12 hours ago, McQueen said:

Viney stamped his leadership credentials in the rooms after our Rd 1 debacle to Port Adelaide in 2013 by speaking to the group about his passion for the club and the jumper after another insipid performance under Mark Neeld.

His first fricking AFL game he took it upon himself to deliver that message to the team.

Neeld even said in his post-match that day that Jack Viney "is (was) probably the most Melbourne person in that room."

I couldn't give a sh*t what Barrett thinks or writes. All I know is that Goodwin is an astute judge of leaders amongst men and the dynamics of the co-captaincy between Jones and Viney,

From memory, Jack's spray wasn't entirely spontaneous.

I believe Neeld, in another inspired piece of man management , got the kids to do a reverse peer review on their more senior team mates. Many were embarassed to do so and a lot of the older blokes offended by the entire spectacle. He seemed incapable of recognizing that he was making a broken relationship absolutely toxic. 

 I wouldn't be surprised if that entire imbroglio was the trigger for 148.

 

The questions are leading and too narrow btw

And from a beagle 

I still have an issue with the theory that only designated leaders should be expected to show leadership esp. when it gets tough. Hannan should have a deep and meaningful with Vince.

7 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.

Probably a whole other thread in itself, but i'd argue that we got value out of Rodan.  I'll go further and say that on ballance, we even got some value out of Lummumba, Matt Jones and probably a few others.  Peddersen is probably the most notable current recycled player that somewhat fits into this category.

The common threads are that all these players played a role for us, whilst costing us almost nothing at the trade/draft table.  While none were really superstars for the club, they helped us become more competitive whilst the next batch came through.  The likes of Viney and Co would have played in bigger beltings for longer and been more sapped of confidence were they not there, which wouldn’t have helped their development.

14 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".

My recollection of that left me less convinced it was the right call in some ways.  It was clear that, true to the media rumours, Nathan Jones was personally hurt by having to share the captaincy, which correlated with my feelings that it was alway a big risk in that respect.  Full credit to the proffesionalisim and leadership of Jones to cop it on the chin, respect his coach and get with the program.  Had he not done this, sooked and become disruptive, things could have gone down hill for the club.

I think Jones deserves full respect for the way he has lead the club in tough times and still impacts in a big way now we are on the rise.  One poster commented that we have risen more since Viney has been a joint captain, but I think that’s really as much to do with the teams rise as it is Viney's.  I'm a huge fan of Viney, but was generally in the camp of him being VC.  Now that it's happened, there is really no turning back and like Jones we as supporters should (and I think mostly have) embraced it.

To me, all this proves is that Jack Viney is a better leader than Jack Grimes or Jack Trengove, and that the 2017 iteration of the Melbourne Football Club is a better side than the 201x version of the same.

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Chook

I think tHere are a Number of levels of leadership.

Overall directional strategic leadership, Functional skill leadership and inspirational leadership amongst them.

overall direction is usually assigned or authorised. Functional is based on participatory contribution while inspirational arises in situation.

I was against the co captain as it dilutes the strategic and directional communication. A vice captain appointment can reinforce that role.

Functional skill allows distributive recognition eg forwards, mids etcand can be assigned or recognised as required. Perhaps a gym leader emerges. JW and NJ probably display this category best but GG and CO also fall into the group. 

inspirational leaders will emerge and may even be contrary to or beyond the above assigned. They may be temporary or more prolonged depending on circumstance and may even be recognised by exception.

Bernie and Jordan may have contradicted the strategic goal but can be seen to lead the relegation of bruise free status and fall into this category.

Functional and Inspirational can also combine for temporary or prolonged period within the reference of Overall, thus Jones spoke of JW need to go back to Casey, JL and BV need to review action etc.

JV performs at each level and I believe could do so as Vice captain rather than co captain so I am still against co captain appointment

Didn't like it at the time and am still not a fan, but am more in the ambivalent category now.

Attributing a good JV game to the captaincy is inane. He's a very good player. Very good players have been known to play well on occasion.

Team results are what matter and we are the verge of finals so I'm not complaining loudly. I just think Jonesy deserved better and appointing Viney as vice captain would've been more than sufficient.

A question to the community - is there any correlation between those who have played football or another team sport, or those of a mature vintage, and a steadfast distaste for the notion of co-captaincy?

For the record, I played junior footy into my late teens (as well as other individual and team-sports since), and am in my mid-30s. I'm also fine with joint captains.

My reading of things is that Goodwin thinks that Viney is a better captain than Jones; but did not feel Jones deserved to have the captaincy removed from him.

I believe Jones has improved to a higher level because of the captaincy; but has not necessarily improved many of his team mates. 

Also interesting that he dropped this on Jones without consultation.

9 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Remind me, why 'purple'? 

On MMM they call him the purple headed warrior as they can't call him a richard head on the radio. 

My sole reason for transforming from a demon land reader (of many years) to a contributor was to attempt to sway the populous from making the wrong dual captaincy mistake: that of promoting J.Lewis over Jack. Viney's elevation to co captain rather than vice speak volumes to me on the foresight being put in by current management. 

I feel this will allow jones to bypass the 'Viney should be captain not jones' conversation in 2018 (maybe 2019) and forcing an uncomfortable step down that could compromise form. As it stands, other than injuries, they've both had exceptional seasons and the team has been lead well. 

The entire leadership appears to have galvanised under this model, so I'm a believer in it being the perfect fit for the time.

(Praise also be to Neville, I hope he gets a bluey)

If Viney can turn his kicking around like Jones did they can be co-captains of the next team of the century. Amazingly Jetta will be in the leadership group despite never getting there as a player.