Changes for Round Two

[catempire]

I appreciate that you have sided with me at times when no one else will...I felt we were mature enough to realise we were just disagreeing now?

You have decided on your own you would rather sledge Byrnes past and present than actually talk relevantly about his football...again I ask why you require me to do anything else but to just point that out to you?

If giving you a taste of what it might feel like to be sledged disturbs you...perhaps thats the intention? I really cant see what moral high ground you are attempting to take here...to me this is all just cut and dried and black and white.

If your next response is similar to the last one...I guess we are done here.

I think it's pretty clear we disagree. That's fine. Vigorous debate is part of the reason I bother coming here.

However, in this thread, three times you have quoted me and made arguments against points I haven't even made (for example, apparently i have now "sledged Byrnes past and present rather than talk relevantly about his football" - I've no idea what you're on about). As I've said, if you want to address something I actually have said, go right ahead and I can respond. Otherwise, I can't be bothered continuing this dialogue with you as I hardly see the point.

 

[darren forssman]

I think it's pretty clear we disagree. That's fine. Vigorous debate is part of the reason I bother coming here.

However, in this thread, three times you have quoted me and made arguments against points I haven't even made (for example, apparently i have now "sledged Byrnes past and present rather than talk relevantly about his football" - I've no idea what you're on about). As I've said, if you want to address something I actually have said, go right ahead and I can respond. Otherwise, I can't be bothered continuing this dialogue with you as I hardly see the point.

it is like a vortex sometimes isnt it?

 

[dadonis]

yep, seems to me most of the active dislike of byrnes is based on past form, and people don't seem willing to give him a chance. if you look at his form objectively, he's had a very good preseason, a serviceable opening match in a team that was generally down, and ran into pretty good form in the finals last year.

his stats for the last 4 matches of last year were 16.25 disposals and 3 tackles per match - not bad for an interchange player. also, in answer to a few earlier posts on his goal kicking conversion, his total for those 4 games was 3 goals and 3 behinds, ie 50% conversion, so that shows definite improvement over the longer term 30 odd percent mentioned.

i think anyone watching unbiasedly late last year would have to say he had a pretty good finals series. the official bio is pretty spot on imo:

Found form at the right end of the season after a slow start. Was dropped from the senior side after round four and it took him until round 16 to fight his way back. During this time, the Cats were taking all before them but his pace proved a more-than-handy addition late in the season and in the finals.

give the kid a break!

 

[The rabbi]

I wouldnt even say he had a brain fade, he couldnt just stand by and watch Warren mark uncontested. I thought he had to do what he did, ya win some ya lose some but he had to commit himself and take the chance.

While Shannon has his faults, lack of courage is not one of them. He will make a contest against bigger opponents and that can and has often created opportunities for winning the ball.

He has had a good preseason and should not be dropped on that perforemance. I am not a fan of Shannon, but selections should be judged on performance. Byrnes is not the first in line for the chop.

 

[Rosso]

Get a grip people. Fair dinkum, if some of you were on the selection committee they'd have to change the footy show to Saturday morning. It'd take you lot that long to pick the side!!!

 

[WE Are Geelong]

I think it's pretty clear we disagree. That's fine. Vigorous debate is part of the reason I bother coming here.

However, in this thread, three times you have quoted me and made arguments against points I haven't even made (for example, apparently i have now "sledged Byrnes past and present rather than talk relevantly about his football" - I've no idea what you're on about). As I've said, if you want to address something I actually have said, go right ahead and I can respond. Otherwise, I can't be bothered continuing this dialogue with you as I hardly see the point.

You suggested recently that "a cardboard cutout is more effective on a football field than Byrnes" Sledging or what?...I think its time to take a deep breath. Perhaps call up the Aussie cricket team and request a manual if you need one.

"I don't think that Byrnes will be dropped. If he hasn't by now after putting in many performances like last night, I don't see why he will be now. As frustrating as I find it..."

"So THE SELECTORS, having selected Byrnes numerous times after he's played games like last night (and worse), would be unlikely to see fit to drop him after another such similar game."

These next two quotes are also 99% based on what Byrnes has done in the past. Which in case you noticed or didnt quite scan is also what I have asserted you and others have done this thread. This is called bias and to my mind not relevant to the game Byrnes actually played Thursday night or what his preseason has actually been like to those who have watched more closely. And a grossly unfair thing to do to any player showing some improvement in a season in round 1. Its just an indication as I also mentioned that you are not interested in a fair and reasonable debate about the guy in real football terms. Just an established view and thats it...very basic stuff really.

I can see why you dont want to continue the discussion any longer but its certainly not for the reasons you are entertaining. I have basically called your bluff.

Whats next? What does it mean for you to save face from here? I imagine it could get even more pathetic from here but thats entirely up to you I guess.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

it is like a vortex sometimes isnt it?

You're right! Did that sound good to you? What you needed?...

The amount of times people have said Byrnes isnt up to it this season...gone 4 quarters already (time flies)...is pretty disturbing and extremely repetitive as you say.

..or am I wrong about what you really meant?...

 

[WE Are Geelong]

i was having a laugh with the "you are right and we are wrong", hence the seriously in the next sentence. i dont honestly care enough about who is right or wrong, it is all opinion.

can you remind me what my established view of byrnes is and what you what me to answer about him?

i actually tend to agree with you about tenace.

Ahhh...a few people other than me disagree with you...take off the blinkers perhaps?

 

[catempire]

You suggested recently that "a cardboard cutout is more effective on a football field than Byrnes" Sledging or what?...I think its time to take a deep breath. Perhaps call up the Aussie cricket team and request a manual if you need one.

Ah right, it's a tongue in cheek jibe that you've taken offence to. Fair enough. I think a reasonable person could see that it was tongue in cheek. I'm sure you can.

"I don't think that Byrnes will be dropped. If he hasn't by now after putting in many performances like last night, I don't see why he will be now. As frustrating as I find it..."

Right, can't see anything wrong with that. I find it frustrating that Byrnes is in the 22. Do you take exception to my frustration?

"So THE SELECTORS, having selected Byrnes numerous times after he's played games like last night (and worse), would be unlikely to see fit to drop him after another such similar game."

Uh huh. Do you disagree?

These next two quotes are also 99% based on what Byrnes has done in the past.

What next two quotes? I can't see them.

Which in case you noticed or didnt quite scan is also what I have asserted you and others have done this thread. This is called bias and to my mind not relevant to the game Byrnes actually played Thursday night or what his preseason has actually been like to those who have watched more closely. And a grossly unfair thing to do to any player showing some improvement in a season in round 1. Its just an indication as I also mentioned that you are not interested in a fair and reasonable debate about the guy in real football terms. Just an established view and thats it...very basic stuff really.

I can see why you dont want to continue the discussion any longer but its certainly not for the reasons you are entertaining. I have basically called your bluff.

Whats next? What does it mean for you to save face from here? I imagine it could get even more pathetic from here but thats entirely up to you I guess.

I'm sorry, you've lost me. I can't make any sense of those three paragraphs. Again, if you're asserting that I'm basing my judgement of Byrnes on his performance in seasons past, that is true in part. After all, we've only seen one AFL game from him this season. And the only thing I've said about that game is that it was an average game from him. I've said that it was no worse or no better than he usually is. So my opinion of Byrnes is based on having watched him ever since he was a rookie. In essence, the pre-season games I've seen this year and the one Premiership game I've seen, have done nothing to change the view of him that I've formed over that time.

If I could summarise in a sentance, why I would like to see Byrnes out of the team (so here, I'm lobbing up a full-toss on leg stump, give it your best swing), it would be:

I believe, in the long term, the Geelong Football Club would be a stronger team with a different player occupying the spot in the team which Byrnes currently does.

By all means, critique that statement.

 

[smelly cat]

Prismall is far more likely to be a 200 game player for our club then either byrnes or tenace, and so should be given preference over the two.

This little fact pales into comparison alongside the most obvious reason for his inclusion:

He is a far better footballer than both tenace and byrnes.

And when will you people get it that speed possessed by people with poor disposal is WASTED!!!!

 

[WE Are Geelong]

Ah right, it's a tongue in cheek jibe that you've taken offence to. Fair enough. I think a reasonable person could see that it was tongue in cheek. I'm sure you can.



Right, can't see anything wrong with that. I find it frustrating that Byrnes is in the 22. Do you take exception to my frustration?



Uh huh. Do you disagree?



What next two quotes? I can't see them.



I'm sorry, you've lost me. I can't make any sense of those three paragraphs. Again, if you're asserting that I'm basing my judgement of Byrnes on his performance in seasons past, that is true in part. After all, we've only seen one AFL game from him this season. And the only thing I've said about that game is that it was an average game from him. I've said that it was no worse or no better than he usually is. So my opinion of Byrnes is based on having watched him ever since he was a rookie. In essence, the pre-season games I've seen this year and the one Premiership game I've seen, have done nothing to change the view of him that I've formed over that time.

If I could summarise in a sentance, why I would like to see Byrnes out of the team (so here, I'm lobbing up a full-toss on leg stump, give it your best swing), it would be:

I believe, in the long term, the Geelong Football Club would be a stronger team with a different player occupying the spot in the team which Byrnes currently does.

By all means, critique that statement.

Whats with all the semantics and the denials?

I disagree that was a typical Byrnes effort on Thursday night. In fact it was more of the same from what I have observed to be his best preseason at the club. I am happy to disagree on that...and thats cool. Your opinion is your own.

What is significant though is you did sledge Byrnes and that is a given regardless of your mind numbing denial...and you are basing 99% of your opinion about him on things you have seen of him in the past. Not partly...but wholly and entirely as it turns out from your last neat little paragraph.

So now I realise its only kosker when its written in your words...but if I bring you up on the exact same thing...you deny it. Hhhhmmm interesting.

Glad we got that sorted out. As I mentioned it will only get more pathetic from here.

Its actually quite amusing to see someone denying something...then go on to basically admit they are doing that exact same thing later in the same post. Well done!

 

[catempire]

Whats with all the semantics and the denials?

I disagree that was a typical Byrnes effort on Thursday night. In fact it was more of the same from what I have observed to be his best preseason at the club. I am happy to disagree on that...and thats cool. Your opinion is your own.

What is significant though is you did sledge Byrnes and that is a given regardless of your mind numbing denial...and you are basing 99% of your opinion about him on things you have seen of him in the past. Not partly...but wholly and entirely as it turns out from your last neat little paragraph.

So now I realise its only kosker when its written in your words...but if I bring you up on the exact same thing...you deny it. Hhhhmmm interesting.

Glad we got that sorted out. As I mentioned it will only get more pathetic from here.

Its actually quite amusing to see someone denying something...then go on to basically admit they are doing that exact same thing later in the same post. Well done!

I honestly can't follow you. You still appear to to be boxing at shadows.

My views have been made clear. If you want to discuss them, go right ahead.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

I honestly can't follow you. You still appear to to be boxing at shadows.

My views have been made clear. If you want to discuss them, go right ahead.

Well here it is again for you in English.

You sledged Byrnes...I mentioned that you sledged Byrnes...you denied saying you sledged Byrnes...I quoted you sledging Byrnes...at which point it became a jibe and denied ever sledging him....it was just a jibe eventhough it was a sledge (I need a drink)! Wow, its pretty cool when you read it in english I just realised too!

Secondly I suggested you are basing your argument on Byrnes on past form, you have an established view of him and certainly current form will have nothing to do with that view that you hold of him...

..."I believe, in the long term, the Geelong Football Club would be a stronger team with a different player occupying the spot in the team which Byrnes currently does"...

Again, I think typing it in english makes it all the more clearer. Wouldnt you agree?

 

[Rosso]

Prismall is far more likely to be a 200 game player for our club then either byrnes or tenace, and so should be given preference over the two.

This little fact pales into comparison alongside the most obvious reason for his inclusion:

He is a far better footballer than both tenace and byrnes.

And when will you people get it that speed possessed by people with poor disposal is WASTED!!!!

Prismall's inclusion would be at the expense of either Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Ling, Kelly or Selwood as they are midfielders and so is he. Tenace is covering for Monica (when he is ready to come back he'll slot straight back in) and Byrnes is a quick goal/point sneak who has performed better than Varcoe and Djerrkura over the preseason. Neither of these players had shockers on Thursday night so odds are the blokes that picked them last Wednesday night will retain them in the side when they have selection on Thursday.

Pris may play 200 games but it won't be at the expense of Byrnes or Tenace ATM

 

[catempire]

Well here it is again for you in English.

You sledged Byrnes...I mentioned that you sledged Byrnes...you denied saying you sledged Byrnes...I quoted you sledging Byrnes...at which point it became a jibe and denied ever sledging him....it was just a jibe. Wow, its pretty cool when you read it in english I just realised!

Secondly I suggested you are basing your argument on Byrnes on past form, you have an established view of him and certainly current form will have nothing to do with that view that you hold of him...

..."I believe, in the long term, the Geelong Football Club would be a stronger team with a different player occupying the spot in the team which Byrnes currently does"...

Again, I think typing it in english makes it all the more clearer. Wouldnt you agree?

This is hilarious! Are you seriously taking me to task over likening Shanny to a cardboard cutout? Priceless!

I beg forgiveness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for:

"I believe, in the long term, the Geelong Football Club would be a stronger team with a different player occupying the spot in the team which Byrnes currently does"

I REPEAT, BY ALL MEANS, CRITIQUE THIS STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GeeCat]

My turn:

Shannon Byrnes is currently, and has been for just about as long as he's come off the rookie list, a fringe player. What does that mean? Simply put, it means he's under more pressure to perform every week he's in the team than certain others (he's not alone, mind you). He can't afford more than a couple of bad performances in a row; of course, not many can, but realistically speaking, there are more established/entrenched players who are given more leeway by the selectors. I emphasise that last part, because that (to me) encompasses what this is (or should be) all about. That's the reality.

So with that said as a preclude, the next dose of reality should be the understanding that Byrnes won't be dropped this week. His performance on Thursday night contained more 'right' than it did 'wrong' - he provided the run, carry, and pressure that has been expected of him in his role to the team for most of the night, and his shortcomings (namely his decision-making, finishing skills, and penchant for attracting unnecessary pressure to himself and teammates) didn't rear their head too often (well, certainly not enough to warrant a certain ommission from the team for next week). In summation, he was okay. And, as CE alluded to (and of this, I don't see any problem..) both past form and present logic from the selectors would indicate he has earned himself another gig next week based on Thursday night's performance and to a slightly lesser extent, his pre-season to date (which has been mostly of a similar vein to Thursday night's performances IMO). Tenace is in a comparable boat (although, if we are to see any inclusions of non-talls to the team for the Essendon game, he would arguably be closer to the 'out' door than Byrnes or any others).

Secondly, I don't understand some of the arguments being thrown about in regard to 'objective' or 'biased' opinions. Clearly, there is a fine line to tread from blatantly criticising a player and basing an opinion on evidence gathered from the past as well as the present. Agreeably, Byrnes is an obvious scapegoat for many. Easy to critique, and always seemingly first in line for the door out. So with that in mind, yes, it would be rather ignorant to argue that he should be dropped this week purely on the back of his past performances, without taking into account his most recent outing on Thursday.

But, it must also be said that past performances do take on relevance and value in any such argument (or more widely, any critique). You can't simply work on being objective one week at a time - it doesn't work like that. Heck, the selectors don't work like that. Picking an example, Byrnes' woeful finishing in front of goal (the stats were given elsewhere in the thread) - technically based on past performances, and more or less leads to established views on his finishing skills in front of goal. Now there's a suggestion that, being 2008, he can't be critiqued on his past form there? He has a fresh page to start over?

Thirdly, and perhaps a more minor regard in the context of the main arguments/debates being thrown around in here, is the matter regarding Tenace's pace. Agreeably, the game has quickened since his debut year. But the issue, or the qualms surrounding Tenace and his pace isn't so much how quick he is. It's about how he uses his pace - how he runs, when he runs (or rather, when he doesn't run). That's what the issue is, and thus any other point about just how fast he is (or if he's slowed down) or the speed of the game rising (and making him look slow) is really irrelevant in the scheme of things.

 

[catempire]

And, as CE alluded to (and of this, I don't see any problem..) both past form and present logic from the selectors would indicate he has earned himself another gig next week based on Thursday night's performance and to a slightly lesser extent, his pre-season to date (which has been mostly of a similar vein to Thursday night's performances IMO).

My god. I'd almost given up on anyone understanding me on this point.

Thank you GeeCat.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

GeeCat "And, as CE alluded to (and of this, I don't see any problem..) both past form and present logic from the selectors would indicate he has earned himself another gig next week based on Thursday night's performance and to a slightly lesser extent, his pre-season to date (which has been mostly of a similar vein to Thursday night's performances IMO)."

Byrnes will get selected for what he offers and is likely to offer the side in a four quarter match on the day we play Essendon. It wont have anything to do with 7 months ago....2 years ago...or whatever suggestion you might like to put forward.

It is interesting to watch people not even understand why we have become the club we are today. We dont pick guys on reputations anymore or past feats. In fact this was a clear statemant made by Bomber at the start of 2007 and was also one of the amended criteria after Cook's review as to how the football department should be run. Players have to perform and thats it. Selected on current form, fitness and expectations of performance output in the upcoming four quarter game.

So whilst what you said slips onto the page nicely and reads well...it has no basis in truth as to how the present day Geelong football side is selected week to week.

As for the rest of your post in the main I enjoyed reading it. A bit long though wasnt it? (thats a joke by the way)

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Basically, the ones who have been suggested.

Byrnes seems to be higher in the pecking order than Tenace, but in reality Byrnes is no better.

 

[catempire]

GeeCat "And, as CE alluded to (and of this, I don't see any problem..) both past form and present logic from the selectors would indicate he has earned himself another gig next week based on Thursday night's performance and to a slightly lesser extent, his pre-season to date (which has been mostly of a similar vein to Thursday night's performances IMO)."

Byrnes will get selected for what he offers and is likely to offer the side in a four quarter match on the day we play Essendon. It wont have anything to do with 7 months ago....2 years ago...or whatever suggestion you might like to put forward.

It is interesting to watch people not even understand why we have become the club we are today. We dont pick guys on reputations anymore or past feats. In fact this was a clear statemant made by Bomber at the start of 2007 and was also one of the amended criteria after Cook's review as to how the football department should be run. Players have to perform and thats it. Selected on current form, fitness and expectations of performance output in the upcoming four quarter game.

So whilst what you said slips onto the page nicely and reads well...it has no basis in truth as to how the present day Geelong football side is selected week to week.

As for the rest of your post in the main I enjoyed reading it. A bit long though wasnt it? (thats a joke by the way)

Are you suggesting that past form has no bearing on selection for the coming week?

 

[WE Are Geelong]

Are you suggesting that past form has no bearing on selection for the coming week?

No...thats what you are trying to put forward to try create some petty argument.

What I said again is clearly printed in English above...but here is an abridged version especially for you.

I wasnt actually stating an opinion. I was just reminding GeeCat based on the findings of the review and comments by Bomber at the start of 2007 that players are selected on current form and fitness and an expectation of their output and performance for the coming match. Reputations were no longer to be seen as a reason for getting selected.

Now I am merely repeating that for you to avert another tantrum on your behalf which I have to say looked quite scary. Keyboard ok and how is the slobber coming off from the screen?

 

[GeeCat]

Byrnes will get selected for what he offers and is likely to offer the side in a four quarter match on the day we play Essendon. It wont have anything to do with 7 months ago....2 years ago...or whatever suggestion you might like to put forward.

That is correct, in a sense, yet slightly contradictory to what you appear to be arguing on the whole in another sense.

Agreeably, the selectors are essentially looking at three things with Byrnes (and similarly I guess, every other player). One; what they believe he can offer on his own (a quick, "pressure" small forward who can double to provide some run and carry in the midfield). Two; what his recent form is commanding of him. Poor form in the seniors? Strong form in the reserves? Training? All factors. Three; and perhaps to a varying extent every week, how he fits into the plan against the opposition. A very simplistic summary, but more or less the gist of it all. No qualms there.

But that said, there is still something to be said for past form. In the sense that, his past form is still taken into account, in some ways, as they assess what they believe he can offer on his own (ie his strengths/weaknesses as a player). How else do they assess the type of player he is? And in that, the whole issue of forming an argument or basing an opinion that is either objective or having 'established views' comes into play. The selectors have an established view, based on past performances, of the player Shannon is, and what he can offer. So in a sense, yes, that does have some say in dictating whether or not he is selected, or rather, why he is or isn't selected. His 46 games for the club to date help form the repute he currently carries as a fringe player.

And I guess that ties into what a few seem to be arguing in regard to having established views on Shannon (forgetting those who blatantly criticise him irregardless of how he's played on any given day). Based on past performances, there is a general consensus to be formed of what Shannon can and cannot do. What he does and doesn't do. A new season doesn't command that radically new opinions/arguments need to be formed. If he's played 5 odd seasons carrying a reputation as a player with very questionable finishing skills, does one game in the new year where he's played okay in that regard declare that past argument void and null? Obviously (I hope), no.

I guess that's more or less the gist of the argument for having established opinions. By all means tackle things objectively, but acknowledge that there is still room for established views.

 

[catempire]

No...thats what you are trying to put forward to try create some petty argument.

What I said again is clearly printed in English above...but here is an abridged version especially for you.

I wasnt actually stating an opinion. I was just reminding GeeCat based on the findings of the review and comments by Bomber at the start of 2007 that players are selected on current form and fitness and an expectation of their output and performance for the coming match. Reputations were no longer to be seen as a reason for getting selected.

Now I am merely repeating that for you to avert another tantrum on your behalf which I have to say looked quite scary. Keyboard ok and how is the slobber coming off from the screen?

So, just to be clear, past form has no bearing on selection for the upcoming round. Yes or no?

This is getting quite amusing.

 

[catempire]

That is correct, in a sense, yet slightly contradictory to what you appear to be arguing on the whole in another sense.

Agreeably, the selectors are essentially looking at three things with Byrnes (and similarly I guess, every other player). One; what they believe he can offer on his own (a quick, "pressure" small forward who can double to provide some run and carry in the midfield). Two; what his recent form is commanding of him. Poor form in the seniors? Strong form in the reserves? Training? All factors. Three; and perhaps to a varying extent every week, how he fits into the plan against the opposition. A very simplistic summary, but more or less the gist of it all. No qualms there.

But that said, there is still something to be said for past form. In the sense that, his past form is still taken into account, in some ways, as they assess what they believe he can offer on his own (ie his strengths/weaknesses as a player). How else do they assess the type of player he is? And in that, the whole issue of forming an argument or basing an opinion that is either objective or having 'established views' comes into play. The selectors have an established view, based on past performances, of the player Shannon is, and what he can offer. So in a sense, yes, that does have some say in dictating whether or not he is selected, or rather, why he is or isn't selected. His 46 games for the club to date help form the repute he currently carries as a fringe player.

And I guess that ties into what a few seem to be arguing in regard to having established views on Shannon (forgetting those who blatantly criticise him irregardless of how he's played on any given day). Based on past performances, there is a general consensus to be formed of what Shannon can and cannot do. What he does and doesn't do. A new season doesn't command that radically new opinions/arguments need to be formed. If he's played 5 odd seasons carrying a reputation as a player with very questionable finishing skills, does one game in the new year where he's played okay in that regard declare that past argument void and null? Obviously (I hope), no.

I guess that's more or less the gist of the argument for having established opinions. By all means tackle things objectively, but acknowledge that there is still room for established views.

You're almost making too much sense GeeCat. Totally agree.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

That is correct, in a sense, yet slightly contradictory to what you appear to be arguing on the whole in another sense.

Agreeably, the selectors are essentially looking at three things with Byrnes (and similarly I guess, every other player). One; what they believe he can offer on his own (a quick, "pressure" small forward who can double to provide some run and carry in the midfield). Two; what his recent form is commanding of him. Poor form in the seniors? Strong form in the reserves? Training? All factors. Three; and perhaps to a varying extent every week, how he fits into the plan against the opposition. A very simplistic summary, but more or less the gist of it all. No qualms there.

But that said, there is still something to be said for past form. In the sense that, his past form is still taken into account, in some ways, as they assess what they believe he can offer on his own (ie his strengths/weaknesses as a player). How else do they assess the type of player he is? And in that, the whole issue of forming an argument or basing an opinion that is either objective or having 'established views' comes into play. The selectors have an established view, based on past performances, of the player Shannon is, and what he can offer. So in a sense, yes, that does have some say in dictating whether or not he is selected, or rather, why he is or isn't selected. His 46 games for the club to date help form the repute he currently carries as a fringe player.

And I guess that ties into what a few seem to be arguing in regard to having established views on Shannon (forgetting those who blatantly criticise him irregardless of how he's played on any given day). Based on past performances, there is a general consensus to be formed of what Shannon can and cannot do. What he does and doesn't do. A new season doesn't command that radically new opinions/arguments need to be formed. If he's played 5 odd seasons carrying a reputation as a player with very questionable finishing skills, does one game in the new year where he's played okay in that regard declare that past argument void and null? Obviously (I hope), no.

I guess that's more or less the gist of the argument for having established opinions. By all means tackle things objectively, but acknowledge that there is still room for established views.

I dont think its really contradictory. I have been supporting the view that current form is the main reason players get picked these days at Geelong.

I think Byrnes has had the best preseason of his life at Geelong and his current form and very early stats supports that view. So have been disagreeing with those whose opinions focuses pretty much 100% on things the Geelong Football Club will be paying far less heed to in an overall sense.

The present game he just played is clearly what will be on the selectors minds far more than whatever happened 7 months ago. They will be looking at his current form and stats and looking to see how Byrnes could best be used in the 22. Dont forget team balance was also a huge factor of the review and guys who are in reasonable form could well be dropped to make way for a player who offered a better match up or balance to the side depending on our opponents. This is also a factor most in recent times have seemed to have forgotten as being Geelongs clear criteria and policy for selecting a side these days. Its largely the reason Prismall isnt getting picked eventhough we all know his ability supports getting picked in the best 22. I hope as the season goes on prismall can be added to the midfield rotations to soften the long season on some of our champs. I think a sound fitness base for our main midfielders is clearly on the selectors minds and Prismall will probably have to wait until that has taken place.