Roast Adelaide Crows Media Stuff Ups

[Tyls83]

I love the "Adelaide were meant to implode without Dangerfield" quote

 

[subaru]

Are AFL.com.au reading our threads? (This is the question I'm deciding to ask because I never, ever believe in coincidences... Except for the times when there are coincidences...)

My answer is maybe. Who knows. It's perfectly plausible to think one or more journalists peruse the Bigfooty boards in hope for information, advice or direction. Or they might just be curious or intrigued as to what the fans like us (by us, I mean those willing to go on the internet and talk about footy) have to say.

I noticed one article I took exception to, no longer appears on the AFL.com.au website. I did take a stroll over to the Sydney webpage and managed to find it there (and for those who are interested to know which article, it's http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2016-04-16/longmire-wont-split-hairs ). Anyway, before I go any further you should know that I'm talking about is trivial stuff. I know not everyone will be interested in this, but I also know some will, which is why I'm writing the comment.

So the author of this article included in the article that the Swans were on the wrong end of the line ball decisions, he failed to mention that Adelaide were also on the end of some line ball decisions. This indicates to me there's a bias at play. If you can't acknowledge all the facts and only cherry pick some of the facts, you are being biased. He also goes on to claim that the replay where the ball just touched the post was "Controversial" for it was called a goal and the judged to be a point. I mean, I honestly don't know if this is a beat up for the Swans supporters because the authors a Sydney fan or whether this author lacks some fundamental basics required for good, accurate journalism. I'd be disappointed with myself as a serious journalist if I can't identify my bias when it happens.

Now, I'm sure some of you are thinking who cares and that there are a lot of second rate journalists that cover AFL, that's perfectly fine, I acknowledge that's the case. For me it's about this; Why wouldn't you want to be better at your job, why wouldn't you want to know and understand more about the subject that you're covering rather than just reporting on what happens? If you're going to claim it's controversial when it's a fact that the vision proves the ball is touching the post, then you need to explain what the controversy is. Is it controversial because not every replay decision has been accurate when it comes to the ball touching the post? That's perfectly fine, but you need to mention and offer the evidence to support such a claim, you can't just say that a correct decision is controversial as if everyone understands that point.

Anyway, there is a chance this was meant for just the Sydney Swans page which is why it might have had the bias touch in it, but either way, I think the overall journalism could have been better and I've explained my thoughts about it already so I won't say it again.

Now let's move onto the other coincidence (the first coincidence being the article I talked about first no longer is on the AFL.com.au webstite just in case my rambling is too long and the answer gets lost in the words) which is this article which just came out on AFL.com.au: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-...-crows-have-adapted-to-life-after-dangerfield

This article acknowledges the Crows ability to win without Dangerfield and also includes some statistics of where we have improved and declined from last year. The article starts with the following:

"ADELAIDE was meant to implode when Patrick Dangerfield walked out the doors at West Lakes to join Geelong.

Despite the Crows winning an elimination final in 2015 and retaining most of their core group of senior players, not one of AFL.com.au's reporters tipped them to finish in the top eight this season (Here's the article link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-24/crystal-ball-predictions-for-2016 )

On paper the Crows' midfield looked thin, their backline shaky and they were facing a nightmarish opening eight rounds with a relatively unknown coach at the helm."

To me this is coincidental and a little funny. Last week I was talking about the fact that not one of the AFL.com.au's reporters tipped the Crows to make the 8 and then we get the comment above in blue. I'm not saying they copied me, but I definitely said this exact same thing less than a week ago on here. Anyway, I found it interested and decided to share.

Also with the above snippet, it goes to prove that if you only look at the game on paper, you're exposing yourself to being wrong on a regular bases because paper doesn't tell the full story and is only a small indicator on what is actually happening. No one has mentioned our groups ability to adapt to new styles of football. This is mostly the same group who played a style of football under Sanderson in 2014 and then played a completely different style in 2015 under Walsh and managed to adapt to the change of style reasonably well. Then we had Campo for the final third of the year and we managed to again adapt to a different coach very quickly. So that should be a reasonable indicator that there's a good chance this group will be able to immediately adapt to a new coaching style in 2016. They've done it a couple of times over a relatively small amount of time and found almost immediate success with the change. Why wouldn't this have again happened in 2016? If you are looking at the name Dangerfield with a line through it and think that explains how any club's season is going to go, you're not smart enough to understand AFL football. It's that simple.

Menzel is a fantastic indicator of just how professional of a football club the Crows are. He was a long way off the fitness standards and if you look at how the Crows are playing this year, you can almost sympathise with Menzel due to the full bore, flat out game style we have played. Menzel not being fit enough isn't a reflection on him not being fit, it's a reflection on how fit you have to be to play for the club. Then you look at our injury list. You only have to sift through the past couple of years to see what clubs are capable of with a virtually non existent injury list. So this should have been a factor to check out if you want to determine how a team might go over maybe a month period having injuries down to a minimum. The rotations were going to be a huge factor for every club. Fitness became a lot more important, and that's despite already having a lot of the fittest athletes in team sports.

Did any Crows fan think we were going to implode without Dangerfield? I knew it was going to make things tougher, but I didn't think we could possibly go backwards after having so much youth last year and that youth is another preseason older and wise. So it interests me to know why we were "meant to implode" without 1 footballer. Anyone who understands team football understands 1 player doesn't make or break your team (unless it's Jacobs, but that's because he plays a vital specialist position). So we lost an inside midfielder, it's not like we don't have a bunch of other inside midfielders. Sure, Danger gives you something extra, but if the entire team is ticking, it doesn't matter if Dangerfield is playing or not.

They also said our backline looked shaky. Lever clearly was a find for us and has his second preseason under his belt. Hartigan clearly showed the form he is playing with in the NAB cup, it's not like he rocked up to the Kangas game and suddenly started playing constantly good defensive footy, he displayed his rise in the Nab cup. What I'm saying is the form was there for anyone to see already. Plus we have Luke Brown, who clearly is massively underestimated by the outside. Also we have Rory Laird, who had a dominate break out year last year and will be an All Australian one day after being robbed of proper consideration last year. We also have an All Australian and our number 1 key defender in Talia who is 24 years old and entering his 6 year of AFL footy with almost 100 games under his belt and to top it off we have Brodie Smith, an All-Australian star footballer who is one of the best defensive rebounders in the game. Now, I'm happy to admit we're a little thin after that, but anyone who is saying a back-line of Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Brown, Laird and Smith looks shaky hasn't done enough research.

Okay, enough going into such fine perspective. Sorry you all had to get a look inside of my head if you bothered to read the whole thing. These are some of my thoughts regarding the media, I guess we have to accept it to be what it is. I like to rant a lot. Sorry.

Keep writing
I love minutiae
A comparison of what is on here one day and what the Roach writes the next would elicit a strange similarity too.

Years ago there was talk of starting false story here to see if the flog reported it. Can't remember why it never eventuated.....Port flogs probably alerted him to our cunning plan !

 

[Pdub]

Alistair Lynch on Fox League Teams, talked about the run we are getting from the backline from "young Brucey Laird"

 

[Slippery Pete]

Alistair Lynch on Fox League Teams, talked about the run we are getting from the backline from "young Brucey Laird"

In fairness I think he's coining a nickname there. Bruce was a cricketer.

 

[GreyCrow]

In fairness I think he's coining a nickname there. Bruce was a cricketer.

And a good dour solid defender of the ball. Nice comparison. And could take a hit


But couldn't fn run for shyte. Or didn't say no to Wood

 

[Carmo]

Are AFL.com.au reading our threads? (This is the question I'm deciding to ask because I never, ever believe in coincidences... Except for the times when there are coincidences...)

My answer is maybe. Who knows. It's perfectly plausible to think one or more journalists peruse the Bigfooty boards in hope for information, advice or direction. Or they might just be curious or intrigued as to what the fans like us (by us, I mean those willing to go on the internet and talk about footy) have to say.

I noticed one article I took exception to, no longer appears on the AFL.com.au website. I did take a stroll over to the Sydney webpage and managed to find it there (and for those who are interested to know which article, it's http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2016-04-16/longmire-wont-split-hairs ). Anyway, before I go any further you should know that I'm talking about is trivial stuff. I know not everyone will be interested in this, but I also know some will, which is why I'm writing the comment.

So the author of this article included in the article that the Swans were on the wrong end of the line ball decisions, he failed to mention that Adelaide were also on the end of some line ball decisions. This indicates to me there's a bias at play. If you can't acknowledge all the facts and only cherry pick some of the facts, you are being biased. He also goes on to claim that the replay where the ball just touched the post was "Controversial" for it was called a goal and the judged to be a point. I mean, I honestly don't know if this is a beat up for the Swans supporters because the authors a Sydney fan or whether this author lacks some fundamental basics required for good, accurate journalism. I'd be disappointed with myself as a serious journalist if I can't identify my bias when it happens.

Now, I'm sure some of you are thinking who cares and that there are a lot of second rate journalists that cover AFL, that's perfectly fine, I acknowledge that's the case. For me it's about this; Why wouldn't you want to be better at your job, why wouldn't you want to know and understand more about the subject that you're covering rather than just reporting on what happens? If you're going to claim it's controversial when it's a fact that the vision proves the ball is touching the post, then you need to explain what the controversy is. Is it controversial because not every replay decision has been accurate when it comes to the ball touching the post? That's perfectly fine, but you need to mention and offer the evidence to support such a claim, you can't just say that a correct decision is controversial as if everyone understands that point.

Anyway, there is a chance this was meant for just the Sydney Swans page which is why it might have had the bias touch in it, but either way, I think the overall journalism could have been better and I've explained my thoughts about it already so I won't say it again.

Now let's move onto the other coincidence (the first coincidence being the article I talked about first no longer is on the AFL.com.au webstite just in case my rambling is too long and the answer gets lost in the words) which is this article which just came out on AFL.com.au: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-...-crows-have-adapted-to-life-after-dangerfield

This article acknowledges the Crows ability to win without Dangerfield and also includes some statistics of where we have improved and declined from last year. The article starts with the following:

"ADELAIDE was meant to implode when Patrick Dangerfield walked out the doors at West Lakes to join Geelong.

Despite the Crows winning an elimination final in 2015 and retaining most of their core group of senior players, not one of AFL.com.au's reporters tipped them to finish in the top eight this season (Here's the article link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-24/crystal-ball-predictions-for-2016 )

On paper the Crows' midfield looked thin, their backline shaky and they were facing a nightmarish opening eight rounds with a relatively unknown coach at the helm."

To me this is coincidental and a little funny. Last week I was talking about the fact that not one of the AFL.com.au's reporters tipped the Crows to make the 8 and then we get the comment above in blue. I'm not saying they copied me, but I definitely said this exact same thing less than a week ago on here. Anyway, I found it interested and decided to share.

Also with the above snippet, it goes to prove that if you only look at the game on paper, you're exposing yourself to being wrong on a regular bases because paper doesn't tell the full story and is only a small indicator on what is actually happening. No one has mentioned our groups ability to adapt to new styles of football. This is mostly the same group who played a style of football under Sanderson in 2014 and then played a completely different style in 2015 under Walsh and managed to adapt to the change of style reasonably well. Then we had Campo for the final third of the year and we managed to again adapt to a different coach very quickly. So that should be a reasonable indicator that there's a good chance this group will be able to immediately adapt to a new coaching style in 2016. They've done it a couple of times over a relatively small amount of time and found almost immediate success with the change. Why wouldn't this have again happened in 2016? If you are looking at the name Dangerfield with a line through it and think that explains how any club's season is going to go, you're not smart enough to understand AFL football. It's that simple.

Menzel is a fantastic indicator of just how professional of a football club the Crows are. He was a long way off the fitness standards and if you look at how the Crows are playing this year, you can almost sympathise with Menzel due to the full bore, flat out game style we have played. Menzel not being fit enough isn't a reflection on him not being fit, it's a reflection on how fit you have to be to play for the club. Then you look at our injury list. You only have to sift through the past couple of years to see what clubs are capable of with a virtually non existent injury list. So this should have been a factor to check out if you want to determine how a team might go over maybe a month period having injuries down to a minimum. The rotations were going to be a huge factor for every club. Fitness became a lot more important, and that's despite already having a lot of the fittest athletes in team sports.

Did any Crows fan think we were going to implode without Dangerfield? I knew it was going to make things tougher, but I didn't think we could possibly go backwards after having so much youth last year and that youth is another preseason older and wise. So it interests me to know why we were "meant to implode" without 1 footballer. Anyone who understands team football understands 1 player doesn't make or break your team (unless it's Jacobs, but that's because he plays a vital specialist position). So we lost an inside midfielder, it's not like we don't have a bunch of other inside midfielders. Sure, Danger gives you something extra, but if the entire team is ticking, it doesn't matter if Dangerfield is playing or not.

They also said our backline looked shaky. Lever clearly was a find for us and has his second preseason under his belt. Hartigan clearly showed the form he is playing with in the NAB cup, it's not like he rocked up to the Kangas game and suddenly started playing constantly good defensive footy, he displayed his rise in the Nab cup. What I'm saying is the form was there for anyone to see already. Plus we have Luke Brown, who clearly is massively underestimated by the outside. Also we have Rory Laird, who had a dominate break out year last year and will be an All Australian one day after being robbed of proper consideration last year. We also have an All Australian and our number 1 key defender in Talia who is 24 years old and entering his 6 year of AFL footy with almost 100 games under his belt and to top it off we have Brodie Smith, an All-Australian star footballer who is one of the best defensive rebounders in the game. Now, I'm happy to admit we're a little thin after that, but anyone who is saying a back-line of Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Brown, Laird and Smith looks shaky hasn't done enough research.

Okay, enough going into such fine perspective. Sorry you all had to get a look inside of my head if you bothered to read the whole thing. These are some of my thoughts regarding the media, I guess we have to accept it to be what it is. I like to rant a lot. Sorry.

Here's my take on the media, journalists are not about representing factual information anymore, haven't been for a long time:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2016-non-crows-afl-discussion.1120461/page-243#post-43022960

Also, you have to remember, re Sydney, the AFL have to be sympathetic to them to keep ensuring the interest to prop them up. Without that extra assistance the clubs like Syd will just wither and die. That's why pre, post and during match it was all about them. It will be about them too, when a lot of other sides play them as well, especially from traditional states.

 

[Infra Ted]

Alistair Lynch on Fox League Teams, talked about the run we are getting from the backline from "young Brucey Laird"

Came here to post that one.

SMH

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Can this thread title include a dedication to the Rooch?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I have a confession to make. I buy and read the Saturday Advertiser. I suspect while a lot of us say we don't, in reality we do.

Well after his pathetic excuse at Port propaganda today - no more. That's the last Advertiser I buy.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

So feel free t join me. Let's keep each other honest now. No more buying the Advertiser. No more clicking on his click bait articles. Just don't look. Just don't look.

And in the mean time, let's promote In Daily and The Age articles instead.

 

[diligaf473]

I have a confession to make. I buy and read the Saturday Advertiser. I suspect while a lot of us say we don't, in reality we do.

Well after his pathetic excuse at Port propaganda today - no more. That's the last Advertiser I buy.

Did you read that Reality Bites section where he's called out Rowey? The whole section was nothing but a massive troll.

 

[brucetiki]

So feel free t join me. Let's keep each other honest now. No more buying the Advertiser. No more clicking on his click bait articles. Just don't look. Just don't look.

And in the mean time, let's promote In Daily and The Age articles instead.

I've boycotted the News Limited press (bar the NT News) for about 2 years now.

FWIW InDaily's 'Chief Football Writer' is a Crows supporter.

 

[6BTS]

I have a confession to make. I buy and read the Saturday Advertiser. I suspect while a lot of us say we don't, in reality we do.

Well after his pathetic excuse at Port propaganda today - no more. That's the last Advertiser I buy.

I don't buy the Advertiser and that's based on reality. Smart choice, theories state, and studies are underway, to investigate the trend of people gaining 5-15 IQ points by ceasing to read the Advertiser for a period of 2 weeks or longer. I can't confirm or deny this to be true, but my gut is all in.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Day 1 - haven't bought the Sunday Mail. Haven't clicked on adelaidenow. Haven't listened to 5aa either.

 

[GreyCrow]

Day 1 - haven't bought the Sunday Mail. Haven't clicked on adelaidenow. Haven't listened to 5aa either.

After day 10 you get an AA badge and 1 every month thereafter.

AdvertiserAnonymous
AAAnonymous

 

[brucetiki]

After day 10 you get an AA badge and 1 every month thereafter.

AdvertiserAnonymous
AAAnonymous

So does mean I'm up to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Anonymous!

 

[Slippery Pete]

So feel free t join me. Let's keep each other honest now. No more buying the Advertiser. No more clicking on his click bait articles. Just don't look. Just don't look.

And in the mean time, let's promote In Daily and The Age articles instead.

You had me until The Age.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Are AFL.com.au reading our threads? (This is the question I'm deciding to ask because I never, ever believe in coincidences... Except for the times when there are coincidences...)

My answer is maybe. Who knows. It's perfectly plausible to think one or more journalists peruse the Bigfooty boards in hope for information, advice or direction. Or they might just be curious or intrigued as to what the fans like us (by us, I mean those willing to go on the internet and talk about footy) have to say.

I noticed one article I took exception to, no longer appears on the AFL.com.au website. I did take a stroll over to the Sydney webpage and managed to find it there (and for those who are interested to know which article, it's http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2016-04-16/longmire-wont-split-hairs ). Anyway, before I go any further you should know that I'm talking about is trivial stuff. I know not everyone will be interested in this, but I also know some will, which is why I'm writing the comment.

So the author of this article included in the article that the Swans were on the wrong end of the line ball decisions, he failed to mention that Adelaide were also on the end of some line ball decisions. This indicates to me there's a bias at play. If you can't acknowledge all the facts and only cherry pick some of the facts, you are being biased. He also goes on to claim that the replay where the ball just touched the post was "Controversial" for it was called a goal and the judged to be a point. I mean, I honestly don't know if this is a beat up for the Swans supporters because the authors a Sydney fan or whether this author lacks some fundamental basics required for good, accurate journalism. I'd be disappointed with myself as a serious journalist if I can't identify my bias when it happens.

Now, I'm sure some of you are thinking who cares and that there are a lot of second rate journalists that cover AFL, that's perfectly fine, I acknowledge that's the case. For me it's about this; Why wouldn't you want to be better at your job, why wouldn't you want to know and understand more about the subject that you're covering rather than just reporting on what happens? If you're going to claim it's controversial when it's a fact that the vision proves the ball is touching the post, then you need to explain what the controversy is. Is it controversial because not every replay decision has been accurate when it comes to the ball touching the post? That's perfectly fine, but you need to mention and offer the evidence to support such a claim, you can't just say that a correct decision is controversial as if everyone understands that point.

Anyway, there is a chance this was meant for just the Sydney Swans page which is why it might have had the bias touch in it, but either way, I think the overall journalism could have been better and I've explained my thoughts about it already so I won't say it again.

Now let's move onto the other coincidence (the first coincidence being the article I talked about first no longer is on the AFL.com.au webstite just in case my rambling is too long and the answer gets lost in the words) which is this article which just came out on AFL.com.au: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-...-crows-have-adapted-to-life-after-dangerfield

This article acknowledges the Crows ability to win without Dangerfield and also includes some statistics of where we have improved and declined from last year. The article starts with the following:

"ADELAIDE was meant to implode when Patrick Dangerfield walked out the doors at West Lakes to join Geelong.

Despite the Crows winning an elimination final in 2015 and retaining most of their core group of senior players, not one of AFL.com.au's reporters tipped them to finish in the top eight this season (Here's the article link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-24/crystal-ball-predictions-for-2016 )

On paper the Crows' midfield looked thin, their backline shaky and they were facing a nightmarish opening eight rounds with a relatively unknown coach at the helm."

To me this is coincidental and a little funny. Last week I was talking about the fact that not one of the AFL.com.au's reporters tipped the Crows to make the 8 and then we get the comment above in blue. I'm not saying they copied me, but I definitely said this exact same thing less than a week ago on here. Anyway, I found it interested and decided to share.

Also with the above snippet, it goes to prove that if you only look at the game on paper, you're exposing yourself to being wrong on a regular bases because paper doesn't tell the full story and is only a small indicator on what is actually happening. No one has mentioned our groups ability to adapt to new styles of football. This is mostly the same group who played a style of football under Sanderson in 2014 and then played a completely different style in 2015 under Walsh and managed to adapt to the change of style reasonably well. Then we had Campo for the final third of the year and we managed to again adapt to a different coach very quickly. So that should be a reasonable indicator that there's a good chance this group will be able to immediately adapt to a new coaching style in 2016. They've done it a couple of times over a relatively small amount of time and found almost immediate success with the change. Why wouldn't this have again happened in 2016? If you are looking at the name Dangerfield with a line through it and think that explains how any club's season is going to go, you're not smart enough to understand AFL football. It's that simple.

Menzel is a fantastic indicator of just how professional of a football club the Crows are. He was a long way off the fitness standards and if you look at how the Crows are playing this year, you can almost sympathise with Menzel due to the full bore, flat out game style we have played. Menzel not being fit enough isn't a reflection on him not being fit, it's a reflection on how fit you have to be to play for the club. Then you look at our injury list. You only have to sift through the past couple of years to see what clubs are capable of with a virtually non existent injury list. So this should have been a factor to check out if you want to determine how a team might go over maybe a month period having injuries down to a minimum. The rotations were going to be a huge factor for every club. Fitness became a lot more important, and that's despite already having a lot of the fittest athletes in team sports.

Did any Crows fan think we were going to implode without Dangerfield? I knew it was going to make things tougher, but I didn't think we could possibly go backwards after having so much youth last year and that youth is another preseason older and wise. So it interests me to know why we were "meant to implode" without 1 footballer. Anyone who understands team football understands 1 player doesn't make or break your team (unless it's Jacobs, but that's because he plays a vital specialist position). So we lost an inside midfielder, it's not like we don't have a bunch of other inside midfielders. Sure, Danger gives you something extra, but if the entire team is ticking, it doesn't matter if Dangerfield is playing or not.

They also said our backline looked shaky. Lever clearly was a find for us and has his second preseason under his belt. Hartigan clearly showed the form he is playing with in the NAB cup, it's not like he rocked up to the Kangas game and suddenly started playing constantly good defensive footy, he displayed his rise in the Nab cup. What I'm saying is the form was there for anyone to see already. Plus we have Luke Brown, who clearly is massively underestimated by the outside. Also we have Rory Laird, who had a dominate break out year last year and will be an All Australian one day after being robbed of proper consideration last year. We also have an All Australian and our number 1 key defender in Talia who is 24 years old and entering his 6 year of AFL footy with almost 100 games under his belt and to top it off we have Brodie Smith, an All-Australian star footballer who is one of the best defensive rebounders in the game. Now, I'm happy to admit we're a little thin after that, but anyone who is saying a back-line of Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Brown, Laird and Smith looks shaky hasn't done enough research.

Okay, enough going into such fine perspective. Sorry you all had to get a look inside of my head if you bothered to read the whole thing. These are some of my thoughts regarding the media, I guess we have to accept it to be what it is. I like to rant a lot. Sorry.

I'm sure journos look at this site at times. When B Crouch was coming back from injury I made a comment in a thread that you don't run your thoroughbreds in barrier trials. That evening on 5AA Rowie says "you don't run a group 1 horse at the country races". Coincidence, perhaps...

Edit: even better, I said "group 1 thoroughbreds" so all Rowie changed was barrier trial to country races

2016 team (inc trades)