Axis of Bob

I'm just putting it out there so that this forum is less painful to read if Valenti doesn't get a spot on the list next year. I'm not here to tell you not to like him, because his story is likeable as I'm sure he is. However in his games this year he has had 3, 3, 4, 5 and 5 contested possessions (average of 4). Everyone is talking him up as being 'no slower than McLean, Jones, Moloney etc' however McLean averages 6.5 contested possessions, Jones 5.9 and Moloney 7.4. If he's not winning contested ball then he is playing as an outside midfielder. A role for which he is athletically unsuited in a team sense as he is not a line runner but rather an accumulator. If you are his height you need to either be exceptional at clearances (Mitchell) or have high class speed (B Harvey/A Davey). He is behind McLean, Jones and Moloney as a slow inside midfielder, plus we have high quality inside midfielders with Scully and Trengove coming in next year. He would never break into that midfieldso we would just be wasting a spot on the list for the same sort of player that everyone complained that Daniher wouldn't get rid of until it was too late. Just preparing you so that it doesn't come as such a shock.

I would be surprised if Valenti was on an MFC list next year. Very surprised. I think the decision on Valenti has been made long ago and would not be influenced by a good game against Freo. Interesting to note, however, that Valenti had 1 clearance for the day (as did Morton and Frawley) and just 5 contested possessions (a stat interestingly led by Cale Morton, who had 12). And he's not really the type of player we want to be playing the outside midfielder role at our club. Especially if the best two players in the draft are two high calibre inside midfielders (like Scully and Trengove). I admire Shane, because he is short, slow and is not a particularly good kick however he works bloody hard and has given himself the best chance to play AFL footy. He has played AFL and should be congratulated for that. Unfortunately he is one of those players who needs to be a completely dominant inside clearance winner like Mitchell or Williams. Unfortunately he's just an honest player. But if I was able to give players talent then he'd be the first player I gave it to because you know that he'd make full use of it. But I'd delist him.

Against Freo I started the game feeling a bit torn about the result I wanted. For the first quarter I was kind of hoping Freo would beat us so that I could not feel conflicted about the rest of the season. However it became very obvious after we kicked the first goal of the second quarter that we would win so I sat back, barracked for the Dees and enjoyed us pump them into parts unknown. It was a very enjoyable game, but I know that these next two weeks will be anything but enjoyable. I don't care if our last two games are honourable losses, but they sure as hell better be losses!!

I like Butcher because he has a lot of talent as a low possession pack marking key forward. He's an exceptional contested mark, has good speed and is a great size to do all of that. I'd be happy to pick him up at 2, but unfortunately the concerns about his kicking are definitely not baseless. And if you are picking him as a low possession '8 kicks - 4 goals' type player then you really need to be a good converter in order to be put ahead of the likes of Trengove. However kicking for goal is something that I believe can be taught simply through mindlessly boring repetition. At this stage it's the dependable Trengove for mine.

He's saying that Knights allegedy won the Essendon job because he thought he could turn them around much quicker than some of the other applicant did. He thought their currently list was better than the other did. As old says, I'd far prefer to be in our position than Essendon's. Besides, if anybody saw us play last year then they could see that our improvement and ability to carry out the game plan is far greater than simply what is shown in the W/L column. I also applaud the club for taking the best players, despite knowing that they'd be at scchool all year and play no real part in our season (Watts, Blease). It's very easy for a coach to be selfish about these things and pick up ready made players, even as 18 year olds. Look at Essendon, who picked up Hurley and Zaharakis with their first picks. Richmond picked up Hislop, traded for Thomson and picked up a 19 year old in the second round. People assumed that one year at the bottom would mean we'd hop straight back up. It won't because all it did was have a year without some of our older players and we've brought in players that will not deliver for a few years after they are drafted. If we pick up Scully and Trengove then it's a bit different because they should contribute to our side pretty much straight away. Maybe next year we'll be able to get something out of Watts, Blease and Strauss as well. Thye should be 5 new players to our team to bring in next year. I'm happy with the platform we're building on and I'm happy with the improvement in team ethic/pressure and our improvement in carrying out the game plan.

Re: the waving of hands. I t was just part of the experimentation. When we got the ball at various stages throughout the game the signal was given to run the clock down. It happened quite often and it happened at stages in the game where it wasn't necessary. However it would have been an order to practice their ability to shut the game down and wind down the clock. It happened late in the quarter most times, but there was one time where the signal was given at about the 12 minute mark. It's all part of the experimenting that Bailey said he'd be doing. He's effectively treating these matches like training and practice matches and getting the players to work on executing various plays under full opposition pressure. And, as he said, if we happen to win while we're experimenting then so be it.

Yesterday was embarrassing, but in a good way. If we win a flag in the near future on the back of Tom Scully's Norm Smith medal then I hope that opposition supporters bring up this game as being the reason we won the flag. Their bitterness would just make it taste a little bit sweeter!

I posted in this thread again because I thought you had mellowed towards a more moderate and less hyperbolic conclusion. I was actually excited by this because I thought that perhaps you could see that changing your views to reflect additional information and insight does not make you less of a man, it just helps you learn more so that next time your opinions are better resourced. Unfortunately I was wrong in this judgement. Perhaps I was right at the time I posted it, but I foolishly left a little bit of bait at the end of my post just to push your buttons (which I see hit the mark as you used it back at me straight away - kudos to me!) when I shouldn't have. I apologise to everyone for that as this thread would have been less tedious without it. Sigh......carry on.

Hannibal, your argument has changed. You originally said that the sole reason why the club existed was to win premierships. Now you say that the core reason why the club existed was to win premierships. I agree with your amended argument, because winning a premiership is one of the most important goals demanded by the club's members. But I strongly disagree with your original argument (as stated to me in the other thread and also in the OP of this thread) that it is the 'sole' reason. You even admitted it was not the sole reason when you said: As you say, winning the flag is the main goal but winning the flag isn't the only criterion because it must be won fairly and legally. Why? Because that's what the club's members demand and, as a membership organisation that exists primarily to serve its members, they are the only ones that matter. Membership organisations exist to serve its members. For an AFL football club, its major goal is almost always to win a flag because that's what its members want. But it isn't the only thing that they want - just ask John Elliott. Therefore it is not the sole reason for its existence. That's what I've been trying to tell you from the start, so it's good to see you expanding your vision. Kudos to you.

In 1998 Brisbane finished last with 5 wins. Hence there was no priority pick in 1998. The draft was absolute rubbish that year, so it's no wonder that nobody tanked!!

Johnstone was a priority pick. We had picks 1 and 2 that year, but we traded pick 2 to Freo (along with other picks) for Jeff White. Freo then on traded that pick to Richmond for Chris Bond and Richmond used it on Brad Ottens.

So you simply tell me that my question is silly and therefore the point that it makes is not important or valid. Disappointing. I'm done here. As someone said earlier this is just a pissing contest, as so many of your debates are. Enjoy your playtime, Nelson.

Hanna, If your answer is that you would prefer to see the MFC survive rather than be handed a premiership then you have answered your own question - the premiership, therefore, is not the sole objective. You would prefer to see your club play than only win premierships. That's what's written in the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club constitution clause 1.2 a) One of the stated objectives of the club is simply to exist as an entity. Winning a premiership aids the club in that goal, as many people want to see a premiership which will increase the number of people that become involved with the club and hence increase revenue and allow the club to continue as an entity. As you can see a premiership is simply a means to an end rather than the sole objective, or 'essence' of the club's existence. Nobody is arguing that a flag is not important because it is important as it helps the club achieve its objectives. But it certainly isn't the sole reason why a club exists, as you claim. If you can't understand that then we are done with this discussion. The facts are there if you are prepared to accept them. You don't even have to call it a loss, you can just say that we agreed to disagree.

Sorry I had to read your whole post, Hanna, until I finally found you produce something of an argument. Here it is: Leigh Matthews was employed by the Board of Directors of the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club and was not a member. The Board of Directors would have given him his own objectives which they felt would have helped the Club to achieve its objectives as stated in the club's constitution. All of the members of the football department are contracted and are answerable to those contracts and the clauses stated within those contracts. But those contracts are created by the Board in order to help the club achieve its objectives as stated in the constitution. Each contract, from CEO to Coach to Physio to Membership Officer etc, is different and designed so that the sum of them, with the Board's guidance, can attempt to best achieve the club's objectives as stated in the constitution. The constitution is not a fluffy blurb created to appease members, the constitution is the base document that guides what a club can and can't do. It allows us to elect representatives to the Board, who then go and run the club in the best interests of its members according to the constitution. You make a very emotional argument and I admire your passion. So, in short, it doesn't matter what Leigh Matthews thinks his job was because he was employed with a far narrower role statement that was created in order to help the Board achieve the club's stated aims and objectives as set out in the constitution. Again I ask...... If the AFL awarded Melbourne the premiership this year in exchange for us relinquishing our AFL licence, would you do it? Would the club do it?

And I haven't voted because the options do not accurately reflect my view. A football club does not exist to win premierships. Winning premierships is a tool that helps the club to achieve some of its objectives as a club.

Ever the populist, Hanna. Anyway, I was thinking about how we should judge what the essence of a football club's existence is. Are we going to judge it based on a local footy club, where the team is so much more than premierships, or do we look specifically at AFL clubs, where the chest beaters are so much louder about their quest for a premiership? So I decided to take the harder route, which was an AFL club - the elite footballers playing againsts elite footballers with money spent to coach them, make them better etc. So where do you find the goals and aims of an AFL football club? I suppose the best place would be to find out what their own expressed aims and objectives are as stated in their constitution. This is, after all, the basis of a club's existence. I could find a few clubs constitutions on the internet, so I have decided to post the club objectives of the shortest one - the Brisbane Lions - and give links to some others. At no point does it talk about winning a premiership. The objectives of the Brisbane Lions are, in summary: - to participate in the highest level of football competition in the country, - to promote AFL football by operating a team out of Brisbane, - to serve the best interests of the club's members and - to operate legally. The links for the others are: www.hawthornfc.com.au/constitution/tabid/4843/default.aspx www.sydneyswans.com.au/swans%20constitution/tabid/8002/default.aspx www.essendonfc.com.au/club/cons-current.doc Now, if you wish, do a search through all of those constitutions for the word "premiership". If you can't be bothered, I'll tell you that none of these constitutions mentions winning a premiership. Nor do they even talk about the level of performance that they should aspire to. What you are doing, Hanna, is confusing your goals with the reason why football clubs exist. Football clubs exist at the highest level for the reasons stated above. They are membership organisations and it is up to the members to decide what they want from their football club. For most people they primarily want to be a member because they want to follow the Melbourne Football Club in the AFL. Sure they want Melbourne to win a premiership, but that is not the primary reason for their membership. If the AFL offered us the 2009 premiership in exchange for our AFL license then I don't think the members would vote for it. But don't worry, Hanna, the kids will still love you because you're loud and it means that they don't have to think for themselves.

You said it was 'unfathomable'. Saying that you think they are wrong is different to that. If you think their reasons are obvious, why would you call their reasons 'unfathomable'? That implies that their opinions are unable to be understood, much in the same way that you imply in your response that you you do understand their opinions because they are 'pretty obvious'. But I'm sure you'll retrospectively tell me that you already knew all that. Also, not that it's important, but just because you only care about a flag and nothing else (apparently) it doesn't mean that is the sole reason that clubs exist. As a member based organisation it is in existance to serve the interests of its members. A premiership is an easy goal to have and I think most supporters will go along with that goal, but a football club serves so many different purposes for people. But, as you yourself said, some supporters 'just don't crave flags'. If that's the case then the club exists to satify their needs as they are a member of a membership organisation. If they don't feel that the club reflects their goals then they will leave, just as you would leave if you felt that the club was aimn for consistent competitiveness rather than aiming for a premiership. It's all about 'how it makes [you] feel'. "It seems a no brainer" - Good to see you remaining open minded.

'Unfathomable'. Hannabal, it should not unfathomable. People are motivated by different things. An anti-tanker's motivations may be moral, intellectual or simply because he feels compromised barracking for a loss. Maybe they would feel worse for supporting a player who they feel was 'ill-gotten'. Maybe they would feel betrayed by a team that did not try to win, which would reduce their enjoyment from watching footy in the future. Or perhaps they don't care about next week, or the week after, or the next year - they simply want to turn up on a Saturday afternoon to watch their favourite team and watch them win every week. Each win is an isolated event. Just because it's not your opinion (it isn't my opinion) doesn't make it unfathomable to me. I can understand their opinion and why you could have that opinion. I just have a different opinion. If it's unfathomable to you then it's because you are closed minded and it's not their problem - it's yours.

They let Carlton off without so much as a second glance. This effectively tells teams that it's OK to tank. Each of the moves is defensible, because you just say that we think it is in the long term interests of [player X] for them to miss the game due to some slight injury. We say that we're preparing for next yyear so we don't want to take even the smallest risk with any of our players. Easy.

I saw Frawley out of the team and laughed more than a little. I'm still smiling from it! The good thing is that we have dropped so many this week that only dropping 2 or 3 decent players for next week's game will make it seem like we aren't really tanking. It's brilliant!!

We could bring Matthew Pavlich and Chris Judd into the team this weekend. We're no chance.

In the first quarter they had two defenders loose in our forward line, as did we in their forward line. Port just sucked.

Bull crap, deeluded. I'm not saying whether Choco was trying to lose or not, but your analysis is totally wrong. In the first half both players played men behind the ball. That's why they mucked around with the ball so much in defence. It's also why they couldn't take the ball forward because we had loose players in our defence. When they went one on one in the last quarter they started running over us. Carry on.

I'm not looking forward to being around these board when delistings/retirements come about at the end of the year. Not going to be a pretty place.

If we finish above Freo on the ladder and West Cost misses a priority pick, then we will have picks 1 and 3 with Freo having pick 2.