Sando on 5AA

[Tex200]

That's so true. If we dropped Porps it would instantly make us top 4 contenders.

Collingwood would have made a call on Porps 2 years ago, identified a replacement and groomed them for the role. By now it might make a difference. They would have made the same call on a number of others too.

But then they are a professionally run club that targets grand finals and premierships

 

[Mattrox]

Collingwood would have made a call on Porps 2 years ago, identified a replacement and groomed them for the role. By now it might make a difference. They would have made the same call on a number of others too.

But then they are a professionally run club that targets grand finals and premierships

That's why they won so many in the last 20 years! I get it now.

 

[Tex200]

They've won 1 more than us since 1998 and played in 3 more grand finals. Not sure we are in any position to be sneezing at that record

 

[Mattrox]

They've won 1 more than us since 1998 and played in 3 more grand finals. Not sure we are in any position to be sneezing at that record

But you offer them up as a shining light as multi premiership winners.

Anyway, Collingwood don't just dump injured players as you suggest.

 

[Tex200]

But you offer them up as a shining light as multi premiership winners.

Anyway, Collingwood don't just dump injured players as you suggest.

Don't misquote me or add your own words to support your sarcasm.

Your clearly a sycophant who believes the AFC does no wrong. History disagrees. We have been an unsuccessful club for a long time so you will understand that some people no longer wish to accept the party line

 

[boffo]

That's so true. If we dropped Porps it would instantly make us top 4 contenders.

Let me explain it slowly in small words for you: ...it.....is.....about.......the .......FUTURE

 

[BigLefty]

Don't misquote me or add your own words to support your sarcasm.

Your clearly a sycophant who believes the AFC does no wrong. History disagrees. We have been an unsuccessful club for a long time so you will understand that some people no longer wish to accept the party line

I'm sycof (see what I did there...) seeing everyone using sycophant all the time. i'm in my 30's, well educated and have a good steady job. no-where else in my life do I read or hear people using this word.

anyway, i'd argue we haven't been an unsuccessful club. we may not have had the ultimate success, but we've had very good sides and won more often than not. we've been pretty blessed to support a side that is around the mark most years and gives us plenty of wins to enjoy.

 

[Mattrox]

Don't misquote me or add your own words to support your sarcasm.

Your clearly a sycophant who believes the AFC does no wrong. History disagrees. We have been an unsuccessful club for a long time so you will understand that some people no longer wish to accept the party line

You said we should look to Collingwood as an example. You stated that we should look to their premierships as evidence. You made a flawed statement.
1) Collingwood do not sell out injured players as you suggest we do with Porps.
2) Collingwood is very unsettled and this is holding them back.

a) The coaching succession plan was disruptive. Their 1st part of the season last year shows us that.

b) They have players speaking out who are not all on the same page.

c) There is a clash of personalities. Bucks vs the Rat Pack.

I have never said everything the AFC does is right. In fact I have been highly critical of a number of things. You are lashing out because you made a shortsighted statement and I treated it with the decision it deserves.

I do not want the AFC to model itself on any club. That way we can only aspire to be as good as the other club. I want us to be better than other clubs. Sometimes that means not doing what they would do.

Pssst we were arguably more successful than Collingwood last year in terms of our relative proximities to the Grand Final.

Your assessment was incorrect. Your using Collingwood as a club to look up to is flawed. You did pump up their tyres and say we should be like them. It was a dumb thing to say, my sacrasm reflects this.

Your rejection of the party line puts blinkers on your view. As a result every decision the club makes will be the wrong one. And you have to say so because if you didn't you would be "towing the party line". You have become the "opposition party to the AFC" and have taken on the mantle of disagreeing with whatever the AFC do rather than analyze a situation on its own merits and then evaluate. You position is one that is just as unpalatable as a sycophantic one..... you do just as much good rejecting everything the club does as a sycophant does in accepting it.

Our lack of success as you state has NOT been a list management problem, nor has it been an upper management problem. It has been a match day and game plan problem, particularly in finals.

Our recruiting and list management and player development has been very good overall, yet the way you talk you would think we were Melbourne.

 

[Mattrox]

Let me explain it slowly in small words for you: ...it.....is.....about.......the .......FUTURE

So lets trade out abd drop everyone and load our side with 18 year olds

 

[Mattrox]

I'm sycof (see what I did there...) seeing everyone using sycophant all the time. i'm in my 30's, well educated and have a good steady job. no-where else in my life do I read or hear people using this word.

anyway, i'd argue we haven't been an unsuccessful club. we may not have had the ultimate success, but we've had very good sides and won more often than not. we've been pretty blessed to support a side that is around the mark most years and gives us plenty of wins to enjoy.

It's one of those emotive arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny and trotted out when you point out flaws in arguments.

 

[Tex200]

You said we should look to Collingwood as an example. You stated that we should look to their premierships as evidence. You made a flawed statement.
1) Collingwood do not sell out injured players as you suggest we do with Porps.
2) Collingwood is very unsettled and this is holding them back.

a) The coaching succession plan was disruptive. Their 1st part of the season last year shows us that.

b) They have players speaking out who are not all on the same page.

c) There is a clash of personalities. Bucks vs the Rat Pack.

I have never said everything the AFC does is right. In fact I have been highly critical of a number of things. You are lashing out because you made a shortsighted statement and I treated it with the decision it deserves.

I do not want the AFC to model itself on any club. That way we can only aspire to be as good as the other club. I want us to be better than other clubs. Sometimes that means not doing what they would do.

Pssst we were arguably more successful than Collingwood last year in terms of our relative proximities to the Grand Final.

Your assessment was incorrect. Your using Collingwood as a club to look up to is flawed. You did pump up their tyres and say we should be like them. It was a dumb thing to say, my sacrasm reflects this.

Your rejection of the party line puts blinkers on your view. As a result every decision the club makes will be the wrong one. And you have to say so because if you didn't you would be "towing the party line". You have become the "opposition party to the AFC" and have taken on the mantle of disagreeing with whatever the AFC do rather than analyze a situation on its own merits and then evaluate. You position is one that is just as unpalatable as a sycophantic one..... you do just as much good rejecting everything the club does as a sycophant does in accepting it.

Our lack of success as you state has NOT been a list management problem, nor has it been an upper management problem. It has been a match day and game plan problem, particularly in finals.

Our recruiting and list management and player development has been very good overall, yet the way you talk you would think we were Melbourne.

Your still making up rubbish. I said they are a club that targets grand finals and premierships then you say I'm offering them up as a multi premiership side... Can you see the difference or can't you read .

The fact you see us as a successful club that has no need to look at a club like collingwood is enough evidence for me that your living in fairy land

 

[Mattrox]

Your still making up rubbish. I said they are a club that targets grand finals and premierships then you say I'm offering them up as a multi premiership side... Can you see the difference or can't you read .

The fact you see us as a successful club that has no need to look at a club like collingwood is enough evidence for me that your living in fairy land

EVERY club targets grand finals and premierships. If they didn't we could just all collect stamps on the weekend. The only way to take it in the context you used it is there are a club to aspire to become like because of their ongoing success.

We lost prelim finals because of shit match day coaching in the Craig era. Our game plan was exposed and our match-ups when we got them wrong were not adjusted. To point to any other factor is really pure speculation at best or plain making shit up at worst. (Maybe Roo should have made the tough call vs Hawthorn? )

Treating players on the comback from injury with contempt rather than assisting in rehab back to form will not make us more successful.

I agree that if Porps can't return to solid form he needs to be relegated to a depth player.

Being obtuse about the club retaining a particular player doesn't make you a better supporter.

The debate to drop Porps is valid enough when argued on its own merits. But to claim we should because "Collingwood would have" is a rubbish argument.

 

[Tex200]

I'm sycof (see what I did there...) seeing everyone using sycophant all the time. i'm in my 30's, well educated and have a good steady job. no-where else in my life do I read or hear people using this word.

anyway, i'd argue we haven't been an unsuccessful club. we may not have had the ultimate success, but we've had very good sides and won more often than not. we've been pretty blessed to support a side that is around the mark most years and gives us plenty of wins to enjoy.

Fair enough each to their own.

I just object to posters such as Mattrox or BACCS who stalk the boards searching for dissent and assuming everyone is as happy lapping up failure as they are

 

[Tex200]

EVERY club targets grand finals and premierships. If they didn't we could just all collect stamps on the weekend. The only way to take it in the context you used it is there are a club to aspire to become like because of their ongoing success.

We lost prelim finals because of shit match day coaching in the Craig era. Our game plan was exposed and our match-ups when we got them wrong were not adjusted. To point to any other factor is really pure speculation at best or plain making shit up at worst. (Maybe Roo should have made the tough call vs Hawthorn? )

Treating players on the comback from injury with contempt rather than assisting in rehab back to form will not make us

I agree that if Porps can't return to solid form he needs to be relegated to a depth player.

Being obtuse about the club retaining a particular player doesn't make you a better supporter.

The debate to drop Porps is valid enough when argued on its own merits. But to claim we should because "Collingwood would have" is a rubbish argument.

Guess you just need that last word?

Looking forward to your next post

 

[boffo]

So lets trade out abd drop everyone and load our side with 18 year olds

mate, I don't expect everybody on this board to be Socrates but it'd be a good start if you could actually try to understand others points of view and debate that ......instead of throwing out ridiculous misrepresentations no-one is actually advocating.

 

[Mattrox]

mate, I don't expect everybody on this board to be Socrates but it'd be a good start if you could actually try to understand others points of view and debate that ......instead of throwing out ridiculous misrepresentations no-one is actually advocating.

Then don't state the bleeding obvious.
Of course it is about the future, but at the moment there are a lot more things compromising the future than Porps.

 

[boffo]

Then don't state the bleeding obvious.
Of course it is about the future, but at the moment there are a lot more things compromising the future than Porps.

You've done it AGAIN!

I give up.

 

[Tex200]

You've done it AGAIN!

I give up.

Lol... Me too

 

[Mattrox]

You've done it AGAIN!

I give up.

I was addressing a ridiculous assumption that "Collingwood would have got rid of Porps long ago". Every team allows talented players to return from injury.

We have plenty of players taking up space on our list who will never give us what even an injured Porps does.

Porps has become a whipping boy because "he" is keeping Lyons or Grigg out of the team. I'd argue that Jaensch is a playing list clogger at the moment.

If we were really astute we would look do something about players that aren't developing. Make an assessment and act. Mackay hasn't fulfilled his potential with us..... Martin hasn't broken into the team. Jaensch's upside seems limited. McKernan is a quandary.

On top of that we have Riley and Lyons who quite probably offer us the same thing, both arguably future talent, but both in an area our club has some depth.

To back up an argument about what "Collingwood would do" with a "feel good" one liner isn't an accurate analysis of our list either.

 

[Wood_Duck]

It's one of those emotive arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny and trotted out when you point out flaws in arguments.

Its a term most often used by those that post only popular rhetoric that they know will be supported by the most outspoken posters. Trigg should go, Sando can't coach, Reilly isn't good enough, we don't play enough kids, Rendell was the saviour, Bailey is a genius.

 

[maxlilly]

That's so true. If we dropped Porps it would instantly make us top 4 contenders.

Wouldn't make us a top four contender instantly but would give us a better chance of getting there sooner.
Too often it looks like the club is happy just making the eight each year, instead of putting a plan in place to make grand finals.

 

[Mattrox]

Wouldn't make us a top four contender instantly but would give us a better chance of getting there sooner.
Too often it looks like the club is happy just making the eight each year, instead of putting a plan in place to make grand finals.

We need to be moving on list cloggers who offer less than out of form senior players. Jaensch and Martin don't offer us enough. Get in new talent to replace them, can't really do any worse.

 

[Tex200]

We need to be moving on list cloggers who offer less than out of form senior players. Jaensch and Martin don't offer us enough. Get in new talent to replace them, can't really do any worse.

It's way too easy to point the finger at those types. It's our experienced players who continually fail to stand up when they should. That's why we are always pushed aside in games like last nights .

The Captain is the worst offender.. Never capable of leading from the front and wrestling away a game when it's on the line. You can go through all of them, when a game is there to be won or lost, our side is relying on guys who have played 100 games or less.

There is no on field leadership when a game is on the line.

But sure, lets blame Martin

 

[King Elvis]

We need to be moving on list cloggers who offer less than out of form senior players. Jaensch and Martin don't offer us enough. Get in new talent to replace them, can't really do any worse.

Martin sums up everything wrong with us - and I don't mean him, I mean how we've handled him.

If he isn't good enough to get a game (and, for the record, I think he is), then why the hell do we keep recontracting him?

I think he would've been a better option than Jaensch last night, but, as Pete says, fringe players aren't our major problem at present - especially ones who aren't even in the side.

 

[Mismatched]

Martin sums up everything wrong with us - and I don't mean him, I mean how we've handled him.

If he isn't good enough to get a game (and, for the record, I think he is), then why the hell do we keep recontracting him?

I think he would've been a better option than Jaensch last night, but, as Pete says, fringe players aren't our major problem at present - especially ones who aren't even in the side.

That and Martin is currently out injured, has been for a couple of weeks and will be for the next couple of weeks according to the official injury list...

Otherwise agree with your thoughts re Martin and we've done it with a number of players, we fart around with these "borderline" types hoping they'll either dominate immediately or completely spud it up, essentially making it easy for us to either play them or not. We cannot make a tough decision on players.

Similar with Callinan and Johncock at the end of last year, it was pretty obvious that both probably weren't up to it and that we should probably move on. Sure its a bloody tough decision, unfair even, but this is AFL football, the elite competition, we need to realise this and stop trying to keep everyone happy.