Putting the record straight.

BigBlueWave · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm **Posts:** 3073

camelboy wrote:

BlueRob wrote:

JohnM wrote:

Nah, it wasn't about Johnson really. He was just the most visible element of what they did.

Everyone from Frank Costa down knew they'd been radically underachieving with the talent they had. Underachieving because the players weren't taking their careers seriously enough, and weren't doing everything possible to achieve success. As a club, they were acting like it was the old VFL, and living their lives like country footballers.

So they vowed to change things. Got in Leading Teams. Had all the players and coaches confront each other, telling a whole heap of home truths.

Ablett Jnr. got told in front of the whole group he was lazy, and would never reach his potential unless he worked a whole lot harder.

Scarlett was told he acted like an a-hole, and half his teammates (mostly the younger ones) couldn't relate to him, and didn't enjoy playing with him.

Johnson was told, control the booze or rot in the VFL.

Etc, etc. As a result of doing this, they went from middle of the table WITH THE SAME LIST, to dominating the competition.

Anyone who thinks that's a coincidence... that they were merely poised to strike anyhow, is naive. Costa, Thompson, and Harley certainly don't think so.

I don't care so much about a few drinks. I care about it if it demonstrates that we have a broader issue: namely a lack of professionalism.

Brad Scott, noted hard man and new coach of the Roos, said it best:

You don't ever take a break from being an elite athlete.

I think you missed my poimt.

On the contrary, I think you missed John's point.

For emphasis :wink:

forget the drinking culture our club seems to have for the moment, we just need to ask one simple question - are our players, coaches and administrators fair dinkum in chasing a premiership, or are they more concerned about having a good time?

Answer that question first, and, in theory, the rest will look after itself.

As I said at the start ... I don't condone the actions over the last couple of weeks by Carlton players. This subject has been done to death in other posts ... and I was coming from a different angle.

I made the point .. John was answering ... but not on the same subject ... read it again. If you want to go into detail about John's quote I am happy to oblige but that subject was not the intention of my original post. I am mainly annoyed with the press and the way they ran with an example that is not neccessarily consistant with teams HISTORICALLY winning a premiership ... and we hear it over and over and over again. Particularly the Steve J scenario (GRRR .. think I am going to spew) but as John said ... other aspects as well. I am not doubting that Geelong made the right calls ... just saying that they had a team full of talent and were miles above any other team that year and IN MY OPINION would have won the premiership regardless. North is a classic example of taking a different approach and STILL SUCCEEDING as did West Coast.

TalkingCarlton is such a great forum and its good to get things of your chest and there never seems to be a subject that is just black and white. I would be dissapointed if someone did not take the opposite view.

I can't wait for the fooball season to start again. GO BLUES.

Crusader · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:30 am

BlueRob wrote:

I am mainly annoyed with the press and the way they ran with an example that is not NECESSARILY consistant with teams winning a premiership

As far as you can gather from the countless articles. You couldn't possibly know what action or otherwise every one of those clubs took AND whether it had any effect on the playing group.

To use the North and WCE examples that you mention, how good are those clubs going at present?

Carey was rooting his vice captain's missus. It was no surprise. How good was that particular bond?... What about WCE? Gardiner gets the flick, Cuzzy implodes, Juddy walks out, Mainwairing tops himself. flower great culture that one.

Fro all we know, both clubs had a bit to say at the time. It doesn't matter a @#$%&! if the players don't have what it takes to make the change. For mine, bonding has got @#$%&! all to do with success. Put me in an elite football team and i'd have 200,000 reasons per year to get along with the rest of the blokes. What they ought to ask themselves is whether they can achieve the ultimate success without playing soggy salada in the off season.

BigBlueWave · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm **Posts:** 3073

Crusader wrote:

BlueRob wrote:

I am mainly annoyed with the press and the way they ran with an example that is not NECESSARILY consistant with teams winning a premiership

As far as you can gather from the countless articles. You couldn't possibly know what action or otherwise every one of those clubs took AND whether it had any effect on the playing group.

To use the North and WCE examples that you mention, how good are those clubs going at present?

Carey was rooting his vice captain's missus. It was no surprise. How good was that particular bond?... What about WCE? Gardiner gets the flick, Cuzzy implodes, Juddy walks out, Mainwairing tops himself. !@#$%& great culture that one.

Fro all we know, both clubs had a bit to say at the time. It doesn't matter a !@#$%& if the players don't have what it takes to make the change. For mine, bonding has got !@#$%& all to do with success. Put me in an elite football team and i'd have 200,000 reasons per year to get along with the rest of the blokes. What they ought to ask themselves is whether they can achieve the ultimate success without playing soggy salada in the off season.

There are plenty of other examples of Dynasties that had alcohol problems. Carlton in the 70's and 80's for example ... etc etc. The North scenario is well documented and one can obtain a very good idea of that club. Didn't they win 2 premierships in the 90's .. not bad .. eh. Once again from a statistical point of view you need a bigger sample to prove your point.

Maybe I haven't explained myself very well. Anyway ... getting a bit tired of repeating myself ... I will let you guys run with it if you want.

in8 · **Joined:** Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:25 am **Posts:** 356

Geelong were in a different situation. They had all sorts of rifts an resentments amongst the playing group which had nothing to do with alcohol or any supposed country football club mentality. Their biggest obstacle was learning how to work through their differences and play for the team instead of their mates.

We have some stupid players I'll admit but amongst all the bluster and bullshit I haven't seen anyone provide a decent argument to support the assertion that an end of year piss up is representative of a wider issue. Vague references to culture and professionalism don't cut it and is disrespectful to the majority who work their arses off for our club. Who are the players not giving their all? Maybe we should focus on them instead of lumping them all together based on nothing but sensationalist media reports.

camel · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:39 pm

BR, we get your point, which is players have in the past gotten regularly shitfaced and still won flags, and that the meedyah has overhyped the Steve Johnson situation from 2007.

John pretty much agreed with that straight away, but then moved to his attitude theory.

So, are the players genuinely working together as a group to realise their potential and chase a flag, or do they just think they are?

In some respects, the drinking "problem" is a side issue. Sure, current standards suggest that it will always be a bad look for the club and sponsors to have team members on the front page of the papers off their faces, BUT what John is suggesting is that if the overall attitude is right, then we can probably relax a little.

Mind, where John disagrees with you, is his belief that players can't have a genuine attitude in this day and age if they're out partying so much.

Well, that's how I read it anyway. And I couldn't agree more with you on the over reliance on the Johnson 2007 theory, but I also agree with John that it is just the most obvious example of Geelong getting fair dinkum. A lot more would have gone on behind closed doors that we'll probably never know about.

:beer:

camel · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:44 pm

Oh, this also closely relates to my theory that the playing group needs to get together and work out some issues. The coaching staff and admin can only put measures and plans in place, if the players don't believe and work as cohesive unit then we won't achieve anything.

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

camelboy wrote:

Oh, this also closely relates to my theory that the playing group needs to get together and work out some issues. The coaching staff and admin can only put measures and plans in place, if the players don't believe and work as cohesive unit then we won't achieve anything.

Yeah, lead them to the nearest bar for a late night session after a loss (freo @ GC)... the players have learnt!

The CLUB has an issue, not just the playing group.

club29 · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:13 pm

budzy wrote:

camelboy wrote:

Oh, this also closely relates to my theory that the playing group needs to get together and work out some issues. The coaching staff and admin can only put measures and plans in place, if the players don't believe and work as cohesive unit then we won't achieve anything.

Yeah, lead them to the nearest bar for a late night session after a loss (freo @ GC)...

That story gets further from the truth everytime it gets told. If Sticks turned to the playing group and said " lets sink some piss " this whole board would be going crazy and potting Sticks in every thread like you and Synbad do but that isnt what happened.

verbs · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:24 pm

If it's on the internet, it must be true.

camel · **Posted:** Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:32 pm

budzy wrote:

camelboy wrote:

Oh, this also closely relates to my theory that the playing group needs to get together and work out some issues. The coaching staff and admin can only put measures and plans in place, if the players don't believe and work as cohesive unit then we won't achieve anything.

Yeah, lead them to the nearest bar for a late night session after a loss (freo @ GC)... the players have learnt!

The CLUB has an issue, not just the playing group.

That may well be the case, but it doesn't alter the main point at hand. :thumbsup:

BigBlueWave · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm **Posts:** 3073

camelboy wrote:

BR, we get your point, which is players have in the past gotten regularly shitfaced and still won flags, and that the meedyah has overhyped the Steve Johnson situation from 2007.

John pretty much agreed with that straight away, but then moved to his attitude theory.

So, are the players genuinely working together as a group to realise their potential and chase a flag, or do they just think they are?

In some respects, the drinking "problem" is a side issue. Sure, current standards suggest that it will always be a bad look for the club and sponsors to have team members on the front page of the papers off their faces, BUT what John is suggesting is that if the overall attitude is right, then we can probably relax a little.

Mind, where John disagrees with you, is his belief that players can't have a genuine attitude in this day and age if they're out partying so much.

Well, that's how I read it anyway. And I couldn't agree more with you on the over reliance on the Johnson 2007 theory, but I also agree with John that it is just the most obvious example of Geelong getting fair dinkum. A lot more would have gone on behind closed doors that we'll probably never know about.

:beer:

Trouble is I have heard that a million times already ... its not a revelation ... its obvious. I basically agree with John ... lol ... YAWN! Its just that its been discussed so much ... and really had no bearing on what I was talking about.

club29 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:01 am

BlueRob wrote:

camelboy wrote:

BR, we get your point, which is players have in the past gotten regularly shitfaced and still won flags, and that the meedyah has overhyped the Steve Johnson situation from 2007.

John pretty much agreed with that straight away, but then moved to his attitude theory.

So, are the players genuinely working together as a group to realise their potential and chase a flag, or do they just think they are?

In some respects, the drinking "problem" is a side issue. Sure, current standards suggest that it will always be a bad look for the club and sponsors to have team members on the front page of the papers off their faces, BUT what John is suggesting is that if the overall attitude is right, then we can probably relax a little.

Mind, where John disagrees with you, is his belief that players can't have a genuine attitude in this day and age if they're out partying so much.

Well, that's how I read it anyway. And I couldn't agree more with you on the over reliance on the Johnson 2007 theory, but I also agree with John that it is just the most obvious example of Geelong getting fair dinkum. A lot more would have gone on behind closed doors that we'll probably never know about.

:beer:

Trouble is I have heard that a million times already ... its not a revelation ... its obvious. I basically agree with John ... lol ... YAWN! Its just that its been discussed so much ... and really had no bearing on what I was talking about.

I get what you are saying Bluerob. If we want to use Steve johnsons suspension that resulted in a flag as an example to prove a point one way we cant ignore all the other cases of no suspensions that also resulted in flags.

Putting the record straight.

Who is online