Chris Connolly = Dockers

[Exe Gesis]

I believe at this stage of Fremantle's list development if we were to change coach it could hinder our progress for 2-3 years.

Over the past 5 season Chris Connolly has taken a list and been able to change it so that it suits a particular game plan. Obviously this means that we are going to lose some games which we should've won but that is all part of developing a consistent, positive and winning game plan. I.E Look at Brisbane between 1999-2000, Sydney 2003-2004, Port Adelaide 2001-2003,

All those sides took 2 years to adopt a game plan and take it to a level where they could win finals games consistently.

I'd love for those people who bag Chris Connolly to compare our list when he first came to the club to the list we have at Fremantle today.

I'm excited about 2007, we have a list, we have a game plan, we have a group of players who KNOW they can win and are hungry to do so.

Let me tell you Peter Bell would give his left arm to win another premiership... and I'd love to see the boys do it for him

I agree with this you know. There is a time to change and a time not to. You wouldn't push CC out now at all. But if maybe 5 games into the year they're 1-4, well maybe that's the time? Or, if Freo does bad all year and they retain CC, make the change for 2008.

I agree, I'm not saying sack CC now at all. It'll just be interesting what FFC do if Freo get off to a real bad start.

But ultimately, you're sitting on a goldmine with Mark Harvey. Hopefully you don't lose him. They often wet their feet then move on to great success elsewhere.

You other guys, playing the man and not the ball. I appreciate the humor. But sometimes when you play the man originally "oh look another port troll" or "use IMO or you're an idiot", etc, then I gotta shrug it off somehow.

 

[ImperialPurple]

I just said that it was my opinion that you might be called an idiot. I wasn't saying it was a fact....


OK g.g - fair enough; you have come back again and seem to be fairly genuine. But see it from our p.o.v. D_B's little graphic comes from repeated trolling by Port supporters on our board over the past couple of years. Forgive us for assuming that a Port fellow is trolling because he's saying (in essence), "your coach is no good, it's the assistant that is calling the shots. That's the only reason your club made a prelim last year".

CC has done pretty good job with what were the absolute and total basket-cases of the competition in 2001. He has admitted that he was trying too many things with players who weren't up to it, and that he finally has a list where he can implement the game plan he has been wanting to since he arrived and started to make changes.

The players left that were here when CC arrived:
Bell, MCarr, Cook, Farmer, Grover, Haddrill, Hasleby, Hayden, Longmuir, McManus, McPharlin, Parker, Pavlich, Thornton, Walker.

That's 15. Farmer and McPharlin had just arrived in the previous trade period, Hayden was a rookie, Grover and Haddrill had played about 15 games between them, Thornton was yet to debut, Pavlich was 19, Hasleby and Longmuir were 20. Only Bell, MCarr, Cook, McManus and Parker had established careers. And of them, only Bell could really be considered an absolute stand-out great player.

CC has been integral in developing the guys who are now the absolute rocks of our club, as well as turning over the list to include 29 different faces from back then... and for the largest part, they are probably 20-25 better players than were on our list back then.

Sure, it's great to have Harvey at our club, and I have no doubt that he has had a very large impact on getting us to where we finished last year. However, I would not be prepared to write-off CC as being just the man in the background. He would have known he was in a no-win situation, when Harvey came in. If we remained mediocre, then it was his fault - if we did well, then the credit would be Harvey's. I reckon CC deserves more credit than some are prepared to give, and also more respect.

That's my opinion anyway...

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Do you mock truth when it rears its head? Do you look truth in the eyes and wish it were dead?

2007

Scrawled on the wall in your cell?

 

[Exe Gesis]

I just said that it was my opinion that you might be called an idiot. I wasn't saying it was a fact....


OK g.g - fair enough; you have come back again and seem to be fairly genuine. But see it from our p.o.v. D_B's little graphic comes from repeated trolling by Port supporters on our board over the past couple of years. Forgive us for assuming that a Port fellow is trolling because he's saying (in essence), "your coach is no good, it's the assistant that is calling the shots. That's the only reason your club made a prelim last year".

CC has done pretty good job with what were the absolute and total basket-cases of the competition in 2001. He has admitted that he was trying too many things with players who weren't up to it, and that he finally has a list where he can implement the game plan he has been wanting to since he arrived and started to make changes.

The players left that were here when CC arrived:
Bell, MCarr, Cook, Farmer, Grover, Haddrill, Hasleby, Hayden, Longmuir, McManus, McPharlin, Parker, Pavlich, Thornton, Walker.

That's 15. Farmer and McPharlin had just arrived in the previous trade period, Hayden was a rookie, Grover and Haddrill had played about 15 games between them, Thornton was yet to debut, Pavlich was 19, Hasleby and Longmuir were 20. Only Bell, MCarr, Cook, McManus and Parker had established careers. And of them, only Bell could really be considered an absolute stand-out great player.

CC has been integral in developing the guys who are now the absolute rocks of our club, as well as turning over the list to include 29 different faces from back then... and for the largest part, they are probably 20-25 better players than were on our list back then.

Sure, it's great to have Harvey at our club, and I have no doubt that he has had a very large impact on getting us to where we finished last year. However, I would not be prepared to write-off CC as being just the man in the background. He would have known he was in a no-win situation, when Harvey came in. If we remained mediocre, then it was his fault - if we did well, then the credit would be Harvey's. I reckon CC deserves more credit than some are prepared to give, and also more respect.

That's my opinion anyway...

Thanks for your thumbs up.

I am fully aware of all the trolling going on between various teams and the posters. It's funny at times. But the genuine debate is always meatier.

No offense taken anytime with anything personal said against me, ever. I just have to retort as part of the action. But I try to be calm about it. After all, we're all the same type of supporters, just defending our club.

My problem with CC is as I've stated before in another thread. I have tickets on Mark Harvey for all the reasons given in the same thread. The two different types of men, their different types of experience/background, their different types of outlook and on-field beliefs. I believe 100% that teams (team games) need leaders like Harvey, Archer, L.Matthews, Cahill, Hafey, Barassi, etc. These turn out to be greats DUE to all sharing those same qualities that the other types don't have.

It's a belief rooted in history, evidence, hindsight, regularity. It's just what happens. Most of the time anyway. CC is a genuine guy, outside of football, etc. He obviously was good for the club during their dark days, was good (having a teacher background) to lift people and get some cohesion and change happening in the club, and especially in the mind's of players. But that's his ceiling, IMO. That's his usefulness. That next level is the domain of those types, the tough hard straight-shooting types - that got multiple flags for Carlton, Hawthorn, Brisbane, Melbourne, etc.

My "2007" comment just meant no more excuses, no more averting, no more 2-3 year plans and critical mass elevation speeches. Personally, I think Fremantle will have a great year, because MH will still be there working at it just like 2006. If there's no power struggle, if there's no FFC board talk of ousting CC, denying him selection changes etc etc, then Freo should continue to have a great year. But I think you might lose MH in this scenario. He won't want to remain, but test himself as HC. So it's a bit of a catch-22.

Isn't there some speculation that even the FFC board are now aware of MH's worth and contribution, and perhaps might get the knives out if CC's Freo starts faltering? If they do that, it would be because they too see what the MH-fans see and not want to lose him either.

I guess CC's day of judgment is 2007.

 

[Ripper]

I just said that it was my opinion that you might be called an idiot. I wasn't saying it was a fact....


OK g.g - fair enough; you have come back again and seem to be fairly genuine. But see it from our p.o.v. D_B's little graphic comes from repeated trolling by Port supporters on our board over the past couple of years. Forgive us for assuming that a Port fellow is trolling because he's saying (in essence), "your coach is no good, it's the assistant that is calling the shots. That's the only reason your club made a prelim last year".

CC has done pretty good job with what were the absolute and total basket-cases of the competition in 2001. He has admitted that he was trying too many things with players who weren't up to it, and that he finally has a list where he can implement the game plan he has been wanting to since he arrived and started to make changes.

The players left that were here when CC arrived:
Bell, MCarr, Cook, Farmer, Grover, Haddrill, Hasleby, Hayden, Longmuir, McManus, McPharlin, Parker, Pavlich, Thornton, Walker.

That's 15. Farmer and McPharlin had just arrived in the previous trade period, Hayden was a rookie, Grover and Haddrill had played about 15 games between them, Thornton was yet to debut, Pavlich was 19, Hasleby and Longmuir were 20. Only Bell, MCarr, Cook, McManus and Parker had established careers. And of them, only Bell could really be considered an absolute stand-out great player.

CC has been integral in developing the guys who are now the absolute rocks of our club, as well as turning over the list to include 29 different faces from back then... and for the largest part, they are probably 20-25 better players than were on our list back then.

Sure, it's great to have Harvey at our club, and I have no doubt that he has had a very large impact on getting us to where we finished last year. However, I would not be prepared to write-off CC as being just the man in the background. He would have known he was in a no-win situation, when Harvey came in. If we remained mediocre, then it was his fault - if we did well, then the credit would be Harvey's. I reckon CC deserves more credit than some are prepared to give, and also more respect.

That's my opinion anyway...

Good post as usual IP.

I don't think people (including our own supporters) realise just how bad We were.

I would like to see anther Coach in recent years who has taken over a spoon list that went 7 (seven) seasons without even winning three games in a row and had them as a contender in five seasons.

All without tanking for draft picks.

 

[taz@freo]

I think its pretty fair to say that we were average in CC's early years when Ben Cunningham came in over Schammer in about Rd 17 that year

 

[theGav56]

But ultimately, you're sitting on a goldmine with Mark Harvey. Hopefully you don't lose him. They often wet their feet then move on to great success elsewhere.

Hell, not "They"!

"They" are always doing fantastically well damnit. "They" are now playing for Collingwood and Richmond. "They" used do all sorts of ordinary things when they played for "Us", but now they are fantastic. Although "He" looked pretty ordinary last night, but soon will be fantastic. And yet somehow "We" ended up with a decent list???

Oh, and CC was one of "Them" before he coached "Us", and he could very easily move onto "great success elsewhere" when he moves from Freo.

 

[wires on fire.]

this years anticipated grand final appearance

everyone knows fremantle plays football to beat west coast, not win premierships.

 

[theGav56]

Isn't there some speculation that even the FFC board are now aware of MH's worth and contribution, and perhaps might get the knives out if CC's Freo starts faltering? If they do that, it would be because they too see what the MH-fans see and not want to lose him either.

I guess CC's day of judgment is 2007.

Erm, the FFC supported Harvey getting the biggest contract of any AC in the known universe. Why would you think "even" they under-estimate his worth? His job, like all of the staff and players etc, is to ensure that we don't start faltering. If we do, CC will wear it, as he always has, if we don't, he will share the honours, as he always does. And no, 2007 is not judgement day. Every day they go out to play is.

I'm not a Mark Harvey fan. Or a Chris Connolly fan. I support the Fremantle Football Club. And I am pretty happy at where they are sitting right now, although in my ideal world we would have a Coach on a longer contract than just this season.

 

[theGav56]

everyone knows fremantle plays football to beat west coast, not win premierships.

Gee, you wouldn't want to have a style of play that would beat a premiership side now would you?

I seem to recall The Chemist changing his rule of manning everyone up for the GF to beat Sydney. Seems having a style of play that will beat the premiers is not such a bad thing.

 

[spitlizard]

everyone knows fremantle plays football to beat west coast, not win premierships.

Only time will tell

 

[Exe Gesis]

Erm, the FFC supported Harvey getting the biggest contract of any AC in the known universe. Why would you think "even" they under-estimate his worth? His job, like all of the staff and players etc, is to ensure that we don't start faltering. If we do, CC will wear it, as he always has, if we don't, he will share the honours, as he always does. And no, 2007 is not judgement day. Every day they go out to play is.

I'm not a Mark Harvey fan. Or a Chris Connolly fan. I support the Fremantle Football Club. And I am pretty happy at where they are sitting right now, although in my ideal world we would have a Coach on a longer contract than just this season.

You put it a better way, "week to week". But it'd be within the year 2007. He can't afford to fail this year, he might not get a 2008.

In that pre-season radio interview, Chris was asked "How long do you want to be coach of Fremantle?" His answer, I think, coupled with something else he said, is indicative of what I mean. He replied, "I want to coach Fremantle forever if I could."

On the surface that may appear to be all nice and fluffy, but it's kind of worrying. Firstly, thruout the interview he kept talking about how they're still looking at a 2-3 year plan. Ie, just looking to justify his job, extend his contract, if they fail. Establishing a possibility of failure as a justification for another 2-3 years of coaching the club.

Sometimes it's time for coaches to move on. They've set up the club, turned it around, and it's best given to a type of coach to fullfil the flags. But CC appears to be saying, "I want this job forever, if they let me, but I know that if we fail, that they'll try to shunt me off, so in that case, it's best for ME to keep up the round-about talk of 2-3 year plans, convincing the board we're still not ready, etc, so that I can keep coaching, because I love this caper so much, I don't want to leave." Thinking about himself, not his club, type of attitude. Maybe he feels he wouldn't get another HC crack at another club, his reputation kind of questioned to take teams to that next level. He's set up now at Freo, they have a real shot at it. He wants to stay even if it takes another 2-3 years. But he'd be holding the club back.

 

[ImperialPurple]

everyone knows fremantle plays football to beat west coast, not win premierships.

Grow a brain.

 

[ImperialPurple]

You put it a better way, "week to week". But it'd be within the year 2007. He can't afford to fail this year, he might not get a 2008.

In that pre-season radio interview, Chris was asked "How long do you want to be coach of Fremantle?" His answer, I think, coupled with something else he said, is indicative of what I mean. He replied, "I want to coach Fremantle forever if I could."

On the surface that may appear to be all nice and fluffy, but it's kind of worrying. Firstly, thruout the interview he kept talking about how they're still looking at a 2-3 year plan. Ie, just looking to justify his job, extend his contract, if they fail. Establishing a possibility of failure as a justification for another 2-3 years of coaching the club.

Sometimes it's time for coaches to move on. They've set up the club, turned it around, and it's best given to a type of coach to fullfil the flags. But CC appears to be saying, "I want this job forever, if they let me, but I know that if we fail, that they'll try to shunt me off, so in that case, it's best for ME to keep up the round-about talk of 2-3 year plans, convincing the board we're still not ready, etc, so that I can keep coaching, because I love this caper so much, I don't want to leave." Thinking about himself, not his club, type of attitude. Maybe he feels he wouldn't get another HC crack at another club, his reputation kind of questioned to take teams to that next level. He's set up now at Freo, they have a real shot at it. He wants to stay even if it takes another 2-3 years. But he'd be holding the club back.

Problem with that logic, is that in the past, when he said it, it was true....

now the board and everyone else in the known universe would know it's not. The time is now. CC has so much as said it, and everyone knows that is the fact.

 

[theGav56]

He's set up now at Freo, they have a real shot at it. He wants to stay even if it takes another 2-3 years. But he'd be holding the club back.

How do you think he became "set up" at Freo? By building the squad we now have, developing the support mechanisms that are in place, and implimenting a game plan that looks capable of winning at home and away as well as in finals. That is what a Senior Coach does.

The reality is that there is no free Premierships on offer. Just ask the Geelong teams of the '80s. And I doubt if many people continued to lay the blame for their lack of premierships through that era at Malcom Blight's feet after he got the Crows 2 Premierships.

The idea that there is a single type of coach who can and will be succesful is clearly wrong simply by looking at the range of coaches who have been successful. Pagan is a fantastic example, as is Malthouse. Both a long way from stars of the game. Straight shooters? yer right. The Ox is slow. The criteria for being a succesful coach is quite different from simply being "straight shooters". And if you think Sheedy is a "straight shooter" then I am very confused. Now Garry Ayers ... there is a straight shooter.

Instead of trolling away at CC, why not destabilise Williams in an effort to get Harvey over to the Puffs?

 

[Exe Gesis]

now the board and everyone else in the known universe would know it's not. The time is now. CC has so much as said it, and everyone knows that is the fact.

That's why it's worrying! He's still trying to say it. I know he knows it's time, no more chances, but he's still saying it to create a contract extension.

The idea that there is a single type of coach who can and will be succesful is clearly wrong simply by looking at the range of coaches who have been successful.

I don't understand how you can refute that. Every single successful or great coach had the same quality. If "shooting straight" is too abstract, I'll put it another way. Hard-mindsets who keep it simple. Task-masters. Teachers, yes, but they're hard-nosed. They don't mess about with their words. Hafey, Pagan, Matthews, Barassi, Smith, Fos, Cahill, Jeans, Malthouse, Worsfold, Roos, Sheedy, etc...they're all the same types. I can't find the right word exactly, but they're hard. Hard exteriors. Hard minded. etc. I consider GF appearances to be a measure of success too. Hafey may have failed, as too Malthouse and Blight, at a team here and there. But that's not the failure I mean. Blight has shown he has the right stuff to take multiple teams to multiple GFs. That's far far better than a Grant Thomas or Bomber Thompson. Chris Connolly has had enough of a list in 2005 and 2004 to do better. He got his first big leap in 2006. Just like Thomas and Thompson have been given repeated chances. But I don't think CC has a 2008 if they fail to make a GF.

I don't see how you could say Malthouse isn't the hard type. All those mentioned were hard. They may not be off some process line, spitting images. They're all individuals, of course they're gonna be unique in their own ways. But they all fit into the same coaching type.

Choco Williams was showing a fear of failure IMO why Port choked 2001-3. Like Peyton Manning for the Colts for many years. They got the monkey off their backs and will now kick on better. As Choco does have that hardness required. He just had some personal demons (re living in the shadow of Fos, the expectations at Port).

 

[ImperialPurple]

That's why it's worrying! He's still trying to say it. I know he knows it's time, no more chances, but he's still saying it to create a contract extension.

I don't think he is saying it. Yes he's talking about "critical mass" and all that stuff - but he's been saying that since the beginning. He's merely talking about the list that he's created and / or players he has developed, that these players, this "critical mass" are now at the right age and level of experience to go the next step.

Our "critical mass" of players in 2003 were 21, and had between 30 and 80 games experience. Add a year in age, and 20-25 games per year to that and it was only 2006 where we were getting up around the age where teams can really have a crack at the premiership.

I remember sitting watching the 2004 GF and being blown away at how old the Port and Brisbane teams were at the time - the number of players in that 27-30 age bracket, and how young our guys seemed at the time (for example, Pav was still just 22).

At the end of the 2006 season we had these guys aged 27 or older:
McManus (30), MCarr (27), Cook (30), Schofield (31), Walker (27), Black (27), Parker (33), Bell (30) and Farmer (29). However from that current list McManus and Cook will be fighting for their spots every week, Parker's old legs will have to slow down eventually, Schofield is gone and Walker is way out on the fringe these days. Only Bell, Farmer, Black and MCarr are Best 22 every week (and even MCarr has question marks IMO).

This year (2008) we add JCarr, Grover, Hayden and Solomon to that list. Next year (2009) we add Tarrant, Longmuir, Hasleby, Headland, Haddrill, and the year after Pav and McPharlin. There's our "critical mass". Also around that time Johnson, Schammer, Peake, Mundy, Murphy, Crowley, Dodd will be around the 25 mark... from now till 2011, we have some serious talent in the absolute prime of their careers.

CC has said he doesn't want a contract extension till the end of the year where we see where's he's at, and where the club is placed. Anything less than a PF and he'll be in trouble (IMO)... I, for one, hope we're right there at the pointy end, and all this discussion will be for nix...

 

[Exe Gesis]

I don't think he is saying it. Yes he's talking about "critical mass" and all that stuff - but he's been saying that since the beginning. He's merely talking about the list that he's created and / or players he has developed, that these players, this "critical mass" are now at the right age and level of experience to go the next step.

Our "critical mass" of players in 2003 were 21, and had between 30 and 80 games experience. Add a year in age, and 20-25 games per year to that and it was only 2006 where we were getting up around the age where teams can really have a crack at the premiership.

I remember sitting watching the 2004 GF and being blown away at how old the Port and Brisbane teams were at the time - the number of players in that 27-30 age bracket, and how young our guys seemed at the time (for example, Pav was still just 22).

At the end of the 2006 season we had these guys aged 27 or older:
McManus (30), MCarr (27), Cook (30), Schofield (31), Walker (27), Black (27), Parker (33), Bell (30) and Farmer (29). However from that current list McManus and Cook will be fighting for their spots every week, Parker's old legs will have to slow down eventually, Schofield is gone and Walker is way out on the fringe these days. Only Bell, Farmer, Black and MCarr are Best 22 every week (and even MCarr has question marks IMO).

This year (2008) we add JCarr, Grover, Hayden and Solomon to that list. Next year (2009) we add Tarrant, Longmuir, Hasleby, Headland, Haddrill, and the year after Pav and McPharlin. There's our "critical mass". Also around that time Johnson, Schammer, Peake, Mundy, Murphy, Crowley, Dodd will be around the 25 mark... from now till 2011, we have some serious talent in the absolute prime of their careers.

CC has said he doesn't want a contract extension till the end of the year where we see where's he's at, and where the club is placed. Anything less than a PF and he'll be in trouble (IMO)... I, for one, hope we're right there at the pointy end, and all this discussion will be for nix...

Everything you said there is right, and reasonable, but he did still say a) there was still a 2-3 year plan in place....yet....b) they expect better....yet....c) our players have reached a critical mass.....yet....d) we need to focus on winning as many of our WA games as possible to give us a shot at the final eight.....etc = confusion and round-aboutness.

His players have reached a critical mass of success-oriented ability. Where they can feed off themselves, self-propogating. That's what he meant. But, he contradicts himself or covers his ass by saying, but there's still a 2-3 year plan in place. Why? They've just reached a critical mass! They're there now, in that golden mid-20's age bracket with 80-100 games and a finals campaign behind you.

He expects better outcome than finishing shy of the preliminary, yet he's more concerned about ensuring they win as many of the 12 WA games because then you only have to win a few more here and there to fall into the eight, and he'd be happy just to get that at least. That's exactly what he said, but in my words. Meaning, you always aim higher because you're bound to always fall a little lower. But if your message is "just fall into the eight please guys, just please do that" then they slacken off, "ah we only have to win about 12 games all year".

As players they wouldn't be happy with that, but as a season evolves and you find your place on the ladder, and whos around you, how many games you need to keep up etc, even tho the formulated thought is taking everything a game at a time, they'd ALL be penciling in certain games or slabs of games where they need 2/4 etc. Teams do this all the time.

The thing is, if CC is publicly saying all this stuff, a man of his word, you can be sure he's sending the same messages to his players, if not directly, indirectly, where he lays off them after losing a close game that drops them from 3rd to 7th. Things of that nature.

Comparing all the things CC has said this year to the things MH said a week or so ago....that's the difference right there. You can just feel it, the hardness or expectations are different. One is more round-about, success isn't about winning or losing but players having their performance indicators improving, and confusion...while the other is simple, straight, to the point and you can tell there's a hunger to beat the best etc.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and TBH, I don't necessarily disagree - I just don't fully agree either... if that makes sense.

We had a player (Johnson) in today's West Australian say they're aiming for Top 2 - so obviously behiond closed doors they've spoken about that. But in a two-team town (as you would know), if a coach were to come out and say that, the media would have a field day, and the crucifixion would be brutal if it didn't come off. Even Worsfold didn't say it last year. He spouted the line - "we believe we have improved, we learnt a lot from our finals campaign last year, we believe our best is good enough to beat anyone"... you read between those lines, and you see pretty much what CC has said.

Anyway - I think we should agree to kind of disagree but not necessarily agree, sort of...

I do know if CC stuffs up - the Freo faithful will be absolutely baying for blood. We don't put up with what we've endured, then get a sniff and not want to see our club go on with it... And in Harvey it seems we have a pretty good replacement ready to go.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and TBH, I don't necessarily disagree - I just don't fully agree either... if that makes sense.

We had a player (Johnson) in today's West Australian say they're aiming for Top 2 - so obviously behiond closed doors they've spoken about that. But in a two-team town (as you would know), if a coach were to come out and say that, the media would have a field day, and the crucifixion would be brutal if it didn't come off. Even Worsfold didn't say it last year. He spouted the line - "we believe we have improved, we learnt a lot from our finals campaign last year, we believe our best is good enough to beat anyone"... you read between those lines, and you see pretty much what CC has said.

Anyway - I think we should agree to kind of disagree but not necessarily agree, sort of...

I do know if CC stuffs up - the Freo faithful will be absolutely baying for blood. We don't put up with what we've endured, then get a sniff and not want to see our club go on with it... And in Harvey it seems we have a pretty good replacement ready to go.

Let's agree to disagree...and kinda too.

But Worsfold saying, "we believe our best is good enough to beat anyone" is NOT anything like a Connolly saying. Worsfold basically declared a flag there. While Mark Harvey saying, "We look forward to playing West Coast, the best team in the competition" is saying "bring it on, we arent afraid of you" (ie, we can beat the best). While Johnson said the same thing.

However, the HC hasn't said anything resembling what those three said.

But.....we'll be at it hammer and tongs....so, I respect your opinion. I appreciate you discussing it with me and giving me a chance. I'll be poking my nose in the Freo board from time to time, if there's an interesting thread I see. Make sure Docker_brat is there to greet me at the door.

 

[ImperialPurple]

OK fair enough. BUT I have heard / read CC say that he thinks when Freo are playing their best footy they believe they can beat anyone in the competition. So yes, he does come out with "management-speak" and yes it does frustrate and annoy, but he is a man who has felt the knives long and deep during his tenure, so it's also a bit about self-preservation in an unfriendly enviroment....


catchya...

 

[Keys]

Comparing all the things CC has said this year to the things MH said a week or so ago....that's the difference right there. You can just feel it, the hardness or expectations are different. One is more round-about, success isn't about winning or losing but players having their performance indicators improving, and confusion...while the other is simple, straight, to the point and you can tell there's a hunger to beat the best etc.

Part of the difference is one is a head coach and the other is an assistant. Far less note is taken of what an assistant says compared to the head coach at any club.

MH can say what he wants with far greater freedom because it is highly unlikely that he will get hung out dry for his comments if Freo lose, simply because the focus will shift to CC.

For all those that want to pump up MH as a potential gun head coach need to remember that he has been an assistant for many years and has declined to apply for many potential jobs in the past despite being considered a front runner by many. That suggests that he may not consider himself ready and until he is in the hotseat himself it is unfair to CC to say MH is better or deserves the greater share of the credit for Freo's rise.

 

[bushie]

Part of the difference is one is a head coach and the other is an assistant. Far less note is taken of what an assistant says compared to the head coach at any club.

MH can say what he wants with far greater freedom because it is highly unlikely that he will get hung out dry for his comments if Freo lose, simply because the focus will shift to CC.

For all those that want to pump up MH as a potential gun head coach need to remember that he has been an assistant for many years and has declined to apply for many potential jobs in the past despite being considered a front runner by many. That suggests that he may not consider himself ready and until he is in the hotseat himself it is unfair to CC to say MH is better or deserves the greater share of the credit for Freo's rise.

Great post, and right on the money Keyser. Nice avatar BTW. Is that you at Cable Beach??

Go to the gym son, if it is!!

g.g. you and your Hawthorn mate have gone on and on about this on the main board for weeks.

Get over it and come back mid season and then make a comment.

Until then, your pure speculation based on your dislike for CC's use of the English language is worth nothing more than an exhausted trolling attempt with absolutely no substance or fact to give it any credence at all.

I respect your posts in general.

But this seems to be some sort of personal crusade on your behalf, which is based on nothing more than your own biased personal opinion.

Come back when you can back it up with some substance buddy.

I hopefully won't see you in July/August, unless you are here offering apologies.

 

[Exe Gesis]

MH can say what he wants with far greater freedom because it is highly unlikely that he will get hung out dry for his comments if Freo lose, simply because the focus will shift to CC.

Great post indeed. However, I don't necessarily agree with this comment. These days, (maybe any days), anyone gets blasted in the media and forums and inner-club for saying things that incite 'controversy'. Doesn't have to be the HC, or Captain. AC, (not that they do get to speak much), or some gun junior would get reprimanded or put in place. Not saying MH said anything controversial. But if CC was taking a softly approach and MH came out and said something a lot more over-confident, people would talk, especially the idea of there being some coaching feud or power play. I think MH saying what he says is his character, and not the freedom to speak as such.

g.g. you and your Hawthorn mate have gone on and on about this on the main board for weeks.

Get over it and come back mid season and then make a comment.

Until then, your pure speculation based on your dislike for CC's use of the English language is worth nothing more than an exhausted trolling attempt with absolutely no substance or fact to give it any credence at all.

I respect your posts in general.

But this seems to be some sort of personal crusade on your behalf, which is based on nothing more than your own biased personal opinion.

Come back when you can back it up with some substance buddy.

I hopefully won't see you in July/August, unless you are here offering apologies.

If I'm wrong I'd be man enough to apologize. I always endeavor to be a man of my words.

I have been going on about it for weeks, because it was a really interesting thread/point. It died down because in the end, you Freo people did put a lot of good counter-arguments in. But enough is enough too. I agree. It's all been said and now it's time to let the season, CC v MH, etc stuff happen or not.

As for MO. Seriously, not a troll. But I DO have a liking for MH. Not a disliking as such for CC. As coach yes. If I was a Freo board person, I'd be fair tho. But I would give CC this year. No more 2-3 year plans if he started that with me. I'd be eyeing MH and ensure CC had everything he wanted/needed to make a successful year, and just depending if he still failed despite having my support, or if he started worrying me around the club, or people were coming to me complaining about him, if those things were happening, I'd be eyeing MH because I'd think he had the potential. But if CC were to prove he was capable and get the job done, I'd be looking to keep him and MH working together. Perhaps it's just them together more than either? Both working well as a team. So I wouldn't split them up if i noticed how well we were going and CC had them having a West Coast sort of year. Let's face it, they ARE ready for that, more than capable.

 

[spitlizard]

g.g, i don't want you to consider this as "dissin you" but I was hoping more to gauge a reaction from fellow loyal dockers supporters.

I appreciate your imput and to be honest, you are considerably more educated from the reads of it then many of your fellow Port followers.

I didn't anticipate the reaction this thread was going to create but I guess the initial intent remains. After re-reading my initial post, I don't think the last few paragraphs enforced my point exactly so here goes

I have no love for CC nor his abilities (sorry guys ). I do believe MH has been the critical impact for the later half of last year (yes controversial).

HOWEVER...CC to his credit copped the punches when the sheizen hit the fan, he talked the talk and walked the walk..and absorbed it, this is my point.

I guess what I am trying to say is that one needs to admire a person that given the circumstances, he accepted the critisism on the chin and forged forward taking the club with him.

I personally think that MH IS the right person to lead Freo but I will bow down to CC for his tenacity and abitity to absorb the knocks and get on with the job at hand.

Again I state that I am prepared to give CC the benefit of the doubt, providing that MH's efforts are also incorporated and embraced, and that we achieve the goal that so many of us "loyalists" so deserately deserve!!!

2007 premiership team,,,,,,let the games begin!! !

P.S g.g don't take this personally but I did write this post for a reason. You do appear however to be at least one Port poster to hold a shred of sense!
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299565