Roos' obsession with his favourites.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
No such thread.......sorry I Forgot the "?". Wouldn't want to clutch at straws again would we?

The ? implies a question and not a statement. It's a massive difference.

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Alarm bells because 3 assistant coaches want to pursue other coaching positions? Bid deal, one actually returned.

Only because he didn't get the job.

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
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.

Of course. Any one of them wanting to leave wouldn't have drawn comment. But all three in one year?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Care to comment on the very long list of assistant coaches that jumped ship from Essendon?

Not really. I have little interest in Sheedy and I don't doubt that he's a pain in the arse to work with.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
Who do you know that makes every decision correctly?

I don't know him personally, but Paul Roos apparently.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I don't know him personally, but Paul Roos apparently.

Apparently?

The only one suggesting that is you.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
Apparently?

The only one suggesting that is you.

So what the @@@@ is with the attack when someone suggests he's made a mistake?

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
So what the @@@@ is with the attack when someone suggests he's made a mistake?

The problem is you're not suggesting he made a mistake.

You're effectively suggesting that his ideology in empowering both the players, coaches, etc and 'favouring' the big three is based on fluffing his own feathers and making his cv look good.
Again, I think that line of thinking is fairly far fetched. Hence my comparisons between you and walls.

I dont give roos all the credit for where the club has gone (as per my previous post) and there are other if not more significant people in the process (see Ray McLean, Maxfield, Kirk, coaches, etc) but as the person who oversees all this, Roos has had a role to either veto or encourage whatever action, and I feel for the best part he has taken the correct route.

[j s]

Originally posted by Sanecow
2400+ posts and you think discussing the coach of your team is boring. Mmm.

Only what I consider pointless discussion, where the arguments (both sides) are based on supposition. Essentially this thread is theological, not analytical or factual.

(Pity all those sandpit posts don't count)

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
You're effectively suggesting that his ideology in empowering both the players, coaches, etc and 'favouring' the big three is based on fluffing his own feathers and making his cv look good.

Uh, no. I don't think he gives a crap about his CV. He's flippantly told hack journo's a number of times that he's not a career coach.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Uh, no. I don't think he gives a crap about his CV. He's flippantly told hack journo's a number of times that he's not a career coach.

Then what is the point of raising the issue that he plans to ride into the sunset when the big three hand up their boots?

Or suggesting that he is looking at short terms interests for the sake of those players?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
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 I don't believe that there is a conspiracy amongst the journalistic profession to manipulate Roos' statements to create discussion on RWO.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
Then what is the point of raising the issue that he plans to ride into the sunset when the big three hand up their boots?

Or suggesting that he is looking at short terms interests for the sake of those players?

Two points to consider are:

1. When Roos and his three mates are gone and no longer give a tinker's cuss, some of us will still be Swans supporters and some of the team will be struggling to compete without a decent ruckman or kpp that we might have picked up instead of Spida.

2. Roos wanting three particular players to play in the finals means that he is not necessarily picking the best team on the day. This reduces our chances of winning these games.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
Turd.

It seems as if RWO is the kitty litter of the football world.ATM

[Industrial Fan]

Two responses:

1. When the three are gone, what would you prefer to look back on, further premierships in that time, or middle of the road finishes? I dont feel that we are condemned to a poor future because we traded for spida - EVEN if the basis of that trade was purely to help the big three be more successful.

2. Roos openly stated he wanted Maxfield to play in 2005, and said it was a shame we couldnt carry him just as a passenger on the bench. This has to be some sort of precedent against what you are suggesting. Yes, we can wheel out the "But some players played injured!" line, but some carried injuries all year, and the team got us to a grand final. There is a fine line between putting your best team and best players on the field, but I guess you listen to the medical staff (who, can take credit for our success) and take their advice on who can and cant play thier role.

There is still enough uncertainty in your claims to suggest that Roos should be given the benefit of the doubt. I called him a fool when we traded our first pick for an essendon reject, howled when he gave away our first pick for the melbourne second string ruck....but he is still running a successful show.

You dont want Roos to have cake, or eat it too.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
1. When the three are gone, what would you prefer to look back on, further premierships in that time, or middle of the road finishes? I dont feel that we are condemned to a poor future because we traded for spida - EVEN if the basis of that trade was purely to help the big three be more successful.

Obviously I would love more Premierships but I fear there may be more finals losses as the team attempts to carry specific named players through despite their condition. Nurturing greater depth in the playing list so that we don't have to play injured players would be an alternative approach.

I am as excited about Spida as I was about Dermie (genuinely!). I just hope it works out better this time.

[Industrial Fan]

I think we need to have a hug........

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Because I don't believe that there is a conspiracy amongst the journalistic profession to manipulate Roos' statements to create discussion on RWO.

No, but there is a big need to get entice readership for their publications and if the names Hall, Kirk and Barry sell more papers than the names Kennelly, O'Loughlin etc, then they will obviously focus on keeping those names at the fore, won't they? And leaving out choice bits of quote that take up column space but don't produce readership is one way to do that. You have no idea what he actually said in and around that particular quote - he could have spoken for 10 minutes straight (approx 700 words if you go by the standard 70 spoken words per minute theory) and they decided only that single line (what, 30-odd words, 5% of his total comment/s?) was worthy of making their story look good.