And people said this thread was delusional when we were losing…
Care to actually add something of value? What do you disagree with?
Some posts are so full of twisted logic that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
The premise and parameters of the argument are so flawed that they’re either intentionally deceptive, in which case why bother, or they actually, honestly believe that’s how things are, in which case reeeeally why bother.
That’s actually schadenfreude.
It’s not quite the same thing.
I think we are playing better footy under Woosha than under Hird, which I know a lot of people would disagree with.
But I also think we have a better list.
Not bothering would be not commenting at all… Right?
To form the sort of reply that it doesn’t deserve.
You’re going to pull me up on that?
Out of all the dreck in here, that’s the post you have a problem with.
I’m just bored.
If we beat North Melbourne will you be?
- My disposition is fixed and doesn’t change based on results.
I’m bored, too, so I’ll indulge your complaint.
Using 2015 as a baseline of Hird’s performance is just bad analysis.
To qualify 2016 while not qualifying 2015 shows an inherent bias.
To compare Worsfold’s performance only to Hird’s, as opposed to seventeen other coaches, suggests an agenda.
Yes, Worsfold’s challenges were different to the other seventeen coaches, but they were also different to Hird’s (and Thompson’s).
You can argue a portion of blame there, but that belongs in the saga thread.
It really, really, really does not belong in a post arguing Worsfold’s effectiveness.
Given all of that, ‘immediate improvement’ is just flat out wrong, even without looking at team lists.
And I don’t think anyone would argue against Worsfold’s list is better than Hird’s list was better than Knight’s list.
This never happened. At all.
2015 was used as the point prior to Worsfold joining because, well, it was.
Comparing “Worsfold to Hird” didn’t happen, it was comparing the club from when he came on to where he took it in the immediate because that’s what was being defined as a “good coach”.
If we’re taking all the variables out of it then Worsfold actually had ‘immediate disastrous effect.’
Which is a ridiculous way of looking at things.
Just as your view is.
Ah, I see.
It’s one of those… “good coaches have an immediate impact but but but <insert 5000 different reasons why this doesn’t apply to Worsfold because internet>”
Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying.
What I’m saying is, by your logic, Worsfold took us to our first spoon in…eighty years?
Of course there were reasons for that.
But if you’re going to ignore the reasons for 2015 then why on earth is it okay to ignore the reasons for 2016?
Worsfold now, surely, finally, is coaching free of that.
Now whether he achieves significantly better wins for a season than Hird (very doubtful), Thompson or Knights (I never know what to do with that s…you’d think I would after all this time), that’s on him.
And he hasn’t.
Maybe not ever.
It’s nice that you believe, but it’s just flat out wrong to state that it’s already happened.
What would you score Worsfold out of 10 for where he has the team right now?
I’d give him 6.8/10.
That would be fair
Out of interest where do you think the team should be if you factored in list / age demographic / experience / injuries etc however?
I think all of us would have him/the team underperforming to a degree but IMO not by a lot
We are only two games out of top 4, and two umpire affected ones at that.