Roast Media going after JimBob.

[GFrost]

You can delete a post!

Yeah I thought I'd tried to do that before but it wouldn't work, but right you are!

 

[Baudolino]

It's an OUTRAGE that people on an internet football forum disagree with a football columnist. An OUTRAGE. Why don't people just fall into line with Malthouse? His opinions are UNTOUCHABLE.

Am I doing it right?

No one's saying that there's an issue with disagreeing with football columnists. I would be on board with that if this were all this thread was about. However, the premise of the OP isn't merely that the suggestion Bartel should be dropped is wrong, it's that the very act of questioning Jimmy's place in the side is "disgraceful", as if to imply there's something journalisatically unscrupulous or morally disreputable about saying such a thing. And that tone of moral outrage has been echoed throughout this thread; there are some - not you, I'm sure, but others such as Mahlepi and the OP - who seem to be labouring under the bizarre misapprehension that the commentariat are "out to get" Jimmy, as if they have some kind of personal vendetta against him rather than simply, you know, expressing an opinion about a selection issue.

 

[catempire]

No one's saying that there's an issue with disagreeing with football columnists. I would be on board with that if this were all this thread was about. However, the premise of the OP isn't merely that the suggestion Bartel should be dropped is wrong, it's that the very act of questioning Jimmy's place in the side is "disgraceful", as if to imply there's something journalisatically unscrupulous or morally disreputable about saying such a thing. And that tone of moral outrage has been echoed throughout this thread; there are some - not you, I'm sure, but others such as Mahlepi and the OP - who seem to be labouring under the bizarre misapprehension that the commentariat are "out to get" Jimmy, as if they have some kind of personal vendetta against him rather than simply, you know, expressing an opinion about a selection issue.

Interesting. I interpret it quite differently as a (very healthy) scepticism of the media and their motives. The "out to get" is one, albeit extreme, gloss on that theme.

Moreover, I get a bit tired of the hypocrisy that is often present in the claimed defence of free speech (and variations thereof) on this board. It seems that some (not necessarily directed at you) want to defend the right of person A to say whatever they like, but when person B comes in and questions the original opinion it is attacked as somehow being "censorship". One person's opinion that another person's opinion is crap isn't censorship, it's just an opinion that is no less valid than the original statement. That's all that's happening here.

/off topic rant.

 

[Baudolino]

Interesting. I interpret it quite differently as a (very healthy) scepticism of the media and their motives. The "out to get" is one, albeit extreme, gloss on that theme.

Fair enough. At least I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now.

As it happens, I too consider myself a skeptic, but I also refuse to assume people are acting or talking in bad faith unless compelling evidence of bad faith exists. In general, I prefer to abide by the principle of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[leorex]

ok

Jimmy played a role on Gibson
sop Gibson's run and creativity

now is there a similar role against a Gibson like player in the Swans
some journos claim Jimmy performed his role well or at least satisfactorily

tough decision
only **** can come in for Jimmy and Ruggles out for Henderson

but it is a conversation that is not completely unwarranted

 

[marshhhhh]

ok

Jimmy played a role on Gibson
sop Gibson's run and creativity

now is there a similar role against a Gibson like player in the Swans
some journos claim Jimmy performed his role well or at least satisfactorily

tough decision
only **** can come in for Jimmy and Ruggles out for Henderson

but it is a conversation that is not completely unwarranted

Jimmy will not go out and to suggest only Ruggles can make way for Henderson is silly.

 

[catempire]

In general, I prefer to abide by the principle of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Funnily enough, I think that's precisely what most are doing.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

It's interesting that Slobbo was the first one to get into him with the contract talk a while back... which was comprehensively smashed

Slobbo again started this all last week getting into his form

I wonder who is pulling the strings of the drunk

Excellent post.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

I'm not sure why he needs 'a role' either, any more than any other player. Go forward for a bit, kick one or two, set a couple up, go into the middle occasionally, be around some stoppages further afield, compete, tackle....that's enough of a role for me.

 

[Pollywaffle]

I'm not sure why he needs 'a role' either, any more than any other player. Go forward for a bit, kick one or two, set a couple up, go into the middle occasionally, be around some stoppages further afield, compete, tackle....that's enough of a role for me.

That's a minimum22 goals right there. I like it!

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

ok

Jimmy played a role on Gibson
sop Gibson's run and creativity

now is there a similar role against a Gibson like player in the Swans
some journos claim Jimmy performed his role well or at least satisfactorily

tough decision
only **** can come in for Jimmy and Ruggles out for Henderson

but it is a conversation that is not completely unwarranted

There's actually 3 potential match-ups for Jimmy, that would be incredibly important.
Rampe, Haynes and Wood.

He stays IMO.

 

[SkittleCats]

Good, keep writing articles like this and Jimmy will have 30 and kick 4. Last time we played Sydney Kieran Jack had all that contrived bullshit about his Mum on the front page every day. Which seemed to work wonders for his game. Maybe this time round Sydney can get the privilege of a close up look at Jimmy at his best.

 

[Partridge]

That's a minimum22 goals right there. I like it!

Which means we get 12 Friday night. I'll take that.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

manboob need to see if the 'Leave Britney Alone' dude does requests
I see some are still pushing the tired and lame "can't criticise a player" barrow

 

[Turbocat]

He was slow 15 years ago and still is to this day. Irrelevant noise.

Looking at those close finishes in that other thread ..the Bartel movement reminded me ..he is not the same slowness now that he was in that time period. But is speed the most critical thing he has lost? I don't think so..its his spring , his ability to take marks thats reduced his impact.

He will not be non selected in 16.. can one imagine him being out of the side and us having a poor result? He plays..and against the Swans he will be very important.

 

[manboob]

manboob need to see if the 'Leave Britney Alone' dude does requests
I see some are still pushing the tired and lame "can't criticise a player" barrow

Just don't look up his latest work.

 

[jim boy]

He should do better than the last time he played the swans in a final, 9 touches wasn't good enough, still got more than twice as many as Mackie though.

 

[Willo_]

Any Geelong fan seriously advocating for Jimmy to be dropped needs a good hard look at themselves.
He's averaging 23 disposals and 5 marks this season.

I don't think he will be dropped

And despite the Cocky hype around here i don't want to see him this finals, he doesn't have the tank yet.

I do however think that this is Jims last year fwiw

 

[The Casey Cat]

Article is the biggest non issue ever. Bartel not getting dropped. Not even in the discussion to get dropped.

 

[fpm84]

He should do better than the last time he played the swans in a final, 9 touches wasn't good enough, still got more than twice as many as Mackie though.

He also looked like this!

 

[Footy Smarts]

It's interesting to see how many people have had a go at him and how little media support he's got. Normally when someone brings up an old players form there are a dozen ex-players ready to push back with the 'he's a legend of the game, you shouldn't doubt a legend of the game' type stuff. There's been a surprising absence of people sticking up for him and I've seen far worse performers not get a mention in the press.

Maybe I'm wrong but I get the feeling his decision to speak out and make a stand on DV has ruffled some feathers in the boys club of past players. In the AFL community off-field indiscretions are basically no go zones. You're lauded for your football and that's all that matters. If somebody stuffs up there are a few apologies and then it's forgotten very quickly. That's how you can have a match promoting the issue of violence against women commentated by DV abuser Wayne Carey. Or Dermott Brereton getting a pedestal to commentate in depth on the Adam Goodes booing saga despite having racially vilified opponents during his career. It's interesting that a bunch of people seem out to get Bartel this year when he's probably been better than the last couple. I reckon there are a fair few in the media who don't want the AFL involved in various social issues because it suggests that footy ability isn't everything whereas that's what they've relied on their whole lives.

 

[manboob]

You make an interesting point. Carey, Stevens, Bock and the many more that are swept under the carpet.

 

[Scottland2007]

It's interesting to see how many people have had a go at him and how little media support he's got. Normally when someone brings up an old players form there are a dozen ex-players ready to push back with the 'he's a legend of the game, you shouldn't doubt a legend of the game' type stuff. There's been a surprising absence of people sticking up for him and I've seen far worse performers not get a mention in the press.

Maybe I'm wrong but I get the feeling his decision to speak out and make a stand on DV has ruffled some feathers in the boys club of past players. In the AFL community off-field indiscretions are basically no go zones. You're lauded for your football and that's all that matters. If somebody stuffs up there are a few apologies and then it's forgotten very quickly. That's how you can have a match promoting the issue of violence against women commentated by DV abuser Wayne Carey. Or Dermott Brereton getting a pedestal to commentate in depth on the Adam Goodes booing saga despite having racially vilified opponents during his career. It's interesting that a bunch of people seem out to get Bartel this year when he's probably been better than the last couple. I reckon there are a fair few in the media who don't want the AFL involved in various social issues because it suggests that footy ability isn't everything whereas that's what they've relied on their whole lives.

Wow. Very thought provoking post. I wish someone would read it to Robbo.

 

[dangerwood]

Article is the biggest non issue ever. Bartel not getting dropped. Not even in the discussion to get dropped.

He is definitely in the discussion.

 

[catempire]

Peter Ryan actually looks at how Bartel has played, unlike Malthouse. Good stuff:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-19/why-the-cats-must-play-jimmy-bartel

IN THE last quarter against Hawthorn in the qualifying final, Jimmy Bartel stood up.

He won the vital one-on-one that led to Josh Caddy's match-winning goal.

He had seven touches in the final term as the Cats had a close shave, something Bartel won't have until he removes his Ned Kelly-esque beard on the Thursday after the Grand Final.

His last possession was typical Bartel, putting his head in the hole to win a hard football and shooting off the handball to Joel Selwood, who used brute strength to get the football to his brother Scott in space.

The moment added to Bartel's reputation as a clutch player, someone who stands up when games are tight

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-19/why-the-cats-must-play-jimmy-bartel