4 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

It's not unreasonable to debate the decision and those that didn't support it would now accept they were wrong.  It's an opinion business and if you're going to have a pot shot at everyone for getting things wrong you'll be very busy.

I'm not sure if I posted at the time but I was unsure of the decision until I heard Jones talk about it on "On The Couch".

Why should I, as a person who didn't support the decision, now accept I was wrong? For all we know, if Viney had been made Vice-Captain, he may have played and lead the team in exactly the same way as he has just done. And also, for all we know, Jones may not be playing or leading (when fit of course) as well as he used to because of the co-captaincy decision.

I remain steadfastly against the principle of having co-captains and nothing that has happened or I have seen has changed my view. 

4 hours ago, TGR said:

...

The real keyboard warrior goes to ground when they have egg on their face.

That's because if they (I) don't the egg will slide off into the keyboard making it much harder to be said keyboard warrior!

2 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

These articles will have no impact on the game this week. Certainly not on how the deees will play the game. In previous years it might have. This team now is made of sterner stuff and North will be found wanting. I hope they will be found wanting by at least 8 goals.

It did earlier in the year when we lost to Freo and Hawks after getting ahead of ourselves. But I happen to think you're right that we might be past that point now and if that is the case this week will prove it.

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

...

He has carried the side over the line, something i have never seen Jones do, as much as he has tried over the years. 

How much have we missed Jones over the last month?

his return will be most welcome and i hope he plays finals, but he is not a crucial player on field as a leader, like he once was. 

You didn't see the Costs Gold game in Alice then?

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

Barrett was bound to write some thing decent.  Every one gets lucky once. 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, unlike most footy journos who are lucky to be right twice a year!

Finally on this particular topic I was in the not sure category at the start of the year but I have since been convinced that it was the right decision by Goody.

The positivity of Barrett's article makes for pleasant reading but I found the two paragraphs in italics below somewhat irrational in as much that Nathan Jones has presumably equally played a substantive role in managing the off field issues flagged.  I concur that Viney played a major role in the West Coast and Port Adelaide wins, just as Jones played a key role in the Alice Springs turnaround and win.   But I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Jack has been more integral to the stewardship of the club through the injury challenges and Jesse's personal matters.

For what it's worth, I was in the camp of make Jack Vice Captain (mainly because I thought he could achieve everything that he subsequently has but without risking the alienation of Nathan Jones).  As it's turned out the transition has been seamless and Jones remains the consummate professional he's been for many years now.

 In a season that could have unfolded badly on the back of serious injuries to key players and undisciplined acts by others, Viney's ability to lead his players to a 10-7 season and well within finals contention is full justification of Goodwin's boldness.

There have been numerous issues for Viney to lead the Demons through, including All Australian ruckman Max Gawn missing nine matches with a ripped hamstring, Angus Brayshaw managing just two matches largely due to concussion, Jack Watts missing key matches with a hamstring problem and Jesse Hogan dealing with the death of his father as well as having surgery for testicular cancer.

 

I agree those sentences seem to completely ignore the very good season Jones was having up until his injury. For what it's worth, he was playing much better footy than Viney up until that point, and Viney has since lifted with some huge performances. Viney's start to the season wasn't up to his previous, and subsequent, lofty standards, let's not forget that.

I was worried that it was too soon and too much pressure for Viney, and at the same time that it took away from Jones and all the wonderful hard work he has put in as captain.

But for me it was NEVER ever about being unhappy with Viney as co-captain or doubting his credentials. I think we've all known from day one that he was captain material, so it wasn't a shock or a surprise.

At the end of the day, the captains are voted in by their peers, not just the coaches. If the players respect Viney and want to follow his lead, then who the hell are we to judge? 

If every player at our club worked as hard or was as dedicated as him, we would be unbeatable. 

6 hours ago, Danelska said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-26/goodwins-captain-call-pays-dividends

 

Just on Damian - I personally don't get why people dislike him.

He has also seemed to be relatively supportive of the Dees...

Barrett isn't an ex player, so people (myself included) find him nauseatingly smarmy - unlike Damian,  I think ex players have the right to have massive ego. Ex players opinions also carry enough weight that they can get away with a 'matter of fact' sort of vibe when they are essentially crystal balling. He sees himself as a massive celebrity. His weekly sliding doors article on AFL.com is pure trash.  /rant!

In terms of the co-captaincy I'm a massive fan of Nathan Jones and I still see him as our principal Captain. Viney is an amazing footballer and leader but I wouldn't have had a problem with him waiting a few years to be given the captaincy. Either way, its a bit of a non-issue  given Jones hasn't let it get too him - until injured was having a brilliant season.

I don't care what Barrett writes. I just want a win against Norf on Sat-dee!!

23 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

Barrett isn't an ex player, so people (myself included) find him nauseatingly smarmy - unlike Damian,  I think ex players have the right to have massive ego. Ex players opinions also carry enough weight that they can get away with a 'matter of fact' sort of vibe when they are essentially crystal balling. He sees himself as a massive celebrity. His weekly sliding doors article on AFL.com is pure trash.  /rant!

In terms of the co-captaincy I'm a massive fan of Nathan Jones and I still see him as our principal Captain. Viney is an amazing footballer and leader but I wouldn't have had a problem with him waiting a few years to be given the captaincy. Either way, its a bit of a non-issue  given Jones hasn't let it get too him - until injured was having a brilliant season.

I feel the word smarmy is alarmingly under used in this forum. 

Barrett was 100% right about the 'moneyball' strategy under Neeld.   Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies....     

We all defended the club at the time, naturally.    But Barrett was spot on.

1 minute ago, Petraccattack said:

Barrett was 100% right about the 'moneyball' strategy under Neeld.   Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies....     

We all defended the club at the time, naturally.    But Barrett was spot on.

It was the right strategy under the wrong coach...

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why should I, as a person who didn't support the decision, now accept I was wrong? For all we know, if Viney had been made Vice-Captain, he may have played and lead the team in exactly the same way as he has just done. And also, for all we know, Jones may not be playing or leading (when fit of course) as well as he used to because of the co-captaincy decision.

I remain steadfastly against the principle of having co-captains and nothing that has happened or I have seen has changed my view. 

I was a supporter of the decision because I thought, among some other things, that on-field, a) Viney was the type of character who would thrive on the responsibility, and b) it might offer some extra benefit for Nathan Jones.

I wasn't right or wrong in my opinion and have no idea of the impact the decision has had. Some could argue that we've demonstrated especially poor discipline in the year that Viney was elevated to captaincy. Correlation does not equal causation.

I liked it when it was announced. Jack is born to captain this club. 

I started to question it when I heard Jones was a bit shocked by it, then seeing Viney mic'd up against Richmond and no one seemingly listening to his (correct) instructions. 

But Goodwin obviously got it right. If there was ever anyone to follow it's Jack Viney. He's already proving to be inspirational. 

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

Barrett was 100% right about the 'moneyball' strategy under Neeld.   Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies....     

We all defended the club at the time, naturally.    But Barrett was spot on.

I was on the fence about it, I didn't mind so much they'd made this decision but they made the decision before chatting to Jones. I felt like he was owed a little more than just being told straight out that it was happening. 

Lots of people howled at it in the beginning, claiming they'd ruined Viney. I thought it was ridiculously premature for people to say that and I had no doubt it would pay off in time. I just wasn't 100% convinced on the timing. 

Fantastic decision by Goodwin. 

30 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

I liked it when it was announced. Jack is born to captain this club. 

I started to question it when I heard Jones was a bit shocked by it, then seeing Viney mic'd up against Richmond and no one seemingly listening to his (correct) instructions. 

 

It was the captain's version of, 'just kick the bloody thing'.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It was the right strategy under the wrong coach...

And perhaps not the right sport. The theory originated in baseball of course, which is a game of copious and more meaningful statistics coupled with a massive number of players in major and minor leagues, plus a culture of player movements and trading.

That meant that a player without the "flashy" obvious statistics like home runs or stolen bases but provides more consistent and reliable value in the more mundane aspects of the game could be identified with a relative degree of confidence based on analytics of huge historic datasets.

Baseball also is a far slower moving game, with very specific roles for types of players. Aussie rules doesn't allow for for the substituting of players for specific scenarios, the hiding of player deficiencies through use of a designated hitter rule (think of it like having a nominated kicker you can use just to kick at goals when your team has a set shot at goal, and that's all they need to be good at).

Because the conditions of AFL level games are so different to baseball the value players are much harder to identify, and then if you do they can be harder to acquire. The best they could do was say "Gee, I reckon Shannon Byrnes could do well." and work far more on gut feel.

I agreed with the strategy, but was skeptical it was achievable in AFL.

Essendon effectively did it last year and they've only kept a few players they uncovered, and role players at that.

Also, Melbourne's recruiting department was garbage.

11 minutes ago, Lampers said:

And perhaps not the right sport. The theory originated in baseball of course, which is a game of copious and more meaningful statistics coupled with a massive number of players in major and minor leagues, plus a culture of player movements and trading.

That meant that a player without the "flashy" obvious statistics like home runs or stolen bases but provides more consistent and reliable value in the more mundane aspects of the game could be identified with a relative degree of confidence based on analytics of huge historic datasets.

Baseball also is a far slower moving game, with very specific roles for types of players. Aussie rules doesn't allow for for the substituting of players for specific scenarios, the hiding of player deficiencies through use of a designated hitter rule (think of it like having a nominated kicker you can use just to kick at goals when your team has a set shot at goal, and that's all they need to be good at).

Because the conditions of AFL level games are so different to baseball the value players are much harder to identify, and then if you do they can be harder to acquire. The best they could do was say "Gee, I reckon Shannon Byrnes could do well." and work far more on gut feel.

I agreed with the strategy, but was skeptical it was achievable in AFL.

Essendon effectively did it last year and they've only kept a few players they uncovered, and role players at that.

Also, Melbourne's recruiting department was garbage.

I think your last line says the most. 

Clever Moneyball tactics could be well used in any Sport, but you must Target exactly the right players. 

10 hours ago, Danelska said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-26/goodwins-captain-call-pays-dividends

 

Just on Damian - I personally don't get why people dislike him.

He has also seemed to be relatively supportive of the Dees...

Celebrity journalist = zero credibility 

He's a deadset leech.

Reminds me of a sideshow laughing clown with glasses. 

11 hours ago, TGR said:

Don't think unbelievably is the word I would use.

 

The real keyboard warrior goes to ground when they have egg on their face.

Wow tgr what an amazingly ignorant post.  I've not posted on this but i happen to think it was the wrong decision and i don't think it has had anything to do with our successes this season. 

I think that Jones had been a loyal servant and an excellent player and leader. I don't think he needed to be disrespected in order to bring on our next generation of leadership.  being vice captain would have sent the message just fine. 

I have nothing against viney, he is an awesome player and should probably be our next captain. I just think Jones has earned the right to lead us into this era of success. 

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by FlashInThePan
Typos

4 hours ago, DemonWA said:

Barrett isn't an ex player, so people (myself included) find him nauseatingly smarmy - unlike Damian,  I think ex players have the right to have massive ego. Ex players opinions also carry enough weight that they can get away with a 'matter of fact' sort of vibe when they are essentially crystal balling. He sees himself as a massive celebrity. His weekly sliding doors article on AFL.com is pure trash.  /rant!

 

Anyone called "purple" by his co workers (the ex players) tells you a lot about how those people see him.

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by dworship
Reply in wrong place

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Barrett was 100% right about the 'moneyball' strategy under Neeld.   Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies....     

We all defended the club at the time, naturally.    But Barrett was spot on.

There was nothing 'Moneyball' about it. That term has only been used because the movie was in vogue so it made a nice headline. 

Strip away the media speak and we just had a crap list which we thought could be improved by plugging holes using unwanted players from other clubs. nothing more, nothing less.

Wasn't the term Barrett used "scattergun"?

31 minutes ago, dworship said:

Anyone called "purple" by his co workers (the ex players) tells you a lot about how those people see him.

Remind me, why 'purple'? 

1 hour ago, FlashInThePan said:

Wow tgr whay an amazingly ignorant post.  I've not posted on this but i happen to think it was the wrong decision and i don't think it has had anything to do with our successes this season. 

I think that Jones had been a loyal servant and any excellent player and leader. I don't think he needed to be disrespected in order to bring on our next generation of leadership.  being vice captain would have sent the message just fine. 

I have nothing against viney, he is an awesome player and should probably be our next captain. I just think Jones has earned the right to lead us into this era of success. 

Yep Agree.  They're both superstars.  But Jones has been a warrior.  Shows up every week (normally!) and leaves it all out there.  Can't wait to have him back.  Slots must-make Captains goals.  He is a Melbourne legend already.

1 hour ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Remind me, why 'purple'? 

Freo