Paul Ford - Your Time Is NOW!

Indie · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:28 am **Posts:** 1073

So, why are the Bullants so poor in the last quarter then BV? Don't tell me that Mitch doesn't rotate his players well either :shock:

PS: It appears your post is purely designed to discredit those with an opposing view to yourself. A tad hypocritical there, eh BV ;-)

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

Indie wrote:

So, why are the Bullants so poor in the last quarter then BV? Don't tell me that Mitch doesn't rotate his players well either :shock:

How many last quarters have they lost in the past couple of years Mav?
Surely you wouldnt be drawing those conclusions on just 3 or 4 games?

For the record, I dont believe Mitchell is the messiah either. He is a good assistant/VFL coach who has a good grasp of formulating drills which address the deficiencies of the players.
I couldnt see him being a top flight coach. Just like Pagan. However I'm trying to be objective where as you are constantly trying to discredit Mitchell at every opportunity.

I'll give you a tip. The players are young. It will take a while to get the miles in their legs.
But that doesnt excuse Pagan. He refuses to rotate properly and thinks the players are weak if they need a rest.
Late last year he hung Mulkearns out to dry and let him take responsibility for our "poor fitness".
Of course his inability to grasp rotations couldnt be the issue. Could it?

Eventually you and Denis will run out of people to blame Mav. what on earth will you do then?

Indie · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:28 am **Posts:** 1073

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective where as you are trying discredit Mitchell and use any skerrick of information to pump up Pagans tyres.

You're showing your prejudices quite nicely, BV.

Please point out which part of my post discredited Mitchell. If you'd bothered to read my post rather than making extravagant assumptions, you would have noticed that I suggested that it was unlikely that either coach was at fault, but it was the fitness base of a young and tall list. I made the point that 2 coaches sharing the same Carlton-listed players experienced the same issue despite having different game plans.

You like to make sweeping statements divorced from the points others are making. Why not try to engage in some reasonable debate rather than engaging in deflection?

Oh, and by the way, I'll check back to see whether you can point out the relevant part of my post. Just for fun. From past experience, I know it'll never happen ;-)

jimmae · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:43 pm

The Bullants show a 4th quarter record similar to Carlton this year BV, the key difference is they're in front at 3/4 time most of the time.

RiverRodent · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:46 pm

I guess most people can finally accept that Mulkearns was not to blame last year. Equally, I don't think Ford is to blame this year.

For either of these guys to be blamed for what transpires, they would need to be in complete charge of the training load and intensity - they were/are not.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

Indie wrote:

Please point out which part of my post discredited Mitchell. If you'd bothered to read my post rather than making extravagant assumptions, you would have noticed that I suggested that it was unlikely that either coach was at fault, but it was the fitness base of a young and tall list. I made the point that 2 coaches sharing the same Carlton-listed players experienced the same issue despite having different game plans.

You like to make sweeping statements divorced from the points others are making. Why not try to engage in some reasonable debate rather than engaging in deflection?

Oh, and by the way, I'll check back to see whether you can point out the relevant part of my post. Just for fun. From past experience, I know it'll never happen ;-)

Its just not this post Indie. Its the majority of your posts.
Here's a few examples for you for when you "check back"

Indie wrote:

It's yet another reason why Pagan would have been astounded at Stick's insistence that Mitchell continue with the Bullants. I'm sure that Pagan would have wanted someone who would groom the players to play as required in the seniors.

Indie wrote:

Yep, look what he's done with JK. After just 1 game and no training sessions with him, he's produced a great performance The cynics might suggest that a No. 4 pick who stands at 195 cm and 100 kg would be too good for the VFL in his 2nd year, but that's too negative eh?

But you look at the brilliant way he's brought the best out of Bower. Ok, Bower's year this year has been a disappointment after his big finish iagainst Sydney last year. And it wasn't Mitchell's fault he didn't play him in the VFL Grand Final, was it? But his insistence on Bower tagging his opponent tightly rather than playing his natural game will be good for him, won't it? Just as long as Pagan doesn't do the same - you know he always kills creativity ...

But he's done so well bringing Raso along. Sure, Raso hasn't played too many good games, and Mitchell hasn't bothered to play him much in the seniors. But at VFL level, injuries are a real explanation for such developmental delays. As long as Pagan doesn't try to use the same excuse in the seniors.

But you can see the impressive development he's brought out in Walker, Betts, Murphy and Gibbs. Sure, he hasn't actually spent much time with them. But it's the vibe.

Indie wrote:

Yep, almost being overrun by the Box Hill Hawks was a mighty fine effort. Come to think of it, there's been a few last quarter fade-outs this year in the Bullants. Seems he isn't rotating the mids off the bench all that well ...

Indie wrote:

I doubt if a new coach would want him around. Mitchell is well connected within the club. He's a close friend of Sticks and Gleeson, and maybe his network extends futher than that. If I were an incoming coach, he'd be first on my list to clear out.

Any current AFL coach would reckon his card is marked as Pagan has openly pointed the finger at him for disloyalty. Any assistant coach taking over the senior position would be concerned that he might be undermined. The only one who might keep him on is Ratten, who may well feel he can work with him.

Indie wrote:

Presumably this report comes from Sticks or one of Mitchell's supporters, so there needs to be some caution taken in accepting the truth of the assertion. But if it's true, then that shows just how destructive it has been to set up 2 spheres of influence. How would the young players know one way or the other whether Mitchell had been part of an attempt to replace Pagan? Only if Mitchell or his other supporters had got in their ears. To foster feelings of support for Mitchell or hostility to Pagan for his treatment of Mitchell clearly distracts the young players from committing 100% of their energy to helping Carlton be successful.

If you'd like some more offerings Indie, just push the search button for Mitchell or Barry. You have heaps of little bits and pieces where you've stuck the boots in.

I'm too tired to do any more of your dirty work.

Good night.

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective

I would argue you have been anything but objective in the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind you are a moderator of this site not a spreader of mindless anti-pagan propaganda.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

jimmae wrote:

The Bullants show a 4th quarter record similar to Carlton this year BV, the key difference is they're in front at 3/4 time most of the time.

Perhaps the rotations are insufficient Jim. I have'nt seen the data.
Perhaps the players are not fit enough (I doubt it)
Or perhaps as I've been saying for a while, our list structure is poorly balanced and the Bullants are suffering the consequences.
Or perhaps the coaching is poor or the players are'nt mentally strong enough.

I dont know.
I've watched Mitch coach and he is OK IMO. I've watched him take training and intiate drills and he is exceptional.

The difference is I have the data on Pagans rotations. They are insufficient and antiquated.
Who knows, Mitchells may be also.
But neither excuses the other.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective

I would argue you have been anything but objective in the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind you are a moderator of this site not a spreader of mindless anti-pagan propaganda.

Whoa, thats a big hit Jars.
Mindless Pagan propaganda in the last couple of weeks?

Perhaps you may have to come up with some examples Jars or have the good grace to apologise.

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Blue Vain wrote:

I've watched Mitch coach and he is OK .

What a ringing endorsement!. :roll:

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Blue Vain wrote:

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective

I would argue you have been anything but objective in the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind you are a moderator of this site not a spreader of mindless anti-pagan propaganda.

Whoa, thats a big hit Jars.
Mindless Pagan propaganda in the last couple of weeks?

Perhaps you may have to come up with some examples Jars or have the good grace to apologise.

You know you have been laying the bullshit on thicker than usual.

Apologise to yourself.

Indie · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:28 am **Posts:** 1073

Indie wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective where as you are trying discredit Mitchell and use any skerrick of information to pump up Pagans tyres.

You're showing your prejudices quite nicely, BV.

Please point out which part of my post discredited Mitchell. If you'd bothered to read my post rather than making extravagant assumptions, you would have noticed that I suggested that it was unlikely that either coach was at fault, but it was the fitness base of a young and tall list. I made the point that 2 coaches sharing the same Carlton-listed players experienced the same issue despite having different game plans.

You like to make sweeping statements divorced from the points others are making. Why not try to engage in some reasonable debate rather than engaging in deflection?

Oh, and by the way, I'll check back to see whether you can point out the relevant part of my post. Just for fun. From past experience, I know it'll never happen ;-)

Sorry for having to repeat the post, but for some reason, you completely failed to address it. I wonder why that could be? You being the objective type and all ...

You wouldn't be a politician would you BV? Seems you've been learning from them, even if you aren't one yourself. One of the first lessons they learn is "Don't answer the question that you're asked - answer the question that you want to answer".

But it's good to see you've conceded that my post did not reflect poorly on Mitchell after all. I know you can't bring yourself to admit that, but your deafening silence on that point is quite eloquent. But strange that you can't just be candid about it. Why do you need to engage in deflection? After all you're just trying to be objective, right :lol:

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

I've watched Mitch coach and he is OK .

What a ringing endorsement!. :roll:

I'm not here to endorse Mitchell.

He's an OK coach from what I've seen. What do you want from me?

Perhaps you should PM me Jars if you have an issue?

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Blue Vain wrote:

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

I've watched Mitch coach and he is OK .

What a ringing endorsement!. :roll:

I'm not here to endorse Mitchell.

He's an OK coach?

Wow, that is fantastic.

What a wonderful level CFC or CFC reserve coaches should have to aspire to.....

OK. :roll:

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective

I would argue you have been anything but objective in the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind you are a moderator of this site not a spreader of mindless anti-pagan propaganda.

Whoa, thats a big hit Jars.
Mindless Pagan propaganda in the last couple of weeks?

Perhaps you may have to come up with some examples Jars or have the good grace to apologise.

You know you have been laying the bullshit on thicker than usual.

Well, no.

I made one post recently stating that I thought our rotations are poor and reflect on our inability to run out games.
I actually believe Pagan has coached reasonably well this year and I admire his efforts to change.
i havent criticised selections, the dropping of kids or match ups though there has been plenty of opportunity to do so.

I couldnt give a rats clacker whether Mitchell coaches Preston or Bendigo thirds.

If this is a personal issue Jars, PM me and we'll sort it out.

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Blue Vain wrote:

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Jarusa wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

The difference is, I'm trying to be objective

I would argue you have been anything but objective in the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind you are a moderator of this site not a spreader of mindless anti-pagan propaganda.

Whoa, thats a big hit Jars.
Mindless Pagan propaganda in the last couple of weeks?

Perhaps you may have to come up with some examples Jars or have the good grace to apologise.

You know you have been laying the bullshit on thicker than usual.

Well, no.

I made one post recently stating that I thought our rotations are poor and reflect on our inability to run out games.
I actually believe Pagan has coached reasonably well this year and I admire his efforts to change.
i havent criticised selections, the dropping of kids or match ups though there has been plenty of opportunity to do so.

I couldnt give a rats clacker whether Mitchell coaches Preston or Bendigo thirds.

If this is a personal issue Jars, PM me and we'll sort it out.

Why is this the second time you have referrred to PMs?

I reckon you have been laying on the bullshit even more now that it is assured that Pagan is gone.

No need for PM's? It is either bullshit or it isn't. I normally let it ride, but you have been getting away with some pearlers in the last couple of weeks and you know it. Moderate yourself.

jimmae · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:43 am

Blue Vain wrote:

jimmae wrote:

The Bullants show a 4th quarter record similar to Carlton this year BV, the key difference is they're in front at 3/4 time most of the time.

Perhaps the rotations are insufficient Jim. I have'nt seen the data.
Perhaps the players are not fit enough (I doubt it)
Or perhaps as I've been saying for a while, our list structure is poorly balanced and the Bullants are suffering the consequences.
Or perhaps the coaching is poor or the players are'nt mentally strong enough.

I dont know.
I've watched Mitch coach and he is OK IMO. I've watched him take training and intiate drills and he is exceptional.

The difference is I have the data on Pagans rotations. They are insufficient and antiquated.
Who knows, Mitchells may be also.
But neither excuses the other.

I too do not question the management of the players from the perspective of Mulkearns and Ford, but I do believe Mulkearns possessed the wrong philosophies for the physical development of the players, as evidenced by the physique of Ryan Houlihan.

However, I question your declaration fitness is not an issue. It's not THE issue, but it's certainly an issue. Young players do not usually possess the body shape and/or fitness for AFL footy from the get go. They can be a fit draftee and have a good first and second pre-season, but over the course of the season, they need to be managed. We appear to do that when we can, but it's a fine balancing act between management, blooding the kids, protecting the kids, educating them, etc.

Pagan and his staff have one of the toughest gigs in footy, and maybe he isn't the greatest bloke for the job, but there he is most days getting stuck in, and I applaud him for it. There is a lot more ambiguity in the club's methods than most people care to admit, yet this forum continually errs on the side of the argument where the club or the coach is being stupid.

If Pagan was really that daft, everyone's favourite guy Dick Pratt would have had him out on his arse by now. Or is Sticks protecting Pagan and Mitchell??

EDIT: I should mention I believe in Pagan as a coach on paper, but accept that the enormity of his task and his initial ruthlessness in club changes may have worked against and his message is now a bit stale as far as the players are concerned. Might even be a subconscious thing in some cases.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18046

jimmae wrote:

However, I question your declaration fitness is not an issue. It's not THE issue, but it's certainly an issue. Young players do not usually possess the body shape and/or fitness for AFL footy from the get go. They can be a fit draftee and have a good first and second pre-season, but over the course of the season, they need to be managed. We appear to do that when we can, but it's a fine balancing act between management, blooding the kids, protecting the kids, educating them, etc.

I'm not saying our players are exceptionally fit. My point is that I would expect that our youngsters are as fit as most other teams youngsters.
Most other teams would have plenty of kids running around in their VFL sides as well.
Therefore, I wouldnt expect fitness to be a cause for us failing to run out games relatvely speaking.

Indie · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:28 am **Posts:** 1073

I'll have a stab at showing your prejudice up for what it is BV.

You might remember the first time we crossed paths was in the following thread: http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15235&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

Jarusa had posed an interesting question about the extent to which Sticks and Collo had contributed to the trading strategy in 2003. I replied in detail, referring to a couple of articles from the time. You replied as follows, quoting only the last paragraph.

Indie wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Indie wrote:

To what extent Pagan accepted feedback from Collo and Sticks is the interesting issue. Did Collo and Sticks express a preference for mature players to make us competitive in the short-term to bolster our image and parlous financial position? If so, did that influence Pagan's trading decisions?

Absolute nonsense.
Collo is on record as telling Pagan to rebuild the club with youth.
It is also on record that Pagan believed the list was capable of making the eight!

One person misjudged the situation badly and it wasnt Collo.

Don't suppose you can provide a link to the "record" you are talking about? Because the article dating back to March 2005 doesn't seem to suggest that Collo had any problems with the recruiting back then. If you can give us a few details, that will make it easier for the rest of us to draw our own conclusions.

Indie wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Indie wrote:

Looks like BV has been spending the last few days in the State Library working his way through back-copies of the daily newspapers. Either that or he thinks it's easier to make sweeping assertions without foundation ;-)

Nah, I've been busy having a life.
You should try it.

I've been doing that while I waited for your response, BV. I'll try to make sure that this disappointment doesn't affect my quality of life ;-)

But I always figured that your assertion was a natural outgrowth of your bias rather than anything factual, so I'd already braced myself for disappointment.

Blue Vain wrote:

Indie wrote:

But I always figured that your assertion was a natural outgrowth of your bias rather than anything factual, so I'd already braced myself for disappointment.

Yes, I can see that your thoughts are based on pure fact and specific events.

Indie wrote:

I would think at the very least that Pagan discussed the trades he was envisaging with Sticks and Collo before they happened. I would imagine he would have discussed the pros and cons of replacing those senior players with mature players or TAC level players. It seems quite likely that Pagan would have pointed out that either strategy wouldn't have delivered too many players who would still be around in 2 years time.

"I would imagine"...."I would think"...."It seems quite likely"...... :lol:

All in one paragraph!!! :lol:

Glad its not "a natural outgrowth of your bias rather than anything factual"

:wink:

Indie wrote:

All comments that were intended to underscore that I didn't have all the answers and I was interested in sensible debate. But merely dismissing my comments as nonsense on the basis of your unverifiable assertion about the "record" doesn't amount to sensible debate.

At least I offered up some "records" to support my views. Your views are so strident that they evidently don't need to be supported at all.

Jarusa wrote:

C'mon BV, how about some records, and not those Paul Anka ones you have sitting under your gramaphone.

Indie wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Indie wrote:

To what extent Pagan accepted feedback from Collo and Sticks is the interesting issue. Did Collo and Sticks express a preference for mature players to make us competitive in the short-term to bolster our image and parlous financial position? If so, did that influence Pagan's trading decisions?

Absolute nonsense.
Collo is on record as telling Pagan that the list was shot and to rebuild the club with youth.
It is also on record that Pagan believed the list was capable of making the eight!

One person misjudged the situation badly and it wasnt Collo.

Hmmm ... seems I was on the mark when I suggested that the Board might have tried to reposition itself after we crashed in 2005:

Quote:

FOR the first time (Pagan) explained how the Carlton board played an integral part in his decision to recruit a dozen recycled players for the 2004 season.

click HERE

He wasn't able to put in his 2 bob's worth while Collo and Smorgon were there, but now the clamps are off.

There never was any attempt by you to substantiate your claim about what "the record" showed. Maybe you could do so now. After all, you've shown that you can do a bit of research when it suits your purposes.

This is, as Jarusa says, the tip of the iceberg. I don't have time now, but I'll go back over "the record" to show how opinionated (and not objective) you are regarding Pagan. And in your inimitable style, your opinion is usually delivered with a healthy dose of sarcasm and arrogance which sits so well on a serving moderator.

But it seems that I have a special place in your heart, BV. Maybe because I called you on your sweeping statement in the above thread. Seems that even if I post something which is even-handed as I did in this thread, I have to wait for the stinging rebuke from you, in your objective mode of course.

And it seems to be a bit odd that you suggest PMs to resolve differences. I PMd you around the time of the above thread but it's had absolutely no effect whatsoever. So that's not something I'll bother to do again.

Sorry that this thread has become horribly hijacked. Again, I point out that my post was even-handed and seeking some reasonable discussion. But it seems that isn't possible.

jimmae · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:11 am

Blue Vain wrote:

jimmae wrote:

However, I question your declaration fitness is not an issue. It's not THE issue, but it's certainly an issue. Young players do not usually possess the body shape and/or fitness for AFL footy from the get go. They can be a fit draftee and have a good first and second pre-season, but over the course of the season, they need to be managed. We appear to do that when we can, but it's a fine balancing act between management, blooding the kids, protecting the kids, educating them, etc.

I'm not saying our players are exceptionally fit. My point is that I would expect that our youngsters are as fit as most other teams youngsters.
Most other teams would have plenty of kids running around in their VFL sides as well.
Therefore, I wouldnt expect fitness to be a cause for us failing to run out games relatvely speaking.

I'll pay that, but I think there's usually a larger senior core to support them in other teams. The chop and change when Pagan came in originally has retarded the development of a lot of players, so instead of stepping up to that senior core at 23 or so, we're seeing them pop up at 25.

This'll be irrelevant in the next season or so though. In some ways it's disappointing Pagan is unlikely to be a part of that.

Paul Ford - Your Time Is NOW!

Who is online