What exactly has Scott done?

[Con Gorozidis]

i agree skeptic.
in building parlance we are still dismantling the old edifice,
cleaning the site and doing the design and planning work. We also just ordered new materials from a new supplier.
then we start the rebuild . brick by brick.
will be 3 years before we get our new building.

[karnaby]

What's the senior players agenda? Why would they try and lay blame on everyone but themselves for the results of 2013? If you ask them what the main reason is that we LOST MATCHES in 2013 how many of them are going to turn around and say; "yeah despite the injuries and despite the youngsters coming in and even if you discount some of the changes to game plan, the form of the senior blokes just isn't good enough to challenge for finals right now"

I'd say ZERO...no-one will say that!!!!!!!

They are proud men and they have every right to be proud for everything achieved and for being Saints legends and champions...but fact is their playing careers are all coming close to an inevitable finish. Their role is to prepare themselves as players and perform to the best of their ability. They do not have a right to try and influence the club and the footy department more than is justified or to try and play a major part in the planning of the rebuild.

I think I can safely say that you'll never get any senior player who is 100% fit say to their coach and to team mates; "Look...uhhm...I love this club so much that I am willing to forego my match payment this week for the younger blokes to get a go...and although I am fit and healthy and basically my form has been satisfactory, I realise that I have plateaued as a player and that at age 30 (or whatever the case me be) I realise I am on the decline and my output isn't what it used to be in 2009 or 2010 (...sheesh...we can't all be Robert Harvey!!)."

I don't think any senior player would say; "Maybe for the team to improve and to catch up to the teams on the rise we have to support the coaches and footy departments development philosophy and I understand that we are probably losing games not only because of the loss of retiring players and the loss of BJ, but also BECAUSE MY FORM ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE"

How many blokes are going to say that???

I also don't think any senior player would say; "I'm committed to the team and to training and I love turning up to Seaford -even though there's no good coffee shops around and it adds an extra hour travelling time each day - and I'm still willing to turn up and go through the grind and sweat and toil of pre-season even if it means playing several games at Sandringham in 2014...I won't mind at all if it's what the senior coach wants and if it means I'll be setting a good example to the new recruits and draftees."

How many senior blokes will say that????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read between the lines. If a senior player is telling you stuff, maybe you need to think... don't just willingly open wide and let anyone feed you a biased opinion or an opinion that might just be....bulldust

Kosi might not have 'said' something like that but he exemplified it over this past season. Maybe as time goes on some others can take a wee bit of that selflessness on board for the future good of the club?

[Con Gorozidis]

Top work scollop.
Great rant and i agree with your sentiments.

[plugger66]

What's the senior players agenda? Why would they try and lay blame on everyone but themselves for the results of 2013? If you ask them what the main reason is that we LOST MATCHES in 2013 how many of them are going to turn around and say; "yeah despite the injuries and despite the youngsters coming in and even if you discount some of the changes to game plan, the form of the senior blokes just isn't good enough to challenge for finals right now"

I'd say ZERO...no-one will say that!!!!!!!

They are proud men and they have every right to be proud for everything achieved and for being Saints legends and champions...but fact is their playing careers are all coming close to an inevitable finish. Their role is to prepare themselves as players and perform to the best of their ability. They do not have a right to try and influence the club and the footy department more than is justified or to try and play a major part in the planning of the rebuild.

I think I can safely say that you'll never get any senior player who is 100% fit say to their coach and to team mates; "Look...uhhm...I love this club so much that I am willing to forego my match payment this week for the younger blokes to get a go...and although I am fit and healthy and basically my form has been satisfactory, I realise that I have plateaued as a player and that at age 30 (or whatever the case me be) I realise I am on the decline and my output isn't what it used to be in 2009 or 2010 (...sheesh...we can't all be Robert Harvey!!)."

I don't think any senior player would say; "Maybe for the team to improve and to catch up to the teams on the rise we have to support the coaches and footy departments development philosophy and I understand that we are probably losing games not only because of the loss of retiring players and the loss of BJ, but also BECAUSE MY FORM ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE"

How many blokes are going to say that???

I also don't think any senior player would say; "I'm committed to the team and to training and I love turning up to Seaford -even though there's no good coffee shops around and it adds an extra hour travelling time each day - and I'm still willing to turn up and go through the grind and sweat and toil of pre-season even if it means playing several games at Sandringham in 2014...I won't mind at all if it's what the senior coach wants and if it means I'll be setting a good example to the new recruits and draftees."

How many senior blokes will say that????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read between the lines. If a senior player is telling you stuff, maybe you need to think... don't just willingly open wide and let anyone feed you a biased opinion or an opinion that might just be....bulldust

Totally agree with your last line. You are 100% right if that was the case.

[felix]

Maybe the older guys see a huge difference with the way Lyon went about coaching compared to Watters , Lyon was supposed to be a meticulous planner ticked all the boxes crossed the ts etc and took the team to the top he was the best coach that core group have had . In comes Watters things are different he is still learning they are not winning things are not as polished there is a gap between what Lyon could achieve and what Watters can achieve hence it's obvious to the older guys that the team is going no where fast which equals rumblings .

[samoht]

Maybe the older guys see a huge difference with the way Lyon went about coaching compared to Watters , Lyon was supposed to be a meticulous planner ticked all the boxes crossed the ts etc and took the team to the top he was the best coach that core group have had . In comes Watters things are different he is still learning they are not winning things are not as polished there is a gap between what Lyon could achieve and what Watters can achieve hence it's obvious to the older guys that the team is going no where fast which equals rumblings .

The older players should realize that we were in decline under RL and that SW actually arrested the decline in his first year - we lost some very, very close games and could have finished with 15 wins in SW's first year!

I think SW is an upgrade - I don't buy into the RL great coach idea - his recycled player policy - Lovett, Gamble, Peake, Polo, Pattinson + losing Ball etc.
RL hastened our decline, made it a mathematical certainty and then abandoned ship.

There are grumblings between the coach and the players - hopefully things will resolve themselves and we can get on with things. SW may need to communicate better.

[Teflon]

Still nothing on why Watters is the devil and must be sacked???

I assess Watters on development at this stage above anything - IF he can bring in the games of the kids so we start to see that step up to regular 22 on merit he gets a tick from me

This year he did as I hoped - blooded kids
I'd like to now see him fast track midfield depth and hope that comes

If we lose a few games so be it - win the war is what Im after.

Would love to know why he's so bad??

[dragit]

I think SW is an upgrade - I don't buy into the RL great coach idea - his recycled player policy - Lovett, Gamble, Peake, Polo, Pattinson + losing Ball etc.

You need to let it go, Ross comes into nearly every post you make.
Watters is bringing in just as many recyled players as we did with Ross, plus we've let both Goddard and Dal Santo go…

[saintly]

Maybe the older guys see a huge difference with the way Lyon went about coaching compared to Watters , Lyon was supposed to be a meticulous planner ticked all the boxes crossed the ts etc and took the team to the top he was the best coach that core group have had . In comes Watters things are different he is still learning they are not winning things are not as polished there is a gap between what Lyon could achieve and what Watters can achieve hence it's obvious to the older guys that the team is going no where fast which equals rumblings .

The older players should realize that we were in decline under RL and that SW actually arrested the decline in his first year - we lost some very, very close games and could have finished with 15 wins in SW's first year!

I think SW is an upgrade - I don't buy into the RL great coach idea - his recycled player policy - Lovett, Gamble, Peake, Polo, Pattinson + losing Ball etc.
RL hastened our decline, made it a mathematical certainty and then abandoned ship.

There are grumblings between the coach and the players - hopefully things will resolve themselves and we can get on with things. SW may need to communicate better.

I think the older plyers have been grumbling, and its gotten to the media..

the younger players really like watters, heard this from the media and a number of occasions. so most likely the older players, hated going to seaford, didn'twante to be back at moorabbin, liked thebeing in the finals each year, loved the accolades, and in the past two years, we have inevitably gone down, and they couldn't cope (especially after being in two grandfinals and not winning either of them.

[samoht]

I think SW is an upgrade - I don't buy into the RL great coach idea - his recycled player policy - Lovett, Gamble, Peake, Polo, Pattinson + losing Ball etc.

You need to let it go, Ross comes into nearly every post you make.
Watters is bringing in just as many recyled players as we did with Ross, plus we've let both Goddard and Dal Santo go…

Yes, I admit I overdo it (re: RL) and I will cease and desist from now on.
But SW is inevitably going to be compared to RL, by the senior players.

We are at a different stage right now compared to 2009.
Back then we needed another quality player or two to complement things, it would have been handy if a couple of the recycled recruits were still around to help things now.

The "recycled"(your label) players that we've now recruited (with SW's input, no doubt) are still developing, are young and unproven, which meets our profile right now as we are in development/rebuild mode, and there's a fair chance that they would still be around in a few years time.

[joffaboy]

Interesting how posters dney any of the rumours re Scott Watters and his shortcomings, but then, with absolutely no proof, launch into straw man arguments, blaming senior players for the "unrest".

Well like everyone is saying regarding Watters and the rumours, show me the proof that senior players are the ones behind the rumours about Watters.

We lost McEvoy (senior player in thsi context? Dont think so) in a fair trade that netted us Savage and two top 20 picks

We lost Dal Santo but used pick 26 on Longer and the later pick in that deal on Bruce.

Dal Santo has not been part of these rumours of player unrest.

So who are the players and why didn't they demand out?

Fisher? Mooted as a trade prospect, but stayed
Roo? - sounded out by Collingwood amid rumours from SEN and other players he was "available" - vehmently denied by Bains and Pelchan, front page saying Watters told McGuire to nick off.
Joey - more rumours from SEN (who almost everything totally and pathetically wrong this trade period) that he was off to the Bombers - again vehmently denied by Bains and Pelchan.
So which other "senior" players who are so disgruntled they were discussed as wanting out?
Armo? Still about
cj - one year contract
LENNY? - once year contract.

Can anyone give me some proof that senior players are behind these rumours?

If not well STFU with your dumb, unfounded theories and conclusion jumping.

Get some straight up proof on

a) Watters
b) senior players

before spouting your BS.

[skeptic]

Still nothing on why Watters is the devil and must be sacked???

Personally I think it's not because he is a poor coach but hasn't sold his message clearly enough. Ppl are asking, where's the club heading?

[Dr Spaceman]

Still nothing on why Watters is the devil and must be sacked???

Personally I think it's not because he is a poor coach but hasn't sold his message clearly enough. Ppl are asking, where's the club heading?

It may not have been clear at the start, but if people can't tell where the club is heading after the completion of the 2013 season then they clearly need to have their eyes tested

[Cairnsman]

Still nothing on why Watters is the devil and must be sacked???

I assess Watters on development at this stage above anything - IF he can bring in the games of the kids so we start to see that step up to regular 22 on merit he gets a tick from me

This year he did as I hoped - blooded kids
I'd like to now see him fast track midfield depth and hope that comes

If we lose a few games so be it - win the war is what Im after.

Would love to know why he's so bad??

Absolutely spot on Teffers! In two years he has introduced 24 new players to the club which is astounding really. I think we don't understand enough the time and energy involved in bringing a new young kid into his first AFL game in such a way that he is set up to succeed. I also think one of the really important things that is going to have to happen in the next few years is getting a chemistry going with a new core group. Getting the player age profile right will help enormously with chemistry and to that end I think now that the older players from our last era are the minority we should hopefully see a new chemistry and spirit evolve soon enough. I'm not hoping for wins in 2014, I'm hoping to see players become competitive beasts, giving 100% effort every minute they play and I'm hoping to get to the end of the season and be able to see even more players establish themselves and also hopefully see some of our new trade and DPs get a tick. The game plan and match day tactics can come later once we have some players to execute.

[Scollop]

Its funny but what i hear is first hand and what i wrote is very similar to what I heard. you can chose to take it or leave it. i couldnt give a stuff to be honest. As for the rest you have written i have no idea about any of that. never mentioned it but you have.

The main issue is the players dont seem to be included in the game plan which they have been previously and also the game plan tends to alter weekly and players cant get a handle on it and like any person who wants to win they get pissed off at the constant alteration of plans as it makes the player and the team look very ordinary..

I believe plugger66 is genuinely conveying what he hears...I just don't buy it that easily and I hope the pres and the board don't let the tail wag the dog as has been the case in St Kilda's past. We really don't know what is each parties' agenda so I wouldn't be posting ANY discussions with insiders because all it does is creates a scent for the hounds and gossip mongers out there like Caro.

It could also taint the reputation and character of some senior players. Instead of us saying such and such player should be revered, we could be saying gees...he did an Akermanis!!!

[Cairnsman]

Its funny but what i hear is first hand and what i wrote is very similar to what I heard. you can chose to take it or leave it. i couldnt give a stuff to be honest. As for the rest you have written i have no idea about any of that. never mentioned it but you have.

The main issue is the players dont seem to be included in the game plan which they have been previously and also the game plan tends to alter weekly and players cant get a handle on it and like any person who wants to win they get pissed off at the constant alteration of plans as it makes the player and the team look very ordinary..

I believe plugger66 is genuinely conveying what he hears...I just don't buy it that easily and I hope the pres and the board don't let the tail wag the dog as has been the case in St Kilda's past. We really don't know what is each parties' agenda so I wouldn't be posting ANY discussions with insiders because all it does is creates a scent for the hounds and gossip mongers out there like Caro.

It could also taint the reputation and character of some senior players. Instead of us saying such and such player should be revered, we could be saying gees...he did an Akermanis!!!

Oh but Barry Bignoter cant miss an opportunity to say he heard things first hand...pffft!

[Richter]

Still nothing on why Watters is the devil and must be sacked???

I assess Watters on development at this stage above anything - IF he can bring in the games of the kids so we start to see that step up to regular 22 on merit he gets a tick from me

This year he did as I hoped - blooded kids
I'd like to now see him fast track midfield depth and hope that comes

If we lose a few games so be it - win the war is what Im after.

Would love to know why he's so bad??

Hey Teffers. From what I have gleaned the problem with Watters is in his skills at communicating with and making working relationships with people... the CEO, the board, the football manager, the senior players. Also the matchday coaching, and the input of DL has been questioned. The areas that he is seen as being good at is in his interactions with the younger players and the interface with the media.

Looked at from a rosy point of view, the new President feels that there is a creative tension within the footy department that can be worked through that will be of benefit to the Saints.

From the opposite point of view, the Pres didn't want another change (on top of the recent change of President and CEO), particularly around the time of the trade/free agency period, which might have impacted the club's ability to secure the best deals. But SW's head remains firmly on the block.

I have no idea which of the above two interpretations is the correct one. On thing is for sure though, the new President is the one who is across this and will, with the input of the board, be the one who makes the call on SW's (and CP's for that matter) ongoing employment at the club.

[ace]

To answer the original question.
He took over a team that had a sucessful but not entertaining style of play.
The style was one of forward defence, midfield defence, defensive defence.

He got rid of that successful style and tried to replace it with one of his own.
His new style was one of forward attack, midfield attack, defensive attack.
When he was appointed this planned style was "pleasing" to those who did not like watching the old defensive style.
When it failed he persisted.

Now that the club is competing for the wooden spoon he still refuses to recognise that successful football is based on defence.
He also refuses to accept the success window is closed with the present crop of players and that the club needs to rebuild its list from the ground up.
A result of unfavourable draft positions and incompetent recruiting throughout the naughties.
He is diluded in thinking that retaining former star players in the twilight of their careers can miraculously still win with his attacking style.
He wants to be a successful coach whereas the club needs a coach who is prepared to rebuild the team with new players and starting with DEFENCE.

[Johnny Member]

To answer the original question.
He took over a team that had a sucessful but not entertaining style of play.
The style was one of forward defence, midfield defence, defensive defence.

He got rid of that successful style and tried to replace it with one of his own.
His new style was one of forward attack, midfield attack, defensive attack.
When he was appointed this planned style was "pleasing" to those who did not like watching the old defensive style.
When it failed he persisted.

Now that the club is competing for the wooden spoon he still refuses to recognise that successful football is based on defence.
He also refuses to accept the success window is closed with the present crop of players and that the club needs to rebuild its list from the ground up.
A result of unfavourable draft positions and incompetent recruiting throughout the naughties.
He is diluded in thinking that retaining former star players in the twilight of their careers can miraculously still win with his attacking style.
He wants to be a successful coach whereas the club needs a coach who is prepared to rebuild the team with new players and starting with DEFENCE.

Watters is a freak for defence. He is reknowned for it and has driven it in every coaching role he has had.

However having said that, he is aware that defence alone doesn't win flags. Anyone who was not convinced of this when Lyon was coaching teams that could only muster 7-8 goals in GFs at St Kilda - must surely be convinced of it now.

The other key to defence, is that you need good players to carry it out. In fact, even average players are handy in carrying out defence or any style of play. Unfortunately, we haven't had that recently - particularly in the back half.

So to suggest that Watters has canned a defensive game plan for an all out attacking one is simply naive and ignorant. And not true.



From an article prior to us appointing him.....

"FREMANTLE'S search for Ross Lyon's right-hand man will almost certainly zero in on Collingwood defensive specialist Scott Watters.
The Dockers' cashed-up coaching raid is not yet complete with club officials still in the hunt for a chief assistant to support Lyon.

Watters' work overseeing Collingwood's defensive strategies, most recently in the absence of some of its key backmen, has won high acclaim within the club."

[Scollop]

Also in response to Ace;

The additions of Delaney and Bruce and a fit Chips/Demster/Gilbo should help fix DEFENCE in the defensive half...what are you going to do up forward? Leave Roo and Lee out of the team because of their lack of agility? Are you going to plonk Dempster or Geary in the forward line as defensive forwards? That was tried by someone before wasn't...

[joffaboy]

Now that the club is competing for the wooden spoon he still refuses to recognise that successful football is based on defence.
He also refuses to accept the success window is closed with the present crop of players and that the club needs to rebuild its list from the ground up.

Surely this is a pisstake? Refuses to recognise successful football is based on defence? Where do you think Watters came from where he was an assistant coach?

Add to that. Our defence last year was sorely found out because we didn't have a fullback. Coupled with that the fact our midfield could buy a clearance, and our defence was always going to struggle.

last tried to get Brown - a fullback, ended up landing Roberton - a great pickup

This year got Delaney as a FB, with promising Bruce thrown in.

Also got a tap ruckman to go with Hickey and looking to boost the midfield. Hardly someone who doesn't believe in defence

As for keeping senior players and not believing the window was shut.

1) you want us to be a rabble like Melbourne who got rid of all their senior players?
2) I heard Watters talking about the need to rebuild the list in mid 2012.

But hey, carry on

He is diluded in thinking that retaining former star players in the twilight of their careers can miraculously still win with his attacking style.

Your whole argument is based on a false premis.

For a start he has gotten rid of three of the senior stars in Goddard, Dal Santo, and McEvoy. Kosi, Blake, and Milne retired.

That is six of the players from the GF years. You want us to be like Melbourne and get flogged by 15 goals every week? Fair Dinkum

He wants to be a successful coach whereas the club needs a coach who is prepared to rebuild the team with new players and starting with DEFENCE.

Think you might want to actually understand that all of your statements are based on false assumptions and mistruths.

That might be your opinion but you are presenting them as fact, when the actual evidence doesn't come anywhere near corroborating your silly ponderings.

Really poorly thought out.

[saintly]

Now that the club is competing for the wooden spoon he still refuses to recognise that successful football is based on defence.
He also refuses to accept the success window is closed with the present crop of players and that the club needs to rebuild its list from the ground up.

Surely this is a pisstake? Refuses to recognise successful football is based on defence? Where do you think Watters came from where he was an assistant coach?

Add to that. Our defence last year was sorely found out because we didn't have a fullback. Coupled with that the fact our midfield could buy a clearance, and our defence was always going to struggle.last tried to get Brown - a fullback, ended up landing Roberton - a great pickup

This year got Delaney as a FB, with promising Bruce thrown in.

Also got a tap ruckman to go with Hickey and looking to boost the midfield. Hardly someone who doesn't believe in defence

As for keeping senior players and not believing the window was shut.

1) you want us to be a rabble like Melbourne who got rid of all their senior players?
2) I heard Watters talking about the need to rebuild the list in mid 2012.

But hey, carry on

He is diluded in thinking that retaining former star players in the twilight of their careers can miraculously still win with his attacking style.

Your whole argument is based on a false premis.

For a start he has gotten rid of three of the senior stars in Goddard, Dal Santo, and McEvoy. Kosi, Blake, and Milne retired.

That is six of the players from the GF years. You want us to be like Melbourne and get flogged by 15 goals every week? Fair Dinkum

He wants to be a successful coach whereas the club needs a coach who is prepared to rebuild the team with new players and starting with DEFENCE.

Think you might want to actually understand that all of your statements are based on false assumptions and mistruths.

That might be your opinion but you are presenting them as fact, when the actual evidence doesn't come anywhere near corroborating your silly ponderings.

Really poorly thought out.

and as well as that, most of the year Watters has stated emphatically the need for a FB

[Cairnsman]

To answer the original question.
He took over a team that had a sucessful but not entertaining style of play.
The style was one of forward defence, midfield defence, defensive defence.

He got rid of that successful style and tried to replace it with one of his own.
His new style was one of forward attack, midfield attack, defensive attack.
When he was appointed this planned style was "pleasing" to those who did not like watching the old defensive style.
When it failed he persisted.

Now that the club is competing for the wooden spoon he still refuses to recognise that successful football is based on defence.
He also refuses to accept the success window is closed with the present crop of players and that the club needs to rebuild its list from the ground up.
A result of unfavourable draft positions and incompetent recruiting throughout the naughties.
He is diluded in thinking that retaining former star players in the twilight of their careers can miraculously still win with his attacking style.
He wants to be a successful coach whereas the club needs a coach who is prepared to rebuild the team with new players and starting with DEFENCE.

Watters is a freak for defence. He is reknowned for it and has driven it in every coaching role he has had.

However having said that, he is aware that defence alone doesn't win flags. Anyone who was not convinced of this when Lyon was coaching teams that could only muster 7-8 goals in GFs at St Kilda - must surely be convinced of it now.

The other key to defence, is that you need good players to carry it out. In fact, even average players are handy in carrying out defence or any style of play. Unfortunately, we haven't had that recently - particularly in the back half.

So to suggest that Watters has canned a defensive game plan for an all out attacking one is simply naive and ignorant. And not true.



From an article prior to us appointing him.....

"FREMANTLE'S search for Ross Lyon's right-hand man will almost certainly zero in on Collingwood defensive specialist Scott Watters.
The Dockers' cashed-up coaching raid is not yet complete with club officials still in the hunt for a chief assistant to support Lyon.

Watters' work overseeing Collingwood's defensive strategies, most recently in the absence of some of its key backmen, has won high acclaim within the club."

You nailed it JM. I also wonder if he is happy for the game plan to be a little more free flowing and attacking while he is developing a lot of young and new players so they can start out playing their natural game and trying to attack while they adapt to AFL and then at some stage start to introduce extra tricks like defensive skills and set plays. If my memory serves me correctly Matthew Knights was accused of only having an attacking game and that he wasn't developing the defensive side of his game but when Hird and Bomber took over they added this to the players game because the team was ready for the extra fitness, strength, and brutality required...sound familiar.

There is no way a young team could take on a brutal Ross Lyon game plan. They would be worn out before their careers even kicked off.

[plugger66]

Its funny but what i hear is first hand and what i wrote is very similar to what I heard. you can chose to take it or leave it. i couldnt give a stuff to be honest. As for the rest you have written i have no idea about any of that. never mentioned it but you have.

The main issue is the players dont seem to be included in the game plan which they have been previously and also the game plan tends to alter weekly and players cant get a handle on it and like any person who wants to win they get pissed off at the constant alteration of plans as it makes the player and the team look very ordinary..

I believe plugger66 is genuinely conveying what he hears...I just don't buy it that easily and I hope the pres and the board don't let the tail wag the dog as has been the case in St Kilda's past. We really don't know what is each parties' agenda so I wouldn't be posting ANY discussions with insiders because all it does is creates a scent for the hounds and gossip mongers out there like Caro.

It could also taint the reputation and character of some senior players. Instead of us saying such and such player should be revered, we could be saying gees...he did an Akermanis!!!

Oh but Barry Bignoter cant miss an opportunity to say he heard things first hand...pffft!

Your a stranger person cairnsman. If i said I think there are problems with some of the players and the coach, you would be first to say where is the proof so i say I heard it first hand and im a big noter. You are the only one that says big noter, I certainly dont think its big noting but coming from a small noter like you, meeting Rooy's brothers best friend would be a thrill for you.

And again I dont see where I mentioned senior players.

[Cairnsman]

Oh but Barry Bignoter cant miss an opportunity to say he heard things first hand...pffft!

Your a stranger person cairnsman. If i said I think there are problems with some of the players and the coach, you would be first to say where is the proof so i say I heard it first hand and im a big noter. You are the only one that says big noter, I certainly dont think its big noting but coming from a small noter like you, meeting Rooy's brothers best friend would be a thrill for you.

And again I dont see where I mentioned senior players.

Anyone that backs themselves by referencing inside knowledge is not only a bignoter but also doesn't have any credible ground to stand on unless anonymous posters can prove the veracity of their posts. To me I think it is a wasted post to say "I think this", or "I argue this" and "believe me", or "I don't care if you don't believe me" because I have inside knowledge and it's the truth. It's exactly what Jaxons does and we all know what his agenda is and yours is the same but you're just are little more subtle and "white ant" than he is. It's embarrassing but hey Barry you keep on talking to those players about what is really going on.