Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone tell me where David McKay got the nickname 'Swan' and whether or not he was called 'Swannie'?



From the Blueseum:

so he wasn’t able to claim a regular place in the side until after the Blues were beaten by Richmond in the ’69 Grand Final. Early in the following season, McKay was given a chance at centre half-back, and took to it “like a swan to water.”

No, he was never known as swannie from what I recall.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GoBlues!

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2009
5,515
11,691
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I thought it was because of the graceful marks he used to take, but apparently not. It was given to him by Ricky McLean:

A truly agile big man blessed with wonderful inflight judgement, McKay quickly became a crowd favourite – whether floating across the pack a la Royce Hart, or leaping high over three or four sets of shoulders to take yet another “specky”.

Curiously though, it wasn’t why he was earned the nickname “Swan”. That was afforded him by his fearsome former teammate Ricky McLean.

"We were at training one night and Ricky McLean yelled out: 'You run like a chook. I think I'll call you Swan'. All the players heard it and I've been Swan ever since." The mystery is why the former Bluebagger was not dubbed "Chook" McKay!
 
Last edited:
Jun 6, 2007
16,005
32,097
Footscray
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Sunderland,Pelicans, LA Kings
Before my time.. is anyone aware of what the score was when Jezza took his mark?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I forced myself to watch the 2nd quarter of the 70 GF.;)

Scores were 9.12.66 to 3.5.23. 43 points behind. Mark was taken around 27 minute mark of quarter.
 
Nov 11, 2005
28,888
35,176
Queensland
AFL Club
Carlton
Thanks. I wonder that the max margin reached that day was.. I feel like the timing of it adds to the 'moment' .

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Half time score was 10.13.73 to 4.5.29, so each team kicked a further goal before half time after Jezza's mark. We were playing better in the lead up to half time after being totally outclassed for the first quarter & a half.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fnm_just a man

Cancelled
Aug 11, 2008
2,226
2,762
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Half time score was 10.13.73 to 4.5.29, so each team kicked a further goal before half time after Jezza's mark. We were playing better in the lead up to half time after being totally outclassed for the first quarter & a half.

That half-time margin was actually the largest of the game, from what I could gather.
 
Certainly helped, although we did win a lot more of the ball in the 2nd half therefore McKenna wasn't getting the silver service he received in the 1st half.
Watched a few games this season and noticed a new trend. Teams are finding it really hard to score when they don't have possession of the ball.

On the other hand, when it is turned over, all teams find it much easier to score.
 
I wanna watch the games with Jab.......
Check out the game day threads, nearly like the real thing.

Plenty of insight, in depth analysis and smart reading of the play. Then I show up with brain farts and stupidity.
 
Nov 11, 2005
28,888
35,176
Queensland
AFL Club
Carlton
Watched a few games this season and noticed a new trend. Teams are finding it really hard to score when they don't have possession of the ball.

On the other hand, when it is turned over, all teams find it much easier to score.
This is ground breaking stuff. You are really onto something here, but try & keep it under your hat.
 
This is ground breaking stuff. You are really onto something here, but try & keep it under your hat.
Hope Bolts works it out, seems smart enough. Maybe someone should pass it on just in case
 
I see some Carlton Football Club members are not going to renew their membership because of the club's statement re: the SSM postal plebiscite.

This suggests to me that these supporters have been looking for an excuse to abandon our club & yesterday's statement is their out. I sincerely hope these supporters don't see fit to jump back on board when we are playing finals & challenging for the premiership.

That's a great little rant, dripping with the arrogance of someone who believes they have the right to determine which is the right side of any given debate.

Anyone who decides that because the Carlton Football Club has taken a neutral stance on SSM that this justifies cancelling their membership, does not truly value their membership & our club is better off without them.

The Carlton Football Club has 50k members, who come from various walks of life, various ethnic backgrounds & various beliefs/opinions. it would be wrong of the club to adopt a stance on one side of an issue, when it would know that its members would have contrasting opinions on such an issue. I think the club have demonstrated great maturity in not taking a parochial stance on an issue which is far greater than football, football clubs or the AFL.

Disagree with you on this pretty strongly, MSR.

I was disappointed with Carlton's SSM statement, but I understand why they did it. I certainly wasn't disgusted by it, nor do I see it as something that I would cancel my membership over.

And while it may be arrogant to assume there is only one right answer (although I find it hard to get my head around legitimate NO reasons), I think it's acceptable to disassociate yourself from organisations that don't align with your views. What if (and these are big ifs/hypotheticals, admittedly), the club had released a statement in support of the NO argument. Or they supported a terrorist organisation? Or they cheated the salary cap again? Or what if I had lost my family to pokies addiction? Could someone be justified in cancelling their memberships on the back of these? I think the answer is yes. I interpret your comments as the club's SSM stance is not important enough to take a stand on.

I love Carlton and I also have a strong view on many social issues. I can't imagine a scenario where I would cancel my membership over the club's stance on a social issue actually playing out. But I see that some people could. And I certainly wouldn't use the 'good riddance to bad rubbish' response.

If anyone is displaying arrogance here, I think it might be you suggesting that this issue is not worthy enough of taking a stance and/or being significantly offended. The statement wasn't nearly enough to tip you over the edge, nor was it for me. But if I was gay, and the club partially spat in my face, maybe I would decide that some things are more important than football. Hard to believe, but it's possible.
 
Nov 11, 2005
28,888
35,176
Queensland
AFL Club
Carlton
Disagree with you on this pretty strongly, MSR.

I was disappointed with Carlton's SSM statement, but I understand why they did it. I certainly wasn't disgusted by it, nor do I see it as something that I would cancel my membership over.

And while it may be arrogant to assume there is only one right answer (although I find it hard to get my head around legitimate NO reasons), I think it's acceptable to disassociate yourself from organisations that don't align with your views. What if (and these are big ifs/hypotheticals, admittedly), the club had released a statement in support of the NO argument. Or they supported a terrorist organisation? Or they cheated the salary cap again? Or what if I had lost my family to pokies addiction? Could someone be justified in cancelling their memberships on the back of these? I think the answer is yes. I interpret your comments as the club's SSM stance is not important enough to take a stand on.

I love Carlton and I also have a strong view on many social issues. I can't imagine a scenario where I would cancel my membership over the club's stance on a social issue actually playing out. But I see that some people could. And I certainly wouldn't use the 'good riddance to bad rubbish' response.

If anyone is displaying arrogance here, I think it might be you suggesting that this issue is not worthy enough of taking a stance and/or being significantly offended. The statement wasn't nearly enough to tip you over the edge, nor was it for me. But if I was gay, and the club partially spat in my face, maybe I would decide that some things are more important than football. Hard to believe, but it's possible.
I think it is plain to see where the Carlton Football Club stands on equality. By not supporting either side of the SSM debate they haven't watered down their stance on equality, all they have done is acknowledge the Carlton Football Club is a broad 'church', with those associated with the club coming from various backgrounds & who hold varied beliefs.

I genuinely don't understand why any organisation not directly involved in the SSM debate would adopt a specific stance in relation to debate, other than for financial gain. As far as I know neither the AFL, or its member clubs have announced a specific stance on the Andrews Govt's proposed euthanasia laws or the Weatherall Govt's energy policy or on CSG mining & so on & so forth.

I can't imagine one person changing their view on SSM because a football club, sport governing body, corporate organisation etc has proclaimed a specific stance or remained neutral on the matter.
 
Feb 6, 2013
55,092
106,151
Locker #5
AFL Club
Carlton
I think it is plain to see where the Carlton Football Club stands on equality. By not supporting either side of the SSM debate they haven't watered down their stance on equality, all they have done is acknowledge the Carlton Football Club is a broad 'church', with those associated with the club coming from various backgrounds & who hold varied beliefs.

I genuinely don't understand why any organisation not directly involved in the SSM debate would adopt a specific stance in relation to debate, other than for financial gain. As far as I know neither the AFL, or its member clubs have announced a specific stance on the Andrews Govt's proposed euthanasia laws or the Weatherall Govt's energy policy or on CSG mining & so on & so forth.

I can't imagine one person changing their view on SSM because a football club, sport governing body, corporate organisation etc has proclaimed a specific stance or remained neutral on the matter.
Just curious, is there a reason you always write "Carlton football club" in full?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back