Rumour Bluemour Discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
No it isn't if you are playing guys like Johnson, Whiley and Holman instead of pushing guys like Docherty, Walker etc to play then that's effectively development tanking. Fact of the matter is that we can't get what we need to be successful unless we finish pretty low on the ladder, those good big tall kids are likely to be gone in the first few picks and if we don't get them then we're in for another decade of being losers. Nothing wrong with trying to win as long as you're playing the youngsters and not selecting teams that will likely win ;). Culture will come later.

Again, it's about intent. Culture won't come later if we let it drift away through joyful losses. We'll be bad enough to be thereabouts anyway.
 
Carlton don't have anything special around the ball, we're a bottom side. Cripps is the one who provides something special and rare. Kreuzer's talents are only noticed because our midfield is crap, put a good midfield in there and those one percenters aren't worth much. If we can find a club that overrates Kreuzer like a lot do and they have a good young big forward wanting to come home there aren't many players on our list we shouldn't trade, trust me he's right up there. Our list of overrated players who don't play their role but do a few other things well to keep fans going is long enough.

With trading Kreuze, I worry most about the effect it would have on the rest of the team.

He seems to inspire the others, and I don't want our next batch of players learning the ropes from a bunch of disinterested, paycheque-to-paycheque, "talented" seniors. I want them being driven to succeed from day one, by guys who love the jumper.

We need to set up the culture now - because if we don't, we poison the next generation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Again, it's about intent. Culture won't come later if we let it drift away through joyful losses. We'll be bad enough to be thereabouts anyway.

If we consider players personalities when drafting and draft really competitive players who are good trainers and have a real hunger to compete our culture will be fine. If we draft purely on skill and pick players who are lazy trainers and get by on natural ability like we have a little we'll run into trouble. If we trade away all our senior leadership we'll be in trouble but I'm not suggesting that. You pick enough youngsters like Docherty, Cripps and Buckley culture falls into place without doing a lot.

You can't be any good without snaring a few good tall forwards, the only way to get them is to have them given to you via father son, finish really low on the ladder or trade for and over pay for them. If we don't get them prepare yourself for another 15 years of being crap. I'd take another year... I'd take another 4 or 5 years of being crap if it meant that we'll challenge for the flag in the next 10 years at some stage! There are two ways of tanking. You openly do it and do it with players aware of it and do it tactically, this is the culture belting bad way. Or you can rest players over any niggle and play a lot of kids, this is the good way of doing it and IMO quite common. Helps a lot of clubs get what they need.
 
With trading Kreuze, I worry most about the effect it would have on the rest of the team.

He seems to inspire the others, and I don't want our next batch of players learning the ropes from a bunch of disinterested, paycheque-to-paycheque, "talented" seniors. I want them being driven to succeed from day one, by guys who love the jumper.

We need to set up the culture now - because if we don't, we poison the next generation.

I think they would get over it. There are teams up the top who have traded out some pretty handy footballers and liked footballers. One percenters, training, inspiration what ever aside, you still need to be able to play and if you're the one standing between a more valuable footballer then you make way. It's not a social play with your mates competition. One year your mates are playing with you next year they aren't. We actually have quite a lot of youngsters at the club with leadership quality, mainly because we have been recruiting for it. The ones who don't have it may struggle to stay on the list IMO. Buckley, Graham, Docherty, Cripps all ooze leadership and will be our next leadership group in the very near future. We are not longer a club lacking leadership and are off the rails. We must do what is in the best interest of the club's long term future, players lose mates and good club people off the list every season, it's part of the nature of the job, I don't think it distracts them a lot, if it does then they probably have an unhealthy obsession with that individual, but they all remain pretty close. More than likely trading kreuzer would result in a young quality footballer and leader coming to the club.

You need to give good players to get good players. We are at the beginning of a rebuild stage. We do not have the foundation players of a rebuild on our list (good young tall forward/s). We need to give what we can to get them, but we can't afford to weaken our midfield too much for development and competitive purposes.

It's all about priorities, who and what types we need more influences who we can and should give up. It's and absolute must we get the players we need to the club or it's going to be another very bland and crappy 10 years.
 
If we consider players personalities when drafting and draft really competitive players who are good trainers and have a real hunger to compete our culture will be fine. If we draft purely on skill and pick players who are lazy trainers and get by on natural ability like we have a little we'll run into trouble. If we trade away all our senior leadership we'll be in trouble but I'm not suggesting that. You pick enough youngsters like Docherty, Cripps and Buckley culture falls into place without doing a lot.

You can't be any good without snaring a few good tall forwards, the only way to get them is to have them given to you via father son, finish really low on the ladder or trade for and over pay for them. If we don't get them prepare yourself for another 15 years of being crap. I'd take another year... I'd take another 4 or 5 years of being crap if it meant that we'll challenge for the flag in the next 10 years at some stage! There are two ways of tanking. You openly do it and do it with players aware of it and do it tactically, this is the culture belting bad way. Or you can rest players over any niggle and play a lot of kids, this is the good way of doing it and IMO quite common. Helps a lot of clubs get what they need.

There is a difference between our current mentality and the year we obtained Kreuzer in the draft and it revolves around knowing we needed to not win another game in 2007 to get a priority pick. What we are doing at the moment is not tanking, I just hope there isn't a feel good factor involved with the likely losses in the rest of our season. We will be in the mix for a forward in this years draft and taking the long term view with the list build will hopefully make our next challenge a lot closer than our last.
 
Gbatman you're getting confused I think.

Giving kids a run and resting players with niggles isn't losing on purpose - therefore it isn't tanking.

Tanking is just about dead now there is no priority pick.

I don't want another spoon. I want to see Cripps, Buckley, Docherty, Graham, Byrne, Menzel and Boekhorst all experience some stirring wins.
 
As long as Triggs connections don't get us Craig and Sanderson.

Blech.
Id be all for using the Trigg connection to get Craig and Sanderson as Assistants.

Sanderson as an assistant in charge of defence would be amazing. He was in charge of the Cats defence between 2007 and 2011 during their premiership era. Would be an amazing get.

Craig overseeing the rookie coach would also be a decent get.

Get McKenna in charge on Midfield.

Headcoach: Bolton
Director Of Coaching: Neil Craig
Assistant (Backline): Sanderson
Assistant (Midfield): Mckenna
Assistant (Stoppages): Laidley
Assistant (Forward): ????
Assistant (Development): ????

looks like a solid coaching group to me
 
Last edited:
I don't understand people who think that investing in the future of a club is tanking.
This is my take on it, simplistic as it might be:

Tanking: the aim (at some level of the club, probably not the players) is specifically to lose games of football because that gives a beneficial outcome (e.g a draft pick.)
Development: the aim is to get some experience into young talented players so that they are better for it next year. This may lower the teams chances of winning, but nevertheless, when paired with the right selections to still be competitive, it's the right move. The difference between this scenario and the above is that if the kids actually did get up and win, you'd be delighted.

I know there are some people who subscribe to the theory that tanking is anything other than fielding your absolute best 22 for winning that particular match, regardless of finals prospects and future development. I don't subscribe to that theory. It's like suggesting that if a business gives up a dollar today to earn $2 tomorrow then it's somehow being corrupted or not giving 100%, as opposed to just smart planning for the future.
 
Last edited:
Id be all for using the Trigg connection to get Craig and Sanderson as Assistants.

Sanderson as an assistant in charge of defence would be amazing. He was in charge of the Cats defence between 2007 and 2011 during their premiership era. Would be an amazing get.

Craig overseeing the rookie coach would also be a decent get.

Get McKenna in charge on Midfield.

Headcoach: Bolton
Director Of Coaching: Neil Craig
Assistant (Backline): Sanderson
Assistant (Midfield): Mckenna
Assistant (Stoppages): Laidley
Assistant (Forward): ????
Assistant (Development): ????

looks like a solid coaching group to me

Nope, Sanderson is one seriously thick dude.
 
I don't understand people who think that investing in the future of a club is tanking.
This is my take on it, simplistic as it might be:

Tanking: the aim (at some level of the club, probably not the players) is specifically to lose games of football because that gives a beneficial outcome (e.g a draft pick.)
Development: the aim is to get some experience into young talented players so that they are better for it next year. This may lower the teams chances of winning, but nevertheless, when paired with the right selections to still be competitive, it's the right move. The difference between this scenario and the above is that if the kids actually did get up and win, you'd be delighted.

I know there are some people who subscribe to the theory that tanking is anything other than fielding your absolute best 22 for winning that particular match, regardless of finals prospects and future development. I don't subscribe to that theory. It's like suggesting that if a business gives up a dollar today to earn $2 tomorrow then it's somehow being corrupted or not giving 100%, as opposed to just smart planning for the future.

I reckon most here are happy to play kids to get a look at them, a win is a bonus, but if we lose on our merits so be it. It would be a select few that think that blooding youngsters is tanking.

I'd be looking more at match day tactics, match ups, positions in that regard.
 
It frustrates the **** out of me to listen to tank vs no tanking discussion, at times, as though it's an on/off switch we're looking at.

For instance, there are ways to to structure a side (reasonably subtly) to increase losing probability while still encouraging the team (and young players in particular) to play with high intensity and to keep learning and improving their skills to an acceptable level.

I personally couldn't give a rat's arse if we finish last if the morale within the team is good and the players put in reasonable effort and continue to learn.

We have massive needs, I really hope we can snag Weitering, which would be a great starting point for our rebuild. As much as Scache sounds great, his connection to Brissy through his dad and his public comments about loving to play up there makes me think he's a high go-home risk.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It frustrates the **** out of me to listen to tank vs no tanking discussion, at times, as though it's an on/off switch we're looking at.

For instance, there are ways to to structure a side (reasonably subtly) to increase losing probability while still encouraging the team (and young players in particular) to play with high intensity and to keep learning and improving their skills to an acceptable level.

I'd suggest any attempt to structure a side with the purpose of losing in mind, subtly or otherwise, is hitting the on switch on tanking.
Structuring a side, with the purpose of development in mind, and playing that game to win, is not tanking therefore the off switch.

It's all in the motivation.
 
I'd suggest any attempt to structure a side with the purpose of losing in mind, subtly or otherwise, is hitting the on switch on tanking.
Structuring a side, with the purpose of development in mind, and playing that game to win, is not tanking therefore the off switch.

It's all in the motivation.


I disagree.

For example say we have Graham or Carrazzo who could play a particular role for us in the midfield. Say the match committee rate carrots ability to play that role at 77% and Graham at 76%. Who should they play? The young guy who has the potential to learn valuable lessons and play and play that role for 10 years or the guy in likely his last season who still hold a slight edge over his younger team mate?

Taking into consideration where we are this season its an obvious choice to play the youth.


I disagree with taking fev off the ground when his dominating, but subtlety working in youth is the way we should go, imo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I disagree.

For example say we have Graham or Carrazzo who could play a particular role for us in the midfield. Say the match committee rate carrots ability to play that role at 77% and Graham at 76%. Who should they play? The young guy who has the potential to learn valuable lessons and play and play that role for 10 years or the guy in likely his last season who still hold a slight edge over his younger team mate?

Taking into consideration where we are this season its an obvious choice to play the youth.


I disagree with taking fev off the ground when his dominating, but subtlety working in youth is the way we should go, imo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you just agreed with him.
 
There are two ways of tanking. You openly do it and do it with players aware of it and do it tactically, this is the culture belting bad way. Or you can rest players over any niggle and play a lot of kids, this is the good way of doing it and IMO quite common. Helps a lot of clubs get what they need.

Can't argue with that. The latter approach is what got West Coast to where it is now and it is clearly the one we are using.

Whether you want to call it tanking or not is simply splitting hairs.
 
I

Headcoach: Bolton
Director Of Coaching: Neil Craig
Assistant (Backline): Sanderson
Assistant (Midfield): Mckenna
Assistant (Stoppages): Laidley
Assistant (Forward): ????
Assistant (Development): ????

looks like a solid coaching group to me

Some pretty big rumours on why Sando was moved on from Adelaide and Bluey McKenna hasn't exactly left a great culture up on the gold coast.

Neil Craig is also getting paid a pretty penny at Essendon and I don't know if we have the money to get him across.
 
Some pretty big rumours on why Sando was moved on from Adelaide and Bluey McKenna hasn't exactly left a great culture up on the gold coast.

Neil Craig is also getting paid a pretty penny at Essendon and I don't know if we have the money to get him across.
Sando I get. Bluey McKenna I would follow into fire. That guy is a champion and a gentleman of the highest order. I wonder how much of that culture occured as a lost in translation between coaches. Lets run amok now that Blueys not around. By the way, what they thought was the problem that they were too Ablett-centric is still there. As soon as he comes back, they are competitive. That was the slight on Bluey, but guess what, when your clubs whole launch marketing and TPS budget is geared towards one guy, what the f**k do you expect. Oh, not mention the NRL guy along for the ride (and those he took with him). Bluey McKenna is a saint and any club would be lucky to have him on the books.
 
I disagree.

For example say we have Graham or Carrazzo who could play a particular role for us in the midfield. Say the match committee rate carrots ability to play that role at 77% and Graham at 76%. Who should they play? The young guy who has the potential to learn valuable lessons and play and play that role for 10 years or the guy in likely his last season who still hold a slight edge over his younger team mate?

Taking into consideration where we are this season its an obvious choice to play the youth.


I disagree with taking fev off the ground when his dominating, but subtlety working in youth is the way we should go, imo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you actually agreed with me.

Playing the kids for the purpose of development while still wanting to win the game is list management, not tanking.
Paying the kids to ensure you can't win is tanking. This is usually combined with tactics, match ups etc.

One of the best things we did late in 2007 is give games to Jamo.
 
Sando I get. Bluey McKenna I would follow into fire. That guy is a champion and a gentleman of the highest order. I wonder how much of that culture occured as a lost in translation between coaches. Lets run amok now that Blueys not around. By the way, what they thought was the problem that they were too Ablett-centric is still there. As soon as he comes back, they are competitive. That was the slight on Bluey, but guess what, when your clubs whole launch marketing and TPS budget is geared towards one guy, what the f**k do you expect. Oh, not mention the NRL guy along for the ride (and those he took with him). Bluey McKenna is a saint and any club would be lucky to have him on the books.
I wouldn't go as far as to call him a saint.

Remember this is the guy who said he had no inkling the Eagles had a drug culture when he was there and was totally oblivious to everything happening at Gold Coast. Remember that photo of Bennell is two years old.
 
I wouldn't go as far as to call him a saint.

Remember this is the guy who said he had no inkling the Eagles had a drug culture when he was there and was totally oblivious to everything happening at Gold Coast. Remember that photo of Bennell is two years old.

I know nothing ...

I see nothing ...

Good old sergeant Shultz !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top