Roos shifts blame for playing Goodes onto Goodes

[ROK Lobster]

What a surprise. For a second I thought he was going to say he made a mistake, but it seems it was Adam who @@@@@@ up. All Roosey did was show some "good faith". What a top guy.

?I guess sometimes as coaches we are responsible for picking players that you sometimes shouldn?t pick, but you do that in good faith and it happens at all clubs,? Swans coach Paul Roos said on Monday.

?But at some point the coaches have to overrule the players and you have to put a healthy team on the field.?

Roos said that Goodes felt right to go before the game and even after the warm-up, but it became obvious as the match progressed he was unable to exert his normal influence.

?He shouldn?t have played,? Roos said. ?He wasn?t able to contribute at all and it impacted significantly on our ability to win the footy. Particularly when Henry went down, we were effectively two players short.

Link: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Defa...x?newsid=64303

[bedford]

who cares now

[hot potato]

Roos sort of fessed up. Now we not only need a pscho dude, but a lie detecter dude as well....
"Are you fit to play today Adam?"
"Pretty much."
"Is that a Yes.?"
"Pretty much"
"You're right to go then?"
MMMMMMMMMMmmmmm

Good I'll go tell Roosey.

[573v30]

A bit too late Roosy.

[sprite]

No Goodes didn't stuff up nor Roos either.

The medical staff would have assessed Goodes earlier in the week and decided he was available to play. Hopefully the medicos monitored the injury during the week.

He got through training, he warmed up - Roos checked to see if he still felt right play - Goodes gives the ok.

Gets onto the ground, got through pre - game on ground warm up.

Starts the game and agravates the injury.

Hindsight is so wonderful.

I believe Roos is saying that given the time again he would have rested him.

[hammo]

Interesting to re-read what Roos wrote in his Daily Telegraph column in July:

As a coach there are times when you'd love to overrule the medical department and tell them, "Sure, so and so can play", because you want a certain player on the field, but that's not my role.

Back in 1982 when I started my career, that would've been the coach's prerogative. But the fact is, football clubs make collective decisions these days.

RedAndWhiteOnline.com Messageboard

[swantastic]

Its statingbleeding the obvious that he shouldnt have played.

[BSA5]

ROK, how is Roos shifting the blame? He said that "sometimes as coaches we are responsible for picking players that sometimes you shouldn't pick". The point of what he was saying is that while Goodes, naturally, was going to say he was right to play, Roos should have overruled him, and didn't. That's Roos' fault. If you could get out of your unhealthy obsession with bagging Roos, you might see that.

But, as has been pointed out, Roos is in fact being a bit tough on himself. It's hard to overrule the medical staff either way, and when a champion like Goodes indicates he is right to play, it's tough to say no. Especially when he was able to have an impact while carrying the same injury the week before.

[gossipcom]

I've come to the conclusion that the only reason Goodes said he would play was because Mal didn't pass his fitness test. If Mal had played he probably would have withdrawn.