I've noticed that Sutcliffe can't hit a target even when he's under zero pressure but he doesn't need to as he'll get selected next week anyway. McCarthy needs a rev up with his attitude as well but he'll get picked next week also.
Seriously, anybody not questioning the impact of the coach has probably drowned in the koolaid.
We gave skills the flick and chose players on effort. Many of us on here questioned that, including myself. It was short-sighted and it was done because Roly learned a single game Plan from Roos and that was based on effort.
Well, now we have no skills, no effort and no bloody idea. The consecutive 100 point losses are not a new phenomenon. They are the direct result of the same issues we have had for several years but the reduced effort is just making the loss margins bigger.
The coach and the management are responsible. Anybody who says the coach shouldn't have to teach skills or formulate a game plan that suits the available players and the current rules really has no idea. Copping this 'we need to have player X or player Y' is giving the person responsible a copout.
If you do not constantly practice skills, you lose them. It is a simple fact in almost any endeavour in life, yet somehow, we maintain that it isn't the coaches job to teach skills. Bulldust. Thats the reason we have a coach and if he cannot or will not do it then he's failed his KPIs and should be given the flick for non-performance.
Where is Bond? Or Rosich? Why aren't they doing their jobs. If I performed this badly at work, irrespective of my contract, I'd be shown the door for poor performance. Why are they above scrutiny?
