Hinds slams RWO.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by ScottH
The latter.

Yep...me too.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Wardy
exactly - and I dont recall anyone seriously asking for Roos to be sacked, they just wanted him to behonest and up front. It is well documented that I thought Davis was being treated unfairly when you consider he had a gag placed upon him for saying a few words (and before any of you start "what about this and that.........yes I have heard the rumblings as well that there were other reasons - they still havent been 100% confirmed nor divulged so as the matter can be put to rest - the rumours are still out there) But Roos got on TV night after night and bagged Davis - Davis had to just take it - then Kirk gets his mug on and his holier than thou act about trust, respect etc - Well I dont want either Roos or Kirk to be sacked, but I would like to see fairness & not playing favourites - Would Roos take the same line if Kirk was out of sorts and playing like a girl ?- I doubt it, and it is true Davis did save our season last year with seconds to spare - because lets face it no one else kicked goals for us in that final quarter against Geelong, Boltons 1 & 2 tried, they missed, Davis got em through the big sticks.

I agree with this completely.

One thing about the "Bloods" ethos that puzzles me. Lirl talks about un-bloods like behaviour by Davis. Wasn't it "un-bloodslike" to have a brilliant individual last quarter against Geelong in the SF, that won us the game? In that instance, Nick played for the team by being an individual. I for one will be eternally grateful to him for that, as I will be eternally grateful to Roosy for coaching us to the premiership.

I think Davis has been unfairly singled out, and I don't care what the rumours say. Equally I don't think Roos should be sacked. I simply disagree with the decision that he has made on this occasion. It's what happens in life.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I first started doubting RWO polls after this unlikely result.

Tim Burton's very popular...

[adnar]

Originally posted by hammo
Why is that?

Hiding an injury from the club so he could play even though he was unfit, presumably to protect his record. Surely he has done the same thing as Davis except Crouch made a much more concerted effort to play when not up to it, surely that's not putting the group before the player.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Equally I don't think Roos should be sacked. I simply disagree with the decision that he has made on this occasion.

I have said numerous times that I think Roos is a smug, arrogant @@@@@ of a man. I have also said that I think he is a great coach. I have made similar comments re Kirk, though I do think he is over rated as a player, but important to the team nonetheless. A number of people here get over excited when anyone makes what is considered to be a 'negative' statement. FFS, Roos and his match committee, the leadership group and the football department are fallible (or did Spriggs, Ted and Chambers just turn up and ask for a game?). My beef is not so much with the decision to drop Davis (which I found odd admitedly given the poor form of some others) but the way he was treated. It seems that on RWO, to be critical at all of Roos or Kirk is a criminal offence. As for turning against them, well, I have disliked the sods from the start.

The 'bloods' bulldust is bulldust. I expected professional footy clubs to be beyond that sort of bollocks but it just goes to show that if a player (or players) of mediocre skills gain enough popularity and influence in a club they can dictate the prevailing ideology of that club. All the bloods ethos shows is Kirk's political capabilities are so well developed that the dominant ideology at the club is work ethic > skill. Of course Roos would do nothing but foster it, because it elevates his reputation as coach - not only as the man that brought a group of 'blue collar' battlers to the top, but also the man that instills the discipline and ethic to do it. And of course, the club loves it and will do nothing to retard it. The 'spirit of bloods' evokes imagined memories of times past, and provides a link back to the past that Sydney Football Club does not really have - the 2 cities one dream crap. All of which leads to increased membership and merchandise sales.

This is not a conspiracy, this is how the dominant ideology becomes the dominant ideology. It takes its opportunities when they present themselves. It grows when the environment is ready for it. It does all it can to choke out the opposition. It sets itself up as right, and as common sense. To say that the club won last year because of the bloods spirit is a nonsense. It is an insult to 15 other hard working teams. It is an insult to 70 odd years of Swans teams. Premierships come because of a heap of thing, amongst them hard work, but also talent, good fortune, opportunism and self confidence. To say the spirit of the bloods won Sydney the premiership is foolish. To say that it played no part is equally so.

As regards Hinds... let's just say he will never get a game at Sydney because of a certain policy. Of course the poll was flawed. I think I stared it. It was not a Roos OR Davis poll, it was intended to see where sympathies were located. Hinds, is like some of the ignorant that pollute these forums, eager to see everything in terms of black and white, right and wrong - quite simply, desperate for a dominant ideology to call their own.

[Snowy]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I have said numerous times that I think Roos is a smug, arrogant @@@@@ of a man. I have also said that I think he is a great coach. I have made similar comments re Kirk, though I do think he is over rated as a player, but important to the team nonetheless. A number of people here get over excited when anyone makes what is considered to be a 'negative' statement. FFS, Roos and his match committee, the leadership group and the football department are fallible (or did Spriggs, Ted and Chambers just turn up and ask for a game?). My beef is not so much with the decision to drop Davis (which I found odd admitedly given the poor form of some others) but the way he was treated. It seems that on RWO, to be critical at all of Roos or Kirk is a criminal offence. As for turning against them, well, I have disliked the sods from the start.

The 'bloods' bulldust is bulldust. I expected professional footy clubs to be beyond that sort of bollocks but it just goes to show that if a player (or players) of mediocre skills gain enough popularity and influence in a club they can dictate the prevailing ideology of that club. All the bloods ethos shows is Kirk's political capabilities are so well developed that the dominant ideology at the club is work ethic > skill. Of course Roos would do nothing but foster it, because it elevates his reputation as coach - not only as the man that brought a group of 'blue collar' battlers to the top, but also the man that instills the discipline and ethic to do it. And of course, the club loves it and will do nothing to retard it. The 'spirit of bloods' evokes imagined memories of times past, and provides a link back to the past that Sydney Football Club does not really have - the 2 cities one dream crap. All of which leads to increased membership and merchandise sales.

This is not a conspiracy, this is how the dominant ideology becomes the dominant ideology. It takes its opportunities when they present themselves. It grows when the environment is ready for it. It does all it can to choke out the opposition. It sets itself up as right, and as common sense. To say that the club won last year because of the bloods spirit is a nonsense. It is an insult to 15 other hard working teams. It is an insult to 70 odd years of Swans teams. Premierships come because of a heap of thing, amongst them hard work, but also talent, good fortune, opportunism and self confidence. To say the spirit of the bloods won Sydney the premiership is foolish. To say that it played no part is equally so.

As regards Hinds... let's just say he will never get a game at Sydney because of a certain policy. Of course the poll was flawed. I think I stared it. It was not a Roos OR Davis poll, it was intended to see where sympathies were located. Hinds, is like some of the ignorant that pollute these forums, eager to see everything in terms of black and white, right and wrong - quite simply, desperate for a dominant ideology to call their own.

Fair rant.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I have said numerous times that I think Roos is a smug, arrogant @@@@@ of a man. I have also said that I think he is a great coach. I have made similar comments re Kirk, though I do think he is over rated as a player, but important to the team nonetheless. A number of people here get over excited when anyone makes what is considered to be a 'negative' statement. FFS, Roos and his match committee, the leadership group and the football department are fallible (or did Spriggs, Ted and Chambers just turn up and ask for a game?). My beef is not so much with the decision to drop Davis (which I found odd admitedly given the poor form of some others) but the way he was treated. It seems that on RWO, to be critical at all of Roos or Kirk is a criminal offence. As for turning against them, well, I have disliked the sods from the start.

The 'bloods' bulldust is bulldust. I expected professional footy clubs to be beyond that sort of bollocks but it just goes to show that if a player (or players) of mediocre skills gain enough popularity and influence in a club they can dictate the prevailing ideology of that club. All the bloods ethos shows is Kirk's political capabilities are so well developed that the dominant ideology at the club is work ethic > skill. Of course Roos would do nothing but foster it, because it elevates his reputation as coach - not only as the man that brought a group of 'blue collar' battlers to the top, but also the man that instills the discipline and ethic to do it. And of course, the club loves it and will do nothing to retard it. The 'spirit of bloods' evokes imagined memories of times past, and provides a link back to the past that Sydney Football Club does not really have - the 2 cities one dream crap. All of which leads to increased membership and merchandise sales.

This is not a conspiracy, this is how the dominant ideology becomes the dominant ideology. It takes its opportunities when they present themselves. It grows when the environment is ready for it. It does all it can to choke out the opposition. It sets itself up as right, and as common sense. To say that the club won last year because of the bloods spirit is a nonsense. It is an insult to 15 other hard working teams. It is an insult to 70 odd years of Swans teams. Premierships come because of a heap of thing, amongst them hard work, but also talent, good fortune, opportunism and self confidence. To say the spirit of the bloods won Sydney the premiership is foolish. To say that it played no part is equally so.

As regards Hinds... let's just say he will never get a game at Sydney because of a certain policy. Of course the poll was flawed. I think I stared it. It was not a Roos OR Davis poll, it was intended to see where sympathies were located. Hinds, is like some of the ignorant that pollute these forums, eager to see everything in terms of black and white, right and wrong - quite simply, desperate for a dominant ideology to call their own.

There's a fair bit that I agree with in this ROK, but also some bits that I don't. But that's what makes the discussions here so good, we can disagree without having to toe the "club" line. I think we all know what I think about Kirk as a person, but it doesn't make me any less of a supporter than someone who thinks the sun shines out of his bum.

[Legs Akimbo]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
This is not a conspiracy, this is how the dominant ideology becomes the dominant ideology. It takes its opportunities when they present themselves. It grows when the environment is ready for it. It does all it can to choke out the opposition. It sets itself up as right, and as common sense. To say that the club won last year because of the bloods spirit is a nonsense. It is an insult to 15 other hard working teams. It is an insult to 70 odd years of Swans teams. Premierships come because of a heap of thing, amongst them hard work, but also talent, good fortune, opportunism and self confidence. To say the spirit of the bloods won Sydney the premiership is foolish. To say that it played no part is equally so.

Get with the times Mr Lobster, it's not an ideology, it's a BRAND man...

The "not all players are equal declaration" was one important step. Another, argues McLean, was for Roos to allow the team to adopt its own "BRAND", with a young player suggesting the old South Melbourne nickname the Bloods and the team adding "key words and behaviours that were associated" with it.

Seriously, how can one not shudder...

[BeeEmmAre]

Re: Hinds slams RWO.

Originally posted by ugg
That not only shows how fickle and short-sighted fans - of any sport and club - can be. [/URL]

Based on the crap that was written here when we weren't going as well as we are now - this particular comment is right on the money for many 'supporters' of our club.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Hinds slams RWO.

Originally posted by BeeEmmAre
Based on the crap that was written here when we weren't going as well as we are now - this particular comment is right on the money for many 'supporters' of our club.

Pffft - you'd hardly know bad times...

[giant]

I laughed when I read this article - and then I cringed. Because I remembered how I felt when they published the "results" of this definitive poll and how petty it made all Swans supporters look.

Of course the bloody poll was flawed - but that didn't stop the bastards publishing it. To now suggets it's flawed is hypocrisy of the highest order. But then RWO can hardly point the finger at a journo for that...

[Doctor J.]

Originally posted by goswannie14
There's a fair bit that I agree with in this ROK, but also some bits that I don't. But that's what makes the discussions here so good, we can disagree without having to toe the "club" line. I think we all know what I think about Kirk as a person, but it doesn't make me any less of a supporter than someone who thinks the sun shines out of his bum.

And you know him so well that you are able to pass judgement on him as a person?

When did this happen?

[Bart]

Originally posted by giant
I laughed when I read this article - and then I cringed. Because I remembered how I felt when they published the "results" of this definitive poll and how petty it made all Swans supporters look.

I think its more a reflection of what this site has become. It's reflected in Des' post on the future of this site, the absence of many long time posters as well as the general quality and sheer number of posts, many of which say nothing, are little "in jokes" (sorry, some posts between posters should be PMs as they are over my head) or snide comments by those who have jobs that allow them stay on-line all day.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Doctor J.
And you know him so well that you are able to pass judgement on him as a person?

When did this happen?

It's an opinion, and although differing opinions may be banned at the club they are certainly not banned on RWO.

I assume from this post that you have never judged/formed an opinion of anyone before without knowing them personally.

[Bart]

Originally posted by goswannie14
It's an opinion, and although differing opinions may be banned at the club they are certainly not banned on RWO.

This article http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20094962%255E28257,00.html that you praised in another thread puts paid to this ridiculous myth that "opinions may be banned at the club". The truth could not be more different. The system in place allows all players to tell exactly what their opinion of each other is

Originally posted by goswannie14
I assume from this post that you have never judged/formed an opinion of anyone before without knowing them personally.

Person/Player, very different things. From what I've read about him Kirk seems like a quality bloke.