Roos' obsession with his favourites.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The Roos apologists techniques, print out and put it on your wall:

Ad Hom 1. Insult anyone who criticizes Roos - "turd" is funny.

Ad Hom 2. Insult any opinions that you disagree with - "unmitigated rubbish" and "spew" are particularly good. Be careful not to use logic, examples or any sourced information (all interviews are designed to bring Roos down by hacks*).

Ad Hom 3. Disregard quotes and interviews based on the reporter - *"hack" is a good word to throw in.

Ad Hom 4. Disregard quotes and interviews as being based on the poster's "interpretation" and "simplification" even if there are multiple direct quotes. Use words like "thesaurus" and "disect". This especially good if you go on to explain what Roos "really meant".

And if you feel particularly lazy, here's an easy one:

Claim that discussing Roos' actions and words is trolling, libelous, scandalous and ungrateful.

Oh that seems to have brought a chortle to the belly of the Sanecow groupies, too bad anyone with half a brain realised a long time ago that you cover up your lack of real media knowledge with your primary school sense of humour.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I love it. At various stages during the season when we suffer a bad loss or two we variously get:

The hysterically mindless "we need to start playing some kids NOW!"

The blindingly obvious "Ben Matthews/LRT (substitute other whipping boy) is not up to it and should be dropped"

The boringly standard "clearly blokes are being picked despite being injured"

The over-estimated "other teams have worked us out and we need to change to (fill in tactics suggestion".

Now, of course, these are all reflections on Roos.

But if someone dares questions his motives/tactics/etc and actually uses his name, we get a reverse take on the Monty Python line.

"He's not a very naughty boy, he's just the messiah."

There was more consistency and commonsense on the picket line in 2002.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
Oh that seems to have brought a chortle to the belly of the Sanecow groupies, too bad anyone with half a brain realised a long time ago that you cover up your lack of real media knowledge with your primary school sense of humour.

Well done, a perfect example of Ad Hom 1.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
To quote your quote:


You seem to assume it was in response to a question along the lines of "so, out of all your players, who deserves to win another premiership the most?"

How do you know the question wasn't something like "So how about the 3 co-captains system, Paul? Do you see them winning a premiership each as captain at the club? If so, is that why you've picked up Spida - you think he might be the key?"

And how do you know Roos' response wasn't actually "We've got an obligation to Kirky, Leo and Hally to give them the best chance they possibly can of getting the best out of their final years with the Sydney Swans, and it's the obligation we have to other older players like Mick O'Loughlin, and even Tadhg Kennelly on his last contract with the club." Selectively edited and suddenly you have the spawn of Satan as coach in some people's eyes.

It's the same way the Nick Davis thing could have been started with "So Nick, you've been dropped to the reserves, do you think this makes you a scapegoat for last weekend's performance?" "Yeah, nah, it's one of those things, I have been a bit up and down, but personally I don't think I'm the only one. I guess you could say I've been made into a scapegoat, but by the same token that could be seen as clutching straws." Suddenly you have headlines "I've been made into a scapegoat!" and it goes from there.

A very good post. At last something sensible has been said.

There is no doubt that some are clutching at straws to try and discredit the man who delivered a premiership cup to a club that had a drought for 72 years. Threads like "Roos- sucks to work with" are generated to suggest that he may be an arsehole just because Peter Jonas and Ross Lyon pursue other coaching positions. This sort of crazy logic doesn't cut it when you look at other coaches such as Sheedy for example, who has been at one club for 25 years and delivered 4 premierships. He must really "suck" to work with because in that time the likes of these assistant coaches have left; Neale Daniher, Mark Williams, Dennis Pagan, Robert Shaw, Mark Harvey and Mark Thompson...... It's laughable really

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Well done, a perfect example of Ad Hom 1.

Grass may be green, but just because its green, doesnt mean its grass....

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
You seem to assume it was in response to a question along the lines of "so, out of all your players, who deserves to win another premiership the most?"

How do you know the question wasn't something like "So how about the 3 co-captains system, Paul? Do you see them winning a premiership each as captain at the club? If so, is that why you've picked up Spida - you think he might be the key?"

I'm guessing the question was a more general one as to why he wanted Spida so much.

And how do you know Roos' response wasn't actually "We've got an obligation to Kirky, Leo and Hally to give them the best chance they possibly can of getting the best out of their final years with the Sydney Swans, and it's the obligation we have to other older players like Mick O'Loughlin, and even Tadhg Kennelly on his last contract with the club." Selectively edited and suddenly you have the spawn of Satan as coach in some people's eyes.

Because surely one of the media outlets would have reported that at one stage.

It's the same way the Nick Davis thing could have been started with "So Nick, you've been dropped to the reserves, do you think this makes you a scapegoat for last weekend's performance?" "Yeah, nah, it's one of those things, I have been a bit up and down, but personally I don't think I'm the only one. I guess you could say I've been made into a scapegoat, but by the same token that could be seen as clutching straws." Suddenly you have headlines "I've been made into a scapegoat!" and it goes from there.

This one was a case of a journo asking him if he felt like a scapegoat and he said 'yes, I guess I do'.

[hammo]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
To quote your quote:

You seem to assume it was in response to a question along the lines of "so, out of all your players, who deserves to win another premiership the most?"

No I think it is quite clear that he volunteered the three names because has done it on at least 2 occassions.

[Go Swannies]

"We've got an obligation to Bucks to give him the best chance we possibly can of getting the best out of his final years with Collingwood" Malthouse said.

- would anyone raise an eyebrow at that? Does it mean that he hates the rest of the players or simply that he thinks his captain is worthy of special mention?

Likewise, would it be disrespect if Mick decided that Buckley retiring was the end of an era - his era - and it was time to stand down as coach? Or would it be regarded as fitting that both left together and a suitable changing of the guard?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
There is no doubt that some are clutching at straws to try and discredit the man who delivered a premiership cup to a club that had a drought for 72 years.

It's interesting that on one hand Roos is claimed not to even be in charge of recruiting (by DST, despite Roos' statements otherwise) but when it suits, he singlehandedly brought home a flag. Sure he coached us to a Premiership, but does that mean he doesn't make mistakes? Does that necessarily mean he is a good coworker or manager? Does it mean he is making every decision correctly?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Threads like "Roos- sucks to work with"

No such thread.

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
are generated to suggest that he may be an arsehole just because Peter Jonas and Ross Lyon pursue other coaching positions.

All three Assistant Coaches attempt to jump ship from a team that has made back to back Grand Finals and you don't hear alarm bells? Do you want to buy the opera house, because I can sell it to you cheap.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
"We've got an obligation to Bucks to give him the best chance we possibly can of getting the best out of his final years with Collingwood" Malthouse said.

- would anyone raise an eyebrow at that? Does it mean that he hates the rest of the players or simply that he thinks his captain is worthy of special mention?

Likewise, would it be disrespect if Mick decided that Buckley retiring was the end of an era - his era - and it was time to stand down as coach? Or would it be regarded as fitting that both left together and a suitable changing of the guard?

My view is that Buckley is clearly a standout at Collingwood. The three players Roos continually mentions are not.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
It's interesting that on one hand Roos is claimed not to even be in charge of recruiting but when it suits, he singlehandedly brought home a flag.

This is always my favourite.

[AnnieH]

I've tried to be quiet. God help me, I've tried!!

As far as I'm concerned, not making Goodsey the captain for 2007 (the ONLY dual brownlow medalist not to be captain of ANY team) makes Roosey (and therefore the rest of the club) the laughing stock of the competition. IN MY OPINION (before you all jump down my throat for DARING to have one).

IMO, that's the first error in judgement Roosey's made that I have most concern with.

IMO, the second error in judgement was to single out three players for "special treatments", i.e. we're gunna work really hard for these three so that they can win another premiership medal before they die, blah blah, etc. etc.

I do believe the ONLY player that also played for Sydney in 1996 was Micky O.

I think Micky O deserves another premiership medal BEFORE the three co-captains.

Thanks for listening.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Sanecow
It's interesting that on one hand Roos is claimed not to even be in charge of recruiting (by DST, despite Roos' statements otherwise) but when it suits, he singlehandedly brought home a flag. Sure he coached us to a Premiership, but does that mean he doesn't make mistakes? Does that necessarily mean he is a good coworker or manager? Does it mean he is making every decision correctly?



No such thread.



All three Assistant Coaches attempt to jump ship from a team that has made back to back Grand Finals and you don't hear alarm bells? Do you want to buy the opera house, because I can sell it to you cheap.

So which club has their coach in charge of recruiting? That's why they all have recruiting officers, for recruiting, not? Have you ever seen a recruiting officer up on the dias holding the premiership cup aloft in any Grand Final? Nup, all glory goes to the coach and players. Perhaps the club doctor or the team physio or the club psychologist may want a piece of the cup as well.....So I guess John Worsfold is just as bad, I mean, who recruited all his premiership players?

No such thread.......sorry I Forgot the "?". Wouldn't want to clutch at straws again would we?

Alarm bells because 3 assistant coaches want to pursue other coaching positions? Bid deal, one actually returned. Does that mean Roos is great to work with? Come off it, every club see a turnover of assistant coaches during the tenure of a longer term head coach. Care to comment on the very long list of assistant coaches that jumped ship from Essendon?

In saying all of that, I am not saying that Roos is perfect, or that his management style is superb. I am saying that he is successful.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
It's interesting that on one hand Roos is claimed not to even be in charge of recruiting (by DST, despite Roos' statements otherwise) but when it suits, he singlehandedly brought home a flag.

It's also interesting that you claim he is in charge of recruiting(ie spida was chased to serve his own ends even if the decision was made through the "empowered" leadership group -the big three- that he has planted), but when it suits he has not single handedly brought home a flag.

It is not a one man show, there are other coaches, high performance staff, medical, playing group, etc, etc. but those things dont fall in line with out the man at the top doing something right.

Sure he coached us to a Premiership, but does that mean he doesn't make mistakes? Does that necessarily mean he is a good coworker or manager? Does it mean he is making every decision correctly?

Who do you know that makes every decision correctly? (Not even Goodesy can do that.......)

However, it does mean he is a good manager. Every premiership, or otherwise successful coach is a good manager. That is the nature of the beast. Of course there are differing degrees, and different styles, but to get to the top in a competitive industry, you are almost invariably good at what you do. (Obvious exceptions in popular culture such as Spice girls, etc)

He is not immune to criticism, but to suggest that he is hijacking the club to serve out his own and the big threes best interests is far fetched.

At what point do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

Give it up Walls.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
As far as I'm concerned, not making Goodsey the captain for 2007 (the ONLY dual brownlow medalist not to be captain of ANY team) makes Roosey (and therefore the rest of the club) the laughing stock of the competition. IN MY OPINION (before you all jump down my throat for DARING to have one).

IMO, that's the first error in judgement Roosey's made that I have most concern with.

IMO, the second error in judgement was to single out three players for "special treatments", i.e. we're gunna work really hard for these three so that they can win another premiership medal before they die, blah blah, etc. etc.

Not even I think Goodesy should be captain.......!?!

I'm not sure you could say it was an error of judgement? He will be captain in time anyhow - he is still a leader without the sheriffs badge and the captaincy for mine is more about getting the most from your leaders and team dynamics than rewarding your best player.

I still dont agree with the walls interpretation of the "big three". I took the comment at the time to mean that we are a more realistic chance to have a tilt at the flag with those players playing, so we owe it to them to have a crack while they are still playing. The same as Eade might say for west, grant, johnson, darcy....I hardly think that that would cause waves.

But as you say - just my opinion.