Fullback of the century???

[DanGerous]

And what's wrong about that? Don't you like being happy?

Carlton's misery is the competitions delight.

It is this kind of arrogance and lack of ethics that has led to your demise, Parkin's astonishing lack of integrity was no doubt merely a reflection of his time spent at Carlton. Thank goodness this kind of corruption was duly punished and ruined your club.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Silvagni played on Ablett, Dunstall and Lockett and was an amazing Full Back. Regan played on Pratt, Vallence, Titus, Mohr, Moriarty, Smith and Hickey all of who made their clubs Teams of the Century.
Both Regan and Silvagni were superstars. How can we compare them? Why compare them. All those who played on Regan say he was the Prince of Full Backs and those who played on Silvagni talk about his greatness. Silvagni had advantages in being selected in the TOC as all the panel had seen him play.

 

[Thrawn]

Carlton's misery is the competitions delight.

It is this kind of arrogance and lack of ethics that has led to your demise, Parkin's astonishing lack of integrity was no doubt merely a reflection of his time spent at Carlton. Thank goodness this kind of corruption was duly punished and ruined your club.

Your entire argument on this thread has been put through the grinder more than once and you're still at it? I have to admire your persistence... or is it idiocy?

 

[DanGerous]

Your entire argument on this thread has been put through the grinder more than once and you're still at it? I have to admire your persistence... or is it idiocy?

You've replied as much as I have so you tell me.

 

[iRemember87]

Well we haven't become the new Fitzroy as recently reported of you guys, and we haven't been winning wooden spoons like they are going out of fashion.

exactly you have done fck all.....

 

[Blue Dawn]

And I'll just add that as an academic, it is fair to presume that Parkin would have sat on committees that determine fellowships, grants, and promotions - most successful academics would have. It is absolutely par for the course to declare a conflict of interest and walk out the room, if your relationship with any candidate is too close. This is why I find Parkin's behaviour extraordinary - with his background he should have known better

So what exactly are you banging on about brightspark? Are you seriously suggesting that Stephen Silvagni was voted 'Fullback of the Century' thanks to some malevolent bias from David Parkin?

 

[DanGerous]

exactly you have done fck all.....

Well sure we haven't embarrassed ourselves like your club or become laughing stocks, but we have built an impressive array of youth that will have a crack over the next few years.

 

[windyhill]

Embarrassing silvagni got it. Dench or Southby.

 

[Blue Dawn]

Well sure we haven't embarrassed ourselves like your club or become laughing stocks, but we have built an impressive array of youth that will have a crack over the next few years.

Bottom line is your mob's won 1 single flag in 50 years - THAT'S pathetic!

 

[DanGerous]

Bottom line is your mob's won 1 single flag in 50 years - THAT'S pathetic!

Well thank goodness the competition is 110 years old and we have 14 flags.

And thank goodness we are not the new millenium Fitzroy like you.

 

[DanGerous]

Embarrassing silvagni got it. Dench or Southby.

In the modern era yes.

Nightmare decision because Southby was so tight but Dench regularly set up goals like the best half back flankers of today, in fact regularly ran the length of the field and kicked a goal himself, he was very exciting to watch, but if you wanted someone shut down Southby was your man!

 

[windyhill]

In the modern era yes.

Nightmare decision because Southby was so tight but Dench regularly set up goals like the best half back flankers of today, in fact regularly ran the length of the field and kicked a goal himself, he was very exciting to watch, but if you wanted someone shut down Southby was your man!

Agreed, and from what I hear your boy was stiff to miss, Reagan.

 

[Blue Dawn]

Well thank goodness the competition is 110 years old and we have 14 flags.

And thank goodness we are not the new millenium Fitzroy like you.

You're just there for us, and sometimes others, to bend you over in Grand Finals.

 

[DanGerous]

You're just there for us, and sometimes others, to bend you over in Grand Finals.

And you just exist to collect wooden spoons.

 

[Blue Dawn]

And you just exist to collect wooden spoons.

Ahh yeh right, copped 3 since 1864. Bent your mob over in twice that many Grand Finals for starters! You're starting to look pretty silly mate.

 

[DanGerous]

Ahh yeh right, copped 3 since 1864. Bent your mob over in twice that many Grand Finals for starters! You're starting to look pretty silly mate.

Actually you've copped 3 wooden spoons in the last decade.

Never saw any of those Grand Finals so who cares.

But I've had the pleasure of seeing your club become the laughing stock of the AFL, great stuff!

 

[Thrawn]

Embarrassing silvagni got it. Dench or Southby.

You really dislike SOS don't you?

 

[windyhill]

You really dislike SOS don't you?

He could play, we all know that, just not the best full back I`ve ever seen. Southby or Dench.

 

[Blue Dawn]

Actually you've copped 3 wooden spoons in the last decade.

Never saw any of those Grand Finals so who cares.

But I've had the pleasure of seeing your club become the laughing stock of the AFL, great stuff!

Seems like there's a hell of a lot you haven't seen.

FACT 3 spoons since 1864 ain't a lot as you tried to suggest.

FACT If the point of this league is to win Flags then the Pies are the abject failure here by any standards.

CARLTON 8 FLAGS IN PAST 40 YRS vs COLL 1 FLAG IN PAST 50 YRS

Stop trying to lecture us Carlton supporters about success son - you must be 18 years old or something.

 

[DanGerous]

Seems like there's a hell of a lot you haven't seen.

Saw this.

Blues worse than Fitzroy say stats

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n/comments/blues_worse_than_fitzroy_say_stats

 

[Blue Dawn]

Seems like there's a hell of a lot you haven't seen.

FACT 3 spoons since 1864 ain't a lot as you tried to suggest.

FACT If the point of this league is to win Flags then the Pies are the abject failure here by any standards.

CARLTON 8 FLAGS IN PAST 40 YRS vs COLL 1 FLAG IN PAST 50 YRS

Stop trying to lecture us Carlton supporters about success son - you must be 18 years old or something.

What he said.

 

[DanGerous]

What he said.

He said he was very embarrassed by all the wooden spoons.

And wished David Parkin had not compromised himself, Silvagni and the process with such a blatant lack of integrity.

 

[mediumsizered]

Actually you've copped 3 wooden spoons in the last decade.

Never saw any of those Grand Finals so who cares.

But I've had the pleasure of seeing your club become the laughing stock of the AFL, great stuff!

And isn't it sad that you can not look to your own club for pleasure, because they have continually come up short over the last 50 years (with one exception)? Pleasure in following a football club comes from seeing your club achieve premiership success. Well it does for me, but obviously not for you. Each to their own, I guess.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course it a question of ethics! What a curious definition you have. So you only need to be ethical when financial advantage or politics is involved? Bizarre! Wayne Carey never obtained a financial advantage from screwing Anthony Stevens wife, so presumably his behaviour must have been ethical? If heaven forbid, my best mate was charged with murder, it would be ethical for me to be on the jury cause I would obtain no financial advantage.....Scheesss your argument is ludicrous....Shake my head at the logic of this one.....

What a mischievous and misleading conclusion you have drawn. Where on earth did he suggest that something is only unethical if you profit from it? He merely suggested that it is not like a lawyer or politician gaining financially, not that they were the only unethical situations. What he was suggesting (quite obviously I thought) is that Parkin had little to gain from voting for SOS.

I agree Parkin is highly respected which makes his failure to abstain from a vote here particularly disappointing. He should have said to his fellow panel members, look fellas, SOS is a great player, I love him to death, and that's why I can't possibly vote for him - its up to the rest of you to decide. Even if Parkin felt he could rise above his personal biases, he is smart enough to realise that not only must the process be fair, it had to appear to be fair, and free of even the slightest whiff of nepotism

I find it laughable that you defend the indefensible. He should have admitted his bias and abstained. This is self evident

The same argument applies to any of the panel members with a conflict of interest, so yes regardless of how deserving Williams or SOS were, Parkin should have abstained.

Could you be anymore dramatic about this?

You do realise there were 8 panel members don't you?

Let's run through those panel members.

Allen Aylett - clearly a North Melbourne leaning here. Was in charge of the club during Keith Greig's career. Conflict Number 1. Was in charge of the club during Barassi's coaching tenure which netted them their first flag. Conflict Number 2

Percy Beames - a Melbourne leaning here. If I am not mistaken, would have played with Ron Barassi Snr and most certainly would have been an unabashed fan of Ron Barassi. Conflict Number 3

Bob Davis - Clearly a Geelong leaning. His playing career mirrored Bernie Smith's at the Cats. Conflict Number 4. A very public and unabashed fan of Gary Ablett. Conflict Number 5. Coached Polly Farmer Conflict Number 6

Gerard Healy - Melbourne and Sydney. Played alongside Greg Williams. Conflict Number 7

Jack Irving - 50s umpire

Bill Jacobs - Commentator

Greg Hobbs - Journalist

David Parkin - Hawthorn leaning from 61-80, Carlton leaning from 81-85 91-00, Stint with Fitzroy in between. Coached Silvagni. Conflict Number 8. Coached Williams Conflict Number 9, Played with and coached Leigh Matthews Conflict Number 10.

So we have 10 potential conflicts of interests. 2 of them Carlton related.

How guided by Davis and Irving would the others have been when it came to Bernie Smith?

Nobody was guided by Parkin in choosing Silvagni. They saw him play and were able to weigh him up against his peers. They would have been guided by the old timers in assessing Regan however. Hell, Aylett was at North to assess Dench and try and sway the others but SOS got the nod despite only having one potential conflict in Parkin's vote.

Not sure who voted for SOS and who abstained because they had not seen enough of him but Parkin's vote was either the deciding vote because it was a deadlock or it was 4-3 and his vote made it 5. If he abstained at a tiebreak, how were they going to break that deadlock? Make someone else change their vote?

I am sure to make it fair we could have made it a journalistic panel or an umpires panel but really, are they the best ones to judge?

Parkin saw Dench, Moore and Southby in action as a player and even coached Moore. Now Kelvin Moore was quality as well but despite his extensive Hawks ties Parkin did not opt for Moore or Langford. So really he is unbiased in ignoring Hawks but biased in choosing a Carlton player. Most of the panel were hardly in a position to judge Regan so turned to the elder statesmen for their opinion. As soon as the older guys conceded that Silvagni was just as good as Regan, the rest of the panel having not seen Regan could only go one way.

Yet somehow we are to believe that SOS is undeserving because of one vote on an 8 man panel.

At the very worst, it is a tie if Parko abstains. What then? The panel had narrowed it to SOS vs Regan. How do the panel go for Regan if the abstainee had not seen him play and half the panel had placed SOS ahead of Dench, Southby, Langford, Moore etc?

Former footballers and coaches are better placed to know who was the best, more so than commentators and umpires. The fact that so many players were placed in the side with zero allegiances attributed to them showed that they were able to recognise quality when they saw it. We are expected to believe they are experts for those players, but take off their experts cap when it comes to fairly assessing players they were involved with.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

And I'll just add that as an academic, it is fair to presume that Parkin would have sat on committees that determine fellowships, grants, and promotions - most successful academics would have. It is absolutely par for the course to declare a conflict of interest and walk out the room, if your relationship with any candidate is too close. This is why I find Parkin's behaviour extraordinary - with his background he should have known better

Fellowships, grants and promotions all provide a benefit to the recipient, do they not? Inclusion in the team of the century is an honorary thing that gives SOS nothing but his name in a book and some personal pride.

If he walked out on a committee meeting and the result was deadlocked, how would they break that tie? Toss a coin?

I agree that if the vote was 4-3 to Regan, then Parkin should not be allowed to tie the vote. This is not what happened though is it?