- Apr 22, 2007
- AFL Club
Given his pride is more important to him than anything, I can’t see him playing Stanley now
I read through this too quickly and thought it was an actual quote. Wah wah wah you just make it up.“We have reviewed it. We wouldn’t do it again if we had our chance. It was unhelpful for the performance on the night but moreover I don’t think it helped our mindset and our approach to the game. Rhys will play this week.”
- said Chris Scott never
By the looks of it, it appears it is Chris' way or the highway...I understand everyone's disappointed when we lose... that's what I understand, um, acutely. Um, if you want to make it a contest, I'll win. <nods, tightens lips>
I thought Scott said we decided to leave stanley out on Thursday, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t be a late inclusion. So it wasn’t set in concrete and they were still open to playing him right up till time’s up.Apologies for the intrusion, but I find Scott's comments and Stanley's comments to be at odds with each other.
Stanley confirmed on Monday he had been dumped from the side following training on Thursday last week and watched on as the Pies converted four goals from stoppages in the first term – as a major part of the result.
Scott disagreed on both fronts.
"We were still talking about the call 90 minutes before the game time, so we didn't need more time necessarily," Scott said
I agree with you guys about the non inclusion of Stanley. I really think it cost you the game, especially when you factor in Dangers comments about being better at the stoppages and that it starts from the ruck.
Of course if you don't like what I've posted then give me a belting, but I think there's a bit of animosity there.
What is the point of this statement exactly?FFS it’s not the point! It was as much about the mindset of the move as it was the impact on the game Chris!
Still is. That quote was all we, we, we.What is the point of this statement exactly?
It seems to have no purpose but to absolve his disastrous decision, say it was irrelevant and move blame elsewhere.
At first he was shifty about being responsible ("6 or 7 others involved "). Now he is saying it wasn't a factor.
Is it any wonder a lot of us are losing faith
How can you be a late inclusion when you are already listed to play.I thought Scott said we decided to leave stanley out on Thursday, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t be a late inclusion. So it wasn’t set in concrete and they were still open to playing him right up till time’s up.
Of course scott can be quite hard to get a read on. Didn’t see animosity on any side though.
I'm still livid about the Stanley fiascoI think its fair to say they went way too early on that extension and based it on home and away results, the most frustrating part about Scott is that he doesn't have the technical nouse (ala Clarkson) to make mid game strategic moves to combat teams who are on top of us, there are too many hail mary decisions based on hope, panic, ego or all of the above. The whole Stanley thing with the weather turned out to be a farce because he was apparently told about his omission at the last training session, he seems to think the entire fanbase is dumb and the entire GFC seems to back that up because they keep making excuses for him, i think the more he continues to lie and downplay important losses (ala "we arent in a form slump") then fans are going to attack him even more, and finally he needs to learn to shut his mouth, too many times especially recently he has made ridiculous comments which surely the GFC board would have cringed at (ala "Cameron didnt have an impact" after kicking 5 against us.
I don't understand how they come to that decision to be honest, the worst part about it is we pulled our bnf full back out to play ruck which is ludicrous, as soon as you do that you throw all forms of structure out, if they had been playing that way for 6 weeks and it was working then fine but changing it week to week doesn't give the side a chance to get get settled, im not saying Stanley would have been the difference (Grundy pantses most rucks) but having Blics down back would have at least allowed the backline to be settled but instead they were running into each other all night like headless chooks.I'm still livid about the Stanley fiasco
Any reasonable analysis would have raised huge red flags :
> Stanley had broken even earlier in the year with Grundy and had just come off a very good effort against Kreuzer - he was in form
> Blitz had been pantsed by Stef friggin Martin FFS , Grundy is the best follower going around so huge risk
> Blitz out of defence takes direction and flexibility from our settled defence
> Blitz in the ruck meant Sav spent more time rucking than he would had Stanley rucked - weakens our forward line
Much too bigger risk IMHO , we need to admit we have a post Bye and Finals issue and if we haven't addressed this internally someone should be sacked for gross incompetence.
Don't believe it. It has come out this week that Stanley was informed he wasn't playing Wednesday before the game. They named him purely to mess with Collingwoods selections, Scott never planned on playing Stanley. The whole rain thing was a lie.“Got found out” what a joke. We withdrew Stanley before the match because thunderstorms were forecasted that never eventuated.
The Stanley decision was diabolical. But why people insist on concocting this “lie” theory is a mystery.Don't believe it. It has come out this week that Stanley was informed he wasn't playing Wednesday before the game. They named him purely to mess with Collingwoods selections, Scott never planned on playing Stanley. The whole rain thing was a lie.