The 'Over Reliance on Roo' Thread

[rodgerfox]

You've proven my point completely.

No, I have proven whata fraud you are.

Any coach seeks to make the most of his players, and moreso his best players.


Your point was that we over do it..and I showed how in the GF that we actually had 11 players who had shots on goal.

Now you slip and slide and try and claim that their misses were because we weree over-reliant on Roo = crap.

Mini running in and missing a dead easy goal has squat to do with Roo.

And here is your issue.

As usual, at the slightest hint of a negative comment directed at the great Ross Lyon, you come in all guns blazing to defend his honour!

It's hilarious!! You're like a 12yo chick if someone dares say that Justin Beiber has a bad hairstyle!


If you bothered to read what I post, instead of sobbing uncontrollably under your doona like that lunatic on Youtube telling everyone to leave Britney Spears alone, you'd find that I haven't even really focussed on whether or not we've been directed to rely on Roo.

What I've been talking about is the fact, whether it's caused by the coaches or not, that our players have been unable seal the deal and step up without Roo.
They were fortunate enough to be able to stand back and watch him win both finals, and many games throughout the year - but when he couldn't do it in the GF we were rooted.

No one else could do it.

We relied on him too much.

Now, since he's been missing, suddenly we've seen guys step up and play matchwinning roles. Something we have not seen from anyone bar Roo for a few years.


So grab a box of tissues, tidy yourself up and walk away.

You're wrong. Again.


So just leave it man.

[rodgerfox]

Does anyone agree? Have we made a major mistake by putting all our eggs in one basket?

Why do you keep going on about this Rodg?

Nine months now.

You usually buy into some other discussion with your "over reliance on Nick" point of view but this time, perhaps due to impatience, you’ve decided to kick another thread off yourself. One must ask; what is the point?

And if so, can we fix it this year before it's too late?

How???

You’re never going to get the kind of agreement from posters that you seek. But even if you did, what then? Do we then march on Lyon’s office and demand he changes his game plan?

Do we try to convince the Board to sack Lyon and install yourself as coach?

Once again I ask the question – what is the point of your incessant pleas to accept your argument? Where is it going? Are you simply on an ego trip to prove you can change other peoples opinions?

What is it???

??

I have no idea what your post is about.

You'll find that 90% of posts I make are in direct response to posts directed at me.
If I don't respond, I get heckled incessantly for not responding.

If I do respond, I get this from you?

I guess you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


As for ...

"your incessant pleas to accept your argument?"

Incessant pleas?? WTF?

You'll find that I don't give a shiit really what people think. And I couldn't give a day old dog tuurd whether people 'accept' my argument.

This is a football forum, for people express opinions and views.

If people respond to these, then generally you respond back. That's how it works.


Unless I've missed something??

[Dr Spaceman]

I have no idea what your post is about.

Then I guess you simply have no idea FULL STOP

[rodgerfox]

That means, even to the slowest individual, that we rely on him.


.

Oh....more backsliding and repositioning I see..

Now it is just that we rely on him...not that we are over-reliant.

??

Is there a difference??

Call it what you want - over reliant, reliant, freakin' reliant, whatever.

My 'argument' hasn't changed one bit.


At least this time you've been able to identify when you've been rolled. So rather than resorting to this childish behaviour, how about you either stick to the topic, or sheepishly walk away?

[rodgerfox]

I have no idea what your post is about.

Then I guess you simply have no idea FULL STOP

Maybe.

Perhaps you can refrain from responding to me then? Might save you some worry.

[saintsRrising]

At least this time you've been able to identify when you've been rolled. So rather than resorting to this childish behaviour, how about you either stick to the topic, or sheepishly walk away?

Making up more crap I see.

Once you have exhausted your long line of insults, and goads you might just put up another argument on football, flawed as it may be. Though occasionaly you do make some good points.

[Dr Spaceman]

Perhaps you can refrain from responding to me then?

Sounds fair enough.

You never answer the questions anyway!

[markp]

19 more Inside 50s for 9 more shots at goal is a massive choke.

16 more Inside 50s for only 3 more shots at goal is a choke - but shows a far bigger issue with the ability to convert Inside 50s to scores.
This issue was due to Roo not being able to do it for us, and no one else being able to step up.

Err... 11 of those 'shots at goal' were rushed behinds.

So that would be closer to 19 more inside 50's, 2 (minus what was rushed by the cats) less actual shots at goal.

There goes that theory.

Keep trying.

[na exa]

[rodgerfox]

19 more Inside 50s for 9 more shots at goal is a massive choke.

16 more Inside 50s for only 3 more shots at goal is a choke - but shows a far bigger issue with the ability to convert Inside 50s to scores.
This issue was due to Roo not being able to do it for us, and no one else being able to step up.

Err... 11 of those 'shots at goal' were rushed behinds.

So that would be closer to 19 more inside 50's, 2 (minus what was rushed by the cats) less actual shots at goal.

There goes that theory.

Keep trying.

Je**s Markp, you should stay out of the genuine footy talk and stick to the lame one line potshots from behind the bushes.

How does 'that theory' go anywhere based on what you've written?

Are you aware how Hawthorn got their hands on the ball deep in the backline to rush those behinds?

Are you aware that there is a significant difference between the stat 'Scoring Shots' and actual shots on goal?

Are you aware that Nick Riewoldt plays for St Kilda and not Geelong?



Fair dinkum.

If you're going to try to be a smart arrse, you need to be smart.

[markp]

Are you aware how Hawthorn got their hands on the ball deep in the backline to rush those behinds?

Really?? You mean hawthorn didn't rush any of those behinds from 20, 30, or 40 meters out?

Wow.

It's still not a 'shot at goal'... geelong failed to convert an inside 50 into a shot at goal in those instances.

And some of those rushed behinds were even rushed from a kick-in.

Are you aware that there is a significant difference between the stat 'Scoring Shots' and actual shots on goal?

What has that got to do with what is quoted above??

More smokescreens, more red herrings, more pissant games.

Are you aware that Nick Riewoldt plays for St Kilda and not Geelong?

What the hell are you on about?

If you're going to try to be a smart arrse, you need to be smart.

That's a good one, most original... did you think that up on your own?

J**us Markp

Just 'Markp' is fine, thanks.


Keep trolling dodge....

It's the obsessive and relentless nature of it that I find most telling... and the only 'interesting' thing about it (or you) really.

You are the only poster here who celebrates a Saints defeat, the only one who enjoys it... and you delights in rubbing everyones face in it.

The GF loss last year must have sent you totally giddy, and you've been dining out on it with glee ever since.

Sad.

[rodgerfox]

Keep trolling dodge....

It's the obsessive and relentless nature of it that I find most telling... and the only 'interesting' thing about it (or you) really.

You know that you are under no obligation to read my posts, let alone respond?

[markp]

Keep trolling dodge....

It's the obsessive and relentless nature of it that I find most telling... and the only 'interesting' thing about it (or you) really.

You know that you are under no obligation to read my posts, let alone respond?

You know that I am free to?

Troll away....

[rodgerfox]

Keep trolling dodge....

It's the obsessive and relentless nature of it that I find most telling... and the only 'interesting' thing about it (or you) really.

You know that you are under no obligation to read my posts, let alone respond?

You know that I am free to?

Troll away....

Of course, but it seems to upset you so much.

[markp]

Then you should feel satisfied.

Or creepily excited.