1 minute ago, mo64 said:

The players you mentioned played at clubs with outstanding on-field leaders.

Every team has a leadership group, but you never hear anything about them aside from the premiership team.

Clubs with top end talent will allow their leaders to drive the standards. Clubs with lesser talent will be driven by the coaches.

OK

7 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Every club I've ever been a part of, no matter the sport has always had 2-3 true leaders and others who show a bit. Name a Captain, VC, DVC and move on. 6 is too many, Captain leads with his deputies, stuff leading teams popularity choosing, the true leaders pick themselves.

I agree mate all this Leadership Group stuff is a comlete W.a.n.k

like Team Leaders

PC rubbish

Elect a captain and a vice

The rest do their job. 

Leadership Groups probably did more harm than good to the MFC over the last decade..

too many players rewarded for being less mediocre than the rest...

I like the idea of more specific divisional leaders.

Captain: Jones

Vice: Bernie

Junior Captain: Viney

Defensive Marshall: Tmac

Rehab Mentor: Dawes

Rehab mentor... lol

couldn't really give a fat rat's clacker about the leadership group

what i want to see is 22 players each week showing leadership and common commitment to each other, on the field of play

Melbourne - Keith 'Bluey' Truscott Medal

1. Bernie Vince - 328 
2. Jack Viney - 327
3. Tom McDonald - 300
4. Jesse Hogan - 286
5. Nathan Jones - 270
6. Daniel Cross - 242
7. Colin Garland - 218
8. Jeff Garlett - 216
9. Jeremy Howe - 151
10. Lynden Dunn - 148 

Plus Max Gawn

It's not that hard to work out what's going on here.

Edited March 10, 20169 yr by Fifty-5

No vice this year? I would have though Dunn deserved to stay there. 

They were going to put Bernie in charge of vice but thought better of it.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I agree mate all this Leadership Group stuff is a comlete W.a.n.k

like Team Leaders

PC rubbish

Elect a captain and a vice

The rest do their job. 

Leadership Groups probably did more harm than good to the MFC over the last decade..

too many players rewarded for being less mediocre than the rest...

5 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

 

Of course I'll back the coaches in.  It's not a safe stance, it's the truth.  They are paid to do it and I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes or what the instructions are on match day.  

If you can pull up the stats on Garland getting beaten by a small forward then go for it.  I think it's rare that I walk away from a game feeling like he was beaten defensively.  He might make the odd mistake or miss a target but then I can forgive him for that.

Garland's job isn't to influence the result of a game - it's to shut down his man.  He does that regularly with minimal fuss or fanfare.  It's clearly what the players and coaches respect about him, as do I.

As I mentioned above as well Grimes has been slowly shifted out of the leadership group after being captain.  He has gone from co-captain, to leadership group and then to just being part of the team.  They've treated that transition with respect.

Every players job is to help influence the result of the game. 

As for your observations of Garland we must be watching different games. Is he getting a game because he's that good or for lack of other options.

The Grimes transition has one rotation left. By respect I assume you mean that he was asked to step as opposed to having it stripped from him, always looks better that way. 

Just now, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Every players job is to help influence the result of the game. 

As for your observations of Garland we must be watching different games. Is he getting a game because he's that good or for lack of other options.

The Grimes transition has one rotation left. By respect I assume you mean that he was asked to step as opposed to having it stripped from him, always looks better that way. 

Who knows about Grimes.  All I know is that he was co-captain, then in the LG, then not over the course of 3 seasons.  Rather than strip him and move him out of the LG, Roos and co. have treated that transition with respect.  Nothing wrong with that.

He is getting a game because he plays his role.  If everyone's job is to influence the game then he clearly does it, as he consistently is able to beat his opposition man.  I would think there are only a few times a year when he has multiple goals kicked on him.

But we're going over old ground.  He is in the LG and I'll take the clubs perspective of him over yours every day of the week.

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Melbourne - Keith 'Bluey' Truscott Medal

1. Bernie Vince - 328 
2. Jack Viney - 327
3. Tom McDonald - 300
4. Jesse Hogan - 286
5. Nathan Jones - 270
6. Daniel Cross - 242
7. Colin Garland - 218
8. Jeff Garlett - 216
9. Jeremy Howe - 151
10. Lynden Dunn - 148 

Plus Max Gawn

It's not that hard to work out what's going on here.

Viney said as much in his interview:

He was adamant he wants to be a “game day performer”.

“I want to lead by my actions on game day and that’s my number one focus and what I think’s extremely important,” he said.

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

As for your observations of Garland we must be watching different games. Is he getting a game because he's that good or for lack of other options.

7. Colin Garland - 218

You must be watching different games from the MFC football department.

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

7. Colin Garland - 218

You must be watching different games from the MFC football department.

Not saying one or the other about Garland, but I don't think BnF results are always the best thing to hang your hat on....

 

25 minutes ago, stuie said:

Not saying one or the other about Garland, but I don't think BnF results are always the best thing to hang your hat on....

 

They were the best and fairest players that year.

19 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

They were the best and fairest players that year.

That's right. And that's why you don't use just BnF placings for judging players.

 

8 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Which is something Garland is in the eyes on the coaches and the players if they have selected him in the LG - he is obviously terrific off the field and plays his role as asked on the field as well.  Yes, he makes the odd error, but clearly he is doing plenty right in the eyes of the coaches.

I trust my own eyes, and I think you need to trust yours - the Garland detractors on here have blinded you to what he brings to our side. 

And Garland is not a 'substandard' player and I think it's pretty low of you to suggest as such.  Poor form Curry.

nobody has blinded me, I try hard each week to see it but all he does is reinforce my low opinion - you can't just slap it aside with a flippant 'he makes the odd error' .. he makes plenty of errors, and big ones. He leaks goals, often through silly frees that a player of his experience should not make, and is one of the reasons we have lost so very many games during his tenure. He is supposed to be a senior leader but he does not deliver what the corresponding types at the big clubs do.

2 hours ago, stuie said:

No i don't hate everyone Stuie...

I like Garls as a bloke and think he's a consistent player without being exceptional. The thing I find interesting is he is as "laconic" as Watts is a lot of the time yet we all know who cops more abuse for their approach.

 

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

I like Garls as a bloke and think he's a consistent player without being exceptional. The thing I find interesting is he is as "laconic" as Watts is a lot of the time yet we all know who cops more abuse for their approach.

 

spot on

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

I like Garls as a bloke and think he's a consistent player without being exceptional. The thing I find interesting is he is as "laconic" as Watts is a lot of the time yet we all know who cops more abuse for their approach.

 

Having seen JW play sport whilst at school i will say he has enormous potential to be elite if he can push himself. At school he didn't need to. His natural attributes were enough to beat school kids. 

I don't see that with Garland. I see a guy who tries really hard who is good but not elite. 

But he is no doubt valued by the club. It will be interesting to see how Garland is used this year. I want him to succeed but i do stress when he has the ball. 

Hope that changes in 2016...

Interesting to see Maximus Gawnius in there. He must have come a long way from the days of having technicolor yawns on certain GWS midfielders or stopping on the Nepean freeway to light up a dart.

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Having seen JW play sport whilst at school i will say he has enormous potential to be elite if he can push himself. At school he didn't need to. His natural attributes were enough to beat school kids. 

I don't see that with Garland. I see a guy who tries really hard who is good but not elite. 

But he is no doubt valued by the club. It will be interesting to see how Garland is used this year. I want him to succeed but i do stress when he has the ball. 

Hope that changes in 2016...

Clearly Watts has the higher ceiling if we're talking natural talent, but I don't see a big difference in the intensity either display on the field.

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Clearly Watts has the higher ceiling if we're talking natural talent, but I don't see a big difference in the intensity either display on the field.

 

But we should. That is my point. 

Wattsy is yet to Push himself through that pain barrier

when or if he does there will be a huge talent gap to him and Garland. 

It is make or break 2016 i believe...

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

But we should. That is my point. 

Wattsy is yet to Push himself through that pain barrier

when or if he does there will be a huge talent gap to him and Garland. 

It is make or break 2016 i believe...

Yeah I get that, and my point is we hammer Watts for his lack of intensity, yet Garland continually goes under the radar for the same thing.