TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Lance speaks out

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19615473-23211,00.html

much aligned and perhaps didn't travel too well last week BUT:
a) he has a voice and is speaking out
b) taking it on the chin and admitting that he is one of the group from last week that needs to lift

a different approach from Kouta

well done lance.

i'm sure i heard him say that a few days ago, about time fox sports got onto it.

He said it wasn't just the leadership group who needed to take responsibility for the side's apparent inability to remain consistent throughout a full game, and said the players were actively trying to address the problem.

"I think it's everybody who has got to take responsibility for it. Coaches, players, the whole lot," he said.

Denis interviewed at training today has now backtracked & said all the players were at fault.

http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=276766

Quote:

he is on the front foot

What if he's facing the wrong way?

We had sides that also needed Lance to pull the finger out over the last 4 or 5 years too...

agree we had sides over the last couple where he could have pulled the finger out....

but come on.....lets look at what is happening today and judge it on its merits

particularly in this case he was assuming a leadership role that had been missing i.e making a statement

I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of:
*a big hole in our defence
*reduced attacking options
*and leadership that Whitnall provides

For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too.
Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement.

As I see it its:
keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years

Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals.

da dada da dah wrote:

I dont see us in the finals proper. and by that I mean top four and competitive not just making up the numbers for about 4-5 years at least....I think Lance would almost be gone by then..... a player like Gumbleton, Hansen, Proud, Jetta or the like would be starting to influence games...I think if you look at the bigger picture over the journey there is merit in trading Lance in what looks like a very strong draft....Tom Hawkins is going to need something better than an ageing Lance in 3-5 years time to stop him .....we have probably missed our chance though last year when we had melbournes interest.and I dont see teams trading away early picks for this upcoming draft....the melbourne deal for pick 12 which I would have used on Courtney Dempsey was the way to go IMHO...
With Dempsey on the list we could have gone for a tall KPP player this year and maybe a rookie ruck....we missed a golden opportunity last season to invest for the future...as good as Lances form has been I dont see it giving us a return down the track when we really need it.....

da dada da dah wrote:

Pick 12 from Melbourne was never on the table.

Elwood Blues1 wrote:

da dada da dah wrote:

The benefits outweigh the negatives. Those new kids though need leaders in the course of their development otherwise that next premiership may take just that little bit longer. with Fev he's been our best player and a possible AA....and people want to trade him. Be a terrific message, become our best player so you're trade value increases. Great reward. Morale would be low enough already. Generally speaking, some footy supporters just amaze you with the depth of thinking.

Author:	london blue [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Lance speaks out
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,86 ... 11,00.html much aligned and perhaps didn't travel too well last week BUT: a) he has a voice and is speaking out b) taking it on the chin and admitting that he is one of the group from last week that needs to lift a different approach from Kouta well done lance.

Author:	true_blue3 [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lance speaks out
london blue wrote: http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19615473-23211,00.html much aligned and perhaps didn't travel too well last week BUT: a) he has a voice and is speaking out b) taking it on the chin and admitting that he is one of the group from last week that needs to lift a different approach from Kouta well done lance. i'm sure i heard him say that a few days ago, about time fox sports got onto it.

Author:	DownUnderChick [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: i'm sure i heard him say that a few days ago, about time fox sports got onto it. He actually said at training on Monday but the media only reported today because of the Socceroos/Italy game taking up so much air time and pages in newspapers. Now that the soccer is finished with - at least for the Aussies, AFL is front and centre again in the media.

Author:	BlueWorld [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Denis interviewed at training today has now backtracked & said all the players were at fault. http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=276766 Quote: He said it wasn't just the leadership group who needed to take responsibility for the side's apparent inability to remain consistent throughout a full game, and said the players were actively trying to address the problem. "I think it's everybody who has got to take responsibility for it. Coaches, players, the whole lot," he said.

Author:	true_blue3 [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:
BlueWorld wrote: Denis interviewed at training today has now backtracked & said all the players were at fault. http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=276766 Quote: He said it wasn't just the leadership group who needed to take responsibility for the side's apparent inability to remain consistent throughout a full game, and said the players were actively trying to address the problem. "I think it's everybody who has got to take responsibility for it. Coaches, players, the whole lot," he said. i dont think he's backtracked its just that all the leaders of the group were copping a shellacking for the loss and he's just reminding everyone that it wasnt JUST the leaders fault, i think he's trying to say that they were still mainly responsible but u cant solely lay the blame on them

TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Lance speaks out http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11123	Page 1 of 4

Author:	london blue [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:
nevertheless, i find it refreshing to hear from our (current) captain that the leadership group has to lift it's game - and he was prepared to take responsibility for his effort last week he is on the front foot

Author:	true_blue3 [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
london blue wrote: he is on the front foot which can only mean..we're going forwards!!

Author:	camel [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:
What if he's facing the wrong way?

Author:	true_blue3 [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:
camelboy wrote: What if he's facing the wrong way? then that would be a simple explanation of our performance since 2002

Author:	Wild Blue Yonder [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:06 am ]
Post subject:
much maligned.

Author:	Synbad [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
We had sides that also needed Lance to pull the finger out over the last 4 or 5 years too...

Author:	Rhys26 [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:43 am ]
Post subject:
Synbad wrote: We had sides that also needed Lance to pull the finger out over the last 4 or 5 years too... Fair point!!! I reckon Lance is having a great year but the club should still be entertaining the idea of trading him if we can get a good deal. A pick in the top 15 would be a good deal

Author:	london blue [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:58 am ]
Post subject:
agree we had sides over the last couple where he could have pulled the finger out.... but come on.....lets look at what is happening today and judge it on its merits particularly in this case he was assuming a leadership role that had been missing i.e making a statement

Author:	Synbad [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:08 am ]
Post subject:
london blue wrote: agree we had sides over the last couple where he could have pulled the finger out.... but come on.....lets look at what is happening today and judge it on its merits particularly in this case he was assuming a leadership role that had been missing i.e making a statement To pull your finger out aged 27/28 when you have the mobility of Lance is too late!!! He looked terrible at times against North.. and thats because he cant jump.. cant run... Hes ok in a space of 10 sq m .. but if he needs to get out in the open (no i dont mean by slipping away- but in a contest) he is gone.... To me he has no credits left . He didnt do the right things in the past... (not just him but a few of them) And now id be trading him off for a shot at a kid.. because Lance cant run and he cant jump.. and that effort where he didnt even jump and was outmarked sticks in my head as whats in store for him. He was in 2 minds to go for the ball or get touch on a player because he wasnt sure if he would be outjumped. In the end he did neither.. and if you watch Lance the mobility doubts are creeping into his head already.. each week there are examples.. and theyre only going to become greater doubts. After all he cant get faster or jump higher than he already is. The club should just get fair dinkum and bring in a kid who will give us 10 years service.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	da dada da dah [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:21 am ]
Post subject:
I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of: a big hole in our defence reduced attacking options *and leadership that Whitnall provides For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too. Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement. As I see it its: keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals.

Author:	Elwood Blues1 [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:40 am ]
Post subject:
da dada da dah wrote: I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of: a big hole in our defence reduced attacking options *and leadership that Whitnall provides For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too. Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement. As I see it its: keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals. I dont see us in the finals proper. and by that I mean top four and competitive not just making up the numbers for about 4-5 years at least....I think Lance would almost be gone by then..... a player like Gumbleton, Hansen, Proud, Jetta or the like would be starting to influence games...I think if you look at the bigger picture over the journey there is merit in trading Lance in what looks like a very strong draft....Tom Hawkins is going to need something better than an ageing Lance in 3-5 years time to stop him .....we have probably missed our chance though last year when we had melbournes interest.and I dont see teams trading away early picks for this upcoming draft....the melbourne deal for pick 12 which I would have used on Courtney Dempsey was the way to go IMHO... With Dempsey on the list we could have gone for a tall KPP player this year and maybe a rookie ruck....we missed a golden opportunity last season to invest for the future...as good as Lances form has been I dont see it giving us a return down the track when we really need it.....

Author:	jim [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Elwood Blues1 wrote: da dada da dah wrote: I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of: a big hole in our defence reduced attacking options *and leadership that Whitnall provides For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too. Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement. As I see it its: keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals. I dont see us in the finals proper. and by that I mean top four and competitive not just making up the numbers for about 4-5 years at least....I think Lance would almost be gone by then..... a player like Gumbleton, Hansen, Proud, Jetta or the like would be starting to influence games...I think if you look at the bigger picture over the journey there is merit in trading Lance in what looks like a very strong draft....Tom Hawkins is going to need something better than an ageing Lance in 3-5 years time to stop him .....we have probably missed our chance though last year when we had melbournes interest.and I dont see teams trading away early picks for this upcoming draft....the melbourne deal for pick 12 which I would have used on Courtney Dempsey was the way to go IMHO... With Dempsey on the list we could have gone for a tall KPP player this year and maybe a rookie ruck....we missed a golden opportunity last season to invest for the future...as good as Lances form has been I dont see it giving us a return down the track when we really need it..... The benefits outweigh the negatives. Those new kids though need leaders in the course of their development otherwise that next premiership may take just that little bit longer. with Fev he's been our best player and a possible AA....and people want to trade him. Be a terrific message, become our best player so you're trade value increases. Great reward. Morale would be low enough already. Generally speaking, some footy supporters just amaze you with the depth of thinking.

Author:	Dukes [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Elwood Blues1 wrote: da dada da dah wrote: I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of: a big hole in our defence reduced attacking options *and leadership that Whitnall provides For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too. Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement. As I see it its: keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals. I dont see us in the finals proper. and by that I mean top four and competitive not just making up the numbers for about 4-5 years at least....I think Lance would almost be gone by then..... a player like Gumbleton, Hansen, Proud, Jetta or the like would be starting to influence games...I think if you look at the bigger picture over the journey there is merit in trading Lance in what looks like a very strong draft....Tom Hawkins is going to need something better than an ageing Lance in 3-5 years time to stop him .....we have probably missed our chance though last year when we had melbournes interest.and I dont see teams trading away early picks for this upcoming draft....the melbourne deal for pick 12 which I would have used on Courtney Dempsey was the way to go IMHO... With Dempsey on the list we could have gone for a tall KPP player this year and maybe a rookie ruck....we missed a golden opportunity last season to invest for the future...as good as Lances form has been I dont see it giving us a return down the track when we really need it..... Pick 12 from Melbourne was never on the table. If Fevola couldn't garner any interest in the first round then I'm not sure how all of a sudden pick 12 = Lance. There was speculation Melbourne wanted him but they NEVER put a serious offer forward. The only serious deal in the last 2 years to be offered for Lance was from the Saints at the end of 2004 - Montagna plus pick 18. How they were going to fit him in the cap was anyone's guess.

Author:	Effes [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Dukes wrote: Pick 12 from Melbourne was never on the table. Source?

Author:	Elwood Blues1 [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:
jim wrote: Elwood Blues1 wrote: da dada da dah wrote: I think Synbad's point is valid, but would the removal of Whitnall and the recruitment of a young gun offset the losses of: a big hole in our defence reduced attacking options *and leadership that Whitnall provides For me the benefits of him staying outweigh the possible benefits of a young star for a few years. A longer term view, (which I think is what Synbad and other 'trade Whitnall' people are about) beginning say at 3 or 4 years (OK conservative but not every good player will be like Marc Murphy and start off great), might see a change as the youngster would mature and our other young players would also be maturing too. Lance probably will retire in his early 30's (he will turn 27 in August) so if he plays to this year's form hopefully it will be 3 or 4 good years then retirement. As I see it its: keep Lance - Blues have a shot at finals in next few years Trade Lance - Blues not so good for 2-3 years then finals. I dont see us in the finals proper. and by that I mean top four and competitive not just making up the numbers for about 4-5 years at least....I think Lance would almost be gone by then..... a player like Gumbleton, Hansen, Proud, Jetta or the like would be starting to influence games...I think if you look at the bigger picture over the journey there is merit in trading Lance in what looks like a very strong draft....Tom Hawkins is going to need something better than an ageing Lance in 3-5 years time to stop him .....we have probably missed our chance though last year when we had melbournes interest.and I dont see teams trading away early picks for this upcoming draft....the melbourne deal for pick 12 which I would have used on Courtney Dempsey was the way to go IMHO... With Dempsey on the list we could have gone for a tall KPP player this year and maybe a rookie ruck....we missed a golden opportunity last season to invest for the future...as good as Lances form has been I dont see it giving us a return down the track when we really need it..... The benefits outweigh the negatives. Those new kids though need leaders in the course of their development otherwise that next premiership may take just that little bit longer. with Fev he's been our best player and a possible AA....and people want to trade him. Be a terrific message, become our best player so you're trade value increases. Great reward. Morale would be low enough already. Generally speaking, some footy supporters just amaze you with the depth of thinking. Not sure I follow you..I wanted to trade Lance not Fev...I see Fev as gun...now and for the future....have never been in favour of trading Fev once he was established.. I agree we need leadership for our youth but on the whole we dont have it and I am relying on Murphy, Kennedy etc being our next main leaders. when we see finals action.... If your happy with short term moderate returns then keep Lance...if you want long term big returns like a couple of flags you need to invest for the future.....as Dean Laidley has found out there are no short cuts when you rebuild....medicocre mid pack finishes each year only lead to a slow death and his poor recruiting and lack of vision may cost the Roos the clubs identity in the long term when they are forced to move to Qld......hope we are a bit smarter than that and rebuild properly which means making some serious long term decisions....trading for early picks in strong drafts is part of the rebuilding process..