Re: Leadership Group 2018
Reply #154 –
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!