Roosy hands over reins.

[swantastic]

Full story

PAUL Roos believes Sydney's football department, and its preparations for the 2007 season, wouldn't skip a beat if he was hit by a bus tomorrow.

[Sanecow]

This is pretty typical of the false modesty that pervades modern football. Try trotting out this line at your next performance review! Only the most arrogant person could brag to the media that despite his job title and salary that he actually doesn't do anything that would be missed if he were sacked!

[swantastic]

Originally posted by Sanecow
This is pretty typical of the false modesty that pervades modern football. Try trotting out this line at your next performance review! Only the most arrogant person could brag to the media that despite his job title and salary that he actually doesn't do anything that would be missed if he were sacked!

He,s allowed to be a little cocky,Roosy has brought very good results to the club.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Sanecow
This is pretty typical of the false modesty that pervades modern football.

Originally posted by swantastic
He,s allowed to be a little cocky,Roosy has brought very good results to the club.

Did a post get deleted?

[swantastic]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
Did a post get deleted?

Nope.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Sanecow
This is pretty typical of the false modesty that pervades modern football. Try trotting out this line at your next performance review! Only the most arrogant person could brag to the media that despite his job title and salary that he actually doesn't do anything that would be missed if he were sacked!

so now he's arrogant to acknowledge the excellence of his support staff and to suggest that the success of the swans is the result of a team effort (in more sense than one) and not just his masterful leadership.

actually, i think this sounds more like humility and smacks of real confidence in his staff and team and shows his leadership.

[Sanecow]

There's two possibilities. Either he's a lying sack of @@@@ or he is surplus to requirements and bragging about it. I don't see how either can possibly be construed as humility.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by Sanecow
There's two possibilities. Either he's a lying sack of @@@@ or he is surplus to requirements and bragging about it. I don't see how either can possibly be construed as humility.

Your a very critical bugger aren't you.What does he have to do/say to prove him self?

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Sanecow
There's two possibilities. Either he's a lying sack of @@@@ or he is surplus to requirements and bragging about it. I don't see how either can possibly be construed as humility.

a third is that you have absolutely no idea, cannot think in subtle terms and have to reduce everything to simplistic fundamentalist points of view.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by timthefish
a third is that you have absolutely no idea, cannot think in subtle terms and have to reduce everything to simplistic fundamentalist points of view.

Be Careful... Sanecow "owns" you....

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by timthefish
you ... have to reduce everything to simplistic fundamentalist points of view.

The "modesty" displayed by Narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasized to the point of absurdity ... It intends either to aggrandize the Narcissist or to protect his grandiosity from scrutiny and possible erosion ... By contrasting a belittling and reducing statement about himself with a brilliant, dazzling display of ingenuity, wit, intellect, knowledge, or beauty - the Narcissist intends to secure an adoring, admiring, approving, or applauding protestation from the listener. The person to whom the falsely modest statement is directed is expected to vehemently deny the Narcissist's claims: "But, really, you know much more than you pretend to know", or "Why did you say that you are unable to do (this or that)? Truly, you are very gifted at it!" ... The Narcissist, above all, is a shrewd manipulator of human characters and fault lines.

Source

Not too simplistic IMO.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Source

Not too simplistic IMO.

wow - cut and paste! it's one thing to quote first-year psychology and another thing to apply it judiciously. additionally, like much psychology, your source material contains little in the form of argument from first principles but instead depends heavily upon emotive illustration. all you have is conjecture.

ockham's razor would suggest that roos is telling much the truth - that the club would run along quite nicely without his input for a reasonable time. we have seen plenty of evidence to support this assertion. john longmire is regarded in afl circles as a senior coach in waiting and we have one of the most player-empowered teams with much of the play decision being made on the field. roos is responsible for the establishment of this environment and is ultimately responsible for its maintenance. he has confidence in his staff and his team (why wouldn't he) and he has chosen to display that confidence publicly.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by timthefish
wow - cut and paste!

Duh, I gave the source.

Originally posted by timthefish
ockham's razor would suggest that roos is telling much the truth

IMO, it suggests the opposite. The simplest answer to the question "Why is Paul Roos paid a lot of money" is that he is paid a lot of money to do a difficult job.

Originally posted by timthefish
*snip the Narcissistic supply*

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by Sanecow
This is pretty typical of the false modesty that pervades modern football. Try trotting out this line at your next performance review! Only the most arrogant person could brag to the media that despite his job title and salary that he actually doesn't do anything that would be missed if he were sacked!

Ok maybe I'm missing something in your logic but several places I've worked at have operated on the principle that everyone should have a clear idea of what everyone else in their team does on a day-to-day basis ,and also on a more "project level" etc so that in the random event that a staff member was unexpectedly hit by a bus, there would be less hassle in a reshuffle, thus allowing more productive operation during the transition period while said squished co-worker was being replaced. This went on from management right down to the lowly minions so that everyone basically knew what everyone else was doing to some extent so that functionality would be retained. I would expect no less of a footy club coaching group personally. And I would suggest most footy clubs would also expect no less of their own coaching groups otherwise why would they allow the in-house shufflings when coaches resign/are sacked etc mid-season - the new coach may not get super results or consistent results initially because there's a pretty good chance he's operating to some degree on the plans of the departed coach because it's simply not possible to devise the appropriate plans in the space of a few days in such an event.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
Ok maybe I'm missing something in your logic but several places I've worked at have operated on the principle that everyone should have a clear idea of what everyone else in their team does on a day-to-day basis ,and also on a more "project level" etc so that in the random event that a staff member was unexpectedly hit by a bus, there would be less hassle in a reshuffle, thus allowing more productive operation during the transition period while said squished co-worker was being replaced. This went on from management right down to the lowly minions so that everyone basically knew what everyone else was doing to some extent so that functionality would be retained. I would expect no less of a footy club coaching group personally. And I would suggest most footy clubs would also expect no less of their own coaching groups otherwise why would they allow the in-house shufflings when coaches resign/are sacked etc mid-season - the new coach may not get super results or consistent results initially because there's a pretty good chance he's operating to some degree on the plans of the departed coach because it's simply not possible to devise the appropriate plans in the space of a few days in such an event.

"Bang" take that Sanecow.