Engorged Onion

Mrs EO, has worked for the state government for many years, whereby any given project will ultimately have a process of 'community consultation' - whereby the community is requested to provide input and feedback. This input is openly and empathically taken on board.... then the government just do what they were originally going to do anyway 😆 Perhaps this is the philosophy. Pros of Player Empowerment: Ownership & Responsibility: Giving players a say might make them feel a deeper sense of responsibility for their performance and the team's results. If they are part of the decision-making process, they may feel more accountable and invested. Boost in Morale & Confidence: Recognising that they have a voice can uplift the players' spirits, leading to a boost in confidence. This could potentially translate into better on-field performance. Enhanced Team Dynamics: Players, through daily training, may have insights into who's in form, who’s synergising well, etc. Their input could lead to better team dynamics on the field. Potential Risks: Bias & Favoritism: Emotions and personal relationships could come into play, leading to selections based on popularity or friendships rather than form or strategic needs. Pressure & Stress: The added responsibility might not sit well with every player. Some might feel added pressure knowing they had a say in team selection, especially if the results don't go as planned. Undermining Coaching Staff: This could blur the lines between coaching staff and players. If players frequently go against a coach’s wishes, it could erode the authority and respect that the coach holds. Overthinking & Analysis : Players might get bogged down in overthinking their choices, which could detract from their primary focus – playing the game. For me, player empowerment is a noble idea and could provide various benefits, it's not without its potential pitfalls. Balancing the two – perhaps through a hybrid model where players provide input but final decisions rest with the coaching staff – might be a more practical approach... a la what I said above.

It's superb logic The AFL sanctioned media and the ex players bang on about how ruthless the sport is, how lucky you need to be , and that it's incredibly tough to win a flag. And then you're 'lucky' if you win just the one... The media's propensity to deliver two contrasting narratives about the same subject, as we see in the AFL, is not an arbitrary act but a clever tactic rooted in our evolutionary biology and psychological inclinations. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are wired to respond to stimuli that provoke strong emotions, be it fear, joy, anger, or surprise. Such emotions historically helped our ancestors navigate threats and opportunities in their environment, ensuring their survival. In the modern context, media capitalizes on this by presenting polarized views, aiming to evoke the strongest reactions and ensuring higher engagement with their content. This is also supported by schema therapy, which suggests that individuals develop schemas or cognitive structures based on their past experiences. When the media makes a hyperbolic statement that challenges an individual's deeply held schema about their club or any other beloved subject, the individual is naturally inclined to react. If the media claims that the sport is ruthlessly challenging, yet simultaneously undermines the effort it takes to win a premiership by suggesting it's just "luck", it taps into fans' emotions, compelling them to engage, discuss, and ultimately, stay invested in the AFL 'product'. You are the product, you pay their wages.

Most relevant form line I have ever seen to suit my emotional agenda. 🙌

How do you pronounce these in Scotland? I swear I went to (ERK-ERT) Castle at Drumnadrochit 20 years ago, and funnily enough climbed in there at night... as I was walking up from the Drumnadrochit Pub with a Canadian lass, - there was a Ford Fairlane, yes a Ford Fairlane blasting out 'Beds are Burning '... it was pretty "farquharing" surreal! Anyway, she got bored of me explaining the significance of that song in the culture of Australia...

It confused me too when I first saw Gordon on TV, over there - 'Strack-an'.

Absolutely hammered down in Halls Gap in the morning ... not that has a baring on the climate at the MCG, but it is west, I suppose.

Dear Demonlanders, One of my favourite styles of posts to read, is when posters tell other posters what the players need to do to win the game, as if they a) think other posters don't know this; or b) think the athletes and the FD don't know this , and thus, if they don't play in such a manner - retrospectively assume it was due to a lack of planning. I look forward to more of these in the forthcoming days Sincerely EO.

Can't you be committed to your currently employer when you are 'at work' and still explore other options? Or is that just possible in the rest of society? Every human, at some existential point in their life (often accompanied by a moody rainy afternoon and a vinyl record of The Smiths playing in the background...oh thats just me in my 40's), questions their career choices. We're constantly looking for the job that fills our proverbial emptiness. AFL players, with their athletic theatrics and ephemeral stardom, are not immune to this human experience. Their time under the limelight is finite. The AFL isn’t some omnipotent god, but it does understand these cosmic complexities. They've not only recognised this dance but, in a modern twist, made it kosher. Imagine, if you will, being in a rock band and not being able to discuss joining another band until your current album tour ends. Sounds absurd, right? Now, the media, the perennial puppet masters - they love to add a splash of melodrama. But if you, like a keen-eyed detective from a 70s noir film, sift through their hyperbolic tales, you'd see that this AFL-sanctioned tango is less Shakespearean tragedy and more just a reflection of life's mundane realities. Here's the kicker: The AFL isn't some isolated, mystical realm. It mirrors the very world we all inhabit. I see most players (in this case Brodie Grundy) as a kind of modern-day Odysseus, tied to the mast of his/her ship. On one side, there's the beckoning call of Port Adelaide and Sydney - new adventures, and perhaps a more enticing narrative for his own footy odyssey. On the other, there's the somewhat calm waters of The Demons, a team perched on the precipice of glory, and not playing a meaningful game day role. This isn't just a choice; it's a metaphysical conundrum. It's Bob Dylan standing at the crossroads, contemplating the electric guitar while folk purists cry foul. It's the tension of Luke Skywalker, torn between the pull of the Dark Side and the path of the Jedi. The real question here isn’t about loyalty, nor is it about the lures of a different shore. It’s about identity. Who is Brodie Grundy in this sprawling epic of his own life? From the punters perspective, there's a natural desire to see players as eternal, unchanging fixtures of their favorite teams. But that is reductionist. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and can't be neatly boxed. And it's all sanctioned by the AFL in the public view, because it takes up bandwith...

I'm so effing confused 😆

Cheers mate! First off, hats off to your observation on Schache! You've hit the nail on the head with the point about hesitation. I mean, I saw that transformation with Melksham too - one minute I'm wondering what he's doing out there, the next he's shining and slotting perfectly into the game plan. And your point about McVee? Spot on. The guy might not be smashing through opponents like a wrecking ball, but he's always in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing. It's not always about being the loudest or toughest; sometimes it's just about being quick on your feet and thinking two steps ahead. End of the day, if the match committee is keeping Schache on for another year, they've probably seen something we haven’t. But like you, I'm scratching my head wondering who'll make way for the next gen. Those young guns have some serious potential, and I can't wait to see them in action more. If I get a bit nerdy - I really get where you're coming from on the hesitation bit, and you've got me thinking. You know, when I'm running cognitive tests for clients, one of the key things I'm assessing is processing speed. It's fascinating how our brain's ability to quickly absorb, understand, and react to information can vary so much person to person, who are highly skilled professionals, leaders of industry etc etc... Now, when you port that idea onto the footy field, it provides some insights. Imagine being in Schache's boots for a moment. Every time you get the ball or see it coming your way, there's this rapid scan happening in your brain: "Where are my teammates? What are my options? Do I pass, run, or go for goal?" And if someone's processing speed isn’t quite as lightning-fast as another player's (natural human variation ,not a flaw), that split-second delay can come off as hesitation. On the field, every millisecond counts, right? So, if Schache or anyone else is taking a moment longer to assess the play, they might seem a tad off pace or like they're second-guessing. Also, think about attacking the ball. If a player is processing multiple options rapidly, they might sometimes be caught in that moment of indecision, which to us, looks like hesitance or lack of commitment, and the moment to act on that FIRST option, has genuinely passed. Contrast that with Clarry, he is not amazing, but in this context he has a very high processing speed.. and the genetics, skills, commitment etc to back it up. Cheers for the chat.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to engage with the post. The comparisons and the insights are good. I wholeheartedly concur with your sentiment regarding the Love Shack and Jack Watts. It's crucial to understand that passion, desire, and "hunger" don't always manifest in the traditional sense. Just as in life, not everyone expresses their dedication or resolve in overt, external ways. Your analogy with your personal journey is particularly enlightening. 'Hunger', as you aptly noted, isn't always about physical aggression on a sports field. Resilience, tenacity, and persistence are forms of hunger that many individuals rely on daily, be it in professional settings, personal challenges, or the sporting arena. This kind of hunger often goes unnoticed because it isn't as flamboyant or evident as a footballer's tackle or sprint, but it's equally valuable, if not more so. AFL, in many ways, mirrors life itself - filled with highs and lows, demanding various skills, and testing individuals in numerous ways. Just as a player's worth shouldn't be judged only by their perceived physical aggression on the field, individuals in the broader spectrum of life shouldn't be solely assessed based on overt expressions of resilience or passion. Sometimes, the silent warriors, those who grind it out quietly day in and day out, have the most substantial "hunger" of them all. Thanks for broadening the discussion and emphasizing the multifaceted nature of motivation and resilience. Your perspective underscores that while footy is a microcosm of life, there are countless ways to tackle the challenges that come our way. Great stuff 🙌

Some would say he looks laconic @Grapeviney? No?

A piece for the folk who bang on about Josh's 'lack of hunger'. Cause it really [censored] me to tears. It's lazy, myopic, set in the past and not even slightly nuanced at looking at at the attributes that need to come together to make up the myriad of humans that become AFL players. A common narrative among spectators, both seasoned and amateur, is that a player who doesn't showcase an obvious burning desire is "not hungry" enough for the game. These players, by this definition, lack the aggression or motivation that the sport supposedly demands. Let's dissect this notion and understand the myriad factors that shape an AFL player's disposition on the field. 1. Personality and Inclination It's essential to recognize that every individual is unique. Just as two people might approach a problem differently in an office, two players might approach a ball or an opponent differently on the field. Some are naturally aggressive; some are calculative, and others might be more observant. Labeling someone as "not hungry" based on a single trait discounts their unique contributions and strategies, that you the pundit can't actually see. 2. The Pressures of Professionalism When you're 16 and surrounded by peers who dream of sporting glory, the concept of professional AFL seems alluring. The fame, the fans, the fortune—it's easy to be blinded by the shimmer. However, the reality of professional sports is grueling. The intense scrutiny, the physical and emotional toll, the constant pressure—it's not always what they signed up for. Not everyone thrives in such an environment, no matter how "gifted" they are. 3. The Complexity of Motivation Just because a player isn't the loudest on the field or isn't always gunning for a fight doesn't mean they aren't motivated. Some might be driven by the love of the game, others by the camaraderie with teammates, and some might find purpose in proving naysayers wrong. The spectrum of motivation is broad and intricate, and it diminishes as time progresses... 4. Changing Dynamics of the Game AFL, like any other sport, evolves. Today's game emphasizes strategy, skill, and teamwork more than ever. Not every position or strategy requires raw aggression. The game needs thinkers, planners, and those who can keep a cool head under pressure just as much as it needs the fiercely combative. I for one am glad Tom Boyd chose to be proactive, exit the game and look after his mental well being.

I'd have replied as I love your style of writing, though for me, your crypticness far outweighs Demonstones! It's almost inaccessible. Maybe not for the more cerebral of us on here though? 🧠

Good positive chat as always 🙌

I see what you did there...

Would you say he is a ‘quiet quite the achiever’ or a ‘quite the quiet achiever?

It’s almost like they want to be divisive for a reason 🤷‍♂️

Has there been enough conversation for the last month, both from the supporters here and in the media for you to be persuaded that Brodie may be leaving? It'd be weird for these things to be spoken about if there wasn't an element of deliberation...don't you think?

Judd McVee to become immortalised like Shane Ellen.

Remind me of "Basic Instincts"* - where essentially Sharon Stones character has an alibi for the murder due to the fact that she wrote (read... telegraphed it) in her book, thus wouldn't be so stupid as to actually commit the murder. Garry is on the payroll.. asking the 'hard' questions. *no need to discuss the film and the significant talking point, considering on record and retrospectively Sharon is quite aggrieved about the experience,.

With the seeming re-emergence of a "tagger" or "run-with player" for a few of the sides, I'm wondering if the the game is heading in the direction where this is either a) a case by case basis b) will become the norm week in and week out? If so, how do we integrate it into our 'structure's' and who on our list can do the job... and who could we trade in to do the job.

Question. Laurie > Spargo ? On exposed form... the panels answer is 🤷‍♂️

What’s his coaching style @Chook?