I echo your exact thoughts. Unfortunatley we can't weed 7/8 players mid season! We'd be screwed. But come the end of this season! They'll be gone. I can guarantee you that !

Most? Really? It might seem like that but it really isn't.


The players were far from untouchable and had a fair amount of criticism aimed at them in the last few seasons, actually. You might also bear in mind that the majority of these players were signed by Agar.

Actually, that's not how I interpreted Gentle's comments at all. While I agree that nothing sinister or deeply troubling is going on I got the impression that the issues with some players had been present for a while and Gentle had been aware of them before yesterday's debacle. I think others have got it about right when they've suggested that certain players have developed a poor attitude for a variety of reasons and that's what Gentle was alluding to.

I've said myself on this very thread that Gentle was probably talking about the attitude of certain players but that he prefered to keep it in house. That doesn't mean we have "in house" issues as a club/team or that it's an on-going problem, it certainly hasn't been mentioned before. He was directly asked of he could pinpoint what went wrong today and he said yeah their we're a couple of things but we'll keep it in house. That is not the same as saying their are in house issues.

I got the impression he was talking of game plans etc that he wanted to keep "in house" and certainly not anything sinister going on.

I think we basically agree and it's just differing interpretations of words here. Although I got the impression that the attitude problem has been around for a couple of weeks or so. I certainly don't think there are any fundamental problems, just some players acting up.

And the only constant is the very average playing staff

He also said there was lots of work to do in a lot of areas playing wise, as well as an attitude issue within the squad.

In house issues = issues kept in house. You've said exactly the same thing but are arguing that it's different. To quote you "there aren't any in house issues" followed by "there are issues he'd like to keep in house". Slightly contradictory, don't you think?

I've added no other context, so how would you know what I'm implying? I just said I wonder what they are. You've assumed something from what I've said and called it a myth. You've basically started your own myth!

As for being clear, I'd say it was a fairly straight forward question, of which you yourself have (in the end) attempted to answer by saying that the issues are just standard poor performance issues. I'd say that's a pretty vague answer to be fair. What are these standard issues and why hasn't it been rectified?

We all knew that 2012 would be the start of a few seasons of transition as a club, to get us back to competing at the top of SL.

I think IMO we're realistically looking at a minimum of three years, during which there will be some tough periods, periods which will help identify those players that either aren't good enough, or don't have the required commitment & attitude to wear the irregular hoops.

Unfortunately, the club can't release 7 or 8 players today (if they could, I'm sure they would). It's going to be a lengthy process of waiting until contracts finish & paying certain players off, as well as there being the right players available to replace them.

All that said, I didn't expect us to be in the top 5 halfway through the season, especially considering the injury problems we've faced. Maybe this early season form has artificially raised our expectations of when we'll be back competing at the top?

Keep the faith in Pearson, Gentle & McRae. They've got a vision of where they want this club to be, and they're less than 12 months into implementing it.

Great post Nev.

I listened to an interview with Brett Seymour, he indicated that a few players hadnt trained all week, but then were selected for first team duty.

Maybe, Gentle needs to give youth more chances, ie Kent,Green,Nicklas,Pearce,Briscoe, to create more competition for places, thus reducing the complacency factor.

Fans dont mind losing if the team has a 'dig', but they cant stomach lack of attitude.

I think that's fair enough, but the nature of the performances over the last four games has been the biggest issue for many. If your squad just isn't good enough and you get beat by better teams, most people will accept that. But scraping by against London, coughing up a 14 point lead against Rovers and not being able to beat Saints with an overwhelming possession/position advantage upsets folk a bit. Add yesterday's utterly woeful display into the mix, and it's easy to see why some are vexed.

On a personal note, I've got a lot of things I need to spend my money on at the moment. I couldn't really afford the outlay for yesterday's game, but I went because I wanted to support the team. To make that extra effort just to see them throw away a 20 point lead in just over 30 minutes was absolutely depressing. It certainly won't help Pearson's attempts to increase the home gates, either.

Completely agree, yesterday was unexceptable and I understand why people are upset (me included).

I aren't upset in the slightest. I just found it amusing how you said that what I said was a myth, but then said exactly the same words in a slightly different order but with the same meaning and it no longer became a myth!

I heard the interview on the way home. He mentioned "there are some issues but we are going to keep these in-house". This led me to ask "I wonder what he was referring to when he was talking about the in-house issues?"

But apparently "issues in-house" and "in-house issues" are different things.

Could you just tell me what the difference is, and then I'll move on...