Carlton Supporters Club

Teague was coaching when they flooged us by 68pts

Jack and Willo in
Lang and Newmy out

Last year when we played Freo and won, Fyfe was going nuts and SOS moved onto him, ran with him and quelled his influence. So he can do a run with role if needed.

The put down was directed at clubs who think that setting winning as a goal is some sort of powerful, never before thought of idea that will inspire the players to greater heights and put the club ahead of the pack, as if somehow the players hadn't already figured this out or may have forgotten. It's as idiotic as telling them to put on their jumpers. Has there ever been a team / coach anywhere in the AFL/VFL that has said it's no biggie if the team loses ?

If you play poker, you can have all the skills and pep talks in the world - you can't win with a losing hand, which is my point about reality.

Green shoots and getting comfortable being uncomfortable is all we heard about for 4 years.

Would have been nice to have hear a bit more about trying to set standards.

[2] Ruck:
We have a big weakness here. Pittonet did a great job, but he was killed early. He is going to play games for us for some time. However, he isn't the guy to dominate. We need a top ruckman and we don't have one.

Coming from you of all people, that's a strange post. It's a caricature of something with much greater ambition and much greater depth.

The put down was directed at clubs who think that setting winning as a goal is some sort of powerful, never before thought of idea that will inspire the players to greater heights and put the club ahead of the pack, as if somehow the players hadn't already figured this out or may have forgotten. It's as idiotic as telling them to put on their jumpers. Has there ever been a team / coach anywhere in the AFL/VFL that has said it's no biggie if the team loses ?

If you play poker, you can have all the skills and pep talks in the world - you can't win with a losing hand, which is my point about reality.

I think the getting comfortable with being uncomfortable was embraced a little to vehemently and that perhaps we were a little bit too concerned with trying to change the whole club, and forgot that football is a business built on winning footy games as well as having a sound business model.

Or we could go back to what we were doing before, retire Simpson and Betts then trade out Curnow,Kreuzer, Murphy and Cripps, secure some new draft picks and wait another 5 years to set our sights on winning games again?

No-one is saying that by stating that only winning is acceptable, that wins will magically materialise. You couldn't really have thought we meant that. I'll try another approach. By stating that only winning is acceptable you are setting a new standard for us on how to achieve 'winning' where it had NOT been a clearly stated primary objective for us, for some years. When 'winning' takes centre stage, then the focus, the efforts and strategies turn to just that rather than simply 'growth & learning' (and other cliches) from games. That's what stating our goal of winning does, creates clarity and raises expectation... and you soon learn who can help you achieve that and who cannot.

When you say that no coach would say that losing is no biggie, well, let me remind you that winning was not a priority under BB. Losing was acceptable as we were rebuilding. We wanted to win, but accepted that with such huge changes of personnel that that would be increasingly difficult, hence searching for positives in the constant losing... hence green shoots, growth, learning etc. BUT losing became ingrained and habitual to the point where we are now fighting our way through those years of low W/L expectations. Now our expectations are high and clearly stated, as they should be.

As for your poker metaphor, I really think that assuming we are holding a losing hand is premature and unnecessarily defeatist. And remember, it's not only what you're dealt but perhaps even more so how you play (your hand).

We tried winning games in the here and the now under Pagan - get any recycled, desperado, washed up has been, as long they have experience and just cobble together a team to get a season like 2004, which falls apart very soon thereafter.

The big rebuild idea (in place before Bolton got there, for those who have no interest in historical fact), was based on the rather appealing notion of building a culture of sustained success. Whether or not it was successful, whether or not it was a good idea, is besides the point. It was a long term strategy, and much like the guy at uni who puts up with crap cars and takeaway food whilst they study, in order to get a better job and better life later, in our case you have to take a few hits along the way. This is very different to embracing failure or being disinterested in winning.

The reason we have been down for so long is because the ENTIRE CLUB, from TOP TO BOTTOM, is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. It has nothing to do with accepting failure, embracing mediocrity, forgetfulness or any other dubious idea that fans latch onto. The  entire club knows and has always known exactly why the players take the field - nobody has forgotten anything. The club in toto is simply not good enough to win.

Setting standards isnt solely about winning.

2004 is not a sound analogy.

Pagan didnt have a raft of draft picks, he had a raft of draft penalties.

Our recruitment was average back then too.

One of the biggest failures of our club is the inability to stay the course.

That is a different argument to what the course looked like, and setting standards.

The real death knell came for Brendan when we got spanked by GWS, and the boys had to talk about standards.  4 years into a rebuild.... 

THAT is the problem with the rebuild.  There were a few ignored warning signs, that didnt make much sense, but were accepted as part of developing green shoots, but Im tired of prognosticating.

Its really all we have had to talk about as Carlton supporters which is part of the reason we are so focussed on it.