Dannyboy... I'm not "rewarding" Marc because of his age.... I'm rewarding him for the combination of "talent and effort".

In fact, that applies to the whole side. We know Marc has talent. If he keeps putting in, irrespective of success on the field, he should stay in the team. That's been my point all along. Obviously I'm assuming the effort is maintained, if not then we'd drop him. But thats less likely.

Playing AFL is a dream. Spending a season getting "smashed" in the firsts cannot be proven as being more damaging then running around Cramer st, with your feelings hurt that you've been dropped when you're doing your best.

I think it comes down to faith. We have to back the talent of our kids, and expect only effort from them, not results. Not results in the team, not results in stats... nothing!

And, just because we don't expect it, doesn't mean it wont come anyway!

A bunch of talented kids giving 110% isn't exactly likely to diminish our chances of victory, in the face of the alternative: Chambers et.al, who have no talent and don't always give 100%.

TEAM CULTURE
TALENT AND EFFORT, IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

I think we all know where you're coming from Tyrone.

Tyrant, maybe this little snippet will add more to your cause

Christmas no picnic for Murphy

_________________
C'mon Blueboys!

Way to edit your post to remove the contradiction from sentiments in other threads, and also the parts that completely sidestep the issues I've raised on the "confidence" matter.

Very well done. I see you're a bastion of good writing.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Can't play first 4 weeks due to suspension!

Murphy , Kennedy, Bower, Edwards this year...
Gibbs and Deledio next year...

Thow them in wioth the kids we already have and were on our way.....

(Murphy is a shoo-in to start i reckon..)

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

I'd give him about 10 minute off the bench while we are getting flogged by 10 goals plus.

Gees I will be a suoer coach one day

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

I did no such thing. I was only trying to be diplomatic as I didn’t want to rock the boat too much. It's a shame you can't do the same though. Your inability to let go of your paper-thin arguments is hilarious (a hard-nosed policy on playing kids regardless of the outcome is just insane). You also seem to think you know what makes others tick? (everything in your previous post relating to me is wrong). Do you think you are a psychologist or something Tyrone? I think you should stop hanging it on people who start discussion in here and take an objective look at how ludicrous some of your football observations are. You really are out of your depth on the footy front. Finally you make reference to one’s writing ability or lack thereof. Does it make you feel big to belittle people like that?

Sorry, I should have said writer/editor. I saw the post you put up pre-edit. Hide behind your edit, but you know what you wrote. You edited your post... it even says as much! I saw what was in it before the edit!

I'm out of my depth in footy, but you agreed my "projected side" was good? Hmm... weird.

The thing that worries me in this is your answers disregard what is said in my posts. You're getting the gist of what I say, then drawing an absolute example, then pushing that on me. For instance:

Your inability to let go of your paper-thin arguments is hilarious (a hard-nosed policy on playing kids regardless of the outcome is just insane).

I defined "outcome" as effort, and said the kids (that I listed) should stay in the side as long as the effort was shown (and they weren't injured). My point is about developing a young side where effort is success, and talent encouraged at the exception of final scores or error.

You haven't demonstrated how final scores affect the mindset of the player, besides your comment about shocking losses. I tried to show that I don't feel that our mid-age players were themselves not up to representing the Carlton side with success, but that got washed over in your answers. And, agreeing in principle with the side I put up, I thought we agreed that giving the young players opportunities and rewarding their efforts would not damage the side moreso than if blokes like Chambers were in their place.

I would like someone to show me what points of mine are ludicrous, and then demonstrate how they are ludicous: using real-world examples and not anecdotal evidence that supports their own views, which I find to be ludicrous.

I'm not rocking any boat, I'm just trying to get intelligent responses... with facts or examples!!!!! I'm getting some but not all!

FACTS OR REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES!!!! AREAS FOR DISCUSSION!!

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Sorry Speakers but that is match committee produced propaganda.

Of the hard bodies they wasted picks or possible picks on, how many games did Bowyer, Mott, Clarke, Kenna, Bannister, Johnson, Morrell, Harford or Martyn play this year?

When Melbourne and St Kilda were humiliating us by 100 points plus in 2004, how were these big bodies saving the day?
I agree that the kids should be played when they're ready but kids were not being rewarded for great form in the VFL because Pagan was giving first chance to the discards.

Tyrants expects kids to get priority over older players. If 2 players are producing similar output, the younger developing player should get preference.
We need an ageist policy and we need to be consistent with it.
If a Simmo is starring in the VFL and a Bowyer is keeping him out of the side again, I'll puke.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Ok, here's a salient point.

Lets put up the Round 22, 2003 side that played North Melbourne. Lets have a look at the rookies that played in that game. I wonder if Fisher and Thornton played. They don't appear to have shaken confidence.

Simpson's 3 doughnuts in his debut season. He's recovered from that pretty well. In articles after that, he expressed a burning desire to improve on those efforts and get a stat! Now, Simpson spent a lot of time in the seconds as well... did those experiences help him overcome that time in the firsts..... or did they delay his opportunities to show the late 2005 form?

Those are interesting real-world discussion points relevant to this debate.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Sorry Bluevain, but Tyrants does not only expect kids to get priority over older players, he thinks the chosen few should play every game. Go re-read his initial post.

Players have to earn a game in the seniors in all levels of footy. Its part of what drives players. Surely it's better a young player be driven to make and hold a spot in a side than rest on his laurels because he is guaranteed.

...insofar as there is EFFORT

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club

[quote="The Tyrant"][quote="Speakers"]You haven't demonstrated how final scores affect the mindset of the player, besides your comment about shocking losses. I tried to show that I don't feel that our mid-age players were themselves not up to representing the Carlton side with success, but that got washed over in your answers. And, agreeing in principle with the side I put up, I thought we agreed that giving the young players opportunities and rewarding their efforts would not damage the side moreso than if blokes like Chambers were in their place.

I would like someone to show me what points of mine are ludicrous, and then demonstrate how they are ludicous: using real-world examples and not anecdotal evidence that supports their own views, which I find to be ludicrous.


Unfortunately, when it comes to culture or mindsets, it's not something where evidence is readily obtainable, but parallels have to be drawn.

St Kilda have had a losing culture for their history, which no-one would deny, and I think it would be reasonable to presume that it would have had a bearing on the performances of their recruits down the years.

Carlton has had a winning culture. Hawthorn has had one from the 1960's proving these cultures can be changed.

As for playing anyone for every game, regardless of form, but only using endeavour as the selection criteria, it seems simplistic.

Would anyone seriously argue that it would've been helpful to Luke Blackwell's development had he played every game in 2005? Obviously it would've been detrimental, as aside from the immeasurable psychological impact of being belted around each week, their is the physical damage that could've occurred unnecessarily.

It is possible that it's appropriate for a young bloke to play every game. It was possibly, maybe even probably, right for Deledio to play every game last season. But, just because it was right for him, doesn't make it right for Murphy.

Let's leave it to the people who have the responsibility for developing the precocious talent we have on a case-by-case basis, rather than taking a dogmatic ideological stance.

_________________
"The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, and the young know everything." Oscar Wilde

Good post Jack.

My theory fundamentally agrees with this point, because I have identified the twin drivers of "talent" and "effort" as the reasons why a player should be included. If the young player is driven to show the amount of "effort" required, and the kid has talent (like the ones listed: Walker, Simpson, Murphy etc), then they're in the side, irrespective of "statistical performance" or scoresheet.

My theory fundamentally expects these young players NOT to "rest on their laurels" or they will be dropped. That has been a consistent feature of my argument from post 1. These players should be included for game 1 and be told they'll have a game next week if they put in, they run, and they tackle, and they do the 1 percenters. ie "effort". That they don't have to worry about making skill errors... they just have to worry about putting-in.

And if they're doing that, then they'll be keeping Chambers and Longmuir out of the side irrespective of how the scores look at the end of matches

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Exactly. Speakers conveniently forgets that I've made this point about a million times.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Unfortunately I dont share your faith in them Jack.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Tyrants I get your point but how do you think the guys busting their guts in the ants feel if they see kids getting donuts in the firsts and getting games regardless. It de-motivates these guys and causes division in the team that would spread right through it.
Anyway by all reports Murphy will be good enough to play anyway.