|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhen Guus Hiddink took over, everyone fell in to line. Several players who weren't first teamers became first teamers, some that expected to play didn't, he sat Schwarzer on the bench. Verbeek picked who he wanted even in the face of criticism eg Holman. Postecoglou. Clearly he is a coach who doe it his way or the highway. Someone who doesn't not give a fig about hurting anyone's feeling and is quite comfortable at completing clean outs of any challengers to his authority as he showed at Roar and with the Socceroos. I wonder how the Matilda's would fair under these guys? Or perhaps the truth is females needed to b treated differently to males? What makes you so confident the problems are solely players unhappy at not being selected? i didn't say that. But you think Guss, Pim and Ange would care whose feelings they hurt, or if anyone of the squad perceived them to have favourites? All of them were very direct and frank in their communication. The palyers all fell in line. They knew who was the boss. Ange even told Mooy he wasn't playing when Mooy was at the top of his game in the EPL (but had to play him due to injury.) Mooy was pissed, but Ange didn't give a rats. But what's the relevance of that to the current issue? There have been suggestions of favouritism and bullying and black mail. There is a lot of grey of what constitutes those things. Anyone of our previous mens WC coaches could be accused of of as behaving somewhere in the range. Do you think any of them would care? There is one glaring issue here: the results. Its a result-driven business. The results were excellent and the squad had a genuine chance ta being World Champions. That doesn't happen if the coach is universally hated by the playing group. The FFA would not have acted without complaint from some of the playing group. They then hired an independent "expert" to assess the validity of the claims. They confirmed the claims had merit. He was sacked. It would be damaging for the FFA to admit that its head coach was doing things that may not sit well in the the current political zeitgiest, even if the truth was that mens coaches would act in the same way and nothing would be done, so they say nothing. But what makes you think that Staj has been acting the same way as the men's coaches you listed? You've pointed out that coaches like Ange have a "my way or the high way approach" which isn't an approach I disagree with, but I think you've also assumed that Staj has been fired for acting similarly, and I don't know what you're basing that on. Saying that those men's coaches have acted "somewhere in the range" of bullying is a vague enough statement so as to be nearly useless, not to mention one I disagree with. I don't think being decisive in your decisions based on performance can be considered "in the range" of bullying by any logic. But even if how those men's coaches had behaved could be construed as in that range, just because actions most people think of as acceptable or innocuous can be categorised in a "range", doesn't mean all behaviours in that arbitrarily defined range are okay. And I'd like to reiterate, we have so few details right now, that we can't categorise Staj's actions with any accuracy. So I don't understand how you've come to such a confident conclusion that his firing was unfair. "Fairness" is a subjective concept. It depends on whether you are giving it or receiving. The fact that we don't have the facts speaks volumes that this is something the FFA does not want to make public. There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury. Viduka is on the record that the preparation under Hiddink was the most intense and physically demanding in his career. Hiddink pushed players to the limits. He is also on the record as saying on video that : "We have to be fit, fit, fit". No player made a peep. How would the Matilda's fair with someone like him? Don't forget the current politics are more or less a Western thing. But football is the World Game. Our competition won't give a crap about vague concepts of players being "bullied". They just want to win. This is the second time that you've used the "it's all subjective" reasoning to essentially say nothing means anything so we can't know anything. You're going to give me a full on existential crisis. First bullying and blackmail are subjective so we can't use them as a reason to fire someone, now fairness is subjective so we can't say it's fair to fire someone. The fact that we don't have facts reminds us that we're speaking about football. They never give facts. I think this is the first time a coach has left a football team in any manner than "a mutual parting of the ways". The level of openness DG showed during this press conference shocked me and the fact that he gave any details at all led me to the conclusion he was confident in his reasoning for making this decision. Obviously you disagree, but when else has DG been forthcoming in any aspect of his job? You keep bringing up the fact that the men's coaches pushed the players, but I still don't see what that has to do with this situation. I don't think anyone would believe Staj was fired because he made the players run too much. "There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury." - Doesn't this support the position the Staj was mistreating the players by making them play against medical advice? re: subjectivity, lets have a look at a post someone else made regards "bullying": Examples of bullying include: - behaving aggressively
- teasing or practical jokes
- pressuring someone to behave inappropriately
- excluding someone from work-related events or
- unreasonable work demands.
Currently Bruno Fornaroli has a case to make he is being bullied on point 4 as he is being excluded from the match day squad and may even be training alone. The latter has actually happened to a former Melbourne Victory player. And there are numerous examples all over the world like that in Mens football. None have lead to the coach being sacked. "Following the PFA's review, a damning report undertaken by Our Watch, an organisation tackling abuse and violence of women, alleged incidents that bordered on harassment. It is understood it flagged cases of bullying, intimidation, retribution and even body shaming towards some younger players and even suggestions of flippant homophobic insults regularly made by unspecified staff members." Body shaming, FFS! I'll stand by my original opinion: a male coach coaching female sport has to have rocks in their head in the current environment. You still don't know if what Staj did is "subjective" or not. None of us do. Just because the guidelines are vague, doesn't mean there was vagueness to the decision. If he regularly got in players faces and told them they were fat c**nts who didn't deserve to be born, that would objectively be bullying, no subjectivity about it. If he tells players who weren't trying hard enough they would be dropped until their effort at training improves, that's objectively not bullying. You're making it sound as though any type of bullying, not matter how severe, is subjective and therefore not a sackable offence. You're essentially filling the vacuum of details in this story with whatever you'd like them to be and using them to confirm how you felt about the story to begin with. I should also point out that if it's true that flippant homophobic remarks were made, in and of itself that would be a severe fuck up, even moreso since several of the players on the Matildas are openly gay. Imagine if Socceroos staff regularly made flippant racist insults to Awer Mabil or Thomas Deng.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
So she should have been just selected even if she was unfit?
Geez, you either have the mental and physical makeup to play at the elite level or you don’t. It’s not up to coaches to select substandard players, to avoid mental health problems in later years.
Classic feature of the participation award society we have become.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhen Guus Hiddink took over, everyone fell in to line. Several players who weren't first teamers became first teamers, some that expected to play didn't, he sat Schwarzer on the bench. Verbeek picked who he wanted even in the face of criticism eg Holman. Postecoglou. Clearly he is a coach who doe it his way or the highway. Someone who doesn't not give a fig about hurting anyone's feeling and is quite comfortable at completing clean outs of any challengers to his authority as he showed at Roar and with the Socceroos. I wonder how the Matilda's would fair under these guys? Or perhaps the truth is females needed to b treated differently to males? What makes you so confident the problems are solely players unhappy at not being selected? i didn't say that. But you think Guss, Pim and Ange would care whose feelings they hurt, or if anyone of the squad perceived them to have favourites? All of them were very direct and frank in their communication. The palyers all fell in line. They knew who was the boss. Ange even told Mooy he wasn't playing when Mooy was at the top of his game in the EPL (but had to play him due to injury.) Mooy was pissed, but Ange didn't give a rats. But what's the relevance of that to the current issue? There have been suggestions of favouritism and bullying and black mail. There is a lot of grey of what constitutes those things. Anyone of our previous mens WC coaches could be accused of of as behaving somewhere in the range. Do you think any of them would care? There is one glaring issue here: the results. Its a result-driven business. The results were excellent and the squad had a genuine chance ta being World Champions. That doesn't happen if the coach is universally hated by the playing group. The FFA would not have acted without complaint from some of the playing group. They then hired an independent "expert" to assess the validity of the claims. They confirmed the claims had merit. He was sacked. It would be damaging for the FFA to admit that its head coach was doing things that may not sit well in the the current political zeitgiest, even if the truth was that mens coaches would act in the same way and nothing would be done, so they say nothing. But what makes you think that Staj has been acting the same way as the men's coaches you listed? You've pointed out that coaches like Ange have a "my way or the high way approach" which isn't an approach I disagree with, but I think you've also assumed that Staj has been fired for acting similarly, and I don't know what you're basing that on. Saying that those men's coaches have acted "somewhere in the range" of bullying is a vague enough statement so as to be nearly useless, not to mention one I disagree with. I don't think being decisive in your decisions based on performance can be considered "in the range" of bullying by any logic. But even if how those men's coaches had behaved could be construed as in that range, just because actions most people think of as acceptable or innocuous can be categorised in a "range", doesn't mean all behaviours in that arbitrarily defined range are okay. And I'd like to reiterate, we have so few details right now, that we can't categorise Staj's actions with any accuracy. So I don't understand how you've come to such a confident conclusion that his firing was unfair. "Fairness" is a subjective concept. It depends on whether you are giving it or receiving. The fact that we don't have the facts speaks volumes that this is something the FFA does not want to make public. There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury. Viduka is on the record that the preparation under Hiddink was the most intense and physically demanding in his career. Hiddink pushed players to the limits. He is also on the record as saying on video that : "We have to be fit, fit, fit". No player made a peep. How would the Matilda's fair with someone like him?Don't forget the current politics are more or less a Western thing. But football is the World Game. Our competition won't give a crap about vague concepts of players being "bullied". They just want to win. I'm not sure this is very fair. Some would probably be happy, others not so much but to intimate that they all couldn't hack a coach in the Hiddink mould is unfair.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@maxxie. When one is being treated like a mushroom; kept in the dark and fed B.S........what do you do ? You connect the dots yourself with what means are at your disposal; rationale, past Matilda’s coach sacking, current social political climate, what organisations are involved, who wasn’t consulted, past experience in football and the workplace etc etc etc The end result may be something totally different and I’m happy to admit I was wrong....but with what we have to go on right now.....all signs point to a hatchet job on Stajic. No, you don't. You wait for more information. The only reason to jump to conclusions is to reach a conclusion, which none of us are obligated to do, and only de-legitimises your opinion by basing it on speculation. "The end result may be something totally different and I’m happy to admit I was wrong....but with what we have to go on right now.....all signs point to a hatchet job on Stajic." No they don't. Some signs lend themselves to that conclusion, others don't. You could have just as easily prioritised the words of the players themselves in the surveys, the info from insiders saying this isn't a surprise, the reports of players being forced to play against medical advice and the fact that Gallop openly admitted to why he fired Staj, but you didn't. I don't see why you've chosen to prioritise information that is mostly not directly connected to the situation (e.g. past Matilda's coach sacking, current social political climate, past experience in football and the workplace) over, admittedly unconfirmed information that is actually directly related to the situation. As I keep saying, we know very little about this situation, so I'm open to the conclusion that this was a bad decision. What's confusing me is the outright confidence people have the Staj has been stitched up, when there isn't enough information to be confident about anything, other than our own frustration at the lack of transparency. Its because it increasingly appears he is being sacked for things that have no precedence in men's football. If Stajcic has any intention of coaching, this is a stain that will follow him, especially if its kept confidential and he doesn't sue to clear his name.
|
|
|
|
|
Boca J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 412,
Visits: 0
|
Maxxie.....all I see here are opinions that are formed with what information is available....which is open to pivot/change as more information comes to light. Do you not think a detective begins to form an opinion when investigating a case but also keeps an open mind as new evidence comes to hand ?
Again, as of now all signs point to a hatchet job or at the very least an over-reaction by Gallop. And what if the general sentiment on this thread is proven correct....how will you respond then...?
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhen Guus Hiddink took over, everyone fell in to line. Several players who weren't first teamers became first teamers, some that expected to play didn't, he sat Schwarzer on the bench. Verbeek picked who he wanted even in the face of criticism eg Holman. Postecoglou. Clearly he is a coach who doe it his way or the highway. Someone who doesn't not give a fig about hurting anyone's feeling and is quite comfortable at completing clean outs of any challengers to his authority as he showed at Roar and with the Socceroos. I wonder how the Matilda's would fair under these guys? Or perhaps the truth is females needed to b treated differently to males? What makes you so confident the problems are solely players unhappy at not being selected? i didn't say that. But you think Guss, Pim and Ange would care whose feelings they hurt, or if anyone of the squad perceived them to have favourites? All of them were very direct and frank in their communication. The palyers all fell in line. They knew who was the boss. Ange even told Mooy he wasn't playing when Mooy was at the top of his game in the EPL (but had to play him due to injury.) Mooy was pissed, but Ange didn't give a rats. But what's the relevance of that to the current issue? There have been suggestions of favouritism and bullying and black mail. There is a lot of grey of what constitutes those things. Anyone of our previous mens WC coaches could be accused of of as behaving somewhere in the range. Do you think any of them would care? There is one glaring issue here: the results. Its a result-driven business. The results were excellent and the squad had a genuine chance ta being World Champions. That doesn't happen if the coach is universally hated by the playing group. The FFA would not have acted without complaint from some of the playing group. They then hired an independent "expert" to assess the validity of the claims. They confirmed the claims had merit. He was sacked. It would be damaging for the FFA to admit that its head coach was doing things that may not sit well in the the current political zeitgiest, even if the truth was that mens coaches would act in the same way and nothing would be done, so they say nothing. But what makes you think that Staj has been acting the same way as the men's coaches you listed? You've pointed out that coaches like Ange have a "my way or the high way approach" which isn't an approach I disagree with, but I think you've also assumed that Staj has been fired for acting similarly, and I don't know what you're basing that on. Saying that those men's coaches have acted "somewhere in the range" of bullying is a vague enough statement so as to be nearly useless, not to mention one I disagree with. I don't think being decisive in your decisions based on performance can be considered "in the range" of bullying by any logic. But even if how those men's coaches had behaved could be construed as in that range, just because actions most people think of as acceptable or innocuous can be categorised in a "range", doesn't mean all behaviours in that arbitrarily defined range are okay. And I'd like to reiterate, we have so few details right now, that we can't categorise Staj's actions with any accuracy. So I don't understand how you've come to such a confident conclusion that his firing was unfair. "Fairness" is a subjective concept. It depends on whether you are giving it or receiving. The fact that we don't have the facts speaks volumes that this is something the FFA does not want to make public. There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury. Viduka is on the record that the preparation under Hiddink was the most intense and physically demanding in his career. Hiddink pushed players to the limits. He is also on the record as saying on video that : "We have to be fit, fit, fit". No player made a peep. How would the Matilda's fair with someone like him? Don't forget the current politics are more or less a Western thing. But football is the World Game. Our competition won't give a crap about vague concepts of players being "bullied". They just want to win. This is the second time that you've used the "it's all subjective" reasoning to essentially say nothing means anything so we can't know anything. You're going to give me a full on existential crisis. First bullying and blackmail are subjective so we can't use them as a reason to fire someone, now fairness is subjective so we can't say it's fair to fire someone. The fact that we don't have facts reminds us that we're speaking about football. They never give facts. I think this is the first time a coach has left a football team in any manner than "a mutual parting of the ways". The level of openness DG showed during this press conference shocked me and the fact that he gave any details at all led me to the conclusion he was confident in his reasoning for making this decision. Obviously you disagree, but when else has DG been forthcoming in any aspect of his job? You keep bringing up the fact that the men's coaches pushed the players, but I still don't see what that has to do with this situation. I don't think anyone would believe Staj was fired because he made the players run too much. "There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury." - Doesn't this support the position the Staj was mistreating the players by making them play against medical advice? re: subjectivity, lets have a look at a post someone else made regards "bullying": Examples of bullying include: - behaving aggressively
- teasing or practical jokes
- pressuring someone to behave inappropriately
- excluding someone from work-related events or
- unreasonable work demands.
Currently Bruno Fornaroli has a case to make he is being bullied on point 4 as he is being excluded from the match day squad and may even be training alone. The latter has actually happened to a former Melbourne Victory player. And there are numerous examples all over the world like that in Mens football. None have lead to the coach being sacked. "Following the PFA's review, a damning report undertaken by Our Watch, an organisation tackling abuse and violence of women, alleged incidents that bordered on harassment. It is understood it flagged cases of bullying, intimidation, retribution and even body shaming towards some younger players and even suggestions of flippant homophobic insults regularly made by unspecified staff members." Body shaming, FFS! I'll stand by my original opinion: a male coach coaching female sport has to have rocks in their head in the current environment. You still don't know if what Staj did is "subjective" or not. None of us do. Just because the guidelines are vague, doesn't mean there was vagueness to the decision. If he regularly got in players faces and told them they were fat c**nts who didn't deserve to be born, that would objectively be bullying, no subjectivity about it. If he tells players who weren't trying hard enough they would be dropped until their effort at training improves, that's objectively not bullying. You're making it sound as though any type of bullying, not matter how severe, is subjective and therefore not a sackable offence. You're essentially filling the vacuum of details in this story with whatever you'd like them to be and using them to confirm how you felt about the story to begin with. I should also point out that if it's true that flippant homophobic remarks were made, in and of itself that would be a severe fuck up, even moreso since several of the players on the Matildas are openly gay. Imagine if Socceroos staff regularly made flippant racist insults to Awer Mabil or Thomas Deng. Everything has context. Go on youtube and watch some of the things football coaches have been caught on camera saying to players in dressing rooms. They would tick off all the above during a half-time speech. There's IS evidence emerging that: "It is understood it flagged cases of bullying, intimidation, retribution and even body shaming towards some younger players and even suggestions of flippant homophobic insults regularly made by unspecified staff members." Is there any record of a coach being sacked for the above in the men's game, whatever the degree of subjectivity and context I don't think so. And that's the point for male coaches of female sports going forward. Anyway the WC results will be the ultimate judge.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhen Guus Hiddink took over, everyone fell in to line. Several players who weren't first teamers became first teamers, some that expected to play didn't, he sat Schwarzer on the bench. Verbeek picked who he wanted even in the face of criticism eg Holman. Postecoglou. Clearly he is a coach who doe it his way or the highway. Someone who doesn't not give a fig about hurting anyone's feeling and is quite comfortable at completing clean outs of any challengers to his authority as he showed at Roar and with the Socceroos. I wonder how the Matilda's would fair under these guys? Or perhaps the truth is females needed to b treated differently to males? What makes you so confident the problems are solely players unhappy at not being selected? i didn't say that. But you think Guss, Pim and Ange would care whose feelings they hurt, or if anyone of the squad perceived them to have favourites? All of them were very direct and frank in their communication. The palyers all fell in line. They knew who was the boss. Ange even told Mooy he wasn't playing when Mooy was at the top of his game in the EPL (but had to play him due to injury.) Mooy was pissed, but Ange didn't give a rats. But what's the relevance of that to the current issue? There have been suggestions of favouritism and bullying and black mail. There is a lot of grey of what constitutes those things. Anyone of our previous mens WC coaches could be accused of of as behaving somewhere in the range. Do you think any of them would care? There is one glaring issue here: the results. Its a result-driven business. The results were excellent and the squad had a genuine chance ta being World Champions. That doesn't happen if the coach is universally hated by the playing group. The FFA would not have acted without complaint from some of the playing group. They then hired an independent "expert" to assess the validity of the claims. They confirmed the claims had merit. He was sacked. It would be damaging for the FFA to admit that its head coach was doing things that may not sit well in the the current political zeitgiest, even if the truth was that mens coaches would act in the same way and nothing would be done, so they say nothing. But what makes you think that Staj has been acting the same way as the men's coaches you listed? You've pointed out that coaches like Ange have a "my way or the high way approach" which isn't an approach I disagree with, but I think you've also assumed that Staj has been fired for acting similarly, and I don't know what you're basing that on. Saying that those men's coaches have acted "somewhere in the range" of bullying is a vague enough statement so as to be nearly useless, not to mention one I disagree with. I don't think being decisive in your decisions based on performance can be considered "in the range" of bullying by any logic. But even if how those men's coaches had behaved could be construed as in that range, just because actions most people think of as acceptable or innocuous can be categorised in a "range", doesn't mean all behaviours in that arbitrarily defined range are okay. And I'd like to reiterate, we have so few details right now, that we can't categorise Staj's actions with any accuracy. So I don't understand how you've come to such a confident conclusion that his firing was unfair. "Fairness" is a subjective concept. It depends on whether you are giving it or receiving. The fact that we don't have the facts speaks volumes that this is something the FFA does not want to make public. There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury. Viduka is on the record that the preparation under Hiddink was the most intense and physically demanding in his career. Hiddink pushed players to the limits. He is also on the record as saying on video that : "We have to be fit, fit, fit". No player made a peep. How would the Matilda's fair with someone like him?Don't forget the current politics are more or less a Western thing. But football is the World Game. Our competition won't give a crap about vague concepts of players being "bullied". They just want to win. I'm not sure this is very fair. Some would probably be happy, others not so much but to intimate that they all couldn't hack a coach in the Hiddink mould is unfair. Clearly: "However, former midfielder Joey Peters praised the FFA saying that Stajcic's trainings were too vigorous and his statics were becoming too predictable." "training too vigorous" How many national teams has Joey Peters coached tactically?
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I always thought the whole point of football forums was so that people could have their say based on their own interpretations of what they know/understand..
“I think team A will win because ...”
“think Coach x is useless because ....”
“I think Team x needs to buy player y because ...”
“I think Stajcic has been shafted because ....”
If that’s not for you, and you prefer people don’t voice an opinion till after a match/season/signing, then I’m really not sure why you’d be here?
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@maxxie. When one is being treated like a mushroom; kept in the dark and fed B.S........what do you do ? You connect the dots yourself with what means are at your disposal; rationale, past Matilda’s coach sacking, current social political climate, what organisations are involved, who wasn’t consulted, past experience in football and the workplace etc etc etc The end result may be something totally different and I’m happy to admit I was wrong....but with what we have to go on right now.....all signs point to a hatchet job on Stajic. No, you don't. You wait for more information. The only reason to jump to conclusions is to reach a conclusion, which none of us are obligated to do, and only de-legitimises your opinion by basing it on speculation. "The end result may be something totally different and I’m happy to admit I was wrong....but with what we have to go on right now.....all signs point to a hatchet job on Stajic." No they don't. Some signs lend themselves to that conclusion, others don't. You could have just as easily prioritised the words of the players themselves in the surveys, the info from insiders saying this isn't a surprise, the reports of players being forced to play against medical advice and the fact that Gallop openly admitted to why he fired Staj, but you didn't. I don't see why you've chosen to prioritise information that is mostly not directly connected to the situation (e.g. past Matilda's coach sacking, current social political climate, past experience in football and the workplace) over, admittedly unconfirmed information that is actually directly related to the situation. As I keep saying, we know very little about this situation, so I'm open to the conclusion that this was a bad decision. What's confusing me is the outright confidence people have the Staj has been stitched up, when there isn't enough information to be confident about anything, other than our own frustration at the lack of transparency. Its because it increasingly appears he is being sacked for things that have no precedence in men's football. If Stajcic has any intention of coaching, this is a stain that will follow him, especially if its kept confidential and he doesn't sue to clear his name. Based on the information I've seen, it doesn't 'increasingly appear' like anything other than a situation where no-one who is in the know is talking. That's been my whole point. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion or if you're operating of different information to me. I wholeheartedly agree with the second line. I think it's in the best interests of everyone for the truth to be told, as the speculation is more toxic than the likely truth at this point. I'd love for his name to be cleared and Gallop to sink for this, but I don't have reason to think that will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
moops
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhen Guus Hiddink took over, everyone fell in to line. Several players who weren't first teamers became first teamers, some that expected to play didn't, he sat Schwarzer on the bench. Verbeek picked who he wanted even in the face of criticism eg Holman. Postecoglou. Clearly he is a coach who doe it his way or the highway. Someone who doesn't not give a fig about hurting anyone's feeling and is quite comfortable at completing clean outs of any challengers to his authority as he showed at Roar and with the Socceroos. I wonder how the Matilda's would fair under these guys? Or perhaps the truth is females needed to b treated differently to males? What makes you so confident the problems are solely players unhappy at not being selected? i didn't say that. But you think Guss, Pim and Ange would care whose feelings they hurt, or if anyone of the squad perceived them to have favourites? All of them were very direct and frank in their communication. The palyers all fell in line. They knew who was the boss. Ange even told Mooy he wasn't playing when Mooy was at the top of his game in the EPL (but had to play him due to injury.) Mooy was pissed, but Ange didn't give a rats. But what's the relevance of that to the current issue? There have been suggestions of favouritism and bullying and black mail. There is a lot of grey of what constitutes those things. Anyone of our previous mens WC coaches could be accused of of as behaving somewhere in the range. Do you think any of them would care? There is one glaring issue here: the results. Its a result-driven business. The results were excellent and the squad had a genuine chance ta being World Champions. That doesn't happen if the coach is universally hated by the playing group. The FFA would not have acted without complaint from some of the playing group. They then hired an independent "expert" to assess the validity of the claims. They confirmed the claims had merit. He was sacked. It would be damaging for the FFA to admit that its head coach was doing things that may not sit well in the the current political zeitgiest, even if the truth was that mens coaches would act in the same way and nothing would be done, so they say nothing. But what makes you think that Staj has been acting the same way as the men's coaches you listed? You've pointed out that coaches like Ange have a "my way or the high way approach" which isn't an approach I disagree with, but I think you've also assumed that Staj has been fired for acting similarly, and I don't know what you're basing that on. Saying that those men's coaches have acted "somewhere in the range" of bullying is a vague enough statement so as to be nearly useless, not to mention one I disagree with. I don't think being decisive in your decisions based on performance can be considered "in the range" of bullying by any logic. But even if how those men's coaches had behaved could be construed as in that range, just because actions most people think of as acceptable or innocuous can be categorised in a "range", doesn't mean all behaviours in that arbitrarily defined range are okay. And I'd like to reiterate, we have so few details right now, that we can't categorise Staj's actions with any accuracy. So I don't understand how you've come to such a confident conclusion that his firing was unfair. "Fairness" is a subjective concept. It depends on whether you are giving it or receiving. The fact that we don't have the facts speaks volumes that this is something the FFA does not want to make public. There are suggestions that the things I've mentioned have occurred. Add to that the accusation that players be required play when at risk of injury. Viduka is on the record that the preparation under Hiddink was the most intense and physically demanding in his career. Hiddink pushed players to the limits. He is also on the record as saying on video that : "We have to be fit, fit, fit". No player made a peep. How would the Matilda's fair with someone like him?Don't forget the current politics are more or less a Western thing. But football is the World Game. Our competition won't give a crap about vague concepts of players being "bullied". They just want to win. I'm not sure this is very fair. Some would probably be happy, others not so much but to intimate that they all couldn't hack a coach in the Hiddink mould is unfair. Clearly: "However, former midfielder Joey Peters praised the FFA saying that Stajcic's trainings were too vigorous and his statics were becoming too predictable." "training too vigorous" How many national teams has Joey Peters coached tactically? She has been very vocal about how delighted she is about Stajcic getting sacked, reports of injuries and over training has only come from her, no one else has said it. Take that as you will.
|
|
|
|
|
Boca J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 412,
Visits: 0
|
Training too vigorous hey, playing injured you say.....geez, how many kangaroos NRL internationals were played with injured star players under Gallops watch........that many you say ?
Hell, I even work my physical job injured right now....sheesh, cry me a feckin river.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Maxxie. So you are assuming that the half dozen players who have tweeted support are by definition ‘not in the know’? Don’t you think that in such a toxic environment these players would be ‘in the know’? Aren’t you even a little bit surprised that they seem to be oblivious to such an unacceptable culture?
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMaxxie.....all I see here are opinions that are formed with what information is available....which is open to pivot/change as more information comes to light. Do you not think a detective begins to form an opinion when investigating a case but also keeps an open mind as new evidence comes to hand ?Again, as of now all signs point to a hatchet job or at the very least an over-reaction by Gallop. And what if the general sentiment on this thread is proven correct....how will you respond then...? But people aren't just forming an opinion on the situation, they're using they're opinion to push a toxic view of movements that try to address actual problems in today's society. I have no problem with people saying: in my opinion, this will turn out to be an overreaction from Gallop and Staj has been fucked over by a botched process. I do have a problem with people saying the above, and then going on to use that above opinion to make claims that our women players, and women in general can't handle criticism and will use an equality movement to execute an agenda to oppress men. That shit is toxic and based on nothing but hurt feelings and if be called out for that makes you feel stupid, maybe you'll question it in the future, or maybe you won't. You're free to ignore me as much as I'm free to respond to you.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
In my opinion, from now on all opinions should be prefaced with: “In my opinion ....”
Just so maxxie doesn’t get confused.
Moderators please enforce this rule.
|
|
|
|
|
hotrod
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIn my opinion, from now on all opinions should be prefaced with: “In my opinion ....”Just so maxxie doesn’t get confused.Moderators please enforce this rule. In my opinion, your opinion is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI always thought the whole point of football forums was so that people could have their say based on their own interpretations of what they know/understand.. “I think team A will win because ...”“think Coach x is useless because ....”“I think Team x needs to buy player y because ...”“I think Stajcic has been shafted because ....”If that’s not for you, and you prefer people don’t voice an opinion till after a match/season/signing, then I’m really not sure why you’d be here? Football opinions are fine, and I'd usually let it go by now (I think, I can't recall getting into long conversations over on-field topics) but I've addressed in the above comment why I think opinions that reach into the social sphere deserve more of a serious response than "Kruse doesn't do shit he should be dropped". Although I will point out that people get into 20 page arguments on this forum about far less serious topics than this one. I have no problem with people voicing their opinion, just as I don't see why you'd have a problem with me voicing mine. People explained why they thought Staj had been stitched up, I explained why I thought their opinion didn't have merit.
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIn my opinion, from now on all opinions should be prefaced with: “In my opinion ....”Just so maxxie doesn’t get confused.Moderators please enforce this rule. I appreciate that and look forward to the moderators complying immediately. But seriously, can you not at least see why I'd have a problem with assumptions being made to cast aspersions against women in general based on a still shadowy situation, even if you disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Would Chloe Logarzo really be supporting Stajcic if he was making homophobic remarks?
|
|
|
|
|
Boca J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 412,
Visits: 0
|
I second that motion :) .....oh wait, could my support be classed as ‘bullying’ or contributing to a ‘toxic culture’ ? ....help, I’m confused
|
|
|
|
|
thewitness
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
For what ever reason he was sacked it is probably a positive outcome. We have stagnated of late and looked pretty bad against France and England. A good shake up may actually get even more out of our very talented players and give them a better shot at winning this World Cup. If we went to the World Cup under Staj, “in my opinion” I don’t think we had any chance of winning without lots of luck. The top teams would have us covered away in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
AEK Spartan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Now Sam Kerr silenced by Sweet FFA. Just WOW.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Aren’t you making an assumption that others are attempting to cast aspersions against women in general? Seems to me people are only talking about female football teams. And that they are voicing their opinions based on their interpretation of events including the previous players’ revolt that ousted Stajcic’s predecessor. Smoke. Fire.
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMaxxie. So you are assuming that the half dozen players who have tweeted support are by definition ‘not in the know’? Don’t you think that in such a toxic environment these players would be ‘in the know’? Aren’t you even a little bit surprised that they seem to be oblivious to such an unacceptable culture? I'm not assuming that at all. And yes, that is surprising. It just leads to more questions of why some players have supported him, and thus the need for more transparency, which is what the journos need to be looking into right now. It also is a big concern for the unity of the squad heading into the WC when it seems there's two groups who have completely different feelings about the way things were run, and will presumably be pretty pissed at each other right now. As I've said probably five times now, I'm open to this being a botch from the FFA and Staj's reputation being cleared, but I'm equally not going to trash the reputation of our NT when we don't yet have answers.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
@thewitness. So in your opinion, Stajcic should have been sacked for no reason, other than in your view that a coach yet to be identified would be better?
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
@maxxie. So if you are not assuming that players are ‘not in the know’ why did you say that ‘people in the know’ aren’t saying anything. Clearly half a dozen players have said something - and it’s all positive.
I think what you mean is that those who have claimed the existence of a toxic environment (one that players are clearly not aware of) aren’t speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
thewitness
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Yes, but I’m not confident the FFA can find/convince/afford a better option than Staj, and blaming toxic culture is much messier than just sacking him based on performance and paying out his contract.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Ok. So you’re glad he was sacked, even though his replacement might be worse? Are you on the turps?
|
|
|
|
|
thewitness
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
im Happy to risk the chance of getting a better replacement, than going to the World Cup with him.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWould Chloe Logarzo really be supporting Stajcic if he was making homophobic remarks? Nowhere have I read that Stajcic was making homophobic remarks. Stajcic has been relieved of his duties because of a toxic environment that supposedly included the making of homophobic remarks. As the manager he is responsible for ensuring the environment is positive and that includes his relationship with his staff, the relationships between staff, the relationships between himself and his staff and the players, and the relationships between players. There are lots of avenues for inappropriate actions.
|
|
|
|