Should Murphy have shirked the contest?

[King Elvis]

He would've been slammed in the media for a few days if he did, but, logically, should Murphy have taken a half step and let Dangerfield have that footy?

I loved the contest, and it raised my respect for Murphy a hell of a lot - I didn't know he was willing to hit a contest that tough, as hard as he did - but for the sake of one contest, he could potentially miss a month of football.

Interested to hear what people, especially Carlton supporters, think; would you have preferred he back off a little?

Heart says no way, you want your players smashing in as hard as they can, at every opportunity.

Head says they've lost their best player for possibly a month of football, due to one contest.

 

[Duiganator]

We had 21 others shirking every contest and that worked out well.

 

[crowsarethebest]

He would've been slammed in the media for a few days if he did, but, logically, should Murphy have taken a half step and let Dangerfield have that footy?

I loved the contest, and it raised my respect for Murphy a hell of a lot - I didn't know he was willing to hit a contest that tough, as hard as he did - but for the sake of one contest, he could potentially miss a month of football.

Interested to hear what people, especially Carlton supporters, think; would you have preferred he back off a little?

Heart says no way, you want your players smashing in as hard as they can, at every opportunity.

Head says they've lost their best player for possibly a month of football, due to one contest.

Easy to sit back here and say he shouldn't have went in for it after collecting an injury but these guys are AFL footballers. Every contest should be gone at 100% and it's instinct for most players to just get the footy. It's a split second decision, he wouldn't have had a clue Danger was going in as equally as hard. It's just unfortunate he came off 2nd best.

 

[HugeJohnson]

If Dangerfield was the one who got injured would you have wanted him to shirk it?

 

[vast]

Could have just as easily have been dangerfield that got injured. So why just bring up murphy?

PS. Yes he should have shirked it coz my SC team needed him.

 

[calyam]

In hindsight, yeah he should have. But it is silly to think that way.

At the end of the day, injuries are largely unpredictable. You can make decisions that lower the probability a little (such as not going hard for the ball) but you cannot eliminate that risk. As a result, it really should not come into a players thinking.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

If he shirks it everyone flames him into oblivion. If he doesn't, there's a potential for injury. You want your players hitting every contest hard.

 

[OniAu]

Such a stupid view that society sets " if you go in hard and get injured its more acceptable than shirking the contest and sticking around to help the team win later on"


Theres stupidity at the contest (J Brown) then theres the murphy dangerfield contest yesterday.

Netheir went in reckless or carlessly.

Just unlucky that murphy came off second best.

Kind of similar to the fasolo johnson incident on friday night , where it looked like fasolo had stuffed his shoulder too.

Fine line isnt it.

Who are people on the sidelines to judge a players view on each contest, they know best their limitations and whether its the "time to go " or not.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

accidents happen. courageous stuff by the both of them just murphy came out second best

 

[Blues_Man]

He would've been slammed in the media for a few days if he did, but, logically, should Murphy have taken a half step and let Dangerfield have that footy?

I loved the contest, and it raised my respect for Murphy a hell of a lot - I didn't know he was willing to hit a contest that tough, as hard as he did - but for the sake of one contest, he could potentially miss a month of football.

Interested to hear what people, especially Carlton supporters, think; would you have preferred he back off a little?

Heart says no way, you want your players smashing in as hard as they can, at every opportunity.

Head says they've lost their best player for possibly a month of football, due to one contest.

I wish a few more of his teamates had of went in as hard as Murph did .

 

[Falchoon]

if he lead with his head how many weeks for Dangerfield?

 

[BLue_Bloys]

Definitely not, we needed the other 90% of the team to go in as hard as he did.

 

[J_Moore]

Not that particular contest. The ball was definitely a 50/50 proposition.

There are definitely some contests worth shirking, though. Courage is an overrated virtue if it means you regularly miss games.

Dangerfield, for instance, probably could've shirked a few contests over the past few years.

 

[Father Jack]

In hindsight, yes, in foresight, no.

 

[themidlandmaster]

Similar issue last week

Harry O came over the top and took out Nathan brown who was one on one with brown

Pies were well on top at that point, should Harry have pulled a short step?

imagie if browns knee was season ending...

 

[King Elvis]

If Dangerfield was the one who got injured would you have wanted him to shirk it?

That's exactly the question.

As I said in OP;

Thinking Brett-Kirk style, from the heart, no way would I want Dangerfield to shirk any contest.

But thinking logically, if the choice was for Patty to shirk one contest which wasn't a match-winning one, or to miss 4-6 weeks out of footy...

Could have just as easily have been dangerfield that got injured. So why just bring up murphy?

....

Because Murphy did get injured, Dangerfield didn't?

I started another thread on this topic giving huge respect to both players for the way they hit that contest - this is in no way having a go at Murphy.

 

[greyhound bob]

One player who badly shirked a contest yesterday was no 13 carlton very soft effort

 

[Suma Magic]

Murphy won back the respect he lost diving the week before.

You should never shirk.

 

[ziad]

We had 21 others shirking every contest and that worked out well.

Full credit for a sense of humour. Accidents happen.

 

[Pklz]

They were talking about this on MMM while i was driving to the game yesterday saying how the media are so quick to point out and criticize anyone who shirks a contest and label them with a reputation of being soft.

Past players were saying how the game is harder now than it's ever been because no player wants to be labelled as being soft.

It's only going to get worse as well in my opinion.

I don't think anyone would have liked seeing Murphy shirk that contest yesterday and if he had of then it was just another 50/50 contest Adelaide would have beaten us at.

It's an issue that's going to be very difficult to change unless the whole game changes its perspective on the issue.

As a supporter we all love nothing more than 2 players going to the most extreme measures to win the ball within the rules of the game and personally I wouldn't want to see that changed but I feel for the players who are getting injured and risking there well-being and careers to win a 50/50 contest.

 

[Schulzenfest]

But thinking logically, if the choice was for Patty to shirk one contest which wasn't a match-winning one, or to miss 4-6 weeks out of footy...

But you don't know in advance whether this will be one of the 0.1% contests that causes you to miss a month of footy or one of the 99.9% of contests that doesn't.

In hindsight I wish Robbie Gray hadn't gone on a lead in the last 30 seconds of the Collingwood game, but how can you predict something like that in advance? Injuries just happen sometimes. If you start putting avoidance of injuries ahead of doing your best to win games then you'll go nowhere.

 

[Natho]

Was a great contest by both players. Unfortunate Murphy got an injury. But it's football.

 

[jonoman89]

He did the correct thing. The rest of his team mates were running around like little girls and he decided to take a stand.

I'm very proud of him for what he did. It was an act of leadership and commitment. Too bad none of the others took any notice of it.

 

[JuddsABlue]

I am really glad he didnt because the media storm wouldve been unbelievable considering our current form/perception. Hoping it lifts a few of the others.

On the other hand, if he hadve approached the contest slower (as players do in every game all the time) and kept his feet theres an argument that its more beneficial for him.

Dangerfield goes to ground, Murphy keeps his feet and if Dangerfield collects the ball then Murphy can trap the ball/tackle or even rip it from him.

Either way, I'm glad he hit him hard so there are threads like this rather than "How soft is Murphy"

 

[King Elvis]

He did the correct thing. The rest of his team mates were running around like little girls and he decided to take a stand.

I'm very proud of him for what he did. It was an act of leadership and commitment. Too bad none of the others took any notice of it.

Could be the thing that galvanises your playing group, if that was the case, it'd be a positive.

If I was Ratten, I'd put the blowtorch on Gibbs this week - tell him he's taking Murphy's spot, and demand he show the same level of desperation and intensity.