Dunna Heartknee
Club Legend
- Jul 4, 2020
- 1,792
- 5,623
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Not having a go at youHow good would it be to recruit Selwood as an assistant coach next year. Wouldn’t put up with players being bullied..
**** him he's a slapper
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Not having a go at youHow good would it be to recruit Selwood as an assistant coach next year. Wouldn’t put up with players being bullied..
Yeah I see where you are coming from BUT...Not having a go at you
**** him he's a slapper
Big 'YES" for HodgeYeah I see where you are coming from BUT...
As a coach he can instil these qualities in our team.
- 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
Failing that....Luke Hodge will do
Bring back Bootsma.
chamois.........the same as your typical chamois..........fmd.........
Because the entirety of Richmond's side are footballers first, athletes second...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
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."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.
I make no distinction between cheating and cheating.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.
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.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.
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.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
It's about the killer mentality.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
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. The excuse 'Everyone's doing it' didn't work for Essendon or Lance Armstrong, and it doesn't work here, either.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
NopeSo by that token you’re happy that our players cheat each week when they throw the ball instead of handball
Nope. Wish he wouldn't.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.
Does this conversation sound like one in which I'm contented?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.
And there, in summary, is why I don't follow soccer.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.