What's Wrong With Roos?

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
This is true, but what happens when that criticism is aimed at Goodes or Davis?

Ah, so that's what this thread is about. You're having a sook because you think you copped more abuse for criticising Goodes than Sanecow has received for criticising Roos!

[Chow-Chicker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ah, so that's what this thread is about. You're having a sook because you think you copped more abuse for criticising Goodes than Sanecow has received for criticising Roos!

Well here in lies the problem. You have interpreted my statement as having a sook. I'm merely stating a fact. This is the problem with a lot of you. You read a statement then make an assumption, and it is actually out of context of the author's intent. You do this with Roos quite a lot and it is becoming very petty, dull and boring. Mountain out of molehill stuff. I wonder what stories you will make out of this statement.........over to you.

[NMWBloods]

You started a thread saying that people having a go at Roos is pathetic and then saying criticism is okay but how come you received such a level of abuse for your criticism of Goodesand maybe that should be directed at the people criticising Roos.

You're right - interpreting your statements are not so straightforward...

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You started a thread saying that people having a go at Roos is pathetic and then saying criticism is okay but how come you received such a level of abuse for your criticism of Goodesand maybe that should be directed at the people criticising Roos.

You're right - interpreting your statements are not so straightforward...

And neither are Paul Roos' or any other coach for that matter. Point made.

[Guzzitza]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Well here in lies the problem. You have interpreted my statement as having a sook. I'm merely stating a fact. This is the problem with a lot of you. You read a statement then make an assumption, and it is actually out of context of the author's intent. You do this with Roos quite a lot and it is becoming very petty, dull and boring. Mountain out of molehill stuff. I wonder what stories you will make out of this statement.........over to you.

Trade week has gotten to you hasn't it? There.. there... it can touch us all in different ways....

a) Roos like everyone, is there to criticize or praise, like everyone else.
b) as mentioned already, he the only one talking now so yeah, hes the focus of our attention
c) Roos has such a ridiclous way of trying to communciate his ideas that it will always be amusing for us to pick a part what he says. Just as i laugh at Mick Malthouses' ridiculously long answers, or Wayne Bennets refusal to talk to anyone. These are ex footballers turned coaches who sometimes have no idea how to communicate their ideas - its funny.

d) And finally, to quote you.. "Mountain out of molehill stuff."
Who cares? Go play solitaire.

[hammo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ah, so that's what this thread is about. You're having a sook because you think you copped more abuse for criticising Goodes than Sanecow has received for criticising Roos!

A very appropriate post for your 10,000th Bloods!

Well done... very amusing

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by hammo
A very appropriate post for your 10,000th Bloods!

Well done... very amusing

LOL - I hadn't noticed!!

[Chow-Chicker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Guzzitza
Trade week has gotten to you hasn't it? There.. there... it can touch us all in different ways....

a) Roos like everyone, is there to criticize or praise, like everyone else.
b) as mentioned already, he the only one talking now so yeah, hes the focus of our attention
c) Roos has such a ridiclous way of trying to communciate his ideas that it will always be amusing for us to pick a part what he says. Just as i laugh at Mick Malthouses' ridiculously long answers, or Wayne Bennets refusal to talk to anyone. These are ex footballers turned coaches who sometimes have no idea how to communicate their ideas - its funny.

d) And finally, to quote you.. "Mountain out of molehill stuff."
Who cares? Go play solitaire.

Thanks for your input. I agree with you......taking these comments with a grain of salt is all it's worth, instead of trying to psychologically analyse his deep seeded thoughts and motivations. Pulling out the thesaurus and trying to construct some sort of veiled message within the actual words spoken has become quite an occupation around here. Keep up the good work!

[Chow-Chicker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ah, so that's what this thread is about. You're having a sook because you think you copped more abuse for criticising Goodes than Sanecow has received for criticising Roos!

I don't believe I mentioned anyone's name in my posts, so I am curious to know how you have mentioned Sanecow. I guess it's a bit like Roos not mentioning the other 39 players on the list in his statement. In this case, you would assume that he intended for them to be included, but didn't feel it necessary to mention them, because the likes of you would put names where names don't appear anyway?

[AnnieH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Thanks for your input. I agree with you......taking these comments with a grain of salt is all it's worth, instead of trying to psychologically analyse his deep seeded thoughts and motivations. Pulling out the thesaurus and trying to construct some sort of veiled message within the actual words spoken has become quite an occupation around here. Keep up the good work!

.... A GRAIN OF SALT ???????????

Here, we use a kilo.

[Sanecow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Pulling out the thesaurus and trying to construct some sort of veiled message within the actual words spoken has become quite an occupation around here.

He said he wants his three mates to play more finals and that is why he targetted a ruckman who is approaching the end of his career. This is a stone cold fact #1. He has also said he'll probably leave when they do and that he'd leave if they told him to. This is a stone cold fact #2.

It's not the bible code.

His words and actions are plain to see. I have not attempted to guess why he feels an obligation to these three players.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
I don't believe I mentioned anyone's name in my posts, so I am curious to know how you have mentioned Sanecow.

Because he just started a thread about Roos...!?!

[timthefish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Sanecow
He said he wants his three mates to play more finals and that is why he targetted a ruckman who is approaching the end of his career. This is a stone cold fact #1.

This is a stone cold interpretation and oversimplifaction of a mild remark given to a hack journalist #1

He has also said he'll probably leave when they do and that he'd leave if they told him to. This is a stone cold fact #2.

This is a stone cold interpretation and oversimplifaction of a mild remark given to a hack journalist #2

I have not attempted to guess why he feels an obligation to these three players.

there is nothing to suggest that he sees these three (his captains) as representative of his seniors and the playing list as a whole.

i'm no roos apologist and i've not seen anybody on this board who has said he is above criticism. i was critical of roos' clumsiness during the nick davis "saga" and i think he was slow to respond to some of the problems we had in the grand final. particularly, i think he, as coach, bears much of the responsibility of our players not being switched on in the first quarter. having said that, what he DID do in the grand final almost won us the match from behind. need i mention the previous year?

i'm just bewildered at the zeal of a handful of posters with which any small statement by roos is dissected with the purpose (not the result) of revealing his flaws in character.

why are you people so eager in your criticism of roos? i just don't get it.

[Chow-Chicker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by Sanecow
He said he wants his three mates to play more finals and that is why he targetted a ruckman who is approaching the end of his career. This is a stone cold fact #1. He has also said he'll probably leave when they do and that he'd leave if they told him to. This is a stone cold fact #2.

It's not the bible code.

His words and actions are plain to see. I have not attempted to guess why he feels an obligation to these three players.

I actually don't have a problem with what you are saying here, but when you suggest that Roos simply doesn't give a @@@@ about any other player than the three he named is a nonesense. OK, he's named the three co-captains in his statement and he has high opinions of them - that's why they're co-captains. But because he didn't mention the rest of the list doesn't mean he doesn't #1 care for them or #2 want them to succeed.

[AnnieH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's Wrong With Roos?

Originally posted by timthefish
snip ... why are you people so eager in your criticism of roos? i just don't get it.

I am speaking for myself when I say I'm eager to criticise (or praise for that matter) ANY of the swans ... from the board to the boot strappers.

This "chatroom" would be really, really, really bloody boring if no-one had an opinion ... on anything.

IMO, I have the right to criticise as I see fit ... as I also have the right to praise as I see fit ... as long as I abide by the rules placed down by the owners/moderators of this chat room.

Whether you agree or disagree with that criticism or that praise, is, in my host humblest of opinion, totally irrevelant to the way I feel or think. I don't care whether you agree or disagree with a statement I make, I'm just happy that there's somewhere for me to be able to make that statement, and in most cases, not be too harshly judged for making it.

Some people really should get off their high horses and be prepared to consider that other people have different views to yours. Like I said, it would be bloody boring if we all thought the same. Don't you think?

You know it makes sense.