Andy McKay has all but confirmed that Marc Murphy will be the skipper again in 2017.
"There will still be a process and there will be every year," football boss Andrew McKay told Fairfax Media.
"But in staying that, the only way he [Marc Murphy] wouldn't be [captain] is if the players didn't vote for him and that wouldn't happen."
McKay has praised Murphy's growth as a leader since he was struck down with syndesmosis in his ankle midway through 2016.
While he was sorely missed on the field by his teammates, McKay says his performance as a leader off the field was first-class.
"One of the benefits of him not playing much last year is it gave Murph the ability to lead off the field and he stepped up to the plate, which was fantastic."
"He really got stuck into the leadership aspect last year which was great.
"Absolutely he has [become a better captain]. It's given him enormous opportunity to lead."
I'm quite comfortable with the process of appointing the skipper and leadership group each season - no resting on laurels.
I'm looking forward to the return of Murph and I happy for him to be cap'n in 2017.
Bizarre that McKay feels the need to comment on how the players will vote.
Why not let the process run it's course and take care of itself?
FWIW I would much rather see Cripps made captain.
He is seriously tough and respected throughout the competition for his competitive nature.
Bizarre that McKay feels the need to comment on how the players will vote.
Why not let the process run it's course and take care of itself?
FWIW I would much rather see Cripps made captain.
He is seriously tough and respected throughout the competition for his competitive nature.
How are his people skills coming along?
Bizarre that McKay feels the need to comment on how the players will vote.
Why not let the process run it's course and take care of itself?
Coaching staff vote as well and Obvoiusly they are all voting Murphy so it would take all the players to completely boycott Marc to stop him getting the gig which won't happen.
Bizarre that McKay feels the need to comment on how the players will vote.
Why not let the process run it's course and take care of itself?
FWIW I would much rather see Cripps made captain.
He is seriously tough and respected throughout the competition for his competitive nature.
I'd give Murphy this season which is still a very developmental, experimental year for the list and then let Cripps with Weitering as VC take over next year when we are a bit more settled.....
Coaching staff vote as well and Obvoiusly they are all voting Murphy so it would take all the players to completely boycott Marc to stop him getting the gig which won't happen.
I'll swing another scenario by you....
The coaching staff are the ones that count the votes. Sometimes they forget how to count. ;)
We have a history of it.
FWIW I would much rather see Cripps made captain.
He is seriously tough and respected throughout the competition for his competitive nature.
His injury made that problematic. He will struggle to be right for Rd 1 and a limited preseason will hamper him throughout 2017. He'll be under enough pressure without the captaincy as a poor season for him will equal a poor season for the team. Supporters will expect him to perform regardless of his limited preseason. Hardly the time for a youngster to take over.
I'll swing another scenario by you....
The coaching staff are the ones that count the votes. Sometimes they forget how to count. ;)
We have a history of it.
About the size of it.
Not to mention that marketing takes up a lot of captains time these days.
I also think they are reluctant to "herald a new dawn" by changing captains at the moment. This is still looking at being another "transition" year where we will battle more than we will win, and that a change of captain will likely come at a time, when we can read the landscape better (better overall outlook) for our team in order to prevent the incumbent captain from wearing undue pressure.
i.e. in about a year or two, when we have our team relatively settled, we will change the captain. Right now we have a lot of instability, and newcomers, meaning that any change of this nature is likely to cause division in the group. Not really helpful for us, and better to stay the course. Besides, Murphy sets a good example to follow (usually) even if he isnt 8 feet tall and can walk through tackles.
I'd give Murphy this season which is still a very developmental, experimental year for the list and then let Cripps with Weitering as VC take over next year when we are a bit more settled.....
Even with the retirement of Walker and Simpson coming to the end of his illustrious career, I'd be very surprised if Cripps and Weitering get the top jobs so soon. I reckon Docherty will be vice-captain or captain before Cripps or Weitering get the nod and I suspect Ed Curnow is ahead of them too.
It will be interesting to see whether Weitering makes the leadership group this season ... and whether Gibbs is returned ???
Rowe and Kreuzer could be leadership group candidates.
Even with the retirement of Walker and Simpson coming to the end of his illustrious career, I'd be very surprised if Cripps and Weitering get the top jobs so soon. I reckon Docherty will be vice-captain or captain before Cripps or Weitering get the nod and I suspect Ed Curnow is ahead of them too.
It will be interesting to see whether Weitering makes the leadership group this season ... and whether Gibbs is returned ???
Rowe and Kreuzer could be leadership group candidates.
I reckon even Army could be a smokie for the leadership group. Won some community awards...
I reckon even Army could be a smokie for the leadership group. Won some community awards...
Army is certainly very well respected ... and he is quite vocal on the field. Perhaps his one year contract and fringe player status will go against him.
Army is certainly very well respected ... and he is quite vocal on the field. Perhaps his one year contract and fringe player status will go against him.
Hence smokie.
Even with the retirement of Walker and Simpson coming to the end of his illustrious career, I'd be very surprised if Cripps and Weitering get the top jobs so soon. I reckon Docherty will be vice-captain or captain before Cripps or Weitering get the nod and I suspect Ed Curnow is ahead of them too.
It will be interesting to see whether Weitering makes the leadership group this season ... and whether Gibbs is returned ???
Rowe and Kreuzer could be leadership group candidates.
Docherty is a leader but not captain material IMO.....Cripps is the bloke you would follow into battle and who like Sticks Kernahan has stamped his authority on the team as the onfield leader .
Ed is a good foot solider but I know if I was a young player who I want would next to me when it got tough or when I needed my leader to show the way and it would be Cripps and Weitering.
We function better with a bigger player IMO as captain especially as we are not overly physical and get intimidated in this area and lack example setters....I want a captain who will set the example and back his players up...Murphy cant do it and I dont reckon Docherty is that type either.
Docherty is a leader but not captain material IMO.....Cripps is the bloke you would follow into battle and who like Sticks Kernahan has stamped his authority on the team as the onfield leader .
Ed is a good foot solider but I know if I was a young player who I want would next to me when it got tough or when I needed my leader to show the way and it would be Cripps and Weitering.
We function better with a bigger player IMO as captain especially as we are not overly physical and get intimidated in this area and lack example setters....I want a captain who will set the example and back his players up...Murphy cant do it and I dont reckon Docherty is that type either.
I always put the binoculars on huddles before quarters start and during breaks of play and the blokes who do the most talking are Murphy, Gibbs, Docherty, Simpson, Curnow and Thomas. Matty Kreuzer is more vocal than Cripps.
I'd prefer to give him time to grow into the captaincy, if he ever does.
I always put the binoculars on huddles before quarters start and during breaks of play and the blokes who do the most talking are Murphy, Gibbs, Docherty, Simpson, Curnow and Thomas. Matty Kreuzer is more vocal than Cripps.
I'd prefer to give him time to grow into the captaincy, if he ever does.
I'd always wanted Matty K as Captain - loves to lead by example and doesn't take any carp.....
To be honest, the best part of this conversation is that we seem to have some genuine emerging leadership options, which we haven't had for a while.
Personally I think Doc is next in line. I disagree that he'd be unable to back the players up, as he's got a bit of mongrel about him. Cripps is great, and will likely get the gig after Doc, but he's not ready yet. I mean he hasn't even cracked 50 games yet. I think to be an effective Captain in today's football, you want to have at least 100 games under your belt. Let him enjoy his footy and keep developing before burdening him with what will be an extreme amount of scrutiny.
To be honest, the best part of this conversation is that we seem to have some genuine emerging leadership options, which we haven't had for a while.
Personally I think Doc is next in line. I disagree that he'd be unable to back the players up, as he's got a bit of mongrel about him. Cripps is great, and will likely get the gig after Doc, but he's not ready yet. I mean he hasn't even cracked 50 games yet. I think to be an effective Captain in today's football, you want to have at least 100 games under your belt. Let him enjoy his footy and keep developing before burdening him with what will be an extreme amount of scrutiny.
X2
To be honest, the best part of this conversation is that we seem to have some genuine emerging leadership options, which we haven't had for a while.
Personally I think Doc is next in line. I disagree that he'd be unable to back the players up, as he's got a bit of mongrel about him. Cripps is great, and will likely get the gig after Doc, but he's not ready yet. I mean he hasn't even cracked 50 games yet. I think to be an effective Captain in today's football, you want to have at least 100 games under your belt. Let him enjoy his footy and keep developing before burdening him with what will be an extreme amount of scrutiny.
We are one of the softest teams in the comp and need a player who the other players know has got their back and can handle themselves when it gets physical..I dont want a knucklehead/thug as captain ie a Mitch Robinson type but I dont want a nice guy either.
Ok the Cripps/Weitering being too young argument has some merit but at the same time I dont see Docherty being able to handle too many altercations either as he is smaller type player and we have seen Murphy in similar situations try his best but it doesnt work and we just get intimidated.
Maybe a Simon White in a Nick Maxwell/Tom Harley role is a compromise until Criipps is ready...
Maybe a Simon White in a Nick Maxwell/Tom Harley role is a compromise until Criipps is ready...
I like White...he gives his best...The problem with him as captain is he may not be a best 22 player by mid-season.
We are one of the softest teams in the comp and need a player who the other players know has got their back and can handle themselves when it gets physical..I dont want a knucklehead/thug as captain ie a Mitch Robinson type but I dont want a nice guy either.
Ok the Cripps/Weitering being too young argument has some merit but at the same time I dont see Docherty being able to handle too many altercations either as he is smaller type player and we have seen Murphy in similar situations try his best but it doesnt work and we just get intimidated.
Maybe a Simon White in a Nick Maxwell/Tom Harley role is a compromise until Criipps is ready...
You don't need a tough captain as long as there are other players prepared to fly the flag. Murphy is apparently the best leader at the club and his successor should be the best leader when it's time to replace him, regardless of size, physicality, aggressiveness and/or mongrel. I certainly wouldn't want to see Cripps burdened with the roles of contested ball king, captaincy and enforcer.
I reckon the 'soft' tag will be gone as Bolton moulds the team into what he wants. I'm looking forward to seeing our bigger blokes playing a little unsociable footy.
As others have pointed out, White may not be best 22 if we develop as I think we will, and I don't think White has ever come close to serious leadership group consideration. I certainly can't see him pressing for All-Australian selection as Harley and Maxwell did (not that I think AA selection is a reliable measure).
You don't need a tough captain as long as there are other players prepared to fly the flag.
They don't need to be "tough" but they need to be able to stand up to the physical stuff, Murphy goes down quicker than Monica Lewinski.
The more I think about it the more I'm favouring Docherty to take over once Murphy steps aside.
Just let Cripps and Weitering concentrate on being the "best of the best"
Just let Cripps and Weitering concentrate on being the "best of the best"
Agreed! Hodge didn't get the gig till his 10th season.
Agreed! Hodge didn't get the gig till his 10th season.
Didnt get the official job but was the unofficial leader earlier....so much so they had to take the job off Mitchell....no doubt been the best leader in the modern era and close to Voss who I rated the best leader I have seen......Hodge and Voss is about as tough as it gets and thats the required toughness we need as a leader.
Didnt get the official job but was the unofficial leader earlier....so much so they had to take the job off Mitchell....no doubt been the best leader in the modern era and close to Voss who I rated the best leader I have seen......Hodge and Voss is about as tough as it gets and thats the required toughness we need as a leader.
Interesting to note then that Docherty and Hodge are the same size ;)
Interesting to note then that Docherty and Hodge are the same size ;)
Size has SFA to do with it.
Look at all the inspirational captains over they years.
They have hall been tough, not dirty, but tough as nails.
Head over the footy, unwavering attack on the ball.
That's what we need.
You don't need a tough captain as long as there are other players prepared to fly the flag. Murphy is apparently the best leader at the club and his successor should be the best leader when it's time to replace him, regardless of size, physicality, aggressiveness and/or mongrel. I certainly wouldn't want to see Cripps burdened with the roles of contested ball king, captaincy and enforcer.
I reckon the 'soft' tag will be gone as Bolton moulds the team into what he wants. I'm looking forward to seeing our bigger blokes playing a little unsociable footy.
As others have pointed out, White may not be best 22 if we develop as I think we will, and I don't think White has ever come close to serious leadership group consideration. I certainly can't see him pressing for All-Australian selection as Harley and Maxwell did (not that I think AA selection is a reliable measure).
Is that so? According to what text book does that apply?
Once again, according to who? The people that appointed him?
Seems the players are behind Murphy, I think he did OK last year, played very well under injury before his season ended, was clearly the leader while he was out there.
You can see from the result how much he was missed, doesn't get the respect he deserves from supporters. For our club to get better supporters have to get better at recognising quality.
What I would say is that with the arrival of Cripps, Plowman, Weitering, Marchbank, Phillips, the development of Rowe, Casboult and Docherty and SpecialK getting more game time. We are seeing more players prepare to fly the flag to protect their team-mates, EB1s example of White is a good one in this regard, but I don't think he needs to be captain.
Probably the biggest influence is SpecialK being on the field, our whole midfield stands taller when he's in the front line. But does that mean he's a captain, not really, and I don't think he needs to be to make his mark.
Is that so? According to what text book does that apply?
Once again, according to who? The people that appointed him?
No text books required but plenty of examples; Skilton, Flower, Bartlett, Kelly, Bradley, Greg ...
According to the players and coaches who appointed him ... but what would they know? ::)
Size has SFA to do with it.
Look at all the inspirational captains over they years.
They have hall been tough, not dirty, but tough as nails.
Head over the footy, unwavering attack on the ball.
That's what we need.
My comments about Docherty's size was in relation to Elwood's comments about him being a smaller type ala Murphy, but in his next post was lauding Hodge as a great Captain (which he is). I was merely pointing out that they are exactly the same height, therefore saying Docherty can't be a good Captain because of his height when he is the same as arguably the best Captain in the game is somewhat contradictory.
You're right though, the best Captain's are the tough ones, but I don't see Docherty being in any ways soft. He's got some chutzpah.
Its tough to recognise who the best leader is from the outside of the bubble.
People are in fan mode selecting leadership when in reality its much more complex than that.
My comments about Docherty's size was in relation to Elwood's comments about him being a smaller type ala Murphy, but in his next post was lauding Hodge as a great Captain (which he is). I was merely pointing out that they are exactly the same height, therefore saying Docherty can't be a good Captain because of his height when he is the same as arguably the best Captain in the game is somewhat contradictory.
You're right though, the best Captain's are the tough ones, but I don't see Docherty being in any ways soft. He's got some chutzpah.
Docherty may be the same height but he isnt street tough enough like Hodge or able to give the cover that skillful smaller players need.....Voss was 183cm and even smaller but was like a Pit Bull out on the ground.
Hard not to be inspired when you see how Voss played the game....I like Docherty as a leader but his skillset as a leader is different to the Hodge/Voss skillset and we need some of the latter IMO....
Docherty may be the same height but he isnt street tough enough like Hodge or able to give the cover that skillful smaller players need.....Voss was 183cm and even smaller but was like a Pit Bull out on the ground.
Hard not to be inspired when you see how Voss played the game....I like Docherty as a leader but his skillset as a leader is different to the Hodge/Voss skillset and we need some of the latter IMO....
The thing is though, the player type you seek isn't one we currently have. Cripps might be more physically intimidating, but he's not that antagonising hard nut that you're describing.
Great Captains come in all different packages. One could argue that one of the most universally respected Captains in the comp is Bob Murphy, and he couldn't be more opposite to the Luke Hodge model of Captaincy. Bob has done an exceptional job at uniting a young and emerging team though.
Personally I see Docherty as an upgrade to Marc Murphy, and a good transitional leader while younger/different players emerge (as Mitchell was to the Hawks).
I'd rather not pigeonhole what a good Captain needs to look like, I would rather we invest in finding the person who best fits our Club and our players moving forward.
My comments about Docherty's size was in relation to Elwood's comments about him being a smaller type ala Murphy, but in his next post was lauding Hodge as a great Captain (which he is). I was merely pointing out that they are exactly the same height, therefore saying Docherty can't be a good Captain because of his height when he is the same as arguably the best Captain in the game is somewhat contradictory.
You're right though, the best Captain's are the tough ones, but I don't see Docherty being in any ways soft. He's got some chutzpah.
I'm not saying he's soft but does he have that real hard edge and unwavering head over the ball toughness?
The thing is though, the player type you seek isn't one we currently have. Cripps might be more physically intimidating, but he's not that antagonising hard nut that you're describing.
Great Captains come in all different packages. One could argue that one of the most universally respected Captains in the comp is Bob Murphy, and he couldn't be more opposite to the Luke Hodge model of Captaincy. Bob has done an exceptional job at uniting a young and emerging team though.
Personally I see Docherty as an upgrade to Marc Murphy, and a good transitional leader while younger/different players emerge (as Mitchell was to the Hawks).
I'd rather not pigeonhole what a good Captain needs to look like, I would rather we invest in finding the person who best fits our Club and our players moving forward.
re: Bob Murphy.....I thought him going down was the making of the "Bont"..he stepped up and led the team IMO, he imposed himself on the game and did the inspiring things required.....
Trent Cotchin is a great player, respected by his team but not a great captain IMO.....not strong or inspiring enough when it matters and Richmond need a better leader to be a better team...
Interesting how the Swans went for Josh Kennedy over Hannebery, Parker etc....all hard at it players but Kennedy showed in a losing GF team how good he was when the chips were down and how inspiring he could be...thats why he got the job IMO.
No text books required but plenty of examples; Skilton, Flower, Bartlett, Kelly, Bradley, Greg ...
According to the players and coaches who appointed him ... but what would they know? ::)
Skilton - Did he ever play in a final? Great player but doesn't mean he was a great captain
Flower - Was he a successful captain? Did they play finals under Flower?
Bartlett - Captained Richmond for 1 year only, obviously wasn't the man for the job
Kelly - Do you mean Paul Kelly - Probably as tough as anyone that has ever played the game
Bradley - Great player but a great captain?
Greg -
Had a look at the gallery photos for the team shoot this week. Interesting that either side of Murph (with Bolton in between) is Simmo and Doc, then Gibbs and Crippa next to those guys. Reckon Gibbs has been replaced by Doc as VC?
Had a look at the gallery photos for the team shoot this week. Interesting that either side of Murph (with Bolton in between) is Simmo and Doc, then Gibbs and Crippa next to those guys. Reckon Gibbs has been replaced by Doc as VC?
You could be right NM; the team photo is always a giveaway! Has Daisy Thomas been added to the leadership group in place of Walks?
The other Murphy has the job again at the Kennel.
Had a look at the gallery photos for the team shoot this week. Interesting that either side of Murph (with Bolton in between) is Simmo and Doc, then Gibbs and Crippa next to those guys. Reckon Gibbs has been replaced by Doc as VC?
Wasn't Simpson vice captain last year?
Wasn't Simpson vice captain last year?
That's right MBB. I was thinking that we had two VCs but it was just Simpson.
It looks like just one change; Thomas in for Walks. If that's the case, Thomas mustn't be cooked ...
That's right MBB. I was thinking that we had two VCs but it was just Simpson.
It looks like just one change; Thomas in for Walks. If that's the case, Thomas mustn't be cooked ...
Unless he has a significant physical turnaround leadership is all Daisy has to offer, but he is the right person for the job!
Wasn't Simpson vice captain last year?
I'm pretty sure we had 2 VC's.
I'm pretty sure we had 2 VC's.
No, 100% sure it was just Simmo as VC. I recall vividly the video on CFC media where they announced Murph as Capt and Simmo as VC. Simmo gave a speech about how thrilled he was to lead the club with Murph. Its also in The Journey.
No, 100% sure it was just Simmo as VC. I recall vividly the video on CFC media where they announced Murph as Capt and Simmo as VC. Simmo gave a speech about how thrilled he was to lead the club with Murph. Its also in The Journey.
∆∆∆
That's my recollection as well FWIW ::)
Gibbs and Jamison were vice-captains in 2015. Simmo did replace Gibbs, but in 2016.
Ahh ok cool, I thought I'd seen him referred to as the VC in some of the trade articles last year...was probably the Herald Sun though :-\
Would still be cool though to see Doc as VC with Simmo this year.
I reckon even Army could be a smokie for the leadership group. Won some community awards...
Boom!
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2017-02-08/blues-finalise-2017-leadership-group
Carlton Football Club has finalised its on-field leadership structure for 2017, with captain Marc Murphy to again steer a seven-man leadership group.
Veteran defender Kade Simpson has been named vice-captain for the third year overall, while 30-year-old Dennis Armfield comes into the group for the first time since his debut in 2008 for Carlton.
Patrick Cripps, Sam Docherty, Bryce Gibbs and Ed Curnow round out the Blues’ leadership group, who were elected by their peers on Tuesday.
^
Nailed that one Kruddler :)
Nice to see Dennis rewarded for his persistence and efforts. His role with the AFLW team suggests that he possesses both leadership ability and footy nous.
I like Armfield in the leadership group. Says to the younger blokes, 'look this is how you go about your business both at the Club and away from the Club'. Very important with so many young impressionable kids on the list IMO. Simon White seems someone similar, well from the outside looking in anyway. Having a chunk of those leadership members finishing top 5 in the B&F is important. Now for the younger chaps to come along and not only challenge the senior guys, but take the reins from them.
Very happy with that. On ya Army.
Me too and I think he wont play much footy in 2017 too which highlights the importance of off field leadership, and how form and ability have little to do with whether or not a player is leadership material.
He has a part time coaching role with the Women's team, so you could be right about game time. Shame though - I liked seeing him running around.
Me too and I think he wont play much footy in 2017 too which highlights the importance of off field leadership, and how form and ability have little to do with whether or not a player is leadership material.
It'll also be good for the younger guys to have that added leadership in the Northern Blues. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Armfield plays a bit in 2017. Bolton was really starting to get the best out of him last season and I definitely think there's a role in the side for him. I'd certainly rather Army in there than Dale Thomas.
He has a part time coaching role with the Women's team, so you could be right about game time. Shame though - I liked seeing him running around.
Women's season will be over when the men's is kicking off, so he should be fully focused on the task at hand.
Women's season will be over when the men's is kicking off, so he should be fully focused on the task at hand.
Right you are Miss Maven. My mental lethargy is in full effect today.
Fine with Murph being selected again but would have preferred a new younger VC selected.
Simmo is a loved and respected player no doubt but he will not be around for much longer - Would have loved to see dual VCs in Doc and Cripps.
But I'm trusting the club with their internal knowledge is making the correct call at this stage of those players careers.
Fine with Murph being selected again but would have preferred a new younger VC selected.
Simmo is a loved and respected player no doubt but he will not be around for much longer - Would have loved to see dual VCs in Doc and Cripps.
But I'm trusting the club with their internal knowledge is making the correct call at this stage of those players careers.
Shawny my take on the next Captain or rather next crop of leaders is as follows. The leadership group under Bolts last year would have driven higher standards compared to previous years, they said as much in all the interviews. The next step in that evolution IMO is driving the younger players to strive and aspire to be leaders. Murph and Co. need to send messages, cryptically or otherwise, like "you want it? come and take it off me", "time to step up to the plate", etc. They need to foster a desire to replace them.
Shawny my take on the next Captain or rather next crop of leaders is as follows. The leadership group under Bolts last year would have driven higher standards compared to previous years, they said as much in all the interviews. The next step in that evolution IMO is driving the younger players to strive and aspire to be leaders. Murph and Co. need to send messages, cryptically or otherwise, like "you want it? come and take it off me", "time to step up to the plate", etc. They need to foster a desire to replace them.
I think the key to this is the "leadership density" that Bolton talks about. We had a leadership program through Leading Teams in Ratten's time then nothing under Malthouse. Bolton poached Anthony Klarica to run an in-house leadership program and that suggests a much greater focus on leadership development than we've ever had. Blokes who may never have aspired to anything more than getting a game will be discovering that they can lead.
Rather than the current leadership group sending messages, potential and up and coming leaders will be encouraged to send their own demands for leadership roles.
Apart from developing our future leaders, our leadership program and greater "leadership density" will ensure that the playing and coaching groups will have a much better understanding of what makes a good leader and will be picking the most able blokes to lead the club.
I think the key to this is the "leadership density" that Bolton talks about. We had a leadership program through Leading Teams in Ratten's time then nothing under Malthouse. Bolton poached Anthony Klarica to run an in-house leadership program and that suggests a much greater focus on leadership development than we've ever had. Blokes who may never have aspired to anything more than getting a game will be discovering that they can lead.
Rather than the current leadership group sending messages, potential and up and coming leaders will be encouraged to send their own demands for leadership roles.
Apart from developing our future leaders, our leadership program and greater "leadership density" will ensure that the playing and coaching groups will have a much better understanding of what makes a good leader and will be picking the most able blokes to lead the club.
A bit of balance to the above statement.
Leading teams was the bees knees once upon a time. About the same time Malthouse took over leading teams was getting a bad rep as it was seen as some kind of sanctioned bullying and all the millenials had to be treated with kid gloves. So they got the flick.
At the same time though, Malthouse weeded out a lot of players who took up more than their fair share of coaching time. That is, players who were all about themselves and didn't want to put in the hard yards. This is when blokes like Ellard were kept, but blokes like the outspoken McLean, were not. Obviously the trades were well publicised, but not a single one of them was without some drama either on or off the field - See Yarran as a prime example. Yes, he even brought in a broken Daisy to help in this area. Someone with a past, but someone who is now 100% focused on team football.
Bolton takes over and starts with a relatively cleansed list which Malthouse holds the bloody knife.
He no longer has to babysit players and can focus on rebuilding with players who want to be there. Army and even White are the prime examples. Had Malthouse chosen the Pagan 'talent 1st' approach, i suspect Army/White would've got the flick and Yarran would still be our problem.
Bolton has done well with what he took over. He hasn't to make any hard calls on any players yet. It's all been pretty smooth sailing in that regard.
That's a most extraordinary interpretation of events.
Malthouse believed he had the expertise in house and he did to a certain degree in some of his assistants.
My son is a leadership development professional and his offsider is a former AFL coach who got his job partly on the basis of his work with Leading Teams - a very highly regarded organisation. I can't divulge his name but I have had some interesting insights into what went on at our club. To say that Malthouse weeded out undesirables is gilding the lily.
Anyway, the discussion is not about Malthouse, it's about how seriously Bolton takes leadership development and I think he is streets ahead of all of our past coaches.
Leading Teams is something I cant get a handle on in terms of results...Geelong attribute their early success in their recent premierships in part to Leading teams yet a club like Melbourne went through the same program and had no success especially in developing leaders etc.
I remember Jason Akermanis writing articles and saying it was a negative experience and only got players offside when they received frank assessments from team-mates....Gary Ablett jr wasnt a fan either and I thought straight away about his father and how he would have coped...
Not sure how Leading teams has evolved in delivering their programs and if they do cater for Individuals like Aker, Ablett etc but it wouldnt be an easy tasks with all the different personalities that go to make up a football club.
I'm of the opinion Leaders are born Leaders rather than created through intense development programs etc...sure you can make them better by training but there is something intrinsic that Leaders have in their makeup that Non Leaders dont IMO...
I dont see Marc Murphy as that natural born leader...
Leading Teams is something I cant get a handle on in terms of results...Geelong attribute their early success in their recent premierships in part to Leading teams yet a club like Melbourne went through the same program and had no success especially in developing leaders etc.
I remember Jason Akermanis writing articles and saying it was a negative experience and only got players offside when they received frank assessments from team-mates....Gary Ablett jr wasnt a fan either and I thought straight away about his father and how he would have coped...
Not sure how Leading teams has evolved in delivering their programs and if they do cater for Individuals like Aker, Ablett etc but it wouldnt be an easy tasks with all the different personalities that go to make up a football club.
I'm of the opinion Leaders are born Leaders rather than created through intense development programs etc...sure you can make them better by training but there is something intrinsic that Leaders have in their makeup that Non Leaders dont IMO...
I dont see Marc Murphy as that natural born leader...
I suspect that's old thinking EB.
Many years ago the green machine tried to make me a leader and came up short. I remember my guidance officer saying that I readily assumed a leadership role when playing footy or basketball but it wasn't evident when leading men in combat (thankfully only ever with blanks). Fast forward ten years and the fundamentals of leadership started to take shape. With training and experience I became a more than competent leader of a diverse and quite challenging team of 50 people; not bad for a shy introvert lacking in self confidence.
I think that many folk have the potential to be leaders but need some work before they can realise that potential.
From what I'm hearing, Murphy is a born leader who has thrived under the leadership development program. John Murphy wasn't a bad skipper and, whether it's nature or nurture, that seems to have given Marc a head start.
That's a most extraordinary interpretation of events.
That's quite an understatement :)
Kruddler is spot on. Mick actually started the "reset".
Clearly the current fashion for fake news and fake reality is sweeping through CSC.
Kruddler is spot on. Mick actually started the "reset".
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I've always been of the opinion that our players have been our major issue. Time and time again their lack of effort and dedication has seen our coaches sacked.
People have been calling Gibbs soft and lazy since he started. Looks disinterested and goes missing too often. He has been one of our leaders at the club, even since the Pagan days. What kind of role model has he been?
Murphy voted in as captain is another questionable choice. Supposedly the club made the call on that one, not the coach - who if rumours are correct, wanted Carrazzo as captain (or was it Simpson?). In any result, Murphy would've been my 3rd choice. I think this stunt by the club was good for marketing, not for the team.
-Waite as our key forward who gets suspended for stupid things each and every year, tried chasing money/years despite having a failing body. Bye.
-Laidler was a solid player who didn't want to add another string to his bow to help him get more game time, cracked the sads mid-season, publicly. See ya later.
-Henderson was a bloke who had a lot of potential, but lost his internal drive and commitment and put in some of the worst performances in final year. Checked out mentally too often. See ya later.
-Yarran had about as much talent as anyone, but playing football seemed to become his second priority. Clearly evident since his departure from AFL altogether.
-Betts by his own admission was doing the wrong things. He needed a change of scenery to get himself out of the rut he was in.
-Robbo couldn't adjust to the public life of a professional footballer and found himself in trouble repeatedly. So much so that he was almost lost to the AFL altogether. Lions gave him a late second chance.
-Garlett seemed to lose his internal drive that saw him come from sleeping in his car to an AFL rookie playing in his first year. Off-field issues hurt his football which included lying to his club and teammates.
There was also a clear shift in the type of players we were drafting.
I think one year we drafted 4 or so players who were captains of their respective teams. Nick Graham year from memory. There are other examples of players who were kept over others who were delisted which fits the above narrative.
When Malthouse got to the club, i wanted him to go through the place with a broom and weed out the players who didn't want to be there. In his time in charge he got rid of half the list and started shaping it into a list that had the right character on it. Unfortunately that meant we lost a large amount of talent along with it....and the trigger happy Carlton folk couldn't wait to pull the trigger. The external pressure was too great. He'd lost the media, and that led to a loss of support from everyone at Carlton from supporters to the board. At the end of the day he didn't do himself any favours in that regard and he had to go. No issue here.
But still....the groundwork had been done.
White and Armfield types were regulars who, unlike Laidler, were willing to play wherever was best for the team and were doing their role well. This continues to this day and Bolton has ran with it.
No issues with what Bolton has done in terms of leadership, but he was clearly giving a head start with what Malthouse had done.
Clearly the current fashion for fake news and fake reality is sweeping through CSC.
I think its pretty hard to argue otherwise.
It wasnt done well, and we have had to clear a few that we recruited under Malthouse, but to quote Carrots "mick gutted the list".
That effectively began our rebuild, like it or hate it.
We have definitely sorted out who wants to be here vs who doesn't as part of that process.
Hard core Pravda journalists would be envious of some of the propaganda on here.
Malthouse's time at Carlton = nothing priced like something.
I find the idea that Malthouse was/is considered a zealot of club culture ludicrous...he had different rules for different players at Collingwood and had clear barriers develop between his younger and older players.
...yet none of this is relevant to his time at Carlton.
Do you disagree that he had a large part in shaping the list?
Hard core Pravda journalists would be envious of some of the propaganda on here.
Malthouse's time at Carlton = nothing priced like something.
Someone can not be wrong 100% of the time, just as someone can not be right 100% of the time.
Your anti-mick stance is such that you believe everything he ever did was wrong and to suggest otherwise is wrong.
Mick won us a final...and did other good things as well. The sooner you accept it the better off we'll be.
The unraveling of the old bad culture at CFC is certainly a non-trivial exercise which will continue to test our current coaching and recruitment staff for a year or two yet. However, I'm pretty happy with what we've seen so far and confident that they will eventually be successful, but ask me again at the end of 2017!
As far as previous regimes are concerned, and without subscribing to a particular ideological position, the appointment of MM was, as it turned out, based on a completely erroneous assessment as to where we were at as a club at the time. In short, the wrong coach for the wrong time. As far as list changes were concerned, I think that despite the loss of certain well regarded players (by some) we needed rejuvenation, come what may. When an organisation becomes stale, changes in personnel become vital - if you want people to change you have to change the people. Not true maybe in every case, some are more amenable than others and you have to be good at making the right changes!
...yet none of this is relevant to his time at Carlton.
Do you disagree that he had a large part in shaping the list?
Going over old ground here but I'll play..Dont agree..I think its relevant to his time at Carlton, he was happy to go with his old ways and the Navy Blue rat pack initially when he was promising premierships and Nirvana to the faithful when he arrived at the club....agree?
Mick the Re-Builder/Shaper appeared after he had to admit he mis-judged the capabilities of the list and he was looking for a get out of jail card to save his job and try and get an extension, he did start shaping the clubs list by getting rid of players.. some who deserved it and some who didnt...Bolton and SOS have had to fix the list he miss-shaped....IMO.
Someone can not be wrong 100% of the time, just as someone can not be right 100% of the time.
Your anti-mick stance is such that you believe everything he ever did was wrong and to suggest otherwise is wrong.
Mick won us a final...and did other good things as well. The sooner you accept it the better off we'll be.
On a personal level, I've never liked Mick, but that's neither here nor there. I wanted him to succeed at CFC more than you will ever realize.
His coaching record includes 3 flags. Whether this is considered an under or over or fair achievement, I will leave for others to debate. His record at the Dogs, Weagles and Pies was fair enough. I don't begrudge him that.
His record at our club stank to high heaven.
Every new coach that arrives at a club will seek to remake the list in their own image. Whether they do this straight away, or wait a season will vary. Lists are gutted all the time. I fail to see why he or any other coach should get credit for a process that is almost routine.
The players that many on here consider lacking commitment, lacking talent, head cases etc. has us regularly in finals. Malthouse supposedly replaced these players with players that had the right attitude - like Dre Everitt, Kristian Jaksch, Clem Smith, Jayden Foster, Dillon Viojo-Rainbow and Blaine Boekhorst. All recruited under Mick's watch. All except Boeky have done zilch.
I have no personal issue with Daisy, but his time at the club has been an epic fail. He was brought to the club against the advice of the club doctor, as our friend Jofo will attest.
Mick was given carte blanche when he arrived to do as he pleased. Whatever good things he did during his time here are not apparent to me.
And I don't need to point out other issues, like :
ego driven public spats with players
sooky media performances
awful on field performances
forward line disappearing act under his watch etc.
And can I also add that Mick won us a final under false pretenses.
I hope you are at least honourable enough to make Hird a permanent fixture on your Christmas card list, since your main MM claim to fame begins and ends with him.
Laughable to suggest that Malthouse went along with Murphy being made Captain for marketing reasons.
Murphy has remained captain under Bolton, so he must be in on the conspiracy as well.
Laughable to suggest that Malthouse went along with Murphy being made Captain for marketing reasons.
Murphy has remained captain under Bolton, so he must be in on the conspiracy as well.
Either that or the marketing department rules the roost at CFC, and all persons and all things are subjugated to them.
Laughable to suggest that Malthouse went along with Murphy being made Captain for marketing reasons.
Murphy has remained captain under Bolton, so he must be in on the conspiracy as well.
Laughable that a bloke that had never played for the club could be made captain. Especially when he was a reluctant captain previously. Enter Judd
Laughable to suggest that the club wanted to sack mick, but told him they still wanted him to coach out the season like nothing happened.
Oh wait.
The club wanted Murphy. He is the future of the club, he sells all the jumpers. Poster boy etc. He was obviously close to being chosen as the captain, but Mick didn't have the final say in that. The club overruled him. Its not the first time its happened and it won't be the last.
As for Murphy still being captain....there are a large amount of people that wish that wouldn't be the case....but whats done is done and we are sticking with it.
And I don't need to point out other issues, like :
ego driven public spats with players
sooky media performances
awful on field performances
forward line disappearing act under his watch etc.
As i said first, nobody is right/wrong 100% of the time. I've never suggested otherwise. He had his shortcomings no doubt.
Point is still valid. He has had a large hand in shaping our list.
FWIW, all but Everitt were chosen by the list manager/recruiters. Everitt won our goal kicking one year so its not all bad. We got more out of him than anyone else did and it cost us nothing. When he was up and running he was great.
Going over old ground here but I'll play..Dont agree..I think its relevant to his time at Carlton, he was happy to go with his old ways and the Navy Blue rat pack initially when he was promising premierships and Nirvana to the faithful when he arrived at the club....agree?
Mick the Re-Builder/Shaper appeared after he had to admit he mis-judged the capabilities of the list and he was looking for a get out of jail card to save his job and try and get an extension, he did start shaping the clubs list by getting rid of players.. some who deserved it and some who didnt...Bolton and SOS have had to fix the list he miss-shaped....IMO.
Mick didn't promise flags. The media portrayed it that way due to his tongue in cheek comments about which games we would lose for the year.
The whole club pumped him up as the messiah, prematurely. It was clear that after a honeymoon period, the players fell into their old roles which saw the previous coaches sacked. Hence my gripe with the players/culture.
Who didnt deserve to go?
Everyone who went IMO went to improve the culture of the club and lift the standards around the club.
Mick didn't promise flags. The media portrayed it that way due to his tongue in cheek comments about which games we would lose for the year.
The whole club pumped him up as the messiah, prematurely. It was clear that after a honeymoon period, the players fell into their old roles which saw the previous coaches sacked. Hence my gripe with the players/culture.
Who didnt deserve to go?
Everyone who went IMO went to improve the culture of the club and lift the standards around the club.
Neither did Ratten, he made a comment about Carlton's expectations, but that didn't save him either! ;)
Live by the sword, die by the sword! :D
I feel sorry for the coaches, the media pump them to be controversial, to make a statement, to make a prediction, then the media hang them with it! But that is because the current crop of media are nothing more than unprofessional gossip hounds or rumor mongers.
Mick didn't promise flags. The media portrayed it that way due to his tongue in cheek comments about which games we would lose for the year.
The whole club pumped him up as the messiah, prematurely. It was clear that after a honeymoon period, the players fell into their old roles which saw the previous coaches sacked. Hence my gripe with the players/culture.
Who didnt deserve to go?
Everyone who went IMO went to improve the culture of the club and lift the standards around the club.
Yarran and Henderson deserved to go IMO...but its obvious to most that Betts and Robbo leaving came back to bite us big time.....Waite and Garlett 50/50...Laidler too was a mistake IMO..can get a game in a finals team like the Swans but we have him playing VFL footy in the wrong position...think Mick actually suggested the Swans were the strongest list in 2014 and then he gave them Laidler.. go figure.
If your getting paid a mill a year then no matter where you stick your tongue or your foot you still have to deliver, you make comments like Mick made then you will be held accountable....
As i said first, nobody is right/wrong 100% of the time. I've never suggested otherwise. He had his shortcomings no doubt.
Point is still valid. He has had a large hand in shaping our list.
FWIW, all but Everitt were chosen by the list manager/recruiters. Everitt won our goal kicking one year so its not all bad. We got more out of him than anyone else did and it cost us nothing. When he was up and running he was great.
If you make a claim that MM got rid of the half-arsed players who didn't give 100% etc., why then recruit a player who exhibits exactly the same shortcomings that you're trying to eliminate ?
I can't believe that folk are still defending Malthouse ::)
Perhaps we should invite PI2C back ;)
Malthouse's appointment was one of the low points of our recent past and put our development back considerably. The only positive about his tenure is that it forced the club to take action and sack him, then adopt a rigorous selection process for appointing his successor. That process seems to be bearing fruit.
Bolton hasn't done anything yet.
MM was very good for the shaping of the list. Had the boys playing so poorly we ended up with Weiters, Charlie & Harry. Good job.
I'm hoping that is our golden draft that sets us up for some years of some success. Just being a threat during the finals would make me feel happy again. Flags are great, and we all want them, but wouldn't it be nice to just have a shot at one again?
FWIW - I'm backing Marc as captain for now. Doc/Weiters/Crippa future captain. I'd like to think the injection of pace, youth and talent (it's still potential talent - and we can only hope it is real talent) delivers us a nice surprise this year. Maybe a sneaky chance for a finals birth, which is obviously a little optimistic, but hey, there's always a team that comes out of nowhere and exceeds expectations, so hoping it's us this year.
MM was very good for the shaping of the list. Had the boys playing so poorly we ended up with Weiters, Charlie & Harry. Good job.
and Bolton got us SPS.
Think you are selling Barker a bit short their too. He had the boys for longer than Malthouse did in our final year. He couldn't make them play either.
By then the damage was well and truly done. Not even Clarkson could turn around 2.5 years of blah in 14/15 weeks.
Think you are selling Barker a bit short their too. He had the boys for longer than Malthouse did in our final year. He couldn't make them play either.
Years of Hughes and Rogers mangling your list will do that...as Paul said Clarkson couldnt get results with that rabble....
Clarkson couldn't get results but we expected Mick to?
We already had a coach that was getting results with that "rabble".
Clarkson couldn't get results but we expected Mick to?
Maybe Clarkson wouldnt have descended from the summit in a stream of glowing light like Mick promising miracles either.....
We already had a coach that was getting results with that "rabble".
2012 happened.
so did 2013-15, which make 2012 look like a paragon of achievement.
so did 2013-15, which make 2012 look like a paragon of achievement.
So did 2016. Stop ignoring years that don't suit your pathetic agenda.
Years of Hughes and Rogers mangling your list will do that...as Paul said Clarkson couldnt get results with that rabble....
So did 2016. Stop ignoring years that don't suit your pathetic agenda.
Pathetic agenda ? That's rich coming from you. Maybe you'd like to start an online poll, ask the members here who'd they'd rather have as coach now, with the benefit of hindsight, which some of us didn't need ? Or maybe you'd like to poll some AFL clubs, ask them who they'd prefer as coach now ?
As I've said repeatedly, I'm not sold on Bolts/SOS.
Bolton hasn't done anything yet.
Yet subjectively it seems better than MM doing a bunch of wrong in a similar period! ;)
Years of Hughes and Rogers mangling your list will do that...as Paul said Clarkson couldnt get results with that rabble....
They can share some of the blame.
I think at least an equal share goes to whoever has been in charge of developing players over the same period.
We couldn't simply be 'that good' at picking bad players. We had to 'create' some bad players as well.
Club culture is a hard thing to get right, and our efforts since the Pagan days has done little to create a good one. Some got closer than others, but largely its been a balls up.
They can share some of the blame.
I think at least an equal share goes to whoever has been in charge of developing players over the same period.
We couldn't simply be 'that good' at picking bad players. We had to 'create' some bad players as well.
Club culture is a hard thing to get right, and our efforts since the Pagan days has done little to create a good one. Some got closer than others, but largely its been a balls up.
Dont disagree that lack of or poor development mangled a few players as well.....agree on the Culture aspect, nuking the list and building character/direction across the club seems the Bolton way
so we will see how that turns out....winning games also masks a lot of culture issues. I always wondered about Chris Judd and what he made of club culture, the West Coast had a winning culture on the field and a losing one off the field with players in turmoil...
We picked some utter spuds but also our fair share of elite talent. Our development system has been, without doubt, the worst in the league for at least the last 15 years.
We picked some utter spuds but also our fair share of elite talent. Our development system has been, without doubt, the worst in the league for at least the last 15 years.
How then do we turn blokes like Setanta, Tuohy, Byrne and Sheehan into reasonable players? Someone must know what they're doing ???
I think that part of the problem is that we have taken far too long to work out that times have changed and you can no longer buy success.
How then do we turn blokes like Setanta, Tuohy, Byrne and Sheehan into reasonable players? Someone must know what they're doing ???
I think that part of the problem is that we have taken far too long to work out that times have changed and you can no longer buy success.
All 4 of them were elite players in their own right before coming to the club. That explains a lot.
If you have players with the right internal makeup, they will succeed no matter what. Look at Kade Simpson.
However, the majority of people/players can only take so much and most get worn down by bad culture.
All 4 of them were elite players in their own right before coming to the club. That explains a lot.
If you have players with the right internal makeup, they will succeed no matter what. Look at Kade Simpson.
However, the majority of people/players can only take so much and most get worn down by bad culture.
I think there's just a touch of hyperbole there. Byrne was the closest to an elite level Gaelic footballer and O'hAilpin won the equivalent of a rising star award for hurling, Tuohy played Gaelic football as a junior and Sheehan had a few years at senior level. They were all part-time, amateur sportsmen. Regardless of that, someone at the club taught them how to kick, mark, handpass, bump, tackle, bounce, position themselves, read the ball and the play, etc, etc. Of course, they were all rookied because someone recognised their potential to transition from their games to a very different, full-time professional contact sport played with a different ball, and no hurley in the case of Setanta.
I think there's just a touch of hyperbole there. Byrne was the closest to an elite level Gaelic footballer and O'hAilpin won the equivalent of a rising star award for hurling, Tuohy played Gaelic football as a junior and Sheehan had a few years at senior level. They were all part-time, amateur sportsmen. Regardless of that, someone at the club taught them how to kick, mark, handpass, bump, tackle, bounce, position themselves, read the ball and the play, etc, etc. Of course, they were all rookied because someone recognised their potential to transition from their games to a very different, full-time professional contact sport played with a different ball, and no hurley in the case of Setanta.
It's the same reason the AFLW league has recruited basketballers, netballers, soccer players, cricketers, track and field players and a few other sports players.
It is NOT because there is a limited number of women footballers, rather because they are already playing sports at a high level and can be taught those things quickly.
Being a professional footballer is as much about being a professional as it is being a footballer.
It's the same reason the AFLW league has recruited basketballers, netballers, soccer players, cricketers, track and field players and a few other sports players.
It is NOT because there is a limited number of women footballers, rather because they are already playing sports at a high level and can be taught those things quickly.
Being a professional footballer is as much about being a professional as it is being a footballer.
The difference is that most of the AFLW players grew up playing footy. Despite that, there's still a gulf between the skill levels of the girls who have been playing VFLW or equivalents and those in their first season of women's footy.
Whoever taught our Irish players how to play did a much better job than Gold Coast and GWS did with Hunt and Folau ...
Kruddler has a point there.
Some of our ratbag talent has been so good they made it in spite of our efforts not because of it.
You know they were not pulling for each other every week.
Our losses were coming because we had an off day and we're not ready to play not because they tried and we're beaten by better sides.
IMHO the real positive about Boltons regime is that despite being off the pace the boys keep plugging away and look like they are in it together and are being beaten. Not just not turning up.