Is any of this true? Barry Hall maybe forced to retire by Roos /Or will he quit?

[Chow-Chicker]

Pack his bags, clean out his locker, and lock the door behind him.

Toodle loo.

[UglyDuckling]

Its a bit of a media beat up what Paul Roos said. He put all the onus on Barry

Mediaplayer - Video, Sports News Video - Sportal

Mostly disappointed in him and thinks he wants to retire.

[Plugger46]

Acknowledge the point on Micky'O, but our attack won't be so predictable and one dimensional and the goalkickers will be spread around

I actually think our forward line is functioning fine - Hall's playing good footy. It's players in the middle of the ground turning the footy over regularly that's the problem.

I just can't see where we're going to kick a winning score without him playing. Don't think Goodes is the answer as we need him in the midfield in my opinion.

[liz]

To me it's two blokes saying what they feel to the media without talking to each other first.
Not really a good sign that the relationship between them is set to continue.

Like I said before. Sad.

Except that

a) we don't know how much the two of them have spoken today (do we?? - I haven't seen the whole interview. Does Roos say he hasn't spoken to Hall today?)

b) regardless of whether they've spoken today, Roos couldn't be blamed for thinking he has had the same conversation so often with Hall privately that it's not getting through.

I thought Roos could have defended Hall a bit more after the Hawthorn game when so much of the media was painting Hall's actions as another Staker type incident. I didn't like all his media comments around the Davis fall-out. And I think he is often unfairly critical of Goodes to the media. But this time I don't have any issues with him saying what he's said.

[CureTheSane]

a) we don't know how much the two of them have spoken today (do we?? - I haven't seen the whole interview. Does Roos say he hasn't spoken to Hall today?)

b) regardless of whether they've spoken today, Roos couldn't be blamed for thinking he has had the same conversation so often with Hall privately that it's not getting through.

I thought Roos could have defended Hall a bit more after the Hawthorn game when so much of the media was painting Hall's actions as another Staker type incident. I didn't like all his media comments around the Davis fall-out. And I think he is often unfairly critical of Goodes to the media. But this time I don't have any issues with him saying what he's said.

a) If they have spoken about the incident in any sort of depth since the game, then that makes Roos' comment worse.

b) I don't think that's an excuse for going public. Talk to him. Sack him. Ask him to retire. Trade him. Whatever, but it will be a big shame if it all end publicly and in bad blood.
To me Roos came across as a coach who seems to see Hall as an uncontrollable mental case who he has had enough of and is prepared to dump.

He's probably entitled to feel like that, but keep it in house.

[DST]

Hopefully Roos can get through to him, for the last and final time.

We can't afford to have Johnstone and White as our key forwards next year without Hall playing from the pocket, as they will get done over physically and it will do neither of their long term careers any good.

We really need him to get his head straight and somehow get him to play like it's fun and not a care in the world so that the little things like umpires and players niggling him don't send him over the edge.

One of the most important issues for the club to reslove in the next 9 weeks to make sure we can field a side next year that is not just going to be tossed around like Melbourne at present.

DST

[DST]

a) If they have spoken about the incident in any sort of depth since the game, then that makes Roos' comment worse.

b) I don't think that's an excuse for going public. Talk to him. Sack him. Ask him to retire. Trade him. Whatever, but it will be a big shame if it all end publicly and in bad blood.
To me Roos came across as a coach who seems to see Hall as an uncontrollable mental case who he has had enough of and is prepared to dump.

He's probably entitled to feel like that, but keep it in house.

Time for in house has finished with Hall.

Roos needed to make a stand on behalf of the youngsters on our playing list, to set an example of what is and is not acceptable.

I for one hope that we can somehow get Hall back on the rails for more year as it is vitally important for the development of both Johnstone and White next year.

But it's the end game now for Hall and Roos has quite rightfully laid it all on the line now. It's up to him to decide if he wants to play on.

DST

[SimonH]

We can't afford to have Johnstone and White as our key forwards next year without Hall playing from the pocket, as they will get done over physically and it will do neither of their long term careers any good.

Grundy and Goodes. White is only a 3rd forward at this stage, but he's not going to get done over physically (a la Jack Watts). The guy is physically built and strong.

Plus if the likes of Meredith and Bird (and, pleeeease, Laidlaw) can keep taking steps up, ROK can play closer to goal.

I'm all for BBBH having some fun, and a proper farewell, in the balance of 2009. But 2010? No freakin' way. If there were no disciplinary issues, I'd be all for staggering the departure of MOL and BBBH. But as it is, it's time to leave the sideshow behind, and get on with building the forward line of the next decade.

[liz]

He's probably entitled to feel like that, but keep it in house.

Under the AFL's rules, Roos is required to make himself available to the media. It is quite normal for the media to want to talk to coaches soon after the weekend and it's not unusual for Roos to speak to the media on a Monday.

Should he have refused to have made himself available today, knowing most of the questions would have been about Hall?

Should he have just refused to answer any questions about Hall?

Either of those would have given the impression of a real crisis at the club, rather than something primarily involving just 1 player out of the 40-odd roster.

Should he have defended (or brushed aside as trivial) Hall's actions? That would hardly have been creditable.

Hall frequently uses his Friday media column to acknowledge he's transgressed too often in recent seasons. And he keeps saying he wants to regain his reputation as a footballer, rather than a thug. But it all sounds like hollow words right now.

I love Hall as a footy player and I want him to play on next year. I think the younger players' development will be all the better for having him there, especially as he's showing he's still a pretty competent key forward when he feels like it. But there really is no point if he's going to spend half the season on the sideline through suspension.

[ROK Lobster]

Under the AFL's rules, Roos is required to make himself available to the media. It is quite normal for the media to want to talk to coaches soon after the weekend and it's not unusual for Roos to speak to the media on a Monday.

Should he have refused to have made himself available today, knowing most of the questions would have been about Hall?

Should he have just refused to answer any questions about Hall?

Either of those would have given the impression of a real crisis at the club, rather than something primarily involving just 1 player out of the 40-odd roster.

Should he have defended (or brushed aside as trivial) Hall's actions? That would hardly have been creditable.

Hall frequently uses his Friday media column to acknowledge he's transgressed too often in recent seasons. And he keeps saying he wants to regain his reputation as a footballer, rather than a thug. But it all sounds like hollow words right now.

I love Hall as a footy player and I want him to play on next year. I think the younger players' development will be all the better for having him there, especially as he's showing he's still a pretty competent key forward when he feels like it. But there really is no point if he's going to spend half the season on the sideline through suspension.

You simply say that it is being dealt with in house. Roos would be quite entitled to say that he feels disappointed, let down even angry with Hall but there is no need to talk of retirement (noting that i have not heard Roos' comments and am only going on what I have heard here).

[BSA5]

You simply say that it is being dealt with in house. Roos would be quite entitled to say that he feels disappointed, let down even angry with Hall but there is no need to talk of retirement (noting that i have not heard Roos' comments and am only going on what I have heard here).

Roos said that Hall doesn't look like a guy who wants to be out there. Didn't mention retirement specifically, though when asked said they'd be talking about it at the team meeting. Didn't give any indication that he'd push him one way or the other though.

[CureTheSane]

Under the AFL's rules, Roos is required to make himself available to the media. It is quite normal for the media to want to talk to coaches soon after the weekend and it's not unusual for Roos to speak to the media on a Monday.

Should he have refused to have made himself available today, knowing most of the questions would have been about Hall?

Should he have just refused to answer any questions about Hall?

Either of those would have given the impression of a real crisis at the club, rather than something primarily involving just 1 player out of the 40-odd roster.

Should he have defended (or brushed aside as trivial) Hall's actions? That would hardly have been creditable.

Hall frequently uses his Friday media column to acknowledge he's transgressed too often in recent seasons. And he keeps saying he wants to regain his reputation as a footballer, rather than a thug. But it all sounds like hollow words right now.

I love Hall as a footy player and I want him to play on next year. I think the younger players' development will be all the better for having him there, especially as he's showing he's still a pretty competent key forward when he feels like it. But there really is no point if he's going to spend half the season on the sideline through suspension.

Not gonna go and answer your questions.
It's clear that you are of the mindset that Roos was entitled to publicly speak disparagingly of Hall and intimate that he was not of huge value.

I'm from the other end of the scale where I think all the discussing of this issue should have been done at the club.

As far as the actual incident goes, BFD.
It was a minor incident and we don't know of any provocation or retaliation that was involved.
I can't believe that there are people here who weigh up what Hall brings Vs On field incidents and want him gone.
Football seems to be new standard of moral ethics that which we all have to live by.
And what really gets me is all those people out there who see footballers in general as neanderthals one day and then the next come out and sook that they aren't good role models.

To a degree Hall = Symonds as far as how clinical and sanitised sport is becoming.

BTW, if anger and uncontrollable rage are ongoing issues with Hall, then don't expect him to go anywhere in the boxing ring.
From what I know, those who get angry when they are fighting generally are taken advantage of by the calm and strategic opponent.