Port Power- A Club Devoid Of Leadership

[relapse]

Really you do talk a lot of rot at times relapse.

Let me hip you to the facts.

Wangas was close to quitting at the end of the 2005 season but Choco persuaded him to play on for another year. It was the club that pushed him into playing on and like a true servant he did.

When injury got the better of him he announced his retirement in June of the following year. He didn't hang on and on.

Once he'd quit, the club elevated one of the players off our rookie list.

Unlike "Nellie Melba" Ricciuto, Wangas had one press conference only to announce the end of his playing career. His retirement wasn't turned into a media circus and the farce of a farewell parade followed by yet more sub par games from the wannabe premiership captain.

Your post, in particular the last paragraph, screams of being jealous that Wangas retirement wasnt met with the same fanfare as Roo, dont try and pretend Port supporters didnt care cos I heard then sooking for days in the comments on the Advertiser website and on 5AA.

Here are some facts to go with your so called "truth"

Adelaide already had 2 long term injury spots open last year, Rhett Biglands and Trent Hentschel, they only elected to fill one of those spots so they already had a spot open to elevate a rookie which they didnt use, so tell me what advantage it would have been for the club for Rucciuto to retire mid-season, its not like we were desperate to upgrade rookies to the main list considering we only chosen to upgrade 1 player and already had an elevation spot open.

To put it simply Roo retiring during the year would have given nothing to the club because we already had an elevation spot already being available on the list The best decision was to let him try and find his fitness, remember that he was doing well during the pre-season until he hurt his neck/back, it wasnt like he continued to stay on the list this season when he clearly wasnt fit to do so. Whether he should or shouldnt have played in the final is debatable, but at least he did manage to play some games last season.

At the end of the day, whatever spin you want to try and put on things is that Wagnaneen should not have been on the list in 2006, if he knew he wasnt going to be able to do another season he should have pulled the plug, he could have retired if he wanted to. Even if the club asked him to play another season, it would have been his choice what he wanted to do so he told the club that he would play on. I am sure that the Crows werent telling Roo to retire mid season either, Roo played about 6 games last year while Wangas was given a token 300th game. At the end of the day Wanganeen basically took up a spot on the list that would have given Port another draft pick and took the salary for that year for one measily mediocre performance, you saying that he only played on because he was a true servant is hilarious, what is even more hilarious is that your fellow supporters seem to eat up that hypocritical tripe with a spoon.

So taking the same route Roo only played in that final because he we doing doing it in the best interests of the football club because he was a true servant

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Someone took a swipe at Ricciuto for making himself available when it was as plain as day that he wasn't fit to play, had not been fit to play for half a season at least and this was born out when he did SFA in the actual game.

Selfish by the player, indulgent and p*ss weak by the coach. That merely capped one of the silliest ways to end a career by having a press conference to announce he's playing on, then a farewell parade, then going on to play another few useless games culminating in his poor last game in which his only contribution was to go for the cheap shot from behind on a Hawks player.

In response you claimed Wangas was selfish to which I countered that he was talked into staying on by the club and bowed out as soon as it was apparent he was finished.

All else is irrelevant and you even acknowledge that by laughing at your own post.

 

[relapse]

Someone took a swipe at Ricciuto for making himself available when it was as plain as day that he wasn't fit to play, had not been fit to play for half a season at least and this was born out when he did SFA in the actual game.

Selfish by the player, indulgent and p*ss weak by the coach. That merely capped one of the silliest ways to end a career by having a press conference to announce he's playing on, then a farewell parade, then going on to play another few useless games culminating in his poor last game in which his only contribution was to go for the cheap shot from behind on a Hawks player.

In response you claimed Wangas was selfish to which I countered that he was talked into staying on by the club and bowed out as soon as it was apparent he was finished.

All else is irrelevant and you even acknowledge that by laughing at your own post.

I laughed at the absolute tripe that you come up with to cover up your hypocrisy.

Waganeen played on for one game in 2006 "where you seem to ignore the fact that the one and only game he played was to reach 300 games", if he played 300 at the end of 05, I would bet any money he would have retired at the end of 2005.

It is very amusing that you are trying to claim that him playing on when he shouldnt have was only because he was a true servant to the club and had nothing to do with reaching 300 games, but on the flip side you claim Roo only played in a final because he was selfish. That doesnt make sense. The fact is that both players final games were achievement games and the correlation between the 2 are blatantly obvious to everyone, both players arguably shouldnt have played those games but both arguably did so to achieve something. Waganeen arguably cost the club more by playing on than what Ricciuto did, considering that he played only one game and took the spot in a list that was in a rebuilding phase, thereby costing Port an extra draft pick in the 05 draft.

This is why I laughed about your message, honestly you dont believe half of the stuff that you type do you ?

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Just because you believe something enough to "bet any money" on it does not make it so.

Wangas had to be talked out of retiring short of his 300th. Both he and his coach are on the record saying this. Personally I think it's fantastic he did get to the milestone. The first aboriginal player to do so and an ornament to the game. But that was not the object of the excercise and anyone who has observed Wangas quiet approach and avoidance of publicity would recognise that. We were in a rebuilding phase and the club wanted an experienced and magical player to help guide the youngsters. Had he not suffered a career ending injury he would have gone on to play through to season's end.

By contrast captain selfish was hell bent on one last desperate attempt to hoist a premiership cup.

It's interesting you're prepared to acknowledge Ricciuto shouldn't have played that final game and that it was an "achievement game". Thats simply agreeing that he was selfish and his coach indulgent and weak as I stated and FFS it was a finals match!

 

[relapse]

Just because you believe something enough to "bet any money" on it does not make it so.

Wangas had to be talked out of retiring short of his 300th. Both he and his coach are on the record saying this. Personally I think it's fantastic he did get to the milestone. The first aboriginal player to do so and an ornament to the game. But that was not the object of the excercise and anyone who has observed Wangas quiet approach and avoidance of publicity would recognise that. Had he not suffered a career ending injury he would have gone on to play through to season's end.

By contrast captain selfish was hell bent on one last desperate attempt to hoist a premiership cup.

You are contradiciting yourself by said that just because you think something doesnt make it so because it is exactly what you are doing about Roo.

He thought that he would potentially put his physical health on the line by going out there in the hope to lead the Crows to victory, yep real selfish. Yes he was warned that he potentially was at a risk of permanent injury by playing last season, but thought he would be able to deliver something to help get the Crows over the line and while he wasnt at his best, there were a couple of games when he started to look like he was finding his feet again.

Roo would have died for the club if he had to, if he honestly thought that by playing he would have cost the Crows the game he wouldnt have played (not that he did cost Adelaide the game though). If we had of won he wouldnt have played the week after if his performance. Unlike some other captains Roo was looked upon as the epicentre of the team and the team would lift when he was out there on the field.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Yet in your previous post you acknowledged he shouldn't have played.

Why? Because he was not fit. You've stated yourself it was an "achievement game". In other words he was indulging himself and his coach let him.

 

[relapse]

Yet in your previous post you acknowledged he shouldn't have played.

Why? Because he was not fit. You've stated yourself it was an "achievement game". In other words he was indulging himself and his coach let him.

I actually said arguably he shouldnt have played, I never said that I did or didnt agree that he did. Its easy to look back in retrospect at decisions made and then make a judgment. You have to judge the decisions at the time and if I was the coach at that time I would have most probably selected Roo to play.

So yeah in retrospect maybe he shouldnt have played, but that isnt what you are talking about you are trying to claim that his intentions for playing were selfishly motivated. For which there is a clear case that the same can be argued for Wanganeen. In retrospect Wanganeen shouldn't have played in 2006 again its the same argument.

It's interesting you're prepared to acknowledge Ricciuto shouldn't have played that final game and that it was an "achievement game". Thats simply agreeing that he was selfish and his coach indulgent and weak as I stated and FFS it was a finals match!

No I am making a claim that you can make the exact same argument for Waganeen. The difference is that I am not using flawed logic and excuses in an effort to try and deflect anything critical from my club and then on the flip side trying to say that one person was selfish while one wasnt.

To be honest I am not even stating that they were both selfish either, the point is that you cant argue one without the other because there is a direct correlation between the two. I think honestly both players did what they did with the best intentions for the team.

I do love seeing the Port hypocrisy shining through though.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Here's another example of the Roo's selfishness. A cheap shot because he was beaten to the mark. This would have gone to the tribunal had the Crows not choked and his career spluttered to a finish.

Having been rubbed out by the tribunal prior to previous finals you'd think that the captain would have taken a good hard look at himself and modified his behaviour.

Intentional, late, high, medium impact. Prior record.

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

 

[i_love_the_hoff]

Here's another example of the Roo's selfishness. A cheap shot because he was beaten to the mark. This would have gone to the tribunal had the Crows not choked and his career spluttered to a finish.

Having been rubbed out by the tribunal prior to previous finals you'd think that the captain would have taken a good hard look at himself and modified his behaviour.

Intentional, late, high, medium impact. Prior record.

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

good post toots

 

[King_Tredrea]

We're happy with Tredders as captain, hes just starting to look fit again, lets wait and see how he goes this year

 

[relapse]

Here's another example of the Roo's selfishness. A cheap shot because he was beaten to the mark. This would have gone to the tribunal had the Crows not choked and his career spluttered to a finish.

Having been rubbed out by the tribunal prior to previous finals you'd think that the captain would have taken a good hard look at himself and modified his behaviour.


Intentional, late, high, medium impact. Prior record.

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Wait a minute, I thought you just said that he was being selfish by playing to be premiership captain on Grand Final day ???

So firstly he is selfish for playing because you claim that he was only playing to be a premiership captain and now trying to say that he is selfish for a cheap shot ???

Which one is it Toots ??? You arent making any sense how can you be selfish trying to be a premiership captain on grand final day by intentionally getting yourself suspended ???

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Think before you post.

Ricciuto's action at this point was self indulgent, hitting out in frustration. That lack of discipline would have caused him to be rubbed out just like his lack of discipline against West Coast caused him to be absent from the choke against the Saints. Was it his intention to get rubbed out? Of course not. It's just ironic that his selfishness in exacting revenge on his opponent would have thwarted his selfish desire to play on when not fit.

Here it is again btw:-

Intentional, late, high, medium impact. Prior record.

 

[i_love_the_hoff]

You arent making any sense

neither are you.

 

[FlyingCrow]

Here's another example of the Roo's selfishness. A cheap shot because he was beaten to the mark. This would have gone to the tribunal had the Crows not choked and his career spluttered to a finish.

Having been rubbed out by the tribunal prior to previous finals you'd think that the captain would have taken a good hard look at himself and modified his behaviour.

Intentional, late, high, medium impact. Prior record.

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Actually how is it high, from the evidence given it may be an illusion. In the first instance it looks bad, but......

From the pictures it looks as though the contact was incidental in the contest as it hit him around the chest/stomach region. The last frame is the only one that shows any contact from Roos right arm. The angle the shot was taken shows his arm is in line with the upper shoulder but no real evidence contact.

The umpire would of seen this from another angle (be it on replay or in play) and I am guessing no report was made for that reason?

I am not saying Roo is a saint, far from it, but that hit on the Hawks player was in the contest.

 

[i_love_the_hoff]

Actually how is it high.

hahahahahahaahhahahahhahahahahahahahhaha.

 

[FlyingCrow]

neither are you.

Let the adults talk, dont you have a remedial reading class to catch up on???

Anyway why are you on the net at this time on a Friday arvo. Noone at that 5k a year school like you?

 

[FlyingCrow]

hahahahahahaahhahahahhahahahahahahahhaha.

Its "evidence" like this that gets players off at the tribunal.

 

[i_love_the_hoff]

Its "evidence" like this that gets players off at the tribunal.

how can you not see that it's high???
the pictures are right in front of your face.

 

[FlyingCrow]

how can you not see that it's high???
the pictures are right in front of your face.

I explained how the evidence can be argued. Frames 4 and 5 are not clear contact. It can be argued that it is an illusion. If he was not reported by the field umpire I would bet he (the umpire)saw daylight between Roos arm and the Hawthorn Player. After that Roos arm followed through and contacted him on the chest and upper gut area. A possible 50metre penalty or even just pay the mark.

That picture is too far away and too out of focus to be used as evidence.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

A fifty metre penalty was awarded by the way.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Its "evidence" like this that gets players off at the tribunal.

Well cut off my legs and call me shorty!!

 

[i_love_the_hoff]

I explained how the evidence can be argued. Frames 4 and 5 are not clear contact. It can be argued that it is an illusion. If he was not reported by the field umpire I would bet he (the umpire)saw daylight between Roos arm and the Hawthorn Player. After that Roos arm followed through and contacted him on the chest and upper gut area. A possible 50metre penalty or even just pay the mark.

That picture is too far away and too out of focus to be used as evidence.

Yes, I understand your point, it just looks pretty high to me.
I guess it's 50/50.

 

[FlyingCrow]

For the hit to the guts. As I stated.

If the umpire thought it was high I would bet a report would of been made.

Sorry Toots a nice picture but does not put Roo in the Cheap Shot class. A bit of physical pressure is something I would of thought a Port man would admire. Or have you forgotten what a physical player is after watching the Powder Puff boys for a decade.

 

[FlyingCrow]

Well cut off my legs and call me shorty!!

see the space between Roo and the player. If the contact was made at that point the Hawks player would of been pushed closer to Roo.

There are reasons clubs get biomechanical experts in to tribunal hearings.

 

[raff23]

Flying Cow, bernie laxitive, et. al. Another troll.

Serial jealous, anti-Power posters....obsessed with the success of our great club.

I guess you are trying to get Port to get rid of our collossus of a leader similar to the way Mark Ricciuto was shafted last year at Cow land.

That won't happen, as Tredders will again dominate the AFL landscape.

Yea mayb if he and hes mates took their heads out of their own arses and actually do something on the field that warrants arrogance.