Preview Key to success - Hard Edge

[Love the Drake]

Not having a go at you
**** him he's a slapper

Yeah I see where you are coming from BUT...

• He is one of the best captains of the game...ever
• He is one of the most courageous players of the game...ever
• He is one of the best competitors of the game...ever
• He hates to be beaten
• He never takes a backwards step

As a coach he can instil these qualities in our team.

Failing that....Luke Hodge will do

 

[Dunna Heartknee]

Yeah I see where you are coming from BUT...

• He is one of the best captains of the game...ever
• He is one of the most courageous players of the game...ever
• He is one of the best competitors of the game...ever
• He hates to be beaten
• He never takes a backwards step

As a coach he can instil these qualities in our team.

Failing that....Luke Hodge will do

Big 'YES" for Hodge

 

[SBYM]

Bring back Bootsma.

Not gonna lie, I did get all hot 'n bothered when he broke Brad Green's ribs with that bump, all the while weighing about the same as your typical shamois.

 

[thylacine60]

chamois.........the same as your typical chamois..........fmd.........

 

[SBYM]

chamois.........the same as your typical chamois..........fmd.........

HAHAHA...I honestly thought I had used a c.

Crikey.

I'm leaving that there just for you.

 

[thylacine60]

blast & damn........

 

[Love the Drake]

The grand final showed what is needed to win flags. Physical and mental toughness. 22 players committed to the cause. Rioli probably the only one to have no influence.

We need to find that hard edge. Our players must realise this is now a non- negotiable.

 

[jpfalvo]

To get that hard edge, it will help if we start to draft and trade for footballers, rather than athletic types.

Particularly midfielders that can find the ball and tackle.

Geelongs athletic types Blicavs and Stanley got found out last night. Culprits in in fumbling, poor disposal, trying to take on too many and getting caught. In a big game, absolute momentum killers

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[Gethelred]

To get that hard edge, it will help if we start to draft and trade for footballers, rather than athletic types.

Particularly midfielders that can find the ball and tackle.

Geelongs athletic types Blicavs and Stanley got found out last night. Culprits in in fumbling, poor disposal, trying to take on too many and getting caught. In a big game, absolute momentum killers

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Because the entirety of Richmond's side are footballers first, athletes second...

It isn't that simple. If it was, Nick Graham would be an AFL caliber midfielder and Brock Maclean would've won multiple brownlows.

 

[BuxbaumBixby]

I get the intent of this thread - but I think 'hard edge' can be confused with leadership and non-negotiables.

All of the teams that have built a dynasty have had a strong group of leaders who were all on the same page and drove values and behaviours.

I think we're still a couple of years away from having a core group of uncompromising leaders.

Cripps and Doc need support - Weits and Walsh on their way .... need Charlie and McKay to get on top of their game and develop some consistent swagger. Definitely need another couple of midfield leaders to emerge.

I reckon part of the process is really hammering a few sides. Need a few big wins next season to start building belief.

 

[DangerousD]

Did many here watch the NRL grand final? I’m not much of a league fan but I like the Storm as a team to support, I admire the organisation and a lot of the players they have brought through from youngsters, from limited knowledge, it seems they rarely recruit big name players and have a great youth program.

They also seem to be a club that bends, manipulates, breaks the rules to gain advantages, only this final series they were fined for using the trainer as an excuse to stop play and halt momentum, they did this again in the GF, in the GF alone they had two players ejected for deliberate professional fouls, they are experts in what some call the dark arts, they have a win at all costs approach and it’s one I wish we adopted.

Does our coach have the ruthless edge in him and can he pass that on?

 

[Michael Jezz]

Did many here watch the NRL grand final? I’m not much of a league fan but I like the Storm as a team to support, I admire the organisation and a lot of the players they have brought through from youngsters, from limited knowledge, it seems they rarely recruit big name players and have a great youth program.

They also seem to be a club that bends, manipulates, breaks the rules to gain advantages, only this final series they were fined for using the trainer as an excuse to stop play and halt momentum, they did this again in the GF, in the GF alone they had two players ejected for deliberate professional fouls, they are experts in what some call the dark arts, they have a win at all costs approach and it’s one I wish we adopted.

Does our coach have the ruthless edge in him and can he pass that on?

No Teague doesn't have a ruthless edge.

 

[Gethelred]

Did many here watch the NRL grand final? I’m not much of a league fan but I like the Storm as a team to support, I admire the organisation and a lot of the players they have brought through from youngsters, from limited knowledge, it seems they rarely recruit big name players and have a great youth program.

They also seem to be a club that bends, manipulates, breaks the rules to gain advantages, only this final series they were fined for using the trainer as an excuse to stop play and halt momentum, they did this again in the GF, in the GF alone they had two players ejected for deliberate professional fouls, they are experts in what some call the dark arts, they have a win at all costs approach and it’s one I wish we adopted.

Does our coach have the ruthless edge in him and can he pass that on?

You know who had a win at all costs approach in an AFL context? James Hird. He even had a motto: "Whatever it takes."

No thanks.

 

[DangerousD]

You know who had a win at all costs approach in an AFL context? James Hird. He even had a motto: "Whatever it takes."

No thanks.

If you are referring to the drugs saga, then I think you are deliberately missing my point. Getting your whole team suspended for 12 months for drug violations is not the same win at all costs attitude I’m talking about, I am talking about the Storm using all avenues to get and gain an advantage, having players perform professional fouls, using the runner to stop play and momentum, time wasting, I am not talking about drug cheats.

Im sure you can see the difference.

 

[Gethelred]

If you are referring to the drugs saga, then I think you are deliberately missing my point. Getting your whole team suspended for 12 months for drug violations is not the same win at all costs attitude I’m talking about, I am talking about the Storm using all avenues to get and gain an advantage, having players perform professional fouls, using the runner to stop play and momentum, time wasting, I am not talking about drug cheats.

Im sure you can see the difference.

I make no distinction between cheating and cheating.

What you're talking about is akin to the Al Clarkson school of coaching; shepparding the mark, hold up play, skirt the edges of breaking the rules as often as you can get away with it. If you can take someone out, do it utterly and completely. Nope, and nope.

Don't see a useful distinction to make there. You're either cheating or you're not.

 

[katmanblue]

I make no distinction between cheating and cheating.

What you're talking about is akin to the Al Clarkson school of coaching; shepparding the mark, hold up play, skirt the edges of breaking the rules as often as you can get away with it. If you can take someone out, do it utterly and completely. Nope, and nope.

Don't see a useful distinction to make there. You're either cheating or you're not.

The umpires and the judiciary are the arbitrators of what is allowed. I see no problem with pushing the boundaries until you get pushback from them.

Think of Hawks walking the ball through the goals to retain possession. Ended with a premiership. Not pretty, but does that matter?

And until then there was no rule against it. The rule changed afterward.

You reckon they celebrated any less? Or where unhappy with the win? Of course not.


On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

The umpires and the judiciary are the arbitrators of what is allowed. I see no problem with pushing the boundaries until you get pushback from them.

Think of Hawks walking the ball through the goals to retain possession. Ended with a premiership. Not pretty, but does that matter?

And until then there was no rule against it. The rule changed afterward.

You reckon they celebrated any less? Or where unhappy with the win? Of course not.


On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

At the end of it all, this conversation is as much about me as it is about Carlton or our team. There are things I will not countenance to win and - as I've already said - I see no difference between skirting the edges of the rules and relying on umpire discretion, and cheating. There's a matter of degree at play, but I don't find the distinction useful.

I've said this before, but I maintain that teams in general win because they were good over anything else. That Hawthorn win you mention, did Hawthorn win because they conceded behinds, or did they win because of Stewie Dew's goals in that 5 minute patch of the last quarter and because - frankly - that was the worst 4 quarters of football that Geelong outfit had played in 2 years?

At the end of it all, this is not war. This is a game to be enjoyed, for spectacle and for community. Tell me how the deliberate bending of the rules has augmented Aussie rules for the better, and I'll go away.

 

[katmanblue]

At the end of it all, this conversation is as much about me as it is about Carlton or our team. There are things I will not countenance to win and - as I've already said - I see no difference between skirting the edges of the rules and relying on umpire discretion, and cheating. There's a matter of degree at play, but I don't find the distinction useful.

I've said this before, but I maintain that teams in general win because they were good over anything else. That Hawthorn win you mention, did Hawthorn win because they conceded behinds, or did they win because of Stewie Dew's goals in that 5 minute patch of the last quarter and because - frankly - that was the worst 4 quarters of football that Geelong outfit had played in 2 years?

At the end of it all, this is not war. This is a game to be enjoyed, for spectacle and for community. Tell me how the deliberate bending of the rules has augmented Aussie rules for the better, and I'll go away.

It's about the killer mentality.

If you have the attitude that there's a line I won't cross (because it's wrong), you will lose to someone who doesn't have that limitation (everything else being equal).

It's about doing every single thing possible to win.

When Shuey ducked his head and got the free a couple of years ago, went back and kicked the goal (was it in the prelim? I can't remember) to progress in the finals.

Put Carlton in that situation.

Would be ok with one of our boys doing that? Or would you rather he didn't duck and we lost but we had played the right way?

I know what I'd want.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

It's about the killer mentality.

If you have the attitude that there's a line I won't cross (because it's wrong), you will lose to someone who doesn't have that limitation (everything else being equal).

It's about doing every single thing possible to win.

When Shuey ducked his head and got the free a couple of years ago, went back and kicked the goal (was it in the prelim? I can't remember) to progress in the finals.

Put Carlton in that situation.

Would be ok with one of our boys doing that? Or would you rather he didn't duck and we lost but we had played the right way?

I know what I'd want.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Your response is predicated on the idea that between two equally matched opponents, the difference between them is measured by commitment: what are you willing to do to win? The problem with this idea is that there has not and will never be to perfectly matched opponents, and so much of the time it ceases to be numerically significant the team/group that is 'better' (more skilled, athletically superior, more psychologically together, etc) that wins.

Were there no other moments in that game that got for WC the win? It was an elimination final (against Port, IIRC) and yes, I'd rather he didn't duck and he got that shit out of his game.

Plan. Make tactics your heartbeat. Be determined as all hell, and play hard; be willing to put yourself on the line if you have to. But - and it pains me I should have to say this - do not cheat in order to win. You do not need to, if you are better. 'Tis only when people are not better that they resort to trying to bend the rules to their own benefit, and - frankly - what's the worth of a stolen victory?

This is not war. There are not lives on the line. The consequences of loss are not so dire.

 

[katmanblue]

Your response is predicated on the idea that between two equally matched opponents, the difference between them is measured by commitment: what are you willing to do to win? The problem with this idea is that there has not and will never be to perfectly matched opponents, and so much of the time it ceases to be numerically significant the team/group that is 'better' (more skilled, athletically superior, more psychologically together, etc) that wins.

Were there no other moments in that game that got for WC the win? It was an elimination final (against Port, IIRC) and yes, I'd rather he didn't duck and he got that sh*t out of his game.

Plan. Make tactics your heartbeat. Be determined as all hell, and play hard; be willing to put yourself on the line if you have to. But - and it pains me I should have to say this - do not cheat in order to win. You do not need to, if you are better. 'Tis only when people are not better that they resort to trying to bend the rules to their own benefit, and - frankly - what's the worth of a stolen victory?

This is not war. There are not lives on the line. The consequences of loss are not so dire.

Your response is predicated on the idea that between two equally matched opponents, the difference between them is measured by commitment: what are you willing to do to win? The problem with this idea is that there has not and will never be to perfectly matched opponents, and so much of the time it ceases to be numerically significant the team/group that is 'better' (more skilled, athletically superior, more psychologically together, etc) that wins.

Were there no other moments in that game that got for WC the win? It was an elimination final (against Port, IIRC) and yes, I'd rather he didn't duck and he got that sh*t out of his game.

Plan. Make tactics your heartbeat. Be determined as all hell, and play hard; be willing to put yourself on the line if you have to. But - and it pains me I should have to say this - do not cheat in order to win. You do not need to, if you are better. 'Tis only when people are not better that they resort to trying to bend the rules to their own benefit, and - frankly - what's the worth of a stolen victory?

This is not war. There are not lives on the line. The consequences of loss are not so dire.

1.
Of course there are no perfectly match opponents. But you take every advantage you can get, because you can bet your opponent is. Even if it's a 1% difference, that could make a difference in a crucial contest.

2.
Surely there were other moments. But it all lead to that moment and action. You are saying you'd rather he didn't duck and they lost? I don't believe you.

Did you enjoy Newnes goal after the siren and celebrate? Or were you upset he didn't hand the ball Gibbons who was the closest player?

3. I never said cheat (at least I don't think so). Push boundaries. There is a difference.

It goes without saying that you try be better in every way.


On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DangerousD]

I make no distinction between cheating and cheating.

What you're talking about is akin to the Al Clarkson school of coaching; shepparding the mark, hold up play, skirt the edges of breaking the rules as often as you can get away with it. If you can take someone out, do it utterly and completely. Nope, and nope.

Don't see a useful distinction to make there. You're either cheating or you're not.

So by that token you’re happy that our players cheat each week when they throw the ball instead of handball, that’s against the rules so is cheating, when Curnow scares his opponents off the ball, holds a just a touch longer than he should, or when our players creep over the mark to get a few inches closer to the kicker.

Where is your line? There can’t be a line, we support our team each week when our players bend the rules, the question is how far until you’re not happy?

Yes I am drawing comparisons to the Clarkson style of coaching and the Hardwick, they have premierships between them since 2008, Bellamy has taken his side to 10 grand finals I think it is.

I compare it to soccer as well, the managers there use every trick in the book to gain an advantage, putting pressure on the refs midweek, time wasting, staging, diving, pressuring the ref mid game, some of it isn’t a good look from a part time follower but nice guys finish last, it’s very hard to compete against these types.

 

[Faz 2000]

Certainly the idea that one can field a team SO MUCH more talented than the rest that we can play pretty, skillful football and have a great, sociable, friendly attitude and still win is appealing. But I think the last team that was anywhere near that was maybe Geelong in '07, who just sort of blew everyone away.

All the other great sides - Brissie early 2000s, Hawks, current Tiges... all super skillful and all decidedly nasty to play against, physical and excellent at manipulating the game in their favour. Winners, obviously. They had supreme skill, but didn't turn the game into a track meet of see who can play prettier for longer and run faster and jump higher. They ruin the other team's day. That's the hard edge we need to find. We're gentlemen by comparison.

 

[DangerousD]

Your response is predicated on the idea that between two equally matched opponents, the difference between them is measured by commitment: what are you willing to do to win? The problem with this idea is that there has not and will never be to perfectly matched opponents, and so much of the time it ceases to be numerically significant the team/group that is 'better' (more skilled, athletically superior, more psychologically together, etc) that wins.

Were there no other moments in that game that got for WC the win? It was an elimination final (against Port, IIRC) and yes, I'd rather he didn't duck and he got that sh*t out of his game.

Plan. Make tactics your heartbeat. Be determined as all hell, and play hard; be willing to put yourself on the line if you have to. But - and it pains me I should have to say this - do not cheat in order to win. You do not need to, if you are better. 'Tis only when people are not better that they resort to trying to bend the rules to their own benefit, and - frankly - what's the worth of a stolen victory?

This is not war. There are not lives on the line. The consequences of loss are not so dire.

They are nice thoughts and it would be nice, but what do you call cheating? In the elimination final against WC in the last play was the Pies player that threw the ball out cheating? In the prelim against Brisbane was Dangerfields throw in the goal square that got them a goal cheating? Is a tagger holding and scragging his opponent at the stoppage cheating or is players continually walking over the mark and being ignored by the umps cheating? What about ducking and staging?

I personally see a big gulf between what’s written above and Essendon players injecting themselves with supplements, even a big difference between what’s above and players from Richmond and Hawthorn continually punching opposition in the guts, all my point is, what’s bending the rules, what’s taking advantage of the rules and what’s cheating?

 

[Gethelred]

1.
Of course there are no perfectly match opponents. But you take every advantage you can get, because you can bet your opponent is. Even if it's a 1% difference, that could make a difference in a crucial contest.

2.
Surely there were other moments. But it all lead to that moment and action. You are saying you'd rather he didn't duck and they lost? I don't believe you.

Did you enjoy Newnes goal after the siren and celebrate? Or were you upset he didn't hand the ball Gibbons who was the closest player?

3. I never said cheat (at least I don't think so). Push boundaries. There is a difference.

It goes without saying that you try be better in every way.


On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

1. The excuse 'Everyone's doing it' didn't work for Essendon or Lance Armstrong, and it doesn't work here, either.
2. Newnes didn't know who got to the ball first, and Gibbons is arguably as good a set shot as we have. I'd certainly be happy to have him try.

The second part to this one is that this was a genuine mistake, or are you saying that you think Newnes knew he shouldn't have the ball in that instance.
3. I don't see anything useful in making the distinction between skirting the edges of what the rules will allow and cheating. You're either playing the game, or you're not. And I'd be very interested to see you call that a lack of mongrel, because there are any number of winners throughout history who succeeded at their goals whilst playing their fields in the right way.

So by that token you’re happy that our players cheat each week when they throw the ball instead of handball

Nope

that’s against the rules so is cheating, when Curnow scares his opponents off the ball, holds a just a touch longer than he should, or when our players creep over the mark to get a few inches closer to the kicker.

Nope. Wish he wouldn't.

Where is your line? There can’t be a line, we support our team each week when our players bend the rules, the question is how far until you’re not happy?

Does this conversation sound like one in which I'm contented?

Yes I am drawing comparisons to the Clarkson style of coaching and the Hardwick, they have premierships between them since 2008, Bellamy has taken his side to 10 grand finals I think it is.

...

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but I'll say it again.

I know nothing about league, but I know a bit about AFL. Tell me, were Clarkson's sides any good at the sport? Or did they need to cheat to win? You cannot have it both ways, and to an extent neither can I. The difference between us is I view the fact that they were extremely good as the goal. I see next to no value, even a negative value, in the other stuff.

I compare it to soccer as well, the managers there use every trick in the book to gain an advantage, putting pressure on the refs midweek, time wasting, staging, diving, pressuring the ref mid game, some of it isn’t a good look from a part time follower but nice guys finish last, it’s very hard to compete against these types.

And there, in summary, is why I don't follow soccer.

If people want to bitch and moan and complain and dive, that is entirely on them. You control your own behaviour, and you set your own standards.

 

[1981]

Good post, in theory (have only looked at the heading as don't have time)
Too many small players and weak players on our list.
Good luck winning a flag with this current 22.