Lets play the Kids Roosy !!

[liz]

Regarding 'discounting', I think you are confusing 'not counting' with 'discounting'. Discounting, according to my Oxford English Dictionary means 'taking value from or reducing a number or amount', which in formal terms is obviously different to not counting at all.

To discount also means to disregard, to leave out - eg "he discounted that as a possible explanation."
discount

Verb
1. to leave (something) out of account as being unreliable, prejudiced, or irrelevant
2. to deduct (an amount or percentage) from the price of something
Noun
1. a deduction from the full amount of a price
2. at a discount below the regular price

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discount

So by determining Barlow not to be a kid, you are saying he is irrelevant, and hence he is being discounted from the discussion of whether a) the kids should get a go; and b) whether they should be ridiculed if they don't play well.

I am still none the wiser on your definition of kid. Since you think Barlow doesn't qualify, are we agreed that Moore, Grundy, Jack, Brabazon, Thornton, Laidlaw are all irrelevant to this discussion as well?

[Mr Magoo]

Does he play in the Canberra League?

Nah its not strong enough

[Plugger46]

Good discussion LA and liz - agree with parts of what you've both said.

I wouldn't be playing Johnston yet either. Perhaps look at him later in the year but with Grundy and White doing well, it's probably not the time to introduce another KP player.

The ones we should be looking at are Brabazon, Smith (when fit), D.O'Keefe (ditto), Currie (ditto), O'Dwyer and Meredith. IMO, the senior players who should be looked at over the course of the year are Crouch, Buchanan, Ablett and Barry (when they come back obviously) but it's too early to be making those calls on all of them.

To the people calling for all of the kids - which players do you want to drop?

I called Barlow 'gutless' in the other thread - way too tough as I've never seen him 'pull out'. He's just not too keen to attack the footy. His form doesn't warrant a spot in the 22 at the moment which is unfortunate, as he looks like a player who is going to benefit from regular appearances in the seniors.

I don't know about everyone else but I'd like to remain competitive this year, throwing half a dozen kids at once will ensure that we're not competitive. Then we really will be like Richmond of years gone by.

[johnno]

I just have 1 thing to say on this issue, all these "kids" that debut in Round 1 for Carlton, Essendon, Fremantle, etc etc, who apparently played well and looked good and so on. Lets wait and see how good they are going by rounds8-9. I'm willing to bet they will all be, with the exception of a couple here and there, running around in their club's respective reserves sides.

Also, what's up with Daniel Currie? Surely he must be ready to play this year?

[ernie koala]

I just have 1 thing to say on this issue, all these "kids" that debut in Round 1 for Carlton, Essendon, Fremantle, etc etc, who apparently played well and looked good and so on. Lets wait and see how good they are going by rounds8-9. I'm willing to bet they will all be, with the exception of a couple here and there, running around in their club's respective reserves sides.

Maybe so ..but with some invaluable senoirs experience, not to mention invaluable preview for their respective coaches as to what they bring to the table at AFL level.

[dimelb]

On definitions, I see Barlow as a kid, along with the others such as Brabazon and Co.
Something I've observed in my comparatively brief acquaintance with AFL: there is a "churning" mentality at some clubs and I'm glad we're not one of them.
And yes, Buchanan was awful on Saturday night - that coodabeen goal when he was caught with the ball - but I can't believe he's past it.
The oldsters are on notice: Crouch (who I thought was useful on Saturday) and Leo mainly. Ablett is in the leadership group and is not going anytime soon; I'm not altogether happy about that, but his peers put him there presumably because they think he contributes something. But for me, he's on notice with the others.

[CJK]

Ablett is in the leadership group and is not going anytime soon; I'm not altogether happy about that, but his peers put him there presumably because they think he contributes something. .

He runs interference on how bad everyone else might play.

[Legs Akimbo]

To discount also means to disregard, to leave out - eg "he discounted that as a possible explanation."
discount



discount - definition of discount by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So by determining Barlow not to be a kid, you are saying he is irrelevant, and hence he is being discounted from the discussion of whether a) the kids should get a go; and b) whether they should be ridiculed if they don't play well.

I am still none the wiser on your definition of kid. Since you think Barlow doesn't qualify, are we agreed that Moore, Grundy, Jack, Brabazon, Thornton, Laidlaw are all irrelevant to this discussion as well?

You are deflecting - it was not my definition of kid that is in question here. Specifically, it does not mean number of games played, which is what you said it does.

For the record, the term 'kid' has no bounded definition but rather is defined by context. It could mean 'immature goat' if we were on a board about animal husbandry.

Looking at the OP, I think 'kid' means 'recently drafted'. Apply that as you will.

[liz]

You are deflecting - it was not my definition of kid that is in question here. Specifically, it does not mean number of games played, which is what you said it does.

For the record, the term 'kid' has no bounded definition but rather is defined by context. It could mean 'immature goat' if we were on a board about animal husbandry.

Looking at the OP, I think 'kid' means 'recently drafted'. Apply that as you will.

I didn't say "kid" is defined by the number of games. I don't believe I have introduced any definitive factors that determine whether a player is still a "kid". On the other hand, you said Barlow wasn't a kid because he has been in the system for 4 seasons, which is a pretty definitive exclusion.

[Legs Akimbo]

I didn't say "kid" is defined by the number of games. I don't believe I have introduced any definitive factors that determine whether a player is still a "kid". On the other hand, you said Barlow wasn't a kid because he has been in the system for 4 seasons, which is a pretty definitive exclusion.

In football terms, Barlow is very much a kid. He's played 12 games of senior footy.

That's what you said. Am I missing something or are you implying without intent? All care taken...no responsibility.

I applied 'a' definition of 'kid' not 'the' definition of kid from a range of potential definitions. I happen to think my definition is more consistent with the premise that we don't play kids than your experience based definition, which is circular.

[ROK Lobster]

It could mean 'immature goat' if we were on a board about animal husbandry.

Plenty of kids on here.

[liz]

That's what you said. Am I missing something or are you implying without intent? All care taken...no responsibility.

I applied 'a' definition of 'kid' not 'the' definition of kid from a range of potential definitions. I happen to think my definition is more consistent with the premise that we don't play kids than your experience based definition, which is circular.

Something is circular, that's for sure. I think it is this discussion.

I included Barlow as a kid in my initial rant, without providing any specific criteria for whether a player is or isn't a kid.

You came back and said Barlow isn't a kid because he has been in the system for 4 years. Hence you excluded a specific player from the definition of kid based on a criterion that you specified.

I have subsequently reiterated by view that I believe Barlow still is a "kid" in the context of our current squad, with what I consider a clear implication that the number of games played is a stronger factor than time spent on the list. I don't think that at any time in this discussion I have excluded anyone from definition of "kid" nor provided any criteria that would definitively exclude anyone from the definition. All I have done is specifically included Barlow.

I agree with you that it is contextual. The only thing that we seem to clearly disgree on is that I consider Barlow still to be a football kid and you don't.

[Legs Akimbo]

I agree with you that it is contextual. The only thing that we seem to clearly disgree on is that I consider Barlow still to be a football kid and you don't.

...that and whether we give our 'kids' (no fixed definition) enough opportunity. I think we have an overly conservative policy.

[2005]

Good discussion LA and liz - agree with parts of what you've both said.

I wouldn't be playing Johnston yet either. Perhaps look at him later in the year but with Grundy and White doing well, it's probably not the time to introduce another KP player.

The ones we should be looking at are Brabazon, Smith (when fit), D.O'Keefe (ditto), Currie (ditto), O'Dwyer and Meredith. IMO, the senior players who should be looked at over the course of the year are Crouch, Buchanan, Ablett and Barry (when they come back obviously) but it's too early to be making those calls on all of them.

To the people calling for all of the kids - which players do you want to drop?

I called Barlow 'gutless' in the other thread - way too tough as I've never seen him 'pull out'. He's just not too keen to attack the footy. His form doesn't warrant a spot in the 22 at the moment which is unfortunate, as he looks like a player who is going to benefit from regular appearances in the seniors.

I don't know about everyone else but I'd like to remain competitive this year, throwing half a dozen kids at once will ensure that we're not competitive. Then we really will be like Richmond of years gone by.

Plugger, I for one want the kids to be given a go
You ask which players do we drop :

Crouchy & Monty must go from last week.

What I was referring to at the start is that why just bring back a Luke Ablett.
Play Brett Meridith ,see what he can give in a big game .Why not ?
Play Ryan Brabazon while he is in form , he simply may be better than a Crouch right now. Your right Plugger its who you can bring in.
Its like the many on here who bag LRT and say hes a dud and he cant play and he looks like a knob. Who do you replace them with ???? Its the 64 dollar question.

If Ed or Reg were to be dropped why not give Lewis Johnstone a crack.
This crap that Liz says hes only 18 doesnt sit with me, bloody hell Tim Watson debuted when he was 16 when the game was a bloody real game.
Whilst Lizs knowledge of the game is good she aint always right and In my opinion she aint right here. Hes a bloody footballer ,he can handle it.

Ed Barlow , whilst everyone calls him SOFT etc etc, he isnt soft. Believe me the game requires all to be tough , he lacks intensity at the ball thats all, he needs another chance and so does Reg Grundy as long as its up forward.

You say Daniel Okeefe ? . Why Daniel Okeefe more than Lewis Johnstone ??
He cant string 2 games together and has shown nothing at all to put his name in the ring. Couldnt touch it in the Demons & PA games.
Lewis Johnstone could easily slip in a pocket behind Barry & Reg and just give another avenue at goal. The kid can play, I just dont want to see them hidden away to long in Canberra while some of our older players are just raking up games due to there past achievments.

I havent read anywhere throwing 6 kids in at once.
What I was saying at the start of this thread is give the kids a go.
Being competitive on Saturday night it wasnt.
If that was being competitive your easily pleased , we played well for 20 mins in the Ist quarter and kicked junk goals in the end when it didnt matter
For nearly a half of footy we could barely touch it & didnt kick a goal.
We can be competive still by introducing kids more regularly thats all.

[Robbo]

Barlow plays like a kid.