Bluemour Melting Pot XXVIII

[17SetMeFree]

Really???

Hird brought in two people who drugged his players because he couldn't take losing to Carlton in a final.

Voss could not stay in his own lane, and completely f’ed that club for nigh on a decade.

Bucks dismantled a list that won a premiership in 2010 because he couldn't win an argument with the rat pack. 2017 was the year in which the club pretty much sat on his shoulders and forced him to take a deep breath and a step back; him taking time away and letting other people do their jobs made Collingwood a better side.

God, but the urge to edit history happens entirely too often on this board. FFS.

come'on mate, they weren't wrong for thinking they would be good,

what do you think my explanation detailed? some dogfacedponysoldier comment you have there

 

[Gethelred]

come'on mate, they weren't wrong for thinking they would be good,

what do you think my explanation detailed? some dogfacedponysoldier comment you have there

I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Your post/explanation denied that the coaches weren't awful, for the same reasons I said they were awful. If what you're saying is that they weren't ready to coach, then that's something else but it cannot be denied that their relative records as head coach show that they weren't beneficial to their clubs, at all.

 

[Dramoth]

Tell that to 17SetMeFree, who tells me as a replay:

WTAF... everyone knew that Hird was a spud coach before he even coached a game, the only team he coached was his kids u11s side. And Hird had nothing to do with the selection of the people around him... apart from Dank the drug lord and Shane Charters. The club hired Bomber to sit alongside Hird, make the decisions and let Hird be the face of the coaching staff. He was the one who instigated the doping regime based on the drugs he got given to improve his recovery from his navicular injury... and seemed to stick on for the remainder of his time there.

 

[17SetMeFree]

I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Your post/explanation denied that the coaches weren't awful, for the same reasons I said they were awful. If what you're saying is that they weren't ready to coach, then that's something else but it cannot be denied that their relative records as head coach show that they weren't beneficial to their clubs, at all.

I listed an explanation that's perfectly clear as to why they crashed and burned, back then. They weren't ready
would Voss make a better candidate today? probably. To what extent? you'd have to take the risk
Did Buckley take over the reins too early? probably
Of the 3 Hird made the biggest mistakes

the result of inexperience translated in their results, are they, awful people, because of their coaching, probably not, possible with the exception of one.

 

[The Bighouse]

The fact he is in the media and has chosen not to get involved in clubland suggests he may have no interest in coaching

Cushy media job plus probable other interests in Brisbane but he’s also involved with the Brisbane Lions in some capacity @ clubland level.

 

[17SetMeFree]

WTAF... everyone knew that Hird was a spud coach before he even coached a game, the only team he coached was his kids u11s side. And Hird had nothing to do with the selection of the people around him... apart from Dank the drug lord and Shane Charters. The club hired Bomber to sit alongside Hird, make the decisions and let Hird be the face of the coaching staff. He was the one who instigated the doping regime based on the drugs he got given to improve his recovery from his navicular injury... and seemed to stick on for the remainder of his time there.

Thats ****ing imbecilic posting this here like I'm wet behind the ears.
Where have I said I condone this behaviour during his coaching tenure? Where was it suggested he would be undertaking this regime before he started coaching? did I say this?
All I said was he was inexperienced as a senior coach, hence his failure
Careful what you post, mate 4 ****s sake

 

[whySOSserious]

Lol. Fans like you seriously underestimate David Teague and his mental strength and emotional maturity.

He is far far stronger than what he appears to be.

As someone who flies off the handle every time I misplace my wallet, I envy Teague and his extraordinary stoicism and self-restraint in The coaching box. It is not sign of a weakness, quite the opposite in fact.

I know for a fact that Teague has gone into the rooms and training sessions and ripped the players a new one. They do respect him as a coach and has a lot more authority then people think.

On CPH1951 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Pentatonic Flat Fifth]

You do know that the author of that original report on Alpha males has released another more uniform report that completely reverses his original report? The later report, the more factual report on male behaviour is actually based on male wolves in the wild rather than the original he did based on wild wolves in captivity.

Wolves in captivity tend to be more frightened and aggressive. A larger stronger male will be more dominant just because it’s larger and stronger than the rest of them. That’s what he based his original report on. Unfortunately, humans read the original report and thought that was what an alpha male is supposed to act like. Take what he wants, do what he wants, be aggressive. But it’s all bullshit. That’s the behaviour of bullies or creatures that are afraid and uncertain.

What the guy found when he went out into the wild, expecting to see the same sort of behaviour from dominant males in wolf packs in the wild. He actually found the complete opposite. While the males were more aggressive, it wasn’t aimed at taking what they wanted. The aggression was more controlled and directed to keeping order in the pack and towards protecting the pack. The “in the wild“ Alpha was both protective and supportive.

So, which definition of alpha are you putting Voss into?

Yeah - nah.

There are two researchers involved in this saga - and the initial research did involve captives with the second wild. The first researcher did in fact raise the idea of the Alpha pair, which was basically true for the captive animals, but the result of pairing while young. The second researcher also used poor nomenclature with Alpha - but this was directed at them being the "leaders".

They were in fact just the "parents" - of their own children with some three year olds still hanging around. Thats it. Nothing special. Just mum and dad with the kids. Are they Alpha ? Well yeah. Were the capitves ones in a hierarchy ? Absolutely. Are we in captivity or wild?

The take away here however is not that this DISPROVES the Alpha male theory - it does not - as it (Alpha) generally comes much more from psychology and humans ( Übermensch) where OF COURSE Alpha males exist across many different species from birds (pecking order) lions, hyenas, Elephants, bees and much more related to humans Apes and Monkeys - you name it. Its very real and very true, including humans.

Further the reason the person wanted it cleared up was not because it was a false concept for broader understanding outside of wolves vis-a-vis humans etc - but rather because it was hindering how dogs were being trained.

Holy smoke people take things down some wild roads some times.

 

[Chookaradley]

I know for a fact that Teague has gone into the rooms and training seasons and ripped the players a new one. They do respect him as a coach and has a lot more authority then people think.

On CPH1951 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wouldnt hurt if he showed a bit of that emotion to the fans rather than rolling out the same mundane diatribe he does at every press conference.

 

[thylacine60]

Lol. Fans like you seriously underestimate David Teague and his mental strength and emotional maturity.

He is far far stronger than what he appears to be.

As someone who flies off the handle every time I misplace my wallet, I envy Teague and his extraordinary stoicism and self-restraint in The coaching box. It is not sign of a weakness, quite the opposite in fact.

fuddy's poty.........

 

[Gethelred]

I listed an explanation that's perfectly clear as to why they crashed and burned, back then. They weren't ready
would Voss make a better candidate today? probably. To what extent? you'd have to take the risk
Did Buckley take over the reins too early? probably
Of the 3 Hird made the biggest mistakes

the result of inexperience translated in their results, are they, awful people, because of their coaching, probably not, possible with the exception of one.

Thats fking imbecilic posting this here like I'm wet behind the ears.
Where have I said I condone this behaviour during his coaching tenure? Where was it suggested he would be undertaking this regime before he started coaching? did I say this?
All I said was he was inexperienced as a senior coach, hence his failure
Careful what you post, mate 4 fks sake

You said this, of Hodge:

he'll make a great coach one day, I'm sure

To which I replied with this, the implication clearly being that people - those who selected them, the common public, etc - thought that they would be good coaches and they were wrong.

People thought the same of Voss, Bucks and Hird once.

You then posted this:

And they were not wrong either.
Voss wanted a premiership in his first 2 years and recruited that way, Destroyed the club
Buckley came on 2 years too early, Malthouse should have extracted a bit more from that group. We suffered for that
Hird, brought the wrong people in, because he thought everyone was doing it. Showed remarkable resilience under white hot heat though

voss did a 2 year apprenticeship
Hird didn't, straight to senior coach
Buckley, 2 years under malthouse.

all not enough IMO

You are arguing (with the bolded) that the coaches were probably too inexperienced when they took the head role; this is a reasonable argument, but the problem with it is that it serves as an explanation for why they were bad, not if they were bad.

The underlined is what I was arguing with.

Now, I get being frustrated due to a post being misinterpreted, someone arguing past you, etc, but the response there is not to double down or to return serve. Either tell me you're getting your oars crossed or I'm misinterpreting you, or decline to follow up on an argument that isn't really a worthwhile use of either of our times.

 

[thylacine60]

Yeah - nah.

There are two researchers involved in this saga - and the initial research did involve captives with the second wild. The first researcher did in fact raise the idea of the Alpha pair, which was basically true for the captive animals, but the result of pairing while young. The second researcher also used poor nomenclature with Alpha - but this was directed at them being the "leaders".

They were in fact just the "parents" - of their own children with some three year olds still hanging around. Thats it. Nothing special. Just mum and dad with the kids. Are they Alpha ? Well yeah. Were the capitves ones in a hierarchy ? Absolutely. Are we in captivity or wild?

The take away here however is not that this DISPROVES the Alpha male theory - it does not - as it (Alpha) generally comes much more from psychology and humans ( Übermensch) where OF COURSE Alpha males exist across many different species from birds (pecking order) lions, hyenas, Elephants, bees and much more related to humans Apes and Monkeys - you name it. Its very real and very true, including humans.

Further the reason the person wanted it cleared up was not because it was a false concept for broader understanding outside of wolves vis-a-vis humans etc - but rather because it was hindering how dogs were being trained.

Holy smoke people take things down some wild roads some times.

ya think?

 

[17SetMeFree]

You said this, of Hodge:

To which I replied with this, the implication clearly being that people - those who selected them, the common public, etc - thought that they would be good coaches and they were wrong.

You then posted this:

You are arguing (with the bolded) that the coaches were probably too inexperienced when they took the head role; this is a reasonable argument, but the problem with it is that it serves as an explanation for why they were bad, not if they were bad.

The underlined is what I was arguing with.

Now, I get being frustrated due to a post being misinterpreted, someone arguing past you, etc, but the response there is not to double down or to return serve. Either tell me you're getting your oars crossed or I'm misinterpreting you, or decline to follow up on an argument that isn't really a worthwhile use of either of our times.

Why wouldn't I think they would be great coaches when they finished their football careers, they were outstanding leaders respectively

Just like I think the same of Hodge. All of them have the capability as leader of men, BUT as I highlighted , no one gets out of doing an apprenticeship in the modern age, and their respective failures to deliver on these expectations is clearly consistent.

I said, "Im sure Hodge will make a great coach ONE DAY
this doesn't imply tomorrow. Like telling a 6 yo he could be a great centreman in the afl ONE DAY

This is the third time I have had to explain my post to you. If you have a hard time understanding, I'm patient

 

[Gethelred]

Why wouldn't I think they would be great coaches when they finished their football careers, they were outstanding leaders respectively

Just like I think the same of Hodge. All of them have the capability as leader of men, BUT as I highlighted , no one gets out of doing an apprenticeship in the modern age, and their respective failures to deliver on these expectations is clearly consistent.

I said, "Im sure Hodge will make a great coach ONE DAY
this doesn't imply tomorrow. Like telling a 6 yo he could be a great centreman in the afl ONE DAY

This is the third time I have had to explain my post to you. If you have a hard time understanding, I'm patient

And now you're relying on pedantry to avoid having to backpedal.

This isn't worth the time I've given to it. Have a nice evening, if it's evening where you are.

 

[Dramoth]

Yeah - nah.

There are two researchers involved in this saga - and the initial research did involve captives with the second wild. The first researcher did in fact raise the idea of the Alpha pair, which was basically true for the captive animals, but the result of pairing while young. The second researcher also used poor nomenclature with Alpha - but this was directed at them being the "leaders".

They were in fact just the "parents" - of their own children with some three year olds still hanging around. Thats it. Nothing special. Just mum and dad with the kids. Are they Alpha ? Well yeah. Were the capitves ones in a hierarchy ? Absolutely. Are we in captivity or wild?

The take away here however is not that this DISPROVES the Alpha male theory - it does not - as it (Alpha) generally comes much more from psychology and humans ( Übermensch) where OF COURSE Alpha males exist across many different species from birds (pecking order) lions, hyenas, Elephants, bees and much more related to humans Apes and Monkeys - you name it. Its very real and very true, including humans.

Further the reason the person wanted it cleared up was not because it was a false concept for broader understanding outside of wolves vis-a-vis humans etc - but rather because it was hindering how dogs were being trained.

Holy smoke people take things down some wild roads some times.

I am not disagreeing with the fact that there are dominant males in all species. I am just pointing out that the guy who "did the second study" also did the first study based on another guys study, released a book on it, then did the second study of animals in the wild... realised that the book was based on a bullshit theory, has tried to have his publisher pull the books off the shelf and stop publishing them, but he has been unsuccessful. He has spent many years of his life trying to correct the errors of his book.

As for your examples where there are supposedly alphas, birds (pecking order)... is only limited to hens (a matriarchal hierarchy), lions... dominant female, hyenas... dominant female, elephants... dominant female. bees... a queen. In the wild, most animal packs are lead by a female while the males are there to protect the pack from other animals.

Mech based his original study that lead to the book off the earlier work by Schenkel and his research on wolf behaviour in captivity. His second study was done on animals in the wild. Where he realised that the earlier work and his studies in the zoos were based on false evidence appearing real.

There is no such thing as an Alpha male
Wolf News and Information - Dave Mech
Wolf packs don’t actually have alpha males and alpha females, the idea is based on a misunderstanding

PS: Please argue with me about the bees... I have 10 hives in my backyard belonging to my apiarist nephew.

 

[17SetMeFree]

And now you're relying on pedantry to avoid having to backpedal.

This isn't worth the time I've given to it. Have a nice evening, if it's evening where you are.

I'm not back-peddling , the whole thread is pedantry . But that's cool. Yes evening here, albeit warm

 

[Dramoth]

In the wild, the Alpha male leads the pack from behind, he protects the pack from every direction whilst protecting from the rear, all threats are visible to the Alpha and can he make adjustments and call out about any danger.
The weakest and eldest set the pace.
Here it is in picture form, the blue arrow is the Alpha.
View attachment 1151181

Yup... that's definitely the dominant male... the strongest male of the pack. He is usually the one that breeds with the dominant female and with any other female. He also isn't an alpha that the Americans like to think of as being an alpha... a big strong tough guy who snaps and snarls at everyone and takes what he wants and is agressive and "dominant".

The dominant free alpha maintains control by growling at the other animals. It doesn't resort to violence to solve issues unless it has to. Usually a growl will do. It does most of its growling during feeding times when it growls and snaps at other animals to remind them that there are others that need to eat. The reason it is at the back is so that it can run forward if another animal attacks the pack while they are travelling. It uses its size and speed to knock the other animal off balance so that the rest of the pack can either attack or run away.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

lions,

Lions? The Matrilineal society in which females run and define the prides and their boundaries and where males are essentially transient.

hyenas

Another matriarchal society in which the males are ranked the lowest...

Its very real and very true,

It really isn't.

 

[Arr0w]

Would be a great replacement for Barker.

GMan, how would you view Brad Scott as a senior assistant?

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yup... that's definitely the dominant male... the strongest male of the pack. He is usually the one that breeds with the dominant female and with any other female. He also isn't an alpha that the Americans like to think of as being an alpha... a big strong tough guy who snaps and snarls at everyone and takes what he wants and is agressive and "dominant".

The dominant free alpha maintains control by growling at the other animals. It doesn't resort to violence to solve issues unless it has to. Usually a growl will do. It does most of its growling during feeding times when it growls and snaps at other animals to remind them that there are others that need to eat. The reason it is at the back is so that it can run forward if another animal attacks the pack while they are travelling. It uses its size and speed to knock the other animal off balance so that the rest of the pack can either attack or run away.

That’s why I included the photo Dram, the Alpha cares for his entire pack, that’s why the elderly, weak and sick set the pace, they control the speed so though don’t get left behind, the next group in my photo are the second strongest group of hunters, they protect the elderly and weak and see off threats from the front, the 3rd group are the adolescents and the young in the middle, all the group must protect this group, they are the future, the 4th group are the strongest, the best hunters and elite of the pack, they take care of the entire group and sit just in front of Alpha, ready to take on any threat from any direction at his call.
Hardly sounds like an needlessly aggressive silly macho type behaviour to me, it sounds like the most highly evolved family loving mammal on our planet to me!

 

[Cringle]

What is going on in this thread lol

 

[BringFevBack2021]

What is going on in this thread lol

My thoughts exactly - 10 pages of debate about wolves and alpha males

Could not give a **** if our next coach was an alpha male or not. Give me someone who can coach footy. Someone proven, who can make immediate impact.

 

[LouderNowBlue]

So our next coach will be a wolf is that what everyone is saying?

I like it. Bit different but I like it.

 

[plentyblckie]

B70 last year mentioned that Stocker was not popular amongst the playing group. Whether that was because he left camp during the season, who knows.

That footage this year when no one came to congratulate him after an important goal stunk.

Hes got a nasty streak. Even in match simulations he doesnt give a s..he will hurt u if he has a chance. Need more of it

 

[Dramoth]

That’s why I included the photo Dram, the Alpha cares for his entire pack, that’s why the elderly, weak and sick set the pace, they control the speed so though don’t get left behind, the next group in my photo are the second strongest group of hunters, they protect the elderly and weak and see off threats from the front, the 3rd group are the adolescents and the young in the middle, all the group must protect this group, they are the future, the 4th group are the strongest, the best hunters and elite of the pack, they take care of the entire group and sit just in front of Alpha, ready to take on any threat from any direction at his call.
Hardly sounds like an needlessly aggressive silly macho type behaviour to me, it sounds like the most highly evolved family loving mammal on our planet to me!

Isn't the one out the front the dominant female? She's usually the one that leads the pack, especially on hunts