rpfc

Isn't that the way in life? Individual over an entity?

Well, we can't do the latter until the former happens and it won't happen for 7 weeks so it probably isn't fair.

Possibly. Or possibly the emblem looks bad in small print... FMD.

It most definitely was not his decision. Thankfully, our club gets the FD and the coach to decide who is the captain. They are not given life terms. They are, however, given high standards to meet. And when you don't meet those standards, you make way. Sometimes life kicks you in the guts, but if you were able to be captain of the MFC for a year, well, that's a kick in the guts I would embrace.

I also love what he can do, but I think the time is quickly coming for him to find a role that suits an older, slower, wiser player and minding one of the top 2 forwards isn't that role in my view. In an interesting discussion with AoB a few weeks ago he touched on today's ideal of a backline that is, for lack of a better word, amorphous. And this is where we can exploit what Rivers is so good at - being the third man up in contests that only someone as brillant as him can get to. A poster mentioned that Rivers will be superceded by someone who is more value in the counterattack (or words to that effect), but you can't counterattack if you can't get the ball back and Rivers gets his hands on the sherrin from the opposition more than any other plaeyr I would wager (I don't know if anyone has that stat?).

Stick around and ask these, mostly misguided and unfair, questions in your 100th post. Otherwise my Troll sense says I don't give a sh!t.

Well, to be fair, we have both used one game as evidence of our arguments so we are in the same leaky boat there... I agree that we will be better when we bring our Inside 50 differential back into parity but there are many of us who believe that the decision to bring in Sellar is because we have had trouble with forward lines with more than one big body.

Good! I don't understand the last five words of that post.

It was a joke, an irony. You see, when people say a person will make another walk taller - they mean they will progress and do better. I was mirroring that sentiment but infusing it with a ironic twist as Clark being in the team will mean Jurrah will do a number of things that 'smaller' forwards do, such as crumbing. Hence, 'Jurrah will be walking smaller' is to say he will do well, but do it in a literally 'smaller' role. I've heard the saying that if you have to explain jokes extensively then they are not funny. I do not prescribe to this idea. (Cough)

It is a skill to get to those contests though... He needs to find a particular type of forward that a number of teams have to beat most weeks so he is found out and isn't making us play him as a 'loose man' but he is value at the moment. As an aside - this plays into a narrative on Land: we love pointing out who can't do what, without consciously realising that we have no-one to replace said flawed player. Yes, a better skilled player with the same defensive attributes as Rivers could take his spot, but since this person does not exist at the minute on our list - Rivers remains.

We are getting better though. We fell into both last time with Kaspersky's million (the one you refer to), and De La Rue getting us $700k at the last minute. Now we got EnergyWatch to give us $2m so we are already ahead of where we were. Would like to get that second one quickly though...

No-one got that? 12th man? Bill brings a pidgeon into the commentary box, names it "Straya" aka Australia. Sh!ts all over Tony's Julius Marlow's... Wasn't Birmingham's best efforts, but funny nonetheless.

I think Jurrah will walk a bit smaller with Clark in the team...

It's a harmless bird...

It's got to be Trengove, surely.

Both of those players are ruckman-come-forwards. Rivers is a superb floating player but he has trouble one-on-one with bigger bodied forwards. When he had to take Cloke against Collingwood this was on-show for all to see. If he is to continue in the team we have got to get him out of that role of taking bigger bodied players. Play to his strength - third tall in contests and being able use his huge footy IQ to get into dangerous positions in the 50.

I can see what you are saying: I am criticising BM for something that may occur. But I was just uncomfortable watching Brent do it to Brad in 2011: when the blokes call out "One voice!" right before you head out it is usually either the coach or the captain that assumes the role of that 'voice.' I just saw a fledgling captain, i feel, usurped by a well-meaning and passionate Demon. And I hope it doesn't happen to two very capable, if quieter, leaders. There have been a couple of unfortunate tangents in this thread but I did not mean to disrespect BM, but warn that his passion for the club and his teammates may get in the way of the progression of a couple of upstart captains and a group of leaders that none-other than the head coach has settled on. A group of leaders that, as Range Rover with brutal truth posted, does not contain BM. I am not saying that Moloney can not talk during games - I want him to keep doing that. And it does not mean he can't give the team a rev-up, but there is a point before every quarter of footy when someone yells out "one voice!" and I want that voice to be one of the two young fledgling captains. It may seem like such a small, pointless argument - but speaking from experience - it can be so important to a person attempting to become a leader of a group of players to have a minute with them where that leader is the only person they are looking at and listening to.

This thread title strikes a nerve... It looks like we merged with...them. And they will always be 'they'...

Appreciation is difficult to get and easy to lose. Davey has lost a great deal of it in one year... Why can't we hope he gets it back?

We both used 'usurping'! It's a good word! And, yeah, different strokes. But I think it applies in these particular circumstances.

I apologise for the 'ra, ra.' I mistakenly thought you were being flippant with your 46 leaders comment. I still hold to the point that it is tough to be a fledgling leader when others are usurping your authority. It's not of great importance, but I believe it will help the two boys settle if they are given this opportunity to have 20 sets of eyes and ears on them and 20 mouths shut tight.

The account of Neelds decision making, IMO, was that he lent toward those with a harder or more aggressive edge than those he perceived to be slightly more talent while playing a slightly meaker style of footy. I don't think that throws good ball carry or good long kicks out of the priorities of the club. You have got to get the ball, before you can do anything with it. And we struggle to get the ball...

I believe in him. Maybe we should start one?

I started the thread, Demonstrative. It's not likely I was going to stay out of the discussion.

I will say this - I feel more strongly about this when the captain is fledgling or struggling to put is imprint on the position. Green was struggling as captain and the last thing he needs is for Moloney's helping hand in the form of his voice. If you command respect as the leader and there are no questions surrounding your role then it would be easier for another to do this duty.