Morton was the worst pick I have ever seen

pick 4 on the softest player to come through the draft in forever

Lucas Cook?

Froggy, I'm quite over this "if his heart is not in it" talk.

At the current time, Neil Craig would be the only one that is 100% in it. Eade and Williams both have other employment obligations, so there's no way they could say that their heart is 100% in it. The only thing that either have said is that they have a desire to coach at senior level again. I would ask are they just interested in the MFC gig because it's the only one available at this stage?

Eade and Williams will be waiting until their season finishes before they decide if their heart is in it. Roos is waiting to see changes at the Club before he fully commits.

If all else fails we have Hogans_Hereos from Demonland who had volunteered to coach the team LOL

You say you hate socialism GNF, but it is required for the health of our sport. Is this because it works specifically to address the ills that exist when you create "haves" and "have nots"?. If this were reflected in society, which aspect of socialism as a principle do you 'hate'?

Mate, don't want to get into a political or ideological debate, but can't let BS like this go unchallenged. I will not respond to any further comments on this in a sports thread.

In society, by definition socialism rewards those who do not produce for society while punishing those who, study hard, work hard, risk their money, employee people and most importantly produce for society. Therefore by definition socialism cannot succeed in society as it takes away incentive to produce for society and thus society is poorer. As a result those countries that have embraced socialism have poor economies and poorer standards of living for all residents. This has occurred in every example since this ideology was invented about 100 years ago. Just compare the difference in standards of living in socialist v capitalism societies. I am all for a safety net and some sort of support for the unfortunate via a capitalist system, however socialism has never and will never work in general society. History has proven this absolutely.

The reason socialism works in a micro environment of a sporting completion is that the "reward" given to the less fortunate does not reduce the incentive to produce for the strong. The illusive premiership and glory of winning maintains motivation and incentive. There is no drop off in production (effort) despite the socialist reward to those who fail.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by Grand New Flag

Mate, don't want to get into a political or ideological debate, but can't let BS like this go unchallenged. I will not respond to any further comments on this in a sports thread.

In society, by definition socialism rewards those who do not produce for society while punishing those who, study hard, work hard, risk their money, employee people and most importantly produce for society. Therefore by definition socialism cannot succeed in society as it takes away incentive to produce for society and thus society is poorer. As a result those countries that have embraced socialism have poor economies and poorer standards of living for all residents. This has occurred in every example since this ideology was invented about 100 years ago. Just compare the difference in standards of living in socialist v capitalism societies. I am all for a safety net and some sort of support for the unfortunate via a capitalist system, however socialism has never and will never work in general society. History has proven this absolutely.

The reason socialism works in a micro environment of a sporting completion is that the "reward" given to the less fortunate does not reduce the incentive to produce for the strong. The illusive premiership and glory of winning maintains motivation and incentive. There is no drop off in production (effort) despite the socialist reward to those who fail.

Rather than get into a debate on socialism - let me draw the parallel to the EPL where the governing body and their process and structures are fairly unrestricted - there are only approx 6 clubs that can win the title with the balance trying to stave off bankruptcy and just stay in the premier league.

Even up and coming teams outside the big 6 dont make bold statements about winning the trophy as they know it is unacheivable unless a gazillionaire comes in and buys the club and sinks trillions into it.

Compare this to our league where there are levers that the AFL uses to try and level the playing field giving all clubs some hope of rising to the very top.

I know which one I prefer.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by nutbean

I think there may be some confusion in this thread regarding the differences between democratic socialism and a communist state.

I'm not sure we need to have any discussion about the political ideologies and can keep conversation focused on sport and footy ie should the competition "self level" or should clubs be able to do what they want to win.

I have a number of equalisation measures but at the moment they are not equal to the disadvantages the top clubs have gained particularly in the last decade as sports science and coaching has come into our sport. Gone are the glory days of just playing footy and the gap is growing and is starting to look insurmountable without additional equalisation measures.

Lucas Cook?

I have spent the last 14 hours trying to come up with an alternative PSD.

You win!

I refuse to believe we have 'ruined' Morton to the extent you imply.

We took Frawley the previous draft to Morton and we developed him into an AA defender.

He was a tall rake winger who didn't get any better than he was at 18. He was chosen before he should have been.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

I think there may be some confusion in this thread regarding the differences between democratic socialism and a communist state.

I'm not sure we need to have any discussion about the political ideologies and can keep conversation focused on sport and footy ie should the competition "self level" or should clubs be able to do what they want to win.

I have a number of equalisation measures but at the moment they are not equal to the disadvantages the top clubs have gained particularly in the last decade as sports science and coaching has come into our sport. Gone are the glory days of just playing footy and the gap is growing and is starting to look insurmountable without additional equalisation measures.

I think the effect of those areas are overblown, and I also believe the affect of FA won't be what many fear.

If the EPL is the anti-thesis, the NFL is the standard bearer and while there are some perennial losers - sound decisions allow any team to compete soon after being a 'long way' from competing.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

He should never have been Pick 4 and he is now playing WAFL at 23. Time will tell whether the Eagles can develop an AFL player from 23 year old Morton.

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld...The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

HAHAHAhahahahaha.....oh, you're serious, right?

As cr@p was Neeld was, blaming him for Morton is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

couldn't get a kick in a stampede

as sharp as a bowling ball

I think there may be some confusion in this thread regarding the differences between democratic socialism and a communist state.

Yes very true, quite a difference.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

Morton was a pea heart, simple as that, i dont k now how it didnt show out in his junior days, the guy craps his dacks whenever theres body contact to be made, and he was getting worst as he got older.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

A footy player?

Morton was a pea heart, simple as that, i dont k now how it didnt show out in his junior days, the guy craps his dacks whenever theres body contact to be made, and he was getting worst as he got older.

Morton was Larke Medallist and a star at U18 level - he looked like a great pick up at the time. Everything is easier in hidsight.

I think our pointy end picks have been in line with the recruiting consensus - Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove - none of them were left field.

Our later and rookie picks have been solid too.

Where we've really been hurt in with the Gysberts, Blease, Tapscott, Strauss picks - 11, 17, 18 and 19 - if we had 3 or 4 solid mids from those picks, which we should have, then we would be a lot different side now.

Yes there are also injury and development reasons why they haven't panned out ...

But they are the selections that are really hurting us.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by Fifty-5

You all have short memories he played some good games in his first three years.

Mate, don't want to get into a political or ideological debate, but can't let BS like this go unchallenged. I will not respond to any further comments on this in a sports thread.

In society, by definition socialism rewards those who do not produce for society while punishing those who, study hard, work hard, risk their money, employee people and most importantly produce for society. Therefore by definition socialism cannot succeed in society as it takes away incentive to produce for society and thus society is poorer. As a result those countries that have embraced socialism have poor economies and poorer standards of living for all residents. This has occurred in every example since this ideology was invented about 100 years ago. Just compare the difference in standards of living in socialist v capitalism societies. I am all for a safety net and some sort of support for the unfortunate via a capitalist system, however socialism has never and will never work in general society. History has proven this absolutely.

The reason socialism works in a micro environment of a sporting completion is that the "reward" given to the less fortunate does not reduce the incentive to produce for the strong. The illusive premiership and glory of winning maintains motivation and incentive. There is no drop off in production (effort) despite the socialist reward to those who fail.

Interesting, if strangely aggressive response GNF. I think your definition of socialism might be a little far to the communist end of the spectrum, and basically lack veracity. The AFL does not tolerate or reward ineptitude, laziness or criminality, but it is indeed a buffer to disproportionate advantage. Thank goodness for THAT application of socialism.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

There are a number of players that might be still with us if Neeld was never our coach, having said that, none of them were going to be great players, but probably more use to us than Gillies!

There are a number of players that might be still with us if Neeld was never our coach, having said that, none of them were going to be great players, but probably more use to us than Gillies!

Chris Dawes, Mitch Clark, Matt Jones, Dean Terlich.

Morton was Larke Medallist and a star at U18 level - he looked like a great pick up at the time. Everything is easier in hidsight.

I think our pointy end picks have been in line with the recruiting consensus - Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove - none of them were left field.

Our later and rookie picks have been solid too.

Where we've really been hurt in with the Gysberts, Blease, Tapscott, Strauss picks - 11, 17, 18 and 19 - if we had 3 or 4 solid mids from those picks, which we should have, then we would be a lot different side now.

Yes there are also injury and development reasons why they haven't panned out ...

But they are the selections that are really hurting us.

There was 2 very different views of Morton at the time of draft 1. very highly thought of (Larke medallist etc); would go very early; #4 about right. 2. Not a first rounder; don't remember 'softness' being brought up tho'; just not considered first rounder - you don't often read why recruiters don't take a player, just why they take the ones they do.

So Morton was not left field, but there were plenty who would not have taken him. Lucas is the disaster and shows why U18 awards (in his case, AA) not a great indicator.

As for Neeld ruining Morton (as some other posters have said), he played some good/high possession games in his first year; that was about it. Other teams sorted him out I guess. If there is any blame (and I don't think there is) it was from Bailey's time.

Ed: grammar

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by Mono

Mate, don't want to get into a political or ideological debate, but can't let BS like this go unchallenged. I will not respond to any further comments on this in a sports thread.

In society, by definition socialism rewards those who do not produce for society while punishing those who, study hard, work hard, risk their money, employee people and most importantly produce for society. Therefore by definition socialism cannot succeed in society as it takes away incentive to produce for society and thus society is poorer. As a result those countries that have embraced socialism have poor economies and poorer standards of living for all residents.

What about social democratic societies?

Besides the AFL is not socialist. The AFL seeks to level some of the extremes of advantage and disadvantage for the benefit of the whole which sounds socialistic but in reality is similar to the role that unions have performed historically in overcoming the worst excesses of capitalism. Indeed, without the success of labour movements capitalism may well have collapsed. Unions have made it more humane. The AFL is on the fiddle to encourage engagement. Same thing, but it is not socialist.

You may well be correct rpfc

I firmly believe that whatever he was destined to be was ruined by Neeld.

IMO Neeld tried to turn him into something he was never going to be.

The kid was skilful he played some very good games under Bailey

Like rounds five to eight 2009 when he had respective disposal counts of 28, 26, 34 and 37.

At that time he was a big favourite (with the proviso "how good will he be when puts on some muscle").

Who says you don't get a more edifying level of discussion on Demonland?

And whoever was technical enough to point out that "socialism" applies to countries like the Scandinavian ones might have been a tad technical but they sure were right !

And the AFL would not truly be accused of socialism (naked capitalism perhaps ) but uses the equalisation option to keep the product marketable

The AFL is about as socialist as the UK, Canada or Australia. While everything pretty much revolves around money in these countries (and in the AFL), if you're in a bad situation you're not totally screwed because you can still get some support if you ask for it.

Does anyone know what his contract status at WC is?? Did he get a one year deal or two?? Apperently he struggles most games to get over 20 possessions in the wafl.