I think so.

Anyone agree?

yeah just blatently ignore it if you dont have an answer good work

whats your par score and why dont you have the grapes to state it

yeah just blatently ignore it if you dont have an answer good work

whats your par score and why dont you have the grapes to state it

I think most people are smart enough to not have a set amount of premiership points as par, because they understand the uncertain nature of the sport.

Improvement can't always be measured in such tangible things as wins or points.

I think most people are smart enough to not have a set amount of premiership points as par, because they understand the uncertain nature of the sport.

Improvement can't always be measured in such tangible things as wins or points.

As C&B has already established with his desire to claim wins from honourable or close losses.

I get frustrated on here when posters don't provide arguments.

It's strange though to have a poster provide an argument but not understand it.

I think most people are smart enough to not have a set amount of premiership points as par, because they understand the uncertain nature of the sport.

Improvement can't always be measured in such tangible things as wins or points.

I can buy that line over the past couple of years, but we are in a competition that success is measured by win/loss and at some stage whether it is 2011 or 2012 we need to assess our teams performance based on win loss. In fact in 2011 we should start to expect our team to win more then we lose.

I think Mark Jamar may become a bit of a whipping boy if he doesnt have another great year.

As he is near the "top of the heap" with AFL Ruckmen, he becomes a big challenge for most other ruckmen.

I personally think he will have an even better year if he is can spend whole quarters at FullForward more often.

Which leave Campbell in the ruck IMO.

I hope Robbie Campbell has an OK year but think that hype will quickly grow and disappointment will loom within a couple of games... and he gets the whuppin'

I think Mark Jamar may become a bit of a whipping boy if he doesnt have another great year.

As he is near the "top of the heap" with AFL Ruckmen, he becomes a big challenge for most other ruckmen.

I personally think he will have an even better year if he is can spend whole quarters at FullForward more often.

Which leave Campbell in the ruck IMO.

I hope Robbie Campbell has an OK year but think that hype will quickly grow and disappointment will loom within a couple of games... and he gets the whuppin'

Jamar? A whipping boy?

And we have an AA ruckman but you would prefer him at FF?

Has it not dawned on some of you that for all the games "we should have won", there are just as many that we did win where supporters of the team we beat thought they "should have won"?

What about the above scenario for games not involving Melbourne?

Whilst we don't play everyone home and away in the same season, the ladder will always tell only some of the story. But the part of the story it tells is a pretty big part.

Oh yeah, as for whipping boys ... support the players or get (censored).

Ever considered how much of a lift it would be for someone like Newton, Miller or Bate if 30,000 Demon fans got behind them, shouted their name in a positive way and encouraged their every move?

That's support.

That's babying..

Oh yeah, as for whipping boys ... support the players or get (censored).

Ever considered how much of a lift it would be for someone like Newton, Miller or Bate if 30,000 Demon fans got behind them, shouted their name in a positive way and encouraged their every move?

That's support.

You missed the point of the thread, very badly.

And criticism is a part of the game.

Players are going to get it.

This thread is about those that get it unfairly, or without fair reason.

You don't see that because of the first line in this post.

You missed the point of the thread, very badly.

And criticism is a part of the game.

Players are going to get it.

This thread is about those that get it unfairly, or without fair reason.

You don't see that because of the first line in this post.

rpfc, the fact that so many people missed the point seems to me to point to the fact that maybe the point in fact has not been pointed out adequately. If you understand this you get the point.

your friendly (new) master demon

Oh yeah, as for whipping boys ... support the players or get (censored).

Ever considered how much of a lift it would be for someone like Newton, Miller or Bate if 30,000 Demon fans got behind them, shouted their name in a positive way and encouraged their every move?

That's support.

You're joking right?

You're simultaneously implying that players cannot deal with criticism and that someone like Miller, with his restricted ability, may have improved had he received more support.

Wow.

Disagree.

I can't see him getting a game.

Didn't stop him being whipping boy last year.

Surely any whipping boy would have to come from the main list?

Not a rookie post.

Didn't stop him being whipping boy last year.

Newton is in a weird category. What will have to happen is we have to have the same troubles in our forward line. Then when it's failing and he's STILL not getting a game, he'll get picked on.

He, like PJ, were the whipping boy in the sense that EVERY time their name was mentioned in something completely unrelated, the geeks on here that feel the need to be quasi-witty would take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to stick the boot in. Just as with most major sports, as well as politics, people who have a compulsion for being passive aggressive will take joy in making sure the rest of the world knows they don't like some footballer... In that sense, Newton has ALWAYS been the whipping boy.

He, like PJ, were the whipping boy in the sense that EVERY time their name was mentioned in something completely unrelated, the geeks on here that feel the need to be quasi-witty would take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to stick the boot in. Just as with most major sports, as well as politics, people who have a compulsion for being passive aggressive will take joy in making sure the rest of the world knows they don't like some footballer... In that sense, Newton has ALWAYS been the whipping boy.

I understand that this thread is about self reflection and the unfairness of some supporters' attitudes.

But get your hand of it, DD.

Or name all the 'quasi-witty, passive aggressive geeks who love to stick the boot in.'

I understand that this thread is about self reflection and the unfairness of some supporters' attitudes.

But get your hand of it, DD.

Or name all the 'quasi-witty, passive aggressive geeks who love to stick the boot in.'

you took the bait rpfc

now i wonder if any of the others will

My understanding of a whipping boy is one that can smell like roses to some, or at times masquerade as such but in the minds of those pointing the finger, more often than not smell of $h!t?

Nothing wrong with an opinion on that, is there?

Old roses go into the compost bin with some other smelly $h!t; after a while the contents of compost get dug into the rose bed; and then the new roses come up smelling sweeter than ever! Sadly, it doesn't work out that way for most footballers.

As C&B has already established with his desire to claim wins from honourable or close losses.

Well that's where we differ. I don't think it is particularly intelligent to look solely at the w/l column and make a judgement, you need to make an additional qualification on your assessment based on how close you came to winning. Whether it's a young side on the road conceding 9 of the first 11, losing Davey from the start of the 2nd quarter or Ricky P dropping one in the goal square.

The same goes for 2008/2009.. we won the spoon both years but our beltings were considerably less brutal in the second year so i'll call that an improvement

So if you had enough guts to name a number of wins, and we ended up falling a couple short, it would matter if there were a number of close ones involved or not. Get it?

Has it not dawned on some of you that for all the games "we should have won", there are just as many that we did win where supporters of the team we beat thought they "should have won"?

What about the above scenario for games not involving Melbourne?

Whilst we don't play everyone home and away in the same season, the ladder will always tell only some of the story. But the part of the story it tells is a pretty big part.

Yes it has dawned on me, if you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen i have already mentioned that the Port game is the only close one that went our way vs 5 that didn't

Percentage is a good indicator for progress.

So if you had enough guts to name a number of wins, and we ended up falling a couple short, it would matter if there were a number of close ones involved or not. Get it?

I'm quite sure this is the sticking with those who are disagreeing with you.

In one breath you say that we need to win 13 matches (i.e. it's all about w/l) whilst in the next you say that you cannot solely look at the w/l but you need to look at the context.

What other posters (and myself) are saying is that it's better to create a range of K.P.I.'s that you'll be looking for from the outset that you can rate the team on aside from wins and losses. You've stated that we need to win 13, but if we win 10 and lose 3 by a point you'll be happy with it? That defeats the purpose of naming an amount of wins you expect and is not something the FD would be using to assess (and grow) the team. There will be a range of inidicators that the club would be looking to build on, succeeding in those indicators will likely lead to wins but, overall more importantly, it will lead to improvement.

The problem with naming wins came out this year a few times. Pre-season, that vast majority of us saw us winning 7-8 matches. Yet along the way when we suffered our 13 losses, which those same posters had already illustrated that they expected, people would whinge and moan and lose sight of the team's improvement overall. Round 1 is an example. It was a horrid display - yet those of us that had decided to rate the team on improvement and measures outside of wins and losses understood that the season is 22 games long and there are many twists and turns. Those waiting for the 7-8 wins saw them as being a long way away.

Of course, by round 19 when we had 8 1/2 wins, were those posters happy that we lost the last 3 because we had reached their stated aim?

I'm quite sure this is the sticking with those who are disagreeing with you.

In one breath you say that we need to win 13 matches (i.e. it's all about w/l) whilst in the next you say that you cannot solely look at the w/l but you need to look at the context.

What other posters (and myself) are saying is that it's better to create a range of K.P.I.'s that you'll be looking for from the outset that you can rate the team on aside from wins and losses. You've stated that we need to win 13, but if we win 10 and lose 3 by a point you'll be happy with it? That defeats the purpose of naming an amount of wins you expect and is not something the FD would be using to assess (and grow) the team. There will be a range of inidicators that the club would be looking to build on, succeeding in those indicators will likely lead to wins but, overall more importantly, it will lead to improvement.

The problem with naming wins came out this year a few times. Pre-season, that vast majority of us saw us winning 7-8 matches. Yet along the way when we suffered our 13 losses, which those same posters had already illustrated that they expected, people would whinge and moan and lose sight of the team's improvement overall. Round 1 is an example. It was a horrid display - yet those of us that had decided to rate the team on improvement and measures outside of wins and losses understood that the season is 22 games long and there are many twists and turns. Those waiting for the 7-8 wins saw them as being a long way away.

Of course, by round 19 when we had 8 1/2 wins, were those posters happy that we lost the last 3 because we had reached their stated aim?

Well posted.

In one breath you say that we need to win 13 matches (i.e. it's all about w/l)

didn't say that ever, but apart from that

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 would like to see us actually win 13 next year

..

simple as that

Therefore any less than 13 in '11 is a fail for me

In one breath you say that we need to win 13 matches (i.e. it's all about w/l)

didn't say that ever, but apart from that

Ah..um...yes you did. Oh dear.

Ah..um...yes you did. Oh dear.

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

Honestly, whipping boy = scapegoat.

And by the very definition of the term, it is someone who unfairly gets the lion's share of the blame.

The thread topic wasn't "who is going to be bloody awful in 2011 and deserve the scorn of demons supporters?"

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