NC v Choco

[Gary17]

Interesting to see the difference between Neil Craig's positive approach to young players and Choco's negativity.

Craig always says that young players are in the team to perform, not just to fill a hole while waiting for more senior players to return. He continually says that they place no limits on their expectations.

Choco on the other hand had this to say about the Power players who are currently filling the gaps caused by injured senior players:

"You're first five best players cannot be replaced with any comparison by picks 23-28. They don't compare at all. By standard, experience, pay packets. Anything. They are miles apart. You just manage with what you can get and what you can do."

I know who I'd rather have in charge.

 

[magtrev]

No Gary, no Gary, no Gary no.

Nooooooooooo Gary

 

[qjkl]

Choco has been quite willing to play younger players in the past. Hartlett was deserving of a debut this year and has played/perfomed accordingly.

I think that statement may have been more of a reflection of his opinion of the younger players available on the Port list than his general attitude towards playing youngsters.

 

[Gary17]

No Gary, no Gary, no Gary no.

Nooooooooooo Gary

??

I meant NC of course..

 

[Cap]

Choco has been quite willing to play younger players in the past. Hartlett was deserving of a debut this year and has played/perfomed accordingly.

I think that statement may have been more of a reflection of his opinion of the younger players available on the Port list than his general attitude towards playing youngsters.

It is still an excuse.

Saying that I think its one of his rare slips when it comes to talking about his players.

I think Port and Crows have a similar thought process on its youngsters unlike some Victorian Clubs who will debut a player regardless just to put bums on seats.

 

[Macca19]

Im no Chocolate fan but I dont see the issue in this to be honest.

 

[marvin]

I don't see that the views are incompatible at all.

Take out our best 5 (say at the moment, Edwards, Porps, Vince, Mackay and Thompson going by the POTY votes on the board), and include Sellar, Petrenko, Reilly, Armstrong and Jacky, and we're not even close to being the same side. Which is Choco's point.

However, if the best 5 in our side fall off the back of someone's boot on the way back from training tomorrow and we had to make those changes, we'd expect the 5 to come in to give their best and perform at AFL level. So would Choco.

 

[magtrev]

??

I meant NC of course..

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Forzaport]

I don't see that the views are incompatible at all.

Take out our best 5 (say at the moment, Edwards, Porps, Vince, Mackay and Thompson going by the POTY votes on the board), and include Sellar, Petrenko, Reilly, Armstrong and Jacky, and we're not even close to being the same side. Which is Choco's point.

However, if the best 5 in our side fall off the back of someone's boot on the way back from training tomorrow and we had to make those changes, we'd expect the 5 to come in to give their best and perform at AFL level. So would Choco.

Spot on - in fact this would be true for any team in the comp.

tbh i would've thought many crow's supporters would want more honesty out of craig instead of his usual cliche comments.

 

[cmndstab]

Craig pretty much never speaks in cliches, it just seems that way because his answers to the same questions he gets asked each week don't change. He's actually really insightful to listen to.


However, Choco is right - your five best players ARE going to be considerably better than players 23-28 (even though that's six players ). It's not really a reflection on the worth of youth, just a reflection on the fact that your best players are better than the other players.

 

[King Elvis]

Im no Chocolate fan but I dont see the issue in this to be honest.

Not sure.

It's a fair point, and no doubt correct, but he's phrased it terribly - if you were player 23-28, you'd be feeling pretty shithouse about yourself at present. Especially considering it could be argued that there are 3-5 players in the first 22 who don't deserve to be there.

 

[aneale]

Choco has a habit of not phrasing things well. "Josh is one good game away from playing for the rest of the year". Now we not what he meant but when you are trying to (hopefully) distance yourself from the 'gold pass' tag of some players, he needs to pick his words more carefully.

 

[Witty Remark]

Not sure if this has any relevance in this thread, however I believe Choco could actually be pregnant (judging by the size of his man boobs in his press conference) .

The reason I bring it up is that being pregnant can have an impact on the cognitive processes which would go some way to explaining some of the gaffs Choco comes out with. Moods swings also comes with the pregnancy territory. It may explain a lot.

In all seriousness though, I agree that what Choco tries to say sometimes, tends to come out a little twisted.

 

[Macca19]

Just another point from the original post, its nowhere solely a youth comment at all.

For us, id say players 23-28 would include guys like Carr and Thurstans and possibly P Burgoyne. For you, id say Reilly and Shirley would be in that group.

Yeah it comes out wrong, as everything does with Choc, but his point is valid and stands for all clubs in the league.

 

[King Elvis]

Just another point from the original post, its nowhere solely a youth comment at all.

For us, id say players 23-28 would include guys like Carr and Thurstans and possibly P Burgoyne. For you, id say Reilly and Shirley would be in that group.

Yeah it comes out wrong, as everything does with Choc, but his point is valid and stands for all clubs in the league.

And Paul Stewart.

The most baffling thing about Choco (because I generally rate him as a Coach) are his selection decisions - there are a lot of very strange ones which are hard to justify; which may be why he comes out with shit like the initial post.

 

[Gary17]

It's a fair point, and no doubt correct, but he's phrased it terribly - if you were player 23-28, you'd be feeling pretty shithouse about yourself at present.

This was my point in general. Agree that it isn't necessarily about youth, and that it applies to every team - and that Choco often phrases things terribly. In fact I think this was my main point, that I like the way NC is positive about players who aren't in the top 5 or 10, rather than pointing out the obvious differences and just saying "we'll battle on." Used to annoy me how Ayres would be asked "What did you think of X today, he played really well for the Crows" and his reply would be a negative "Well he just has to remember to play like that all the time" - whereas NC is always ready to congratulate a player for playing well.

 

[*PAF]

What is a youngster?
Is it someone 23 and under to use an arbitrary figure?
If so we play roughly the same number of players in that age bracket week in week out.
Other clubs are probably the same.

Is it sub 20 players?
You have Dangerfield and Walker that have pinned down a spot, we have Hartlett.
We both have a few that could eventually cement a spot.

I do not see the difference really.
Perhaps because you have been introducing a few players of late, but that is only because what was a stable side for many years needed replacements. We have been replacing players for longer and thus some seem older than they are.
Boak (32 Games), Gray(16) and Krakouer(15) are all 20 years old, same as Ottens(13).
Tippett is 22(30), same as Carlile(33), Pearce(72) and Justin Westhoff(38).

Nah, not much difference in the sides except that perhaps some of our "youngsters" have been playing for longer and thus may appear older than your youngsters.