GT, Dermy etc. after Game on Friday night on SEN, RE Harvey.

[saintsRrising]

It would not have mattered if it was someone besides GT and Derm that made the comments.

Reaction on this forum would have been the same for such ill considered cooments about a veteran player playing in what is basically a practice match.....and made more so because Harvey's game on the whole was actually quite ok.

[Mr Magic]

It would not have mattered if it was someone besides GT and Derm that made the comments.
Reaction on this forum would have been the same for such ill considered cooments about a veteran player playing in what is basically a practice match.....and made more so because Harvey's game on the whole was actually quite ok.

A couple of points sRr

1. Would the defence of the commentators be so quick and forthright if it had been Dermie and OX (or anybody else) other than GT?

2. AFAIK no other commentators shared this particular view of Harves on the night, so therefore your 'hypothetical' about this forum's reaction to these comments cannot be 'tested'. Unfortunately it appears only Dermie and GT saw it that way, so they alone are entitled to the 'bouquets' if they are correct and the 'brickbats' if they are not.

[SuperSaint]

I wouldn't even give Dermie the acknowledgement of discussing his comments. Didn't he make a fool of himself trying to extend his career at the Swans & Collingwood for more $$, after it was obvious to the Hawks (and just about everyone else) that he was a shadow of his former greatness and his playing days had passed him?

If anyone embarrassed himself at the end of his career was him. Go and see how bad this twit actually was, when he tried to prolong his career (and that's of course, when he was able to actually get on the park!!).

[Teflon]

BTW plenty of talk right now SEN on this...

Anybody backing Dermie and GT's opinions?

Generally not. Consensus is that they are paid for their opinions and therefore have not only a right but a responsibility to express them.

Ox reckons they would be regretting their words, but Ox is a donkey.

But he's entitled to voice his opinion, afterall he is a paid media commentator/journalist!

There's nothing wrong with giving an unpopular opinion. I think the point here is that this opinion was given by Dermie and GT based on viewing Harves for a half of a NAB game.

You got it in 1 Magic......Plugger66 - why dont you miss the point for a third time?

Its got stuff all to do with "freedom of commentator expression" OR the need for GT to be pro/anti St Kilda in his comments (most listeners just want an honest, objective appraisal - not media attention , head line grabbing beat ups) - its all about listeners having the right to at least a modicum of "professional opinion" from so called experts.They made their "considered opinions" known on the back of 1 NAB CUP GAME??? (Brereton painting Harvey as a sad dilapidated old man - if your comfortable and think thats accurate them come out and tell us all so - I dont accept that at all). Grant was along for the ride and this morning again re-iterated that Dermot "had it about right"(I heard him also). Again if you think thats ok then voice your views on it but spare us all the "freedom of speech for dumb football commentary" lines.

My principle beef with this whole thing isnt the words as such.....they come from morons....what annoys me most is the fact that its ok to have a shot at Harveys expense......but I gurantee you in Glen Archers last year (where he looked shot from rd 6) they would not even of dreamed of commenting in such a manner....or Hirds, or Buckleys (even after hed broken down for the 100th time FFS)...but again its ok to pot a true champion who doesnt drop his pants for every TV station in the land - sickens me to the back teeth.

[plugger66]

BTW plenty of talk right now SEN on this...

Anybody backing Dermie and GT's opinions?

Generally not. Consensus is that they are paid for their opinions and therefore have not only a right but a responsibility to express them.

Ox reckons they would be regretting their words, but Ox is a donkey.

But he's entitled to voice his opinion, afterall he is a paid media commentator/journalist!

There's nothing wrong with giving an unpopular opinion. I think the point here is that this opinion was given by Dermie and GT based on viewing Harves for a half of a NAB game.

You got it in 1 Magic......Plugger66 - why dont you miss the point for a third time?

Its got stuff all to do with "freedom of commentator expression" OR the need for GT to be pro/anti St Kilda in his comments (most listeners just want an honest, objective appraisal - not media attention , head line grabbing beat ups) - its all about listeners having the right to at least a modicum of "professional opinion" from so called experts.They made their "considered opinions" known on the back of 1 NAB CUP GAME??? (Brereton painting Harvey as a sad dilapidated old man - if your comfortable and think thats accurate them come out and tell us all so - I dont accept that at all). Grant was along for the ride and this morning again re-iterated that Dermot "had it about right"(I heard him also). Again if you think thats ok then voice your views on it but spare us all the "freedom of speech for dumb football commentary" lines.

My principle beef with this whole thing isnt the words as such.....they come from morons....what annoys me most is the fact that its ok to have a shot at Harveys expense......but I gurantee you in Glen Archers last year (where he looked shot from rd 6) they would not even of dreamed of commenting in such a manner....or Hirds, or Buckleys (even after hed broken down for the 100th time FFS)...but again its ok to pot a true champion who doesnt drop his pants for every TV station in the land - sickens me to the back teeth.

Another one where they are picking on the saints or a saints player. I think if think back the media was saying Buckley was gone many many times last yearand they said it about Hird when he had the foot injury years ago. Anyone can have an opinion and it is neither right nor wrong so GT is entilted to his and in this case I think he has gone to early. Gt also said on Saturday he hopes he proves him wrong.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, both examples you gave are not reasonable - both those players had questions raised about their careers by the media because of injuries. In Harves' case it had nothing to do with injury, just that he was 'past it'.

What I cannot fathom is you seem to have no problem with labelling Dermie's comments as wrong but not GT's?

Surely one cannot be correct and the other wrong given that it appears Dermie made the comments and GT endorsed them?

Why the spirited defense of GT's role in this? Even if you are an unabashed admirer of his, not everything he says/does must be correct. On the flip side if you are an unabashed critic of his, not everything he says /does is necessarily wrong.

[plugger66]

Plugger, both examples you gave are not reasonable - both those players had questions raised about their careers by the media because of injuries. In Harves' case it had nothing to do with injury, just that he was 'past it'.

What I cannot fathom is you seem to have no problem with labelling Dermie's comments as wrong but not GT's?

Surely one cannot be correct and the other wrong given that it appears Dermie made the comments and GT endorsed them?

Why the spirited defense of GT's role in this? Even if you are an unabashed admirer of his, not everything he says/does must be correct. On the flip side if you are an unabashed critic of his, not everything he says /does is necessarily wrong.

I actually said I think he is wrong if you read it. What I am sticking up for is his right to an opinion and I never said Dermott didnt have a right either. If you can show me this fair enough.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, both examples you gave are not reasonable - both those players had questions raised about their careers by the media because of injuries. In Harves' case it had nothing to do with injury, just that he was 'past it'.

What I cannot fathom is you seem to have no problem with labelling Dermie's comments as wrong but not GT's?

Surely one cannot be correct and the other wrong given that it appears Dermie made the comments and GT endorsed them?

Why the spirited defense of GT's role in this? Even if you are an unabashed admirer of his, not everything he says/does must be correct. On the flip side if you are an unabashed critic of his, not everything he says /does is necessarily wrong.

I actually said I think he is wrong if you read it. What I am sticking up for is his right to an opinion and I never said Dermott didnt have a right either. If you can show me this fair enough.

Plugger, no problem.
GT like any other commentator is entitled to voice his opinion on any matter. Ultimately the listeners (viewers in the case of tv and readers in the case of newspapers) will decide if GT and other commentators keep their jobs.

FWIW having now heard/read what both GT and Dermie said I think whilst both are certainly entitled to voice their own opinions, they made some 'stupid' remarks about an absolute legend of the game and should be subjected to the scrutiny those remarks have received.

I have less animosity to Dermott on this occasion as he has a past record in sometimes saying the first thing that pops into his head without really thinking it through.

This is at least the second time in a year that GT has made 'strange comments' about a player - Pavlich last year and Harves this year. Mind you he quite regularly made 'strange statements' whilst he was our coach ('ruckmen' , 'umpire's ego', 'Capuano' to name but 3) so maybe this is just symptomatic of GT's commentary ability?

Or is this symptomatic of what B4E believes is GT's machiavellian personality, and just an attempt by him to 'stick it' to Harves whom he wanted to 'exit out'?

None of us will ever truly know what motivated his comments - we can only ever speculate on it.

Oh and BTW, I look forward to your 'spirited defense' oif Patrick Smith next time he is pilloried on here for voicing his opinion.

[plugger66]

Plugger, both examples you gave are not reasonable - both those players had questions raised about their careers by the media because of injuries. In Harves' case it had nothing to do with injury, just that he was 'past it'.

What I cannot fathom is you seem to have no problem with labelling Dermie's comments as wrong but not GT's?

Surely one cannot be correct and the other wrong given that it appears Dermie made the comments and GT endorsed them?

Why the spirited defense of GT's role in this? Even if you are an unabashed admirer of his, not everything he says/does must be correct. On the flip side if you are an unabashed critic of his, not everything he says /does is necessarily wrong.

I actually said I think he is wrong if you read it. What I am sticking up for is his right to an opinion and I never said Dermott didnt have a right either. If you can show me this fair enough.

Plugger, no problem.
GT like any other commentator is entitled to voice his opinion on any matter. Ultimately the listeners (viewers in the case of tv and readers in the case of newspapers) will decide if GT and other commentators keep their jobs.

FWIW having now heard/read what both GT and Dermie said I think whilst both are certainly entitled to voice their own opinions, they made some 'stupid' remarks about an absolute legend of the game and should be subjected to the scrutiny those remarks have received.

I have less animosity to Dermott on this occasion as he has a past record in sometimes saying the first thing that pops into his head without really thinking it through.

This is at least the second time in a year that GT has made 'strange comments' about a player - Pavlich last year and Harves this year. Mind you he quite regularly made 'strange statements' whilst he was our coach ('ruckmen' , 'umpire's ego', 'Capuano' to name but 3) so maybe this is just symptomatic of GT's commentary ability?

Or is this symptomatic of what B4E believes is GT's machiavellian personality, and just an attempt by him to 'stick it' to Harves whom he wanted to 'exit out'?

None of us will ever truly know what motivated his comments - we can only ever speculate on it.

Oh and BTW, I look forward to your 'spirited defense' oif Patrick Smith next time he is pilloried on here for voicing his opinion.

I will not stick up for Smith because he isnt an ex saints person and has never led the club to 3 finals appearances. You may not have noticed but I have never had a go at Hall or Spider on here either because unlike most if I liked a player I do not suddenly dislike them because they left to get better money because this is a business for players unlike supportors who it is a passion for.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, both examples you gave are not reasonable - both those players had questions raised about their careers by the media because of injuries. In Harves' case it had nothing to do with injury, just that he was 'past it'.

What I cannot fathom is you seem to have no problem with labelling Dermie's comments as wrong but not GT's?

Surely one cannot be correct and the other wrong given that it appears Dermie made the comments and GT endorsed them?

Why the spirited defense of GT's role in this? Even if you are an unabashed admirer of his, not everything he says/does must be correct. On the flip side if you are an unabashed critic of his, not everything he says /does is necessarily wrong.

I actually said I think he is wrong if you read it. What I am sticking up for is his right to an opinion and I never said Dermott didnt have a right either. If you can show me this fair enough.

Plugger, no problem.
GT like any other commentator is entitled to voice his opinion on any matter. Ultimately the listeners (viewers in the case of tv and readers in the case of newspapers) will decide if GT and other commentators keep their jobs.

FWIW having now heard/read what both GT and Dermie said I think whilst both are certainly entitled to voice their own opinions, they made some 'stupid' remarks about an absolute legend of the game and should be subjected to the scrutiny those remarks have received.

I have less animosity to Dermott on this occasion as he has a past record in sometimes saying the first thing that pops into his head without really thinking it through.

This is at least the second time in a year that GT has made 'strange comments' about a player - Pavlich last year and Harves this year. Mind you he quite regularly made 'strange statements' whilst he was our coach ('ruckmen' , 'umpire's ego', 'Capuano' to name but 3) so maybe this is just symptomatic of GT's commentary ability?

Or is this symptomatic of what B4E believes is GT's machiavellian personality, and just an attempt by him to 'stick it' to Harves whom he wanted to 'exit out'?

None of us will ever truly know what motivated his comments - we can only ever speculate on it.

Oh and BTW, I look forward to your 'spirited defense' oif Patrick Smith next time he is pilloried on here for voicing his opinion.

I will not stick up for Smith because he isnt an ex saints person and has never led the club to 3 finals appearances. You may not have noticed but I have never had a go at Hall or Spider on here either because unlike most if I liked a player I do not suddenly dislike them because they left to get better money because this is a business for players unlike supportors who it is a passion for.

That's fine and understandable, but just because he is an ex-saint and led the Club to 3 finals appearances doesn't mean you shouldn't hold him accountable for what he is saying publicly. If anything the fact that he is so intimate with the innermost workings of both the Club and the individual players make GT's comments on Harves worse and ,IMHO, even less of a reason to jump to his defense.

His former allegiance with Harves is, I believe, what has made so many sainters (and others) upset with the comments. He more than any other commentator, be it radio, tv or print knows what is going on at Moorabbin and what Harves pre-season program would be. His comments were and are a 'cheap shot' at a player who gave his all for GT when he was the coach.
And more importantly, the comments are nothing more than 'sensationalist' and I believe that was his intention. Of course that is purely my opinion but I'll bet it's an opinion shared by many if not most observers - casual and keen.

[plugger66]

But he didnt say the comments. He just agreed so I not sure he was just being sensationalist.

[Mr Magic]

But he didnt say the comments. He just agreed so I not sure he was just being sensationalist.

And on Monday morning he repeated the sentiments on teh breakfast program on SEN.

Surely given the circumstances over the last 18 months between himself and the Club he would be accutely aware that anything he says about the Club, its players, Board and staff will be severely analyzed.

I credit GT with more nouse than to think he is unaware of what he says publicly. I believe the the exact opposite is true - he knows exactly what he is saying. Just like when he made the crack about the 'umpire's ego'. I have always believed that was no 'off the cuff remark' but a deliberate tactic. Unfortunately for him, and more importantly the Club, the remarks produced the wrong result from the umpires.

[plugger66]

But he didnt say the comments. He just agreed so I not sure he was just being sensationalist.

And on Monday morning he repeated the sentiments on teh breakfast program on SEN.

Surely given the circumstances over the last 18 months between himself and the Club he would be accutely aware that anything he says about the Club, its players, Board and staff will be severely analyzed.

I credit GT with more nouse than to think he is unaware of what he says publicly. I believe the the exact opposite is true - he knows exactly what he is saying. Just like when he made the crack about the 'umpire's ego'. I have always believed that was no 'off the cuff remark' but a deliberate tactic. Unfortunately for him, and more importantly the Club, the remarks produced the wrong result from the umpires.

So when Dermie makes a comment he should not even speak if agrees with the comment or should lie because he coached harvs. Not sure the saints are paying him but pretty sure SEN are so he must make a comment after what Dermie said surely.

[Mr Magic]

But he didnt say the comments. He just agreed so I not sure he was just being sensationalist.

And on Monday morning he repeated the sentiments on teh breakfast program on SEN.

Surely given the circumstances over the last 18 months between himself and the Club he would be accutely aware that anything he says about the Club, its players, Board and staff will be severely analyzed.

I credit GT with more nouse than to think he is unaware of what he says publicly. I believe the the exact opposite is true - he knows exactly what he is saying. Just like when he made the crack about the 'umpire's ego'. I have always believed that was no 'off the cuff remark' but a deliberate tactic. Unfortunately for him, and more importantly the Club, the remarks produced the wrong result from the umpires.

So when Dermie makes a comment he should not even speak if agrees with the comment or should lie because he coached harvs. Not sure the saints are paying him but pretty sure SEN are so he must make a comment after what Dermie said surely.

Hey Plugger, GT is a big boy who knows exactly what he is saying/doing. Nothing anyone on here says/does will influence him one way or the other. The issue here surely is what he said reasonable in the circumstances. Many on here and on talkback radio feel that it wasn't.
You obviously feel thst it was and have jumped to his defense.

Good on you.
I just hope that GT proves in the long run to be worthy of your wholehearted defense of him and doesn't turn out to be a disappointment to you.

In the meantime I must say I have enjoyed debating this issue with you but on this one (admittedly like many others) you and I wil have to agree to disagree.

[plugger66]

I just want to say one last thing and that is I disagree with him comments but respect him and everyone elses right to an opinion even if i disagree.

[Mr Magic]

I just want to say one last thing and that is I disagree with him comments but respect him and everyone elses right to an opinion even if i disagree.

On this we do agree

[Teflon]

Your dancing around with semantics plugger - "GT is ok cause he just went along wuith what Dermie said....and so didnt say it??.."

Really Plugger - your a better poster than this and you know it.

For the record - I did not hear anyone EVER infer that Buckley or Hirds career had come to a "sad" end because they were in supposed decline on the back of 1 nothing game - you heard the comments Brereton made (Grant agreed as 'about right' then and again next day). Its potting a bloke - and in Grants case a player he should know with his age alone would take time to build into his final season. Its cheap, smug, attention seeking stuff at the expense of a gentleman of the game. If its good enough to hold Rob Harvey accountable over 1 game - then surely Grant and stupid in tow should be held accountable for pathetic, inane, ill founded accusations that IMO do nothing but cast a slur over a legends career.

I guarantee you it wouldnt be said about Shane Crawford - and hes been a rabble for the past 3 yrs (pantsed by Harvs everytime).

Oh...and Dermott "once again" couldnt resist the "hes never been a great kick" I actually disagree with this myth. Over the 20-30 metre range Harvey is one of the better "set up" kicks to a leading fwd thats been round (ask Lockett). I acknowlegd hes not a prodigious long kick of the ball or noted goal kicker - but theres more in kicking than simply these 2 items. Again though this suits Dermutts whole agenda of bringing down a champ.....its lazy and half @ssed and smacks of jealousy..its all about "lets kick him while hes down after 1 game AND GRAB SOME HEADLINES AT HIS EXPENSE WHILE WE ARE AT IT" FFS.

[Iceman234]

Again though this suits Dermutts whole agenda of bringing down a champ.....its lazy and half @ssed and smacks of jealousy..its all about "lets kick him while hes down after 1 game AND GRAB SOME HEADLINES AT HIS EXPENSE WHILE WE ARE AT IT" FFS.

Absolutely - hurts a bloke who was a champion in his day who saw his own career turn into an embarrassment through his pathetic demise with Sydney and Collingwood.

Also what was with KB agreeing with it?

Oh that's right, same station.

The Great Man will reveal these fools for who they are and where they stand in so-called expert commentary.

[Teflon]

Again though this suits Dermutts whole agenda of bringing down a champ.....its lazy and half @ssed and smacks of jealousy..its all about "lets kick him while hes down after 1 game AND GRAB SOME HEADLINES AT HIS EXPENSE WHILE WE ARE AT IT" FFS.

Absolutely - hurts a bloke who was a champion in his day who saw his own career turn into an embarrassment through his pathetic demise with Sydney and Collingwood.

Also what was with KB agreeing with it?

Oh that's right, same station.

The Great Man will reveal these fools for who they are and where they stand in so-called expert commentary.

KB agreed huh? now thats "past it" should have been retired long ago by now.

[Teflon]

FWIW - I pray Ross Lyon can win a flag with us cause should he Im gonna shove Grants "Preliminary final king" claim right down his f@rgon throat.

[Iceman234]

Yeah KB agreed with it this morning.

Even my Hawk supporting offsider was appalled.

[Violent Stool]

FWIW - I pray Ross Lyon can win a flag with us cause should he Im gonna shove Grants "Preliminary final king" claim right down his f@rgon throat.

I thought this thread was about comments on Robert Harvey. Not Grant Thomas?

On topic, the comments were wrong and stupid. I didn't hear them, but if what's reported to have been said, it's jusy unbelievably stupid to be making 'big calls' after a praccy match.

[markp]

It was a practice match.

I thought Harvey was (at very least) serviceable.

GT is a grub, he and 'Derm' carry on like a couple of school kids at times... who think a fart joke is the height of humour.

Perhaps GT has a problem with Harvey considering the none-too-subtle praise of RL and his training program by Harvey, and the fact that GT was not invited to the testimonial....

[maverick]

I still find this unbelievable.
Yes people are entitled to their opinion, but is it asking too much for people to have one not designed to generate headlines.
And genrating headlines is not their job, commenting on footy is....

[mbogo]

I heard the comment during the game and was astounded and commented to my friends immediately "sh*t he hates Harves, doesn't he?"
It just seems to me that GT is smarting over every game that Harves plays well, since it impacts on his ego-driven character. GT wanted to "exit HArves out" about 2 1/2 to 3 years ago - and I do not know why! Harves played some great footy after the initial comment - and then GT made the "exit him in" comment.
Now, it seems, he still wishes him exited.
I think it is clear that Harves was not one of the "inner sanctum" Sunday breakfast type of players that GT liked to have around. He immediately sang praises for Ross Lyon - and still plays well. I look forward to more of the same from Harves this week and this year - he had 16 possies in 1/2 of a practise match - and was undeserving of the scathing attack.
Both GT and Dermott are "shoot from the lip", half-brained, narcissists of the highest order. Their comments are all about them - not football!!