.. can be found here:
http://redandwhiteonline.com/content...bert030416.php
Feedback for Robbie goes here, as usual...
.. can be found here:
http://redandwhiteonline.com/content...bert030416.php
Feedback for Robbie goes here, as usual...
177th Senior AFL Match - Round 4, 2009 - Sydney vs Carlton, SCG. This is obviously out of date. I suppose I'll update it once I could be bothered sitting down with the fixture and working it out....
Des' Weblog
Hmm.
Similar to a whole lot of comments on the m/board about the rebuilding period being about playing youngsters. Of course it is, but as I said somewhere else, we need to figure out what's broken before we fix it. Until that has been done, then Nicks, Seymour (who hasn't even played this year Rob! How has he done anything wrong?) et al are merely scapegoats for a poor half of football, that some of them weren't even playing in.
Is it fair on those players who are the subjects of the lynch mob, to be declared surplus to our needs now? At round 3? Not at all. Most of them have shelf lives of 5-6 years before they'd be looking at retirement. Maybe a year or two earlier for Seymour and Nicks, who probably have 4 years tops.
At round 3, we've still got plenty of Rebuilding Period Year One (let's make it sound all corporate and propaganda like...) to go. Geelong were lauded last year for taking a punt on their first year players and playing them, but what has been missed here is that very few of their youngsters played full seasons. Bartel played 11, Ablett 12, Johnson 12 and Kelly 15. Powell, LRT etc have plenty of time to have similar chances this year.
There is no reason to go and make rash decisions, that will affect the Swans for 5 years, one way or another. They will also affect the players for the next 50. Seeing as how the club holds their future in it's hands, don't you think it's at least fair enough that they be given a chance to show what they have over the next 6 to 8 weeks? It's not as if it's unprecedented that players come good, such as Brett Kirk.
He was all but written off mid-2002. He was stuck at Port and wasn't getting a look in. Then Roos played him late in the year, and he picked up TLM votes against the Kangaroos and Melbourne. He's been played as a tagger this year, and has been one of our most consistent performers. While I'm first to acknowledge that the players you mentioned have had similar chances, they have been very good in the past. They're on the list, and not playing absolutely terribly. What is 6 weeks, when you are talking about 50 years?
They got told that this year was their last chance if I remember correctly. Let it be.
Last edited by Charlie; 17th April 2003 at 09:49 AM.
Just saying that the club needs to make the hard call more ofter even if it mean dropping a big name. Fear does wonders Charlie. If the form is poor why shouldn't they be in the 2nds?? They need to play at their best all the time. Its too early to make the call after 3 rounds but its something that needs to be looked at after the next couple of weeks. I know Seymour hasn't played yet I was adding him because he is a popular name in this blame game we play each week.
The main point is also that when we give kids a go we should let show us what they can do, not what they can do in 5 minutes of football.
Once was, now elsewhere
I agree with Robbie, And as for charlie I refer to Mike Sheehans excelent article in monday's herald sun.
Classy coaches cut dead wood
15 April 2003___Herald Sun
BOB Skilton was the most decorated player in the VFL during the 1960s, winning two of his three Brownlows and seven of his nine best-and-fairests.
Yet South Melbourne never finished higher than eighth in that decade.
After finishing ninth of 12 in 1968, the Swans decided on a massive change of direction, replacing coach Allan Miller, who never played at VFL level, with Melbourne's six-time premiership coach Norm Smith.
Two years later, the Swans played in the finals for the first time since 1945. It was Skilton's solitary final.
It also was the earliest evidence for me that, while good teams make good coaches, great coaches forge strong teams.
During the past 10 years, the argument has been personalised. Who would you choose to build a future on: Peter Matera or Michael Malthouse, Wayne Carey or Denis Pagan, Andrew McLeod or Malcolm Blight, Michael Voss or Leigh Matthews, James Hird or Kevin Sheedy?
Matthews, Pagan, Malthouse, Sheedy and Blight have won 11 of the past 13 premierships, and one of the exceptions - David Parkin (1995) - won four flags in his career.
Carlton's success on Friday night has reinforced my belief that the coach is the most important person in the football club.
So long, of course, that the coach is one of the best.
Pagan's impact at Carlton has been increasingly apparent in the past two rounds, with a gallant 16-point loss to Collingwood and a shock win over Essendon. Put simply, the best coaches impose themselves upon a club.
Not just the team, but every person in every department. Standards and expectations rise in every room.
The coach's style becomes pervasive. People in the club even start to talk like coaches with powerful personalities.
Carlton's gutsy win on Friday night said plenty about Essendon, but more about Pagan and his influence.
In the corresponding fixture last year, Carlton kicked 9.8 from 296 possessions. This time, 267 possessions brought 15.15. It has to be more than coincidence that Brendan Fevola and Ryan Houlihan kicked six goals between them from 42 possessions.
From what we heard and read last year, those stats were more likely to have been 42 pots after the game. Pagan will rebuild Carlton his way, just as Malthouse has done at Collingwood.
Between Malthouse's appointment in September 1999 and the start of his first season, 12 players were cut from the list. He knew what he wanted, what he needed, and had the courage to implement it. The results are there for all to see. It will be tougher for Pagan, given the draft penalties resulting from Carlton's salary-cap rorts, but he will redefine the culture.
Matthews did it in Brisbane.
The Lions finished 16th and last in 1998. The fiercest battles for the club that year were fought between senior coach John Northey and his supposed assistant and ultimate mid-season successor Roger Merrett. It was the best wooden spoon group since Collingwood of 1976, but it lacked direction and purpose.
Matthews came in and swept away all the dead wood and the Lions have finished fourth, fifth, first and first after finishing last in 1998.
It's a combination of respect and fear. Matthews and company have an aura, self-belief, uncompromising standards. Few have the mix in the right balance.
The great coaches simply don't accept alibis. Like Malthouse did with West Coast, like Pagan is doing at Carlton, they simply get on with the task at hand, no matter how difficult.
No, Blight didn't make it work at St Kilda, but he returned to coaching for the wrong reasons.
There are 16 coaches at AFL level who are devoted to their job; sadly for supporters of most clubs, there seems to be just three or four capable of making a significant difference.
My point, Bloodhound, is that the calls for a purge are premature, unwarranted, and a knee jerk reaction. Nothing more.
If this is Rowan Warfe's last chance to show his stuff, how the hell can he do it in the seconds? He wasn't our worst on Sunday.... Neither was McPherson. Why were they named by Robbie? Because it's a knee jerk reaction!
Can't agree that "fear does wonders". I thought that was deemed to be the problem during Eade's later years, that players (particularly the younger ones) were absolutely terrified of making mistakes. The form of the team at the end of last year was widely attributed (by the players) to Roos "removing the shackles". The players suddenly looked as if they believed in themselves and were having fun - and all of a sudden they were playing skilful, hard running football.Originally posted by robbieando
Just saying that the club needs to make the hard call more ofter even if it mean dropping a big name. Fear does wonders Charlie.
To me, that enthusiasm and self-belief is one thing that has been largely missing over the last two weeks.
Of course, the players do have to respect each other, the game plan and have to assume responsibility. If they don't, they shouldn't be in the team. But surely it shouldn't be about 'fear', per se?
the means is not really important. But somone needs to start forging the kernel of a new team, and quickley. It takes greate teams at least a couple of years to click and reach their potential ( re lions pies ) . But it always starts with cuts and rearrangment of the old order. If we give players like warf and frosty too much more time ( and these are not young players by the way),
we may well run out of time and volition.
And I ask: Is six to eight weeks out of a rebuilding plan supposed to last three years, too much time?
Just give them a chance to show that they are good enough to hold out the younger guys. There has been plenty of support for Nick Davis and Jason Ball to run themselves into form. Frosty is also returning from an interrupted preseason, so why shouldn't he have the same chance?
Because he has never shown the potential of either of those two players, and this team needs a kick up the arss (after The Adelaide embarassment) so they may as well give it to frosty cos he is a perennial underacheiver who has always struggeld to make the cut. Dead wood! Get rid of him and and those like him and use them as what they are - back up material at best.
It is rediculous to try and rebuild a team on the back of mediocrity.
We need stars. Frosty is not a star, has never been one and never will.
There is always that saying about a team of champions or a champion team though. Not saying that a few stars wouldn't be appreciated but if everyone was playing well and together you never know where we might end up come the end of the season.Originally posted by bloodhound
It is rediculous to try and rebuild a team on the back of mediocrity.
We need stars. Frosty is not a star, has never been one and never will.
Yes ofcourse we need stars bloodhound, but not one team in the competition has every player as a star, there are generally 4 or so genuine stars in a team. Ofcourse frosty wont be a star, be why does he have to be for ? It is ridiculous thinking everyone in the team has to be star. As long frosty can play a role for the team and does it well that is all that is needed.
P.S - I dont like frosty, just rebutting your argument and using frosty as an example
No.1 ticket holder of Nick Davis Fan Club...
My argument re frosty and Warf and others is in refrance to the afrticle I posted earleir on this thread.
I think it's true that that greate coaches know how to, and have the courage to cut deep, keeping the potential and getting rid of the dead wood. It doesn't matter if you can fulfill a role. Dead wood is dead wood. It has a bad effect on the confidance and agression of a team to have dead wood hanging around.
Sydneys c lean out must come and frosty and all frosty types must go, so the new team can emerge through development or recruitment or both.
Bookmarks