Sack Hardwick [merged]

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Obviously won't be sacked. Having said that we also assume he made the decision to play one ruck. Last year he spoke to us mid year and said the match committee overruled him as he wanted to play Graham against Port. So we just can't assume it's always his fault...... 

So the buck stops with him but he cannot play a second ruckman against Collingwood if he wants to?
I call BS on that.

As KB always says, lying is the second language of the AFL.

The match committee chooses the team. Fact. Hardwick is a big part of the match committee but he can be overruled. Fact. I'm not sure what you think is BS.

What I think is BS is if Hardwick wanted Balta to play, he plays. Fact.

You cannot tell me that the majority of people on the match committee thought it was a good idea to leave Balta out against Collingwood, leaving Jack to take the ruck when Nank needs a rest.

Is there anyone here on this forum that thinks that was a good idea?

Well, I already told you Hardwick told us he wanted Graham to play last year against Port and he was overruled. That's the way it works. I do not know if he wanted Balta to play or not. Only the match committee knows. I'm not going to pretend I know. That's the difference. You are saying you are sure he didn't want him to play and I'm saying he may not have wanted him to play but he also may have wanted him to play but was overruled by the rest of the match committee. I'm not sure why you cannot believe that team selection is a committee decision and not solely the coaches decision. If it was the latter who overrules everyone else, why have a committee in the first place? By your logic, the buck stops with the coach so there is no point having a match committee as any bad decision will land fair and square at the coaches feet. Believe it or not, that is not the way it works. Fact.

[big tone]

Obviously won't be sacked. Having said that we also assume he made the decision to play one ruck. Last year he spoke to us mid year and said the match committee overruled him as he wanted to play Graham against Port. So we just can't assume it's always his fault...... 

So the buck stops with him but he cannot play a second ruckman against Collingwood if he wants to?
I call BS on that.

As KB always says, lying is the second language of the AFL.

The match committee chooses the team. Fact. Hardwick is a big part of the match committee but he can be overruled. Fact. I'm not sure what you think is BS.

What I think is BS is if Hardwick wanted Balta to play, he plays. Fact.

You cannot tell me that the majority of people on the match committee thought it was a good idea to leave Balta out against Collingwood, leaving Jack to take the ruck when Nank needs a rest.

Is there anyone here on this forum that thinks that was a good idea?

Well, I already told you Hardwick told us he wanted Graham to play last year against Port and he was overruled. That's the way it works. I do not know if he wanted Balta to play or not. Only the match committee knows. I'm not going to pretend I know. That's the difference. You are saying you are sure he didn't want him to play and I'm saying he may not have wanted him to play but he also may have wanted him to play but was overruled by the rest of the match committee. I'm not sure why you cannot believe that team selection is a committee decision and not solely the coaches decision. If it was the latter who overrules everyone else, why have a committee in the first place? By your logic, the buck stops with the coach so there is no point having a match committee as any bad decision will land fair and square at the coaches feet. Believe it or not, that is not the way it works. Fact.

I hate to burst your bubble but don’t believe everything you hear mate. Surely you are more wise than that.

I know people that are part of a match committee and if the coach wants something, he gets it. FACT

[georgies31]

Has runs on the board,but he needs involve on the game and move on in times it's like we're still trying 2017 gameplan,but team's have worked us out.I seen alot of the same mistakes on Thursday from our premlim.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Obviously won't be sacked. Having said that we also assume he made the decision to play one ruck. Last year he spoke to us mid year and said the match committee overruled him as he wanted to play Graham against Port. So we just can't assume it's always his fault...... 

So the buck stops with him but he cannot play a second ruckman against Collingwood if he wants to?
I call BS on that.

As KB always says, lying is the second language of the AFL.

The match committee chooses the team. Fact. Hardwick is a big part of the match committee but he can be overruled. Fact. I'm not sure what you think is BS.

What I think is BS is if Hardwick wanted Balta to play, he plays. Fact.

You cannot tell me that the majority of people on the match committee thought it was a good idea to leave Balta out against Collingwood, leaving Jack to take the ruck when Nank needs a rest.

Is there anyone here on this forum that thinks that was a good idea?

Well, I already told you Hardwick told us he wanted Graham to play last year against Port and he was overruled. That's the way it works. I do not know if he wanted Balta to play or not. Only the match committee knows. I'm not going to pretend I know. That's the difference. You are saying you are sure he didn't want him to play and I'm saying he may not have wanted him to play but he also may have wanted him to play but was overruled by the rest of the match committee. I'm not sure why you cannot believe that team selection is a committee decision and not solely the coaches decision. If it was the latter who overrules everyone else, why have a committee in the first place? By your logic, the buck stops with the coach so there is no point having a match committee as any bad decision will land fair and square at the coaches feet. Believe it or not, that is not the way it works. Fact.

I hate to burst your bubble but don’t believe everything you hear mate. Surely you are more wise than that.

I know people that are part of a match committee and if the coach wants something, he gets it. FACT

Unless you know people on the RFC match committee, then what other clubs or leagues do in their match committees is irrelevant. There was no reason for Hardwick to lie about the Graham omission.

[Chuck17]

Obviously won't be sacked. Having said that we also assume he made the decision to play one ruck. Last year he spoke to us mid year and said the match committee overruled him as he wanted to play Graham against Port. So we just can't assume it's always his fault...... 

So the buck stops with him but he cannot play a second ruckman against Collingwood if he wants to?
I call BS on that.

As KB always says, lying is the second language of the AFL.

The match committee chooses the team. Fact. Hardwick is a big part of the match committee but he can be overruled. Fact. I'm not sure what you think is BS.

What I think is BS is if Hardwick wanted Balta to play, he plays. Fact.

You cannot tell me that the majority of people on the match committee thought it was a good idea to leave Balta out against Collingwood, leaving Jack to take the ruck when Nank needs a rest.

Is there anyone here on this forum that thinks that was a good idea?

Well, I already told you Hardwick told us he wanted Graham to play last year against Port and he was overruled. That's the way it works. I do not know if he wanted Balta to play or not. Only the match committee knows. I'm not going to pretend I know. That's the difference. You are saying you are sure he didn't want him to play and I'm saying he may not have wanted him to play but he also may have wanted him to play but was overruled by the rest of the match committee. I'm not sure why you cannot believe that team selection is a committee decision and not solely the coaches decision. If it was the latter who overrules everyone else, why have a committee in the first place? By your logic, the buck stops with the coach so there is no point having a match committee as any bad decision will land fair and square at the coaches feet. Believe it or not, that is not the way it works. Fact.

I hate to burst your bubble but don’t believe everything you hear mate. Surely you are more wise than that.

I know people that are part of a match committee and if the coach wants something, he gets it. FACT

Unless you know people on the RFC match committee, then what other clubs or leagues do in their match committees is irrelevant. There was no reason for Hardwick to lie about the Graham omission.

I think what BT was saying is that everyone is a liar apart from himself of course

[Diocletian]

strike two 

[strongandbold]

strike two 

 

Hardwick is fine

[Rampsation]

Going nowhere for the next 3 years. There not going to sack him.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

He has the same number of wins as Buckley who is in charge of premiership favourites Collingwood......

He won't be sacked. Thanks Chuck17 for the laughs!!!

[mat073]

 Made a few tweaks... Brought in Stack, put Edwards down back- covering the loss of the irreplaceable  Rance better than expected.

[Chuck17]

Made a few tweaks... Brought in Stack, put Edwards down back- covering the loss of the irreplaceable  Rance better than expected.

Does that qualify as a plan B

[Rampsation]

Dont be stupid chucky everyone knows Hardwick doesnt have a plan B lol.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Dont be stupid chucky everyone knows Hardwick doesnt have a plan B lol.

Yes he does! It’s refer to Caracella! 

[Chuck17]

Has to go

[Go Richo 12]

Has to go

Replace him with Rhys Shaw.