-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Football Report: Craig Cameron
- Thread starter Mr Pumblechook
- Start date
rosy23 said:
I was at a conference recently where internet use was discussed in the context of research. The observation was made that even now, internet use is restricted to certain subsections of the community, thereby biasing research findings on the basis of things such as education and income. Within those that regularly access the internet, there would, presumably, be a smaller subsection that read forums, and so on, further biasing results.
Thus, I don't think it could be convincingly argued that people who visit PRE, or the views they express are, ipso facto, representative of Richmond supporters more generally - despite the numbers.
Note that it doesn't mean that the view expressed here are not the views of Richmond supporters more generally, just the the sample is probably misrepresentative.
rosy23 said:
There are plenty of RFC members out there who wouldnt have the faintest about PRE or any other fan forum. They love their club, pay their membership, go to the games and have an interest in what the media say. They are your average member/supporter. IMO us on the other hand who read and post on fan forums take things a little more seriously and not what I classify as your 'average' supporter.
I am no internet expert but the term 'hits' means the amount of times a particular webiste has been entered. Correct me if I am wrong here. That could mean the same people entering into the PRE website 4, 5, 6 times per day are counting as 'hits'. I think its a bit of an over rated figure.
Great article well written, good summary of current players, good signs we actually have a direction with the skilled personnel to deliver.
As for some of the deep thinking on here?
Giving away draft info, giving away trading strategy, returning to old habits, recruiting duds etc etc.
Loosen up, its just a communication piece for us and reaffims our direction.
Thanks for the info Craig well done!
As for some of the deep thinking on here?
Giving away draft info, giving away trading strategy, returning to old habits, recruiting duds etc etc.
Loosen up, its just a communication piece for us and reaffims our direction.
Thanks for the info Craig well done!
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Pretty much just a regurgitation of the report.
Kept his cards pretty close to his chest if it deviated too much outside of that.
Oh & Martin is back this week.
The positive is it's been another concerted effort to have everyone on the same page with a consistent message.
Much more professional than the days of old and great to see the club finally pulling in the same direction. :thumbsup
Umm yep, can't believe it took 5 pages to get a post like this written. I thought I was missing something here - with all the toys being thrown out of the cot over an article that's only crime is to be a little innocuous. It's just a simple affirmation of the plan in a communication piece that we can expect to come out 3-4 times in total during the season.Mappa said:
Sheesh, we've been moaning for years that we have factions, torn administrations and hidden agendas. The moment we have a Hardwick/March/Gale/Cameron combination that are singing from the same songbook, we still find ways to rip into them.
Little bit of growing up to do, methinks.
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
I know it makes us sound tough, but we are not maximising opportunities if we rule out asking the AFL for help.
As a minimum we should ask to be quarantined from GC or GWS poaching from us. No harm in asking.
As a minimum we should ask to be quarantined from GC or GWS poaching from us. No harm in asking.
Disco Stu said:
Since it follows my post, if you are refering to me with that comment I would direct you to this thread where I have defended Tuck.
http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=39617.0
I am saying that IMO Cameron is defending HIS decision to publicly offer Tuck for trade last year with a year on his contract, which despite what he now says has devalued Tuck as a trade option.
IMO Cameron is also defending his (and Jacksons) decisions to go for smaller lighter bodied players (like Webberley, Hicks, Contin, Roberts, O'Reilly) in the 2009 ND and rookie drafts over players like Barlow, Silvagni, Howlet, Kaylor-Thomson, Pods etc.
I find it astounding that people can just ignore the past and switch their opinions 180 degrees without a blush or even an acknowledgement that they've changed.
http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=39617.0
If we start begging for help now, the wave of public outrage will kill off any chance of it happening. Can you hear it, "They stuffed up, let the stupid *smile*'s live with it".Ghost of Punt Road said:
If it's left to the AFL they may just quietly rationalise that they've been helping out clubs financially for their mismanagement and poor achievements for years, and this is just assistance from a footy perspective. Then we might have a chance. We also may never know if the AFL chooses to "protect" us in ways that aren't public. And these things have a chance if we show we are worth investing in. Imho, Gale and co are showing the AFL they are made of the right stuff.
Build it and they will come.
RedanTiger said:
i notice you didnt mention Nason as a lighter bodied player.
I would think it is a little too early to be suggesting any decisions made at this years draft need to be defended. suggesting we needed to go for older, big bodied players is asking for short term drafting.
Also I'm not sure how you can place Roberts in the category of "smaller lighter" bodied players. ;D
RedanTiger said:
Wasn't directed at any poster in particular, if it was in relation to you I'd have quoted you, no worries though. Not really sure why you thought it was either. Your talking about CC's statement. I'm mainly referring to Tuck as the new whipping boy. If he read this site, he'd be wishing Pettifer was re-drafted. I also can't believe the hysterics on this site when the club comes out with a press release trying to be positive, seriously what do people expect!
No, didn't list Nason since he's one I do like as stated in the thread I posted. Personal bias. ;DBrodders17 said:
This years draft has already thrown up the senior players that I listed because of their form. Media all over it but personally only liked one of them. We'll see how the other younger ones go in time.
Roberts is listed at 179cm and 75kg. May be a bit of licence in those details.
Smoking Aces said:
Hits can be counted in various ways but my comment was specifically in regard to your claim that the average member/supporter didn't go to sites like PRE but went to the RFC site. No matter how they measure the figures Hitwise would use the same criteria for all sites and they gave me their top 10 list once and it showed surprisingly little difference between PRE and the official RFC site that year. We'd have a lot more people just reading PRE out of interest rather than actually contributing.
I don't think the figure is over rated and I don't think it's important or even relevant to anything. I just thought, based on your comment, that some might find it interesting.
