Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney Swans vs GWS Giants - 3:20PM Sat - 1st QF
Squiggle tips Swans at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
LIVE: Brisbane Lions vs Carlton - 7:30PM Sat - 1st EF
Squiggle tips Lions at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Which decision did they think was wrong?why was it the right decision? based on what?
the players obviously felt it was NOT the right decision
I seem to recall the players confronted craigy and demanded he change his mind on selection.
Not the timeMaybe Triggy will forget Craigy's on staff and will appoint a coach in 2012.![]()
Not the placeYeah that nuts fine.
and what the ****.why was it the right decision? based on what?
the players obviously felt it was NOT the right decision
It wasn't on selection was it? It was on the matter of a farewell game.
His information is exactly as Tyson gave it mate. Except for the fact he missed the stone removal. At that point it was instead of a biopsly - tyson's choice - they only found out later it was a very small cancer so good call.
what's the difference, or have you got Vader's disease where you forget key details like Craig's refusal to budge?
he retired on the spot, so there is no distinction between selection and a farewell game.
what we know as facts, real ones.
1. Craig dropped him, and even under heat refused to play sentimental games and gift him a game making a number of public comments to that affect.
2. the players intervened, told him he was wrong, and demanded he change his mind. which he did.
3. Edwards has now come out, and said they had a private understanding and that Craig reneged on it without talking to him.
its all a bit hypocritical to say NC was acting on principle as if he were truly that virtuous there shouldn't have been any 'understandings' in the first place.
Utter garbage. Of course there is a distinction.what's the difference, or have you got Vader's disease where you forget key details like Craig's refusal to budge?
he retired on the spot, so there is no distinction between selection and a farewell game.
This needs to be split into 2 parts:1. Craig dropped him, and even under heat refused to play sentimental games and gift him a game making a number of public comments to that affect.
1B being what they objected to.. and what was eventually changed. The manner in which this change took place does not show Craig in a good light at all.2. the players intervened, told him he was wrong, and demanded he change his mind. which he did.
Okay. Apologies to crowman86. But there is a critical disconnect here and it all revolves around the seriousness of Tyson's condition. According to Tyson, he started training a week after an operation. The club allowed him to do so, not on medical advice, but on Tyson's say so, presumably because footballers are such great judges of when they're fit to play. Tyson plays the first half of the season a shadow of his former self, but no-one draws a relation between this and his recovery except Tyson who only mentions it when he gets dropped. The head coach at this point has 'forgotten' about the whole condition in the first place and, in any case, doesn't think it merits any special consideration.
Moreover, last year privacy was all-important but this year it's photo-spreads in the paper and tell-all interviews on the radio.
Not the whole story, I reckon.
CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.
He was on 5AA and basically reiterated what BACCS said. Craig doesnt come off well after this. they discussed the week before how he was traveling and if we was in line to be dropped to let him know before his last game so he could have a send off, the week later he was dropped with no game. When he questioned Craig about the last game Craig told him he had already picked the side. Craig wanted him to go back to Westies and fight his way back, Edwards after what he went through and the reduced energy wasn't keen on this.
I wonder now this is out in the public what it will do to the playing groups opinion of him. Pretty cold.
Also what's needs to be questioned is our medical staff. He was training one week after the op which in hindsight didn't give him enough time to recover and get his energy level back.
This needs to be split into 2 parts:
1A - Craig dropped him.
1B - Craig refused to gift him a farewell game.
There is not now, nor was there ever, any controversy over decision 1A. .
Maybe he is a stubborn old mule after all. I say this as an ardent Neil Craig supporter.
Its all very very strange. Tyson was offered time off after his op and time to recover and take it all in and come back fresh and instead decided to train and do the full pre season. It would have knocked him around mentally more than physically surely? I mean it was a small day op to remove a lump which was later discovered to be a cancer. He decided to not undergo any other treatment so really the only physical thing he had done was a small day op. The fact that they got it so so early on means that there would have been little to no impact on his body?? Players have bigger surgeries physical wise all the time at the end of a season. Must have really knocked him around mentally. I am not convinced that his form suffered due to the cancer. I really don't want to judge because I cannot imagine the pain and suffering he would have mentally been fighting but its all very odd. The fact that they said Mandy wants the real story out, he was worried Mandy might say something to Craig, Mandy was upset with the way it was handled it just doesn't seem to sit well with me. Really interested to see if we will hear the other side of the story. She does have history being involved in trouble and scandals before. The whole thing is a hazy shade of grey right now.
I'm shocked.
That is incredibly poor form from Craig.
Seems to me that Craig had decided on a course of action (set an example blah blah) and didn't have the mental flexibility to change his mind. I'm sure Craig was under a huge amount of pressure at the time, but still, that's the job.
Maybe he is a stubborn old mule after all. I say this as an ardent Neil Craig supporter.
CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.
There is not now, nor was there ever, any controversy over decision 1A. You're making stuff up if you suggest that there is/was.
I couldn't beleive what I heard last night. Tyson said that as the team was an 2-6/2-7 he though a bit of compassion for a farewell game could be accomodated (I don't think this is unreasonable for a 300 game player who has had cancer) but he said all NC cared about was results. I am glad Nth Melb didn't have the same attutude to Jason Mcartney. Appauling treatment by NC.
CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.
Agreed. Having an orchiectomy is not unlike a hysterectomy and normally the medical advice given is for 6 weeks rest with no heavy lifting. You would have to assume that since he resumed training so quickly, the surgery 'got it all' and no further treatment (radiation/chemo) was required. It's all so very bizarre.
Very interested in how you forget someone has cancer.
Would very much like to hear both sides on this one.