The Whipping Boy

[Nasher 33,617]

good post but the obvious other side of the coin to what you are saying is this - by your rationale we could finish on zero wins but you'd still be happy if we fulfilled a range of other KPIs.

Yes, this is technically possible. But unless you've set the bar ridiculously low, it's not going to happen that way. If we expect to improve on last year (and I'm sure we all agree that we expect that), then that's not going to result in zero wins, though it could conceivably result in less wins if we have all the bad luck in the world.

At this point in our development, wins aren't the goal - they're just a by-product of the goal (i.e. there's a heavy correlation between our goals and wins, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing). That's why I don't agree with a set number of wins (or "finals") as being a sufficient measure of success.

[e25 5]

Honestly, whipping boy = scapegoat, = being bullied, which means what?

Your post doesn't make sense.

[Disco Demons 92]

i've already said it...but dean bailey will be melbournes whipping boy if we don't perform.

he's into fourth year as a coach...the members, supporters, players, club and media will jump on his back if we don't see an improvement on last year.

he has a team full of young talent. we came close to beating last years premiers twice.

the expectation for melb in 2011 will be to play finals. If we finsh 10th or 9th...then so be it...but any lower and questions will be raised about bailey and his abilty.

thoughts?

[The Big Ticket 94]

i've already said it...but dean bailey will be melbournes whipping boy if we don't perform.

he's into fourth year as a coach...the members, supporters, players, club and media will jump on his back if we don't see an improvement on last year.

he has a team full of young talent. we came close to beating last years premiers twice.

the expectation for melb in 2011 will be to play finals. If we finsh 10th or 9th...then so be it...but any lower and questions will be raised about bailey and his abilty.

thoughts?

Fair enough I guess. I don't think there's much chance of us finishing lower than we did this year.

The board will go into meltdown if we have a bad start.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Was about to post the same thing. It baffles the mind.

i'm bored with people arguing semantics when they know damn well the point i am actually making so i'm done discussing it

certainly does baffle the mind

2 yes or no questions for you

1. Is

a) 8.5 wins and all your losses over 6 goals, the same as

B) 8.5 wins with 5 close losses/draws?

2. is option a) a par score for 2011?

you've answered no twice because you know exactly what my point is and you are just nitpicking for no reason

[e25 5]

certainly does baffle the mind

hahahaahaha

More curry, less beer.

[45HG 1,559]

certainly does baffle the mind

2 yes or no questions for you

1. Is

a) 8.5 wins and all your losses over 6 goals, the same as

B) 8.5 wins with 5 close losses/draws?

2. is option a) a par score for 2011?

you've answered no twice because you know exactly what my point is and you are just nitpicking for no reason

Nitpicking?

Silly me for reading what you wrote and assuming that you meant what you wrote. You've made an arguments and then moved the goalposts. No wonder you're tired of arguing.

[rpfc 28,906]

C&B - I'll give it one more go.

Your argument, as it began, was that you would like people to give their expectations in terms of wins for 2011.

You then said that the wins in 2010 are not representative of our season.

Therefore, what is the effing point of giving a 'par' score when you can grab your scorecard and say 'the green was slower on this hole i'll take a stroke off' or 'the ball hit the lip so that was so close, i'll take off a stroke'?

Unless we are a top 4 team - which I do not think we are. I don't care if we finish 7th or 10th.

I do care about lessening the number of I50s that Colin and James have to put up with, giving Trengove some time on a premier midfielder and some time across half back, getting Spencer a chance as ruck, getting Petterd up the ground to make sure he is a rounded footballer, and giving games to Blese, Strauss, Tapscott, et al. to see their potential.

This is how I have measured the progress made under Bailey and it has enabled me to see what others miss.

[titan_uranus 25,176]

good post but the obvious other side of the coin to what you are saying is this - by your rationale we could finish on zero wins but you'd still be happy if we fulfilled a range of other KPIs. All I've said is that 8.5 wins/finishing 12th in '10 was a misrepresentation. To repeat the same would be a step back. It can't be made any clearer, and i'm bored with people arguing semantics when they know damn well the point i am actually making so i'm done discussing it.

I doubt the FD would be setting KPIs that could possibly be met in a 0-22 season.

By their definition, meeting the KPIs will entail success.

Honestly, whipping boy = scapegoat, = being bullied, which means what?

First equality holds.

Second does not.

Once more, we are not here to bully players or to call out the ones we'd like to insult or otherwise denigrate. We are here to predict which players will feel the brunt of the negativity if things go wrong next year.

If you can't see the difference, fine, but it's there and for most it's clear.

[Disco Demons 92]

seems certain members have become the "whipping boy"

[dee-luded 2,959]

Your post doesn't make sense.

My take is that a scapegoat, one who is made a 'scapegoat', is one who gets Bullied.

I just wanted to put that out there. Any who's picked on, is being bullied.

Just an extension to your statement.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I doubt the FD would be setting KPIs that could possibly be met in a 0-22 season.

By their definition, meeting the KPIs will entail success.

First equality holds.

Second does not.

Once more, we are not here to bully players or to call out the ones we'd like to insult or otherwise denigrate. We are here to predict which players will feel the brunt of the negativity if things go wrong next year.

If you can't see the difference, fine, but it's there and for most it's clear.

Hah, you read too far past my intent.

Lets just call it what it is,,, when it goes too far. The difference I think is being reasonable.

I'm as critical as anyone, & have high expectations, but on those who are capable of delivering. Those who come along slowly need to be given that time, as long as they are progressing, & do have talents required.

[e25 5]

My take is that a scapegoat, one who is made a 'scapegoat', is one who gets Bullied.

I just wanted to put that out there. Any who's picked on, is being bullied.

Just an extension to your statement.

That is not correct in the strictest of terms.

The treatment of a scapegoat you may see as bullying, but being bullied is not part of the definition at all.

scape·goat [skeyp-goht]

–noun

1. a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

2. Chiefly Biblical. a goat let loose in the wilderness on Yom Kippur after the high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people on its head. Lev. 16:8,10,26.

–verb (used with object)

3. to make a scapegoat of: Strike leaders tried to scapegoat foreign competitors.

[Origin: 1520–30; scape2 + goat]

[daisycutter 29,892]

I doubt the FD would be setting KPIs that could possibly be met in a 0-22 season.

By their definition, meeting the KPIs will entail success.

First equality holds.

Second does not.

Once more, we are not here to bully players or to call out the ones we'd like to insult or otherwise denigrate. We are here to predict which players will feel the brunt of the negativity if things go wrong next year.

If you can't see the difference, fine, but it's there and for most it's clear.

Correct

Bullying is not a reasonable synonym for scapegoating or whipping-boy(ing) because it is not bidirectional

A scapegoat is bullied but someone who is bullied is not necessarily a scapegoat

[dee-luded 2,959]

Correct

Bullying is not a reasonable synonym for scapegoating or whipping-boy(ing) because it is not bidirectional

A scapegoat is bullied but someone who is bullied is not necessarily a scapegoat

Yep, thats more my definition & understanding from todays lessons...

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Therefore, what is the effing point of giving a 'par' score when you can grab your scorecard and say 'the green was slower on this hole i'll take a stroke off' or 'the ball hit the lip so that was so close, i'll take off a stroke'?

well clearly we disagree about what the relationship between overall general improvement and actual scoreboard/ladder results. Personally i feel that there is an indisputable correlation. How is it possible to see a collective improvement but not be getting extra wins on the board, especially if you accept there were several games where we just needed a tiny bit more of something, to win.

I still can't believe you disagree with my general premise - that 8.5 wins/12th spot does not do our season justice - i would have thought that's how everyone felt, i mean the simple fact we played the premiers twice and ended up a point down surely indicates that. We showed we can match it with just about everyone and were often just let down by a quarter or so of a match where we were overwhelmed. Had we won those Freo and Hawk matches (which, again, i can't bel;ieve anyone would disagree that we should/could have) it would have been six wins straight and we would have played finals. Even in R22 we could have easily have beaten North, we went down by 10 points, Jurrah was on fire and could have had 10 instead of his 5. I only count 8 games where we were dead set beaten the rest we were in it

all I'm saying is that IMHO if we ended up around the same mark again we'd be getting 'short-changed' on the quality we have. I just see a list where nearly everyone has some improvement in them, and a group of obviously gifted players that are nowhere near their ceiling yet. When you think about Frawley and Grimes gaurding, and Sculgovenzie sending it to Watts and Jurrah it's hard to imagine the collective improvement won't translate on the scoreboard

[rpfc 28,906]

well clearly we disagree about what the relationship between overall general improvement and actual scoreboard/ladder results. Personally i feel that there is an indisputable correlation. How is it possible to see a collective improvement but not be getting extra wins on the board, especially if you accept there were several games where we just needed a tiny bit more of something, to win.

So you say that there is a correlation between no. of wins and the performance of the team...

I still can't believe you disagree with my general premise - that 8.5 wins/12th spot does not do our season justice - i would have thought that's how everyone felt, i mean the simple fact we played the premiers twice and ended up a point down surely indicates that.

...and then you disregard the no. of wins as a correlation.

We showed we can match it with just about everyone and were often just let down by a quarter or so of a match where we were overwhelmed. Had we won those Freo and Hawk matches (which, again, i can't bel;ieve anyone would disagree that we should/could have) it would have been six wins straight and we would have played finals. Even in R22 we could have easily have beaten North, we went down by 10 points, Jurrah was on fire and could have had 10 instead of his 5. I only count 8 games where we were dead set beaten the rest we were in it

I would be more open to your idea of including these close matches in judging the season if you weren't so adamant that I give you a specific number of wins. Why should I? You have already established that it is pointless - close losses can be included (which I see is a cop out and let's players off the hook).

all I'm saying is that IMHO if we ended up around the same mark again we'd be getting 'short-changed' on the quality we have. I just see a list where nearly everyone has some improvement in them, and a group of obviously gifted players that are nowhere near their ceiling yet. When you think about Frawley and Grimes gaurding, and Sculgovenzie sending it to Watts and Jurrah it's hard to imagine the collective improvement won't translate on the scoreboard

What if exposing our improving youngsters to the AFL doesn't translate on to the scoreboard?

But what if it is better for us in the long term?

How is Bailey judged? On wins in 2011? Or on exposing the talent at the club (most of which is 21 and under) to the AFL and getting them to play together and be competitive?

I want to win a flag and if that means pissing off Brad Green to a back flank while Watts and Jurrah have the 50 to themselves then so be it.

I want a flag.

[WonnaJurah 5]

Newton im guessing