[/quote]

Thats right. I said earlier in this thread that the "effort" of Murphy et.al is based on an assumption, and not at all tied to talent. Where the coaching staff perceived insufficient effort, he should be dropped. On the face of it, and "based on reports" both of character and training performance, "effort" is not something Murphy lacks.... but obviously its up to him to display it.

Your analogy with your daughter does not pertain, because you're using a PhD in literature as an outcome not the topic, which is literacy. I could argue that she actually IS on the road to a PhD in literature, should she choose that outcome. She IS on the path to literacy, in the same way I'm proposing Marc is on the path to football competency, just as he was on that path as an under 12.

If your daughter had sufficient "talent" for literacy at age 17, I suppose she may look toward the path to a PhD in literature when she goes to Uni.... by starting an Arts degree. The Arts degree is like playing games 0-50. ... her Masters games 100-200, and her PhD playing 300+!

I suppose a Nobel Prize is the Brownlow.... and having a novel published like making the All Australian?

Your daughter and literacy, AND Marc and his debut season has similarities, if the factors are defined correctly[/quote]

I agree - shame we cant translate our degrees into games played for the club though...

If we were a star studded team that had champions across every line, well yes, a player should be forced to earn his spot, and a young player can spend time in the reserves.

But we're not. We're the worst team in the competition. And we have quite a few players with very little talent that are only getting games because we are so bad. If we have talented youngsters that are ready to play, then I think we should be playing them. Even if it is off the bench or in a forward/back pocket.

God knows I would rather watch Murphy get 5-6-7 possessions a game rather than Wiggins, Prenderghast, Chambers, Longmuir etc etc.

At the end of 2004 everyone thought denis had done a wonderful job, now he stuffed up. ahh hindsight is a glorious thing.

But we won the wizard cup

and we improved our membership

and brought in much needed revenue

and increased attendances etc

and let things settle.

So many things to handle, but hey its all easy.

Pagan is the mistake.

I could do far better

so could wallace

and clarkson

and anyone else.

Unless he turns it around of course

Unless he knows something about the game

unless we start to win

and develop

and turn into a good side again

and that good side into a champion team again


and that will happen tomorrow i reckon.


Ahh the day the duds retire are expelled and we can be great again.

Shit i hope prenda has a blinder of a year!

Go Chambers!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Denis did a wonderful job dannyboy... but maybe the real story was with our percentage ....

Still... i hope were smarter now.
Good education comees with a price.. consider us better educated and we have paid a heavy toll...

Please dont let us go up the road of stupidity some more...

_________________
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.

but its all a house of cards.

change one part of the past and everything tumbles down... its all a pipe dream.

we are here

I'm enjoying the ride

cept for those bumby parts of course

I keep forgetting to duck

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Pardon me... the weight of personality-based posts in this thread have me paranoid. A million apologies. For the record, however, the pressure attached to a number 1 pick, by virtue of its power IS immense, and will come from several quarters: not just from fans. On the bright side, number 1 picks (in the last 10 years anyway) are usually bloody good players and have the ability to back it up..... but its a gamble, no question.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

don't worry about Speakers, Jarusa. He doesn't actually have anything to offer an argument, so invests all his energy on personality. He's like the Rosie O'Donnell of the site. I'm sure even Rosie O'Donnell is worth watching in 1/2 hour doses.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

KaBaL.. THIS:



and THIS



are exactly the basis of my argument. We need to develop our top talent, because we don't have talent in the mid-range players. That we need to take the approach that solid effort from our talented juniors will earn them repeat games (barring injuries etc).

That's my argument. I also carry the belief that our mid-range players (similar to the ones McKay'sMistress has listed) are so poor, that rotating a Murphy out of a losing side to be replaced by someone like Chambers will not actually increase our chances of success... and 2005 and certain games in 2004 suggest this.

Now, if this was a Sydney forum, and we were talking about Sydney's list, I wouldn't be proposing we drop someone like Ben Matthews so Jarrad Moore could play every game.

Its what we need to do with our list, for the future of our club.

We encourage boldness, daring, but total and utter commitment and effort. As long as they keep running for the ball and put-in to correct mistakes, that should be tolerated and applauded.

Marc Murphy has more ability in his left testicle than Chambers has in his whole body. There is absolutely no value, both to team development and (I personally believe) on-field success, in picking someone like Chambers over Murphy for the sake of their age.

Chambers might know what to expect from an AFL opponent, but that doesn't stop him from ballsing up his opportunities.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Ego out of control once again I see Tyrone. Putting people down is fast becoming a central trait of your personality.

In your first post you say that Murphy and a number of other young players should be played every game so long as they try, irrespective of what may happen to their confidence and the impact on the scoreboard. You ask where is the evidence that young players' confidence can take a battering. I point to Walker and Livingston as two examples and ask you to show evidence that this claim is not correct. Your seeking of evidence is absurd and the actions of a desperate person. No such evidence can be delivered, by myself or by you.

Ask yourself this, what happens if Murphy, Walker, Betts and Russell struggle to get an adequate number of possessions and the team starts getting flogged becasue there is not enough contribution across the board? While a Chambers mightn't be an AFL star, he does stand a better chance of getting the ball and is more likely to withstand the physical demands of football (and while he might stuff up, so too do young players). The difference between 5 Russells playing 12 games as opposed to 22 games isn't going to impact adversely on their development, but it might have a short-term impact on the bottom line. There are a lot of things that need to be considered. A gung-ho management style is the worst thing the club could adopt especially given their current predicament.

I don't have the time or the inclination to dissect each of your long-winded posts. Fortunately you have saved me the need to do this because your first post is naive to the point of being laughable. Fancy having such an inflexible selection policy. As someone else pointed out in this section, thank goodness you are not running the club. But of course I expect you to further analyse this to death so as to take the high ground again. I have read enough of your rubbish to know your football posts are not worth reading. Your first post in this section says it all really.

What's more important here than the debate over whether young players should be played every game is how an out of control egotists such as yourself continues to put people down as a means of elevating his pathetic standing at this website. But then what else should we expect from someone who declares himself as Hot. Man, you are a complete joke. I take it you don't walk around in the real world declaring yourself as Hot, or do you? Nothing would surprise me. It's sad that you have so much time on your hands to dissect what others say to repeatedly try and prove you are right.

Don't worry Tyrone. I won't be responding any longer to your drivel. The person who declares himself as Hot can continue to prove he is right.

Coming back for more I see, Speakers. I suppose even Rosie O'Donnell likes to draw attention to herself where she doesn't belong, ie everywhere.

As you patently don't agree with the concept at play, despite not comprehending it (as your examples clearly demonstrate), and despite there being quite a degree of support for the premise, you should waft off into the night and cross your fingers that everything works out, rather than having a plan.

Everyone who has agreed with my sentiments, we're all naive. Sorry to point that out. Even you, Blue Vain and Synbad, who know as much about the inner workings of the club and footy generally across the levels.... Speakers, Lord of all things Football, Man of may points, Leader of vast armies of like-minded individuals, truly a gift to us mere mortals... has spoken.

Gee, I really hope you don't respond to this one. I think I have Synbad-itis where I can't help but respond to inane posters.

Hey moderators, how are we going on that "ignore" button?

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Tyrants, will you be my leader?

_________________
R A D I C A L B R O T H E R S

Inspired by the One-Minute Sculptures of Erwin Wurm

"All in all is all we are..."

Careful Shag, or you'll get unfairly lumped into my clan, and people won't bother to read your posts about footy..... then again, they'd probably just go over their head anyway.

Besides, I'm just a puppet for Synbad anyway.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

so the thread is -all i am saying is give kids a chance.

Fine given 'em a chance

and prenda

and Chambers too

hell give lance a chance

its 2006

which backwards reads

all i am saying is give everyone a chance.


with polite respect to efforts,talent, age, balance, injuries, lessons, money, memebership, t.v., the jumper, supporters, the opposition, chance, the wind, my mum's age, and the idea that to win is better than to lose

unless you want the hawthorn model

which we once laughingly vcalled the St Kilda model

until despair called for a re-write

I hate re-writes.

I am carlton
call me dumb but i'd rather play to win than succumb and the rest is all blithering anyway Ohh yes i am carlton with feet too big for my mouth, yes i have pride and a yearning to dominate ohhh yes i am carlton and
I want to see us play again, yes i've earned the right to barrack for Longey!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

total committment and effort would appear to sum up Chambers as far as i can see.....and by drawing a long bow with your reasoning Chambers should be given a game well ahead of the likes of Bower and Edwards as Chambers was a first round draft pick and therefore has 'more talent in his left testicle' than those two new youngsters.

I agree our second tier is lacking but i think you may be focussing on the wrong guy. Chambers certainly didn't 'balls up' his opportunities and the WCE and until his injury last year he looked like he would be a contributor.

He may fall in a steaming heap this year, but i would bet it won't be due to lack of effort.

call me cynical, dannyboy, but picking Chambers isn't "playing to win" in my book

and how do you define "win"?

win in this game, or win a premiership?

short term vs long term?

(though, I have maintained all a long, picking a Murphy ahead of Chambers is hardly diminishing our chances for success)

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Thats true... but I have a 2-fold criteria of "talent" and "effort", where our top talents are identified, and guaranteed spots based on effort.

Sadly, Chambers comes well under the "talent" of some of our younger players.

Yes... I have unfairly targeted Chambers. I'm just using him as a posterboy for the untalented middle tier players, many of which were recruited for other clubs. I could just as easily use Longmuir, Bannister, or even Prendergast.

Regardless of how good or not good Chambers is, I think we can agree that he's unlikely to be a mainstay in the side in 3 years... whereas we all hope Murphy, Simmo and Walker will be

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

but we don't know that for sure Tyrant. Chambers was identified as having talent i the same system that has identified that Murphy, Kennedy, Bower ..have talent. We have no way of knowing how they will develop until a few years down the track.

I want Carlton to be successful and i want to see the kids develope to their full potential, but in the three years time that you are speaking of, the only 'senior' or 'top age' players of note that we will have left in our squad are Stevens and Whitnall (possibly), so we need one or two of our current middle tier to make the grade.

Chambers, Longmuir and Saddington were not part of the picking up retreads for retreads sake during the cleaning out the bad blood...they were specifically targeted by Dennis as he identified that they may be of use to the side.

Now it would appear they are a way behind the 8 ball for this to happen but it would be possible that Chambers is earmarked for the role that Campo played when he still had pace, but just with a defensive game...Longmuir may be looked at to be the utility to fall into Lappins role when he is no longer with the club, and Saddington to play FB to free up Thornton.

So in all the above cases the players need to given the opportunity to see if they can make it. It is the Bannisters, Prendergasts and even sporns, wiggins etc who have been in the CARLTON system for a number of years who have really been letting us down. they have been exposed to the navy blue jumper for more than 12 months and still it hasn't transformed them into the elite that they should be.

I want to win the flag in 2006

and i have learnt

You can't always get what you want

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Good post showbag. Obviously the claim that Chambers' talent is comparable to the amount in Murphy's testicle is a subjective one, and I don't have access to a crystal ball. There are a lot of examples of players in the system for a while, turning it around and coming good. Obviously I don't know Chambers is always going to be a poor player. Josh Mahoney was spat out and has comeback to be a good player.

Personally, I believe the club erred in bringing them (him and Longmuir) onto the list, and don't hold much value in the club's claim, but again, its just a personal belief. Chambers was a first round pick a few years back, and was obviously reasonably highly rated when he entered the system...

.... I think the assumption in the "footy community" is that the system is the ultimate test, and that ability can be found wanting when they have gone through the system for a few years, at least until they reach physical maturity. Its entirely possible that Murphy is a dud player who never comes good, and is delisted in 3-4 years.

Everything is a gamble. Statistically, given Murphy's percieved level of ability (as reflected but not endorsed by his draft selection), and given Chambers/Longmuir/or even Prendergast time and output within the system, it would be STATISTICALLY more likely that Murphy eventually outshines those 3 players, and possibly by a long way. My own personal belief is that as soon as next season he will have overcome them, just as DeLedio is much more accomplished player than Chambers now (well... I would argue anyway).

Ultimately it comes down to faith.. faith based on sheer statistics of a Chambers being a less vital part of our future (and even our present) than Murphy. Obviously faith and statistics don't provide any guarantees, or course.

But with any faith-based-assumption, you have to back your judgement and do what you believe to be right to attain the best outcome: ie, one or more of our recruits being a regular performer, and potentially a star performer.

I believe that Murphy is more likely to be that player in future than Chambers. Therefore, thats why I want to see Murphy put forward as the option so long as he wants it (ie puts in the effort). I believe he has far superior talent to Chambers, in other words. Its a belief, which statistically is more likely to be correct.

Lets not forget that this argument is being used for this squad for this season. If we had the Sydney list I wouldn't necessarily be forwarding this. But I have so little "faith" in our mid-tier players (like Chambers etc) that forward planning needs to start now, and that has to be the pushing of talent over mid-tier plodders.

(which, as discussed, is dependant on "effort", and my personal belief in the relative abilities of Murphy and guys like Chambers).

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

What is going on with your posting style Danny?

Have you been sniffing something you shouldnt have?

Or have you adopted your ambivalent meloncholy Dannyboy persona?

You are like a mime who appears during a performance

The mime who completes a short scenario and disappears behind the curtain.

And everyone looks at each other and says "what the @#$%&! was that all about"?

I'd almost tolerate your poetry over this.

Share your pain, you're amongst friends. (well, not me but surely there's somebody)

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.