Bigman’s Training Reports

[AFC979810]

That would be my thinking too, especially a coach so desperate for a win as Nicks was.

Strange nobody commented on the ROB vs Grundy game vs the Swans in round 24 at the SCG.

ROB : 11 disposals 6 kicks 5 handballs 38 hit outs 3 Marks (1CM) 3 clearances (1CC) 180 metres gained 2 turnovers DE% 54.5 Score involvements 10

Grundy 15 disposals 8 kicks 7 handballs 26 hit outs 1 Mark (1CM) 5 clearances (1CC) 132 metres gained 4 turnovers DE % 60 Score involvements 7

And it made a huge difference to the result.

We only lost by 31 in RD 24 compared to the 42 we lost by with Strachan earlier in the year.

 

[George Kramer]

Are you just inventing things you think I'm saying? I used Dmac as an example of how IF we did win that day we wouldn't have suddenly stopped piling on him.



I haven't said a word about whether any player deserves the title or not. Only that there is always one.

Which is literally what you said in the bolded part. We are saying the same thing.

I'm not even going to respond to the last part because it's irrelevant to what I said.

Which is currently being extrapolated by other people.

I think some people are bored.

“If” is missing the point. Average to poor players are whipping boys because they need to be improved upon to actually be successful. You need them out of the team. So we didn’t win a flag with DMac and we haven’t with the other whipping boys in our team.

 

[CrowToon]

“If” is missing the point. Average to poor players are whipping boys because they need to be improved upon to actually be successful. You need them out of the team. So we didn’t win a flag with DMac and we haven’t with the other whipping boys in our team.

George you are responding to me. I set the point. Not you.

I originally commented that our list was in a much better space now if all we have to argue about is backup ruck stocks.

Then Scorpus said flippantly wait until Murphy etc play.

I replied equally flippantly (though its still true) that there would always be a whipping boy.

A comment that should've been left to gather dust in the forgotten history of internet forums has been blown up into some weird comment string where I've been tagged by all these people trying to get me to justify whether I like our bottom 6, telling me I'm trying to defend them and most comically, people saying my exact point are trying to use that somehow to try and disprove me. Disprove what? I haven't said anything other than humans like to have a dig at the bottom guys, regardless of whether they are at the top or bottom.

This was only ever meant to be a molehill...and a small one at that.

 

[George Kramer]

George you are responding to me. I set the point. Not you.

I originally commented that our list was in a much better space now if all we have to argue about is backup ruck stocks.

Then Scorpus said flippantly wait until Murphy etc play.

I replied equally flippantly (though its still true) that there would always be a whipping boy.

A comment that should've been left to gather dust in the forgotten history of internet forums has been blown up into some weird comment string where I've been tagged by all these people trying to get me to justify whether I like our bottom 6, telling me I'm trying to defend them and most comically, people saying my exact point are trying to use that somehow to try and disprove me. Disprove what? I haven't said anything other than humans like to have a dig at the bottom guys, regardless of whether they are at the top or bottom.

This was only ever meant to be a molehill...and a small one at that.

You set the point? That’s funny.

If you want to make a comment that even if we won a premiership and we would still find whipping boys and expect it to just slide, well what are you doing here? So you can make a point and skip off? Probably a forum isn’t for you if that’s the case.

 

[SugarShane]

Nah, when you look back, the game was sucked dry because of the umpiring. Its why no one in AFL circles ever talks about that game. Its an embarrassment. We didnt help ourselves by letting it get to us, but when everything is to a double standard and all three umpires are umpiring to a narrative and for affirmation its the ultimate home ground advantage. There are countless videos on youtube showing like for like incidences during the game from both Adelaide and Richmond and how only Adelaide was penalised. It was a clear joke when Hartigan was mid jump into a spoil, the richmond player clearly blocked him, he had no balanced and his legs flung in the air and hit the back of caddys head. Caddy got the free kick. By then every crows fan around me was just laughing. It was so predictable. Was a disaster for the umpiring department.

Any time you even mention the umpires you're laughed at because "Yeah the umpires made a 48 point difference". The fact is that they absolutely stifled us when the game was on the line and then once our backs were broken we admittedly let Richmond get away with it.

Atkins allowed to take advantage when there was none, tackled literally immediately and paid HTB. Then denying us advantage minutes later when we actually had it.

Eddie Betts held in the goal square.

No 50 for a super late hit on Tom Lynch.

Dustin Martin with giant handfuls of (I think) Luke Brown's jumper before taking a mark mere minutes after one of our forwards was penalised for the exact same thing.

Amongst many more. They all happened in the first half when we were either in front, or within a couple goals. But any mention of it is just sour grapes.

 

[1970crow]

George you are responding to me. I set the point. Not you.

I originally commented that our list was in a much better space now if all we have to argue about is backup ruck stocks.

Then Scorpus said flippantly wait until Murphy etc play.

I replied equally flippantly (though its still true) that there would always be a whipping boy.

A comment that should've been left to gather dust in the forgotten history of internet forums has been blown up into some weird comment string where I've been tagged by all these people trying to get me to justify whether I like our bottom 6, telling me I'm trying to defend them and most comically, people saying my exact point are trying to use that somehow to try and disprove me. Disprove what? I haven't said anything other than humans like to have a dig at the bottom guys, regardless of whether they are at the top or bottom.

This was only ever meant to be a molehill...and a small one at that.

I think it would be helpful if we first agreed on the definition of a whipping boy. I don't think criticising the least effective player in a team means they're a whipping boy. Using Berg as an example, I wouldn't describe him as one because he was almost entirely playing 2s and was known KPF/2nd ruck depth. Yes he was criticised for some performances, but I don't feel he meets whipping boy criteria. To do so, he'd have needed to have continued to be selected despite h@ving proven he was no more than depth. Mackay, McHenry and McMurphy are good examples f players who existed perpetually as last player or 2 picked that we should have been moving on and giving the next second or third rounder a crack before churning them too.

 

[CrowToon]

You set the point? That’s funny.

If you want to make a comment that even if we won a premiership and we would still find whipping boys and expect it to just slide, well what are you doing here? So you can make a point and skip off? Probably a forum isn’t for you if that’s the case.

In what world do you think you'd gather a bunch of internet strangers anonymously in a group and get total agreement that every premiership player is in the best 23?

Do you think Pies fans are straight up giddy every time they see Frampton on the team sheet?

And yes George, i can make a point on a forum and skip off if I want to. I can ignore you, i can put you ON ignore, I can just leave my legacy and never come back. Forums have inbuilt functions to allow people to use it as they wish. I choose not to put you on ignore because your daily attempts to drag people into pointless debates is pretty humourous.

All I'm trying to do here is let you know this comment wasn't one worth debating. Of course if you really wish to continue arguing that we lost the GF because we selected Mackay and Knights then go for it, wouldn't be hard to disprove. Or is your point that teams can't win with any player befitting the title whipping boy? Easily disproved again.

Or do you just want to move on with your day?

 

[CrowToon]

I think it would be helpful if we first agreed on the definition of a whipping boy. I don't think criticising the least effective player in a team means they're a whipping boy. Using Berg as an example, I wouldn't describe him as one because he was almost entirely playing 2s and was known KPF/2nd ruck depth. Yes he was criticised for some performances, but I don't feel he meets whipping boy criteria. To do so, he'd have needed to have continued to be selected despite h@ving proven he was no more than depth. Mackay, McHenry and McMurphy are good examples f players who existed perpetually as last player or 2 picked that we should have been moving on and giving the next second or third rounder a crack before churning them too.

A check in of the gameday threads should give us that insight. If Soligo makes a mistake maybe there's a few posts, if Murphy does something bad it's pages. I can anecdotally recall many occasions where I've typed out 'f ned' or whatever and its been other players around the situation too. Whipping boys are basically the players that cop disproportionate heat AND when there are other players involved they will still be given the blame.

I distinctly remember a time Soligo basically tried to put Murphy in hospital with a handball and the reaction was Murphy should've done x or y.

Now to be clear for everyone in the room I absolutely take part in it. I absolutely hate that Murphy is in the team. I am NOT defending him or suggesting that he doesn't naturally get criticism more because he sucks more but at the end of the day he is a soft target for many.

Once again, every team has them (even Premiership ones)

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In what world do you think you'd gather a bunch of internet strangers anonymously in a group and get total agreement that every premiership player is in the best 23?

Do you think Pies fans are straight up giddy every time they see Frampton on the team sheet?

And yes George, i can make a point on a forum and skip off if I want to. I can ignore you, i can put you ON ignore, I can just leave my legacy and never come back. Forums have inbuilt functions to allow people to use it as they wish. I choose not to put you on ignore because your daily attempts to drag people into pointless debates is pretty humourous.

All I'm trying to do here is let you know this comment wasn't one worth debating. Of course if you really wish to continue arguing that we lost the GF because we selected Mackay and Knights then go for it, wouldn't be hard to disprove. Or is your point that teams can't win with any player befitting the title whipping boy? Easily disproved again.

Or do you just want to move on with your day?

There are degrees of whipping

Sure, Robran or Koster or Connell would have had their critics at times. Malcolm Blight amongst them.

Compared to the years and years and years of complaining about Murphy, Mackay, McHenry though with no accompanying success is.... well, like comparing a molehill to a mountain.

 

[1970crow]

A check in of the gameday threads should give us that insight. If Soligo makes a mistake maybe there's a few posts, if Murphy does something bad it's pages. I can anecdotally recall many occasions where I've typed out 'f ned' or whatever and its been other players around the situation too. Whipping boys are basically the players that cop disproportionate heat AND when there are other players involved they will still be given the blame.

I distinctly remember a time Soligo basically tried to put Murphy in hospital with a handball and the reaction was Murphy should've done x or y.

Now to be clear for everyone in the room I absolutely take part in it. I absolutely hate that Murphy is in the team. I am NOT defending him or suggesting that he doesn't naturally get criticism more because he sucks more but at the end of the day he is a soft target for many.

Once again, every team has them (even Premiership ones)

I think you've lost your place in the convo, Murphy IS a whipping boy, it's not in dispute. The discussion was about whether there'd always be one and I'm not sure there would be. If the coaches were cycling players through the last couple of spots instead of banking continuity credits and loving shape, then there wouldn't necessarily be a whipping boy. There will be criticisms of bad performances and actions, but that in isolation does not make a whipping boy.

If ROB continues to phone it in and given there's no option 2, he'll definitely qualify this year. Could have 3 if both Smith and Murphy play too, would ne heady times.

 

[Scorpus]

There are degrees of whipping

Sure, Robran or Koster or Connell would have had their critics at times. Malcolm Blight amongst them.

Compared to the years and years and years of complaining about Murphy, Mackay, McHenry though with no accompanying success is.... well, like comparing a molehill to a mountain.

Funny enough Murphy has already played more games for Adelaide than two of the three dual premiership winners you listed

 

[CrowToon]

I think you've lost your place in the convo, Murphy IS a whipping boy, it's not in dispute. The discussion was about whether there'd always be one and I'm not sure there would be. If the coaches were cycling players through the last couple of spots instead of banking continuity credits and loving shape, then there wouldn't necessarily be a whipping boy. There will be criticisms of bad performances and actions, but that in isolation does not make a whipping boy.

If ROB continues to phone it in and given there's no option 2, he'll definitely qualify this year. Could have 3 if both Smith and Murphy play too, would ne heady times.

You asked for a definition and I gave you mine and used an example. I literally did what you asked and I'm lost?

Sorry, is there someone not from George's cult that can check in and let me know if I'm still on a trip?

Flippant comment > This is your point > No, that was not my point > This is your point but now it's used against you because > Ok Lets define the term > Defines the term > Nah you are lost.

Whatever, the point is you are always going to have a bottom few players. Go and have a look at premiership sides and tell me they are all superstars. Go and check in with other boards and ask if they had a whipping boy still post -GF.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But until we win a flag I'm not wrong, neither are you or George I guess so maybe we can go back to my original point - flippant comment so lets move on

 

[1990crow]

Funny enough Murphy has already played more games for Adelaide than two of the three dual premiership winners you listed

I also think as a supporter you're less inclined to look for whipping boys when you're winning.

Just a hunch.

 

[dogs105]

There are degrees of whipping

Sure, Robran or Koster or Connell would have had their critics at times. Malcolm Blight amongst them.

Compared to the years and years and years of complaining about Murphy, Mackay, McHenry though with no accompanying success is.... well, like comparing a molehill to a mountain.

Matthew Liptak

 

[Vader]

Matthew Liptak

For me, back in the early days, it was Danny Hughes. I was absolutely certain that he was aiming to be in the opposition's BOG list every single week. Even to this day, I'm not convinced that this wasn't actually the case.

 

[WeeBlake]

Matthew Liptak

Trigger, iirc

 

[Mostyn]

Smith I understand as would be on decent money... but not Strachan as would be on peanuts & we are not 100% of the cap.

It could have been done if we wanted to.

Except we obviously were at 100% of the cap for 2024. We were pre-paying salary to give us room in 2025 to bring in three mature players.

 

[George Kramer]

In what world do you think you'd gather a bunch of internet strangers anonymously in a group and get total agreement that every premiership player is in the best 23?

Do you think Pies fans are straight up giddy every time they see Frampton on the team sheet?

And yes George, i can make a point on a forum and skip off if I want to. I can ignore you, i can put you ON ignore, I can just leave my legacy and never come back. Forums have inbuilt functions to allow people to use it as they wish. I choose not to put you on ignore because your daily attempts to drag people into pointless debates is pretty humourous.

All I'm trying to do here is let you know this comment wasn't one worth debating. Of course if you really wish to continue arguing that we lost the GF because we selected Mackay and Knights then go for it, wouldn't be hard to disprove. Or is your point that teams can't win with any player befitting the title whipping boy? Easily disproved again.

Or do you just want to move on with your day?

I think a bunch of Internet strangers can be 100% in agreement ie Soligo is a good player and not a whipping boy. My point your “we would find a whipping boy in a premiership year” isn’t accurate if we had a team of good players.

And yes you can do all of those things, you can also sook after you’ve made a point and it’s questioned. That type of engagement ain’t going to be much enjoyment though and contradicts the purpose of a forum where there’s discussion.

I’m happy to let you move on, are you? Because for someone who claims it’s not worth discussing sure is discussing it.

 

[dogs105]

For me, back in the early days, it was Danny Hughes. I was absolutely certain that he was aiming to be in the opposition's BOG list every single week. Even to this day, I'm not convinced that this wasn't actually the case.

Darren Smith wasn't well liked either

 

[CrowToon]

I think a bunch of Internet strangers can be 100% in agreement ie Soligo is a good player and not a whipping boy. My point your “we would find a whipping boy in a premiership year” isn’t accurate if we had a team of good players.

And yes you can do all of those things, you can also sook after you’ve made a point and it’s questioned. That type of engagement ain’t going to be much enjoyment though and contradicts the purpose of a forum where there’s discussion.

I’m happy to let you move on, are you? Because for someone who claims it’s not worth discussing sure is discussing it.

If there is one flaw I think we both suffer from George its that we can't summon the internal strength to suffer fools quietly. We just disagree on who we think are the fools. Do you always want the last word too? I suspect it.

Your 100% agreement is just wishful to the point of naive. If everyone starts feeling one way there is ALWAYS at least one (if not more) who want to go the other way.

But maybe we can revisit it when we win a flag

 

[Pugsley]

Except we obviously were at 100% of the cap for 2024. We were pre-paying salary to give us room in 2025 to bring in three mature players.

 

[George Kramer]

If there is one flaw I think we both suffer from George its that we can't summon the internal strength to suffer fools quietly. We just disagree on who we think are the fools. Do you always want the last word too? I suspect it.

Your 100% agreement is just wishful to the point of naive. If everyone starts feeling one way there is ALWAYS at least one (if not more) who want to go the other way.

But maybe we can revisit it when we win a flag

Maybe dont make posts on a public forum and whinge when that point is discussed.

 

[GROTTO]

 

[Scorpus]

I also think as a supporter you're less inclined to look for whipping boys when you're winning.

Just a hunch.

I wonder if there is a correlation between potential whipping boys playing fewer games, being more easily cycled out of the side, and winning

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I wonder if there is a correlation between potential whipping boys playing fewer games, being more easily cycled out of the side, and winning

Does whipping boys making it into leadership groups usually occur during sustained periods of success, like with Kayne Turner?