The questions I pose and this thread is about the comments made about Harvey that I believe we unwarranted and unfair on the basis of 1 Nab Cup Game. Comments from Brereton mainly that Grant supported (if you didnt hear the full conversation thats ok - best to just admit that and we all move on).plugger66 wrote:Isnt this a case of you cannot stand him and I thought he was good for the club and we hear completely different things. Let him say what he likes he is a commentator not a saints coach.Teflon wrote:He said more than "he didnt have a good game tonight" - perhaps you didnt hear the lot - I did.plugger66 wrote:I heard what Gt said and he didnt have a go at Harvs at all. He just said that he wasnt at his best tonight. Surely he can say that or should he lie because he coached him.Teflon wrote:Great point Solar - youd think a so called "tough genius" of yester year and the Dalai Lama of coaching/man management could work that out before shooting off at the mouth? (for the record Thomas went along cause he needs a job - corporate world hardly smashing his door down for some of hip corporate feng shui).Solar wrote:This time of the year is made for the fast youngster, not the battle werried warhorse.
I guess at the heart of it all what p!sses me off most is you just know this wouldnt be uttered about Hird, Voss or even Archer (who lets face it didnt set the world on fire in his last season) but its Ok to cr@p on a guy you know doesnt seek out media attention hourly to tell us all how good he is/was. I'll be reminding these parasites (one who earned so good money off the back of Harvey performances in the not to distant past) later in season when he turns it on....and he will.
He also went along with Brereton and even said the "signs" were there late last year...not sure how you can interpret that as NOT tacit supportr for Dumot was saying but I look forward to your attempt.
What this IS NOT is a discussion on:
(a) Grant Thomas (havent we done this before)
(b) You
Lets not get side tracked or play "thread jacking" by second guessing my supposed "ulterior motives" (appreciate the psycho analysis but its over the top for what we are doing here) - if you feel Grant was right in what he said (you havent said one way or either BTW - just jumped to his defence of basically "he can say whatever he likes under the guise of commentator") then that is your view and your right.
Please do refrain from telling me what mine are though could you?