Roos - off with his head

[kenswan]

Re: Re: Get rid of Roos

Originally posted by Schneiderman

You could always be a Richmond supporter if you wish. They had a very exciting "style" as part of their 57 point schallacking last night. [/B]

The way the players play is due to the way they are coached. Playing games like we are doing is pointless.

[Swansinger]

Re: Re: Re: Get rid of Roos

Originally posted by kenswan
The way the players play is due to the way they are coached. Playing games like we are doing is pointless.

Well , yes , they are responsible for implementing the coach's strategy.

Strategy , though , is totally unrelated to execution of the basic skills.

It was not Roos , but Bolton , who kicked straight to a Saints player.
It was not Roos , but Buchanan , who missed a sitter.
It was not Roos who turned the ball over so often.
I am sure he was tearing his hair out at some of the errors last night.

My English Premier League side , Southampton , have just been relegated after 27 years in the top division.
There ARE some fans who want the coach to go.
The majority , however , do not lay the blame at his door.
They realise he did his best with a squad of limited ability.

Really , how many people wanted Roos out after we beat both last year's grand finalists?

Really , how many people think Roos will fail to recognise the shortcomings in the players and , yes , in himself - and address them ?

This "Roos out" mentality is all a bit American ... and , I'm sorry to say , a bit "Sydney" as well.

[ROK Lobster]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get rid of Roos

Originally posted by Swansinger
Really , how many people think Roos will fail to recognise the shortcomings in himself - and address them ?

Me.

[Nico]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get rid of Roos

Originally posted by Swansinger
Well , yes , they are responsible for implementing the coach's strategy.

Strategy , though , is totally unrelated to execution of the basic skills.

It was not Roos , but Bolton , who kicked straight to a Saints player.
It was not Roos , but Buchanan , who missed a sitter.
It was not Roos who turned the ball over so often.
I am sure he was tearing his hair out at some of the errors last night.

My English Premier League side , Southampton , have just been relegated after 27 years in the top division.
There ARE some fans who want the coach to go.
The majority , however , do not lay the blame at his door.
They realise he did his best with a squad of limited ability.



Really , how many people wanted Roos out after we beat both last year's grand finalists?

Really , how many people think Roos will fail to recognise the shortcomings in the players and , yes , in himself - and address them ?

This "Roos out" mentality is all a bit American ... and , I'm sorry to say , a bit "Sydney" as well.

He must now recognise that what he thinks is a good game plan is now defunct. Will he have the courage to admit this, if not prepared to admit it, just change it and get on with winning some games.

[robbieando]

Roos' problem is that he was stupid enough to read "Moneyball" and as a result decide that he could take some of the ideas out of that book and use them with the Swans.

Moneyball for those who haven't read it or don't have a clue about it, is basically a book about the Oakland A's baseball team and how they use mid level talent to make the playoffs each year because they can't afford the top tier talent like the Yankees and the Red Sox. It also explains how Oakland draft players.

They don't draft players out of high school because they are high risks of not turning out to being any good, while the College players the A's select are less of a risk because the talent and stats they showed at College Level is more likely to translate to Pro Baseball. With the drafting of Luke Vogels, Guy Campbell and even our selection of David Spriggs is an example of Roos belief in the Moneyball idea of a 21 year olds talent is more developed than a 17/18 year olds.

So basically the Swans under Roos are being built and played like the Oakland A's. A team full of mid level talent and the one top tier player getting into the finals each season.

Problem is the moral to the Moneyball Story..............













................the Oakland A's always go out in the first round of the playoffs. Gee sounds familar

[Newbie]

It would not surprise me if we somewhat play well in the last four or five games and get a respectable position at the end of the season. Then the supporters would be screaming when there are reports that we are considering trading off Crouch, Mathews and those alike. It happened before and it will happen again.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Newbie
It would not surprise me if we somewhat play well in the last four or five games and get a respectable position at the end of the season. Then the supporters would be screaming when there are reports that we are considering trading off Crouch, Mathews and those alike. It happened before and it will happen again.

So very true. We can't trade our mid range talent can we, the fans love them so much

[Charlie]

Originally posted by robbieando
So very true. We can't trade our mid range talent can we, the fans love them so much

Hall - untouchable.
Davis - almost untouchable.
McVeigh - preferably not.
Mathews - tradeable.
O'Keefe - tradeable, maybe. I had him as a category one during the off-season, not at the moment.
Bolton - tradeable, needs to be a pretty good trade because his value to the team exceeds his market value.
Willoughby - would rather see what he has to offer first.
Spriggs - name your price.
Fixter - zero market value.
Williams - untouchable.
Maxfield - zero market value.
Fosdike - name your price.
Schneider - tradeable.
Doyle - very low market value, more value to the team.
Kennelly - almost untouchable.
James - zero market value.
O'Loughlin - untouchable.
Ablett - preferably not, but not out of the question.
Barry - untouchable.
Saddington - tradeable.
Nicks - zero market value.
Bolton - would have to be a surprisingly good trade. Almost untouchable.
Schauble - you'd think untouchable. But then, you'd think he'd be in the team.
Dempster - preferably not.
Ball - zero market value.
Crouch - tradeable, woud need to be a good trade.
Powell - zero market value.
Roberts-Thomson - tradeable, low market value.
Kirk - untouchable.
Buchanan - tradeable, low market value.
Moore - preferably not.
Sundqvist - zero market value.
Schmidt - See Willoughby.
Goodes - untouchable.
Vogels - preferably not.
Malceski - zero market value, but see Willoughby.
Erickson - as per Willoughby.
Bevan - tradeable.
Davis - as per Willoughby.

Would this break-down make you happy? In practical terms, we're not going to trade any more than one or two mid-level players, because there will be a clean-out.

[Diego]

Originally posted by robbieando
Roos' problem is that he was stupid enough to read "Moneyball" and as a result decide that he could take some of the ideas out of that book and use them with the Swans.

Moneyball for those who haven't read it or don't have a clue about it, is basically a book about the Oakland A's baseball team and how they use mid level talent to make the playoffs each year because they can't afford the top tier talent like the Yankees and the Red Sox. It also explains how Oakland draft players.

They don't draft players out of high school because they are high risks of not turning out to being any good, while the College players the A's select are less of a risk because the talent and stats they showed at College Level is more likely to translate to Pro Baseball. With the drafting of Luke Vogels, Guy Campbell and even our selection of David Spriggs is an example of Roos belief in the Moneyball idea of a 21 year olds talent is more developed than a 17/18 year olds.

So basically the Swans under Roos are being built and played like the Oakland A's. A team full of mid level talent and the one top tier player getting into the finals each season.

Problem is the moral to the Moneyball Story..............













................the Oakland A's always go out in the first round of the playoffs. Gee sounds familar

If thats the case and i believe it is, then Roos needs to go. How can you base or structure a team around a stradegy thay has proven to not work?

How about instead of aiming for a top 8 spot we just think about winning a flag for a change. The main objective is winning a flag and do what ever they can to achieve this. Finishing 6-8th is just going two steps forward one step back.

To think Roos had so much to offer when he announced his 5 year plan.

[Newbie]

We should have traded some off last year. It is too late now. Our turnover for last year was very low (with Jolly and Moore were only real new faces). We should have been much more proactive. This is why we are stucking with this same group of players at the moment.

PS: we cant trade Vogels, Charlie. He is a rookie .

[Mark]

Originally posted by robbieando
Roos' problem is that he was stupid enough to read "Moneyball" and as a result decide that he could take some of the ideas out of that book and use them with the Swans.

Geez you talk some turd !

You know this because ?

or are you, yet again, bignoting yourself about something which you have no idea

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
Geez you talk some turd !

You know this because ?

or are you, yet again, bignoting yourself about something which you have no idea

Err... he knows it because Roos said it himself?!?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
Err... he knows it because Roos said it himself?!?

I think you will find he said absolutely nothing like the drivel written in the post.

As usual it was pure bignoting fiction

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Mark
You know this because ?

Paul Roos admitted to reading Moneyball and gaining some ideas from it in a newspaper article before the draft last year. Copies of the book have been handed around by staff at other clubs including at Carlton another club that has taken a different approach to drafting and building their squad.

or are you, yet again, bignoting yourself about something which you have no idea

Seeing as I have read Moneyball, unlike yourself, I know what the book is about and therefore I'm perfectly placed to comment upon the book and the belief that ideas from the book can be used in the AFL. I can also understand what "ideas" Roos could of got from the book in terms of drafting and building a side that can make the finals.

Maybe you should read Moneyball and see if what I've said is true or not before deciding what I said is worthy or not of your high standards in regards to posting on this site. So at this moment it is you who is clearly the one who is bignoting himself about something which you clearly have no idea about.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
I think you will find he said absolutely nothing like the drivel written in the post.

As usual it was pure bignoting fiction

Really? Let's see... he's done his research (ie, read the book), made the hypothesis (ie, what Roos has taken from the book), and, lo and behold, the evidence (ie, what the Swans have done in the past couple of years) actually supports his argument!

BTW - why the need for the abuse? He is at least looking for answers... you're sniping from the sidelines.