Agreed. It was a fortutious move on his part. I am getting more and nore convinced that he is a football parasite.samoht wrote:We've probably saved $500k/ year (we weren't prepared to pay RL $1 mill plus) and anyway we were sinking under RL in consecutive years from 20 wins to 15 wins to 12 wins (after being lucky with some close low scoring wins) - we were probably heading for 6 wins this year ?
The more our players got used to and learnt his defensive game, the more backward we went.
Revisionist - in 2009 and 2010 we were not losing. 2009 was anything but insipid and most of the times not boring. The game against Geelong midyear was the game of the season.samoht wrote:We were watching a boring and insipid brand of football under RL and getting used to the idea of losing as we learnt his "wonderful" one dimensional game plan, which was progressively being picked apart as we regressed.
2010 was more boring, but certainly not insipid. We lost Roo for 16 weeks so had to play drab football until his return. We managed enough wins to make top four and went within a whisker of stealing a flag.
This sweeping generalisations about "insipid and boring" and "one dimensional" do not stand up to even the most cursory of examinations. Its easy to make mindless statements because it is a low energy process and doesn't require any type of critical thinking.
A bit like bemoaning how Lyon wouldn't play Tom Walsh when it was clear he was the best forward ever and would play in any other team
Really, try a bit of thought before you make these silly proclimations.