The decayed decade

[Chism]

Oh dear you have it wrong in fact it starts as year 1 not 0. This means 1999 is still classed as 20th century and 2000 the end of it. 2001 is the start of the 21st century. I even know this and could debate it. I'm not the only person to think this way.I do have a very high IQ and is one that see thing a lot different to normal people see it.I'm literally a thinker who does things different and the prankster in me even it out.

http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/

Hmmm so going by this logic 1980 was not in the decade of the 80's as it started in 1981 by your logic and ended in 1991 hence the 10 years that a decade represents. Hmmm you just may re write the history books with this flawed logic you hold. In fact i might sue record companies that sold me a best of the 80's CD because it does not have songs from 1990 on it.....

I do have a very high IQ and is one that see thing a lot different to normal people see it.

What are you going to tell me next that you hold a degree in literacy skills as well???

 

[Tanks_Alot]

Oh dear you do have it wrong in fact it starts as year 1 not 0. This means 1999 is still classified as the 20th century and 2000 the end of it. 2001 is the start of the 21st century. I even know this and could debate it. I'm not the only person to think this way.I do have a very high IQ and is one that see thing a lot different to what normal people actually view.I tend to think outside the box.I'm literally a deep thinker who does things a lot different to what is the norm while the prankster in me even things out.

http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/

Yeah, because 1930 was part of the 20's

 

[The Exorcist]

Some great pr0n this decade, check Silvia Saint


Oh yeah

 

[starchamber]

In fact a decade starts at any moment you choose. A decade is simply 10 (deca or deci) years.

and this:

http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/21st_century_start.html

To sum up: the convention of numbering the years is just that—purely a convention. And a convention only works as long as sufficient numbers of people are prepared to go along with it. Most people would rather number the years from 0 than from 1, with appropriate corresponding numberings for the decades, centuries and millennia. If you disagree with this, maybe it’s time to stop fighting and switch.

Dude think about it.Do you start counting your fingers with the number 0 you would have 9.

 

[starchamber]

Hmmm so going by this logic 1980 was not in the decade of the 80's as it started in 1981 by your logic and ended in 1991 hence the 10 years that a decade represents. Hmmm you just may re write the history books with this flawed logic you hold. In fact i might sue record companies that sold me a best of the 80's CD because it does not have songs from 1990 on it.....


What are you going to tell me next that you hold a degree in literacy skills as well???

It really annoys you that me and the other 10% genius have this way of thinking that is universally correct. I personally think you just don't like the idea just like me that Essendon were equal with us on flags in the 20th Century.

 

[Chism]

Your signature is speaking volumes for you Starchamber.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Dude think about it.Do you start counting your fingers with the number 0 you would have 9.

Dude, did you read the link. I didnt think so. It has nothing to do with counting, do you even know what convention means? Go away now, the novelty has worn off, you said you were not trying to annoy people. If that is not trying you must to a total pain the ass when you do try.

 

[Dramoth]

Oh dear you do have it wrong in fact it starts as year 1 not 0. This means 1999 is still classified as the 20th century and 2000 the end of it. 2001 is the start of the 21st century. I even know this and could debate it. I'm not the only person to think this way.I do have a very high IQ and is one that see thing a lot different to what normal people actually view.I tend to think outside the box.I'm literally a deep thinker who does things a lot different to what is the norm while the prankster in me even things out.

http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/

I'm sorry... if you are to argue this point of view, then you would have to argue that every one is 1 year old when they are born and when they reach the end of their first year out of the womb, then they are 2.

I suppose that you go around telling everyone that you are 1 year older than you are because thats how your argument works.

Unfortunately for your argument it falls down in that life starts at 0 and moves forward in increments of a single day. We are retrospectively to the years lived. When you are born, you are 0 years and x days/months old. We dont automatically start off at 1.

The year 2000 is the start of the new millennium... not 2001.

As for your high IQ, I would go back to the people who administered the test and ask for your money back...

 

[mediumsizered]

Could it stretch to 2 decades between flags? Surely not. I think 21 years is the longest between flags in our entire history.

22 seasons, from 1916-1937, without a premiership. We also failed to win a premiership between 1948 & 1967.

 

[HeziBarecket]

I don't care about players getting drunk, I mean Australi is such denial about being a NATION Of DRUNKS, this is just an accepted part of the culture. You should have seen the 50 metre lines to buy booze at Dan Murphy's East Doncaster this afternoon.

I think the biggest tragedy is how CRAP we are ON FIELD.

I mean in context of other clubs ALCOHOL culture we are just part of the 'average'..Look at St.Kilda with Milne the Rapist and Gehring urinating of girls..Looks at the Scum with Didak and Shaw - and we're talking BIG TIME players.

This decade was absolutely TERRIBLE for us BLUE as our team became a PACK OF LOSERS WITH NO CLASS.

They should look at videos of Bruce Doull, Braddles, SOS, The Dominator, Molly Meldrum, Jeff Soutby, Mike Fitzpatrick - PLAYERS WITH CLASS!

Stupid classless, bogans! FTTOOEY! I SPIT ON YOU FILTHY DRUNKEN IDIOT BOGANS!

 

[Dramoth]

I don't care about players getting drunk, I mean Australi is such denial about being a NATION Of DRUNKS, this is just an accepted part of the culture. You should have seen the 50 metre lines to buy booze at Dan Murphy's East Doncaster this afternoon.

I think the biggest tragedy is how CRAP we are ON FIELD.

I mean in context of other clubs ALCOHOL culture we are just part of the 'average'..Look at St.Kilda with Milne the Rapist and Gehring urinating of girls..Looks at the Scum with Didak and Shaw - and we're talking BIG TIME players.

This decade was absolutely TERRIBLE for us BLUE as our team became a PACK OF LOSERS WITH NO CLASS.

They should look at videos of Bruce Doull, Braddles, SOS, The Dominator, Molly Meldrum, Jeff Soutby, Mike Fitzpatrick - PLAYERS WITH CLASS!

Stupid classless, bogans! FTTOOEY! I SPIT ON YOU FILTHY DRUNKEN IDIOT BOGANS!

And I am sure that none of the guys highlighted there didnt have a few beers when they werent playing during the off season...

 

[HeziBarecket]

And I am sure that none of the guys highlighted there didnt have a few beers when they werent playing during the off season...

Yes but in public and to the point of getting ******* drunk they run around in their dacks or taken away in a paddy wagon?

Twice in the last week, I took the Hursty line home, and it was like being in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, stupid drunk bogans drunk out of their stupid bogan minds. While they were loud a 'trying to be friendly', the atmosphere was like if people weren't friendly on their drunken bogan level, a violent biffing would happen at the drop of a beer burp.

And the message the boys send out is, 'you're a footy player, you earn 10 times as much as the average bogan working on office, you can go out and get ******* drunk and act like a tool coz yr a footy star'.

While everyone criticises the use of illegal drugs that make you passive - like marijuana or ecstasy - the most legal of drugs is the most destructive - 'shell be right mate, until someone gets their head kicked in.'

If the players were all smoking bongs or peaking on E's they wouldn't act like this, they'd be bumming each other in the change rooms!

But this is all hot air, players take drugs (alcohol is drugs) just like Sam Newman does, what is unacceptable is HOW CRAP THEY ARE ON FIELD!!

If we come out next year and come close to winning a flag, all is forgiven!

 

[blue gunslinger]

There is more to it than just shuffling chairs. There are people that just need to wake up onfield and off. They are not bad people, they are just slow learners. We can use their passion but they need to be more diligent in ramming home the rules.

they are really testing my fibre
I am becoming very disillusioned
I no longer look at players as individuals but as parts of a machine
Is is only the overall performace of the machine I care about
The parts are interchangeable and if a part is faulty I want it replaced.
I want my machine running well

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

I think we need to look at the top. AFL has changed but we seem to be stuck in the good old days

This

 

[Robbo's my hero]

It wasn't all bad. This man played the best football I have ever seen.
So many highlights but the match against Carey at Princes Park in 2000 was probably the pinnacle. With a bit of internal fortitude we may have ended the previous decade with a premiership. Parkin was an eternal pessimist who didn't realise how good Kouta was at ripping the heart out of the opposition. Wasted on McKernan in 1999 GF. As they say no guts, no glory. Three flags if Kouta had stayed fit in 2000 and 2001.

 

[Biffinator]

ODN - thanks for the OP. "When Good Times Turn Bad" indeed. I am always interested to hear your thoughts. Even so, it would have been even better if you had supplied "the How" to say nothing of the real game - "the Why", there being a key distinction between the two. I am interested in the latter.

Such as it is, I would like to offer my two bob's worth but I would rather hear from you first (particularly as I have domestic distractions at the moment).

Biffinator.

 

[blue gunslinger]

ODN - thanks for the OP. "When Good Times Turn Bad" indeed. I am always interested to hear your thoughts. Even so, it would have been even better if you had supplied "the How" to say nothing of the real game - "the Why", there being a key distinction between the two. I am interested in the latter.

Such as it is, I would like to offer my two bob's worth but I would rather hear from you first (particularly as I have domestic distractions at the moment).

Biffinator.

G'day biff and season's greetings to you and the fam
Now stop pi$$ farting around and get in the ring
You have never been one to await somebody else to give you the green light.
Are you getting soft in your old age?
Is it true Jack Watts had too much red creaming soda with his sausage in a bun Xmas lunch?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

ODN - thanks for the OP. "When Good Times Turn Bad" indeed. I am always interested to hear your thoughts. Even so, it would have been even better if you had supplied "the How" to say nothing of the real game - "the Why", there being a key distinction between the two. I am interested in the latter.

Such as it is, I would like to offer my two bob's worth but I would rather hear from you first (particularly as I have domestic distractions at the moment).

Biffinator.

I don't believe there is an all encompassing 'why' Biff. Some will tell you that they know people who live near the club and talk to people around the club and that they can tell you exactly who is to blame. Then when that person is moved on, their sights are set on a new target at the club. I do not believe there is a destructive individual or individuals still dwelling within the club, that are representative of this whole 'fish rotting from the head' cliche that people are so fond of.

You can break things down to a string of events.

The breakdown in onfield fortunes, you can blame squarely on Elliot's 'we don't rebuild' philosophy and failure to adapt to recruiting using the draft. We had a pretty lousy strike rate recruiting later in the draft and trading for players that had shown something elsewhere but were being let go for a reason. It started when we papered over the cracks left from 1997 when Sticks, Diesel and Harry left, and by the time SOS, Ratten, Bradley and McKay were on their last legs, there was a dearth of leaders and players around 25 years of age that were cemented in our best 22. Parkin admitted his part in all of that to his credit.

We also didn't play hard ball with our top flight stars enough. Sure they are entitled to hold out for more money and most would have made more elsewhere, but instead of calling their bluff and risking losing one of them, we either paid peanuts to the rest of the playing group and got monkeys or we worked out other ways to give them the money and breached the cap. We basically were victims of having too many top end stars over the mid to late 90s and early 2000s IMO, and precious little depth to go with them. These stars were hiding shocking list management issues as they made those around them look good. Even when they starting retiring in 1997, we used Kouta to paper over the cracks, and even one of the most stunning runs of form I have ever seen from a player, while lifting us into the finals, was not enough to get us a flag due to the lack of depth around him.

You can see how the under the table payments could have happened. Being associated with the inner sanctum at Carlton gave you status. Old school money that just wanted success in return. If the success dries up, the money starts to wane. Elliot was in good with the money, but he had to give them return on their money. It would have been very easy for the money to find players without Elliot knowing about it, but it wasn't necessary as Elliot was a friend to our benefactor and probably the only one that could broker extra deals that needed to be made. It was his club, his board, his way or the highway. Nobody could seriously believe that Elliot was an unsuspecting figurehead, blissfully unaware while underlings cooked the books. Unfriendly board members were quickly forced out under Elliot's watch. Nobody offered more than token resistance. Of course, we garden variety supporters had no access to this sort of information. We too were results driven (that's all there was back then, of course now with the internet and access to more information, we care what is happening off field as well).

Pagan was up against it from the start. He came into a culture where the players had been empowered by the success of the 1995 campaign. In that campaign, Parkin gave the players the power and they brought home a flag. As the players retired and as our results diminished, that was not never going to be a viable strategy. Pagan was brought in to assume complete control and some players having been used to having power, got their noses out of joint.

Our administrative woes were fairly easy to follow post Elliot too. Pratt and the rest of the money were outraged on behalf of their friend and withdrew their support. Carlton were left with a million dollar fine, a terrible list and no access to the draft, and were set to be $1.5m over the cap for the 2003 season. People like to blame Collins and Smorgon for not righting the ship at the time, but they were only playing the cards they were dealt. You cut costs and stop the bleeding before you spend money you don't have to get back in the game again. They didn't have a bottomless well of money to rebuild quickly like Elliot had. Sure they were dour and conservative, and offered little hope to the members, but survival was their first point of order if the money wasn't going to come back and help.

The booze culture thing is a little harder to identify. Sure back in the days of Johnston, Maclure and Buckley, the players partied hard and played hard. The whole competition did this. Most emerged into a more professional era while we languished. Perhaps it was the fact that we had success while we partied, that we thought we were infallible. Perhaps because we allow too many enablers to hang around the fringes of the playing group.

Ratten was never a party animal but I have seen him associated with the booze culture. I don't think that is right. Kernahan has a famous post flag video that follows him around, but you never heard of him in trouble for binge drinking incidents. I think there is a certain element that were better than the others on our terrible list of a few years ago, that could afford to be rockstars and still be the best players on our team. Fev and Stevens certainly fit this mould. Others willingly participate in this sort of thing as it is one of the trappings of success for a young and dumb footballer.

I know the club counsel players on avoiding the pitfalls of being a football celebrity, but unless you make your mistakes, you never listen to that sort of thing. I feel there is nobody at the club that strikes fear into the players nobody that you would be afraid to face should you step out of line. We need someone that commands respect and it has to be in the coal face. I think Ratten is a good coach that has the ability to motivate his players, but he is no Parko. Even the assistant coaches don't have those characteristics. Bradley is quiet, Riley is no taskmaster, Diesel part time but more introverted, Lappin is a mouse. Where is our Nathan Buckley? Arrogant, happy to give someone a serve ... they don't have to be the tactical head coach but they have to be that drill sargeant to compliment the head coach. Peter Dean would have been a good choice because he is a little crazy when it comes to football. If we don't get this drill sargeant in the coaches box, we need them on the field and spilling over into social circles.

Anyway, got to go and look at some land. My thoughts are incomplete but I will try to pick it up again later.

 

[blue gunslinger]

The points you raise ODN are valid and the timeline reflects our history
However I don't think this bahaviour can be isolated to just our club. I think it is a reflection on the culture of football/professional sports in general and the attitude of the modern selfdestructive youth who are bombarded with so much media coverage where bad behaviour is now glorified. There are so many scandals these days that the impact is so diluted there is no shame or selfrespect anymore. People are also such bleeding hearts that when control or increase powers to police are raised people bitch about freedoms etc.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The points you raise ODN are valid and the timeline reflects our history
However I don't think this bahaviour can be isolated to just our club. I think it is a reflection on the culture of football/professional sports in general and the attitude of the modern selfdestructive youth who are bombarded with so much media coverage where bad behaviour is now glorified. There are so many scandals these days that the impact is so diluted there is no shame or selfrespect anymore. People are also such bleeding hearts that when control or increase powers to police are raised people bitch about freedoms etc.

No the booze culture is not just a Carlton thing. I think some clubs contain the damage more than others because the players are scared to step out of line in most cases. We just look worse when it happens to us because there are a string of other indiscretions from the past that get readily tacked on to it to make it more pronounced. We go from having a string of minor alcohol indiscretions to being a salary cap cheating, dodgy president presiding, tanking, hush money paying AND booze fuelled club as though each of these things is linked.

 

[blue gunslinger]

The media are a pack of leaches as well looking at anything to stir the pot
A golden boy like Tiger Woods is completely destroyed by the people he has always treated well. not that I am saying he did nothing wrong but man when there is blood in the water.
Our problem is we just seem to only have bad press and too often

 

[Blue Bawls]

A few late incidents to really send this decayed decade off:

* Levi Casboult cleaned up by a nutcase in a car (and thankfully survives unscathed
* Glenn Manton now faces criminal charges

Yet through it all our membership numbers have increased steadily to show that at least us supporters will get behind the club in its darkest hour... all 10 years worth.

 

[Team Mo']

The only way is up...well we could plateau but where's the fun in that? You'd think with the right people now* that significant changes have been made with regards to off field, on field and the general culture of the Carlton Football Club. We've still got some morons, we've still got some debt but one would be very pessimistic if they didn't think that we could come out of this "decayed decade" in one piece.

I feel that once a bit more on field success returns the off field nonsense should hopefully decline and not be what Carlton are known for. Yes, we still want to be hated. Yes, we still want to be everyone's least favourite team but we don't want to be the team who everyone laughs or who no one has respect for. The sexual claims and alike need to erased otherwise we'll have a dark and dirty cloud hanging over our head for a long time and even I'm not sure I would support a club who continually lets it's supporters down.

The on field success should hopefully bring a sense of togetherness** and unity that we've been missing. Sure we all can have a joke together but it seems like the players are treating it as a joke rather then having the odd one or two. Teams like Geelong and Sydney (West Coast not included) have shown us what a winning spirit can do for the club. Players have more respect for the jumper and that in turn will gain the respect of others around the AFL.

Incident or **** ups are always going to happen; I just hope that we can manage them effectively and work to rid them as soon as possible.

* Yet to be confirmed.

**Would hope it is already there.

 

[Shambolic]

The Millennium Game was in 1999, just before 2000.

2000 was the turn of the millennium but some are saying the decade starts in 2001?

Haha, you get all types on here.

 

[40yearBLUE]

The Millennium Game was in 1999, just before 2000.

2000 was the turn of the millennium but some are saying the decade starts in 2001?

Haha, you get all types on here.

Yeah this debate was around in 99. Basically there are some nutters that believe that because we dont start counting at 0, that is we dont say 0, 1, 2, 3, etc then we cant count year 0 as the first and therefore year 1 is the first year and therefore the first year of a new century is 01 because a century is 100 so for 100 to have elapsed from year 1 we will have reached 101 so in this case 2001 would have been the start of the next 100 year cycle. Nutjob is a bit harsh because there is a tiny bit of logic to their argument but I use nutjob because those that argue this line make no allowance for how things are, they only argue in pure logic not in reality.

What these nutjobs fail to understand is the convention of BC/AD is a social construct that has nothing to do with math. It was put in place about 340 years after the (if you believe in) birth of Christ by the then all powerful catholic church and was adopted by all of europe which at the time was the entire western world (China being the East) and has since been accepted by the entire world even though the Chinese have a different system, and the church at the time retrospectively gave the years their number and the calender started from that year as whatever year it was in their understanding of when christ was born (wasnt even accurate according to other theist scholars, they were out by about 20 years but hey it was 1700 years ago with poor records to go on!). So its say 345 today (science can only nail it down to roughly 340 AD) and we count from here. And 1700 years later we are still counting that way.

Its a perpetuated social convention, nothing more. There is no giant stellar calendar we can set our watches by. We just continue with the system we have because there is no better one, but according to the system we have, 99 is the last year of a century, 100 the start of the new one, and at the end of year 99, 100 years have elapsed since the last tiime it happened even though in any other form of counting you would not count the first number as zero.

I hope that makes sense.