Without making player comparisons, I think the whole point that is being made is that Clarkson has the balls to make decisions in the best interest of his footy club, while Bead Scott only does what’s best for Brad.
What is does is sends a clear messaging to all in the playing group that no one is above poor form. Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Brad Scott and his selection policy?
All Brad has achieved is a bunch of underachieving content footballers, who think near enough is good enough.
Just on the Laidley resignation, a big part of why it was accepted by the club was because the footy we played in 2009 was downright disgusting. People stopped coming to games.
And this is what the board trumps above all. Attendance. Brad can play all the golf in the world with whoever he wants but once supporters turn the board won’t care how many mates Brad has.
This is what cost Laidley and will cost Brad.
It’s almost sad though we’re not forward thinking and being on the front foot in taking action.
Yes I have and it does float my boat that one of the guys bagged and questioned as to him being list worthy is now seen as a reasonable excuse for our tardy performance.
McKay, Watson and once Durds serves his sentence he'll be available, so that's three and Daw isn't far off which is four, then williams , Murphy etc, we've plenty of options for a side sitting 17th and having won 22 of our last 65 games.
And for mine the only option that shouldn't be considered when you add it all together is 33 yr old's. It makes no sense and yes I want us to finish stone motherless last.
Get the first pick, strap it to Mason Wood and parade it up and down main St.