We have our 3 pillars now.
Walker
Walsh
Fagan
Walker
Walsh
Fagan
News TEX - captain no more
- Thread starter Redleg Crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I believe Tex is on 84 games. If he stays fit game 99 is the away showdown. Hope the new Captain puts in a big couple of weeks against Port and the Suns in July! Fantastic decision by the club. Congrats Tex!
- May 26, 2013
- 22,374
- 31,837
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
- Thread starter
- #53
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Matty Crouch to replace an aging Haddin as wicket-keeper/batsman too??
Yes, but it is too painful watching some of our games last year. I am now knocking PD, but trying to do everything yourself when there are team mates around is not team football. I suspect our football style will be far different this year under Walsh.
Mitch Grigg 12th man
I think VB will be fine. If premiership leaders in Bickley and Smart can handle playing under Roo, VB will be fine.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 25,609
- 63,347
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
What a change in attitude. (not yours specifically) Up till today most on here were shitting themselves about losing Danger. "lets make him captain to make sure we keep him". This appointment of Tex ( and Walshy) has stirred up strong emotions and generated a whole lot of positivity from the supporters and around the club to the point that whilst we don't want to lose Danger we now feel its not the end of the world if we do lose him. The club will survive if we lose Danger.
I'm thrilled with this appointment. A few doubts, but mainly around how sharp a thinker he is in front of the media. Everything footy related he oozes presence, attitude and capability required to be a fantastic leader of our footy club.
A very good appointment - although Sloane is stiff to miss out 
But when you have multiple quality leaders, all but one has to miss out. I'm just glad we haven't gone for co-captains.
Very interesting that the two stand-ins for van Berlo, as well as VB himself, have all missed out despite all being available. I wonder if that is an indication of a change in attitude overall, or rather an indication that Sloane and Danger "failed" their auditions last year.
The only possible way this can be a "bad" appointment is if Walker says something in a presser that comes back to bite him, so I suspect he'll be fairly bland and down-the-line in front of the media. In front of the boys, however...
But when you have multiple quality leaders, all but one has to miss out. I'm just glad we haven't gone for co-captains.Very interesting that the two stand-ins for van Berlo, as well as VB himself, have all missed out despite all being available. I wonder if that is an indication of a change in attitude overall, or rather an indication that Sloane and Danger "failed" their auditions last year.
The only possible way this can be a "bad" appointment is if Walker says something in a presser that comes back to bite him, so I suspect he'll be fairly bland and down-the-line in front of the media. In front of the boys, however...
- Mar 20, 2013
- 4,948
- 4,982
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
maybe sando wanted tex captain too but couldn't do it coming back off a reco,hence sloane and danger were just buying time
Unlikely, i dont think it would have been the case but you never know!
Last edited:
Agreed. But he will work into becoming comfortable with the media and his confidence will increase. I will say though that I like his "unscripted" responses rather than the usual "scripted" answers that given by most.
- May 26, 2013
- 22,374
- 31,837
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
- Thread starter
- #66
I wonder if it means had Walker been fit for Round 1 last year he would have been captain? (But then different coach back then so...)A very good appointment - although Sloane is stiff to miss out
Very interesting that the two stand-ins for van Berlo, as well as VB himself, have all missed out despite all being available. I wonder if that is an indication of a change in attitude overall, or rather an indication that Sloane and Danger "failed" their auditions last year.
The only possible way this can be a "bad" appointment is if Walker says something in a presser that comes back to bite him, so I suspect he'll be fairly bland and down-the-line in front of the media. In front of the boys, however...
I wouldn't be surprised to see those unscripted responses shelved.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what a captain says to the media - as long as it's not a gaffe. Anything will do, no matter how bland and cliched, as long as he is able to get away from the cameras unscathed and focus on actually captaining his footy side.
Last edited:
In all honesty, how much media work is the Captain actually going to do? When VB was captain, he was hardly front and centre, face of the club every week. These days the media duties are shared between all players.
If anything, it's his social media work that he needs to watch now.
If anything, it's his social media work that he needs to watch now.
- May 3, 2014
- 2,659
- 3,490
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, King James
Tim Roman from the AFL website (I assume) wrote the article announcing Tex as captain. He also included this:
"The appointment of Walker as captain increases the chances of Patrick Dangerfield leaving the club as a free agent at the end of 2015."
And that was all that was written about that. Can anyone explain to me where the logic behind such a comment comes from since he doesn't bother to explain why this is the case? I can only assume that Tim believes that Dangerfield wanted the captaincy and will now be bitter and have more reservations about signing with Adelaide as a result. He didn't even include the word "might", he's flat out said the chances of Dangerfield leaving have grown. Anyone else think this is terrible journalism? I definitely do.
"The appointment of Walker as captain increases the chances of Patrick Dangerfield leaving the club as a free agent at the end of 2015."
And that was all that was written about that. Can anyone explain to me where the logic behind such a comment comes from since he doesn't bother to explain why this is the case? I can only assume that Tim believes that Dangerfield wanted the captaincy and will now be bitter and have more reservations about signing with Adelaide as a result. He didn't even include the word "might", he's flat out said the chances of Dangerfield leaving have grown. Anyone else think this is terrible journalism? I definitely do.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
A very good appointment - although Sloane is stiff to miss out
Very interesting that the two stand-ins for van Berlo, as well as VB himself, have all missed out despite all being available. I wonder if that is an indication of a change in attitude overall, or rather an indication that Sloane and Danger "failed" their auditions last year.
The only possible way this can be a "bad" appointment is if Walker says something in a presser that comes back to bite him, so I suspect he'll be fairly bland and down-the-line in front of the media. In front of the boys, however...
Yet I remember quotes from both Danger and Sloane last year about Tex's leadership and how happy they were to have him around once he came back. It is great to have options where pretty much a choice of 4 I would have been very happy with. You need leaders all over the ground, not just with the title.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Andrew McLeod was never "captain" but he was an amazing on and off field leader.
Anyone checked on SouthernTakeover? He'd be a little depressed today.
Anyone checked on SouthernTakeover? He'd be a little depressed today.
It's a very common logical fallacy.
The idea is that, had Dangerfield been chosen as captain, it would be an indication that the club thinks he's in it for the long haul. That would then make it seem more likely that he's staying. So Dangerfield being made captain is related to how likely he is to stay, and since before it was unknown whether he would be made captain, once the decision is made they say that he is now either more or less likely (depending on whether he is made captain or not).
Of course, the problem with that logic is that our choice of making him captain is reflective of how likely he is to go, not the other way around. Us making the decision doesn't alter the likelihood of him staying. All it does is shed light on the club's (lack of) confidence in him staying.
A completely separate argument is how much stock we put in him staying, or if it even came into the equation at all. Perhaps we thought that Walker was the best choice irrespective of whether Danger stays or not.
I said similar. I think it's a valid point.
Also worth mentioning that it appears Walker's time off field during his knee reco was when he really developed his leadership qualities. His approach to rehab and his work around the club was first rate.
