La Dee-vina Comedia

Well said, OD. In fact, beautifully said.

Just to add some balance, I suspect when you got that job, you had a choice of employer. Scully didn't. I think it's important to remember that to get into the AFL, players have to accept limitations on choice when they start. I therefore don't have as much angst as some when players choose to leave when the opportunity arises.

I wish Scully well in his retirement and bear him no ill will. I'm more interested, though, in what this means for Hawthorn. I can't recall what Patton's position is (stood down by the club? retired?) Anyway, what opportunities does Hawthorn have to fill these gaps either before season 2021 begins or during the year?

Has ANB changed his body shape dramatically (see pic 15 in the gallery of Training photos) or am I imagining things? He seems much leaner. I wonder whether a change in his role is to follow?

I just wonder whether there was no apology yesterday because of legal advice Collingwood might have received. It wouldn't be the first time an organisation has avoided apologising in case such an apology gets used as an admission of guilt in a future compensation claim.

Wow. Half the competition. How optimistic of you!

While it's not really meaningless, at least it's inoffensive. But it's not particularly inspiring, either.

This is where we disagree. I don't believe sustained on field success is possible without getting the off-field right first. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you believe that we need to get the on-field right first and then the off-field will (or may) follow.

Is there any other club you're prepared to say won't win a flag before we do?

A club that insists on using the expression "Side by Side" when its colours are black and white stripes was always headed for this sort of problem. I'm not trying to be funny here. Someone at the club should have foreseen the problem and canned the use of "Side by Side" in favour of something more integrated years ago.

I agree with you. I was only pointing out the difficulty of sustaining the argument that the primary role of the captain is on-field. I have no problem at all with key defenders or forwards being captain as I firmly believe the role of any captain is less about on-field leadership and more about leading the team the rest of the time. I also agree with you about Chris Judd. Being a superstar player doesn't automatically make someone a great captain. There are plenty of examples of star players who were not great captains.

Because Gawn is an onballer he can fulfil the role you see a captain playing more easily as he gets to all parts of the ground. But do you think someone who plays full back or full forward could be a successful captain?

Don't Moz the Ros.

I'm interested in whether people agree with this comment. I don't. That might have been the case when footballers were part-time, but with today's professional footballers, I think captaincy is more about setting standards of behaviour and character the rest of the week rather than how a captain performs on game day. Granted, the captain has to be a good enough player to be guaranteed selection each week (other than when injured or "rested"), but I expect the 22 players to respond to the coach on game day, not the captain.

Kudos to Deespicable not just for his excellent report but for his stoicism in hanging out in Casey in inclement weather. Also, I see Demonland re-named this thread as "TRAINING: Friday 29th January 2021" and in doing so avoided the temptation of going the cheap humour route of writing "RAINING: Friday 29th January 2021". Well done to both.

"Training the house down" or has it just been washed away by flood waters? (For those not in Melbourne, it's absolutely soaking here today.) I genuinely hope we are training outdoors today. We have been really poor at wet weather footy and today would be a great day to work on wet weather game strategy and skills.

Reading through this thread and there's a wonderful sense of excitement. Yet it's like he's been selected as a "project player", like a Category B rookie, rather than someone picked in the 30s in the draft. Any player picked in the 30s should be considered a reasonable prospect of being a great success, not a "project player". I'd be disappointed if we picked anyone in the 30s who we thought was a high risk, high reward prospect. I expect him - like any player picked in the 30s - to be a player who might need some time to physically develop, but should otherwise be skilled enough to play in his first year.

I agree that CS failed. I'm not sure, though, if it was his ideology or his execution. Nevertheless, we've come a long way since then, both on and off the field, but both areas still need significant improvement. I've always believed that to achieve sustained on-field success any organisation needs to get the off-field right first.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that CS believed that good on field results will follow once the off-field operates correctly? As opposed to the idea that if the club starts winning, the off-field can then be fixed? If so, I happen to hold the CS view.

It would be good if the club could come up with a tangible benefit for all the members that have stuck with the club as fully paid up members over the last 12 months. I haven't got any firm ideas as to what that ought to be and I accept it needs to be something that costs next to nothing. Perhaps something like inviting these members into the clubrooms after a game (once we're back to both games at the MCG and post-Covid behaviours)? Obviously the club can't invite everyone all at once, but a rolling program over time might be welcomed. Personally, I don't want the invitation, but I suspect there are many others who would jump at the opportunity.

You may have misinterpreted me. The issue of clarity is about the number of voices, not who the individuals are. For example, if there are co-captains with different perspectives on the same issue, there could be confusion among the players. A single captain, giving a singular position avoids any such confusion. I agree with you that leadership is something that some people have and other never will. However, I don't understand your reference to dummy spitting. Is it because I suggested that players not chosen by their peers to be a member of a leadership group may feel alienated? Also (and unrelated to your post), the captain doesn't necesarily have to be a star of the game. Nick Maxwell was an excellent captain of Collingwood but I doubt anyone ever thought he was a "star" of the game. Same with Tom Harley at Geelong and (ducks for cover) James McDonald.

This. I'm also surprised how much of this thread appears to discuss on-field leadership and seems to ignore all the off-field leadership requirements, most of which we don't really appreciate because it's invisible to us. I would have thought on-field leadership, while important, makes up less than half of the "duties" of being a club leader. I'm therefore not in a position to say who the leaders ought to be but stick with my earlier statement that I prefer a single Captain, Vice-Captain and Deputy Vice-Captain to ensure there is clarity among the team as a whole as to who is in charge.

I like the simplicity of a single Captain, Vice-Captain and a deputy Vice-Captain. I don't like Leadership Groups because I believe it alienates all those who aren't chosen to be in it thereby causing more harm than good. I know that's how I felt as a schoolboy many, many years ago. (I realise that says more about me and my then fragile ego.)

Neitz has been in a good paddock, though. At first glance I thought it was Jason Dunstall.

That's exactly what it's for. (And a bit of fun, to boot.)