The graveyard thread for endless off topic posturing on persons causing bi-polar responses

Remove this Banner Ad

Magus said:
Lack of application and a lack of discipline aren't really different problems.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.

Lack of discipline is the guy who is insanely gifted going out and partying before a job interview the next morning and turning up bleary eyed with only four hours sleep, but still doing what it takes to win the job because he did the research beforehand.

Lack of application is the same guy showing up rested and refreshed but not knowing anything about the company he is wanting to work for.
 
Janus said:
Steve Johnson broke both ankles in 2003 trying to sneak back into a Torquay pub. He has seven bouts of surgery to fix the problem. But he still managed to average over a goal a game in the next two years.

His issues stemmed not from a lack of application as a footballer, but a lack of discipline. It’s nothing like Wingard.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct. Steve Johnson had well documented discipline problems but prior to 2007 he was also considered a sublime talent who was a lazy underachiever.

Geelong apparently nearly traded him to Collingwood at the end of 2006. Around the same time they had a good hard look at themselves from top to bottom with accountability and consistency being pushed to the forefront. Johnson was carried along with that club culture and became a multiple premiership winning Norm Smith Medallist and won 3 AA guernseys during the prime of his career.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Janus said:
Sure they are.

Lack of discipline is the guy who is insanely gifted going out and partying before a job interview the next morning and turning up bleary eyed with only four hours sleep, but still doing what it takes to win the job because he did the research beforehand.

Lack of application is the same guy showing up rested and refreshed but not knowing anything about the company he is wanting to work for.
Click to expand...
What about the guy who lacks the discipline to adhere to team rules & game plan? how is his application as a footballer?
 
Janus said:
Sure they are.

Lack of discipline is the guy who is insanely gifted going out and partying before a job interview the next morning and turning up bleary eyed with only four hours sleep, but still doing what it takes to win the job because he did the research beforehand.

Lack of application is the same guy showing up rested and refreshed but not knowing anything about the company he is wanting to work for.
Click to expand...

Agree with this though. It's basically semantics, but a lack of application suggests a more long term unwillingness to commit. A lack of discipline suggests they try hard but have regular self inflicted setbacks.
 
I have little doubt that either Chad was leaving his next contract or that he was fleecing us for mega $$$, but they put it in the too hard basket and checked out in his pre agency year what I'm content with as its either he leaves for less or skates on through his career at port not ever fufulling his potential (i have 0 confidence in this current regime maximising someone like Chad Wingard)
 
El_Scorcho said:
This isn't correct. Steve Johnson had well documented discipline problems but prior to 2007 he was also considered a sublime talent who was a lazy underachiever.

Geelong apparently nearly traded him to Collingwood at the end of 2006. Around the same time they had a good hard look at themselves from top to bottom with accountability and consistency being pushed to the forefront. Johnson was carried along with that club culture and became a multiple premiership winning Norm Smith Medallist and won 3 AA guernseys during the prime of his career.
Click to expand...

Now, imagine Geelong 2006 is Port Adelaide 2018, and accountability and consistency has been pushed to the forefront after four years of poor performance.

What happens when Johnson says he’s not prepared to buy in to the change in culture? He was up for trade, but instead of sooking, he vowed to change his ways. Then he tried it on one last time and the club showed it wasn’t ****ing around by suspending him.

You can’t back yourself to turn a player around when the player doesn’t want to change their ways.

If Wingard had said he was prepared to stay and fight, he probably would have been like Johnson at Geelong. Instead, he’s Johnson if he had gone to Collingwood.

Guess we’ll see what happens.
 
Janus said:
Now, imagine Geelong 2006 is Port Adelaide 2018, and accountability and consistency has been pushed to the forefront after four years of poor performance.

What happens when Johnson says he’s not prepared to buy in to the change in culture? He was up for trade, but instead of sooking, he vowed to change his ways. Then he tried it on one last time and the club showed it wasn’t ******* around by suspending him.

You can’t back yourself to turn a player around when the player doesn’t want to change their ways.

If Wingard had said he was prepared to stay and fight, he probably would have been like Johnson at Geelong. Instead, he’s Johnson if he had gone to Collingwood.

Guess we’ll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Johnson reportedly had a medical with Collingwood but was carrying an ankle injury at the time so didn't pass.

Otherwise he'd have been traded. It was more Collingwood not willing to pay what Geelong wanted for a player with an injury concern.

Instead they retained him, fixed the wider club problems and became a dynasty. It certainly wasn't simply because Johnson promised to trained harder..
 
JimmyBeerCans said:
The line from the club "our indications were that he'd explore options at the end of his contract" was such nonsense just tell us if he was a difficult personality & that you gave up.. be honest.
Click to expand...
"Wingard is an introverted loner who's not popular his teammates and never turns up at Chadbro's BBQs. He's got an attitude problem as well but we can't be ****ed fixing it because he'll never be one of the boys. Come to think of it we've got another one of those in Polec. He wants more money, but he's a strange cat who marches to the beat of a different drum and that'll never change so **** him as well. Not sure what to tell the fans - maybe trot out some bullshit about poor HRVs and see if they'll buy it."
 
El_Scorcho said:
Johnson reportedly had a medical with Collingwood but was carrying an ankle injury at the time so didn't pass.

Otherwise he'd have been traded. It was more Collingwood not willing to pay what Geelong wanted for a player with an injury concern.

Instead they retained him, fixed the wider club problems and became a dynasty. It certainly wasn't simply because Johnson promised to trained harder..
Click to expand...

Way to miss the point, and in fact, it makes mine stronger.

You just said they didn't keep Johnson because they backed themselves in. They kept him because they had no other choice, and Johnson was made acutely aware of how much other teams rated him. They viewed Johnson as part of a wider issue and part of the poor culture of the club.

The same happened with Wingard - who thought he would be worth a lot more on the open market than he was, and settled for a crappy contract of $650k a season instead of the the $850k he thought he'd get. But instead of taking stock of himself, Wingard decided that Port wanting to trade him must mean that he had to leave...when it could have very well been one last effort to reach him.

The difference is - Collingwood weren't prepared to pay a price that Geelong was willing to take, but Hawthorn was prepared to pay a price that we were. I bet you if Collingwood had offered a first round pick and a young player who was also taken in the first round two years earlier, they would have jumped at it.
 
Janus said:
Way to miss the point, and in fact, it makes mine stronger.

You just said they didn't keep Johnson because they backed themselves in. They kept him because they had no other choice, and Johnson was made acutely aware of how much other teams rated him. They viewed Johnson as part of a wider issue and part of the poor culture of the club.

The same happened with Wingard - who thought he would be worth a lot more on the open market than he was, and settled for a crappy contract of $650k a season instead of the the $850k he thought he'd get. But instead of taking stock of himself, Wingard decided that Port wanting to trade him must mean that he had to leave...when it could have very well been one last effort to reach him.

The difference is - Collingwood weren't prepared to pay a price that Geelong was willing to take, but Hawthorn was prepared to pay a price that we were. I bet you if Collingwood had offered a first round pick and a young player who was also taken in the first round two years earlier, they would have jumped at it.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with this in part, Wingard wouldn’t be getting anywhere near what he should be.
 
theDuckFarmer said:
"Wingard is an introverted loner who's not popular his teammates and never turns up at Chadbro's BBQs. He's got an attitude problem as well but we can't be ****** fixing it because he'll never be one of the boys. Come to think of it we've got another one of those in Polec. He wants more money, but he's a strange cat who marches to the beat of a different drum and that'll never change so **** him as well. Not sure what to tell the fans - maybe trot out some bullshit about poor HRVs and see if they'll buy it."
Click to expand...

How much of this narrative is known to be close to the truth and how much of it has been fabricated on bigfooty?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

chiwigi said:
You are only worth what somebody is willing to pay.

He SHOULD be worth a lot more.
Click to expand...
If he can recapture the player he was in our first year at Adelaide oval then yes. I can recall the Wingardium leviosa he got dubbed after that speccy. My observation was that he then put on kilos & lost that leap & zip. He did have a year to run so the ball was in his court whether he wanted to take his finger out his bum. Hey I actually thought he’d be a one club player but whatever now Hawks can pay for his tattoos. I really do hope he rips up except against us. A Port premiership sometime soon would rub the salt but won’t hold my breath.
 
Janus said:
I’ve got an unpopular opinion :D

Rioli was twice the player Wingard is, because most of his goals were created from his ability to keep pressure on the opposition.

Rioli was a creator, Wingard is a finisher. Rioli would work in any team and any gamestyle, Wingard needs to be able to free roam. Rioli won four flags and a Norm Smith, Wingard will be lucky if he jags one of those accolades.

The closest Wingard will ever get to the level of Dustin Martin - which is what he has the talent to be - is with his tattoos.
Click to expand...

Would be a interesting if you made a comment like this before it became apparent a player was leaving or clearly not up to AFL standard.
 
Club has been trying for three years to get Wingard to wake up! Interestingly, the tactic of telling him he is free to "explore his options" was also tried on Hartlett. He chose to stay at Port, and got his act together, playing the best he had ever played prior to his injury!

Wingard got the snots & chose to walk!

"Seeya."
 
G3TWOTYAD3S3RV said:
If he can recapture the player he was in our first year at Adelaide oval then yes. I can recall the Wingardium leviosa he got dubbed after that speccy. My observation was that he then put on kilos & lost that leap & zip. He did have a year to run so the ball was in his court whether he wanted to take his finger out his bum. Hey I actually thought he’d be a one club player but whatever now Hawks can pay for his tattoos. I really do hope he rips up except against us. A Port premiership sometime soon would rub the salt but won’t hold my breath.
Click to expand...
He wasn't that great in 2014 actually. Got KO'd early in the year in Darwin and was pretty down on form for about 8-10 weeks before recovering just in time for finals.
 
Tibbs said:
Club has been trying for three years to get Wingard to wake up! Interestingly, the tactic of telling him he is free to "explore his options" was also tried on Hartlett. He chose to stay at Port, and got his act together, playing the best he had ever played prior to his injury!

Wingard got the snots & chose to walk!

"Seeya."
Click to expand...

If that's true then we were piss weak not to drop him to wake him up. Maybe that's why Ken can't get us past 14 wins and to win enough of the close ones against the top sides. He isn't tough enough when it counts and worries too much about being good mates with the players - especially the better one.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
If that's true then we were piss weak not to drop him to wake him up. Maybe that's why Ken can't get us past 14 wins and to win enough of the close ones against the top sides. He isn't tough enough when it counts and worries too much about being good mates with the players - especially the better one.
Click to expand...

And who were we going to replace him with? Regardless of his attitude, no one is daft enough to suggest that Wingard didn’t help us win games. And the job of a head coach during the season is to win as many games as possible.

It’s the job of the captain, the assistant coaches and everyone else to correct off field attitude, because they spend more time with the players. That’s why Boak was told to step down - it wasn’t his on field captaincy that was the problem, but the fact that he was a complete failure off field...as evidenced by the Powell-Pepper incident. That showed a complete lack of respect for Boak as a captain, because Powell-Pepper was living with him at the time.

If you can’t get through to someone who is living with you, how can you possibly get through to those that aren’t?
 
Janus said:
And who were we going to replace him with? Regardless of his attitude, no one is daft enough to suggest that Wingard didn’t help us win games. And the job of a head coach during the season is to win as many games as possible.

It’s the job of the captain, the assistant coaches and everyone else to correct off field attitude, because they spend more time with the players. That’s why Boak was told to step down - it wasn’t his on field captaincy that was the problem, but the fact that he was a complete failure off field...as evidenced by the Powell-Pepper incident. That showed a complete lack of respect for Boak as a captain, because Powell-Pepper was living with him at the time.

If you can’t get through to someone who is living with you, how can you possibly get through to those that aren’t?
Click to expand...
You replace him with somebody hungrier than Wingard if he was that much trouble.

We dont beat Geelong, We dont beat WCE at AO so they are the perfect type games to say go play in the twos and learn some lessons. Shit we don't beat Freo in Perth - apart from that final.

You can't have it both ways. If he is lazy, not motivated, not team first often enough, you drop him. DBJ was 20 minutes late to training and he got dropped.

This was just more yo-yo management that produced yo-yo results.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
If that's true then we were piss weak not to drop him to wake him up. Maybe that's why Ken can't get us past 14 wins and to win enough of the close ones against the top sides. He isn't tough enough when it counts and worries too much about being good mates with the players - especially the better one.
Click to expand...
Its absolutely true REH. It was a massive failure not to drop him. The difficulty being that he is so damned talented, even his "average" was up there with the best. Heard from a reliable source, and backed up here by Dr Feel I think is was, that the coaches disagreed on dropping him, with at least one coach extremely unhappy about him not being dropped.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The graveyard thread for endless off topic posturing on persons causing bi-polar responses

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top