Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Football Department Review (Read 181943 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Review

Reply #480 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
With the various investments the club has made, they weren't looking for a move from "mostly honourable losses with a few hidings" to "all honourable losses". As far as the club is concerned, that's not good enough, hence the review.
 It's based on a false premise, a premise many of us never bought into, but those who did pay those those who sold it a handsome dividend!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Review

Reply #481 –
We're competing against more teams these days but if we fail to make the finals this year it will be the longest period (8 years) that we've gone without a finals appearance in our history.

I think the last thing we're being is impatient.

Re: Review

Reply #482 –
Quote from: Lods – on
I think the last thing we're being is impatient.
What does that have to do with Teague, he's only been officially in charge since August 2019, not even 24 months yet?

The impatience I refer to is clearly in reference to Teague's regime, and fans heaping the failings of history onto the new guy.

I think Barker made a timely exit, he'd been there since the downfall.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Review

Reply #483 –
Quote from: LP – on
What does that have to do with Teague, he's only been in charge since August 2019?

I think Barker made a timely exit, he'd been there since the downfall.

As the President said
It's not all about Teague.
Although folks seem to be concentrating on that aspect at the moment.
(Perhaps worrying about the tree rather than the forest.)
It's about the football department as a whole.

As I recall the club were at pains to say that the replacement of Bolton was just a step in the continuation of the rebuild.

Re: Review

Reply #484 –
Quote from: LP – on
It's based on a false premise, a premise many of us never bought into, but those who did pay those those who sold it a handsome dividend!

I'm not sure who is included or excluded in the "many", but there seems a lot of people "out there" (fans, media, ex players like Walls, Maclure) who thought we would and should be doing better than we are.

Re: Review

Reply #485 –
Quote from: Lods – on
As the President said
It's not all about Teague.
Although folks seem to be concentrating on that aspect at the moment.
(Perhaps worrying about the tree rather than the forest.)
It's about the football department as a whole.

As I recall the club were at pains to say that the replacement of Bolton was just a step in the continuation of the rebuild.
Teague isn't even in the field of view, he is so irrelevant to the history influencing this debate he should be excluded from the review.

The club's silence on this matter is a disgrace, it reeks of internal politics, it reeks of Teague not having the full support of the board.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Review

Reply #486 –
Quote from: LP – on
Teague isn't even in the field of view, he is so irrelevant to the history influencing this debate he should be excluded from the review.

The club's silence on this matter is a disgrace, it reeks of internal politics, it reeks of Teague not having the full support of the board.

I agree. He should not be crucified for the sins of the past, but the club is angling for change, and he may be, in true Carlton style, the next scapegoat.

Re: Review

Reply #487 –
Quote from: LP – on
The club's silence on this matter is a disgrace, it reeks of internal politics, it reeks of Teague not having the full support of the board.

Internal Politics?
At Carlton? :o  :o

It's the very reason the review is half-baked. ::)

Re: Review

Reply #488 –
I don't want to see Teague sacked, because I don't think it will solve our problems, but even the most one eyed Carlton supporter would have to concede that the entire club, from Board to recruiting, to coach, to players, has been amateurish this season.

Re: Review

Reply #489 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Why is it an either discussion is a more important reason for why Bolton is drawing criticism and why Teague is also similarly in trouble.

In Bolton's first year as coach, minus a few young draftees by the name of Weitering, Charlie and JSOS, Bolton had a list that actually was ready to compete at AFL level.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2016/031420160324.html

Teague's biggest criticism seems to be about not playing enough of the youngsters, but at the same time we criticised (and then sacked Bolton) for much the same by the end.

The truth is, the clubs Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde swings and roundabouts are the biggest issue we face.

They were both given different expectations which led to different priorities for them to be assessed by. After 2 years, BB had fulfilled his expectations. In years 3 and 4 we changed the expectation for BB.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Review

Reply #490 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
They were both given different expectations which led to different priorities for them to be assessed by. After 2 years, BB had fulfilled his expectations. In years 3 and 4 we changed the expectation for BB.

Did you look at that round 1 team?
The one that had the likes of tuohy, Everett, Jamison playing?

What development was going on in that match?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Review

Reply #491 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
They were both given different expectations which led to different priorities for them to be assessed by. After 2 years, BB had fulfilled his expectations. In years 3 and 4 we changed the expectation for BB.
@Baggers‍

BB and SOS turned over lots of numbers, but in hindsight delivered almost 0% player development and perhaps even derailed a few careers, although I concede this might not be Bolton's fault he had a long time to do something about it and failed dismally.

Which is ironic given BB's in that role again at the Dawks, but at the Dawks they develop players in the VFL, not the AFL which is a key difference!

The comments from many experts about us playing kids too soon and for too long when they did not deserve the run sits heavily in this debate, and is ironically ignored by many as they call for kids to be played yet again!

I also fear that some of the current environment activity has links going back to the SOS departure, I'm not confident that hasn't yet played itself out! We are talking about an AFL dynasty with decades of foundations.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: Review

Reply #492 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Did you look at that round 1 team?
The one that had the likes of tuohy, Everett, Jamison playing?

What development was going on in that match?

3 Leos old son, let's just agree to disagree... neither of us is going to succeed in persuading the other to our own viewpoint.  :)  :)
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Review

Reply #493 –
This is from Daniel O'Keefe's VFL player review:

Quote
It was a nice game from Murph in regards to the way he attacked the game from a mindset point of view, he was really clear with his directive and had clarity on a role and what we wanted to get out of it.

That's "coachspeak" and may require translation but does it mean that Murphy hasn't had clarity about his role?
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Review

Reply #494 –
Quote from: DJC – on
This is from Daniel O'Keefe's VFL player review:

That's "coachspeak" and may require translation but does it mean that Murphy hasn't had clarity about his role?
Not necessarily.

Its more...."Go back to the 2's and focus on this. You will be judged on how well you do this. "