He wants to be a #1 ruckman, and we've got Gawn to play that role for us.

Definitely think we need a decent second ruck/fwd this trade period.

Definitely think we need a decent second ruck/fwd this trade period.

Dawes not good enough for you??

Any one surprised we didn't try and lure Luenberger given he is a free agent and would have effectively cost us a spot on the list. A decent replacement for Jamar?

No.

Dawes not good enough for you??

No.

Definitely think we need a decent second ruck/fwd this trade period.

Leuenberger is not that.

Getting a back up ruck because he is a ruck is not worth it - they will ruck for 20 mins a game.

You need to get a forward that earns his money as a forward who can go into the ruck against other 2nd rucks and not embarrass themselves.

Leuenberger is not that.

As a young side starved of success we need all the leaders we can get. There were games this year where our leaders went completely missing when we needed them. Its also not just about on field but most important off field aswell eg training standards, work ethic and dicipline etc. Gotta continue to drive and create a culture that will scream success. Whitecross wouldn't be a bad option at all considering he has come from one of the best teams of the modern era he just would be a handy depth player. Id much rather him then Adcock.

That is the most sensible thing that you have written. It just shows how much carp usually flies around.

As a young side starved of success we need all the leaders we can get. There were games this year where our leaders went completely missing when we needed them. Its also not just about on field but most important off field aswell eg training standards, work ethic and dicipline etc. Gotta continue to drive and create a culture that will scream success. Whitecross wouldn't be a bad option at all considering he has come from one of the best teams of the modern era he just would be a handy depth player. Id much rather him then Adcock.

Yeah, nah. No.

For short time the English Soccer team tried to play Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham on the park at the same time. It was absolute chaos, because they were all dominant leaders who would try to win the game off their own boot. Any one of them was great to have, but more than one and they just got in each other's way. Nobody needs a team full of leaders. All any team needs is a good leadership group who will lead the team no matter what.

Further, how many times in the past few years have we been told that a new recruit has great leadership? How often have those players turned out to be a great pickup? Dawes? Grimes? Trengove (Although there are mitigating circumstances here)? JKH? All captains, all leaders, none of them in our best 22. How many players who were drafted on the strength of their leadership are actually leading the club? Nate Jones had to learn how to lead, but he leads by example on the field. Vince does the same. Cross was like that as well. Viney is heading in the same direction.

As I said before, leadership is vastly overrated. Who would you prefer to take? A player who is a solid footballer with great leadership or a player who is a great footballer with no leadership at all? What is it we should be looking for in a draftee? Good footballer, good skills, competitive, fast, good size. That is your top five traits. Leadership is not in there. It's an optional extra. It's something that is nice to have, but not at the expense of the traits that actually make for good players. If you can get it on top of the more useful traits, then by all means go for it, but don't go out looking for good leaders. It is quite literally the last thing you need to look for in a draftee.

For short time the English Soccer team tried to play Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham on the park at the same time. It was absolute chaos, because they were all dominant leaders who would try to win the game off their own boot. Any one of them was great to have, but more than one and they just got in each other's way. Nobody needs a team full of leaders. All any team needs is a good leadership group who will lead the team no matter what.

Further, how many times in the past few years have we been told that a new recruit has great leadership? How often have those players turned out to be a great pickup? Dawes? Grimes? Trengove (Although there are mitigating circumstances here)? JKH? All captains, all leaders, none of them in our best 22. How many players who were drafted on the strength of their leadership are actually leading the club? Nate Jones had to learn how to lead, but he leads by example on the field. Vince does the same. Cross was like that as well. Viney is heading in the same direction.

As I said before, leadership is vastly overrated. Who would you prefer to take? A player who is a solid footballer with great leadership or a player who is a great footballer with no leadership at all? What is it we should be looking for in a draftee? Good footballer, good skills, competitive, fast, good size. That is your top five traits. Leadership is not in there. It's an optional extra. It's something that is nice to have, but not at the expense of the traits that actually make for good players. If you can get it on top of the more useful traits, then by all means go for it, but don't go out looking for good leaders. It is quite literally the last thing you need to look for in a draftee.

Just on the English comparison, that was a positional problem. They were all CMs. AFL is a very different beast.

Leadership standards are really important, particularly at a club that has struggled with its culture for years. We need leaders who drive standards, but we also need leaders who stand up on the field and have an ability to influence the result. Trengove and Grimes seemingly drove standards off field (as much as they could), but couldn't get it done onfield.

Just on the English comparison, that was a positional problem. They were all CMs. AFL is a very different beast.

Leadership standards are really important, particularly at a club that has struggled with its culture for years. We need leaders who drive standards, but we also need leaders who stand up on the field and have an ability to influence the result. Trengove and Grimes seemingly drove standards off field (as much as they could), but couldn't get it done onfield.

Well said Adam.

Wasn't Mahoney saying we'd be big players in free agency this year? We haven't been linked to any at all.

Maybe he was referring to delisted free agency.

Edited October 12, 20159 yr by Lamashtu

Wasn't Mahoney saying we'd be big players in free agency this year? We haven't been linked to any at all.

Maybe he was referring to delisted free agency.

This really bugs me actually. Every half-decent player who has been up for grabs, we see the same clubs being mentioned and they aren't always top sides. The Saints have been very active and are getting several top draft picks in as trades. Carlton have been throwing offers at everyone with a lick of talent whether they have a chance of getting them or not. They are still trying to nab Treloar from Collingwood. Neither of these clubs have more to offer than us, but they are landing better talent because they are putting themselves out there and making offers. We seem to be sitting quietly in the corner hoping someone will come over and ask us to dance. After all the big talk the club once more looks like failing to follow through.

For short time the English Soccer team tried to play Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham on the park at the same time. It was absolute chaos, because they were all dominant leaders who would try to win the game off their own boot. Any one of them was great to have, but more than one and they just got in each other's way. Nobody needs a team full of leaders. All any team needs is a good leadership group who will lead the team no matter what.

Further, how many times in the past few years have we been told that a new recruit has great leadership? How often have those players turned out to be a great pickup? Dawes? Grimes? Trengove (Although there are mitigating circumstances here)? JKH? All captains, all leaders, none of them in our best 22. How many players who were drafted on the strength of their leadership are actually leading the club? Nate Jones had to learn how to lead, but he leads by example on the field. Vince does the same. Cross was like that as well. Viney is heading in the same direction.

As I said before, leadership is vastly overrated. Who would you prefer to take? A player who is a solid footballer with great leadership or a player who is a great footballer with no leadership at all? What is it we should be looking for in a draftee? Good footballer, good skills, competitive, fast, good size. That is your top five traits. Leadership is not in there. It's an optional extra. It's something that is nice to have, but not at the expense of the traits that actually make for good players. If you can get it on top of the more useful traits, then by all means go for it, but don't go out looking for good leaders. It is quite literally the last thing you need to look for in a draftee.

Is someone who keeps demanding to be the center of attention really a 'leader'? Isn't that kind of 'leadership' implicated as why Brisbane keep leaking young players?

If leadership means a massive ego and expecting the team to plan around your game, then sure, no thanks to that.

If leadership means understanding the plan and working to it, being able to explain and reinforce it to your teammates, being able to build their confidence and knowledge of what they need to do, strengthening the bond and candor between teammates, and taking responsibility for both what you need to do and what you have failed to do, then yep, gimme a leader in every position.

Cameron Ling, Jude Bolton, Lenny Hayes, James McDonald, Robert Murphy, Darren Glass, Chris Grant, and dare I say it, even Paul Roos.

I don't think a team with the likes of them would have too much difficulty working together.

Leuenberger is not that.

Getting a back up ruck because he is a ruck is not worth it - they will ruck for 20 mins a game.

You need to get a forward that earns his money as a forward who can go into the ruck against other 2nd rucks and not embarrass themselves.

Leuenberger is not that.

I said we need a second ruck/forward. I never said that is Leunberger?

As I said before, leadership is vastly overrated. Who would you prefer to take? A player who is a solid footballer with great leadership or a player who is a great footballer with no leadership at all? What is it we should be looking for in a draftee? Good footballer, good skills, competitive, fast, good size. That is your top five traits. Leadership is not in there. It's an optional extra. It's something that is nice to have, but not at the expense of the traits that actually make for good players. If you can get it on top of the more useful traits, then by all means go for it, but don't go out looking for good leaders. It is quite literally the last thing you need to look for in a draftee.

Interesting discussion Ralphius, I believe leadership is important and when you talk of the 5 traits I believe competitiveness is a close relation to leadership. If we are both talking the same thing, a competitive player relishes the physical contact, loves to win, hates to lose and will do whatever is needed to win within the rules, these days anyway. A competitive beast may not be a natural leader of men, in that he may not be able to motivate them by words but he will do so by his deeds. Interesting the club is now talking about targeting competitive types. So in my mind in hindsight that would mean you would pick Selwood over Maric, Hurley over Watts, Dusty over Trengove, Wines over Toumpas etc.

MFC is now targeting leaders, those who have confidence, who hate to lose and especially those who won't drop their head at the first sign of adversity. Good heavens didnt we suffer enough in those loses at the end of the season before the GWS win. These loses should be totally unacceptable to the playing group where we had lost the game by the end of the first quarter, not once but three games in a row! That says to me something is missing and it is players who have confidence and a desire to win and will not accept failure.

For short time the English Soccer team tried to play Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham on the park at the same time. It was absolute chaos, because they were all dominant leaders who would try to win the game off their own boot. Any one of them was great to have, but more than one and they just got in each other's way. Nobody needs a team full of leaders. All any team needs is a good leadership group who will lead the team no matter what.

Further, how many times in the past few years have we been told that a new recruit has great leadership? How often have those players turned out to be a great pickup? Dawes? Grimes? Trengove (Although there are mitigating circumstances here)? JKH? All captains, all leaders, none of them in our best 22. How many players who were drafted on the strength of their leadership are actually leading the club? Nate Jones had to learn how to lead, but he leads by example on the field. Vince does the same. Cross was like that as well. Viney is heading in the same direction.

As I said before, leadership is vastly overrated. Who would you prefer to take? A player who is a solid footballer with great leadership or a player who is a great footballer with no leadership at all? What is it we should be looking for in a draftee? Good footballer, good skills, competitive, fast, good size. That is your top five traits. Leadership is not in there. It's an optional extra. It's something that is nice to have, but not at the expense of the traits that actually make for good players. If you can get it on top of the more useful traits, then by all means go for it, but don't go out looking for good leaders. It is quite literally the last thing you need to look for in a draftee.

Hilariously bad anaology.

Beckham wasn't so much the problem as he was happy to sit back playing long balls, but both of Gerrard and Lampard were alpha-dog attacking CMs for their sides respectively, and the 3 Lions didn't play a decent DM to cover for them at the back.

Gerrard & Lampard took turns going on attacking runs, trying to pepper the goals from outside the box, and neither dropping in to cover the other when required, such was their competitive streak and desperation to be seen as the man.

This was about ego.

Not leadership.

Hilariously bad anaology.

Beckham wasn't so much the problem as he was happy to sit back playing long balls, but both of Gerrard and Lampard were alpha-dog attacking CMs for their sides respectively, and the 3 Lions didn't play a decent DM to cover for them at the back.

Gerrard & Lampard took turns going on attacking runs, trying to pepper the goals from outside the box, and neither dropping in to cover the other when required, such was their competitive streak and desperation to be seen as the man.

This was about ego.

Not leadership.

I have a site for you to visit.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

For your homework, I want you to look at your above post and tell me which logical fallacy you have employed.