Rucci -Walker to GWS

[Vader]

I don't have a problem with him writing an article on the introduction of GWS. It's also fair for him to comment on the likely impact that the new club will have on the two SA based clubs - particularly given the concessions they have been granted. Given that Walker is extremely talented and was recruited from NSW, it's probably fair to say that GWS will be targeting him as one of their recruits - much the same as GC were targeting Tippett.

Unfortunately, that's where there the relevance ends.

Taylor Walker has recently re-signed with the club for another 2 years. He has grown up supporting the club and playing for them has been his lifelong dream. There are no indications, whatsoever, that he would even entertain the idea of playing for GWS. Thus, to suggest that Adelaide should be particularly concerned about losing Walker - let alone the erroneous "fact" that GWS would have 2 shots at grabbing him - makes the article farcical, indeed worthy of being regarded as a troll.

 

[arrowman]

Personally I think this comparison is unfair. Thomas had a list with about 620 top five draft picks in it while Craig has zero. People who seem to like being negative about Adelaide seem to conveniently forget this, Craig has consistantly taken a list that no one else thinks are good enough to the finals...

Much as I'm a Craig fan, I think this is a copout. It might have been true a couple of years ago, but it's not true any more.

Saying that people underestimate the quality of the Crows' list is not that same as saying that the quality isn't there. Part of that is due to good recruiting, part of it is due to Craig and his staff in their player development.

But the fact is, they are good, very good - possibly good enough (for a flag). As good as the St Kilda list that Thomas had? Maybe, almost.

But not an excuse for failure.

 

[Hodgy]

If it's going to be just another Pavlovian Rucci-bashing thread, then it's a waste of space.

But as Vader and I have pointed out - the article in question is not just a s@^$t stir, it is factually incorrect (GWS will not have 2 chances at Walker, unless the club re-signs him for only one year in 2011)

So I think it's worth commenting on; our friends in the media should always be called out on their mistakes and distortions. But it should be (IMHO) "because it's wrong" more than "because it's Rucci".[/quote]
These two points just happen to be the same most of the time. I don't think people mind that he is a Port Adelaide supporter or even that he is biased, it's just that he is a terrible journalist. He seems to have no actual sources but either makes a story up, as in this case, or he finds 2 people starting a rumour on the internet and then uses this as a basis of fact. He then writes factual pieces as though they are an opinion column and as we know his opinions are those of someone who doesn't quite understand the game. His only value to the Advertiser is that the worse he becomes the more people like us talk about him and generate interest. I don't normally read his stuff but because of this thread thought I would check it out and anyone would have to admit that it is a terriby unproffesional article on all levels and shows how much of a joke he has actually become.

 

[cmndstab]

I don't even think he's a terrible journalist as such, more that he just can't get over his little axes that he feels he needs to grind.

 

[birdmanptr]

Rucci - Chief Football writer, this always amuses me

Yeah me to hes the only one the others are just his lap dogs

Rooch says you can write what you want but show me first

 

[Hodgy]

Much as I'm a Craig fan, I think this is a copout. It might have been true a couple of years ago, but it's not true any more.

Saying that people underestimate the quality of the Crows' list is not that same as saying that the quality isn't there. Part of that is due to good recruiting, part of it is due to Craig and his staff in their player development.

But the fact is, they are good, very good - possibly good enough (for a flag). As good as the St Kilda list that Thomas had? Maybe, almost.

But not an excuse for failure.

Are you calling any result other than a premiership a failure? I bet Richmond supporters would love to fail that much. I agree that we have a much better list than people have given us credit for but the point I'm trying to make is that it is still a huge advantage to have a bunch of top 5 draft picks and the fact that we have managed to put together a great list without them is a feather in the cap of the whole club and Craig deserves credit compared with Thomas who inherited a premiership list but couldn't deliver. I think you would find that most people even this year didn't have us in their finals predictions but personally I thought our year was far from a failure.

 

[arrowman]

... These two points just happen to be the same most of the time. I don't think people mind that he is a Port Adelaide supporter or even that he is biased, it's just that he is a terrible journalist...

I disagree. I think a lot of people let the "Rucci Port supporter bias hates Crows" thing take up far too much of their brain space.

Good grief, even when he writes positive things about the Crows, some people think he's just deliberately talking them up so he can "crow" when they fail. It's ridiculous. And pointless.

Let me put it this way. Suppose two Crows supporters were to call up 5AA on Saturday morning.

Caller A: Michelangelo, why are you so biased against the Crows? Why do you write s%$@t stirring articles like the one about GWS and Taylor Walker? Etc...

Caller B: Michelangelo: Re your article about GWS and Taylor Walker - that's not accurate. I mean, quite apart from the fact that TW is a lifelong Crows supporter (etc), GWS doesn't get 2 shots at him, they only get one (etc). Michelangelo, didn't you get it wrong?

Now - which of those callers is going to be able to actually make a point that the panel will take seriously, and that Rucci will actually need to respond to?

 

[arrowman]

Are you calling any result other than a premiership a failure?

No, not at all. For the 15 clubs that don't win a flag in a given year, "success" and "failure" are slippery concepts.

No, all I'm saying is that we don't (shouldn't) define "success" as "doing better than a lot of people thought we would".

And I suspect Craigy will back me up on that

I bet Richmond supporters would love to fail that much. I agree that we have a much better list than people have given us credit for but the point I'm trying to make is that it is still a huge advantage to have a bunch of top 5 draft picks and the fact that we have managed to put together a great list without them is a feather in the cap of the whole club and Craig deserves credit compared with Thomas who inherited a premiership list but couldn't deliver.

Personally, I think draft picks are over-rated compared to all the other factors that go into making a successful club. And yes, Craigy deserves credit for what he has achieved - BUT: Where we are right now, with recruiting and player development, we must expect to "succeed".

St Kilda made the decision that Thomas didn't have whatever it would take to get the club to the next level (even though he took them to PFs). Which I thought was a good call at the time.

Craigy will ultimately be subject to the same judgement. Not having billions of high draft picks will not be an excuse.

(I was in a ladder comp this year, in which almost noone had the Saints in the top 4. Many had them out of the 8. Does that mean their year was even more successful?)

I think you would find that most people even this year didn't have us in their finals predictions

Then most people would be very poor judges.

FWIW I remember - 2005 I think it was - Robert Walls predicted we would finish bottom 4. Now as it turned out, that was one of the most spectacularly poor predictions in recent footy history. But for me the real joke was not that Walls got it wrong - lots of people "get it wrong" every year. The real joke was that at the start of that year (not with hindsight), if you looked at the situation objectively and with half-decent footy judgement, there was no good reason to predict a bottom 4 finish. As high as we did finish? No. But not bottom 4.

but personally I thought our year was far from a failure.

I agree, but not because other people's expectations were low. It was because we went a step further (but only one step) than genuinely good judges (like me ) predicted.

Sorry, banging on a bit. Feel free to ignore my ramblings

 

[Hodgy]

I disagree. I think a lot of people let the "Rucci Port supporter bias hates Crows" thing take up far too much of their brain space.

Good grief, even when he writes positive things about the Crows, some people think he's just deliberately talking them up so he can "crow" when they fail. It's ridiculous. And pointless.

Let me put it this way. Suppose two Crows supporters were to call up 5AA on Saturday morning.

Caller A: Michelangelo, why are you so biased against the Crows? Why do you write s%$@t stirring articles like the one about GWS and Taylor Walker? Etc...

Caller B: Michelangelo: Re your article about GWS and Taylor Walker - that's not accurate. I mean, quite apart from the fact that TW is a lifelong Crows supporter (etc), GWS doesn't get 2 shots at him, they only get one (etc). Michelangelo, didn't you get it wrong?

Now - which of those callers is going to be able to actually make a point that the panel will take seriously, and that Rucci will actually need to respond to?

You are probably right arrowman but personally I couldn't care less if he loves Port, hates Adelaide, pumps us up or not. I simply annoys me that we have such a poor level of journalism from the chief football writer in our only newspaper in the state, it makes us seem hicksville. I find his articles on footy in general, not just about Port or us, to be of such low quality that I stopped buying the paper a long time ago (mind you Patrick Smith is as bad). I don't want him to be positive or negative about us just factually accurate and with some degree of prefessionalism.

 

[Hodgy]

Sorry, banging on a bit. Feel free to ignore my ramblings [/quote]
No mate, I basically agree with everything you have said except I think measuring the success of a coach does need to take into account the quality of the list that they inherit, and I believe Thomas got a list that should have been winning flags from a pure talent point of view, while Craig had a list that he has managed to get every bit of natural talent and more out of to achieve what he has. I also can't agree that draft picks are overated. If you make a list of the 30 best players in the comp I would be willing to bet that by far the majority that were not father and son picks would have been top 5. Key position Players like Riewoldt, Roughhead, Franklin, Pavlich, Kosi and co can be found outside the top 5 but only rarely. We have been trying for 18 years and have only just found one in Tippett.