If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

[Twodogs]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Oxymoron isn't name calling.

[Bornadog]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Oxymoron isn't name calling.

I called him a troll, only because he uses words like that.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Oxymoronic - that is great way to discuss this subject matter.

That's just a mere description. What's wrong with a poster using 'oxymoron' to describe their thoughts of something such labelled being the opposite, or in complete contradiction of the label in practice? Seems a legitimate use of the term to my understanding of the word and what was being said.

Best back to topic I'd suggest.

[Bornadog]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

double

[Bulldog4life]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

So what point were you trying to make by posting that old article? That we have a sponsorship with VU? They also sponsor the ground by the way, does that influence the type of grass we can use?

Now you are being silly. My main point is, although you might think you know, you haven't a clue in hell what influence the VU sports science dept has over our players.

[Bornadog]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Whatever BT, if that is how someone wants to make an argument with no facts to back it up.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Whatever BT, if that is how someone wants to make an argument with no facts to back it up.

Im just trying to keep the focus on the thread topic at hand.

[Greystache]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Now you are being silly. My main point is, although you might think you know, you haven't a clue in hell what influence the VU sports science dept has over our players.

I'm glad someone who doesn't know me, has never met me, and has no idea who I have contact with would know I have no idea about the relationship with VU. That's some psychic level of insight you posses!

[Bulldog4life]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

I'm glad someone who doesn't know me, has never met me, and has no idea who I have contact with would know I have no idea about the relationship with VU. That's some psychic level of insight you posses!

I will pm the Powerball numbers to you if you are good.

[LostDoggy]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Whatever BT, if that is how someone wants to make an argument with no facts to back it up.

I have used facts to which you seem unable to respond to in a mature fashion without name calling. Disappointing really.

[Bornadog]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

I have used facts to which you seem unable to respond to in a mature fashion without name calling. Disappointing really.

The facts I am talking about are breaking down the last 3 years injuries and let's see how many are soft tissue and how many are ACLs, broken bones, ankles etc in general play and compare that to the rest of the comp. Of course injury management is another area to look at as well.

I am not saying we don't have problems, but I also like facts and figures and not second hand news from someone who knows someone.

As I have said, the club needs to do a review at the end of the year.

[LostDoggy]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

The facts I am talking about are breaking down the last 3 years injuries and let's see how many are soft tissue and how many are ACLs, broken bones, ankles etc in general play and compare that to the rest of the comp. Of course injury management is another area to look at as well.

I am not saying we don't have problems, but I also like facts and figures and not second hand news from someone who knows someone.

As I have said, the club needs to do a review at the end of the year.

Bone stress injuries are a diect result of overwork and possibly poor monitoring. Something our sports science team is responsible for managing. It isnt secondhand info that we have three BSIs, it is fact. So too is it factual that Wood and Dickson have suffered recurrent hamstring injuries.

So i would suggest that our sports science team describing themselves as 'high performance' is taking the piss, as the opposite is true. I assume you agree things arent travelling well, hence your call for a review.

The fact is our so called 'high performance' team is underperforming (and that is a textbook eg of an oxymoron, a Telstra 'help' desk is another oxymoron).

So on topic, if Im Peter Gordon my first priority would be reviewing and likely changing our sports science set up. It isnt working and it hasn't worked for three years.

The flow on effect is massive as our best 27 let alone 22 never plays. Performance and memberships then suffer. And crucially players will simply refuse to come to a club with such a sloppy injury management record. O'Meara for example picked Hawthorn mainly due to their injury management record.

[azabob]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Im just trying to keep the focus on the thread topic at hand.

Regardless how we finish the season I think we still need a major review and some change of assistant coaches and the wider football department.

I hope we are well under way in reviewing our list management strategy and decisions over the past 3 years. A particular focus on offering contracts and length of contracts.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

Regardless how we finish the season I think we still need a major review and some change of assistant coaches and the wider football department.

I hope we are well under way in reviewing our list management strategy and decisions over the past 3 years. A particular focus on offering contracts and length of contracts.

Yep. There's a lot of fix. The up shot is that if Gordon & Bains & Grant really the gumption to make all the hard necessary changes, the club will benefit bigly with the talent we have on our list and more talent this draft/trade period. I hope they make the hard calls, tough decisions and set us up. As a member, I'd love an actual review document (less sensitive info obviously) to be given to members outlining where we are at, why we are here now and what they're doing to turn one flag into a dynasty period (which we can do). Having a report like that to read would be worth more than a copy of the AGM, magnets, key rings or stickers as a reason to invest even more financially into the club for existing members and sway members not to leave and sceptics to sign up. I doubt it'll happen though, probably just a poorly developed communications strategy to not address this stuff head on and just watch an online video about how things are awesome. But I can hope for the latter.

[jeemak]

Re: If you were Peter Gordon, who would you move on first in a post season review?

What if Gordon and Grant are part of the problem? How significant a review are we in need of?