West Coast - where to now?

[Rich]

Probably means immediately entrenching himself as a top player. Those four took a while to get going but I'd argue Gaff had a fairly immediate impact.

Yes, thanks for putting in better words than mine.

Forgot about Gaff, Barrass also has made an impact you'd say.

Again, it's maybe my skewed impression if anything. But if you go on to blood a couple of youngsters next year to immediately improve your team, which can then flow on to other areas as well, anything is possible at WC next year.

 

[Forward Press]

Yes, thanks for putting in better words than mine.

Forgot about Gaff, Barrass also has made an impact you'd say.

Again, it's maybe my skewed impression if anything. But if you go on to blood a couple of youngsters next year to immediately improve your team, which can then flow on to other areas as well, anything is possible at WC next year.

Yours is not a common complaint, it took weeks for Partington to earn a debut despite tearing it up in WAFL, for example.

We wait cautiously as to how the selection committee approaches games in 2018, having 5 draft picks in the first two rounds this year is hopefully a clear statement of intent.

 

[Damon_3388]

Probably means immediately entrenching himself as a top player.

So why is he mentioning Sheppard, a guy who was pretty much a nothing player and a draft bust up until his 6th season (2015), as an example?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Semantics can also refer to the unimportance of a given subject, but sure, I used the wrong word.

Bullshit. That's not what it means. You don't know what the word "semantics" means. You threw it in because you thought it sounds clever and you've probably heard someone else using it before. That doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

You should just thank me for the education and move on without trying to reverse over the stain you left in the rug hoping no one will notice.

Circles would've been more appropriate. I'm sure you'll now get hung up on the literal definition of the word and use it to blow up your paragraph size.

Why would I get hung up on a statement that is obviously nonsensical to anyone who reads it?

You're making all these claims without backing them up. I can just say you're bullshitting now on the basis that your criticism isn't rooted in reality. How can we be failing when you can't even provide evidence beyond one offseason (which itself was flaky at best)?

What unsubstantiated claims are you talking about?

The only claims I've made are that our midfield has been a weakness for a long time and we haven't succeeded in improving it.

Do you disagree? I'd suggest it's self-evidently true.

Where we disagree is that you're determined to argue the reason we haven't improved the midfield is because it was impossible to do that. I'm saying that's bullshit. We could and should have done more over the past three offseasons. As I've explained, it doesn't require me to furnish you with a list of potential targets for that to be a defensible argument.

Additionally, if we were to use your logic, every year besides 1992, 1994 and 2006 have been a failure because we didn't win the flag. You can't solely judge results without taking into account the factors that affect them. It just leads to circular logic.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. It's a bullshit tangent you've conjured as you shuffle sideways from a flimsy argument, hoping to change the subject.

"Oh by your logic, you'd argue xyz even though you've never said anything to this effect."

This is obviously lazy rubbish. Respond to what's been posted instead of trying to fabricate something to make things easier.

But if you want to play that game: "By your logic, North Melbourne should be congratulated for trying to get Martin and Kelly this year, even though they failed. Because don't be silly - we can't judge results! They tried!"

You also don't know what "circular logic" means. Is that something else you've just thrown in because you think it sounds clever?

I guess it was my fault for responding to Gunnar.

Don't be silly. You're welcome to respond. The mistake you made was making a terrible argument and saying a bunch of stupid shit about "semetics" and "circular logic". You need to crawl before you walk, champ.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is the 22 I'd like to see WC move towards next season. I'm not sure it'll be the 22 named for R1 but I think it reflects the direction I favour:

B: Nelson - Barrass - Sheppard
HB: Hurn - McGovern - Watson
C: Gaff - Sheed - Duggan
HF: Ah Chee/Cripps - Darling - Jetta
F: Karpany - Kennedy - Rioli/LeCras
R: Naitanui - Yeo - Shuey
Int: Partington - Venables - Lycett/Vardy - Redden

I thought LeCras would be gone by now but if he's signed a new deal I can only assume he'll be playing. Although he's in competition with 4-5 guys for one of those small forward spots.

Schofield or Mackenzie might periodically come in to replace Nelson or Watson in defence.

I'll be interested to seek whether Jake Wateman can force his way in, and at whose expense. And Jetta is on his last roll of the dice.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just bizarre when these sort of anoraks go on for page after page with endless shiate.

We anoraks have reclaimed the label and no longer consider it a perjorative.

Didn’t even liven up a boring cab ride.

So cycle back to the pr0n you have playing on an endless loop in the other browser window.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Threads got a little weird. Apart from the draft is there really a means of rectifying West Coasts midfield, sure there are some
Players out there who WC probably should approach and probably have approached but failings those few like Cripps, Coniglio or a fit Omeara or Swallow i don’t see a mountain of trade targets who’d come West.

West Coast have failed to recruit and develop top line midfielders for a decade, with the single exception of Shuey. Had we nailed 2007 and 2009 we’d probably have won a flag or two but we didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Threads got a little weird. Apart from the draft is there really a means of rectifying West Coasts midfield, sure there are some
Players out there who WC probably should approach and probably have approached but failings those few like Cripps, Coniglio or a fit Omeara or Swallow i don’t see a mountain of trade targets who’d come West.

File this under "we haven't improved the midfield because it was impossible".

It's our job to persuade our targets to come west. Failure to do that is failure.

 

[JackOutback]

West Coast a failure because Gaz, Paddy and Dusty wouldn't come over. Should have taken them at gunpoint.

 

[ep2018]

West Coast a failure because Gaz, Paddy and Dusty wouldn't come over. Should have taken them at gunpoint.

Dusty actually had an interview with us a few years ago back when Richmond were shopping him around.

 

[mightymouse75]

There is a cliff that needs to.Be walked off. Pain before the gain

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

Dusty actually had an interview with us a few years ago back when Richmond were shopping him around.

We nearly had him. Then we asked Priddis if we could bring in Dusty but Prid said no

 

[ep2018]

We nearly had him. Then we asked Priddis if we could bring in Dusty but Prid said no

Is that what actually happened? I remember hearing that the club and Dusty agreed to have coffee in Perth and that the club was so unimpressed with his demeanour that not even a minute into the meeting the higher ups had already decided no in their mind.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

West Coast a failure because Gaz, Paddy and Dusty wouldn't come over. Should have taken them at gunpoint.

Except I never said anything about these players. You're resorting to obvious distortions after failing to make any decent counter-argument. It's so transparent. People have seen this play out before. You can't address my actual critique, so you instead exaggerate it so it's easier to rebut. It's lazy rubbish.

As I've said, my critique is very straightforward: WC have failed to significantly improve the midfield in the past three offseasons despite it being the glaring weakness. And we're running out of time.

Your default response throughout has basically been "nah but how?" You seem to suggest the reason we haven't improved the midfield is because it was simply impossible to do that and you revert to this flaccid defence in the latest distortion quoted above: "Oh what, you want Dangerfield or Dusty?!" As though those are the options being discussed.

As I've said, it is inadequate. It's our job to get what we need. And failure to do so is failure.

 

[Kram]

I'm not Rockliff's biggest fan but he surely would've been handy to slot in with Priddis and Mitchell gone.

 

[Jimmy Rustles]

We're ****ed until the higher ups **** off.

 

[Dazzler9]

Is that what actually happened? I remember hearing that the club and Dusty agreed to have coffee in Perth and that the club was so unimpressed with his demeanour that not even a minute into the meeting the higher ups had already decided no in their mind.

Given our history, and his background, the higher-ups could hardly be blamed.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not Rockliff's biggest fan but he surely would've been handy to slot in with Priddis and Mitchell gone.

Apparently it was impossible to get Rockliff. The evidence for this is the fact we didn't get him. The logic is unimpeachable, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[JackOutback]

Except I never said anything about these players. You're resorting to obvious distortions after failing to make any decent counter-argument. It's so transparent. People have seen this play out before. You can't address my actual critique, so you instead exaggerate it so it's easier to rebut. It's lazy rubbish.

As I've said, my critique is very straightforward: WC have failed to significantly improve the midfield in the past three offseasons despite it being the glaring weakness. And we're running out of time.

Your default response throughout has basically been "nah but how?" You seem to suggest the reason we haven't improved the midfield is because it was simply impossible to do that and you revert to this flaccid defence in the latest distortion quoted above: "Oh what, you want Dangerfield or Dusty?!" As though those are the options being discussed.

As I've said, it is inadequate. It's our job to get what we need. And failure to do so is failure.

No, I've resorted to being facetious because you refuse to acknowledge the many salient points made by numerous people and simply repeat the same tired arguments hoping to wear people down.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, I've resorted to being facetious because you refuse to acknowledge the many salient points made by numerous people and simply repeat the same tired arguments hoping to wear people down.

You haven't made any salient points. Don't kid yourself.

I've demonstrated the paucity of your counter-arguments, which boil down to the assertion that we've failed to improve the midfield because it was impossible to do that i.e. "we didn't because we couldn't". I reject that as wholly inadequate. And it doesn't get anyone off the hook for anything when we judge based on outcomes. If results are what count, then failure is failure.

If I'm repeating the same arguments it's because the bottom line is worth repeating. Apparently my critique is actually pretty hard to dispute on the face of it, as you've been utterly unable to respond with anything but easy excuses. If you object to the repetition, maybe you should do a better job of countering that critique.

 

[Kram]

Apparently it was impossible to get Rockliff. The evidence for this is the fact we didn't get him. The logic is unimpeachable, I'm sure you'll agree.

Do you know if there was even any talk of West Coast looking at him? Just seems like he would have been a great fit and still only 27 with no trade required.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Do you know if there was even any talk of West Coast looking at him? Just seems like he would have been a great fit and still only 27 with no trade required.

I don't know, but I agree he would have been a reasonable fit.

 

[CM9000]

Bullshit. That's not what it means. You don't know what the word "semantics" means. You threw it in because you thought it sounds clever and you've probably heard someone else using it before. That doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

You should just thank me for the education and move on without trying to reverse over the stain you left in the rug hoping no one will notice.

Why would I get hung up on a statement that is obviously nonsensical to anyone who reads it?

What unsubstantiated claims are you talking about?

The only claims I've made are that our midfield has been a weakness for a long time and we haven't succeeded in improving it.

Do you disagree? I'd suggest it's self-evidently true.

Where we disagree is that you're determined to argue the reason we haven't improved the midfield is because it was impossible to do that. I'm saying that's bullshit. We could and should have done more over the past three offseasons. As I've explained, it doesn't require me to furnish you with a list of potential targets for that to be a defensible argument.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. It's a bullshit tangent you've conjured as you shuffle sideways from a flimsy argument, hoping to change the subject.

"Oh by your logic, you'd argue xyz even though you've never said anything to this effect."

This is obviously lazy rubbish. Respond to what's been posted instead of trying to fabricate something to make things easier.

But if you want to play that game: "By your logic, North Melbourne should be congratulated for trying to get Martin and Kelly this year, even though they failed. Because don't be silly - we can't judge results! They tried!"

You also don't know what "circular logic" means. Is that something else you've just thrown in because you think it sounds clever?

Don't be silly. You're welcome to respond. The mistake you made was making a terrible argument and saying a bunch of stupid shit about "semetics" and "circular logic". You need to crawl before you walk, champ.

Now I can say you're most definitely getting hung up on semantics in the literal definition of the word. Fine, you're being pendatic, is that a better word?

I can also say it's circular logic because you're basing all assumptions on the outcome, which blantently ignores the process for said outcome. To put it simply, you're going in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that outside factors can inhibit the club from bringing players over. I'm asking for examples to back up your claim that bringing players over is so ridiculously easy. You say this:

You haven't made any salient points. Don't kid yourself.

I've demonstrated the paucity of your counter-arguments, which boil down to the assertion that we've failed to improve the midfield because it was impossible to do that i.e. "we didn't because we couldn't". I reject that as wholly inadequate. And it doesn't get anyone off the hook for anything when we judge based on outcomes. If results are what count, then failure is failure.

If I'm repeating the same arguments it's because the bottom line is worth repeating. Apparently my critique is actually pretty hard to dispute on the face of it, as you've been utterly unable to respond with anything but easy excuses. If you object to the repetition, maybe you should do a better job of countering that critique.

Yet you refuse to provide examples or ways in which it can be done better. As it stands, you're making a statement without backing it up, so, how should the club do it? You can't assume we haven't tried, so what should we do?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Now I can say you're most definitely getting hung up on semantics in the literal definition of the word. Fine, you're being pendatic, is that a better word?

Pedantic? If you like. If you'd prefer not to have it pointed out to you when you use words without knowing their meaning.

For the record, you don't know what the word "semantics" means. Granted, that is a semantic point, as I observed earlier in the process of educating you. Their "literal definition"! Sure, or just what words mean.

I can also say it's circular logic because you're basing all assumptions on the outcome, which blantently ignores the process for said outcome. To put it simply, you're going in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that outside factors can inhibit the club from bringing players over. I'm asking for examples to back up your claim that bringing players over is so ridiculously easy.

What assumptions are you talking about?

Assumptions aren't necessary when you assess the outcome, which is what I'm doing. And that outcome, in my view, is that we've failed to improve the midfield despite it being a glaring weakness for some time. I'm not going in circles at all. I'm staying perfectly still, expressing a relatively straightforward critique that you don't even try to dispute. There is nothing about that position that requires "assumptions" or "circular logic". That's just a bullshit smokescreen designed to make your hollow objections sound more intelligent than they are.

For the record, "circular logic" refers to a particular kind of logical fallacy where the conclusion justifies the premise and vice versa. It doesn't simply mean "going in circles", which is how you appear determined to use it. Erroneously, of course.

I accept there are external factors that may make it harder to recruit players. Our job is to find solutions regardless.

And I never said bringing players across is "ridiculously easy". Don't be absurd. It is, however, our job to achieve this. Yet another example of your preference for bullshit over a real argument.

Yet you refuse to provide examples or ways in which it can be done better. As it stands, you're making a statement without backing it up, so, how should the club do it? You can't assume we haven't tried, so what should we do?

The statement I'm making is that we have failed to improve the midfield despite it being a glaring weakness for several seasons. Hardly controversial.

Do you really need "backup" for that statement? Do you or anyone else disagree with it? I'd have thought it was jarringly obvious to anyone who has watched us play in 2013-17.

Do you disagree with this critique? If not, what are you complaining about? Are you simply saying "yeah but it's hard", as though that's a point worth making?

And I don't "assume we haven't tried". That's yet more bullshit from you, trying to alter my statements to make them easier to rebut. I assume we have tried, but we haven't succeeded. So, by definition, we've failed.

Which part of that do you disagree with? Or are you just going to shuffle sideways and disagree with something I've never said?

 

[CM9000]

Pedantic? If you like. If you'd prefer not to have it pointed out to you when you use words without knowing their meaning.

For the record, you don't know what the word "semantics" means. Granted, that is a semantic point, as I observed earlier in the process of educating you.

What assumptions are you talking about?

Assumptions aren't necessary when you assess the outcome, which is what I'm doing. And that outcome, in my view, is that we've failed to improve the midfield despite it being a glaring weakness for some time. I'm not going in circles at all. I'm staying perfectly still, expressing a relatively straightforward critique that you don't even try to dispute. There is nothing about that position that requires "assumptions" or "circular logic". That's just a bullshit smokescreen designed to make your hollow objections sound more intelligent than they are.

For the record, "circular logic" refers to a particular kind of logical fallacy where the conclusion justifies the premise and vice versa. It doesn't simply mean "going in circles", which is how you appear determined to use it. Erroneously, of course.

I accept there are external factors that may make it harder to recruit players. Our job is to find solutions regardless.

And I never said bringing players across is "ridiculously easy". Don't be absurd. It is, however, our job to achieve this. Yet another example of your preference for bullshit over a real argument.

The statement I'm making is that we have failed to improve the midfield despite it being a glaring weakness for several seasons. Hardly controversial.

Do you really need "backup" for that statement? Do you or anyone else disagree with it? I'd have thought it was jarringly obvious to anyone who has watched us play in 2013-17.

Do you disagree with this critique? If not, what are you complaining about? Are you simply saying "yeah but it's hard", as though that's a point worth making?

And I don't "assume we haven't tried". That's yet more bullshit from you, trying to alter my statements to make them easier to rebut. I assume we have tried, but we haven't succeeded. So, by definition, we've failed.

Which part of that do you disagree with? Or are you just going to shuffle sideways and disagree with something I've never said?

Ok, so we've failed to improve the midfield over the past 3 seasons. Alright, sure, fair enough. So what could we have done differently? What other steps could we have taken to accomplish the goal of fixing our weakest link? There's the problem of what you're saying. If you can't provide a better alternative to what has transpired, your point is moot.