Roach and Jars get it right

[macca23]

Ill summarise whats been said more clearly for you and see if you cant understand this time.

You say: Neil Craigs coaching in the box, based on last week, 'isnt good enough'. You then quote Paul Roo's critisizing us, and cite it as fact.

The Crows Truth said: Neil Craig is good enough, under him we have had an exceptional record, we've lost only 3 of 19 games, with a combined margin of less than two goals. These are facts.

Ive said: You were wrong in your citation of Roo's as fact, and i personally find the facts more credible than the opinions put forward, no matter how expert.

You may personally be misunderstood here, and indeed i hope so. I hope you are only saying that Craigs day wasnt as good as it had been, and you are not critisizing his entire performance as a coach based on one three point upset loss. I am however dissappointed to see this level of 'feral supporter' syndrome bagging the sh1t out of the team when everyone on this board was happy to ride the bandwagon during our wins this season. Its the downs that reveal the true nature of a supporter.

Geez, I've just read this piece of sh it and I am angry.

Firstly, your alleged facts are irrelevant facts. They bear no relationship to Craig's performance on one individual day. Everybody's comments of Craig's performance on that one day are opinion, not fact, including CrowsTruth and yours. And as I said, much more credible people than you and I believe that Craig stuffed up on the day by not going man on man.

Secondly, your final paragraph is an unacceptable insult if you are branding me with those comments as I am one of Craigy's greatest supporters and have lavished him with praise for the multitude of good points that he has and the things he has done.

In my criticism of this one match I have also reaffirmed my overall opinion of Craig in various posts. I'm just not bloody blind to the bleeding obvious when it happens and sweep it under the carpet as some appear to wish it to be done.

You keep talking about facts.

You should make sure that yours are either correct or relevant when making such comments.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Geez, I've just read this piece of sh it and I am angry.

Firstly, your alleged facts are irrelevant facts. They bear no relationship to Craig's performance on one individual day. Everybody's comments of Craig's performance on that one day are opinion, not fact, including CrowsTruth and yours. And as I said, much more credible people than you and I believe that Craig stuffed up on the day by not going man on man.

Secondly, your final paragraph is an unacceptable insult if you are branding me with those comments as I am one of Craigy's greatest supporters and have lavished him with praise for the multitude of good points that he has and the things he has done.

In my criticism of this one match I have also reaffirmed my overall opinion of Craig in various posts. I'm just not bloody blind to the bleeding obvious when it happens and sweep it under the carpet as some appear to wish it to be done.

You keep talking about facts.

You should make sure that yours are either correct or relevant when making such comments.

The facts are relevant to the discussion of whether or not Craig is a 'good enough' coach, as was seemingly being discussed when i pointed out your mistake. I think he is, and those facts form the basis of my conclusion. Thats actually not something ive been trying to argue with you, since The Crows Truth was doing a good enough job before i came along. Adding which one i give more weight was an afterthought to the point of my original post.

Since Waynes world didnt understand the first time ill try to spell this out really simply.

It is a fact that Paul Roo's is an expert.

It is a fact that Paul Roo's has critisized the crows.

The basis of Paul Roo's critisisms, along with everything he said is an opinion, not a fact.

Presenting his opinion as evidence is not a factual arguement, which made the original response i quoted incorrect, i was merely trying to correct it.

Presenting Paul Roo's opinion and saying its a cold hard fact is wrong. Other experts may have a different opinion to Roo's, infact if ive read correctly Neil Craig himself appears to have said that manning up alone doesnt necessarily beat the chipping game, because teams can run screens and what not. Thats the perilous nature of opinion, two such 'experts' can be in direct conflict.

Indisputable facts such as Craigs coaching record cant be, thats why i said that i find them to be more credible when discussing if he is a 'good enough' coach. Again i do not intend to argue this with you.

As for the last paragraph, it wasnt really intended as a personal dig at you specifically, but im sure looking around the boards you could see examples of what i meant. I dont like the level of attacks being based on one bad game, which it should be mentioned has been an outlier on our season.

I honestly think that the first sentence of that last paragraph probably applies and there's probably less of a difference of opinion then it appears, and more of a misunderstanding, but topics like this and people posing the question over Craigs coaching ability based on one narrow defeat shouldnt go unchallenged.