Preview Key to success - Hard Edge

[HARKER]

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.

Theres a huge difference there. Maybe I'm seeing this quote out of context, but one can be instructed to bump as hard as possible with the club and player open to risking suspension, or not to bump at all and never have to worry about the possibility of being suspended.

We don't worry about behind-the -play sniping any more, so being dirty for just being dirty doesn't come into play as much, but teams will use every manner available to them in order to intimidate players that can be intimidated or to do what they can to get into players heads and throw them off their game.

We have players that use these tools on the field and we have players that are suspect to being on the end of on-field bullying.
I know which group I'd rather have, talent being equal.

 

[HARKER]

Maybe this has little to do with a Hard Edge and to get this out of the way; I dislike sledging and there are elements of sledging which are now not accepted any more but -

I recall watching Weitering in his TAC year playing finals at PP.
What he did was to engage in 'conversation' with his opponent. I couldn't hear what he was saying but given he was smiling and the opponent upset, it may not have been great, but what he did was to have his opponent invested in the banter, whilst Weitering had an eye out on the play.
At the right time he'd leave his opponent flat-footed whilst he'd engage himself right in the game.

It was a very clever ploy and it worked on a least a couple of occasions, I recall. Clever guy, this Weitering.

 

[Gethelred]

Theres a huge difference there. Maybe I'm seeing this quote out of context, but one can be instructed to bump as hard as possible with the club and player open to risking suspension, or not to bump at all and never have to worry about the possibility of being suspended.

... because bumping an opposition player is not against the rules. Is it a fair argument to use against me, that the AFL are ridiculous at makey-uppey?

We don't worry about behind-the -play sniping any more, so being dirty for just being dirty doesn't come into play as much, but teams will use every manner available to them in order to intimidate players that can be intimidated or to do what they can to get into players heads and throw them off their game.

And. They. Shouldn't.

We have players that use these tools on the field and we have players that are suspect to being on the end of on-field bullying.
I know which group I'd rather have, talent being equal.

You know what I'd rather? Men who were man enough to behave like an adult even when playing footy instead of a schoolyard bully, and a society that didn't glorify machismo ahead of success.

 

[HARKER]

You know what I'd rather? Men who were man enough to behave like an adult even when playing footy instead of a schoolyard bully, and a society that didn't glorify machismo ahead of success.

Are you suggesting this to be the case in the AFL?
AFL can be a brutal game, as it's quick and a 360 game where the hits can come from anywhere......even from your own team-mates.

I don't understand where that bolded comes from? Where do you see this glorification of machismo? Maybe I'm missing it.
Weren't we glorifying the women's game a few years back for harder tackling and physicality? That's what I seem to recall reading.

 

[Gethelred]

Are you suggesting this to be the case in the AFL?
AFL can be a brutal game, as it's quick and a 360 game where the hits can come from anywhere......even from your own team-mates.

I don't understand where that bolded comes from? Where do you see this glorification of machismo? Maybe I'm missing it.
Weren't we glorifying the women's game a few years back for harder tackling and physicality? That's what I was reading.

How's this thread serve as an example of the celebration of the machismo, of the domination of the winner over the loser?

Not enough merely to win; you must shove their head in the dirt, make them feel the defeat each and every time. You must break the rules, their bones, their bodies. You must play harder than they do, more viciously, with more violence and you must demonstrate that willingness ahead of actually being good at the game.

Not enough to be braver than your opponent. Not enough to be more skillful or more committed. Not enough to be faster or stronger, and to win on your own merits. You must be willing to commit atrocities to win. To 'do what it takes.' To 'make the hard choices'.

To be fair, this is about more than this thread, this is about our culture, Australia's, rather than Carlton's. We don't glorify the victors, we choose to glorify the villainous victors, the rebels and the rebellious. This is about who we are, and I'd rather get that out into the open, personally, even if it's a bit ugly.

 

[HARKER]

How's this thread serve as an example of the celebration of the machismo, of the domination of the winner over the loser?

Not enough merely to win; you must shove their head in the dirt, make them feel the defeat each and every time. You must break the rules, their bones, their bodies. You must play harder than they do, more viciously, with more violence and you must demonstrate that willingness ahead of actually being good at the game.

Not enough to be braver than your opponent. Not enough to be more skillful or more committed. Not enough to be faster or stronger, and to win on your own merits. You must be willing to commit atrocities to win. To 'do what it takes.' To 'make the hard choices'.

To be fair, this is about more than this thread, this is about our culture, Australia's, rather than Carlton's. We don't glorify the victors, we choose to glorify the villainous victors, the rebels and the rebellious. This is about who we are, and I'd rather get that out into the open, personally, even if it's a bit ugly.

OK. I didn't read the whole thread and like I said, I may have taken comments out of context.

Of course - Just play the game as we all want to see it played and leave the gutter shit out of it; Men and Women

 

[Faz 2000]

In summary, we prefer winners that are nasty over losers who are nice. And it's uncomfortable. I don't like sledging or bullying, they make me feel very uncomfortable, personally. But they happen on-field and are almost NECESSARY to be effective at times. They're a tool in the toolbox to be deployed, sometimes.

Sure, I'd love our team to be nice AND winners, but when push comes to shove, I don't want to barrack for a team that doesn't win a flag in the next 50 years whilst establishing a reputation as the most polite, gentlemanly and respectful club in the land.

So something has to give, some lines have to be approached, boundaries pushed. Compromises, within reason, need to be made.

To get better, we have to get our hands dirtier, no doubt. And we have to recognise we're in a heated, combative game. Our players don't need to be assholes off the field, or savages, but they do need to be brutal, ruthless and make the opposition uncomfortable ON it.

 

[Gethelred]

In summary, we prefer winners that are nasty over losers who are nice. And it's uncomfortable. I don't like sledging or bullying, they make me feel very uncomfortable, personally. But they happen on-field and are almost NECESSARY to be effective at times. They're a tool in the toolbox to be deployed, sometimes.

Sure, I'd love our team to be nice AND winners, but when push comes to shove, I don't want to barrack for a team that doesn't win a flag in the next 50 years whilst establishing a reputation as the most polite, gentlemanly and respectful club in the land.

So something has to give, some lines have to be approached, boundaries pushed. Compromises, within reason, need to be made.

To get better, we have to get our hands dirtier, no doubt. And we have to recognise we're in a heated, combative game. Our players don't need to be assholes off the field, or savages, but they do need to be brutal, ruthless and make the opposition uncomfortable ON it.

That's the crux of it, essentially. I still don't think it's that simple, though, a diametric choice between either or. It's a spectrum.

But then, I've been known to say that someone should (when Dusty goes to fend them off) try and break his arm, so there's that.

 

[katmanblue]

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.

Geelong v Hawks 2008 gf.

We know how that turned out.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

Geelong v Hawks 2008 gf.

We know how that turned out.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

D'you remember much about that game, Katman? The Cats were genuinely off, and they kicked a fair few points even before Hawthorn started rushing them like no-one's business. Then, they set themselves to the task of winning the game, and they won it pretty well.

On that day, they were better, and there's no higher praise than that. That 2008 Cats side is as good a side as I can remember who didn't go on to win the flag.

 

[Love the Drake]

D'you remember much about that game, Katman? The Cats were genuinely off, and they kicked a fair few points even before Hawthorn started rushing them like no-one's business. Then, they set themselves to the task of winning the game, and they won it pretty well.

On that day, they were better, and there's no higher praise than that. That 2008 Cats side is as good a side as I can remember who didn't go on to win the flag.

The key factor is always having mongrel, being uncompromising, and/or having a hard edge.
When you have these qualities as a footy club you have an advantage over teams of similar skills.
It’s an age old formula.

 

[katmanblue]

D'you remember much about that game, Katman? The Cats were genuinely off, and they kicked a fair few points even before Hawthorn started rushing them like no-one's business. Then, they set themselves to the task of winning the game, and they won it pretty well.

On that day, they were better, and there's no higher praise than that. That 2008 Cats side is as good a side as I can remember who didn't go on to win the flag.

My point was that the Cats were the best side all year. Hawks tactics worked.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

My point was that the Cats were the best side all year. Hawks tactics worked.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

And my point is, on the day, the Hawks were the better team.

I'm not going to say their tactics didn't play a role, because it isn't true. But it isn't true to completely say they won that game, given the degree to which the cats lost it.

 

[katmanblue]

And my point is, on the day, the Hawks were the better team.

But they weren't all year. They played better that day. The pressure got to the Cats.

I'm not going to say their tactics didn't play a role, because it isn't true.

I never said those tactics were the be all and end all. When all things are equal, these sort of tactics can be the difference.

Geelong were the better team. They couldn't play to their usual standard because Hawthorn's mind games got to them. The dirty tactics of the Hawks got them over the line against a superior foe.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

But they weren't all year. They played better that day. The pressure got to the Cats.

The cats looked lethargic, and a lot of their kicks which would normally have been goals - the thing the 07-09 cats had going for them is that anywhere within 60m their mids and forwards would have a ping, and they kicked an awful lot of goals from those long shots - fell short.

Don't buy the 'pressure' argument, because in their own way the cats were a pressure side.

I never said those tactics were the be all and end all. When all things are equal, these sort of tactics can be the difference.

You yourself have said that no two sides are equal.

Geelong were the better team. They couldn't play to their usual standard because Hawthorn's mind games got to them. The dirty tactics of the Hawks got them over the line against a superior foe.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Nope.

Geelong were the better team across the year, but on GF day they simply weren't. The 'dirty' tactics weren't the reason they won that game; it took multiple moments of individual brilliance and an astounding act of bravery by Luke Hodge in playing the game with broken ribs for them to win. And - as stated - the Cats didn't hit their shots as they normally would.

This is a silly argument. You're saying X (Hawthorn skirting the rules won them the game), I'm saying A (Geelong lost the game as much as Hawthorn won it), B (Hawthorn went in deliberately to skirt the edges of the rules, but they were assisted by Geelong's shots falling short where they normally wouldn't) and C (Hawthorn had a number of players - Cyril, Dew and Hodge - who, when the moment was there to be seized stood up taller than their counterparts).

The arguments don't really encounter each other; all of them can be true.

 

[gbatman]

Mix hard edge with skill and ability and you win the premiership, well you get close anyway. That want to win, competitiveness and that will to compete and put your body on the line can't be underestimated.

We didn't have it at all at the start of this season. Teague somehow got our players up to an acceptable standard. I am predicting a very physical and brutal preseason, yes players may get hurt but we need to train it into us. Once it's there I believe it's there to stay.

We need to hit harder than the rest, we need to never hold back at a contest, put our heads over the ball and take whatever comes. We need to chase and tackle hard and effectively and push the boundaries.

Players make it because they are either very talented or because they are very hard at it and super competitive or both. SOS has drafted a lot of players who have talent and/or ability but there's not a lot who have developed a hard edge yet. Hence why we have a lot of young guys not getting a game or not getting played in positions the fans would like to see them in.

I think a very physical preseason is on the cards where our players are pushed to go to the next level. We become a hard physical team week in week out and our skill and ability will take care of the rest.

To me it's very clear that this is valued highly by Teague. Play hard and you get picked and picked in key roles. I think we will be bring in senior players who are real competitors.