La Dee-vina Comedia

The media coverage to date suggests the opposite is happening at the moment. Nevertheless, will be interesting to see if coaches succeed in finding a way around it.

Why can't we keep this thread on topic and bash Collingwood and Eddie instead of each other?

But did he really? I've only seen a transcript of Max Gawn's comments and it seemed like a flippant, throw-away line designed to deflect more than anything else. Has it been stated by anyone else that he genuinely kicked 6 in a quarter? And even if he did, so what? He could have been playing on no-one or being deliberately the only forward that the ball was being delivered to.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't have taken Bernie Vince or Jordan Lewis?

The problem is exacerbated by FTA really only being interested in the major teams. For AFL, that means endless matches involving Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn and Geelong and barely any games involving North, St Kilda, Melbourne and the Bullies. It's a self-defeating model but because the FTA networks have short-term interests (ie, ad revenue) the long-term interest of the competition gets damaged.

I'd love to give this the attribution it deserves, but unfortunately I don't know whose work it is. But I like it...

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.