Remove this Banner Ad

Curfews

  • Thread starter Thread starter AAMI
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

A

AAMI

Team Captain
Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Posts
588
Reaction score
3
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Did we have a curfew last year when we were on top of the ladder? NO

Did West Coast have a curfew last year when they won the Premiership? DEFINITELY NO

Has the curfew improved the Crows performance this year? WITHOUT QUESTION, NO!!!

It's been a good lesson learnt the hard way - do not enforce a curfew in the future.
 
I see your point and I agree with you, but I dont think using West Coast as an example of how to keep their players in check is a good example.

I think the curfew is stupid, we have not had problems before with our players, just seems we are grasping at straws introducing this, surely there are other things that need to be adressed before this.
 
Graham Cornes has summed this one up well.

Where the AFC have made a stupid mistake is to put in place a player control mechanism with no escape clause. It is simply a suspension if a player breaks the curfew.

His example was a team's best 5 players all breaking the curfew on the eve of the GF.

Under Adelaide's curfew there is no out - the players have to be suspended and that would be plain bloody stupid.

Not thought out very well at all IMO
 
macca23 said:
Graham Cornes has summed this one up well.

Where the AFC have made a stupid mistake is to put in place a player control mechanism with no escape clause. It is simply a suspension if a player breaks the curfew.

His example was a team's best 5 players all breaking the curfew on the eve of the GF.

Under Adelaide's curfew there is no out - the players have to be suspended and that would be plain bloody stupid.

Not thought out very well at all IMO
Click to expand...
Except that Graham "I am god's gift to the earth" Cornes forgets that Craig has the power to veto any punishment recommended by the leadership group.

I don't see what the big problem is here. The coach has the final say and he decided to enforce the rules set in place by the leadership group. For months people have been saying how Craig is soft on his players yet he had the cajones not to veto the decision to suspend his only experienced ruckman, a leader in clearences, hard ball gets and hitouts.

John Reid said the curfew was brought in because the club wasn't happy with some of the discipline by some players down at the club. Craig raised this issue with the playing group asking them to come up with ways to erradicate that. They went away and came up with the idea of curfew. The players signed off on it, the coach signed off on it and CEO signed off on it.

What is the problem here?! Do we allow players to run amok just so we can have a slightly better chance of winning one game?! Do we keep sweeping these indisgressions under the carpet and eventually go down the path of West Coast or Fremantle, or do we try and nip it in the bud and get players to realise that they were good last 2 years because they made the sacrifices.

Curfew wouldn't have been brought in at all if there weren't concerns about the things that were happening this year.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Why not deal with issues in-house and not this blanket rule that has to be made public?

All we are doing are setting ourselves up to be a laughing stock.
 
When this first came out I recall one of our posters asking aloud why now.

The inference being that something was going on that the club and the players wanted stopped.

I think when you set a trap and people walk into it then it says a lot

Thats all I will say :)
 
AAMI said:
Why not deal with issues in-house and not this blanket rule that has to be made public?

All we are doing are setting ourselves up to be a laughing stock.
Click to expand...

Spot-on. If the internal motivation and accountability from amongst your peers is not enough, then adding public ridicule to the mix wont truly do a lot.

Far from making the Crows look like a more disciplined club in taking a tough stance against its players (even if generated from the playing group), it has made us appear less disciplined to the general footy public unaware of what happens in the inner sanctum. For example, 99% of the footy public 2 weeks ago would have viewed the Crows as a professional unit with minimal player discipline issues (certainly no more than any other club). Fast forward a week, we are being ridiculed (rightly or wrongly) on the Footy Show as making heaps of team changes cos our players having been staying out late 'on the piss'.

Questionable policy and dumb application has backfired big time.

If such sanctions are necessary to motivate a player to recover and prepare to his best level by going home early like a good boy then what are the odds they are gonna be motivated to do all the other stuff like appropriate additional training, adequate diet, consistent mental application etc etc.

While i am not against all forms of external expectation and consequence for action, the ultimate motivation needs to be framed in a positive sense, wanting to do your best for self and team because of the perceived rewards/goal rather than bashing someone towards a certain behaviour with a big stick.

Maybe the drop in standard of our footy this year is reflective of a drop-off in intensity/motivation after the near misses of the past 2 years. I reckon this is one of the factors that afflicted Geelong last year. They had the players but kept falling at the Prelim hurdle (maybe will again?) but seem to have regained their 'mojo' after a lean year.

Get on the Crows for Premiers 08...bookmark it!
 
Stiffy_18 said:
Except that Graham "I am god's gift to the earth" Cornes forgets that Craig has the power to veto any punishment recommended by the leadership group.

I don't see what the big problem is here. The coach has the final say and he decided to enforce the rules set in place by the leadership group. For months people have been saying how Craig is soft on his players yet he had the cajones not to veto the decision to suspend his only experienced ruckman, a leader in clearences, hard ball gets and hitouts.

John Reid said the curfew was brought in because the club wasn't happy with some of the discipline by some players down at the club. Craig raised this issue with the playing group asking them to come up with ways to erradicate that. They went away and came up with the idea of curfew. The players signed off on it, the coach signed off on it and CEO signed off on it.

What is the problem here?! Do we allow players to run amok just so we can have a slightly better chance of winning one game?! Do we keep sweeping these indisgressions under the carpet and eventually go down the path of West Coast or Fremantle, or do we try and nip it in the bud and get players to realise that they were good last 2 years because they made the sacrifices.

Curfew wouldn't have been brought in at all if there weren't concerns about the things that were happening this year.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu: Great post!
 
Stiffy_18 said:
Except that Graham "I am god's gift to the earth" Cornes forgets that Craig has the power to veto any punishment recommended by the leadership group.

I don't see what the big problem is here. The coach has the final say and he decided to enforce the rules set in place by the leadership group. For months people have been saying how Craig is soft on his players yet he had the cajones not to veto the decision to suspend his only experienced ruckman, a leader in clearences, hard ball gets and hitouts.

John Reid said the curfew was brought in because the club wasn't happy with some of the discipline by some players down at the club. Craig raised this issue with the playing group asking them to come up with ways to erradicate that. They went away and came up with the idea of curfew. The players signed off on it, the coach signed off on it and CEO signed off on it.

What is the problem here?! Do we allow players to run amok just so we can have a slightly better chance of winning one game?! Do we keep sweeping these indisgressions under the carpet and eventually go down the path of West Coast or Fremantle, or do we try and nip it in the bud and get players to realise that they were good last 2 years because they made the sacrifices.

Curfew wouldn't have been brought in at all if there weren't concerns about the things that were happening this year.
Click to expand...

Well said....:thumbsu:

Craig expressed to the leadership group that there were concerns over recovery from games and that there was a linkage to alcohol and being out (although not excessive).

The players came back with suggestion of a curfew and the coach said yeah fine.

AFL players aren't the ideal species to "empower" but clearly there was a need to put something in place
 
- PC - said:
When this first came out I recall one of our posters asking aloud why now.

The inference being that something was going on that the club and the players wanted stopped.

I think when you set a trap and people walk into it then it says a lot

Thats all I will say :)
Click to expand...


Yes after listening to Stephen Trigg on the weekend I think you're onto it, he stated that there had been some instances earlier this year that were kept in house and out of the public eye, so something had to be done.
 
WheresGroomgone said:
Yes after listening to Stephen Trigg on the weekend I think you're onto it, he stated that there had been some instances earlier this year that were kept in house and out of the public eye, so something had to be done.
Click to expand...

spot on - and the playing group were over it....:thumbsd:
 
Stiffy_18 said:
Except that Graham "I am god's gift to the earth" Cornes forgets that Craig has the power to veto any punishment recommended by the leadership group.
Click to expand...

Not without Craig making himself look hypocritical though Stiffy, as the pre-set penalty is suspension.

Cornesy didn't bag the curfew as much as the idea of a pre-set penalty without a get-out clause for exceptional circumstances.

Let's say we fluked it though to the GF - we won't but hypothetically let's say we did - and this time it's Goodwin, McLeod, Johncock, Hudson and Rutten who all broke the curfew.

Are you going to stand up and applaud the club for pre-setting a rigid penalty that cost us a GF??

That was Cornesy's point - the lack of flexibility in the penalty.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

macca23 said:
Not without Craig making himself look hypocritical though Stiffy, as the pre-set penalty is suspension.

Cornesy didn't bag the curfew as much as the idea of a pre-set penalty without a get-out clause for exceptional circumstances.

Let's say we fluked it though to the GF - we won't but hypothetically let's say we did - and this time it's Goodwin, McLeod, Johncock, Hudson and Rutten who all broke the curfew.

Are you going to stand up and applaud the club for pre-setting a rigid penalty that cost us a GF??

That was Cornesy's point - the lack of flexibility in the penalty.
Click to expand...
Yeah but Cornesy overlooks one thing here. The fact that we suspended a key player ahead of a key game now would send a pretty strong message to the playing group.

If hypothetically we made the GF, I can guarantee you that none of the players would be breaking any curfews for the simple fact that they would want to play in the GF. This suspension sends a very strong message to the playing group and I am sure they would not even consider flirting with breaking the curfew let alone going out and doing it.

You know the saying, once bitten......;)
 
Stiffy_18 said:
If hypothetically we made the GF, I can guarantee you that none of the players would be breaking any curfews for the simple fact that they would want to play in the GF. This suspension sends a very strong message to the playing group and I am sure they would not even consider flirting with breaking the curfew let alone going out and doing it.

You know the saying, once bitten......;)
Click to expand...

You're probably right Stiffy, but you have to remember that they are dumb footballers, not rocket scientists.

VB excepted of course!! :D
 
Bock's comment was on the news last night.

The Trigginator was on straight afterwards and added context to Bock's comments.

  1. There was an issue identified by the Coach/Coaching staff regarding recovery from games and a possible linkage to alcohol.
  2. Craig asked the Senior Group for a solution
  3. They suggested curfew and suspension
  4. Craig accepted...


it's as simple as that.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

AAMI said:
Did we have a curfew last year when we were on top of the ladder? NO

Did West Coast have a curfew last year when they won the Premiership? DEFINITELY NO

Has the curfew improved the Crows performance this year? WITHOUT QUESTION, NO!!!

It's been a good lesson learnt the hard way - do not enforce a curfew in the future.
Click to expand...

Did we win the premiership at the end of the year? NO

Does the teams poor performance this year come as a result of some players not doing the right thing in helping their rehab? Doesn't help.
 
in the sanfl round up it says that "while Bernie Vince (Eagles) and Darren Pfeiffer (Norwood) are serving club suspensions. Vince can play this week but Pfeiffer still has to miss one game."

whats the go there?

why does darren have to miss one more?
 
reCOGnise said:
in the sanfl round up it says that "while Bernie Vince (Eagles) and Darren Pfeiffer (Norwood) are serving club suspensions. Vince can play this week but Pfeiffer still has to miss one game."

whats the go there?

why does darren have to miss one more?
Click to expand...

because Norwood didn't play last weekend, they had the bye therefore Darren's suspension starts this weekend.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom