Fullback of the century???

[Norfolk & Clew]

Scott Turner

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

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?

I think Francis Bourke best summed it up, when he was a chairman of selectors at Richmond, when his son David crossed to Richmond from Xavier. He took himself off the selection comittee citing integrity issues, he felt it unfair to be as objective in regards to Player X V David Bourke.

You have to question Parkin's integrity (then again, is it surprising, he coached a salary cap rorted side at Carlton) in regards to SOS V Regan and his ability to make a neutral decision. He should have followed Francis Bourke's lead.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think Francis Bourke best summed it up, when he was a chairman of selectors at Richmond, when his son David crossed to Richmond from Xavier. He took himself off the selection comittee citing integrity issues, he felt it unfair to be as objective in regards to Player X V David Bourke.

Again though, David's selection would have benefitted him, furthered his careers, potentially increased his income. Silvagni's selection in a paper TOC team gave him nothing but a subjective honour. See the difference?

You have to question Parkin's integrity (then again, is it surprising, he coached a salary cap rorted side at Carlton) in regards to SOS V Regan and his ability to make a neutral decision. He should have followed Francis Bourke's lead.

Ignoring the cheap shots which assume Parkin was involved in contract negotiations, his abstaining would have made it a tie. What then?

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

Again though, David's selection would have benefitted him, furthered his careers, potentially increased his income. Silvagni's selection in a paper TOC team gave him nothing but a subjective honour. See the difference?

That isn't the issue & it's an irrelevant afterthought. We are questioning Parkin's ability to make a neutral decision, he coached SOS from 91 to when he finished, he did have a relationship with him. You are going to naturally favor someone in business, in any walk of life, based on your relationship with them, financial, or non financial inducements the end result.

I ask you this, do you honestly believe Parkin can be neutral towards a player he coached for 10 years?

Ignoring the cheap shots which assume Parkin was involved in contract negotiations, his abstaining would have made it a tie. What then?

The whole selection process was flawed. It naturally favored the later years, a skewed inbalance of a younger generation on the selection board. I also find it hard to comprehend Norm Smith being named the coach when Ron Barrassi & Peacy Beames were both on the selection comitteee in favor of Jock McHale, who coached more premierships, more finals wins, appearances and wins than any coach in the history of the AFL. Again, it comes down to neutrality issues.

The fairest way to do it is the way the American sports do it, i.e. the MLB & the NFL select their All Star and HOF candiates.

 

[Monkey King]

Great posts ODN

10 potential conflicts of interest and yet none of the detractors want to address this, they just want to focus on Silvagni ahead of Regan.

Oh... unless it's a guy complaining about the selection Norm Smith over Jock McHale

Hang on; this wouldn't be a Collingwood thing would it?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That isn't the issue & it's an irrelevant afterthought.

Motivation vs reward is not irrelevant. At the least we can agree that your analogy does not stack up in comparison surely?

We are questioning Parkin's ability to make a neutral decision, he coached SOS from 91 to when he finished, he did have a relationship with him.

As pointed out, there were at least 10 conflicts of interest in that team, and that is leaving out the coaching nomination.

You are going to naturally favor someone in business, in any walk of life, based on your relationship with them, financial, or non financial inducements the end result.

Well there were no financial inducements. What were the non-financial inducements? To get SOS to play out the remainder of his career under Parkin with extra vigour?

I ask you this, do you honestly believe Parkin can be neutral towards a player he coached for 10 years?

It was about 6 years incidentally but anyway. Of course he is not neutral. But then I also don't think he deliberately ignored another player he played with and coached in Kelvin Moore because of his SOS allegiance. He simply judged SOS better. Parkin was not the only vote for SOS so obviously others felt SOS was the best they had seen. Would that make it beyond the realms of possibility that Parkin genuinely thought the same? All you are doing is saying that it casts doubts over the tie breaking vote because you can not gauge the impartiality of Parkin. In no way is it saying that SOS was not a deserving selection, and that is exactly where every single one of these threads head.

Why wouldn't Aylett's influence point others towards Dench? Simply, he didn't have the numbers.

The whole selection process was flawed. It naturally favored the later years, a skewed inbalance of a younger generation on the selection board. I also find it hard to comprehend Norm Smith being named the coach when Ron Barrassi & Peacy Beames were both on the selection comitteee in favor of Jock McHale, who coached more premierships, more finals wins, appearances and wins than any coach in the history of the AFL. Again, it comes down to neutrality issues.

Was Barassi on the panel? I don't have him listed here and as a member of the team, it would seem a little odd. Beames would be the only one with an allegiance and his career preceded Smith well and truly.

Of course the process is flawed when you are gauging a century of competition.

The fairest way to do it is the way the American sports do it, i.e. the MLB & the NFL select their All Star and HOF candiates.

Not sure I follow. The AFL also select their HOF candidates. The TOC panel was annointed by the AFL. Can you expand on this?

 

[DanGerous]

As pointed out, there were at least 10 conflicts of interest in that team, and that is leaving out the coaching nomination.

So you are saying the entire team is pointless not just the Silvagni selection.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So you are saying the entire team is pointless not just the Silvagni selection.

Over simplication but there is merit in just thinking it is a subjective bubblegum work. You can not accurately compare eras, statistics can not be measured like in baseball because the game is so different tactically.

Baseball has always been the best of pitchers throwing to the best of batters, 3 strikes, 4 balls, home runs, diamond measurements etc. The fundamentals are the same.

AFL, the length of quarters have changed, the interchange has changed, the rules have changed. It is an impossibility to piece together anything other than a pie in the sky media event when looking at that length of time.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

It was about 6 years incidentally but anyway.

Parkin coached Carlton from 1991 to 2000, 10 completed seasons. SOS started his career in 85, Parkin's last year of his 1st stint there.

If you can't even get your own club's history, I don't think you have little hope of arguing others.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Parkin coached Carlton from 1991 to 2000, 10 completed seasons. SOS started his career in 85, Parkin's last year of his 1st stint there.

If you can't even get your own club's history, I don't think you have little hope of arguing others.

Yes he did coach him that long. I never disputed that. However, the topic seems to be about the team of the century, which if I am not mistaken was selected in 1996. At that time Parkin had coached Silvagni for 6 years of his second stint. You can throw in his first year if you like for season number 7 but my point still remains.

You can not select someone because you coached them for 10 years before the fact. He didn't coach for 10 years, go back in time to vote for him.

I assumed you were taking into account his full relationship with SOS when I read it, thus the correction.

Now what was the point you were making about knowing my own club's history? Best to think a little longer before attempting to belittle others I think.

 

[Randy_UpThere]

Gary Marlakey!!

 

[DanGerous]

If the team of the century had been selected in 1950 but selectors could see into the future and look at Silvagni they would be impressed with the athleticism but would have chosen Regan based on beating his man outright in marking contests, they would have deemed him the more talented player.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If the team of the century had been selected in 1950 but selectors could see into the future and look at Silvagni they would be impressed with the athleticism but would have chosen Regan based on beating his man outright in marking contests, they would have deemed him the more talented player.

See on one hand you think the process is flawed based on the panel having not seen Regan play, then on the next hand you basically make a statement of fact based on what you have read about Regan and assuming what a panel with access to a time machine would have thought.

You are all over the shop. I can only argue in the realms of reality. If you start going all HG Wells on me, I lose interest. If you start introducing hobbits and talking trees to the story, I'm seriously picking up the phone and ringing that hotline Ian Leslie was going on about.

 

[Blue Dawn]

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.

Nobody except a couple of pathetic little ant-Carltonites such as yourself is suggesting that Parkin is anything other than what anyone who has ever met the man does - HIS INTEGRITY IS BEYOND REPROACH.

You're conveniently forgetting that there were 10 or so people on that selection panel - the MAJORITY voted for SOS simply because he was rated the best. Get over it son!

 

[DanGerous]

Nobody except a couple of pathetic little ant-Carltonites such as yourself is suggesting that Parkin is anything other than what anyone who has ever met the man does - HIS INTEGRITY IS BEYOND REPROACH.

You're conveniently forgetting that there were 10 or so people on that selection panel - the MAJORITY voted for SOS simply because he was rated the best. Get over it son!

5 on the selection panel, you are obviously just making it up as you go along.

And if Parkin's integrity was beyond reproach he would have excused himself from having the deciding vote on his own player.

 

[Blue Dawn]

If the team of the century had been selected in 1950 but selectors could see into the future and look at Silvagni they would be impressed with the athleticism but would have chosen Regan based on beating his man outright in marking contests, they would have deemed him the more talented player.

Your hypocrisy is pathetic. You claim bias against Parkin - have a look in the mirror mate!? Silvagni booted bags of 10 and 8 playing at FF, what did Regan ever do in that respect?

 

[DanGerous]

See on one hand you think the process is flawed based on the panel having not seen Regan play, then on the next hand you basically make a statement of fact based on what you have read about Regan and assuming what a panel with access to a time machine would have thought.

You are all over the shop. I can only argue in the realms of reality. If you start going all HG Wells on me, I lose interest. If you start introducing hobbits and talking trees to the story, I'm seriously picking up the phone and ringing that hotline Ian Leslie was going on about.

No, based on what the old timers who have seen both say, they would be the only true judges and they never saw anyone come along that took the Prince's crown.

 

[DanGerous]

Your hypocrisy is pathetic. You claim bias against Parkin - have a look in the mirror mate!? Silvagni booted bags of 10 and 8 playing at FF, what did Regan ever do in that respect?

Well I don't think you can drop Lockett for Silvagni.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

5 on the selection panel, you are obviously just making it up as you go along.

8 on the selection panel, as named earlier. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No, based on what the old timers who have seen both say, they would be the only true judges and they never saw anyone come along that took the Prince's crown.

Umm, you can't really make a selection based on your opinion of what football fans circa 1950 would have thought of Silvagni if they had a time machine. It is your opinion and a fanciful hypothetical at best.

We have already mentioned how the two members of the panel that had seen Regan play thought that Silvagni was at least his equal, yet you think these imaginary time travellers would have thought differently.

Let's keep it real huh?

Are you suggesting there has been a decent cross section of fans that genuinely saw Regan and Silvagni play, have no team allegiances and are known as decent football judges? Can you point me to the reference for this?

 

[Blue Dawn]

5 on the selection panel, you are obviously just making it up as you go along.

And if Parkin's integrity was beyond reproach he would have excused himself from having the deciding vote on his own player.

Now you certainly look about as silly as your argument. THERE WERE ACTUALLY 8 MEMBERS ON THE SELECTION PANEL BRIGHTSPARK. Parkin, Aylett, Beams, Davis, Healy, Irving, Hobbs and Jacobs.

Who EVER suggested Parkin had the deciding vote except you?

Why don't you address the questions a hand rather than dance around using semantics? Probably because you're simply a reflection of your arguments...a lightweight.

 

[DanGerous]

8 on the selection panel, as named earlier. Ignorance is no excuse.

Well you better take that up with Parko, he explained 2 went for Silvagni, 2 for Regan and he had the decider.

And 8 still wouldn't make your mate right, he said 10.

 

[DanGerous]

Who EVER suggested Parkin had the deciding vote except you?

Well just some guy named Parkin on League teams last night.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well you better take that up with Parko, he explained 2 went for Silvagni, 2 for Regan and he had the decider.

And possibly 3 of them didn't vote because they did not have enough knowledge to vote for either? An umpire in the 50s might be sufficiently detached enough to not know much about Regan or Silvagni's era for example.

And 8 still wouldn't make your mate right, he said 10.

He's not my mate, I don't know him. He is a fellow Carlton supporter. I never said he was right either, but then you were the one taking someone to task about making up numbers and giving an incorrect number yourself while doing so.

 

[DanGerous]

And possibly 3 of them didn't vote because they did not have enough knowledge to vote for either? An umpire in the 50s might be sufficiently detached enough to not know much about Regan or Silvagni's era for example.

Oh for gods sake that just makes Parkin not excusing himself a thousand times worse, 3 selectors had the integrity he lacked.