Harvey, whiteants, SuperNanny, cleanout?

[dockertor]

you must not watch much football.

Watched and been involved in a lot of football, Enough to know sh1t from clay, unlike you

 

[dockertor]

The coach has a crucial role to play in getting the most out of the list.

How does Dockertor account for the success of the Kangas this year? They had a workmanlike team, yet they played of for a shot in the final. The junk yard dog got the most out of a workmanlike list.

Ang again, look at Choco and Port. Choco took a young Port list and got then to the final - he got the most out of his list.

The suggestion that a coach is not responsible for a teams performance is fanciful.

In fact the idea that a coach is entirely responsible for a team’s performance is ludicrous. We lost games because players miss shots on goal, because players kick directly to the opposition, because players haven’t got the speed to outrun opponents, because players cant win the ball at a stoppage (this one does also involve coaching and setups). The coach does none of these things.

 

[Lach72]

When ever Pav's contract comes up for renewal the club always spin him the same line: "Sign up for one more contract Pav, because we've got a three year window here".

We spun Pav that line in 04, and again in 07. He has bought it twice, but will he buy it thrice?

By 2010 if we are still on the Freo Shark "three year journey" do you think Pav will re-sign?

We need success within the next 2 years as a priority. Failing this I actually fear for the long term viability of the club.

You are Frank from Canning Vale aren't you? I've never seen such a succession of moronic tripe

 

[dockertor]

But hang on, if a player is missing shots on goal, kicking to the opposition, is too slow, or is too old, the the coach should not pick him.

But if the coach keeps on picking these players and doesnt give someone else a chance, then when the team keeps losing the coach is responsible.

The coach has absolute control. He picks the game plan, he decides the team list each week, he decides who to recruit.

If the coach keeps picking players that: miss targets, miss shots on goal, dont follow the game plan, are too slow, then guess what: That coach is a shithouse coach.

Or perhaps there are no BETTER players to pick. The coach can only pick the best side from whats available. The eveness of the competition is such that a few mistakes costs games, You somehow assume there better players just waiting in the wings than the ones we put on the park. Somehow I think the coaches who work full time with these guys know them better than you.

 

[Roundhouse]

But hang on, if a player is missing shots on goal, kicking to the opposition, is too slow, or is too old, the the coach should not pick him.

But if the coach keeps on picking these players and doesnt give someone else a chance, then when the team keeps losing the coach is responsible.

The coach has absolute control. He picks the game plan, he decides the team list each week, he decides who to recruit.

If the coach keeps picking players that: miss targets, miss shots on goal, dont follow the game plan, are too slow, then guess what: That coach is a shithouse coach.

Damn you Connolly! If only you had dropped Pavlich for the Collingwood game, and Thornton for the Kanga's game we woulda made the finals.

Gotta love supporters who feel justified in criticising from the cheap seats (with the benefit of hindsight no less). Bless their ignorant, egomaniacal little hearts.

 

[Roundhouse]

If a coach cant replace a player that "cant hit a target, kick a goal, and is too slow" then that is an indictment on his list management and recruiting.

By that rationale every coach in the comp should be sacked bar the premiership coach. Every other team is not good enough (even Laidley's who's coaching you praised earlier) so it is an indictment on their coachs' list management and recruiting.

The position you take is easy to argue from (all you have to say is "we haven't won a flag, so the coach is not getting the most out of his players or his list management/recruiting has been shit), but it requires you to admit that every coach is shit except the one currently on top.

Hardly insightful stuff, in fact it's a scarily child-like view of things that indicates a footy intellect well below the average Freo poster here.

Having said that, I'm sure the folks at wehavethepoison would lap it up.

 

[dockertor]

If a coach cant replace a player that "cant hit a target, kick a goal, and is too slow" then that is an indictment on his list management and recruiting.

And when it comes to Freo's list there were plenty of people deserving of being dropped to make way for some fresh blood. The truth is Cuddles played favourites with certain players at the club - they knew they were untouchable so they didnt care if they underperformed.

But the whole point is the players picked were our best players for the match in the opinion of the selection panel. The truth is you have no idea and want scapegoats so you go for the coach or the assistant coaches or the boot studder or whoever you can think of.

 

[Belnakor]

The buck has to stop at the coach. The coach does the recruiting, he manages the game plan. Why he would not be responsible for the team losing? You are just talking crap if you think the coach can't do anything about poor players. If a player is missing targets, then he needs to work on his kicking, and the coach needs to help him. Its not rocket science, but the coach gets paid like 400k because he is DIRECTLY responsible for the teams performance. You guys seem to want a guy like Harvs to have free reign at the club for 3 years with no kind of performance appraisals. That is just bullshit. He needs to work with the list which he inherited. If it isn't a finals list, then he should say so, and say its going to take 3 years for him to get them up to scratch, and the reasons why its not a good list. But at the moment we have a good list, we just need a little bit more pace.

Cuddles was reknowned for playing favourites. Guys like M.Carr were getting a game every week based on reputation and Cuddles not wanting to ruffle a few feathers. That is bad coaching. That is why the team was losing. You want to talk about how the players win the match when the coach is selecting players who are too slow, disinterested and have poor skills? You want to talk about players winning a match when Connolly leaves Thorton while his opponent kicks 5 and wins them the game?

Teams have plans. The coach is in charge of the plan, and 2 things can make it go badly, the plan is poor, or the players aren't able to execute it. Both are the responsibility of the coach.

 

[dockertor]

We want idiots like you to realise that not everything is in the coaches control. I've helped coach good teams and I've helped coach bad teams, let me tell you the difference was the players not the guys on the sidelines.
The side we have is good but not great. Close enough that with things falling our way we are right up there but if a few things go wrong we aren't far enough ahead to not notice it.

 

[Memories]

We want idiots like you to realise that not everything is in the coaches control. I've helped coach good teams and I've helped coach bad teams, let me tell you the difference was the players not the guys on the sidelines.
The side we have is good but not great. Close enough that with things falling our way we are right up there but if a few things go wrong we aren't far enough ahead to not notice it.

Maybe for the "amateur" teams you coach that is true, it's well known that coaches CAN be the difference in the AFL. Look at Richmond beating Adelaide last year for only ONE obvious instance.

Connolly made shit game day decisions, or really, his lack of any decisions is what cost us many many games. Letting players who were hot continually not be tagged or dealt with, etc. Once the game was started, CC was out of moves most of the time.

 

[FD369]

Failing this I actually fear for the long term viability of the club.

Ripper the above is a perfect example of why we need a sub-sub board for Jeffnakor and friends.

Somewhere they can go and tear shreds off the club, knife the coach whatever they like but without the rational thinking normal Freo supporter having to actually read such dribble.

Sort of like a playroom for the little-uns you know.

 

[Belnakor]

Mate, if were up to you, we'd still have Cuddles Connolly running things.. the coach never does anything wrong! Its the players!

And then the next minute you'll be takling about how good it is to have Harvs in there.

You can't have it both ways, sometimes hard decisions need to be made, and getting rid of Cuddles was one such example.

 

[Roundhouse]

Ripper the above is a perfect example of why we need a sub-sub board for Jeffnakor and friends.

Somewhere they can go and tear shreds off the club, knife the coach whatever they like but without the rational thinking normal Freo supporter having to actually read such dribble.

Sort of like a playroom for the little-uns you know.

There is such a place. It is known as wehavethepoison. Unfortunately even the whiteanting doomsayers don't go there anymore because nobody reads it due the constant negative, one sided, anti-establishment dribble about everything FFC.

I'd be happy if the mods just deleted their baseless rumours and carded them for it as promised.

 

[Belnakor]

Whats more, i think that GJ and myself have posted more credible information and tips than anyone else on this board. I was onto the Kepler Bradley stuff months before the rest of the reactionalist crowd here. GJ floated that P.Bell was going to retire well before the rumor mill started on that.

Between myself and GJ we have actually contributed more than anyone.. i find it personally offensive that people would say they are baseless rumors, when they are not.

 

[Roundhouse]

What "basless rumours" are you talking about? The comments in this thread a pure opinion and nothing more.

How about these ones...

Cuddles was reknowned for playing favourites. Guys like M.Carr were getting a game every week based on reputation and Cuddles not wanting to ruffle a few feathers.

The truth is Cuddles played favourites with certain players at the club - they knew they were untouchable so they didnt care if they underperformed.

You tools/tool try to present slurs on the club/coaching staff/admin as "common knowledge" or "the truth".

You don't really fool anyone, because people know you have zero "inside knowledge" and zero understanding of what goes on at the club, but they are baseless rumours by definition and I'm sure the majority get sick of having them tossed up every day as though they are fact.

They should be deleted because they are defamatory and they cannot be proven.

 

[Belnakor]

nobody reads it due the constant negative, one sided, anti-establishment dribble about everything FFC.

And nobody reads Dockerland because it is full of positive moderated crap. If you want the mods to delete dissenters you should be over there.

 

[FD369]

I was onto the Kepler Bradley stuff months before the rest of the reactionalist crowd here. GJ floated that P.Bell was going to retire well before the rumor mill started on that.

Both of those fantastic insights went well didn't they.

Please give us more.

 

[Jetau]

Yes, GJ and Belkanor provide all the useful information on this forum. The rest of us are fair dinkum clowns. We should bow down before their superior knowledge. In fact, Memories is pretty close to joining their elite status as well. Just a few more pearls of wisdom like the one about CC's weight, and he will have ascended to the holy dais.

 

[FD369]

Firstly, just so you know, if I call someone a tool I always get a card.

Secondly, if you want us to be banned then you should prove that Cuddles wasnt playing favourites.

If thats all thats required I am ringing the MFC ASAP.

But how exactly have you proved that he was?

 

[SupersonicDocker]

dockerland is a joke, if you post anything there that makes shaney boy look like he isn't the king ding wise emperor he removes your poast...

the only posts your allowed there are "isnt pav just gorgeous and fantastic" threads...

 

[SupersonicDocker]

and in terms of inside info and breaking news to people, no one here has inside information that can be proven... thats why we are all on this site... to speculate

 

[Memories]

I'd rather hear the comments of someone who has some critical thinking tools like GentlemanJeff or Belnakor rather than roundhouse and friends who could be related to Shane Richmond, with his "ban everyone who doesn't think like I do" approach.

Do you see any of these people mentioned (and even myself) going out of our way to insult anyone? From what I've seen it's always the same crew of "supporters" on this board coming up with the first insults. Rather than read the post, and get it's points, they find one thing they can take out of context then go to town on it, ala peppy and fd369 up there.

 

[Roundhouse]

I'd rather hear the comments of someone who has some critical thinking tools like GentlemanJeff or Belnakor rather than roundhouse and friends who could be related to Shane Richmond, with his "ban everyone who doesn't think like I do" approach.

Do you see any of these people mentioned (and even myself) going out of our way to insult anyone? From what I've seen it's always the same crew of "supporters" on this board coming up with the first insults. Rather than read the post, and get it's points, they find one thing they can take out of context then go to town on it, ala peppy and fd369 up there.

LMAO I've lectured in critical thinking!

Critical thinking does not equate with scapegoating and making criticisms based on rumours you buffoon.

Thinking critically dictates that one is able justify their opinions without having to rely on flawed techniques of argument and common fallicies of logic, and without having to claim "good authority" or "common knowledge" as evidence.

I could go through all of GJ/Belnakors "arguments" and show how they are weak and based on dumb logic.

That you three consider yourselves "critical thinkers" is nearly as funny as your argument that linked coaching ability to low skinfolds.

 

[Memories]

That you three consider yourselves "critical thinkers" is nearly as funny as your argument that linked coaching ability to low skinfolds.

If you have lectured in critical thinking (or did you mean you've been lectured about it?) then you must know what reading comprehension is. Try it sometime.

 

[Roundhouse]

If you have lectured in critical thinking (or did you mean you've been lectured about it?) then you must know what reading comprehension is. Try it sometime.

Comedy gold yet again!

Try learning a little more of the language before you get critical of someone for using it correctly.