Leadership Group 2018

[LP]

When you bring a player in on top 3 wages to a club and they sit somewhere around 18-25 on the list for effectiveness that is a disaster.
..................
So I am going to actually not reply to the Daisy stuff here.

I can see why.

By AFL Tables Daisy ranked 10th in 2017, 12th in 2016 and 19th in 2015(Only five games). This is based on Supercoach or DreamTeam averages from Footywire or AFL Tables, which seems to be a reasonable way to get to a players relative effectiveness. For Daisy this is nowhere near as bad as some would have us think.

I suppose someone could argue that the stats are misleading, if so then why quote erroneous figures in the first place?

Stats that aren't facts are too easily exposed as deceptive or misleading! It makes an argument come across as emotive, irrational and subjective rather than objective, rational and factual.

Do you think I am being unfair?

I find it odd people slam me for potting Casboult, then slam me for defending Daisy. Casboult ranked 18th, 23rd and 18th in the same years that Daisy ranked 10th, 12th and 19th, yet Casboult's OK and Daisy is rubbish!

[PaulP]

Hey mods, when you get the chance, please copy and paste the replies from #107 onward into the Doubting Thomas thread.

Thank you.

[LP]

Hey mods, when you get the chance, please copy and paste the replies from #107 onward into the Doubting Thomas thread.

Thank you.

Aren't they relevant?

Didn't Daisy voluntarily decline nominations for the leadership group and stand down from media roles to concentrate on football?

There are other players that this scenario might be applicable to, it's just we have Daisy as a prime example!

Is leadership value linked to on-field performance? How will the Daisy and Murphy haters, who are often the same posters, consistently answer that question?

From a series of declarative statements it's dead easy to arrive at emotive conclusions that open a can of worms in regard to contradictions. In R&D it can sometimes be referred to as magical thinking, which is often a result of cherry picking data. In the media I think it's called fake news!

[PaulP]

Aren't they relevant?

Didn't Daisy voluntarily decline nominations for the leadership group and stand down from media roles to concentrate on football?

There are other players that this scenario might be applicable to, it's just we have Daisy as a prime example!

Is leadership value linked to on-field performance? How will the Daisy and Murphy haters, who are often the same posters, consistently answer that question?

From a series of declarative statements it's dead easy to arrive at emotive conclusions that open a can of worms in regard to contradictions. In R&D it can sometimes be referred to as magical thinking, which is often a result of cherry picking data. In the media I think it's called fake news!

So far as I can tell, the last few pages of this thread have nothing to do with Daisy being in the 2018 leadership group.

[LP]

So far as I can tell, the last few pages of this thread have nothing to do with Daisy being in the 2018 leadership group.

Well, I haven't been involved from the start.

As I read it this sort of all kicked off as a debate about measuring "the value of leadership" in terms of intangibles, such as effort, extroversion, attitude and desire?

That is why I posed that final question in my earlier post for that very reason!

If an argument is made that on-field performance isn't critical in measuring the performance of a leader, than it becomes hard not to contradict that position when arguing Daisy's value is measured only by on-field performance.

So then if the counter-argument is made, that on-field performance is key in measuring leadership value, it's contradictory to argue that Murphy offers little or no value in terms of leadership roles.

I'd assert that many of the same posters claim both Murphy and Daisy are of no value by changing the frame of reference as described above dependent on who they are talking about! Of course this happens across many threads.

Am I free to evaluate the merit of posts regarding who is a "valuable leader" and who isn't based historical posting?

If so, how do I put those posts into a relative frame of reference that isn't contradictory, it seems to me they are not self-consistent!

I completely understand Kruddler's position. There are many players, leaders or not, who have been carried through seasons by clubs merely because of what they bring the team other than direct football influence. Hawthorn have two very good examples, Hodge in the twilight of his career, and before him Vandenberg who probably set them on course for the 2008 flag!

[flyboy77]

Thankfully, I doubt Daisy will play much senior footy this year as the young men start demanding a spot!

[mateinone]

I can see why.

Going by what you posted, It would seem as plain as day that you don't.
I am happy to discuss the merits of Daisy on another post. I mentioned I wasn't on this post because it was the wrong thread.

But hey believe what you like

[LP]

Thankfully, I doubt Daisy will play much senior footy this year as the young men start demanding a spot!

We would hope that is true, but strictly in terms of a leadership debate that is unrelated to his value also!

[LP]

Going by what you posted, It would seem as plain as day that you don't.
I am happy to discuss the merits of Daisy on another post. I mentioned I wasn't on this post because it was the wrong thread.

But hey believe what you like

I don't have to believe, the figures I post are facts, faith or perception do not come into it!

[kruddler]

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.

That is what i've been saying. Spelled it out quite clearly.

Still, everyone continues to bring in $'s into the conversation.