RSS: A whole new world

[ScottH]

Coach Paul Roos says he is disappointed with the direction that football is going, likening the game?s progress to Gaelic football

More... (http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=7106&newsId=44447)



(This post was automatically generated from news items on www.sydneyswans.com.au )

[ROK Lobster]

Suck it up Paul. I can't remember you changing your stance when people expressed opinions that the style of play you coached was ruining football, changing its direction and ruining the spectacle. I happen to agree with you on this, but if you really think that you can dish it out after the way you responded to similar criticism I think it shows that you truly do live on planet Roos.

[liz]

Suck it up Paul. I can't remember you changing your stance when people expressed opinions that the style of play you coached was ruining football, changing its direction and ruining the spectacle. I happen to agree with you on this, but if you really think that you can dish it out after the way you responded to similar criticism I think it shows that you truly do live on planet Roos.

I really don't understand what your point is here. Why does Roos have to change his preferred game plan - one that has proved to be successful - because a few people (Andy D and Robby Walls) are incapable of telling the difference between appalling execution and flawed plan?

And what has that got to do with the AFL trying to take the contest out of football?

[ROK Lobster]

I really don't understand what your point is here. Why does Roos have to change his preferred game plan - one that has proved to be successful - because a few people (Andy D and Robby Walls) are incapable of telling the difference between appalling execution and flawed plan?

And what has that got to do with the AFL trying to take the contest out of football?He doesn't have to change it. My point was that his criticism of what is currently happened are couched in similar terms to those who criticised him. I am not saying that those critics were right, but Roos' response was to dig his heels in and continue doing what he was doing. His attitude was that if football was changing, so be it. The Swans, to an extent, dictated how football was played (especially against them) for most of 05 and most of 06. Now a third party is influencing the way the game is played, and Paul does not like it. To say that it is not good for football cannot carry any weight, the same way he dismissed such criticism when it was levelled at him. That's my point. It is not a comment on the merits of the criticism of Roos in 05, or on the merits of the way the game is currently being administered.

[liz]

But surely each comment deserves to be taken on its merits. Roos is far from alone in bemoaning the way the contest is being taken out of football and it is certainly not apparent that those people making the decisions in any way represent the majority of the football community.

As for the way Roos reacted to criticism of the Swans game style, the only comment he really seemed to take exception to was Walls' accusation that Roos was coaching for Roos, not for the team. And I can well understand why someone might take offence at that comment, especially coming from someone he thought knew him better than that.

[swan_song]

Stop grizzling everyone. Even given that McVeigh kicked a goal after McPhee had kicked to him from outside the boundary line, and that spider should have marked the ball at 3/4 time instead of punching, and that it was perhaps the worst display of umpiring since Hirdy's $20,000 cheque to the umps beer fund crucified us those long years ago, you can't win a game of footy that starts at 7.15 if you don't turn up to play till 7.35.
It seems to me that 2007 has seen the re-emergence of the schitzophrenic Swans -- the crap swans and the bloods -- and who knows which team takes the field each week...