8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don't care what you think

If he wasn't made Captain which was one of the WORST decisions in the clubs long history of Bad Decisions Grimes would have been dropped a lot earlier

Like Trengove....Neeld (Read Schwab) made sure they were played way more than they should...

I am on record at the time saying Brad Green should be kept as captain. And he should have been but Neeld also rightly wanted change.

Who would you have made captain from our list in 2012 with the benefit of hindsight? 

Dunn didn't look comfortable with the VC mantle from early on. Surely other saw that too. Very happy with leadership choices, but seems like a lot of changes - did they get last year's group very wrong? I thought Lamumba, Dawes, etc were brought in for that purpose. What does that say?

The only query I have about the group is Tom McDonald. He might really take the next step on field this year (and hope he does), but probably would have waited another year, let him show consistency like Viney. No forwards in the LG?

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

I am on record at the time saying Brad Green should be kept as captain. And he should have been but Neeld also rightly wanted change.

Who would you have made captain from our list in 2012 with the benefit of hindsight? 

Tough one Wrecker but if Neeld had wanted real change

Chris Dawes should have come into the club as a Captain

Premiership Player "This is how we do it"

Putting 2 Kids in the top job was just ludicrous

And it just eggagerated the fact that 'The Red & Blueprint was so heavily flawed...

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Tough one Wrecker but if Neeld had wanted real change

Chris Dawes should have come into the club as a Captain

Premiership Player "This is how we do it"

Putting 2 Kids in the top job was just ludicrous

And it just eggagerated the fact that 'The Red & Blueprint was so heavily flawed...

I absolutely agree that making Trengove and Grimes co-captains in 2012 was terrible (I think you'd struggle to find anybody that didn't), but we also didn't have many options. Bringing in a player and making them captain right away (Dawes) can create a lot of tension in the playing group, especially if you're stripping the captaincy from somebody that's still on the list (Green). I said many times going back to 2011 that Jones should have been captain, however in hindsight I would've left Green in charge until he retired before promoting Jones. 

It's great to see that our club has finally recovered from the disaster that was the Schwab/Neeld era and that we at least have stable leadership at the top (Jones).

2 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

I absolutely agree that making Trengove and Grimes co-captains in 2012 was terrible (I think you'd struggle to find anybody that didn't), but we also didn't have many options. Bringing in a player and making them captain right away (Dawes) can create a lot of tension in the playing group, especially if you're stripping the captaincy from somebody that's still on the list (Green). I said many times going back to 2011 that Jones should have been captain, however in hindsight I would've left Green in charge until he retired before promoting Jones. 

It's great to see that our club has finally recovered from the disaster that was the Schwab/Neeld era and that we at least have stable leadership at the top (Jones).

Fair comment. But as was stated if Neeld wanted real change Chris Dawes was the right person. You only had to listen to him in Press Conferences. 

Grimes & Trengove as Captains would have caused tension within the group anyway and it wasn't their fault. 

The whole saga just showed there was no leadership coming from above...

The players also had a say in the leadership group back in 2012 didnt they?
For the record here's that leadership group:

Trengove, Grimes, James Frawley, Mitch Clark, Clint Bartram, Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones and Colin Garland

3 minutes ago, DemonDave said:

The players also had a say in the leadership group back in 2012 didnt they?
For the record here's that leadership group:

Trengove, Grimes, James Frawley, Mitch Clark, Clint Bartram, Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones and Colin Garland

Apparently which makes it even worse...!

4 minutes ago, DemonDave said:

The players also had a say in the leadership group back in 2012 didnt they?
For the record here's that leadership group:

Trengove, Grimes, James Frawley, Mitch Clark, Clint Bartram, Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones and Colin Garland

And nothing has changed. The players are asked to vote based on a criteria set by Leading Teams. The criteria can be designed to achieve certain outcomes.

People talk about the LG setting the standards off the field. That may have been the case 10-20 years ago when you only had a coaching department of 3. Nowadays, there would be at least a dozen including support staff. Everything is mapped out for the players.

Just have a look at Luke Hodge. If he was the captain of a struggling club, he probably would have lost the captaincy. The club knows what he offers as an on-field leader, and the DD matter is quickly swept under the carpet. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, mo64 said:

And nothing has changed. The players are asked to vote based on a criteria set by Leading Teams. The criteria can be designed to achieve certain outcomes.

 

What criteria do they use Mo? I'd love to know how these mechanisms work, Leading Teams seem as mysteriously ambiguous as ever to me as to what they actually do

and how it benefits us one iota.

1 minute ago, DemonDave said:

What criteria do they use Mo? I'd love to know how these mechanisms work, Leading Teams seem as mysteriously ambiguous as ever to me as to what they actually do

and how it benefits us one iota.

Without knowing the exact criteria, I suspect that it led to Dawes and Lumumba being overlooked for 1 reason, and Dunn for another.

Leadership groups for sporting teams are a complete w@nk. Of all the ridiculous trends in football, this is right up there with the worst.

What was ever wrong with having a captain, and a vice-captain to replace him if he was unavailable?

It seems to me that having a group of leaders provides a "safety in numbers" feeling, rather than encouraging individuals (either inside or outside the group) to do their bit. I can't see what each of these blokes is actually doing that makes a lick of difference to anything. The best sides will still be the best sides because they have the best players, the crap sides will still be crap. Having a leadership group doesn't change a thing.

The fact that we have just turned over 5 of 6 of last year's group, after turning over 3 of 6 the year before and about half the year before that, shows that we have (a) no idea who our leaders are and (b) how to develop potential leaders into actual leaders. If you are going to have a leadership group, you should be in for a minimum of two (and three would be even better) years so that you can develop your leadership over that time. Chopping and changing every year benefits nobody, least of all the players themselves.

Dawes has never been a leader on or off the field, and never should have been selected. His multiple suspensions in 2014 and his inability to contribute consistently are proof of that. Lumumba was an even worse selection given his lack of commitment on or off the field. I like Grimes as a leader but you can't have fringe players as leaders (same for Lumumba). And Cross was only ever a short term selection. I thought Dunn had grown as a player and leader over recent years, and am disappointed he is not included again.

That said, Viney and McDonald were obvious selections and I'm glad they are in. I would have stopped there and not worried about the rest, none of whom I see as particularly being leaders.

It's all pretty irrelevant apart from the captain. Leadership is shown by natural leaders on the field mainly, with a small amount of influence off field at training and avoiding idiotic behaviour in public. The leaders on and off field don't necessarily correspond to the official "leadership group". In fact I think there's something to be said for not having official leaders apart from captain and vice captain. It just promotes resentment on those who are not picked or are demoted.

I find it interesting that just because players are no longer in the leadership group that many automatically assume that they no longer have what it takes to be a "leader".

The omission of Dawes is fairly obvious  - he is struggling with his body and needs to concentrate on getting that right so he can play.

The omission of Lumumba and Grimes to me are equally obvious - both need to concentrate purely on finding good form to be selected in the team

The omission of Dunn is an interesting one - I am thinking with a seemingly limit on the numbers that with him turning 29 this year and the inclusion of Vince at 30 they wanted some younger leaders to be included.

 

I disagree with those who suggest that Dawes is not a leader. The debate about his value purely as a footballer  is valid but in my mind he is absolutely a leader - whilst he is rehab he was giving instruction to the Weed and Hulett on body positioning. No matter if he is getting a kick or not he is always marshaling the troops in the forward line.   

To those who insist that leadership groups are a complete w@nk - Every AFL club has one as do most top level professional teams that I know of. So obviously they see benefit of a leadership group that those calling it a w@nk just can't understand.  

28 minutes ago, Diamond said:

. It just promotes resentment on those who are not picked or are demoted.

Care to give examples ?

Interview with Tom Mc: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-03-11/were-attacking-it-right-way-mcdonald-

At last the message is getting across on what on-field leadership is all about:  “...need to be more vocal on the field with teammates, especially when it gets late in games and you’re tired. Sometimes you start thinking about where you need to be, but now in the leadership position, you need to be thinking about others and how they’re setting up.”

Not having this cost us several games in 2015.  The most notable one was the last 45 seconds of the St Kilda game.  The Collingwood game also comes to mind.  And all the games where our leaders go missing when we get behind and played as individuals not a team.

2016 will be different.

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Interview with Tom Mc: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-03-11/were-attacking-it-right-way-mcdonald-

At last the message is getting across on what on-field leadership is all about:  “...need to be more vocal on the field with teammates, especially when it gets late in games and you’re tired. Sometimes you start thinking about where you need to be, but now in the leadership position, you need to be thinking about others and how they’re setting up.”

Not having this cost us several games in 2015.  The most notable one was the last 45 seconds of the St Kilda game.  The Collingwood game also comes to mind.  And all the games where our leaders go missing when we get behind and played as individuals not a team.

2016 will be different.

This exemplifies what a [censored] the Leadership Group is. It should be incumbant on every player to be thinking of the team things, and not left up to the LG.

And why will 2016 be any different? 

13 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I find it interesting that just because players are no longer in the leadership group that many automatically assume that they no longer have what it takes to be a "leader".

The omission of Dawes is fairly obvious  - he is struggling with his body and needs to concentrate on getting that right so he can play.

The omission of Lumumba and Grimes to me are equally obvious - both need to concentrate purely on finding good form to be selected in the team

The omission of Dunn is an interesting one - I am thinking with a seemingly limit on the numbers that with him turning 29 this year and the inclusion of Vince at 30 they wanted some younger leaders to be included.

 

I disagree with those who suggest that Dawes is not a leader. The debate about his value purely as a footballer  is valid but in my mind he is absolutely a leader - whilst he is rehab he was giving instruction to the Weed and Hulett on body positioning. No matter if he is getting a kick or not he is always marshaling the troops in the forward line.   

To those who insist that leadership groups are a complete w@nk - Every AFL club has one as do most top level professional teams that I know of. So obviously they see benefit of a leadership group that those calling it a w@nk just can't understand.  

I've come to the conclusion that leadership groups are overanalysed. 

A club needs leaders but the official titles are mainly nice for the individuals involved. Will Dunn no longer be consulted on matters where he would've been last season? I doubt it. I'm sure Jonesy will seek his input all the same.

My gut feel on leadership is the club now has some good leaders and is in the process of developing some great ones.

Just now, P-man said:

I've come to the conclusion that leadership groups are overanalysed. 

A club needs leaders but the official titles are mainly nice for the individuals involved. Will Dunn no longer be consulted on matters where he would've been last season? I doubt it. I'm sure Jonesy will seek his input all the same.

My gut feel on leadership is the club now has some good leaders and is in the process of developing some great ones.

spot on

In answer to Mo64  - Tom Mc was actually quite contradictory in what he said. There is the quote above and then there is this

“It doesn’t change anything – we don’t want guys who are now in the leadership group to go and change the way they lead and doing different things, because that’s what got them there in the first place.

Confusing Tom !

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

spot on

In answer to Mo64  - Tom Mc was actually quite contradictory in what he said. There is the quote above and then there is this

“It doesn’t change anything – we don’t want guys who are now in the leadership group to go and change the way they lead and doing different things, because that’s what got them there in the first place.

Confusing Tom !

The Black Books episode on Team Leaders is so clever...

 

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

This exemplifies what a [censored] the Leadership Group is. It should be incumbant on every player to be thinking of the team things, and not left up to the LG.

And why will 2016 be any different? 

We get it - you don't rate them.  Give it a rest.

Assume Jack Viney would step up to acting captain if Jonesy misses any games ...

25 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Assume Jack Viney would step up to acting captain if Jonesy misses any games ...

Did a fair job against Port Adelaide in the first NAB game. Signs of things to come.