binman

In terms of talent and leadership an interesting situation is evolving at Philly in the NBA. Simmons is one of the most talented players in the world. A lock for the all star team for his career. His skill set is extraordinary. In terms of talent he has been compared to le bron. But the knock on his game is leadership and his refusal to take his game out of his comfort zone by not taking jump shots. On leasership he has been criticized for not stepping up in big games and passing in clutch moments instead of say driving to the hoop. Embid is also supertalented. Incredibly skilled and strong. Not the same knock on his leadership but there are some question marks. There are no other natural leaders. Philly had the talent to win the title last year. They got pipped by the ultimate winner who boasted arguably the best leader in the NBA, Leonard. Leonard was brilliant all finals series and against Philly put his team on his back, culminating in a freak clutch three pointer. Nothing between those two teams talent wise. Leadership was the critical difference. Phillt have the talent (which of coure is critical) but unless Simmons and embid step up and lead their team the way say Giannis does they are not winning it the title this year either.

Blimey, over reaction much. I made it personal by saying 'you sometimes run the risk, it seems to me, of confusing fact and opinion' ? Are you serious ? Pretty mild comment by me Not meant as an insult but even if taken that way certainly not proportionate to those you just threw at me - i don't understand how footy works, i'm a dreamer and group thinker, i make too many excuses and i don't understand how drafting works (nor do the professional recruiters seemingly) - Sheesh. I must have really touched a nerve. And i have no idea what you point you are making about Hassa man, Alves, Wells etc etc (don't worry about elaborating by the by). If you can't engage in a discussion without resort to insult then i won't bother trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Whatever floats your boat i guess. See ya.

The statistics do no back this comment up. In so far as top 20 draft picks have a significantly statistical greater chance of playing AFL football. The correlation between how high draft picks are with numbers of AFL games played is clear. The higher the pick the higher the likelihood that players reaching 100 games. Whilst numbers of games played is not an exact measure of talent it is not a bad one. Few poor players reach 100 games.

In your opinion. And yes i know that it is given given forums are places to state opinion. But you sometimes run the risk, it seems to me, of confusing fact and opinion.

I'm not sure what your metric for leadership being over rated is. However what I do know is that based on your comments I am of the view you significantly underrate the value and impact of leadership. I would argue that there have been periods in the the time i have followed the dees where we had the talent but lacked the on field leadership to go all the way. I'd also argue there were (much fewer) periods where we had on field leadership that helped us perform better than we would have otherwise would have.

Sorry macca cannot agree at all with this. In fact to be accurate I strongly disagree. Yes talent is critical. No team in any elite sport has any chance of sustained sucess without it. And yes the dees have lacked talent for decades. But on field leadership is a critical element of success. There are any number of examples across all team sports. In footy Hodge at the lions is one such example. He simply would not have got a game last year if it were not for his leadership. Interesting you mention cricket. Paine was brought into the side solely for his leadership. And remains in it because of his leadership. On talent he would struggle to make a second 11 oz team. He doesn't make enough runs and is a good but not great keeper. But such has been his leadership he has been basically guaranteed the job for the foreseeable future. A similar example in cricket was Brearly many tears ago. Crap batsmen, brilliant leader.

Fluff (Jokes, lest you think I was being serious)

I suspect kozzie will be first. Meets a desperate need (crumbling forward wirh x factor), fitness nor such a critical requirement in his position and is built like a bar fridge.

Dusty had, for him, a down year. Came good with a vengeance in the finals. But as a forward really, with low average possession. And an impact player. So not being fully fit not such an issue. For what it's worth I think benell, as a result of his fitness will play a similar role ie a dangerous mid size forward. Lynch took time to build his tank but seemed to cover more ground by the end of the year. Though in all likelihood never reached optimal fitness. And agian an impact platlyer with low average possesions. If he has a big preseason will be huge for them this year. Let's hope our parallel is tmac. Those two might have h was interrupted preseason but most of their list didn't. Which meant the list had a good fitness base and rgwy could better manage the impact of injury than us.

100% agree.

It wasn't just not having defenders. We struggled to run and cover defensively, particularly late in quarters and games. This made it easy for teams to move the ball forward and meant they had lots of shots at goal under little pressure and/or from close range. And of couse thiss heaped more pressure on tge undermanned defence. It often felt if we were playing one man down.

Yes, we could easily go well of track here GB. I respect your right to your opinion and your faith. I'll leave it there.

In my opinion it is unlikely.

As a kid I loved mark Browning's (of the swans) kicking style

Huh? Of course an opinion can be wrong. For example yours about the impact of injuries on 2019. Facts are facts. Are you aware that there are a growing number of people who have an opinion tbat the earth is flat and others who believe the CIA replaced all birds with robots? And millions of americans have a very strong opinion that God created the earth in 7 days. They truly believe that to be the case. In these example the opinions are wrong. People have every right to have these opinions, as of course you do, but be that as it may they are wrong.

On Corey you're probably right. But I reckon he has got something and could be one of those players who goes up a level in a good team. I'm keeping an open mind on him as I like his intensity. I'd be happy to wrong but I think his his bro has found his level and is likely to struggle to get a game this year.

That's extraordinary really. I have been saying for years that the biggest determinant for success in the AFL is a strong preseason preparing the whole team properly in terms of the required fitness and injury (which includes factors such as who is injured, when they are injured, how long they are out how long to get back to fitness etc etc). This has never been more the case than now. The silly soldier out, soldier in, never blame injury mantra is a weird cultural thing where real men are stoic and teams overcome injury with sheer mental strength. Stupid. The bombers are having a horror run this preseason with many players rehabbing from surgery and injury. Watch them struggle. When they do It is worth noting that their numbers in rehab and missing sessions is not even in the same ball park numbers wise as what we experienced in the 2019 preseason.

For all the reasons bb lists this comment is palpable nonsense, on two levels. One being that it is an incontrovertible fact most players were not physically ready to go round one. Indeed arguably most never reached optimal fitness levels. Two it is supposition on your part that most players were not mentally ready. It may well be true of some players and there have been some comments from mfc people implying that (e.g. lewis), but nonetheless it is supposition. I am assuming you keep repeating this nonsense to create some drama. But perhaps not. Maybe you actually believe it to be true, in spite of all the contrary evidence and the statements from the club. I'm not sure which of these two scenarios is stranger to be honest. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Agree. And i'd add tmac. He is critical I reckon. I also think melksham is super important.

I've gotta hang up, can't communicate.

The mary jane providing those murmurs?

But probably the biggest factor is which game is more enjoyable to play, rather than wanting to play internationally (which basketballers rarely do in any case). Our very own Luke Jackson was Australia's best player at the under 17 bball world cup and with his height, skill and athleticism would have 100% played college ball and had a real shot at playing NBA. But he said he enjoyed playing footy more and chose to head down that path. By the by Pendles would be the same height as Mills. Or perhaps a touch taller.

If your only metric is money then sure mills might be happier. But it is unlikely pendles only metric is money or else he would have picked bball . He's playing the game he loves. In front of massive crowds. Who love him. He gets to live in Australia, in his home town. And sleep most of the year in his own bed. Occasional trips to Perth but otherwise short plane rides and max one night in a hotel. Plays one game a week. On the money front would be a multi millionaire by the time his career finishes. Would have opportunities to go into media post career (unlike patty, probably). And how much money do you need? Is there a sliding scale of happiness the more millions you have? I reckon both would be equally happy with their choices.

Agree. And it is exactly the sort of interesting, diverse content the club should be producing. Not expensive either.

I still will