Preview Changes: R22 vs Brisbane

[Truck25]

Well, this could be the least watched Crows game ever - running up against the Matildas in the world cup!!

LOL, not a chance. Am I proud of the girls? for sure, stand up on the world stage and do better than the world thought possible! Awesome job!. Am I going to watch? not a chance, I have tried to get into soccer but just find it mind numbing and boring, I'd be proud of an Aussie chess champion but I have no interest in watching. Crows season on the line, if you're not watching hand your membership in at the door.

 

[brucetiki]

Surprisingly (given what it's up against), tomorrow's game is a sellout

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Surprisingly (given what it's up against), tomorrow's game is a sellout

Jeez the afl is going well in QLD

Won’t be long until the GC suns are humming too

 

[crowsup]

Sloane was good as the sub last week, why would you think he would be dropped?

Rachele was poor except for a couple of nice things in the last half.

Players like Sloane just aren't there for on field performance and getting 30 disposals, its about setting the standard at training, showing young players how to play the game, giving them someone experienced to speak with, giving advice, media work, setting yourself up in life etc.

Saying that Matt Crouch was held back because Sloane was "hogging a spot in the midfield" is just ridiculous.

Funny how the people saying that are the same people that screamed blue murder when Crouch was selected.

 

[George Kramer]

Funny how the people saying that are the same people that screamed blue murder when Crouch was selected.

Funny how you were defending playing Sloane and Crouch together against Port was ok and then Nicks didn’t pick Sloane…..

 

[crowsup]

Funny how you were defending playing Sloane and Crouch together against Port was ok and then Nicks didn’t pick Sloane…..

Did I say that? But if I did it may have been only because, like you, maybe I think that Nicks' an idiot and he would have picked both? Or are you now admitting that wasn't an idiot when he didn't pick Sloane?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Battle of the forward lines... who can be the better of the other

Tex v Payne (underrated & didn't play last game)
Fogarty v Lester
Thilthorpe v Andrews (make him accountable)
McAdam v Starcevich

Keane v Danniher
Worrell v Hipwood
Borlase v Gunston
Michaelanny v Cameron

Do we send Hinge to Bailey?

 

[Redleg Crow]

Contracts are meaningless in the sense that players walk can and do all the time. Even if contracted.

Calm down. He's not going anywhere. He's not a sook. Soligo got dropped as well.

 

[George Kramer]

Did I say that? But if I did it may have been only because, like you, maybe I think that Nicks' an idiot and he would have picked both? Or are you now admitting that wasn't an idiot when he didn't pick Sloane?

I’m pointing out you backed the decision because you thought that was Nicks was going to do, when he changed you backed still Nicks’s decision.

That’s what happens when you’re incapable of thinking for yourself.

 

[moogerfooger]

Calm down. He's not going anywhere. He's not a sook. Soligo got dropped as well.

Form of both players dipped after they signed their extensions. Have to wonder how much those huge deals mess with the heads of young players. I'm sure it's just temporary but in some ways it must feel like winning the lottery.

 

[crowsup]

I’m pointing out you backed the decision because you thought that was Nicks was going to do, when he changed you backed still Nicks’s decision.

That’s what happens when you’re incapable of thinking for yourself.

In this case I think you have me confused with someone else. Never the less, it is typical of ignorant people with arrogance to come back with a discriminatory remark.
The problem I see with you, self titled experts, is the fact that you guys use hindsight to discredit the selectors and coaches. As in; If we had gone tall in defence, we would not have lost. As if it it is a proven fact and not a supposition. I could very well say that, had we gone tall, we would have lost by much more. How can you prove I'm not correct?
Of course the club get things wrong. Many times. Especially in governance. But the fact that it makes mistakes does not make you critics infallible.
Sure, you're probably correct with your criticism, sometimes. But, after all even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
But I believe that for us "sycophants", it's the vitriol (not necessarily yours personally), directed at the coaches and some of the players, especially after selections, without foundations, that p....s off most of us. And it isn't so much the fact that we defend the coaches and selectors (not necessarily the club), it is the fact that we ( or at least me), believe that the coaches would have more knowledge of the players' capabilities on the day, than you armchair experts.
Oh! In regards to the bolded part, if I were to think, all by myself, that you're an idiot, would that make you an idiot?

 

[Faaarrk]

In this case I think you have me confused with someone else. Never the less, it is typical of ignorant people with arrogance to come back with a discriminatory remark.
The problem I see with you, self titled experts, is the fact that you guys use hindsight to discredit the selectors and coaches. As in; If we had gone tall in defence, we would not have lost. As if it it is a proven fact and not a supposition. I could very well say that, had we gone tall, we would have lost by much more. How can you prove I'm not correct?
Of course the club get things wrong. Many times. Especially in governance. But the fact that it makes mistakes does not make you critics infallible.
Sure, you're probably correct with your criticism, sometimes. But, after all even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
But I believe that for us "sycophants", it's the vitriol (not necessarily yours personally), directed at the coaches and some of the players, especially after selections, without foundations, that p....s off most of us. And it isn't so much the fact that we defend the coaches and selectors (not necessarily the club), it is the fact that we ( or at least me), believe that the coaches would have more knowledge of the players' capabilities on the day, than you armchair experts.
Oh! In regards to the bolded part, if I were to think, all by myself, that you're an idiot, would that make you an idiot?

It’s not the fact they make mistakes, it’s great they try new things, think outside the box, mix things up a bit. You don’t know until you try, I love those that do this. The annoying and frustrating part is when they repeatedly make the same mistakes.
Player selection is trickier as it is true that we don’t know everything going on in the club and we only have limited amount of knowledge available to us. It won’t stop us shaking our head at some selections though

 

[George Kramer]

In this case I think you have me confused with someone else. Never the less, it is typical of ignorant people with arrogance to come back with a discriminatory remark.
The problem I see with you, self titled experts, is the fact that you guys use hindsight to discredit the selectors and coaches. As in; If we had gone tall in defence, we would not have lost. As if it it is a proven fact and not a supposition. I could very well say that, had we gone tall, we would have lost by much more. How can you prove I'm not correct?
Of course the club get things wrong. Many times. Especially in governance. But the fact that it makes mistakes does not make you critics infallible.
Sure, you're probably correct with your criticism, sometimes. But, after all even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
But I believe that for us "sycophants", it's the vitriol (not necessarily yours personally), directed at the coaches and some of the players, especially after selections, without foundations, that p....s off most of us. And it isn't so much the fact that we defend the coaches and selectors (not necessarily the club), it is the fact that we ( or at least me), believe that the coaches would have more knowledge of the players' capabilities on the day, than you armchair experts.
Oh! In regards to the bolded part, if I were to think, all by myself, that you're an idiot, would that make you an idiot?

No, because you thought it. I give no credibility to someone who backs decisions like picking Sloane against Port and then backs the decision to not pick him.

Hindsight has nothing to do with it and it’s an excuse you cheerleaders hide behind.

 

[Greenfinger]

LOL, not a chance. Am I proud of the girls? for sure, stand up on the world stage and do better than the world thought possible! Awesome job!. Am I going to watch? not a chance, I have tried to get into soccer but just find it mind numbing and boring, I'd be proud of an Aussie chess champion but I have no interest in watching. Crows season on the line, if you're not watching hand your membership in at the door.

Great for you but many will be watching Matilda’s , especially non crows supporters . It’s a shame we clash

 

[crowsup]

No, because you thought it. I give no credibility to someone who backs decisions like picking Sloane against Port and then backs the decision to not pick him.

Hindsight has nothing to do with it and it’s an excuse you cheerleaders hide behind.

Would you like to point out the where and when I stated what you say I stated? Because I honestly cannot remember. So if you can prove that I said that, I will publicly apologise for being a " suck-up".
And how is hindsight an excuse for us cheerleaders when we don't use hindsight. I have accused you of using hindsight to discriminate against the coaches. You are the one that called Nicks an idiot many times for not selecting the player YOU thought he should have selected, and therefore losing us the game. What proof could you produce the you were correct? The only thing you could say would be " It would not have been any worse " And even that would be a supposition.
But, because you think that, you think it makes you an expert and a better club supporter? What an arrogant and imbecilic idea is that?

 

[George Kramer]

Would you like to point out the where and when I stated what you say I stated? Because I honestly cannot remember. So if you can prove that I said that, I will publicly apologise for being a " suck-up".
And how is hindsight an excuse for us cheerleaders when we don't use hindsight. I have accused you of using hindsight to discriminate against the coaches. You are the one that called Nicks an idiot many times for not selecting the player YOU thought he should have selected, and therefore losing us the game. What proof could you produce the you were correct? The only thing you could say would be " It would not have been any worse " And even that would be a supposition.
But, because you think that, you think it makes you an expert and a better club supporter? What an arrogant and imbecilic idea is that?

You posted that with Sloanes selection that maybe we picked our strongest available midfield, given Nicks didn’t pick him, did you think Nicks didn’t pick our strongest available midfield? If not why no comment?

You lot hide behind hindsight to defend blatant errors. Mutineer is famous for it.

Please point out where I’ve said his selection errors have directly cost us games. I’ve pointed out errors like replacing McAdam with Crouch forcing Crouch to the wing, Crouch was dropped. Would it have been the difference? Who knows but you can’t deny it wasn’t a stupid selection decision.

Going in short against Richmond and playing Dawson in the middle, now those decisions I believe did hurt our chances of winning, can it 100% be the difference? No one can say and I never have.

Subbing Soligo against Collingwood sure didn’t help us win.

Not picking Nankervis against Essendon was more about not giving Nank an opportunity because Nicks got it wrong and said he wasn’t ready.

Curious, what did you think of Sloanes selection and game against Brisbane?

If you’re looking for an arrogant imbecile, look in the cheerleaders corner …..They are the ones who don’t think for themselves and arrogantly back in Nicks no matter the decision and then spend the rest of their times criticising posters who think for themselves.

 

[crowsup]

You posted that with Sloanes selection that maybe we picked our strongest available midfield, given Nicks didn’t pick him, did you think Nicks didn’t pick our strongest available midfield? If not why no comment?

You lot hide behind hindsight to defend blatant errors. Mutineer is famous for it.

Please point out where I’ve said his selection errors have directly cost us games. I’ve pointed out errors like replacing McAdam with Crouch forcing Crouch to the wing, Crouch was dropped. Would it have been the difference? Who knows but you can’t deny it wasn’t a stupid selection decision.

Going in short against Richmond and playing Dawson in the middle, now those decisions I believe did hurt our chances of winning, can it 100% be the difference? No one can say and I never have.

Subbing Soligo against Collingwood sure didn’t help us win.

Not picking Nankervis against Essendon was more about not giving Nank an opportunity because Nicks got it wrong and said he wasn’t ready.

Curious, what did you think of Sloanes selection and game against Brisbane?

If you’re looking for an arrogant imbecile, look in the cheerleaders corner …..They are the ones who don’t think for themselves and arrogantly back in Nicks no matter the decision and then spend the rest of their times criticising posters who think for themselves

Bloody hell!! We had Nankervis in the team this week and we still lost. I bet that if that idiot Nicks had selected Cook as well, instead of cooked Sloane, we would have won the game. *ng Nicks! He cost us another game.
See? It is easy to be an intelligent critic. Any moron can do it?
I would answer your questions but they all have the same theme. You think that if you were the selector, the team would have a better chance of winning. Hence you're propense in attacking Nicks and the rest of coaches. Without, may I say, first hand knowledge of how
individuals in the team feel or are at the time of selection.
As far as your curiosity about my thoughts on Sloane's selection, I would have thought " Gee I wish we had better players they could select instead of Sloane, or Murphy, Keys, or any other player that did not perform on the day".

 

[George Kramer]

Bloody hell!! We had Nankervis in the team this week and we still lost. I bet that if that idiot Nicks had selected Cook as well, instead of cooked Sloane, we would have won the game. *ng Nicks! He cost us another game.
See? It is easy to be an intelligent critic. Any moron can do it?
I would answer your questions but they all have the same theme. You think that if you were the selector, the team would have a better chance of winning. Hence you're propense in attacking Nicks and the rest of coaches. Without, may I say, first hand knowledge of how
individuals in the team feel or are at the time of selection.
As far as your curiosity about my thoughts on Sloane's selection, I would have thought " Gee I wish we had better players they could select instead of Sloane, or Murphy, Keys, or any other player that did not perform on the day".

Completely missing the point again. You should have just said that rather than wasted so many words.