I think it goes deeper than that. There are plenty of 17/18 yr olds out there with allready formed opinions and a tendency to doubt anyone elses. On the contrary The boys we picked up are specifically mouldable.... I reckon molseys sentiments are SPOT on.

I don't know whether I would call em soft...maybe just skeptics who value their own judgement above that of the coaches...these types of players need to be given space and need to be left alone to do their own thing. Pagan however, needs players to be tight and to hang off his every word and to fully trust him.

Thats how I sees it.

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

I do. And like any hypothesis, I applied a test, and drew a conclusion.

Yeah I'm with you on this one Elwood, I interpret the term soft attitiude to have meant something more like not being prepared to do what was required for you and your team to succeed, not necessarily being 'soft' on the field.

it takes two to tango

but there are some things we can do alone

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

I think Pike's comments refer to the fact that if you don't want to put in the hard yards on the training track and you don't want to work hard to improve your game then you won't last under Denis.

SB, what I think Pikey was saying was not referring to players being soft (though obviously that's true to some extent) but rather players who were not willing to listen to the coach at all, players who were not willing to work with Denis from the outset.

There were rumours of discontent pretty much as soon as he walked in to the club and as with any change of management there's going to be some that will not get on and not like the changes that will inevitably occur.

To some extent you've got to accomodate the personnel already there but when the culture is sick and has to be changed, then inevitably people will have to move on.

If the culture was good in the place, then sure, the arse-kicker approach may not work if that's not what it was beforehand. But when Pagan took over, we had a list that was dreadful, overpaid, cut corners on the training track (see Beaumont article when he went to Hawthorn), didn't like the younger kids and quite frankly, seemed as though they didn't care.

We needed a culture change and culture change is inevitably going to cost the jobs of some people that we might know and love but no player is above the Carlton Football Club as a whole.

Pagan has his weaknesses, but lacking resolve and an iron-will is not one of them.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

The quote was "If you've got a soft attitude, you don't last too long with Denis"

How many years was Pike at North? (Seriously, I don't know)

Maybe Pikey did get "comfortable" towards the end of his time at the Roos, that's why he pulled the finger out once he got to Brisbane.

Sydney Blue, we know you don't like Denis, but to try and turn it round and say that he's the soft one for not fitting into a club and it's players is a bit of a stretch.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Ever asked yourself why they enlist 17/18 year old into the army . they can mould them to do anything -just ask the 4 million or so that jumped out the trenchies in WW1. Bet all those guys had their own opinions too. ask a 25 -30 year old to do it and he will tell you to go jump.

BB if your suggesting that we have drafted players that Pagan can mould are you suggesting we have players that cant think for them selves . And if this was truely his approach there is no way Houlihan and Fevola would be still on our list.

anyone would think that the events of the last 3 years have be mapped out - lets see
2003 - lets finish 15th so it will give me an excuse to get rid of all the players that dont like me and gain me access to walker and Stevens
2004- sponsorship is down lets win a few games and give the fans hope hell we will have a crack at the wiz cup early 2005
2005- lets finish last to draft the best available players that Pagan can mould to his plan.
2006- what ever happens is part of Pagans grand plan

I am a loyal Carlton supporter but gee wiz there are times when you have to sit back a face reality . It would not have mattered who we drafted there would have been some positive spin on how this was part of Pagans plan for the future.

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Yeah I agree wholeheartedly with your generalisation. It is not as true these days though.....kids these days are more headstrong and their opinions are valued...they are given far more credit than back in the old days....they don't respect authority or elders near as much.

Houlihan? Now he may be lacking a bit of mongrel but who's to say he doesn't hang off Dennis every word..? Fev? well, he is one of those kids I am talking about...I rememeber his draft camp doco and he said how much he hated running...and he hasn't changed. It is ok to have a couple of flawed geniuses but not the whole team.

Anyway you have basically supported my arguement by stating that these types of boys do exhist. And to my understanding we have drafted the most easy going coachable youngsters that were on offer.....and it is no coincidence.

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

i don't know if it's a matter of toughening up with some players, oftern it's more a matter of straightening them out and getting them to get their shit together, Like with Norman, Zantuck, Guerra and co


"soft" aint the right word "professional" is what it should be, because lets face it these guys are paid to be professionals.

and for some of the old stagers, that includes doing as the new boss says.
obviosuly for some that was and issue.

When I was in the Army we obviously had a load of different Commanding Officers for the units I was in. One in particular was a very nasty character. Exrtremely hard, almost to the point of being vicious but very driven and totally focused on achieving what he wanted.

First thing he did was weed out the people he saw as 'soft'. These were generally folks that didnt have the stomach for the level of commitment that he expected. People that would cut corners and get sloppy and through their own shortcomings negatively affect the perceived performance of the team (and reflect badly on him). Suffice to say he was not very popular at first and there were loads of rumours about a morale problem etc.

Once much of the dead wood was gone (posted out to other units, some quit, some went on long service leave etc) and all that was left was the few of us that were either too stupid, trapped or up for the challenge the unit turned into the best one I ever saw. A kind of fortress mentality developed where, through surviving the boss's fanaticism we all thought of ourselves as better than other units. We all became much closer and seemed to thrive on the standards that the boss had set. After a while the kinds of sloppy or weak things that he had such a hard time rooting out became a thing of the past. We all felt that if we were expected to live up to the high standards, so should everyone else, so problems rarely got to the boss.

After a while the boss almost seemed to mellow. He was still a fierce competitor but it was almost like he had accepted what we had collectively become. If anyone from outside the unit criticised any of us for following up his fanatical directions or policies he was ruthless in defending us. It was kind of like if you played his game to his standards, he'd back you to hell and back! For those of us that had been with him through the journey he almost became approachable (although you'd have to be very careful how you chose your words etc)

Years later when I catch up with any of the guys from that time we all have a laugh. There is a kind of brothership from having been part of that unit at that time. When we do get together all we talk about is some of the amazing shaftings or crazy goings on at the unit. Nobody else would understand the stories because you had to be there. There was a kind of siege mentality that we developed just by surviving the boss.

The same Boss is now a general and recently was in command of one of Australia's military contributions to a world trouble spot. I heard some great stories about how he hit the australian contingent over there like a ton of bricks and had them all jumping out of their skins. I heard about how he sent home in disgrace senior members of the contingent for not meeting what some would consider relatively minor indiscretions. To some this would seem petty and disrespectful of valued team members. To him it would be weeding out the dead wood. I find it hilarious because I know the dedication that he demands and in some perverse way I see others that fail his high standards as weak and undeserving.

When I hear the old Nth Melb players talk about Dennis Pagan and I see them share a laugh and see them speak about the trepidation, fear etc and the siege mentality that they developed it strikes a chord with me. I recognise the same bond in them and I sense their pride in their survival of a shared experience. At the time I was in that unit people used to privately whinge, bitch and complain about the boss behind his back and some (many of whom were later transferred etc) used to talk about morale problems etc. When I look back now some 10 or more years later I remember it as one of the greatest professional achievements of my life. That unit ran like clockwork. Wheter that was because of fear, intimidation, respect, professionalism or admiration I am not sure, I suspect a combination of all. I dont really know that the boss or his superiors cared. All they knew was that the unit was outstanding.

End of the day, Dennis' Job is to make us premiers again. Massaging the emotions and sensibilites of former greats is not necessarily part of that task. To answer the original question you would have to define weak. From my example above, weak would probably be:

"lacking in the mental and physical fortitude, courage and ability to prevail, regardless of the obstacles faced, or die trying."

If you havent got that attitude, or if you think you have earned the right or the priviledge not to have to approach tasks in this way, then possibly you are weak!!!

Dennis is on the right track, stick with him and we will have not just a premiership team, but a new era of dominance!! You cant make an omelete without breaking eggs.

_________________
"Who discovered we could get milk from cows, and what did he think he was doing at the time?" Billy Connolly

How did you go on the battlefield 2nd - Many victories I presume.

I am sure the current crop of Blues are a tight knit well drilled bunch on the training track - Just dont seem to show when they go into Battle.

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

4 years - 1997-2000.

_________________
Cer 'ch 'n alluog Blues

Who decides the POW's?

Great read 2ndeffort!!!!

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

Luckily mu Army units never had to go to war but we thumped a few other units in the Wed arvo footy games!!!!!

I dont think you can generalise on the impressionability or 'trainability' of 17-18 yos versus 25-30 yos. people are people and all are different. The average age of people enlisting in the US Army to fight in WW2 was 26. Al Quaeda seems able to recruit people in the 15-40 age bracket willing to to do worse that jump into the trenches.

I think it has more to do with what Parko was saying the other week: "character before talent". When the chips are down you'd rather have someone that you can rely upon than the 'flawed genius' prone to moments of magic but otherwise a head case!!! That said, if you can get both then you are obviously streets ahead.

In recent seasons we havent had no choice, we either take a punt on the head cases (Laurie, Karl) or we try to recycle the steady as she goes mob (Digby, Johnson etc).

For what it's worth I reckon Pike was right. The weak will make way for the more commited and this, in my opinion is a good thing. I'd rather lose a Laurie Angwin that cant commit himself to the code of conduct, much less the rigours of professional preparation and gameplay, than lose an Adam Bentick who doesnt appear to have the natural gifts and perhaps talent of an Angwin but who will sweat blood for the jumper if needed.

_________________
"Who discovered we could get milk from cows, and what did he think he was doing at the time?" Billy Connolly

F*** I love our game.

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

Now dont go all mushy on us BB- people will start to say your soft and you will struck off this forum. We wouldn't want that to happen now would we

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

In many ways I agree with this, but I remember reading a quote from Randolph Churchill (Winston's Dad):

"When I was 16, my parents knew nothing. Once I turned 21, I was amazed how much they'd learned in the past five years"

_________________
"The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, and the young know everything." Oscar Wilde

I think there is a reasonable explanation for the course Pagan's Blues have charted:

2003 - finish 15th because the list is totally stuffed and certain players have the wrong attitude to improve. Get rid of those players and replace them anyway you can with rejects. Re-building cannot begin properly because of the draft penalties.

2004 - improve somewhat because the rejects are playing on their last chance and are seasoned footballers

2005 - this is unsustainable improvement because the rejects are just not good enough, commence real re-building through the draft with KPPs because they are hardest to find.

2006 - Continue rebuilding - your spine looks quite promising but your midfield is still shot - Stevens, Walker, Murphy and maybe Bentick are merely a start.

Pagan got dealt the sourest hand ever in coaching, a sh1te list and draconian draft penalties. Cut the guy some slack, there is no doubt your list will be infinitely better at the end of his contract than at the start of it and you cannot ask for more than that. Most coaches operate in the opposite direction, just ask North after Laidley is done or any Collingwood supporter.

And finally it takes an opposition supporter to talk some sense into the Pagan haters

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

You might be used to following a side that loses all the time I'm not. Lets see the improvement and commitment to the club before you praise Pagan . Pagan has brought nothing to this club and his results show it . I dont want this club to do what others are like StKilda- Geelong - Freo and hang on to their coaches because they need time to build a team . Football sides fortunes can be turned around in 24 hours if the right decisions are made- Watch what happens to Freo when Harvey finally gets the nod. Pagan is old he is stale and he is past it . A bit like Sheedy

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws