Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Do I have to go to the meetings or can we use modern technology to dial in from afar?
Not really interested unless they have cake. Real cake, not BF promised but not delivered type cake.
Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread
- Thread starter The Old Dark Navy's
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Not really interested unless they have cake. Real cake, not BF promised but not delivered type cake.
Definitely Portal cake available. Supposedly.
Tony Lynn 15
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #478
You need to be well known, well connected and rich....counts TL15 out but good luck to everyone else!
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Two out of three ain't bad
thylacine60
Premium Platinum
- Banned
- #480
hear that
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,841
- 21,887
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
The AFL Live app is the only one that I have that's up to date. CFC app and Footy Live app both show old lists.
eddydaniell
Draftee
- Feb 3, 2017
- 14
- 46
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Real longshot here and not sure if this is the right place to post this but was wondering if you have or know anyone who would be willing to sell a Carlton Nike Dri Fit Training Cap that the players wear from either 2014, 2015 or 2016? Attached below are what the hats look like. Thanks guys if you have any info on this please feel free to contact me and I am willing to pay very good money ! Thanks again ladies and gents for reading this and sorry if I have posted in the wrong area!
2014- http://www.fangear.com/carlton-blues-2014-training-cap.html
2015-http://www.fangear.com/au/carlton-blues-2015-training-cap.html
2016- (couldnt find the link)
2014- http://www.fangear.com/carlton-blues-2014-training-cap.html
2015-http://www.fangear.com/au/carlton-blues-2015-training-cap.html
2016- (couldnt find the link)
The post below took place on the training thread and was responsive to a discussion on that thread that was not appropriate (IMO) for that thread. So I have stuck my reply here.
As with any word "culture" takes its meaning from the context in which it is used.
Outside a football context a biomedical "culture" is the growth of an (or several) organisms, hopefully under laboratory conditions.
For yoghurt makers the "culture" is the strain of bacteria that is used to transform milk to, hopefully, a delicious lumpier product.
Cheese makers use cultures of bacteria and fungus (including moulds and yeasts).
Then there is the use of culture in a social context. So Friday, Saturday or Sunday is an important day of rest depending on whether you are Muslim, Jewish or Christian respectively, or all 3 are if you are just lazy, but only the first 3 explanations are a reflection of a culture. The last is generally regarded as "a lack of culture". In this context "culture" is used to group a varied set of social, dietary, artistic, architectural etc norms prevailing among a set of people (whether the set be Nationalist, religious, etc) which are seen as being a reflection of the essence that identifies the set.
So crucifixes are a part of the culture of being a Christian, it being the representation of Christ's so-said sacrificial death (for all of us apparently, even though he didn't really die, but I digress). But although Catholic paedophile priests are (arguably) a product of Catholic cultural norms - the prohibition on priests from expressing themselves sexually in any way - it would be wrong to say the nefarious activities of certain priests was part of Catholic culture. That is because although the Catholic culture (arguably) creates the conditions for paedophilic activity to occur, the sexual exploitation of children is not a representation of the intended essence of Catholic Christianity in any way. On the other hand the covering up of the wrongful behaviours of Catholic priests as an institutional response could be seen to be part of the culture of the Catholic Church since although it was antagonistic to any essential Catholic doctrine, the endemic nature of the response makes it clear that protection of the institution (the purpose of the cover-up) over the wrongs to children committed on its behalf was an important (even paramount) cultural value.
At a football club I would argue the "culture" of a club are those practices that those who identify with the Club (players, employees, members and/or supporters) perceive to be a variety of prevailing norms of conduct that is seen as being a reflection of the essence by which the Club seeks to achieve its goal - winning the Premiership. As, over time, a football club does or doesn't win Flags, its culture (i.e. those "practices") are identified.
Footscray was rightly described (by a fallen prophet) as having a tragic history. Insofar as Footscray's "practices" reflected an essence by which it sought to win Flags it was a dismal failure. It did not even make a GF from 1955 to 2015. Most of the time the scraggers were happy if their team was competitive for a place in the finals. There was no real effort to retain players who might have formed the backbone of a Flag-winning side (i.e. witness the loss of Dempsey and Quinlan, among others).
By contrast Carlton have had the advantage of being an original Club. We have had a history of success from the very first decade of the competition. After a fallow period following 1945 we became innovators to a new professionalism that has been the hallmark of the development of major sporting competitions world wide. With the recruitment of Barassi as captain coach a new era arrived. We were rightly known as "the professionals". Our footy team played that way and our Board operated that way. This was an explicit and recognised reflection of our "culture". It meant a certain ruthlessness with coaches (and players and officials) when it was perceived that the person no longer served the purpose of the Club - to win a Flag. If for some there was brutality in the process, there was also a very definite honesty. Just ask Parkin. It gave us Flags in 1968, 70, 72, 79, 81 and 82.
Under Elliott we used his takeover skill set to transform our list to win a flag in 1987 and, with some of the same key players, again in 1995. He was unable to take over North or St Kilda which, had it been achieved, undoubtedly would have produced a further collection of Flags.
Unfortunately Elliott was slow to appreciate the strength of the socialist forces within the AFL seeking to equalise, so far as possible, the access of Clubs to players that Carlton had been so good at getting. Paying for quality players had been the Carlton way. Its how we got Greg Williams. Rules to prevent it were clearly "anti-Carlton". Cheating on the salary cap was not just a failure to realise that our old way of "buying a Flag" would not work because we would get caught and punished. Worse, it involved a failure to recognise the opportunities the new regulatory regime involving draft and salary cap gave Clubs who were willing to game the regulations.
The Club that first recognised those opportunities was Hawthorn under Clarkson. When Clarkson became coach he traded out faded stars (such as Graham) to maximise Hawthorn's position in the draft. He recognised the order in which he needed to rebuild the team. Hawthorn itself engaged with its membership and built it from rubbish to standard bearer. This gave Hawthorn leverage in terms of attracting players, facilities and advertisers.
Unfortunately we have clung to our 60's era culture long after environmental (regulatory) conditions could enable such an approach to winning a flag to succeed. So we got in a good coach - Pagan - and told him to win a flag with a useless list. we came 10th and hence failed to maximise opportunities under the draft. We were very slow to apply professional standards to the drafting of players. Even the drafting of Chris Judd can be questioned. I don't think it was impossible for us to win a flag with Judd (and to that extent his drafting justified). But Judd becoming available was Judd's plan, not ours. Whatever plan had been in place before Judd became available (at that stage we were hitting the draft hard) was obviously compromised - with contracted time-lines for success - by the recruitment of Judd. Worse, it was very much a throw back to the old cultural norm of "buying the best".
And then we reflexively repeated the "quick fix" to a Flag by sacking Ratten so we could appoint MM who was a coach who could, allegedly, transform a team incapable of winning a final (almost, allegedly) into a Premiership side. It was a throw-back to Ronald Dale and, unfortunately, about as dated.
That old culture persists with many posters wanting us to recruit Fyfe as if there was no transactional cost to his recruitment (as there wasn't in days of yore) when we all know with salary caps there are immense transactional costs to such recruitments.
By contrast Clarkson is continuing to do what he has done previously to exploit the draft/trade opportunities. He has "bravely" given up Mitchell and Lewis for nothing to clear salary cap space. He is hoping the players brought in will more than replace them. He is hoping his game-plan will continue to be the best in the competition, even with so many imitators. I am a huge doubter but he is giving it a go and backing his undoubted talent as a coach and innovator of successful game plans. He is going to come up with a beauty because necessarily his 2005 onwards game plan (admittedly with minor change) is likely to be very dated in 2017.
With the recruitment of Bolton and SOS we have modernised our approach to winning a Flag by taking advantage of ("game") the regulatory regime around drafting and trading. Bolton as a Clarkson acolyte seems to understand the winning ways in the modern game, best illustrated by the performance of our defence last year, but also seen in our run and carry. SOS has already shown list-building nous at GWS (sure he had concessions but compare the GWS list with Gold Coast if you think that is the full explanation) and he has shown an understanding that one-off bargains are to be had at GWS since with the reduction in its list size GWS have had to slough off quality players who, for one reason or another (often injury - see Plowman, Marchbank, Pickett) have not been able to prove their true ability. Every draft period there will be opportunities to either improve draft picks for targetted players or pick up undervalued players. This is the new environment that the Carlton culture of old (one based on a professional and honest approach of gaming the system to winning Flags) is all about.
The Bulldogs (having seemingly shed their tragic history) are IMO now doomed to repeat it. I am doubtful Murphy is in their best 22. I would prefer Wood, Johanmisen or Biggs to Murphy. At least it can't be known that Murphy returning from injury is better than those 3. Clinging to Murphy by appointing him Captain in the sentimental hope that he would win a Flag for himself is the antithesis of what I would hope represents Carlton's professional essence.
Of course there are many other aspects to "culture" in a footy club. The conforming (positive) attitude of officials, members, players and supporters to socially so-called "progressive" themes such as racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, responsible drinking and gambling creates an advantage for our list by encouraging the recruitment of talented people who are apparently "different" only because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality etc. It also creates an atmosphere of tolerance in which the expression of "difference" can be a potentially exploitable advantage for the team (like Stevie J) and, as the Professionals, I would have us exploit every advantage.
A Club that has a successful, well run women's team (as it seems we do) adds to the progressive, professional image of a Club that is ready to embrace all the challenges of the modern game - or as I would have it, game the Regulatory regime and the Rules of the game to increase the opportunity to win more Flags. It all comes back to "Culture".
Oh, and for those for whom the above was TLDR, (and perhaps more complex than it does need to be
) - I fully agree with Shandog
As with any word "culture" takes its meaning from the context in which it is used.
Outside a football context a biomedical "culture" is the growth of an (or several) organisms, hopefully under laboratory conditions.
For yoghurt makers the "culture" is the strain of bacteria that is used to transform milk to, hopefully, a delicious lumpier product.
Cheese makers use cultures of bacteria and fungus (including moulds and yeasts).
Then there is the use of culture in a social context. So Friday, Saturday or Sunday is an important day of rest depending on whether you are Muslim, Jewish or Christian respectively, or all 3 are if you are just lazy, but only the first 3 explanations are a reflection of a culture. The last is generally regarded as "a lack of culture". In this context "culture" is used to group a varied set of social, dietary, artistic, architectural etc norms prevailing among a set of people (whether the set be Nationalist, religious, etc) which are seen as being a reflection of the essence that identifies the set.
So crucifixes are a part of the culture of being a Christian, it being the representation of Christ's so-said sacrificial death (for all of us apparently, even though he didn't really die, but I digress). But although Catholic paedophile priests are (arguably) a product of Catholic cultural norms - the prohibition on priests from expressing themselves sexually in any way - it would be wrong to say the nefarious activities of certain priests was part of Catholic culture. That is because although the Catholic culture (arguably) creates the conditions for paedophilic activity to occur, the sexual exploitation of children is not a representation of the intended essence of Catholic Christianity in any way. On the other hand the covering up of the wrongful behaviours of Catholic priests as an institutional response could be seen to be part of the culture of the Catholic Church since although it was antagonistic to any essential Catholic doctrine, the endemic nature of the response makes it clear that protection of the institution (the purpose of the cover-up) over the wrongs to children committed on its behalf was an important (even paramount) cultural value.
At a football club I would argue the "culture" of a club are those practices that those who identify with the Club (players, employees, members and/or supporters) perceive to be a variety of prevailing norms of conduct that is seen as being a reflection of the essence by which the Club seeks to achieve its goal - winning the Premiership. As, over time, a football club does or doesn't win Flags, its culture (i.e. those "practices") are identified.
Footscray was rightly described (by a fallen prophet) as having a tragic history. Insofar as Footscray's "practices" reflected an essence by which it sought to win Flags it was a dismal failure. It did not even make a GF from 1955 to 2015. Most of the time the scraggers were happy if their team was competitive for a place in the finals. There was no real effort to retain players who might have formed the backbone of a Flag-winning side (i.e. witness the loss of Dempsey and Quinlan, among others).
By contrast Carlton have had the advantage of being an original Club. We have had a history of success from the very first decade of the competition. After a fallow period following 1945 we became innovators to a new professionalism that has been the hallmark of the development of major sporting competitions world wide. With the recruitment of Barassi as captain coach a new era arrived. We were rightly known as "the professionals". Our footy team played that way and our Board operated that way. This was an explicit and recognised reflection of our "culture". It meant a certain ruthlessness with coaches (and players and officials) when it was perceived that the person no longer served the purpose of the Club - to win a Flag. If for some there was brutality in the process, there was also a very definite honesty. Just ask Parkin. It gave us Flags in 1968, 70, 72, 79, 81 and 82.
Under Elliott we used his takeover skill set to transform our list to win a flag in 1987 and, with some of the same key players, again in 1995. He was unable to take over North or St Kilda which, had it been achieved, undoubtedly would have produced a further collection of Flags.
Unfortunately Elliott was slow to appreciate the strength of the socialist forces within the AFL seeking to equalise, so far as possible, the access of Clubs to players that Carlton had been so good at getting. Paying for quality players had been the Carlton way. Its how we got Greg Williams. Rules to prevent it were clearly "anti-Carlton". Cheating on the salary cap was not just a failure to realise that our old way of "buying a Flag" would not work because we would get caught and punished. Worse, it involved a failure to recognise the opportunities the new regulatory regime involving draft and salary cap gave Clubs who were willing to game the regulations.
The Club that first recognised those opportunities was Hawthorn under Clarkson. When Clarkson became coach he traded out faded stars (such as Graham) to maximise Hawthorn's position in the draft. He recognised the order in which he needed to rebuild the team. Hawthorn itself engaged with its membership and built it from rubbish to standard bearer. This gave Hawthorn leverage in terms of attracting players, facilities and advertisers.
Unfortunately we have clung to our 60's era culture long after environmental (regulatory) conditions could enable such an approach to winning a flag to succeed. So we got in a good coach - Pagan - and told him to win a flag with a useless list. we came 10th and hence failed to maximise opportunities under the draft. We were very slow to apply professional standards to the drafting of players. Even the drafting of Chris Judd can be questioned. I don't think it was impossible for us to win a flag with Judd (and to that extent his drafting justified). But Judd becoming available was Judd's plan, not ours. Whatever plan had been in place before Judd became available (at that stage we were hitting the draft hard) was obviously compromised - with contracted time-lines for success - by the recruitment of Judd. Worse, it was very much a throw back to the old cultural norm of "buying the best".
And then we reflexively repeated the "quick fix" to a Flag by sacking Ratten so we could appoint MM who was a coach who could, allegedly, transform a team incapable of winning a final (almost, allegedly) into a Premiership side. It was a throw-back to Ronald Dale and, unfortunately, about as dated.
That old culture persists with many posters wanting us to recruit Fyfe as if there was no transactional cost to his recruitment (as there wasn't in days of yore) when we all know with salary caps there are immense transactional costs to such recruitments.
By contrast Clarkson is continuing to do what he has done previously to exploit the draft/trade opportunities. He has "bravely" given up Mitchell and Lewis for nothing to clear salary cap space. He is hoping the players brought in will more than replace them. He is hoping his game-plan will continue to be the best in the competition, even with so many imitators. I am a huge doubter but he is giving it a go and backing his undoubted talent as a coach and innovator of successful game plans. He is going to come up with a beauty because necessarily his 2005 onwards game plan (admittedly with minor change) is likely to be very dated in 2017.
With the recruitment of Bolton and SOS we have modernised our approach to winning a Flag by taking advantage of ("game") the regulatory regime around drafting and trading. Bolton as a Clarkson acolyte seems to understand the winning ways in the modern game, best illustrated by the performance of our defence last year, but also seen in our run and carry. SOS has already shown list-building nous at GWS (sure he had concessions but compare the GWS list with Gold Coast if you think that is the full explanation) and he has shown an understanding that one-off bargains are to be had at GWS since with the reduction in its list size GWS have had to slough off quality players who, for one reason or another (often injury - see Plowman, Marchbank, Pickett) have not been able to prove their true ability. Every draft period there will be opportunities to either improve draft picks for targetted players or pick up undervalued players. This is the new environment that the Carlton culture of old (one based on a professional and honest approach of gaming the system to winning Flags) is all about.
The Bulldogs (having seemingly shed their tragic history) are IMO now doomed to repeat it. I am doubtful Murphy is in their best 22. I would prefer Wood, Johanmisen or Biggs to Murphy. At least it can't be known that Murphy returning from injury is better than those 3. Clinging to Murphy by appointing him Captain in the sentimental hope that he would win a Flag for himself is the antithesis of what I would hope represents Carlton's professional essence.
Of course there are many other aspects to "culture" in a footy club. The conforming (positive) attitude of officials, members, players and supporters to socially so-called "progressive" themes such as racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, responsible drinking and gambling creates an advantage for our list by encouraging the recruitment of talented people who are apparently "different" only because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality etc. It also creates an atmosphere of tolerance in which the expression of "difference" can be a potentially exploitable advantage for the team (like Stevie J) and, as the Professionals, I would have us exploit every advantage.
A Club that has a successful, well run women's team (as it seems we do) adds to the progressive, professional image of a Club that is ready to embrace all the challenges of the modern game - or as I would have it, game the Regulatory regime and the Rules of the game to increase the opportunity to win more Flags. It all comes back to "Culture".
Oh, and for those for whom the above was TLDR, (and perhaps more complex than it does need to be
) - I fully agree with Shandog
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Welcome back Windy, was worried someone had hacked your account.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 793
- 1,885
- AFL Club
- Carlton
A+The post below took place on the training thread and was responsive to a discussion on that thread that was not appropriate (IMO) for that thread. So I have stuck my reply here.
As with any word "culture" takes its meaning from the context in which it is used.
Outside a football context a biomedical "culture" is the growth of an (or several) organisms, hopefully under laboratory conditions.
For yoghurt makers the "culture" is the strain of bacteria that is used to transform milk to, hopefully, a delicious lumpier product.
Cheese makers use cultures of bacteria and fungus (including moulds and yeasts).
Then there is the use of culture in a social context. So Friday, Saturday or Sunday is an important day of rest depending on whether you are Muslim, Jewish or Christian respectively, or all 3 are if you are just lazy, but only the first 3 explanations are a reflection of a culture. The last is generally regarded as "a lack of culture". In this context "culture" is used to group a varied set of social, dietary, artistic, architectural etc norms prevailing among a set of people (whether the set be Nationalist, religious, etc) which are seen as being a reflection of the essence that identifies the set.
So crucifixes are a part of the culture of being a Christian, it being the representation of Christ's so-said sacrificial death (for all of us apparently, even though he didn't really die, but I digress). But although Catholic paedophile priests are (arguably) a product of Catholic cultural norms - the prohibition on priests from expressing themselves sexually in any way - it would be wrong to say the nefarious activities of certain priests was part of Catholic culture. That is because although the Catholic culture (arguably) creates the conditions for paedophilic activity to occur, the sexual exploitation of children is not a representation of the intended essence of Catholic Christianity in any way. On the other hand the covering up of the wrongful behaviours of Catholic priests as an institutional response could be seen to be part of the culture of the Catholic Church since although it was antagonistic to any essential Catholic doctrine, the endemic nature of the response makes it clear that protection of the institution (the purpose of the cover-up) over the wrongs to children committed on its behalf was an important (even paramount) cultural value.
At a football club I would argue the "culture" of a club are those practices that those who identify with the Club (players, employees, members and/or supporters) perceive to be a variety of prevailing norms of conduct that is seen as being a reflection of the essence by which the Club seeks to achieve its goal - winning the Premiership. As, over time, a football club does or doesn't win Flags, its culture (i.e. those "practices") are identified.
Footscray was rightly described (by a fallen prophet) as having a tragic history. Insofar as Footscray's "practices" reflected an essence by which it sought to win Flags it was a dismal failure. It did not even make a GF from 1955 to 2015. Most of the time the scraggers were happy if their team was competitive for a place in the finals. There was no real effort to retain players who might have formed the backbone of a Flag-winning side (i.e. witness the loss of Dempsey and Quinlan, among others).
By contrast Carlton have had the advantage of being an original Club. We have had a history of success from the very first decade of the competition. After a fallow period following 1945 we became innovators to a new professionalism that has been the hallmark of the development of major sporting competitions world wide. With the recruitment of Barassi as captain coach a new era arrived. We were rightly known as "the professionals". Our footy team played that way and our Board operated that way. This was an explicit and recognised reflection of our "culture". It meant a certain ruthlessness with coaches (and players and officials) when it was perceived that the person no longer served the purpose of the Club - to win a Flag. If for some there was brutality in the process, there was also a very definite honesty. Just ask Parkin. It gave us Flags in 1968, 70, 72, 79, 81 and 82.
Under Elliott we used his takeover skill set to transform our list to win a flag in 1987 and, with some of the same key players, again in 1995. He was unable to take over North or St Kilda which, had it been achieved, undoubtedly would have produced a further collection of Flags.
Unfortunately Elliott was slow to appreciate the strength of the socialist forces within the AFL seeking to equalise, so far as possible, the access of Clubs to players that Carlton had been so good at getting. Paying for quality players had been the Carlton way. Its how we got Greg Williams. Rules to prevent it were clearly "anti-Carlton". Cheating on the salary cap was not just a failure to realise that our old way of "buying a Flag" would not work because we would get caught and punished. Worse, it involved a failure to recognise the opportunities the new regulatory regime involving draft and salary cap gave Clubs who were willing to game the regulations.
The Club that first recognised those opportunities was Hawthorn under Clarkson. When Clarkson became coach he traded out faded stars (such as Graham) to maximise Hawthorn's position in the draft. He recognised the order in which he needed to rebuild the team. Hawthorn itself engaged with its membership and built it from rubbish to standard bearer. This gave Hawthorn leverage in terms of attracting players, facilities and advertisers.
Unfortunately we have clung to our 60's era culture long after environmental (regulatory) conditions could enable such an approach to winning a flag to succeed. So we got in a good coach - Pagan - and told him to win a flag with a useless list. we came 10th and hence failed to maximise opportunities under the draft. We were very slow to apply professional standards to the drafting of players. Even the drafting of Chris Judd can be questioned. I don't think it was impossible for us to win a flag with Judd (and to that extent his drafting justified). But Judd becoming available was Judd's plan, not ours. Whatever plan had been in place before Judd became available (at that stage we were hitting the draft hard) was obviously compromised - with contracted time-lines for success - by the recruitment of Judd. Worse, it was very much a throw back to the old cultural norm of "buying the best".
And then we reflexively repeated the "quick fix" to a Flag by sacking Ratten so we could appoint MM who was a coach who could, allegedly, transform a team incapable of winning a final (almost, allegedly) into a Premiership side. It was a throw-back to Ronald Dale and, unfortunately, about as dated.
That old culture persists with many posters wanting us to recruit Fyfe as if there was no transactional cost to his recruitment (as there wasn't in days of yore) when we all know with salary caps there are immense transactional costs to such recruitments.
By contrast Clarkson is continuing to do what he has done previously to exploit the draft/trade opportunities. He has "bravely" given up Mitchell and Lewis for nothing to clear salary cap space. He is hoping the players brought in will more than replace them. He is hoping his game-plan will continue to be the best in the competition, even with so many imitators. I am a huge doubter but he is giving it a go and backing his undoubted talent as a coach and innovator of successful game plans. He is going to come up with a beauty because necessarily his 2005 onwards game plan (admittedly with minor change) is likely to be very dated in 2017.
With the recruitment of Bolton and SOS we have modernised our approach to winning a Flag by taking advantage of ("game") the regulatory regime around drafting and trading. Bolton as a Clarkson acolyte seems to understand the winning ways in the modern game, best illustrated by the performance of our defence last year, but also seen in our run and carry. SOS has already shown list-building nous at GWS (sure he had concessions but compare the GWS list with Gold Coast if you think that is the full explanation) and he has shown an understanding that one-off bargains are to be had at GWS since with the reduction in its list size GWS have had to slough off quality players who, for one reason or another (often injury - see Plowman, Marchbank, Pickett) have not been able to prove their true ability. Every draft period there will be opportunities to either improve draft picks for targetted players or pick up undervalued players. This is the new environment that the Carlton culture of old (one based on a professional and honest approach of gaming the system to winning Flags) is all about.
The Bulldogs (having seemingly shed their tragic history) are IMO now doomed to repeat it. I am doubtful Murphy is in their best 22. I would prefer Wood, Johanmisen or Biggs to Murphy. At least it can't be known that Murphy returning from injury is better than those 3. Clinging to Murphy by appointing him Captain in the sentimental hope that he would win a Flag for himself is the antithesis of what I would hope represents Carlton's professional essence.
Of course there are many other aspects to "culture" in a footy club. The conforming (positive) attitude of officials, members, players and supporters to socially so-called "progressive" themes such as racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, responsible drinking and gambling creates an advantage for our list by encouraging the recruitment of talented people who are apparently "different" only because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality etc. It also creates an atmosphere of tolerance in which the expression of "difference" can be a potentially exploitable advantage for the team (like Stevie J) and, as the Professionals, I would have us exploit every advantage.
A Club that has a successful, well run women's team (as it seems we do) adds to the progressive, professional image of a Club that is ready to embrace all the challenges of the modern game - or as I would have it, game the Regulatory regime and the Rules of the game to increase the opportunity to win more Flags. It all comes back to "Culture".
Oh, and for those for whom the above was TLDR, (and perhaps more complex than it does need to be
I suspect any number of students have already snapped this up and submitted it as their first essay assignment for 2017!
The question?
"Describe the concept of 'Australian culture' in 2017, drawing on examples from the sporting arena, religiously imposed celibacy and the dairy industry."
Yeah I'm gonna need a lunch break for that post lol
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
Word limit: One Windhover post
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,964
- 63,152
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Windhover - substitute the word 'process' or when grammatically appropriate - 'processes' for the word 'culture' and nothing changes...in anything you wrote ....
Now two observations:
Now two observations:
- Words are not 'always' defined by 'context'.
- Religions - dont have 'culture' they have beliefs, and articles of 'faith' : eg Christianity ISN'T a 'culture', Islam ISN'T a 'culture'.
- Nov 27, 2016
- 17,390
- 33,621
- AFL Club
- Carlton
s**t dude, I teared up.
just wondering about the blues player profiles on the Carlton site............are the new stats(size and weight) supposed to be true or is it just a rough guess on someones` part, because Casboult is now listed at 201cm (was 199cm) and Charlie Curnow is 194cm and 91kg (was 191cm and 95kg). Boekhorst is supposed to have gone from 185cm to now be 187cm and there are a few more differences from last year !!! I know that Charlie may have grown and perhaps he has lost weight, but at 27 Levi could hardly have grown 2cm over summer and Boekhorst is 22 and not likely to have changed so could someone let me know how fair dinkum it all is ???????
I disagree but accept that if you wish to stretch and reshape (deform) a word, and you belong to the Humpty Dumpty linguistic tradition, it may be so for you.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Of course they are. But accepting that words "take meaning from context" does not permit infinite elasticity of meaning - as you and Humpty might otherwise imagine.
The words "horse's hoof" provides an obvious example of how the meaning of the words will take meaning from the context in which it is used, either equine or rhyming slang.
But the phrase "horse's hoof" does not mean "culture" or "process". And it never will. Unless you and Humpty will it.
You say religions do not have "culture". The "reason" you give is because religions have "beliefs, and articles of faith". Your argument seems to be that "culture" and "beliefs" cannot co-exist. If there are beliefs there can be no culture. If there is culture there can be no beliefs.
Your argument only has to be exposed to evaporate.
Although you state as supposed examples to support your argument - "Christianity isn't a "culture", Islam isn't a "culture"", I think a further argument is in fact attempted to be advanced. That further argument (to support your claim that religions don't have culture) is based on a semantic proposition I agree with and a logic that again does not follow.
The semantic proposition that "Christianity isn't a culture" is one I agree with. But why or how you get from that statement to the completely different proposition that "Christianity does not have a culture" (the statement you are trying to prove) is not explained.
I would put it that Christianity's beliefs and articles of faith (if there is a difference between the 2) are the source of the culture, i.e. habits of learning, artistic and architectural works, etc etc that Christianity, in its many forms has engendered. Same with Islam.
There is nothing necessarily "lazy" about stereotyping and generalisation. These mental actions, involving pattern recognition that enables us to tell for example from the shape of a line whether it is an "m" or an "n", or something else all together, is the essence of the inductive reasoning process used by humans and animals: I see a squiggle. I stereotype the squiggle as an "n". I see the "n" on the right hand side of another squiggle which I stereotype as an "a". I make a word.
[I know you didn't overtly claim there was anything lazy about stereotyping but your contextual meaning is clear enough, namely "using the word "culture" is lazy sterotyping."]
The statement "Culture as a word does not solve anything" is plainly right, except when it is the correct solution to a crossword puzzle.
What you intend to mean, perhaps, is: that when people use the word "culture" in relation to a football club, a number of generalisations and stereotypes are invoked that conceal or mislead what might really describe a club. You have a point.
Hawks are self-referentially "the family club". It is obviously a gimmick. Try for example telling that to the family of loyal servant Sam Mitchell. OTOH AFAIK the gimmick might actually work at certain levels. Perhaps when decisions are made at the Hawks board level there is a director tasked with considering the family implications of certain decisions: cost of membership, open training times, etc etc. If the gimmick is sufficiently embedded to become an integral part of the decision making process then, whilst still a gross distortion, in some senses as a part of the Hawks culture it does become "the family club".
The fact that Carlton has a women's team tells us that as a Club we are open to women over the age of 14 playing football. We are open to women making a career out of playing football. From these eye-opening facts a bit of inductive reasoning (pattern recognition) could lead us to conclude that as a Club Carlton is open to treating women equally elsewhere, by which I mean taking a woman's aspiration to become or do X as seriously as any man's aspiration.
In other words, as we cheer Vescioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo each time the ball is in her proximity, because she and we are Carlton, the Carlton culture once a male dominated locker-room culture where women were "them" is now an "us".
I would love us to organise a Carlton team among the Manus Island refugees and, if there was a Pie's team to trounce, trump them.
That would create a few new stereotypes and, hopefully, blow away some very sour current ones.
BluStreak
Norm Smith Medallist
Blessed are the Cheese makers.
Edit: Sorry Windy I was not big enough too let that one pass.
Last edited:
Hi, the Blueseum website is a fan based / led site which seeks to chronicle the history of the CFC. As part of this we need to keep it up to date for today's history.
We are seeking a volunteer (s) to own and lead the AFLW section of the site currently being mapped out. It could include player bios / stats / game updates / IG updates. The structure of it is up to you - It need not necessarily look like the male section.
Any volunteers can rely on the current users for advice or assistance.
We are seeking a volunteer (s) to own and lead the AFLW section of the site currently being mapped out. It could include player bios / stats / game updates / IG updates. The structure of it is up to you - It need not necessarily look like the male section.
Any volunteers can rely on the current users for advice or assistance.
- Moderator
- #498
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Has his own channel to run. So busy he can't upload his own stuff quicker than you can. May struggle with the additional workload.
Wickzki
Definitely Sam MacLure.
- Oct 1, 2010
- 24,007
- 56,185
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Ophidians Old Boys, Blazers, MCFC
Thanks for initially tagging me in, Jabba. However, I don't believe that I'm in a position where I can help to the standard that I would like. I live up here in Brisbane now which means I have little to no access to the club and rely on sites such as this to keep me updated with the happenings at the club. If I could volunteer to the site in any other way - I am a capable and experienced professional writer - I'd be more than happy to.
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
