Murphy has been overtaken by any of the others ... yet!
From the snippets we get from 'the Journey' and comments here and there, I believe that Bolton has taken a very different approach to leadership and the captaincy, but he is also a traditionalist. I can't see co-captains happening but I think Bolton won't hesitate to change skippers if someone puts their hand up. We may be surprised when that hand appears.
Carlton approach is to go with marquee player's as the captain.....I'd be real surprised if they went with a Joe average profile player like Curnow.
I dont have a problem with Curnow being captain and reckon he would do a good job but it would be a change in direction and marketing style IMO for it to happen.
Cripps and Murphy are the players whose images are used most often in advertising and I would have Cripps as favourite for next captain...
Sadly that’s probably true, and that’s not a criticism of any player.
Carlton approach is to go with marquee player's as the captain.....I'd be real surprised if they went with a Joe average profile player like Curnow.
I dont have a problem with Curnow being captain and reckon he would do a good job but it would be a change in direction and marketing style IMO for it to happen.
Cripps and Murphy are the players whose images are used most often in advertising and I would have Cripps as favourite for next captain...
players vote the capt don’t they?
players vote the capt don’t they?
Players vote for the captain/leadership group.....its up to the vote counters who gets it though.
Carlton approach is to go with marquee player's as the captain.....I'd be real surprised if they went with a Joe average profile player like Curnow.
I dont have a problem with Curnow being captain and reckon he would do a good job but it would be a change in direction and marketing style IMO for it to happen.
Cripps and Murphy are the players whose images are used most often in advertising and I would have Cripps as favourite for next captain...
I don't think that's right EB. The captain, vice-captain(s) and leadership group are determined by the players' vote and the coaches' vote and I don't think marquee status comes into it.
As I said in an earlier post, I think that our next captain may be a bit of a surprise but it won't be this season.
I don't think that's right EB. The captain, vice-captain(s) and leadership group are determined by the players' vote and the coaches' vote and I don't think marquee status comes into it.
As I said in an earlier post, I think that our next captain may be a bit of a surprise but it won't be this season.
thats how I read it
I don't think that's right EB. The captain, vice-captain(s) and leadership group are determined by the players' vote and the coaches' vote and I don't think marquee status comes into it.
As I said in an earlier post, I think that our next captain may be a bit of a surprise but it won't be this season.
I'll agree to disagree DJ.....IMO the next captain will be out of our two best players which are Docherty and Cripps, along with Murphy they are the two most marketed players and
who the club hierarchy would want as skipper....IMO.
From Big Nick, Jezza, through to Fitzpatrick, Sticks, Kouta, Judd its been a big name player who gets the job for any decent period of time.......
Even at Hawthorn where Bolton learned his trade it was Mitchell briefly before handing over to another big name in Hodge, Richie Vandenberg filled in for 2-3 years when another star in Crawford retired but he was clearly a fill in and handpicked by Clarkson. I'd be very surprised if Bolton doesnt have a large say in who gets the job...
I just cant see us with a Nick Maxwell, Tom Harley..a Mr Average player type who is a factional/club neutral player with some media nous...
If we did go that way it would be a short term appointment only IMO until one of the more prominent players was ready....
I'll agree to disagree DJ.....IMO the next captain will be out of our two best players which are Docherty and Cripps, along with Murphy they are the two most marketed players and
who the club hierarchy would want as skipper....IMO.
From Big Nick, Jezza, through to Fitzpatrick, Sticks, Kouta, Judd its been a big name player who gets the job for any decent period of time.......
Even at Hawthorn where Bolton learned his trade it was Mitchell briefly before handing over to another big name in Hodge, Richie Vandenberg filled in for 2-3 years when another star in Crawford retired but he was clearly a fill in and handpicked by Clarkson. I'd be very surprised if Bolton doesnt have a large say in who gets the job...
I just cant see us with a Nick Maxwell, Tom Harley..a Mr Average player type who is a factional/club neutral player with some media nous...
If we did go that way it would be a short term appointment only IMO until one of the more prominent players was ready....
It may well be Cripps or Docherty EB, but not because they are our most marketable players.
Bolton and Anthony Klarica have made big changes to our leadership program and they may have unearthed several blokes with the attributes to be good leaders over the next few seasons.
I suspect that we have seen the last of the long term captains and we will now see the best skipper appointed each season.
I may be completely off track with this, but I'm pretty sure that Bolton has applied the same rigour to the captaincy as he has to other aspects of our footy department.
I don't actually think players are best placed to understand what a great leader is. The club need to identify and as in most fields it is likely often not going to be the best player.
It is going to be the person prepared to sacrifice for the team, the player prepared to be unpopular with peers if there is a need to be unpopular and pull people into line.
A PERFECT example to me of a really great captain was Roy Keane at Manchester United. Now he was a prick of a bloke, but he would not for one second hesitate in settings his demands even with the marquee players at the club and they wouldn't dare fall out of line.
Rio Ferdinand once told how at training he passed the ball back to Gary Neville a teammate in the training drill when Roy Keane had a go and informed him he was at Manchester United now, not Leeds or West Ham and expectations were different. Now Rio Ferdinand had just signed on as the most expensive transfer for a defender in the world at that stage, but that didn't stop Keane letting him know if he wasn't meeting expectations.
Now you don't need to be a prick at all to be a good leader, in fact once you have the trust of the team that you are pulling them up for the good of the team, you can have them back a player to the hilts, but you must always be ready to support the wins, but every bit as importantly.. call out the failures.
From the outside I think Curnow would do that.. I for sure think Doc would do that.
I am not 100% sure Murphy does that.. He might.. I am not in there, but I am not 100% sure he does.
From Big Nick, Jezza, through to Fitzpatrick, Sticks, Kouta, Judd its been a big name player who gets the job for any decent period of time.......
Fair names their, they were all "big name players" for a reason, that being they were all f----- good.
AFAIC great leaders excel at following a strong plan/formula and leading players along that same path. That is what was behind the success of the Hawks imo and probably the Tigers and Dogs successes more recently. The Hawks were the most obvious example in recent years and you could watch Hodge directing the troops, with the likes of Mitchell and Lewis backing him up. The ability to stay focused on that plan/formula is the first essential and to drum that into every player on the ground. I'm sure this will be what BB will be seeking and it's going to be interesting to see this year.
I don't actually think players are best placed to understand what a great leader is. The club need to identify and as in most fields it is likely often not going to be the best player.
It is going to be the person prepared to sacrifice for the team, the player prepared to be unpopular with peers if there is a need to be unpopular and pull people into line.
A PERFECT example to me of a really great captain was Roy Keane at Manchester United. Now he was a prick of a bloke, but he would not for one second hesitate in settings his demands even with the marquee players at the club and they wouldn't dare fall out of line.
Rio Ferdinand once told how at training he passed the ball back to Gary Neville a teammate in the training drill when Roy Keane had a go and informed him he was at Manchester United now, not Leeds or West Ham and expectations were different. Now Rio Ferdinand had just signed on as the most expensive transfer for a defender in the world at that stage, but that didn't stop Keane letting him know if he wasn't meeting expectations.
Now you don't need to be a prick at all to be a good leader, in fact once you have the trust of the team that you are pulling them up for the good of the team, you can have them back a player to the hilts, but you must always be ready to support the wins, but every bit as importantly.. call out the failures.
From the outside I think Curnow would do that.. I for sure think Doc would do that.
I am not 100% sure Murphy does that.. He might.. I am not in there, but I am not 100% sure he does.
I suspect that they are slightly better placed than we are ;)
I was interested in the following sentence from the Bri Davey captaincy announcement:
After undertaking an extensive process involving coaches, players and key leaders at the Club, the new-look three-player leadership group has been established in the second AFLW pre-season campaign.
From what I have seen/read, the men's team will go through a similar process this year, as they have done each year since Bolton's arrival. I suspect it's a little more involved than "Put your hands up if you want Murph for captain".
Leadership was one area where we seemed to be sadly lacking. It looks like we have turned that around but there's still a way to go.
I suspect that they are slightly better placed than we are ;)
Well yes I agree that they would know more about who has the better temperament for captaining the club than we do, but whether they have more of an idea of what is required of a leader, that is another story.
The problem with players picking a leader, is they are very likely to pick based on 3 things... football ability, how good a bloke they are & maturity/seniority Why wouldn't they? They are a bunch of young guys who would never have been in a position to understand leadership responsibilities to any high level, why would they really pick based on anything else?
I am not suggesting anyone on the forum really has anywhere near the insight into the individuals to be able to select a captain based on anything more than a 'gut feel', which simply isn't enough. I wasn't saying forum members should pick the captain, I was only suggesting players shouldn't.
The requirements of leaders is similar across all fields, sports, business, military the works. And all of those entities look to similar organsations/courses/teachings to help build leadership skills within their ranks. The specifics are so obviously different, but many of he core human requirements are the same
Well yes I agree that they would know more about who has the better temperament for captaining the club than we do, but whether they have more of an idea of what is required of a leader, that is another story.
The problem with players picking a leader, is they are very likely to pick based on 3 things... football ability, how good a bloke they are & maturity/seniority Why wouldn't they? They are a bunch of young guys who would never have been in a position to understand leadership responsibilities to any high level, why would they really pick based on anything else?
I am not suggesting anyone on the forum really has anywhere near the insight into the individuals to be able to select a captain based on anything more than a 'gut feel', which simply isn't enough. I wasn't saying forum members should pick the captain, I was only suggesting players shouldn't.
The requirements of leaders is similar across all fields, sports, business, military the works. And all of those entities look to similar organsations/courses/teachings to help build leadership skills within their ranks. The specifics are so obviously different, but many of he core human requirements are the same
I'm reminded of the time my school's forms 5 and 6 students voted for prefects and a certain DJC got the most votes. Did he become a prefect? No way!
However, I think that AFL footballers are much better prepared to make good decisions about their club's leaders. I think that is particularly the case at our club now that we have placed such an emphasis on leadership and leadership development. Even the newest players talk about leaders and leadership in their interview. Yes, they may have scripted responses but I like to think that at least some of their answers are spontaneous.
In any case, the players' opinions about the best leaders are only one of the factors that are considered before a captain is appointed ... and marketability, as EB suggested, could be one too. If so, I reckon Bolton would only be swayed from his choice if it was a line ball decision.
I think where DJC and MIO are on different wavelengths is to do with interpretation.
MIO (quite rightly) is stating, that the players are not the best people (usually) to appoint a club captain based on outside perceptions of how things run (i.e. someone like Fevola can become a club captain if the players cast deciding votes) and I agree that blokes just finding their feet in a new team are likely to be ill equipped to be in a position to select the best captain unless they have a good understanding of how the role works.
DJC is stating that the boys understand their expectations much better these days and are better equipped than the average player to understand the role of captain, whats required and would then make a better selection than MIO thinks they will.
Both are probably on the right track where MIO and DJC are making fair points that need to be considered, and this is why the club would have "captains elect" for the role, where they choose the proposed candidates and then allow the group to choose from the candidates proposed who meet certain criteria of XYZ for leadership roles, knowing that they cannot fork up that selection as the best candidates are the only ones proposed.
Are the playing group as a whole capable of picking the best captain or would some vote instead for the most popular player, would a 1st year, 2 year player have the information base to make that decision?
Are the playing group as a whole capable of picking the best captain or would some vote instead for the most popular player, would a 1st year, 2 year player have the information base to make that decision?
Fair points Elwood.
Both are probably on the right track where MIO and DJC are making fair points that need to be considered, and this is why the club would have "captains elect" for the role, where they choose the proposed candidates and then allow the group to choose from the candidates proposed who meet certain criteria of XYZ for leadership roles, knowing that they cannot fork up that selection as the best candidates are the only ones proposed.
You may be right about "captains elect" but I'm sure that the club doesn't just fall into line with the players' votes. It will be an important factor, as will the leadership testing, but you can bet that Bolts and co have the final say.
BB will want to be sure that his game plan and coaching directives are strictly and effectively followed and that is the job of the leadership group both on and off the field. He will undoubtedly have a strong say in its makeup no matter who the players may want or nominate.
I think where DJC and MIO are on different wavelengths is to do with interpretation.
MIO (quite rightly) is stating, that the players are not the best people (usually) to appoint a club captain based on outside perceptions of how things run (i.e. someone like Fevola can become a club captain if the players cast deciding votes) and I agree that blokes just finding their feet in a new team are likely to be ill equipped to be in a position to select the best captain unless they have a good understanding of how the role works.
DJC is stating that the boys understand their expectations much better these days and are better equipped than the average player to understand the role of captain, whats required and would then make a better selection than MIO thinks they will.
Both are probably on the right track where MIO and DJC are making fair points that need to be considered, and this is why the club would have "captains elect" for the role, where they choose the proposed candidates and then allow the group to choose from the candidates proposed who meet certain criteria of XYZ for leadership roles, knowing that they cannot fork up that selection as the best candidates are the only ones proposed.
The coach ultimately decides who should be captain as he is the one that mirrors what the coach wants/expects from the game.
Perfect example was Nick Maxwell. Nobody would have picked him, be that players, media or supporters, but it made sense....and worked.
The coach ultimately decides who should be captain as he is the one that mirrors what the coach wants/expects from the game.
Perfect example was Nick Maxwell. Nobody would have picked him, be that players, media or supporters, but it made sense....and worked.
Which I guess means that Mick and Bolts both want / wanted Murph as captain.
The coach ultimately decides who should be captain as he is the one that mirrors what the coach wants/expects from the game.
Perfect example was Nick Maxwell. Nobody would have picked him, be that players, media or supporters, but it made sense....and worked.
Exactly. Hence why I never quite get it why so many of us arm chair critics say Murphy is not 'tough enough' to be captain and we should have player A player B etc casue they would be better at it then Murphy.
The guy is entering his 6th year as captain and has held it under 3 coaches.......with 40 players on the list he must be ok at the job despite what us supporters say at times.
Being a small framed player i think he cops it unfairly a bit when we are struggling and is an easy target but at the end of the day the players and coaches who see 40 players nearly every day have selected him over the past 5 years and they must know more about it then us who watch for 2 hours on game day.
Maxwell was picked because of the factional nature of the Collingwood list...Maxwell was seen as middle ground for the Ratpackers and the others like Dawes, Jolly, Cloke, Pendlebury etc.....not everyone loved each other at Collingwood, thats from a Collingwood staffer at the time...
I presume Harley at Geelong was the same given he was a well spoken but average neutral type of player.......
Exactly. Hence why I never quite get it why so many of us arm chair critics say Murphy is not 'tough enough' to be captain and we should have player A player B etc casue they would be better at it then Murphy.
The guy is entering his 6th year as captain and has held it under 3 coaches.......with 40 players on the list he must be ok at the job despite what us supporters say at times.
Being a small framed player i think he cops it unfairly a bit when we are struggling and is an easy target but at the end of the day the players and coaches who see 40 players nearly every day have selected him over the past 5 years and they must know more about it then us who watch for 2 hours on game day.
Stop it Shawny. We don't tolerate common sense around here.
Although one could quibble with the 3 coaches voting on Murphy - for the 5 minutes that Barker was coach, I doubt he was worried either way.
Murphy should remain the man and by some distance.
Lets get the kids into their 3rd or 4th year before we make them the prime focus of the opposition.
imho, Murphy has dealt with the attention he gets on and off the field like..........a leader!
Murphy should remain the man and by some distance.
Lets get the kids into their 3rd or 4th year before we make them the prime focus of the opposition.
imho, Murphy has dealt with the attention he gets on and off the field like..........a leader!
Well said LP
Exactly. Hence why I never quite get it why so many of us arm chair critics say Murphy is not 'tough enough' to be captain and we should have player A player B etc casue they would be better at it then Murphy.
The guy is entering his 6th year as captain and has held it under 3 coaches.......with 40 players on the list he must be ok at the job despite what us supporters say at times.
Being a small framed player i think he cops it unfairly a bit when we are struggling and is an easy target but at the end of the day the players and coaches who see 40 players nearly every day have selected him over the past 5 years and they must know more about it then us who watch for 2 hours on game day.
Yeah Shawny, as Paul said, take your common sense and logic and nick off to Big Footy.Wait a second... ;) ;) ;)
Maxwell was picked because of the factional nature of the Collingwood list...Maxwell was seen as middle ground for the Ratpackers and the others like Dawes, Jolly, Cloke, Pendlebury etc.....not everyone loved each other at Collingwood, thats from a Collingwood staffer at the time...
I presume Harley at Geelong was the same given he was a well spoken but average neutral type of player.......
...and it'd be the same at every team out there. Which is why its important to pick a captain that everyone can talk to and not alienate anyway by choosing the 'wrong' captain.
Which I guess means that Mick and Bolts both want / wanted Murph as captain.
Rumour has it that Mick wanted someone else (Simmo? Carrazzo??) but was overruled by the powers that be. Murphy was more 'marketable' from memory.
Didn't agree with the call at the time, but now i think he's the best man for the job with who is available in 2018 and beyond.
Maxwell was picked because of the factional nature of the Collingwood list...Maxwell was seen as middle ground for the Ratpackers and the others like Dawes, Jolly, Cloke, Pendlebury etc.....not everyone loved each other at Collingwood, thats from a Collingwood staffer at the time...
I presume Harley at Geelong was the same given he was a well spoken but average neutral type of player.......
Maybe so, but geez they jelled well as a unit. Yin-Yang, Bad Boys-Good Boys, need the right mix of both perhaps?
Maybe so, but geez they jelled well as a unit. Yin-Yang, Bad Boys-Good Boys, need the right mix of both perhaps?
Whatever issues I have with MM at Carlton, the Pies 2011 season was sensational. 20 wins, 2 losses, 167.66%. That's what I'd like to see from us.
Rumour has it that Mick wanted someone else (Simmo? Carrazzo??) but was overruled by the powers that be. Murphy was more 'marketable' from memory.
Didn't agree with the call at the time, but now i think he's the best man for the job with who is available in 2018 and beyond.
There's always rumours. Given his standing in the game, and the importance of the captain, I would have thought MM would make it a condition of his employment that he gets to choose the Captain.
Some people on this planet know the truth. Nobody on here unfortunately.
Whatever issues I have with MM at Carlton, the Pies 2011 season was sensational. 20 wins, 2 losses, 167.66%. That's what I'd like to see from us.
F---ed in the big dance though, good effort though. I hoped MM could do the same for us, alas.
F---ed in the big dance though, good effort though. I hoped MM could do the same for us, alas.
Yes, he picked a great time to have a nana nap.
Like others I'd like to see Murphy captain this year. Doc and Crippa would be my next picks. Ideally with Murphy as mentor in 2019. I certainly see Weiters leadership skills developing. I'd expect him to blossom a bit later on.
Given the age profiles, I'd be pleased to see a seasoned deputy alongside a younger bloke. Simmo, Ed, perhaps Kruez would be a good fit. As would Doc and Crippa. If it's a bigger group I could see Sam Rowe or Matty Wright fill the role effectively. Smokey - The Jones boy ;)
Go new Blues
Agreed, given Doc's injury, Smurf remains as Captain this year.
Crippa, Ed Curnow and Doc as VCs.
Weiters?
Let the kid find his feet onfield before loading him with any other burdens!
If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?
If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?
The minute you appoint newbies to leadership group you're on a losing strategy, you are basically told the current list they don't cut the mustard, which is exactly the message players and player managers take from an event like that!
The minute you appoint newbies to leadership group you're on a losing strategy, you are basically told the current list they don't cut the mustard, which is exactly the message players and player managers take from an event like that!
You add players like Wines or Lynch and you put them in the leadership group you wouldnt make them captain or vice captain IMO.
This year is another rebuild year and I would expect Murphy to be a caretaker captain until Cripps or Docherty get given the role the following season....
You add players like Wines or Lynch and you put them in the leadership group you wouldnt make them captain or vice captain IMO.
This year is another rebuild year and I would expect Murphy to be a caretaker captain until Cripps or Docherty get given the role the following season....
No doubt you are free to do whatever you like on the leadership group, and existing players and agents are free to read into that whatever they like!
It's not about the decision, it's about the effect it has on the group, we are not talking about a Judd or Kernahan.
As much as a like Judd, I thought making him captain so early was a mistake. Easy in hindsight to say he did the job, set the standards, but would he have taken more along with him if he earned it side-by-side first? Would it have been reasonable to appoint Carrazzo, Stevens or Scotland in the interim, is there a place for due process?
Even Kernahan had to wait a year before going from a list player straight to captain, and in my opinion he's the best captain we've had for 30 years and widely considered one of the AFL/VFL best, but he played a season under Maclure! It wouldn't have been out of place to appoint Dean or Hunter though even if it were interim!
We laud them as stars, but that doesn't mean their team-mates won't see them as peers!
With Docherty injured, Murphy will probably remain. I'd have given it to Doc this year had he not got injured.
What I would do, is go with Murphy and Cripps as co-captains.
Others in the leadership group mix for mine, would be - Docherty, Simpson, Ed Curnow, Kreuzer and Plowman.
With Docherty injured, Murphy will probably remain. I'd have given it to Doc this year had he not got injured.
What I would do, is go with Murphy and Cripps as co-captains.
Others in the leadership group mix for mine, would be - Docherty, Simpson, Ed Curnow, Kreuzer and Plowman.
Quite impressed with SpecialK in recent times, he's grown as a player and now commands a presence in the media and on-field.
I've no problem at all for him to be a captain, co-captain or 2IC!
With Docherty injured, Murphy will probably remain. I'd have given it to Doc this year had he not got injured.
What I would do, is go with Murphy and Cripps as co-captains.
Others in the leadership group mix for mine, would be - Docherty, Simpson, Ed Curnow, Kreuzer and Plowman.
Co-captains; for when your club is too weak and/or dysfunctional to make a decision. I hope we never go down that road.
I reckon Murphy would have been captain this year regardless of Docherty's injury. However, I believe that succession planning is in place and Murphy will be grooming his successor for 2019. I won't be surprised if it turns out to be someone other than the favoured candidates and it won't surprise me if it's not a long term appointment; I think that the club has made significant advances in leadership development and many players could be legitimate contenders over the coming years.
If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?
While I accept LP's point about such an appointment being a possible source of discontent, it's not out of the question. A marquee player would be expected to be a leader and could certainly be parachuted into the leadership group. However, he would have to want the role and the playing group would have to recognise and endorse his leadership claims.
Well no need to speculate further:
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group)
MARC Murphy will become one of the longest-serving consecutive captains of the Carlton Football Club, after being unanimously endorsed by his peers to lead the Blues for a sixth straight year in 2018.
Having been appointed captain in 2013, the 30-year-old sits behind only Stephen Kernahan, John Nicholls, Ken Hands and Ern Henfry as the Blues’ longest-serving captain across consecutive years.
After three years serving as Murphy’s deputy, beloved veteran Kade Simpson will hand over the reins as part of the Club’s leadership program succession plan, with Sam Docherty and Patrick Cripps assuming joint vice-captaincy roles.
The 33-year-old defender will remain in the Blues’ leadership group, alongside midfielder Ed Curnow, who joined the group in Bolton’s first year as senior coach in 2016.
In a bolstered eight-man group, experienced duo Matthew Kreuzer and Alex Silvagni, as well as rising defender Lachie Plowman round out the Blues’ on-field leadership group for 2018 after being recognised by their peers on Wednesday.
Great outcome all round. Interesting that Lachie Plowman is leading the charge of the youngsters.
Well no need to speculate further:
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group)
Great outcome all round. Interesting that Lachie Plowman is leading the charge of the youngsters.
Good news - not entirely surprising! ;)
Good news - not entirely surprising! ;)
Pretty solid set, it appears Bolton and his crew are big on rewarding effort, and that is the way it should be!
Well no need to speculate further:
Great outcome all round. Interesting that Lachie Plowman is leading the charge of the youngsters.
Pratty picked Plowman for a leadership role. He does seem to have a cool head on his shoulders - Plowman that is ;)
Alex Silvagni is a bit of a surprise but understandable given Docherty's on field absence. I heard Matthew Pavlich singing ACOS's praises last year and, if half of what Pav had to say was true, his presence in the leadership group is more tham justified.
It's great that Matthew Kreuzer has a leadership role. He is at the peak of his powers and it's the right time for him to show the youngsters the way.
Well no need to speculate further:
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-01-31/murphy-steers-newlook-leadership-group)
Great outcome all round. Interesting that Lachie Plowman is leading the charge of the youngsters.
Doc as VC (with Crippa), like it. Leaves the door ajar for Doc to play in 2018 when we play finals.
Marc Murphy – captain
Sam Docherty – vice-captain
Patrick Cripps – vice-captain
Kade Simpson
Ed Curnow
Matthew Kreuzer
Alex Silvagni
Lachie Plowman
I gotta say, I like that leadership group. And as a big ACOS fan, I'm very happy he's in there.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/marc-murphy-says-exciting-young-blue-charlie-curnow-can-handle-expectation/news-story/4c9ec5633940de653a1d44c4e997fbc4
Another nice piece.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/marc-murphy-says-exciting-young-blue-charlie-curnow-can-handle-expectation/news-story/4c9ec5633940de653a1d44c4e997fbc4
Another nice piece.
Paywall defeated me :( Any chance of a cut and paste?
I like....but all the effing naysayers have sh.t canned the Blues all day...get stuffed Bartlett, K.Cornes, Dal Santo....usual suspects... I guess Lyon & Watson will be all over it tomorrow as well....F..k off the lot of you...IMHO???? Go Blues
MARC Murphy says Carlton will add an attacking layer to its game plan this year as he backed Charlie Curnow to handle the hype.
The 30-year was named Carlton’s captain for the sixth year, with future captaincy candidates Patrick Cripps and Sam Docherty his vice captains.
The reigning best-and-fairest winner leads an eight-man leadership group in a side that built a solid defensive foundation under Brendon Bolton in his first two years at the helm.
The Blues haven’t scored 100 points in a game since Round 11, 2016 but Murphy promised fans would see a more rounded game plan as part of the maturation of the Baby Blues.
Curnow looked awesome in a match simulation game on Wednesday while key tall Harry McKay has shrugged off turf toe and continues to grow in excess of 200cm.
Carlton fans are aware this will be another year of growth but Murphy said fans impatient to see more goals will be sated.
“The first two years it may look like it’s a slow build on the outside, but we have worked really hard on our discipline in defence,’’ he said.
“It’s no surprise we are trying to bring some more attacking flair into our game and we have got some guys who have been training really well who have got a lot of talent in our forward line.
“We look forward to seeing what those guys can do and want to add another string to our bow to what we have worked hard on the last couple of years — strengthening up some of our attacking play.
“It is something we have been really focusing on.”
Curnow has Carlton hearts aflutter as he enters his third season but while he only turns 21 on Saturday, Murphy says the instant fame won’t divert him from the task at hand.
“He is a really grounded guy. He has a great family around him and he has a lot of support at the footy club and he is going to enjoy that expectation,’’ Murphy said.
“If you know him he’s really laid back but he’s also really excited about showing his talent.
“He can play deep forward or high forward or go through the midfield or run around on a wing. He has been training really well and I think we will see him all over the ground, he has certainly got the tank.”
In Docherty’s absence Murphy threw up Tom Williamson, David Cuningham, Cam O’Shea and Aaron Mullett as contenders to reinforce Carlton’s half back line.
Murphy famously had to prove himself to Bolton as a leader when he arrived from Hawthorn two years back but was the obvious choice as he comes off a superb season.
He has given no thoughts of when he might hand over the captaincy but says Cripps and Docherty shape as leaders for the next decade.
The top trio are joined in the leadership group by Alex Silvagni. Lachie Plowman, Matthew Kreuzer, Kade Simpson and Ed Curnow.
But Murphy defended the size of the group in an era when premiers Richmond had just three players in their leadership group last year.
“We had eight guys who wanted to be leaders of this footy club and are leaders in their own way,” he said.
“Lachie Plowman has really stepped up with his voice and played some good footy ... Matty Kreuzer is someone you love playing with.
“So to have those guys along with Alex Silvagni, he’s a brutal beast, the big fella, so to have him in the leadership group is great.”
NOT too many years ago if you were looking for cult heroes at Carlton the options included Ricky Mott, Micky Martin and Simon “Chief” Wiggins.
As Carlton unveiled its leadership group for the upcoming season, the horse flesh on display resembled the barriers at the Golden Slipper.
In the last days of January everyone is burning up the track, and in fact one official was heard to remark: “Liam Jones is flying”.
But if Carlton’s green shoots are still yet to burst into full bloom, the kids on display made you ponder a key choice for younger members of the Carlton faithful.
If you were a Blues fan replacing Bryce Gibbs’ No. 4 on the back of your jumper next week, who would you choose from.
Would it be the Great White Hope in Charlie Curnow, on Wednesday taking soaring leaps in match simulation then hurtling along the boundary as the back marker against midfielders in running drills?
Or the AFL’s great resurrection story in Liam Jones, who Marc Murphy described as “an absolute bull” having built on last year’s gains this summer?
While Curnow was taking flying leaps on the tackle bag, Harry McKay, potentially his foil for the next decade, was hauling in marks with a frame now well over two metres.
He has bulked up, is over last year’s turf toe and about to start winning his own Carlton fan club.
Recently, last year’s No. 10 draft selection Lochie O’Brien showcased his raw athleticism with a second placing in a club time trial, not bad for a kid who also has a cannon of a left foot.
If he or No. 3 pick Paddy Dow can make the same splash as the “Halls Creek Freak”, Sam Petrevski-Seton, Blues fans might forget about Gibbs quicker than they think.
The point is not to over-hype Carlton as January champions, especially given they famously failed to capitalise on three straight No. 1 overall picks this century.
And won only one of 10 games on the way home last season.
And yet as departing chief executive Steven Trigg said last year: “We are doing what we said we are going to do”.
As in take three full drafts of players, teach them the right way, then hope they have stockpiled enough star kids who will not only excite but turn into regular matchwinners.
Murphy says Carlton’s progress over the summer can be measured not only in the kids on show but the attitude of players like full back Jones.
“The way in which he played that second half of the year last season impressed everyone,” he said.
“But he has come back and trained the house down. He is looking forward to stringing a full season together and showing it wasn’t a once-off last year.
“The way he trains with his intensity is just unbelievable. I am not sure if you picked it up from watching today’s (match simulation) but he’s an absolute bull out there and you love playing with those guys.”
Time will tell if recruits Matthew Kennedy (easing back from shoulder surgery), Darcy Lang and the young mids can fill the gap left by the accomplished Gibbs.
Yet finally there is depth in most positions, with Cam O’Shea, Alex Williamson, Aaron Mullett and David Cuningham among the contenders to play half back alongside Lachie Plowman and Kade Simpson.
Where does it get them, after six wins last year and seven in 2016?
Hope only gets you so far, which is why the critics will justifiably look for higher scores, quicker ball movement and perhaps 8-10 wins in 2018.
But February is a time for dreaming, and at last for Carlton fans those flights of fancy are rooted in reality rather than wild fantasy.
For the first time in many years I await the start of the season with a sense of true excitement. I think we may be in for a bit of a treat but we must try to temper this and keep expectations within reasonable bounds. ;)
Thanks for that Townsendcalling :)
It's a good positive article and good work from Murphy to pump up the tyres of Jones and co.
For the first time in many years I await the start of the season with a sense of true excitement. I think we may be in for a bit of a treat but we must try to temper this and keep expectations within reasonable bounds. ;)
I know exactly what you mean. The last couple of seasons I've been excited to see the kids debut, but have been realistic in the expectations of our likeliness to win games. This year is a little different, I think we're a real chance to be a competitive team and take some major strides forward. I don't think we'll make finals or anything just yet...but I don't think anyone will be making jokes about our playing list or premiership prospects moving forward.
"The first two years it may look like it’s a slow build on the outside, but we have worked really hard on our discipline in defence,’’ Murphy said.
“It’s no surprise we are trying to bring some more attacking flair into our game and we have got some guys who have been training really well who have got a lot of talent in our forward line.
“We look forward to seeing what those guys can do and want to add another string to our bow to what we have worked hard on the last couple of years — strengthening up some of our attacking play.
“It is something we have been really focusing on.”
This is what we want to hear!!!
NOT too many years ago if you were looking for cult heroes at Carlton the options included Ricky Mott, Micky Martin and Simon “Chief” Wiggins.
As Carlton unveiled its leadership group for the upcoming season, the horse flesh on display resembled the barriers at the Golden Slipper.
In the last days of January everyone is burning up the track, and in fact one official was heard to remark: “Liam Jones is flying”.
But if Carlton’s green shoots are still yet to burst into full bloom, the kids on display made you ponder a key choice for younger members of the Carlton faithful.
If you were a Blues fan replacing Bryce Gibbs’ No. 4 on the back of your jumper next week, who would you choose from.
Would it be the Great White Hope in Charlie Curnow, on Wednesday taking soaring leaps in match simulation then hurtling along the boundary as the back marker against midfielders in running drills?
Or the AFL’s great resurrection story in Liam Jones, who Marc Murphy described as “an absolute bull” having built on last year’s gains this summer?
While Curnow was taking flying leaps on the tackle bag, Harry McKay, potentially his foil for the next decade, was hauling in marks with a frame now well over two metres.
He has bulked up, is over last year’s turf toe and about to start winning his own Carlton fan club.
Recently, last year’s No. 10 draft selection Lochie O’Brien showcased his raw athleticism with a second placing in a club time trial, not bad for a kid who also has a cannon of a left foot.
If he or No. 3 pick Paddy Dow can make the same splash as the “Halls Creek Freak”, Sam Petrevski-Seton, Blues fans might forget about Gibbs quicker than they think.
The point is not to over-hype Carlton as January champions, especially given they famously failed to capitalise on three straight No. 1 overall picks this century.
And won only one of 10 games on the way home last season.
And yet as departing chief executive Steven Trigg said last year: “We are doing what we said we are going to do”.
As in take three full drafts of players, teach them the right way, then hope they have stockpiled enough star kids who will not only excite but turn into regular matchwinners.
Murphy says Carlton’s progress over the summer can be measured not only in the kids on show but the attitude of players like full back Jones.
“The way in which he played that second half of the year last season impressed everyone,” he said.
“But he has come back and trained the house down. He is looking forward to stringing a full season together and showing it wasn’t a once-off last year.
“The way he trains with his intensity is just unbelievable. I am not sure if you picked it up from watching today’s (match simulation) but he’s an absolute bull out there and you love playing with those guys.”
Time will tell if recruits Matthew Kennedy (easing back from shoulder surgery), Darcy Lang and the young mids can fill the gap left by the accomplished Gibbs.
Yet finally there is depth in most positions, with Cam O’Shea, Alex Williamson, Aaron Mullett and David Cuningham among the contenders to play half back alongside Lachie Plowman and Kade Simpson.
Where does it get them, after six wins last year and seven in 2016?
Hope only gets you so far, which is why the critics will justifiably look for higher scores, quicker ball movement and perhaps 8-10 wins in 2018.
But February is a time for dreaming, and at last for Carlton fans those flights of fancy are rooted in reality rather than wild fantasy.
Who's Alex Williamson?
I know exactly what you mean. The last couple of seasons I've been excited to see the kids debut, but have been realistic in the expectations of our likeliness to win games. This year is a little different, I think we're a real chance to be a competitive team and take some major strides forward. I don't think we'll make finals or anything just yet...but I don't think anyone will be making jokes about our playing list or premiership prospects moving forward.
Yes, well put NM.
Who's Alex Williamson?
I think he’s the 1/2 brother of that Carlton Cult hero Micky Martin... ?
Who's Alex Williamson?
the beast that emerges when Willo masters his ACOS lessons :P
I have given this a lot of thought and have gone from ebing excited to see a name like Plowman in there, to a little disappointed Carlton has named so many in the leadership group. I think it is more than double the size it should be when I give it more reflection.
I can't think of any situation I remember where there were 4 peers to 1 leader in any team of any size. It is too many.
I think it is incumbent upon a Plowman type to just spend his time acting like a leader and yeap, being groomed and called into some meetings as part of that grooming, but he shouldn't be there.
Simmo doesn't need to be there and ACOS doesn't either. These guys can still lead just through their actions and general seniority, without the need to make them part of the leadership group.
Murphy and 2 of Doc, Cripps, Kreuzer & Curnow.
As much as I see Doc as a potential future captain, I would leave him out this year and make the tough choice on the other 2, including getting them to present why they want to be a leader of the club.
Nothing wrong with making tough decisions, there are clubs with a lot more natural leaders in their teams that don't get picked for their leadership groups.
Last year the Tigers chopped their leadership group from 5 to 3.
Given the high number of young players on our list, a bigger leadership group is not an unreasonable approach to take. As the players become older, more experienced etc., I'm sure the leadership group will shrink.
Given the high number of young players on our list, a bigger leadership group is not an unreasonable approach to take. As the players become older, more experienced etc., I'm sure the leadership group will shrink.
I don't really understand that logic Paul, I think you are saying there are so many 'learning' because of the youth profile, so therefore more leaders are needed, but I don't buy into that at all.
The club already appoints mentors to the young players and ou might have one lead mentor for the entire U/21 group, but I think larger leaderships dilute messages, as unintentional as it may be, because each 'leader' will have a different way of delivering their message. There are people that others will naturally gravitate to also and that is okay, they don't need to be in the official leadership, but to me.. having a small number of leaders that absolutely make the defining calls is key.
MIO. We're operating in a knowledge vacuum to a large degree. We don't know the actual day to day mechanics of how leadership groups work. What power does a leadership group have ? How binding is this power ? Lots of things we don't know.
If we look at guys like Alex Silvagni and Simmo, they are short term appointments IMO and I can't see them being there next season.
I have given this a lot of thought and have gone from ebing excited to see a name like Plowman in there, to a little disappointed Carlton has named so many in the leadership group. I think it is more than double the size it should be when I give it more reflection.
I can't think of any situation I remember where there were 4 peers to 1 leader in any team of any size. It is too many.
I think it is incumbent upon a Plowman type to just spend his time acting like a leader and yeap, being groomed and called into some meetings as part of that grooming, but he shouldn't be there.
Simmo doesn't need to be there and ACOS doesn't either. These guys can still lead just through their actions and general seniority, without the need to make them part of the leadership group.
Murphy and 2 of Doc, Cripps, Kreuzer & Curnow.
As much as I see Doc as a potential future captain, I would leave him out this year and make the tough choice on the other 2, including getting them to present why they want to be a leader of the club.
Nothing wrong with making tough decisions, there are clubs with a lot more natural leaders in their teams that don't get picked for their leadership groups.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree MIO.
The size of the leadership group should be governed by the number of players we have who can make a difference as a leader of the club. There is no magic number; it may have been three or four back in 2012 and it may be eight or nine in in 2019. Of course, the role of the leadership group has evolved considerably since 2012 and is a quantum leap away from what I did as skipper of an under 19 team back in the dark ages.
As I have banged on about previously, Bolton clearly saw a problem with our leadership and our approach to leadership and we poached Anthony Klarica from Hawthorn to address that. From the snippets we see of club meetings and meetings of the leadership group, we now have young men whose leadership abilities have blossomed and whose messages to the playing group are taken on board. Despite our losses, the influence of our leaders was very evident in encouraging the team to play out games and minimise blow outs.
Succession planning in leadership is essential and the club has made it clear that Murphy has begun grooming his successors. It's essential that Docherty is in the leadership group if he is in the running to take over from Murphy.
Another consideration is reward for effort, and that is a characteristic of Bolton's approach. I think that the elevation of Kreuzer, Silvagni and Plowman to the leadership group is due recognition of their work, and leadership abilities, and will motivate them and others to lift efforts.
Okay I get what you are both saying, but name the high performance teams, within any industry that do this? Compare whatever numbers you have to the groups that have smaller leadership groups.
People don't need to be nominated leaders to lead DJC. Take Hawthorn during their peak, or Geelong, we didn't see 14 players in their leadership groups despite the fact they had so many senior statesman that might have been able to make a difference.
I can only draw on my own experiences and append that to any knowledge of have of leaderships in different organisations inside & outside of sport. I have no other magic wand that can tell me whether that is correct within Carlton..
But using that information that I have, I still cannot buy into 20% leaders and I do wholly disagree that anyone capable of making a difference as a leader at the club should be in the leadership group.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out this year, I think the reality is we are unlikely to really know. I hope the decision is the right one, but it is one area I will say I am critical of the club... I think in general my vibe around most things to do with this reset of the club is a positive one, but unfortunately I don't feel the same way about this decision
MIO.
There's no one size fits all wrt leadership. I suspect this is a spike in leadership numbers which is unlikely to continue for long. I also suspect that there is a certain amount of cover in those numbers - e.g Doc is already sidelined, so that's already down to 7 max on match day. I can't see many games where all 7 of the remaining guys will play together.
Other things that Bolton et al might be thinking :
- consistency of message / reward for effort, as DJC states
- possible accelerated development of our youngsters
- game time management for older guys like Murph and Simmo
- input from professional leadership consultants / staff
- player-led position on leadership (happy playing group is a good playing group)
- etc.
IMO, a storm in a tea cup. If we bomb this season, it won't be because of too many leaders.
Or it could just be like the Public Service. Lot of "leaders", but in reality, only a couple of heads and a couple of brains.
Pretty obvious it's a transition period set up.
Simmo and Smurf on the way out.
Tractor - reward for effort. 28yo now.
Ed C. - role model par excellence. Legend. 28yo now.
Doc, Plow and Crippa - the future.
Who really GAF that the Tiges had 3 only in their group......
Who really GAF that the Tiges had 3 only in their group......
I reckon any thinking Tigers supporters would, if that's not an oxymoron.
Having only three players worthy of the leadership group could be a portent of troubled times ahead.
Pretty obvious it's a transition period set up.
Simmo and Smurf on the way out.
Tractor - reward for effort. 28yo now.
Ed C. - role model par excellence. Legend. 28yo now.
Doc, Plow and Crippa - the future.
Who really GAF that the Tiges had 3 only in their group......
They're the benchmark at the moment, on and off the field.
They're the benchmark at the moment, on and off the field.
Agree, they made the most of their luck last year.
They're the benchmark at the moment, on and off the field.
Let's see how they go in 2018 before we start using them as a benchmark?
I reckon any thinking Tigers supporters would, if that's not an oxymoron.
Having only three players worthy of the leadership group could be a portent of troubled times ahead.
That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.
I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.
I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.
Agree, they made the most of their luck last year.
Care to elaborate on the this "luck" thingy? If it wins you flags, we need get us some of that stuff stat!
That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.
I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.
I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.
Yes, no doubt there's more than one leadership style, and more than one theory on how to best approach it. I really don't think it's a biggie one way or the other.
Care to elaborate on the this "luck" thingy? If it wins you flags, we need get us some of that stuff stat!
Every team that wins a flag needs some luck. I think with the Tiges, they had a great run with injuries, and they also recruited the missing puzzle pieces at the same time. Balme, Caracella, Nankervis, Prestia and Caddy.
That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.
I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.
I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.
I had 45 staff and seven managers reporting to me and my 2iC. That worked extremely well. Of course, a footy team is not the same as a work organisation but leadership principles still apply.
Limiting the number of leaders is not conducive to good leadership.
Every team that wins a flag needs some luck. I think with the Tiges, they had a great run with injuries, and they also recruited the missing puzzle pieces at the same time. Balme, Caracella, Nankervis, Prestia and Caddy.
It had alot more to do with the bit in bold. Its utter nonsense to suggest they got lucky and are no good. They proved the old saying, a champion team will always beat a team of champions. As Bill Bilichick says, "Do Your Job", the Tigers role players certainly did theirs.
PS I hate em as much as the next bloke, but fair suck of the sauce bottle lads.
It had alot more to do with the bit in bold. Its utter nonsense to suggest they got lucky and are no good. They proved the old saying, a champion team will always beat a team of champions. As Bill Bilichick says, "Do Your Job".
Dude, I'm with you. My position is that they are a very good team, but they did have some luck, no question in my mind. Every team that has ever won a flag has some luck.
I had 45 staff and seven managers reporting to me and my 2iC. That worked extremely well. Of course, a footy team is not the same as a work organisation but leadership principles still apply.
Limiting the number of leaders is not conducive to good leadership.
I disagree, but as I said each has there own thoughts based on their experiences.
My managers ran about 25 to a team with usually 2-3 team leaders depending on the team leaders and complexity of the teams.
Again that worked very well, but that is why I say each person's experience.
I disagree, but as I said each has there own thoughts based on their experiences.
My managers ran about 25 to a team with usually 2-3 team leaders depending on the team leaders and complexity of the teams.
Again that worked very well, but that is why I say each person's experience.
An infantry platoon has 33 soldiers; one lieutenant, one sergeant, three corporals and at least three lance-corporals; 25% of the platoon are leaders.
My son trains people in leadership and he works with a former AFL coach who spent a bit of time with Carlton. I suspect that my son's views on leadership are quite different to both your's and mine MIO. His colleague's views are probably different again :)
An NFL team can have up to 6 captains.
It usually takes 3 of them to toss a coin.
An NFL team can have up to 6 captains.
It usually takes 3 of them to toss a coin.
Why doesn’t that surprise me ?
????
An infantry platoon has 33 soldiers; one lieutenant, one sergeant, three corporals and at least three lance-corporals; 25% of the platoon are leaders.
My son trains people in leadership and he works with a former AFL coach who spent a bit of time with Carlton. I suspect that my son's views on leadership are quite different to both your's and mine MIO. His colleague's views are probably different again :)
I suspect they are DJC, but again that doesn't make yours, your son or mine the right option, as I said from the beginning it comes back to the experience.
Carlton's opinion seems to differ from the general number in leadership groups across the AFL, but that doesn't mean that is a bad thing either.
I stick 100% to my belief that Carlton has too many 'leaders' there that I believe that has an ability to dilute the message and morph the message, I stick to that based on my experience and knowledge, but.. I acknowledge others think differently.
I would much prefer it trimmed back and people really strive to become part of the group if they want to be part of it.
Pretty obvious it's a transition period set up.
Simmo and Smurf on the way out.
Tractor - reward for effort. 28yo now.
Ed C. - role model par excellence. Legend. 28yo now.
Doc, Plow and Crippa - the future.
Who really GAF that the Tiges had 3 only in their group......
agree with this.
The leadership group looks OK to me.
agree with this.
The leadership group looks OK to me.
Agree - looks like what we need for this year for sure and hopefully more new leaders will start to emerge during this period. Can't remember the exact quote regarding leaders but something along the lines of "Grand visions can become mediocre outcomes if left in the hands of mediocre leaders of men". I think we have chosen well for this year to continue our development.
Pretty obvious it's a transition period set up.
Simmo and Smurf on the way out.
Tractor - reward for effort. 28yo now.
Ed C. - role model par excellence. Legend. 28yo now.
Doc, Plow and Crippa - the future.
Who really GAF that the Tiges had 3 only in their group......
Well said that ;)
This leadership group is a good one.
Clearly the future is Docherty, Cripps and Plowman with others to be included in the near future.
I don't care if we have 7 or 8 in the group. I don't care if the Tiges or Pies or whoever have less. What I care about is what suits our current list/club right now.
What I want is to not have Our Great Club following trends or the latest must do's. I want our Club to be setting the trends.
This leadership group is a good one.
Clearly the future is Docherty, Cripps and Plowman with others to be included in the near future.
I don't care if we have 7 or 8 in the group. I don't care if the Tiges or Pies or whoever have less. What I care about is what suits our current list/club right now.
What I want is to not have Our Great Club following trends or the latest must do's. I want our Club to be setting the trends.
Bang on Brother.
Having 6, 7 or 8 leaders out on the field at one time is too many.
Why not make it 11 and then we'll have a boss for every player?
Having 6, 7 or 8 leaders out on the field at one time is too many.
Why not make it 11 and then we'll have a boss for every player?
More is better. If you had 22 "leaders" on he field, theoretically you don't need any (if that makes sense).
As a previous poster noted, we are in a period of transition with both older and younger players in the leadership group. As the younger guys mature and the older guys finish up I would expect the size of the leadership group to be reduced.
As a previous poster noted, we are in a period of transition with both older and younger players in the leadership group. As the younger guys mature and the older guys finish up I would expect the size of the leadership group to be reduced.
I'm not sure that will happen Cookie. I expect our leadership group to fluctuate according to our needs and the quality of our leaders. I don't think that it will get much bigger and I'd be surprised if it dropped below five or six.
I like the mix of mature players and up and coming leaders and I'd like to see that continue. However, our poor drafting has skewed our age demographics and, unless we bring in more mature aged recruits, we may run out of older leaders.
My father served in world war 2 and said there were many officers but only a few capable of leading...
How many real leaders do we have? Just because you nominate leaders it doesnt make them leaders..exhibit A: Taylor Walker from the Crows....
I'm not sure that will happen Cookie. I expect our leadership group to fluctuate according to our needs and the quality of our leaders. I don't think that it will get much bigger and I'd be surprised if it dropped below five or six.
I like the mix of mature players and up and coming leaders and I'd like to see that continue. However, our poor drafting has skewed our age demographics and, unless we bring in more mature aged recruits, we may run out of older leaders.
I think one of the major roles of the more mature older leaders will certainly be to support and assist the emerging leaders. As those younger guys get more experienced and mature - hopefully this year - the need for the older guys should reduce. Another younger/emerging leader or two may then be added to the group to replace them I guess and a cycle established for the supply of future leadership of the club. All speculation of course but it'll be interesting.
The whole point of leadership is for people to lift the others when the chips are down.
Not to be "the boss".
What is important is how they all act and react when necessary.
I was a captain once. I played 18 of 20 captains games, and the other 2 had lost my head for one reason or another.
That's where your additional captains come into the equation. Not to boss people around. Sometimes people struggle with their role, and leadership, and having additional leaders around is to help spread that load around. Not for bossing people around.
True leaders don't boss people around anyway.
I'd be trying to recruit players who take it upon themselves to lift when required, as opposed to those types who are unable to do so, who wait for some "external inspiration." It's hard enough playing your best week in week out, without the additional burden of lifting higher because others are not able to.
It's not about skill - it's about effort, attitude and desire.
I'd be trying to recruit players who take it upon themselves to lift when required, as opposed to those types who are unable to do so, who wait for some "external inspiration." It's hard enough playing your best week in week out, without the additional burden of lifting higher because others are not able to.
It's not about skill - it's about effort, attitude and desire.
Which is why i've been praising Daisy since he arrived at the club. No matter what BS has been plastered in the media and no matter how much crap he cops from his own supporters, you can never question his effort, attitude and desire.
Bosses talk about "I" and "you". Leaders talk about "we".
Which is why i've been praising Daisy since he arrived at the club. No matter what BS has been plastered in the media and no matter how much crap he cops from his own supporters, you can never question his effort, attitude and desire.
I guess so, but he's a sore point as I'm sure you'll agree, and not quite what I had in mind when I posted.
But fair enough.
Bosses talk about "I" and "you". Leaders talk about "we".
This is the sort of aphorism I really like.
I guess so, but he's a sore point as I'm sure you'll agree, and not quite what I had in mind when I posted.
But fair enough.
He isn't the sore point, his contract is. Blame the club and/or his management.
He is doing everything you could ask of him.
He isn't the sore point, his contract is. Blame the club and/or his management.
He is doing everything you could ask of him.
His presence at the club is a sore point for some, and would be even if was on half the coin. If Mick wasn't coach at the time, Daisy would never have been on our radar.
His presence at the club is enmeshed with a whole lot of other crap that went down at the same time, and he's caught up in it, so he gets whacked almost by association. He has comported himself with class the whole time, unlike his mentor, and that's a credit to him. But he should never have been there in the first place, at least IMO.
His presence at the club is a sore point for some, and would be even if was on half the coin. If Mick wasn't coach at the time, Daisy would never have been on our radar.
His presence at the club is enmeshed with a whole lot of other crap that went down at the same time, and he's caught up in it, so he gets whacked almost by association. He has comported himself with class the whole time, unlike his mentor, and that's a credit to him. But he should never have been there in the first place, at least IMO.
Again, nothing of which he has any control over. Guilty by association and its bollocks.
I'd have any bloke at the club that offers that kind of effort day in day out no matter where he came from and who he may or may not have been associated with.
Again, nothing of which he has any control over. Guilty by association and its bollocks.
I'd have any bloke at the club that offers that kind of effort day in day out no matter where he came from and who he may or may not have been associated with.
The point is though, those sorts of qualities are not the sole preserve of highly paid, contentious, injury scarred recruits - you can get players with those sorts of qualities without going down the Daisy road.
Again, nothing of which he has any control over. Guilty by association and its bollocks.
I'd have any bloke at the club that offers that kind of effort day in day out no matter where he came from and who he may or may not have been associated with.
Yes, I agree with that, but not if they're paid overs and recruited without any thought to what list deficiencies we need to address.
Daisy's last season and his decision to drop the contract extension condition shows that (a) he is still capable of playing good footy, (b) his experience is important, and (c) he is not the mercenary many thought he was.
I don't think we should have recruited him but I think that he will have a role to play this season, perhaps as much with the NBs as with the seniors.
Nobody can ever justify the recruitment of Daisy and the money he has been paid. It has been an atrocious recruitment from the club, one of the very worst ever. That isn't saying Daisy doesn't try, it isn't saying that he isn't a role model, it isn't addressing any of those things. It is a simple fact that if one of your top 2-3 paid players isn't in the 10 most effective players at your club, you have made a horrible mistake. That top coin is meant to be for superstars, plain and simple. They should have the qualities Daisy is said to have AND be great footballers. Remember he was paid Dangerfield like cash.
If we wanted just good blokes we would have implored Armfield to keep going, by all reports he is a ripper of a bloke and bust his nut to help others.
Whilst it is great for someone to be a mentor or good bloke, it isn't enough for a highly paid player
While Daisy is the topic of discussion, I thought I would throw this in here, a snippet from a training report (source BF) from earlier this week, while over in Tassie....
So to the highlights/lowlights
OK I'm just gonna get it out of the way....3 votes D Thomas...the only caveat being it is a big ground and no stands to get an elevated view so if I missed an on baller running rampant I humbly apologise but don't think I did.
- When the game started it was the Best 22 vs the rest and it was also clear that some players went back to just bombing the ball fwd to a pack rather than the drill they'd just done...I can see why Bolts picks Daisy, for all his limitations, he's smart - he moved into the space he was supposed to be in, he weighed his options, presented as a hit up HFF and did 2 kicks, whilst not blind they were long centred ones over the traffic from one HFF to the other (and there is no way he had time to see that option in congestion) to where the fwds and mids were were supposed to be streaming into...and guess what they were and got easy goals...does it translate to match day - I dunno but he's playing/training the way Bolton is drilling.
Thanks Amers. Nice insight.
Thanks Amers. Nice insight.
x2
Nobody can ever justify the recruitment of Daisy and the money he has been paid. It has been an atrocious recruitment from the club, one of the very worst ever. That isn't saying Daisy doesn't try, it isn't saying that he isn't a role model, it isn't addressing any of those things. It is a simple fact that if one of your top 2-3 paid players isn't in the 10 most effective players at your club, you have made a horrible mistake. That top coin is meant to be for superstars, plain and simple. They should have the qualities Daisy is said to have AND be great footballers. Remember he was paid Dangerfield like cash.
If we wanted just good blokes we would have implored Armfield to keep going, by all reports he is a ripper of a bloke and bust his nut to help others.
Whilst it is great for someone to be a mentor or good bloke, it isn't enough for a highly paid player
Harsh. I could name at least 10 that were 10 times worse IMO, but lets not go over all ground and railroad another thread. This is about leadership and from all reports within the club, Daisy provides it spades even if he isnt officially part of the leadership group. When Bolts came along, he talked about developing leadership density. I think this is progressing nicely and is reflected in A. the size of the group and the eventual passing of the baton to the younger blokes and B. SOS's recruitment of players with leadership qualities as well as football nous.
With you MIO, quite frankly the only reason he remains on the list imo is because of the dollars wasted by the Club in recruiting him....
With you MIO, quite frankly the only reason he remains on the list imo is because of the dollars wasted by the Club in recruiting him....
I'm confused (not hard to do). Didn't his contract expire last year and he was given an 1yr extension? They could have given him the flick last year correct? If your assessment is correct, given how ruthless SOS with list management, he would not have been there this year IMO.
I'm confused (not hard to do). Didn't his contract expire last year and he was given an 1yr extension? They could have given him the flick last year correct? If your assessment is correct, given how ruthless SOS with list management, he would not have been there this year IMO.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dale-thomas-has-done-enough-to-play-on-says-marc-murphy-20170823-gy2uny.html
An old story, but the clause that guaranteed him a 5th season (2018) was dropped by Daisy, so he earned an extra season on merit.
Having seen plenty of Bolton's pressers and other interviews etc., there's little doubt in my mind that Bolts likes Daisy and likes having him around.
Cotchin, Rance and Riewoldt wouldnt be my idea of a great leadership group but thats a premiership leadership group.....Cotchin became a sniper and the other two are bozo's IMO.
Maybe great leadership in football is overrated.....or maybe as in Hawthorns case with Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell, Burgoyne etc its more valuable for a long cycle of success but not so important for a one off premiership. ie Richmond, Bulldogs...
Cotchin, Rance and Riewoldt wouldnt be my idea of a great leadership group but thats a premiership leadership group.....Cotchin became a sniper and the other two are bozo's IMO.
Maybe great leadership in football is overrated.....or maybe as in Hawthorns case with Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell, Burgoyne etc its more valuable for a long cycle of success but not so important for a one off premiership. ie Richmond, Bulldogs...
Interesting point EB. Will be interesting to see how tight the Tiggers hang this year.
I'm confused (not hard to do). Didn't his contract expire last year and he was given an 1yr extension? They could have given him the flick last year correct? If your assessment is correct, given how ruthless SOS with list management, he would not have been there this year IMO.
Daisy on 300k would be a reasonable investment. On the money he was brought in on, I am unsure how anyone can suggest there are 10 players 10 times worse.
Worst footballers? Absolutely... Worse for impact to our list management? Hardly.
It is getting into a Daisy bashing/protecting thread and I have more than contributed to that, so I will stop.
But outside of even Daisy, you don't pay A Grade player dollars for a player just cause they are a good bloke and train well, or any other spiel like that.
If you do.. you lose football games
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dale-thomas-has-done-enough-to-play-on-says-marc-murphy-20170823-gy2uny.html
An old story, but the clause that guaranteed him a 5th season (2018) was dropped by Daisy, so he earned an extra season on merit.
Having seen plenty of Bolton's pressers and other interviews etc., there's little doubt in my mind that Bolts likes Daisy and likes having him around.
Shhhhh, you risk suffering ostracism for reporting a reality! :o
Just read the bold and know this in relation to Daisy.
The point is though, those sorts of qualities are not the sole preserve of highly paid, contentious, injury scarred recruits - you can get players with those sorts of qualities without going down the Daisy road.
Nobody can ever justify the recruitment of Daisy and the money he has been paid. It has been an atrocious recruitment from the club, one of the very worst ever. That isn't saying Daisy doesn't try, it isn't saying that he isn't a role model, it isn't addressing any of those things. It is a simple fact that if one of your top 2-3 paid players isn't in the 10 most effective players at your club, you have made a horrible mistake. That top coin is meant to be for superstars, plain and simple. They should have the qualities Daisy is said to have AND be great footballers. Remember he was paid Dangerfield like cash.
If we wanted just good blokes we would have implored Armfield to keep going, by all reports he is a ripper of a bloke and bust his nut to help others.
Whilst it is great for someone to be a mentor or good bloke, it isn't enough for a highly paid player
With you MIO, quite frankly the only reason he remains on the list imo is because of the dollars wasted by the Club in recruiting him....
Again, all the criticisms of Daisy have come down to his pay packet. That is NOT his problem. It has become a huge problem for him for the extra pressure it has led him to receive.
The only mentions of Daisy on this thread that do NOT involve his pay packet are overwhelmingly positive...
While Daisy is the topic of discussion, I thought I would throw this in here, a snippet from a training report (source BF) from earlier this week, while over in Tassie....
So to the highlights/lowlights
OK I'm just gonna get it out of the way....3 votes D Thomas...the only caveat being it is a big ground and no stands to get an elevated view so if I missed an on baller running rampant I humbly apologise but don't think I did.
- When the game started it was the Best 22 vs the rest and it was also clear that some players went back to just bombing the ball fwd to a pack rather than the drill they'd just done...I can see why Bolts picks Daisy, for all his limitations, he's smart - he moved into the space he was supposed to be in, he weighed his options, presented as a hit up HFF and did 2 kicks, whilst not blind they were long centred ones over the traffic from one HFF to the other (and there is no way he had time to see that option in congestion) to where the fwds and mids were were supposed to be streaming into...and guess what they were and got easy goals...does it translate to match day - I dunno but he's playing/training the way Bolton is drilling.
Harsh. I could name at least 10 that were 10 times worse IMO, but lets not go over all ground and railroad another thread. This is about leadership and from all reports within the club, Daisy provides it spades even if he isnt officially part of the leadership group. When Bolts came along, he talked about developing leadership density. I think this is progressing nicely and is reflected in A. the size of the group and the eventual passing of the baton to the younger blokes and B. SOS's recruitment of players with leadership qualities as well as football nous.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dale-thomas-has-done-enough-to-play-on-says-marc-murphy-20170823-gy2uny.html
An old story, but the clause that guaranteed him a 5th season (2018) was dropped by Daisy, so he earned an extra season on merit.
Having seen plenty of Bolton's pressers and other interviews etc., there's little doubt in my mind that Bolts likes Daisy and likes having him around.
So i've been pretty pro-daisy according to most.
This is because, as highlighted above, i judge him based on what he does and what he brings. I don't judge him on how much he is being played.
Again, if you have an issue with his pay packet, blame the ones who paid him the money.
Just as it doesn't matter what position you get drafted, once you are on the list, its what you offer the club that matters. Take his pay packet up with the club, and let his footy and leadership do the talking.
The club bent over far too easily in their rush to get new messiahs. Daisy was coming off a 5 game season in 2013. He had surgery in November 2012, then again in May 2013, then returns to the VFL and injures the ankle again in Aug 2013. The club ignored the medical advice of it own doctor, who said no to Daisy.........
With the benefit of hindsight, it beggars belief the club spent more than 30 seconds even thinking about his recruitment.
And no, Daisy hasn't done anything wrong per se, but he is the main character in a lousy tale of woe, so he will be forever associated with the whole debacle.
I didn't dislike Daisy as a Pie, and I don't dislike him as a Blue, but his recruitment was still a lame ar$se decision.
Oh well - one can only hope the club has learned its lesson.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-19/doc-doubting-thomas
The club bent over far too easily in their rush to get new messiahs. Daisy was coming off a 5 game season in 2013. He had surgery in November 2012, then again in May 2013, then returns to the VFL and injures the ankle again in Aug 2013. The club ignored the medical advice of it own doctor, who said no to Daisy.........
With the benefit of hindsight, it beggars belief the club spent more than 30 seconds even thinking about his recruitment.
And no, Daisy hasn't done anything wrong per se, but he is the main character in a lousy tale of woe, so he will be forever associated with the whole debacle.
I didn't dislike Daisy as a Pie, and I don't dislike him as a Blue, but his recruitment was still a lame ar$se decision.
Oh well - one can only hope the club has learned its lesson.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-19/doc-doubting-thomas
Again, your beef is with the club. Take it out on them.
Blame SOS for signing daisy up for another year if you want.
Again, your beef is with the club. Take it out on them.
Blame SOS for signing daisy up for another year if you want.
My beef has always been with the club, especially regarding the 2012-2015 era, as you of all people would know.
Again, all the criticisms of Daisy have come down to his pay packet. That is NOT his problem. It has become a huge problem for him for the extra pressure it has led him to receive.
The only mentions of Daisy on this thread that do NOT involve his pay packet are overwhelmingly positive...
Yeap, if Daisy had been on nothing over these years he would be talked about in a similar tone to Armfield, perhaps a little better.
But his salary was a HUGE problem for the club and when he signed on to it, he signed on as a marquee player.
Sure he can take his cash and pocket it and I don't begrudge him the 'right' to that.
But then supporters have a right to ask whether his impact is commensurate with his impact on our Salary Cap and our ability to spent that money on a an actual top player.
If Daisy had been on a standard salary the expectations would be different, there is no denying that, but he hasn't been.
You can turn as much of a blind eye and say it isn't his fault and all that and in fact that is fine...
BUT... AGAIN.... He has taken one of the top marquee spots at the club and he has not performed anywhere near a marquee player.
BTW I was quick to praise him myself when he asked the club to drop the clause and I had no issue when they resigned him on a salary that better reflected his worth to the team, but was his recruitment a success or a failure? It is absolutely 100% clear it was a failure, he hasn't done what he was paid to do.
Yeap, if Daisy had been on nothing over these years he would be talked about in a similar tone to Armfield, perhaps a little better.
But his salary was a HUGE problem for the club and when he signed on to it, he signed on as a marquee player.
Sure he can take his cash and pocket it and I don't begrudge him the 'right' to that.
But then supporters have a right to ask whether his impact is commensurate with his impact on our Salary Cap and our ability to spent that money on a an actual top player.
If Daisy had been on a standard salary the expectations would be different, there is no denying that, but he hasn't been.
You can turn as much of a blind eye and say it isn't his fault and all that and in fact that is fine...
BUT... AGAIN.... He has taken one of the top marquee spots at the club and he has not performed anywhere near a marquee player.
BTW I was quick to praise him myself when he asked the club to drop the clause and I had no issue when they resigned him on a salary that better reflected his worth to the team, but was his recruitment a success or a failure? It is absolutely 100% clear it was a failure, he hasn't done what he was paid to do.
He hasn't 'taken' one of the marquee spots, it was given to him.
Don't get me wrong. The club is to blame and i doubt they'd do it again. However, daisy has given everything and done everything he possibly could. Whether that is good enough for a spot on the list, a starting 22, his salary or whatever is up for debate, but he has never died wondering. You cannot fault his preparation and dedication to the club.
Too many players are content with plodding along and counting the cash.
Daisy could have easily been one of them, but refused to. Kudos to him for that.
Kudos for taking crazy money and delivering diddly...
Yeah, right. :-X :-X
That "he hasn't taken one it was given to him" is rubbish I am sorry.
He demanded a certain pay and as such knew the expectations and knew he would be judged by those expectations and so he should.
I use to hire a lot of people and the top people I was hiring were people whose salary topped 250k range. I would also hire people starting down in the 60-65k range so much like a football team, there was an really large discrepancy between my highest and lowest paid employees. Now it was my job to ensure that I was able to differentiate between what the people in the top bracket could do and what the people on the lower scale (and all those in between) could do.
If I made an error, I would have had to answer to those above me, but I can also tell you this.. If someone was hired on a top end salary they were told in absolutely clear terms the expectations that came with that salary and those expectations were (quite rightly) much higher than others, considering they were earning 4 times the salary, that is a simple reality and unfortunately there was an occasion in one of the teams I managed where a person (actually hired by my predecessor) represented they could do a much higher quality job than they were capable of doing and I had to unfortunately I had to terminate them. IF they had of been on 35-40% of their salary, they would have been on an appropriate wage for what they could deliver, but they weren't and so they had to go. The TEAM needed a very senior person they could rely on with top level skills to deliver in critical situations and that was what I was paying that sort of money for and I certainly did not have a budget that allowed me to just add another person at those sorts of wages. I was lucky, I was able to replace them with someone far more suitably skilled, something not easily done when you sign someone to a 4-5 year contract.
Now these salaries are high by normal standards, but not by footballers standards... but the point I am making is not about the actual figures (it could be the lower end staff on 30k and top end on 120k) as the relevance is that you have a situation where you have people in the same team earning 2/3/4x the salary of others (and in football clubs that can be 10-15x) they have to be judged on that, it is pure and simple and they absolutely know that when they sign the contract. You cannot possibly believe that Daisy did not understand the level of expectation that came with earning x% most of his colleague.
This has turned into a Daisy discussion, which I was hoping it wouldn't, but I can't let that sort of comment just go and say, well he is a good bloke, he works hard and his teammates like him. Or.. well SOS has kept him, so therefore his recruitment is justified..
The transfer of Daisy (again off the original topic of overall leadership) is one that cannot ever be justified in my opinion. We got it spectacularly wrong & should never have brought him to the club. His continued presence on the list isn't as big an issue to me now, because his reduced salary means the impact to our ability to attract and retain players is far less and is more at the level of other players.
If Daisy had come to the club on his 2018 salary, I agree this wouldn't be a discussion, but then he would have performed closer to the expectations of him at that wage.
There was a old adage that you get paid more for what you know than what you do...maybe Daisy got hired under that guise....
Daisy's main problem was he arrived injured or recovering from injury and it took a couple of years for him to be able to contribute anything as he couldnt kick 30m and was about as agile as an elephant on valium...
That "he hasn't taken one it was given to him" is rubbish I am sorry.
He demanded a certain pay and as such knew the expectations and knew he would be judged by those expectations and so he should.
The 'real world' and the football world are not comparable. By that logic, anyone above minimum wage not getting a game would be 'sacked' every year for delivering zero.
Think about it from a fantasy footy point of view. We have our team and no trades left until the end of the season.
If Daisy is scoring more points than a bloke half his wage, Daisy plays.
If they were on a par, you'd trade daisy out and use the money elsewhere....but you can't do that mid-season in AFL at this stage.
It doesn't matter how much more money he is on compared to the 23rd bloke, you play him to get the best result from your cattle.
Sure, you can kick yourself all year for spending the money on him and not on someone else, but that point is not relevent on a week to week basis. That is an off-season issue.
Bolts, SOS and everyone else at the club has had the chance to 'sell' in the off-season and decided not to.
Why? He is the only player on our list who has won a flag. He is 100% dedicated to the coaches, team and club.
That type of leadership means something to the club, even if it doesn't to your average joe supporter.
No they are completely comparable.
If a person is payed more in football it is because the club believes they offer more than others.
When the club agreed to pay Daisy what he and his management were seeking, there would have been a clear set of expectations on what he would deliver and there is no way he has come close to delivering on those.
Yeap credit for trying, credit for helping mentor the young players, credit for choosing not to force the club to have him mainly play reserves last year by getting rid of his clause, allowing us to pick him on merit.
I am not saying Daisy can't be picked in the 22, but that doesn't change that his recruitment was terrible.
There was little to no chance to 'sell' as you say in the off season as there would have been little to no interest.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions as to why the club retained him. Bolts has set he sets a good example, but then so did Armfield. You conclude we kept him because he is the only player with a flag, but I haven't seen that either. I think they kept him because they see him as in our best 22 or best 25 players and it wasn't going to be easy to find another ready to go player better than him for nothing and he is accepting a salary closer to his worth.
Do you think if he had made similar salary demands to last time he would be there? Of course not. I suspect he stayed because he is on the right salary for what he is capable of delivering and that is a lot less than he has been paid.
The point about how much you pay Daisy is relevant whilst you are paying him that salary. It doesn't mean you can't play him (though for quite a while I don't think he was even playing well enough to deserve selection in most sides), but you can constantly expect more from him.
You have said over and over his salary doesn't matter and I have said over and over it does. I am sure it also matters to at least come of his workmates as much as it matters to others in any industry if they think a person is overpaid for their output. That is true across all sports where players are putting in clauses to make sure they are the highest paid at the club or that their salary also goes up if another player starts to earn more etc and I don't see that it would be any different in the AFL where the players threaten industrial action every time that the CBA is up for renegotiation.
I am not saying Daisy can't be picked in the 22, but that doesn't change that his recruitment was terrible.
There was little to no chance to 'sell' as you say in the off season as there would have been little to no interest.
His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!
Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.
Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.
His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!
Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.
Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.
Given the points I made in my reply #129, it's not just the money, the whole idea of getting him to the club was wrong.
He's finished in B+F top 10 once in his time with us (in 2014, when he finished 10th).
IMO, the attraction for Bolts is that Daisy is a very smart, natural footballer, and Bolts knows that he can rely on Daisy to reinforce the coach's voice on match day, and that's really his value IMO - as the coach's voice in-game. His actual match day work (tackles, goals, running etc) is limited.
His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!
Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.
Are you serious?
Of course the two are connected. It was Daisy that was demanding the salary that was to be paid.
The recruitment of him absolutely is tied to his remuneration. An integral part of the recruitment of any person to any organization is their salary.
His recruitment was terrible because there is no way he was coming on half the money which is still more (bu much closer to the mark) than the value he has given the club over the course of that 1st contract.
I am flabbergasted as to how anyone could consider the recruitment of Daisy wasn't a disaster. I would be far more stunned if there was any list manager in the competition who would consider it anything but.
When you bring a player in on top 3 wages to a club and they sit somewhere around 18-25 on the list for effectiveness that is a disaster.
Perhaps (despite the public comments to the contrary) we keep Betts if we don't pay that sort of money for Daisy and perhaps we try and throw that sort of money at an Ollie Wines or some other player (remember this was huge coin).
Anyway it is obvious that as clear as it is to me that Dasiy was a recruiting disaster, to others it is just as clear it wasn't and nothing said is making any difference on changing opinions.
So I am going to actually not reply to the Daisy stuff here, except in direct relationship to the leadership group, because despite saying I wouldn't only a few posts back.. I have really helped get this topic way off track.
Spot on MIO. O0
Cost us Betts compensation as well. As others said, if it wasn't a disaster it was a very costly mistake.
Agendas aside, we paid far too much for Daisy but we are making the best of it and trying to extract the best possible value from him that we can. Daisy, for his part, is trying to give the best value that he can, including not pressing his contractual claims for his final year. Yes, the club made a big error up front, and some errors need time to correct or to minimise their effects, ending up being costly ones. I don't lose any sleep about Daisy now tbh - we can't go back and change it. Onward and upward!!
If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?
Rockliff went straight into Port's leadership group.
Given that Wines is Port's vice-captain, he would have to be considered for our leadership group if he was in navy blue in 2019. Of course, his approach to leadership would have to be consistent with what we now have.
There are two things at play.
Value for money is one.
Value is another.
What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.
Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.
People will question it, but I see it for what it is. Value:
1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes. you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer.
2. He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone. Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.
3. He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing. Pressure. Vocal. Leadership. Rehab. Proffesionalism.
finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed. They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons. Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects. They havent had a good kid come on since he left.
If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.
These are intangible things. ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them. We havent had all that many over the journey either.
What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.
There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.
A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!
There are two things at play.
Value for money is one.
Value is another.
What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.
Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.
People will question it, but I see it for what it is. Value:
1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes. you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer.
2. He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone. Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.
3. He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing. Pressure. Vocal. Leadership. Rehab. Proffesionalism.
finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed. They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons. Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects. They havent had a good kid come on since he left.
If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.
These are intangible things. ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them. We havent had all that many over the journey either.
Well said Thry. More importantly than how scribes rated him is that Ross Lyon rated him the best player in the comp in 2011. In any case, not sure it was a terribly good decision, too late to look in the mirror.
There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.
A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!
That's why lesser lights like Tom Bell and Kerridge can finish top 10 in the B+F, and why Daisy can't.
Daisy = Einstein's brain + Montgomery Burns' body.
It's a shame, because in his day he was a gun.
When you bring a player in on top 3 wages to a club and they sit somewhere around 18-25 on the list for effectiveness that is a disaster.
..................
So I am going to actually not reply to the Daisy stuff here.
I can see why.
By AFL Tables Daisy ranked
10th in 2017,
12th in 2016 and
19th in 2015(Only five games). This is based on Supercoach or DreamTeam averages from Footywire or AFL Tables, which seems to be a reasonable way to get to a players relative effectiveness. For Daisy this is nowhere near as bad as some would have us think.
I suppose someone could argue that the stats are misleading, if so then why quote erroneous figures in the first place?
Stats that aren't facts are too easily exposed as deceptive or misleading! It makes an argument come across as emotive, irrational and subjective rather than objective, rational and factual.
Do you think I am being unfair?
I find it odd people slam me for potting Casboult, then slam me for defending Daisy. Casboult ranked 18th, 23rd and 18th in the same years that Daisy ranked 10th, 12th and 19th, yet Casboult's OK and Daisy is rubbish!
Hey mods, when you get the chance, please copy and paste the replies from #107 onward into the Doubting Thomas thread.
Thank you.
Hey mods, when you get the chance, please copy and paste the replies from #107 onward into the Doubting Thomas thread.
Thank you.
Aren't they relevant?
Didn't Daisy voluntarily decline nominations for the leadership group and stand down from media roles to concentrate on football?
There are other players that this scenario might be applicable to, it's just we have Daisy as a prime example!
Is leadership value linked to on-field performance? How will the Daisy and Murphy haters, who are often the same posters, consistently answer that question?
From a series of declarative statements it's dead easy to arrive at emotive conclusions that open a can of worms in regard to contradictions. In R&D it can sometimes be referred to as magical thinking, which is often a result of cherry picking data. In the media I think it's called fake news!
Aren't they relevant?
Didn't Daisy voluntarily decline nominations for the leadership group and stand down from media roles to concentrate on football?
There are other players that this scenario might be applicable to, it's just we have Daisy as a prime example!
Is leadership value linked to on-field performance? How will the Daisy and Murphy haters, who are often the same posters, consistently answer that question?
From a series of declarative statements it's dead easy to arrive at emotive conclusions that open a can of worms in regard to contradictions. In R&D it can sometimes be referred to as magical thinking, which is often a result of cherry picking data. In the media I think it's called fake news!
So far as I can tell, the last few pages of this thread have nothing to do with Daisy being in the 2018 leadership group.
So far as I can tell, the last few pages of this thread have nothing to do with Daisy being in the 2018 leadership group.
Well, I haven't been involved from the start.
As I read it this sort of all kicked off as a debate about measuring "the value of leadership" in terms of intangibles, such as effort, extroversion, attitude and desire?
That is why I posed that final question in my earlier post for that very reason! ;)
If an argument is made that on-field performance isn't critical in measuring the performance of a leader, than it becomes hard not to contradict that position when arguing Daisy's value is measured only by on-field performance.
So then if the counter-argument is made, that on-field performance is key in measuring leadership value, it's contradictory to argue that Murphy offers little or no value in terms of leadership roles.
I'd assert that many of the same posters claim both Murphy and Daisy are of no value by changing the frame of reference as described above dependent on who they are talking about! Of course this happens across many threads.
Am I free to evaluate the merit of posts regarding who is a "valuable leader" and who isn't based historical posting?
If so, how do I put those posts into a relative frame of reference that isn't contradictory, it seems to me they are not self-consistent!
I completely understand Kruddler's position. There are many players, leaders or not, who have been carried through seasons by clubs merely because of what they bring the team other than direct football influence. Hawthorn have two very good examples, Hodge in the twilight of his career, and before him Vandenberg who probably set them on course for the 2008 flag!
Thankfully, I doubt Daisy will play much senior footy this year as the young men start demanding a spot!
I can see why.
Going by what you posted, It would seem as plain as day that you don't.
I am happy to discuss the merits of Daisy on another post. I mentioned I wasn't on this post because it was the wrong thread.
But hey believe what you like
Thankfully, I doubt Daisy will play much senior footy this year as the young men start demanding a spot!
We would hope that is true, but strictly in terms of a leadership debate that is unrelated to his value also!
Going by what you posted, It would seem as plain as day that you don't.
I am happy to discuss the merits of Daisy on another post. I mentioned I wasn't on this post because it was the wrong thread.
But hey believe what you like
I don't have to believe, the figures I post are facts, faith or perception do not come into it! ;)
His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!
Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.
Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.
That is what i've been saying. Spelled it out quite clearly.
Still, everyone continues to bring in $'s into the conversation.
No they are completely comparable.
If a person is payed more in football it is because the club believes they offer more than others.
When the club agreed to pay Daisy what he and his management were seeking, there would have been a clear set of expectations on what he would deliver and there is no way he has come close to delivering on those.
So the club had expectations that Daisy has failed to reach. Is that
a) Daisy's fault for not putting in and doing his role to the best of his ability?
b) The clubs fault for expecting Daisy to be a player his body can no longer be?
I'd say b).
Yeap credit for trying, credit for helping mentor the young players, credit for choosing not to force the club to have him mainly play reserves last year by getting rid of his clause, allowing us to pick him on merit.
So something he has control over, he gets the credit for.
I am not saying Daisy can't be picked in the 22, but that doesn't change that his recruitment was terrible.
There was little to no chance to 'sell' as you say in the off season as there would have been little to no interest.
The recruitment may have been terrible, but that is NOT daisys fault.
If a club said we want you to come over to the enemy and leave a club you've won a flag at for a team which is struggling. We want you to mentor our players and set an example everyone can try to emulate and we want to pay you 700k a year to do so.
Are you going to say...thanks but no thanks. I'm not the player i used to be? I'll take less thanks.
Gimme a break.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions as to why the club retained him. Bolts has set he sets a good example, but then so did Armfield. You conclude we kept him because he is the only player with a flag, but I haven't seen that either. I think they kept him because they see him as in our best 22 or best 25 players and it wasn't going to be easy to find another ready to go player better than him for nothing and he is accepting a salary closer to his worth.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm stating facts.
The club kept him after his initial contract was up.
He sets a good example.
He is the only player on our list with a flag.
I have an opinion that all of those would certainly be in the 'pro' column when the club evaluated his worth.
Yes, being a potential best 22 player would be another reason.
As for Army, different kettle of fish, but it appears his body (which is older) is not allowing him to do the things he (and the club) want him to be able to do. FWIW, i wouldn't be unhappy if he was retained.
Do you think if he had made similar salary demands to last time he would be there? Of course not. I suspect he stayed because he is on the right salary for what he is capable of delivering and that is a lot less than he has been paid.
Again with the money.
Of course if he demanded 1mil, the club would tell him where to go.
If Crippa demanded 1 mil, they'd probably tell him the same.
The point about how much you pay Daisy is relevant whilst you are paying him that salary. It doesn't mean you can't play him (though for quite a while I don't think he was even playing well enough to deserve selection in most sides), but you can constantly expect more from him.
Value for money...AGAIN. ::)
He is on the list. Is he giving you value for money? Probably not....but does that come into consideration when you are picking the team? It shouldn't. You pick the team that gives you the best chance to win.
You have said over and over his salary doesn't matter and I have said over and over it does. I am sure it also matters to at least come of his workmates as much as it matters to others in any industry if they think a person is overpaid for their output. That is true across all sports where players are putting in clauses to make sure they are the highest paid at the club or that their salary also goes up if another player starts to earn more etc and I don't see that it would be any different in the AFL where the players threaten industrial action every time that the CBA is up for renegotiation.
You are STILL getting the 2 confused.
Value for money, is a club issue. Club signs the contracts and pays the money. If they are unhappy with value for money they do something about it.
It goes back to the first point i made in this post....did the club expect too much from Daisy? Yes. Was it a mistake to pay him that much? Yes. Is there a lesson to be learned? Yes.
Has daisy done anything wrong in terms of effort, attitude and things in his control? No.
No Kruddler, your myopia precludes you seemingly from seeing a big picture.
To digress, be glad when the footy starts so we can talk about actual performance rather than perception!
No Kruddler, your myopia precludes you seemingly from seeing a big picture.
To digress, be glad when the footy starts so we can talk about actual performance rather than perception!
What 'big picture' am i missing?
If i'm looking at this from Daisy's point of view, i have done everything humanly possible to perform. Am i capable of performing to the same level when i was in the peak of my career at Collingwood? No, but i'll give my best.
Is my best good enough for the $'s i'm getting paid? Probably not, but i'm not going to hand them back just in the same way i doubt Kurt Tippett would be handing back the millions he stole from Sydney.
If i'm looking at it from the clubs point of view, i f**ked up. I overpaid for him. I appreciate the effort he puts in and gets the most out of his body, but am disappointed that he cannot give more given how much we are paying him. I will think twice before i offer up that much money to an injury plagued player in the future. However, I do remember that we had a similar potential issue when we offered Chris Judd large quantities of cash despite being under a huge injury cloud at the time. You win some, you lose some.
If i'm looking at it from a teammate of daisys, i am a little pissed off that he earns a lot more than me, but that thought doesn't enter my head on match day and i'm thankful he is out there busting his gut. I wish all my teammates busted a gut like he does.
If i'm looking at it from Boltons point of view, i don't care how much each player is being paid during the season, that comes into effect in the off-season. During the season all i'm worried about is getting my boys to play the way i want them to play. I reward players who do as i say and i need to balance experience with youth on match day. I pick the best team of players from the entire list to help me achieve my goals.
4 points of view on the same issue depending on who is looking at it.
What part of the bigger picture am i missing exactly? Your point of view? Daisy is evil??
...............................................
I will think twice before i offer up that much money to an injury plagued player in the future. However, I do remember that we had a similar potential issue when we offered Chris Judd large quantities of cash despite being under a huge injury cloud at the time.
......................
Yes, a groin injury which mucked up his 07 season. Had surgery at the end of 07, and then he was right to go. I'd be curious to know what our medico said about recruiting Judd. As has been mentioned numerous times, our medico was against getting Daisy.
.................................................
If i'm looking at it from Boltons point of view, i don't care how much each player is being paid during the season, that comes into effect in the off-season. During the season all i'm worried about is getting my boys to play the way i want them to play. I reward players who do as i say and i need to balance experience with youth on match day. I pick the best team of players from the entire list to help me achieve my goals.
......................
Agree.
That is what i've been saying. Spelled it out quite clearly.
Still, everyone continues to bring in $'s into the conversation.
I don't mind them complaining about him being overpaid, but there is no point claiming he's one of the worst on the list when that is clearly not the case.
In my opinion, those posters would be better off focussing on players who are performing worse than the busted up Daisy! ;)
I'm grateful we had him in recent years, a lot of damage could have been done to our young list(from a sports psychology perspective) if we didn't have older wiser premiership player to keep them focused on the long game.
The simple fact is the bloke shouldn't be on our list.
Not before, not now.
Sure, experienced blah blah but I'd pick Garlett, Pickett, Shaw, Macreadie, O'Brien, Kerridge or O'Shea (as sorta fringe players presently) ahead of Daisy every day of the week.
What's his best position in our 22 in 2018? Is his body up to the rigours and demands of AFL senior footy (arguably not imo)
He simply doesn't cover the ground the way he once did....
The simple fact is the bloke shouldn't be on our list.
Not before, not now.
Sure, experienced blah blah but I'd pick Garlett, Pickett, Shaw, Macreadie, O'Brien, Kerridge or O'Shea (as sorta fringe players presently) ahead of Daisy every day of the week.
What's his best position in our 22 in 2018? Is his body up to the rigours and demands of AFL senior footy (arguably not imo)
He simply doesn't cover the ground the way he once did....
Simple fact is, you are extremely biased.
He is not the player he once was, nobody doubts that.
He doesn't cover the ground the way he once did sure, but he covers more ground than a lot on the list....and a lot more defensively than most.
How many times has Daisy got a goal in or around the goal square on a fast break? Why do you think that is? ;)
No bias, facts.
8 goals in 2017, less the previous years. Not many (goals out the back) at all, I'd say..... :o
No bias, facts.
8 goals in 2017, less the previous years. Not many (goals out the back) at all, I'd say..... :o
If thats how you respond to what i've said, then i'm not going to bother explaining it to you.
Sticks and stones..... O:-)
Sticks and stones..... O:-)
I didn't call you anything.
You jumping at shadows again? Voices?
Let's see how Daisy fares this year. I wish him the best - looks like a decent fella, but I'd prefer to see a younger bloke get more game time....
The young blokes are the future.
Let's see how Daisy fares this year. I wish him the best - looks like a decent fella, but I'd prefer to see a younger bloke get more game time....
The young blokes are the future.
Thank you captain obvious.
I'd be more than happy if a fit Daisy is kept out of the side all year in the same way i'd be happy if a fit casboult is kept out of the side.
'd be more than happy if a fit Daisy is kept out of the side all year
Mein Gott Kruddler, a hint of logic!
Proud of you. :-*
Let's see how Daisy fares this year. I wish him the best - looks like a decent fella, but I'd prefer to see a younger bloke get more game time....
The young blokes are the future.
Like the 1/2 doz old muppets that you were demanding the recuitment of ?
????????????????????????
I'm listening!
Mein Gott Kruddler, a hint of logic!
Proud of you. :-*
Proud of you for working out i use logic. If only you could see it in every other post i post. :P
It's an unanswerable question, but I'm wondering how many other AFL teams D Thomas would get a game for in 2018?
It's an unanswerable question, but I'm wondering how many other AFL teams D Thomas would get a game for in 2018?
How many teams have as little experience as us when it comes to knowing what it takes to make grand finals?
Bulldogs in 2016
Richmond in 2017
How many teams have as little experience as us when it comes to knowing what it takes to make grand finals?
Daisy could provide that type of information as a coach, could he not ? Or maybe a lecture series that you sign up for..........
Bulldogs in 2016
Richmond in 2017
Dogs had Matt Suckling, who won a flag at Hawks
Tigers is the exception to the rule. They did have Taylor Hunt on the list, who was around for some of the success Geelong had though.
If we take out Daisy....who do we have left who has been around a winning team/environment?
Daisy could provide that type of information as a coach, could he not ? Or maybe a lecture series that you sign up for..........
Yes he could, in part.
But having a coach out on the ground is better.
Its not like he is running around with a walking stick out there. He still runs rings around some of our kids (and probably some senior blokes too).
If he no longer offers us an advantage in being in the best 22, he won't be there. Why are people fixating on giving him the flick? If the kids are good enough, they get a game.
Yes he could, in part.
But having a coach out on the ground is better.
Its not like he is running around with a walking stick out there. He still runs rings around some of our kids (and probably some senior blokes too).
If he no longer offers us an advantage in being in the best 22, he won't be there. Why are people fixating on giving him the flick? If the kids are good enough, they get a game.
Well, this particular people is not fixated with giving him the ar$e. What you say goes back to the point I made in my reply #140.
Well, this particular people is not fixated with giving him the ar$e. What you say goes back to the point I made in my reply #140.
You know, if you go to the hassle of finding the number of your post, you might as well simply add it into your reply.
You know, if you go to the hassle of finding the number of your post, you might as well simply add it into your reply.
Each one of my posts is such a stone cold classic, I just assumed people committed them to memory.
Each one of my posts is such a stone cold classic, I just assumed people committed them to memory.
I do Paul ;)
I do Paul ;)
I think we're all looking forward to the start of the season proper, if only to stave off lame humor and terminal boredom.
Yes he could, in part.
But having a coach out on the ground is better.
Its not like he is running around with a walking stick out there. He still runs rings around some of our kids (and probably some senior blokes too).
If he no longer offers us an advantage in being in the best 22, he won't be there. Why are people fixating on giving him the flick? If the kids are good enough, they get a game.
Because he isnt as good as he used to be.
Sometimes people don't appreciate the current state of play.
That is that we are a very inexperienced team, in need of the sort of leadership and performance that Daisy provides, even though his best is behind him.
They think that some kid will give us what Daisy gives us.
The bit they misunderstand, is that a kid will give us roughly the amount of possesions Daisy gives us. They wont give us the same amount of workrate, and the ability to guide a teamate through a game that will also assist someone else be more effective.
As always in a team environment, sometimes it isnt what you do that gets you a game, its what you help others do, or what you don't do that makes a bigger difference. For all his limitations with ball in hand, you can count the amount of times Daisy doesnt use the ball well on one hand.
I think we're all looking forward to the start of the season proper, if only to stave off lame humor and terminal boredom.
Amen.
I think we're all looking forward to the start of the season proper, if only to stave off lame humor and terminal boredom.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/504309285690421248/KvnXJkNM.jpeg)
Here's a picture of Joffa for you Paul - in his gold lame jacket. :)
Apologies for that one.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/504309285690421248/KvnXJkNM.jpeg)
Here's a picture of Joffa for you Paul - in his gold lame jacket. :)
Apologies for that one.
Despite his affiliations, he is supposedly a pretty good bloke. And that jacket is great. More of that IMO.
Some current, past and future leaders in the photo shoot on the CFC website.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/gallery/2018-02-14/2018-carlton-portraits#fb94d340de191610VgnVCM200000af19030aRCRD
I reckon there are some absolute crackers and the good ones remind me of ye olde footy photos (and some duds - could have been a bit more selective).
- Daisy looking rugged - photo 28
- Cripps is strange (photo 23), but great - it looks as if his face has been painted
- Garlett (photo 40) looks as if there are plenty of stories to tell (beyond his years)
- Weits straight out of the 1920s (photo 48)
- Bolts - photo 68/70 are shockers, but 64/66/71 show who's in charge
loved the Curnow brothers!
loved the Curnow brothers!
Charlie looks like he has grown or Ed has shrunk....
Some current, past and future leaders in the photo shoot on the CFC website.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/gallery/2018-02-14/2018-carlton-portraits#fb94d340de191610VgnVCM200000af19030aRCRD
I reckon there are some absolute crackers and the good ones remind me of ye olde footy photos (and some duds - could have been a bit more selective).
- Daisy looking rugged - photo 28
- Cripps is strange (photo 23), but great - it looks as if his face has been painted
- Garlett (photo 40) looks as if there are plenty of stories to tell (beyond his years)
- Weits straight out of the 1920s (photo 48)
- Bolts - photo 68/70 are shockers, but 64/66/71 show who's in charge
Yes, Weits photo looks like a 1920s cigarette card.
Bolts has got Big Ears (Noddy probably won't pay the ransom?).
Some great photos there!
Levi has definitely dropped a couple of kegs.
Yes, Weits photo looks like a 1920s cigarette card.
Bolts has got Big Ears (Noddy probably won't pay the ransom?).
Some great photos there!
;) :D ...I got it Cookie....must be the age ;)
;) :D ...I got it Cookie....must be the age ;)
:)) Yes, sad EB that the mind wanders into such backwaters at times, but the wait for the start of the season seems interminable.
:)) Yes, sad EB that the mind wanders into such backwaters at times, but the wait for the start of the season seems interminable.
[/b]
Agree Cookie, some of the regulars are getting a tad cranky with each other over the pre-season comps and
nerves are frayed.....cant wait till its starts and normal proceedings are resumed...
Why the hell do we need 8 players in a leadership group ??
How about :
Seniors Captain
Vice-Captain
Deputy Vice-Captain
Reserves Captain
Why the hell do we need 8 players in a leadership group ??
How about :
Seniors Captain
Vice-Captain
Deputy Vice-Captain
Reserves Captain
We don’t have reserves anymore Lucy...
We don’t have reserves anymore Lucy...
Not yet! ;)
Not yet! ;)
To quote a banana, “if you keep repeating it long enough, it just might happen...”
Why the hell do we need 8 players in a leadership group ??
How about :
Seniors Captain
Vice-Captain
Deputy Vice-Captain
Reserves Captain
What's the point when he neither trains with nor plays with the main group? He is probably not contracted to Carlton anyway. Josh Fraser is the best qualified to fly the flag for the NB players.