Welsh

[Vader]

I think he's benefiting from not being the #1 forward, copping the #1 defender each week.

At Footscray he's got Johnson taking the #1 defender, with Aker, Murphy & Welsh all competing for 2nd, 3rd & 4th defenders.

If he were still at the Crows, he'd still be our #1 forward and suffering as he always has from having to combat the best defender.

It's long been noted that he'd make a great 2nd or 3rd forward, but was not equipped to be #1. Now he's proving that to be true.

 

[KingsCrow]

That was one of the complaints people had about Welsh - he would go missing when you really needed him.

I guess thats an indication of how important a player he was for us last year.

I always rated Welsh, was a little upset he left. But has provided a spot for our future stars to have a crack.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think he's benefiting from not being the #1 forward, copping the #1 defender each week.

At Footscray he's got Johnson taking the #1 defender, with Aker, Murphy & Welsh all competing for 2nd, 3rd & 4th defenders.

If he were still at the Crows, he'd still be our #1 forward and suffering as he always has from having to combat the best defender.

It's long been noted that he'd make a great 2nd or 3rd forward, but was not equipped to be #1. Now he's proving that to be true.

Fair.

 

[relapse]

The reason we moved him on was that he was a handy player who'd probably still be in our best 22 if he stayed but he was getting on a bit. He only has maybe a year or two left and then be moved on. We needed to inject some youth into the side and it's been good to see Tippett really come one. Win/Win for both parties- Doggies have another experienced forward who'll take the responsibility off Johnson a bit while we have seen some youngsters flourish.

What are we the Port Adelaide board ??? We didnt get rid of Welsh, we still wanted Welsh, but given some off field dramas, his age and past issues with injuries we weren't prepared to offer him the contract that he wanted and the bulldogs offered him a better deal. He wanted a guaranteed 2 year deal while Adelaide were only prepared to offer him a one year deal with no guarantees for the second year.

I heard the main reason that there were no guarantees for the second year were due to his incident at the Casino and the club wasnt prepared to match the offers given to him from Melbourne and the Bulldogs because it would contradict the standards that they have set for player contracts and they thought it would send the wrong message to the other players at the club if a player who hasn't complied with the club rules gets a better contract under different rules.

 

[marvin]

No.

just no. the pudding was already done when we let a valuable player walk for nothing. For a mid-sized marking forward, he's been amongst the best in the league for years.

He may have been valuable, but he wasn't and isn't priceless. I'd have preferred that we traded and got something for him, but there just as there was a cost for letting him go (not getting a trade for him), there was a cost in keeping him (his 2010 contract). How your rate those two costs depends on how you value him. You value him one way, I value him another, and the club rates him somewhere else.

We made all sorts of decisions at the end of the season last year, about where we were heading. fine. that included being prepared to let him go. Given where we've been this year, and how well we've done, I wonder if we'd have made the same decisions given another chance?

"where we've been this year" - after Round 13 last year, we were 7-6. In 2005, we were 8-5 after Round 13, and in 2006, we were 11-2 (though Welsh had not yet appeared on the park). We're not a signficantly worse side this year, despite the rebuild.

If I were in charge, yes, I'd have let Welsh walk then, and I'd let him walk now knowing what I know. If you were in charge, it appears that the answer is probably not. Whether John Reid and Neil Craig wake up in a cold sweat wishing they could do it over, we'll never know.

As far as what we know now, we know that Brett Burton, who has been a more than adequate fill in for Welsh as a forward, and Douglas and Vince, both of whom have benefitted from playing the Burton wing/forward role at various times, have been two of our big improvers.

we've moved on, so has he and his new club seems to be doing great.

Yes.

 

[MrChristo]

He was also the 'guy-you-hope-has-the-ball-for-the-important-kick-at-goal' guy.

Oh, so you're saying Brad Johnson isn't, ay?

 

[jackster83]

It will be interesting to see how the crowd treat them when we play the doggies again in round 22. Welsh gave us good service for 5 or 6 years and I was unhappy when he walked out and went into the PSD. Hudson just got greedy even though if it wasn't for us, he would have never played a game at the highest level. I think they both will be booed as other games have shown this year that the masses don't appreciate 1st choice players leaving. That said though, I wouldn't boo Mattner if the swans came here to play.

 

[beartoo]

I wouldn't boo any of them. Footy at this level is a profession and all players have a right to make the best deals they can. I'm sure Huddo and Welsh are still mates with the Crows players and staff.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Yeah Ive got no problems with Welsh or Mattner. Welsh was always going to be good for the dogs but Im still happy he left because it has opened up a spot for some of our kids and that is what this year is all about...

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

Oh, so you're saying Brad Johnson isn't, ay?

Well he didn't play for the Crows did he.

 

[MrChristo]

Pick up on irony or sarcasm much?

Never mind.

 

[ruscy002]

This is one thing I love about this club, particularly under Neil Craig. Hudson, Mattner, Welsh, Ricciuto, Perrie, Torney...all walk-ins into our best 22 (Perrie iffy at the end) gone at the end the 2007 season, matters made worse by Biglands re-injuring his knee over the pre season. And we just get on with it.

Onya lads

For what it's worth, I feel it was a win for all parties. Not just Welsh, but also Mattner and Hudson. They've gone on to improve themselves and their clubs. We might not see it yet, but we're the biggest winners. We've still got Massie, Symes, Moran, Hentschel, Campbell, McGregor (if he fires up), out of this team. McKay has now been dropped too and he can walk in when required.

Once the raw guns in Dangerfield, Walker, Tippett, Kite, Sellar really progress, we'll have some incredible depth. Provided that Edwards, McLeod and Goodwin don't all depart at the same time, we're looking pretty good (and the way McLeod is going, he'll play til he's 42 provided he keeps his form up )

 

[AndrewJo]

The reason we moved him on was that he was a handy player who'd probably still be in our best 22 if he stayed but he was getting on a bit. He only has maybe a year or two left and then be moved on. We needed to inject some youth into the side and it's been good to see Tippett really come one. Win/Win for both parties- Doggies have another experienced forward who'll take the responsibility off Johnson a bit while we have seen some youngsters flourish.

The Crows are not that stupid. He was moved on for other than playing ability and let's agree to leave it there. He was offered a short term contract with provisions. If other clubs offered him a longer contract without those provisions he would be foolish not to pursue it.
Good luck to Scotty.I think it has been a Win for Scott and the Bulldogs and a Win for the Crows and the youngsters getting experience.

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

Pick up on irony or sarcasm much?

Never mind.

No, I understood what you said, it just wasn't funny or relevant, mainly because the poster you were responding to was referring to Welsh as a Crows player.

 

[Crow-mo]

He may have been valuable, but he wasn't and isn't priceless. I'd have preferred that we traded and got something for him, but there just as there was a cost for letting him go (not getting a trade for him), there was a cost in keeping him (his 2010 contract). How your rate those two costs depends on how you value him. You value him one way, I value him another, and the club rates him somewhere else.

you seem to be assuming the club operates in a vacuum, and there is no way of validating true value. however, by all definition, this is not true.

we offered him less than market value, as evidence by the market.

"where we've been this year" - after Round 13 last year, we were 7-6. In 2005, we were 8-5 after Round 13, and in 2006, we were 11-2 (though Welsh had not yet appeared on the park). We're not a signficantly worse side this year, despite the rebuild.

indeed, but I'm not sure what you're replying to?

clearly I'm talking about how well we've done this year, and in turn how well the doggies have done last year.
if you want to refer to last year as some sort of validation of welsh's importance, then is a very surprising angle. particularly as it would imply that all other factors have been controlled and his impact is isolated as the defining variable.

which would be even more interesting, when we look at the doggies this year. if he's the defining variable, he must be worth more than we thought or is it Huddo?

If I were in charge, yes, I'd have let Welsh walk then, and I'd let him walk now knowing what I know. If you were in charge, it appears that the answer is probably not. Whether John Reid and Neil Craig wake up in a cold sweat wishing they could do it over, we'll never know.

if you'd let him walk now, then that's surprising. I'd hope you put the club's fortunes above all else.

lets look at the table. we're 8-4. which is great. 2 games (hawthorn in Tas, and WC away) we'd have certainly lost without stretching the imagination. However, as I stated clearly we made decisions last year based on where we thought we were going. 3 players likely to get a game this year (Torney, Welsh, Hudson) were let go based on that direction. ok, fine.
however, there can be NO doubt that those 3 players would've made the difference in 2 of our losses. Just subtracting Huddo & Welsh from the doggies gives us round 1. Again, the leadership and quality of these guys would've also given us last week against the Hawks. the only surprising thing, is that we did not expect to be in that position at the end of last year.

with hindsight, we could easily be 10 - 2; if we had a do-over only someone without the club and supporter's interests would turn that down.

of course we don't have hindsight, and we should be really pleased how well things have gone - but if you have a chance to be in the mix you take it. and by saying you wouldn't take it with hindsight, then that is backing your opinion over the welfare of the club and supporters. Which I don't think you'd really do.

this season is a surprise to us I think, but I don't really believe anyone wouldn't wish we had a bit more quality and senior leadership for a more serious push.

As far as what we know now, we know that Brett Burton, who has been a more than adequate fill in for Welsh as a forward, and Douglas and Vince, both of whom have benefitted from playing the Burton wing/forward role at various times, have been two of our big improvers.

Yes, of course. you can always play the it's all up in the air card, who knows how many things might be different. but that's never really true.

for example Burton has always been available to play forward, having done it well in the past, and the coaching team has always resisted it as their first choice. hell they offered Welsh 1 year, so they preferred not to do it again this year. we simply cannot say playing Burton forward is their optimal choice.

I'm a huge wrap for the signs douglas has shown, but he's certainly not there yet. he has tricks, which not all of our feted young guys appear to do. it's these tricks that will keep in the league for a long time.

but lets cut to the chase. people have to make tough decisions all the time in footy. The good people and clubs get them right more often than not. Which is undoubtedly true of our club, and we are incredibly fortunate because of that. But I just cannot abide the idea that every tough decision we make is always 100% correct. of course it's not, you can't expect that to be true.

As Robert Walls wrote recently when he took over at Carlton a the end of 1985. Ian Collins looked him in the eye and said "you make all the decisions. just make sure 3 in 4 are right".

we seem to spend an awful lot of time jumping up and down slavishly devoted to the idea that the 1 in 4 so-so decisions must have been correct too. When we'd be better off celebrating that we get 3 of those 4 spot on.

why are we so threatened by the idea of the 4th one?

 

[Crow-mo]

Hudson just got greedy even though if it wasn't for us, he would have never played a game at the highest level.

you do realise how fundamentally untrue this is?

 

[Crow-mo]

I wouldn't boo any of them. Footy at this level is a profession and all players have a right to make the best deals they can. I'm sure Huddo and Welsh are still mates with the Crows players and staff.

great call 100% correct.

 

[Crow-mo]

The Crows are not that stupid. He was moved on for other than playing ability and let's agree to leave it there. He was offered a short term contract with provisions. If other clubs offered him a longer contract without those provisions he would be foolish not to pursue it.
Good luck to Scotty.I think it has been a Win for Scott and the Bulldogs and a Win for the Crows and the youngsters getting experience.

see this is the sort of thing that annoys me.
we're genius and everyone is stupid.

we're better than most clubs because we're right more often over time, not because these other people are idiots and we're infallible.

we let him go, so there must have been great reasons (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Pfeiffer is the other one like this: we're so smart. nudge nudge, more than meets the eye, wink wink - which may or may not be true, doesn't matter - however, we drafted him in the 1st round.

we're so clever for cutting him loose, but the same logic is blind to the fact that we used pick 16 or whatever it was on him.

maybe we are right, we made a call and perhaps we had the balls to make another call when it needed to be made. if we are right for bailing, then what we are right for is recognising the original error.

I love that we're right more than not, but i'm just tired of the deniers who suggest there is never a not. if that makes sense lol

 

[KingsCrow]

I wouldn't boo any of them. Footy at this level is a profession and all players have a right to make the best deals they can. I'm sure Huddo and Welsh are still mates with the Crows players and staff.

No I would boo Huddo.


We started his career, we PAID him whilst he was recovering from a potentially career ending knee injury. He comes back from the knee injury, then deserts us after one year.

What
a
****
head

 

[marvin]

you seem to be assuming the club operates in a vacuum, and there is no way of validating true value. however, by all definition, this is not true.

we offered him less than market value, as evidence by the market.

Since when has market value ever been true value? Have you never been to an auction?

There's 2 ways of calculating value. There's his value on the open market, and his value as assessed by the club. His value on the open market was greater. So he went. A business decision by the club. A business decision by Welsh.

indeed, but I'm not sure what you're replying to?

The bit I bolded.

Clearly I'm talking about how well we've done this year, and in turn how well the doggies have done last year.

What???

if you want to refer to last year as some sort of validation of welsh's importance, then is a very surprising angle. particularly as it would imply that all other factors have been controlled and his impact is isolated as the defining variable.

Shut down the board then. No point ever discussing any aspect of footy or any aspect because you can't run anything as a controlled experiment.

which would be even more interesting, when we look at the doggies this year. if he's the defining variable, he must be worth more than we thought or is it Huddo?

Oh good, Welsh and Hudson are now the only variables at the Dogs. That's an easy discussion! It's got nothing to do with a fit Murphy, or a fit Hahn, or anything else.

if you'd let him walk now, then that's surprising. I'd hope you put the club's fortunes above all else.

Oh please.

lets look at the table. we're 8-4. which is great. 2 games (hawthorn in Tas, and WC away) we'd have certainly lost without stretching the imagination. However, as I stated clearly we made decisions last year based on where we thought we were going. 3 players likely to get a game this year (Torney, Welsh, Hudson) were let go based on that direction. ok, fine.
however, there can be NO doubt that those 3 players would've made the difference in 2 of our losses. Just subtracting Huddo & Welsh from the doggies gives us round 1. Again, the leadership and quality of these guys would've also given us last week against the Hawks. the only surprising thing, is that we did not expect to be in that position at the end of last year.

The issue is not Torney (which I strongly disagreed with, and still do). The issue is not Hudson (which I disagreed with too). The issue is Welsh, which I have basically agree with the club with. This thread is called "Welsh", not "Welsh, Torney, Hudson and lets talk about Mattner too".

There's no "no doubt" about it, anyway. It's one of your one variable, everything controlled things that you are so fond of.

with hindsight, we could easily be 10 - 2; if we had a do-over only someone without the club and supporter's interests would turn that down.

A bit more composure from Bock and Goodwin (or Edwards) in Rounds 1 and 12 respectively, and we're 10-2 anyway. Which proves what?

of course we don't have hindsight, and we should be really pleased how well things have gone - but if you have a chance to be in the mix you take it. and by saying you wouldn't take it with hindsight, then that is backing your opinion over the welfare of the club and supporters. Which I don't think you'd really do.

Sorry for having an opinion on a discussion board. Until there's some sort of coup that actually makes me John Reid, it's just grandstanding to suggest my opinion has anything to do with the welfare of the club.

My opinion is that we are every chance of still being 8-4 in the fantasy world where Scott Welsh isn't number 28 and Bernie Vince isn't number 17. Of course I'd rather we were 10-2. I'd rather we were 12-0. But you can't prove we would be 10-2 with Welsh any more than I can prove we'd be 8-4 with him.

this season is a surprise to us I think, but I don't really believe anyone wouldn't wish we had a bit more quality and senior leadership for a more serious push.

Quality, yes - senior leadership, yes. Welsh would provide some of one, and little if any of the other.

but lets cut to the chase. people have to make tough decisions all the time in footy. The good people and clubs get them right more often than not. Which is undoubtedly true of our club, and we are incredibly fortunate because of that. But I just cannot abide the idea that every tough decision we make is always 100% correct. of course it's not, you can't expect that to be true.

As Robert Walls wrote recently when he took over at Carlton a the end of 1985. Ian Collins looked him in the eye and said "you make all the decisions. just make sure 3 in 4 are right".

we seem to spend an awful lot of time jumping up and down slavishly devoted to the idea that the 1 in 4 so-so decisions must have been correct too. When we'd be better off celebrating that we get 3 of those 4 spot on.

why are we so threatened by the idea of the 4th one?

I'm sorry, but that's a straw man. Where have I ever suggested that the club gets it right 100% of the time?

I've been around this board for a few years now, and there's been plenty I've criticised. But I'm happy with this decision. And while I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, it's not proven that it's a bad decision. Yet.

 

[tinman]

we offered him less than market value, as evidence by the market.

That's only partially true. What people are prepared to pay depends on the buyer as well, and he may have been 'more value' to the Dogs than us.

But he found a buyer, so good luck to him.

 

[Crow-mo]

That's only partially true. What people are prepared to pay depends on the buyer as well, and he may have been 'more value' to the Dogs than us.

But he found a buyer, so good luck to him.

no it's not. it's 100% true with no exceptions.

the market is where buyer meets seller. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Crow-mo]

Since when has market value ever been true value? Have you never been to an auction?

There's 2 ways of calculating value. There's his value on the open market, and his value as assessed by the club. His value on the open market was greater. So he went. A business decision by the club. A business decision by Welsh.

no, no, no! there is not. there is only market value.

any attempt at suggesting the value at which the market clears is not the price is just spin. there is no two, three or 4 ways about it.

if we are prepared to pay X, and someone else is prepared to pay Y - then we were not prepared to pay market value.

there can be good reasons for not wanting to do that, but you CANNOT say that the value was not there.

I walk past things all the time that i would not pay for, but someone else will - and they get it. that's what a market is. no point in me saying the price was high or they wanted too much, because clearly they didn't.

What???

agreed.

Shut down the board then. No point ever discussing any aspect of footy or any aspect because you can't run anything as a controlled experiment.

bit early to be trotting out that tired bit of rhetoric surely?

Oh good, Welsh and Hudson are now the only variables at the Dogs. That's an easy discussion! It's got nothing to do with a fit Murphy, or a fit Hahn, or anything else.

funnily enough I can understand why you're confused. you've started to argue against yourself, which is my job.

but taking you on face value - Murphy played 17 out 22 games last year; and hahn is not a game changer. so we can safely say neither has made that much difference.

Oh please.

quite.

The issue is not Torney (which I strongly disagreed with, and still do). The issue is not Hudson (which I disagreed with too). The issue is Welsh, which I have basically agree with the club with. This thread is called "Welsh", not "Welsh, Torney, Hudson and lets talk about Mattner too".

well you're wrong then, and didn't read very carefully what you chose to disagree with. we made a number of decisions based on where we thought we were, welsh was one of them. which is what I wrote.

There's no "no doubt" about it, anyway. It's one of your one variable, everything controlled things that you are so fond of.

listen maybe I do need to spell it out. you're the one who made assumptions based on one player, which assumes all other factors controlled - which I pointed out was silly. now you want to argue the other side? I don't blame you

A bit more composure from Bock and Goodwin (or Edwards) in Rounds 1 and 12 respectively, and we're 10-2 anyway. Which proves what?

which proves that they didn't. Scott thompson doesn't kick the ball out of bounds against Hawthorn, and we don't talk about Kris Massie. which is wrong, the issue with Massie is disguised, not gone away.

Sorry for having an opinion on a discussion board. Until there's some sort of coup that actually makes me John Reid, it's just grandstanding to suggest my opinion has anything to do with the welfare of the club.

now you can use that tired piece of rhetoric. it was a bit early before.

nonsense. when you start saying I wouldn't change a thing with hindsight, you are saying your opinion matters more than the welfare of others. you're starting to sound like Neil Craig after the hawthorn elimination final

My opinion is that we are every chance of still being 8-4 in the fantasy world where Scott Welsh isn't number 28 and Bernie Vince isn't number 17. Of course I'd rather we were 10-2. I'd rather we were 12-0. But you can't prove we would be 10-2 with Welsh any more than I can prove we'd be 8-4 with him.

interesting. if better players in your team, directly subtracted from your opposition isn't worth more than 3 points in the wash (against the doggies) then I don't know what to tell you.

cross your fingers hard enough, and maybe they'll catch fire.

Quality, yes - senior leadership, yes. Welsh would provide some of one, and little if any of the other.

well given the marginal increments needed, making the distinction makes no odds.

I'm sorry, but that's a straw man. Where have I ever suggested that the club gets it right 100% of the time?

when you hold so tightly to a view even with the benefit of hindsight, and when you want to subdivide the argument actually made, into smaller pieces so you can more happily hold on. that's when.

my point, clearly stated, was that we made a number of decisions (including but not limited to welsh) that perhaps we would not have made with hindsight given how much success we have had.

whereas all I seem to be getting back is "welsh bad, welsh bad..."
the probabilities are, no question, that those players would've made a difference to our record - no it can't be proven - but saying I wouldn't change a thing, is just saying "welsh bad, welsh bad..." irrespective of whether it may have given the club are better chance of contending.

I don't think anyone disputes that we made those decisions because we beleived our window to contend had closed - so on discovering that the window had not closed, you'd still have chosen to rebuild is, well, an interesting one.

and no it's not straw man either to reflect on how you seemed to be blaming welsh's presence for inferior records at the same stage of the season either.

I've been around this board for a few years now, and there's been plenty I've criticised. But I'm happy with this decision. And while I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, it's not proven that it's a bad decision. Yet.

but asking for something in a hypothetical context to be proven seems to misunderstand the parameters of the original point.

 

[Crow-mo]

No I would boo Huddo.


We started his career, we PAID him whilst he was recovering from a potentially career ending knee injury. He comes back from the knee injury, then deserts us after one year.

What
a
****
head

OK. why in your opinion did we pay him?

 

[Kennyrocks]

Crow-mo, sometimes I don't know what the french connection you are on about. Seriously mate, please just talk normally without trying to sound smart, this is an internet forum in which people discuss football, its not somewhere for unnecessarily fancy language. I'm not saying talk like an idiot or write "lol", "omg" and so on but people cannot be bothered troweling through the bs to get to the point, they are only interested in the actual point of view, not the fluff.