Roos' obsession with his favourites.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
So, by that line of thinking, if Aker had picked up a second Brownlow, Leigh would have made the Lions a laughing stock if he hadn't dumped Voss to appoint Aker captain?

Now that would have lit up Big Footy.

Hells bells ... there is a MASSIVELY huge difference between Goodsey and W*nkermanis ... the former is captain material, the latter is not.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Complete rubbish

Ad Hom 2!

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Players like Buckley, Hird and Voss are occasionally singled out by their coaches because they have been at their clubs for a long period of time, are recognised as standout captains, are recognised as standout players in their club (eg: Brownlow medals), and they are just a single player.

Once you start naming more than a single player and when there are longer-serving players in the club and when you do it too often, then you start getting into some trouble IMO.

I think it would have been better to say he owed it to the 'senior players' to give them another shot.

You'd have to show the precedence from other clubs with formally appointed co-captains (not just acting captains sharing the load) for this to be convincing.

If a coach can't single out the club's captain, rather than name all 18/22 players then future press conferences are going to be bloody drawn out.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
Hells bells ... there is a MASSIVELY huge difference between Goodsey and W*nkermanis ... the former is captain material, the latter is not.

Ah, so it's not the Brownlow at all.

As young captain-in-waiting Goodes related recently, it wasn't very long ago that he wasn't even considered suitable for the leadership group. Should you drop the captain(s) the minute a viable alternative comes along?

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by Sanecow

We have a bit of an idea since similar statements have been reported multiple times by different journalists in different papers.

You get 30 journos at a press conference writing 30 articles for 30 papers - they all know which quote will sell their papers. You have another press situation on a similar topic after developments have occurred and 30 journos write 30 articles for 30 papers, making sure to include quotes on topics that have previously sold papers for them... ooooh... I see a pattern forming! You cannot tell me (well I know you're probably going to try anyway) that the journalistic quality of our primary publications is enough to hang a man on, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
You'd have to show the precedence from other clubs with formally appointed co-captains (not just acting captains sharing the load) for this to be convincing.

If a coach can't single out the club's captain, rather than name all 18/22 players then future press conferences are going to be bloody drawn out.

I think you're adopting a couple of strawman arguments here (and not particularly convincing ones at that!).

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
You get 30 journos at a press conference writing 30 articles for 30 papers - they all know which quote will sell their papers. You have another press situation on a similar topic after developments have occurred and 30 journos write 30 articles for 30 papers, making sure to include quotes on topics that have previously sold papers for them... ooooh... I see a pattern forming! You cannot tell me (well I know you're probably going to try anyway) that the journalistic quality of our primary publications is enough to hang a man on, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

With that many journos, one of them would have provided more information if it was to be had (which was the case with Nick Davis).

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
Ah, so it's not the Brownlow at all.

As young captain-in-waiting Goodes related recently, it wasn't very long ago that he wasn't even considered suitable for the leadership group. Should you drop the captain(s) the minute a viable alternative comes along?

Six weeks ago, I would have said it's not the brownlow ... but when you have two ....???? well, you have to wonder.

No, you don't necessarily need to dump the captains straight out. I'm pretty sure they know their time is limited.

I would be VERY surprised if we go into 2008 with three captains.

It was three years ago he wasn't considered "suitable" for captaincy "at the time" ... not the leadership group. This was a vote that was reported to have been taken by the players at the time. (I recall it from an interview earlier this year where I think Willo was talking about the leadership group).

That same year, he was awarded his first Brownlow. Go figure??

Under Roos, he has always been a member of the leadership group.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
You get 30 journos at a press conference writing 30 articles for 30 papers - they all know which quote will sell their papers. You have another press situation on a similar topic after developments have occurred and 30 journos write 30 articles for 30 papers, making sure to include quotes on topics that have previously sold papers for them... ooooh... I see a pattern forming! You cannot tell me (well I know you're probably going to try anyway) that the journalistic quality of our primary publications is enough to hang a man on, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

Multiple journalists on multiple publications are twisting and carefully editing Roos' words to name only players they think will sell their papers when printed on page 28. That's perfectly believable.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

Under Roos, he has always been a member of the leadership group.

Are you sure about that? Goodes has said himself that he was shocked when his peers didn't elect him to the leadership group. I am sure this would have been in 2003.

By the way, Robert Harvey has won two Brownlows but captained the Saints reluctantly for only 2 seasons - and not immediately after his second Brownlow. Brownlows are not an indication of whether a particular player should be captain. Some players just aren't suited to the added profile, responsibility and demands of the captaincy.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think you're adopting a couple of strawman arguments here (and not particularly convincing ones at that!).

The criticism seems to be that Roos only named the captains in his answer, not other players, too. I'm trying to point out the logical absurdity of that argument.

As a matter of fact, I'm constantly impressed with how well Roos and the players speak in public - and Goodes' Brownlow speech was brilliant. When I do public speaking I still make sure I have the name of the venue and my host written somewhere on my notes in case my mind goes blank.

And we are still relying on a second hand account. Generally sports writers seem to carry less duty to faithfully transcribe what they have been told than, say, political writers.

[nat]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
Six weeks ago, I would have said it's not the brownlow ... but when you have two ....???? well, you have to wonder.

No, you don't necessarily need to dump the captains straight out. I'm pretty sure they know their time is limited.

I would be VERY surprised if we go into 2008 with three captains.

It was three years ago he wasn't considered "suitable" for captaincy "at the time" ... not the leadership group. This was a vote that was reported to have been taken by the players at the time. (I recall it from an interview earlier this year where I think Willo was talking about the leadership group).

That same year, he was awarded his first Brownlow. Go figure??

Under Roos, he has always been a member of the leadership group.

No, i'm pretty sure that he wasn't elected into the leadership group in 2003.

[hammo]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
You have no idea if he was asked specifically about those 3 or if he deliberately singled them out to then make the statement. You have no idea what was said before or after the quoted statement and unless you get your hands on the transcript or initial recording of the interview it's unlikely you ever will.

I think the answer to that is obvious

[Wil]

Yes, why would Roos be interested in maximising the chances of the team winning more premierships before three of Sydney's best players retire? Getting Spida was a great move and Roos is right on the money with this.

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Multiple journalists on multiple publications are twisting and carefully editing Roos' words to name only players they think will sell their papers when printed on page 28. That's perfectly believable.

Do you ever read more than one paper on any given day? How many times do papers from rival publishers use the exact same quotes in their articles? Quite frequently. That should tell you something, including that a) they're at the same press conference and b) certain aspects of a press conference will be more interesting to readers, certain aspects will not.

Btw if you read what I've said, I've not said they ever twisted his words, they've merely selected a portion of his words and included that, while neglecting other portions, that no doubt you'd dissect and criticise just as strongly if they were published. No matter what is said, you'll likely never be pleased.