radical ideas

[Charlie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
Charlie, how is it scapegoating to single out three blokes who are permanently injured or lack the confidence of the senior team's coaches, regardless of the rights or wrong of their circumstances?

Simple. If the team was winning, there would not be any posts demanding mid-season delistings (which, incidentally, aren't even possible). These players have been selected as easy targets to delist so that the club can be seen to be doing something in the face of their... gasp... 2-4 win/loss ratio.

The fact that these players have not been responsible for the poor performances in the past six weeks (by virtue of the fact that they haven't played) appears to be overlooked.

Charlie, how is it stupid to single out three blokes who have been on the list four or five years and offered nothing more than a couple of good games here and there?

Because to suggest it in round seven is myopic, counter-productive and reactionary in the extreme. There is nothing to be gained by delisting these players (even if it were possible).

Charlie, single out the flaw in the posts original proposition - that is, promote one or two rookies to replace a couple of permanently injured players.

This wasn't the post's proposition at all. I'm assuming you're referring to Midaro's post, btw - the first post was completely different, whilst Midaro's is different only by degree.

Midaro's suggestion that three players be delisted to promote three players is unnecessary. Two players can be promoted regardless. There is very little, if any, chance that all three would come close to selection in any case. Like the opening post in the thread, it would be reaction for reaction's sake. Pointless, unprofessional and the kind of tomfoolery that turns clubs into laughing stocks.

Who's scapegoating and who's stupid?

Consider the practicalities of the suggestions, then answer these questions for yourself.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Charlie
Simple. If the team was winning, there would not be any posts demanding mid-season delistings (which, incidentally, aren't even possible). These players have been selected as easy targets to delist so that the club can be seen to be doing something in the face of their... gasp... 2-4 win/loss ratio.


But they aren't winning. I think most stuff on here is posted in panic, but we have a chronic, structural and skills based problem.


The fact that these players have not been responsible for the poor performances in the past six weeks (by virtue of the fact that they haven't played) appears to be overlooked.

They aren't responsible for any performances. They either aren't good enough or fit enough to play.

Because to suggest it in round seven is myopic, counter-productive and reactionary in the extreme. There is nothing to be gained by delisting these players (even if it were possible).

As I said, it isn't panic - it is a recognition of the structural and skills based problems

This wasn't the post's proposition at all. I'm assuming you're referring to Midaro's post, btw - the first post was completely different, whilst Midaro's is different only by degree.

Midaro's suggestion that three players be delisted to promote three players is unnecessary. Two players can be promoted regardless. There is very little, if any, chance that all three would come close to selection in any case. Like the opening post in the thread, it would be reaction for reaction's sake. Pointless, unprofessional and the kind of tomfoolery that turns clubs into laughing stocks.

No - i responded to your post.

Consider the practicalities of the suggestions, then answer these questions for yourself.

[i'm-uninformed2]

technological problems aside, i'd love to know charlie whether you agree with the basic principle of whether those three players are worth carrying on our list. i say no

[NMWBloods]

I can see virtually no reason in keeping them on our list.

If we can delist them now, we might as well do it now as at the end of the year.

If we can't do it now, then obviously we can't so there really isn't any need to discuss the proposition at all.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
technological problems aside, i'd love to know charlie whether you agree with the basic principle of whether those three players are worth carrying on our list. i say no

It's beside the point. I feel it is too early in the season to be making such judgments.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Originally posted by Charlie
It's beside the point. I feel it is too early in the season to be making such judgments.

Why? Doyle's situation we know, Fixter's permanently injured and we have a backline crisis and James still cant get the confidence of the coaches..

We know the story.

Express an opinion, thats what the site is about.

[chammond]

Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
Why? Doyle's situation we know, Fixter's permanently injured and we have a backline crisis and James still cant get the confidence of the coaches..

We know the story.

Express an opinion, thats what the site is about.

I'm struggling with the premise for this thread . . . are you suggesting that we force these players to retire because they are injured?

I realise that catharsis is probably the most important function of this board, but isn't this a bit wasteful?

Much better to just arrange to have the three of them publicly executed before the start of the Bombers game . . . should at least guarantee a big crowd??

[i'm-uninformed2]

Originally posted by chammond
I'm struggling with the premise for this thread . . . are you suggesting that we force these players to retire because they are injured?

I realise that catharsis is probably the most important function of this board, but isn't this a bit wasteful?

Much better to just arrange to have the three of them publicly executed before the start of the Bombers game . . . should at least guarantee a big crowd??

I'm debating the same point I originally debated when I joined this post - which players have the potential to carry the club forward.

My view is Doyle and Fixter can't because of constant injuries, and injury ruined any potential James had to be a good player.

I still haven't seen a coherent, sustainable argument in favour of the three players mentioned.

[gazza]

gee,some of you get very emotional.we are talking about professionals who sell their football ability for money.if they can't provide that ability what use are they?i didn't suggest de-listing or promotion of individuals i said RETIREMENT,arrange a package and say goodbye,happens all the time in the commercial world.none of these 3 will EVER provide any value to the club in the future.
as for o'loughlin and schauble,since when have one legged,hobbling slow players been part of the a team?whilst they are glued to the goalsquare their opponents are running free creating more problems for the rest of the team.

IT'S A TOUGH BUSINESS,PRO FOOTBALL

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by gazza
gee,some of you get very emotional.

That would be a major understatement - in some cases you would think you suggested that we kill all their family and force them to work on chain gangs...

God forbid anyone question the ability of people getting paid six figure sums to play a game, the purpose of which is to entertain supporters...