Barrett - "Melbourne worst team in the past decade"

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

we did lose 2 games by a 100 points. our performances in the last 6 round were one of the worst of the decade, no buts about that.

Actually it was six and a half games. The first half last sunday was the worst of the season.

That said considering their Facilities and Membership. I think Fremantle are by far the worst team of the decade. should never have come into the comp "I didn't vote for 'em!"

[heartbeatstrue 57]

And what is the relevance of this? Read the bloody thing properly. It says "one of the worst teams of the past decade". He doesn't say that we are the worst team over the past decade. Based on our performance in the first 6 rounds, he was dead right.

Unbelievable! The relevance of that history is, that is actually our performance of the past decade. Which is what Barrett is saying. Yes he says "one of". And whatever spin you want to put on it, he's suggesting the generalisation is true over that 10-year span, not over the first 6 and a half games of this year (plus last year if you like). You will have to make your assessment of those data. Just remember, media commentators three years ago were hailing Melbourne as the great hope of Victoria. We were being acclaimed as the "best side in Victoria".

Like I said, commentators live in cuckoo land. I think many of us here have our feet more on the ground than up in the clouds with those guys. I never thought we were "best in Vic", I knew this team too well. Yep the past 6 and a half have been dreadful. We are definitely the worst performed team over the start of this year. But I suspect we're performing worse than we should. Blame it on whatever you like, new coach coming to grips with this frustrating group, poor list, game plan that's either no good or beyond them. In fact, I think we'll see good improvement in all the areas we're lacking. DB is no fool and he's got cool determination.

I don't fool myself that we've been great or even good over the past 10 years (the run of lows following each good year is symptomatic of something structurally wrong). But I don't think we've been in the bottom three or four either, of the 10-year span. Middle of the road, imho. Over that decade. Of the decade. However you want to read it!

[heartbeatstrue 57]

If you really think Barrett was silly enough to mean over the past 6 and a half games, we've been "one of" the worst teams (over such a short period), why add "of the past decade"? What's that supposed to mean? Why not just say in living memory or something? Because over 6 and a half games we've been truly shocking. But nothing to do with the past decade. Geelong lost a string of games, they were the worst side for that brief period. Even Barrett's not going to be silly enough to describe them as "one of the worst sides" of the past decade. Simply because for a brief period they were the worst.

Nope the guy's going for effect, sensation. And he's picked what he thinks is an easy target to help him make his point that Freo are shocking. I don't think we want to let him think he can take cheap shots at us like that. He probably would think twice before he wrote that about the filth!

[Demon Rob 2]

yeah I read this article this morning and couldn't believe the rubbish.

he is clearly saying melbourne are one of the worst teams OF the decade, not the last 6 weeks or 2 years, but performing over the whole period of a decade. Melbourne the club over 10 years, not the current team over the last 7 weeks.

he also says geelong are one of the best performing also over the decade period, which is true if you can ignore the several years of being bad.

the only way he can get out of this is talking of decade as 10 matches,

or 'one of the worst' == 'one of the worst 14 teams', and 'one of the best' as 'one of the best 14 teams.'

rubbish article in a rubbish paper, only got it for the footy liftout magazine to give the kids.

[Rogue 585]

yeah I read this article this morning and couldn't believe the rubbish.

he is clearly saying melbourne are one of the worst teams OF the decade, not the last 6 weeks or 2 years, but performing over the whole period of a decade.

No he isn't! :|

[Swampfox 190]

As a journalist he is entitle to his opnion after all its his profession

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

As a journalist he is entitle to his opnion after all its his profession

This is where it gets hazy. He says himself that he doesn't do match reports, he's not a football expert and doesn't attend all that many games...

What he is... and I'd love it if anyone could even attempt to refute this, is a writer. Nothing more. He composes what he believes is attractive, easy to read prose about situations outside of actual football. His talent lies... well... Actually he has no talent. What he believes he is good at is writing to the masses. Also asking the appropriate questions, sifting through details that are unimportant, getting to the core of the issue, finding anything he believes may be reportable, and writing it in such a way that we can understand it. It's not written WELL (The Herald Sun, by it's very nature, is written at a grade-6 level) it's written to cater to the lowest common denominator. Why does someone cater to the lowest common denominator? Because you'll never go poor doing it.

It's what football punters are increasingly seeing as "sensationalist" journalism. Chris Judd said it the other week when asked by Garry Lyon about what he thought of the media. Garry said "you hate them, don't you?" To which Judd said (and I for one believed him) that he doesn't care anymore. He mentioned that in the football media it's about getting stories out there, being loud... and they compromise the truth of the situation and appropriateness of their jobs in order to be heard...

Tony Jones is probably the worst. On footy classified just last week we heard that when Nathan Thompson was dealing with his depression, they had learned that the story had been leaked to two journos and asked them both to hold the story back for 24-48 hours, in an effort to allow Nathan to do a press conference himself to bring light to the situation. The story would be released, peoples' livelihoods and careers hinged on it, it was important... more important than just footy... so one reporter (Hutchy) held it back. Tony Jones went with it... In this situation it's clear what's happening. Tony Jones is promoting HIMSELF, and perhaps his network. The story was news. It was going to reach the presses within a 24 hour period anyway. The ONLY reason Tony had to go with it was self-promotion. That's it... It's a great example of what's wrong with journos in the game. They are out for themselves alone... NOT football. And their increasingly low respect for teams and individuals' lives has gone a long way beyond reason...

My point is that if Barrett HAD any talent he wouldn't have to rely on stringing up teams and players. Saying things like he does so regularly is last-resort garbage. If he was good at his job he would be able to get his name out there without compromising the truth or peoples' daily lives.

There is hope however. SEN does great work. The Ox is always respectful and knows when to draw the line. I hate Mark Robinson, but I think most of the time he uses reason to the advantage of football. SEN is good, but it's clear why. Sport, (and the individuals therein) is the spring from which their jobs and income flows. Bite the hand that feeds you and SEN would fold quicker than people think.

But I digress. The problem with Barrett is he is a second-rate journo trying to keep up with the big names. He is jostling for position, has a quota of articles he has to write, and it's impossible to write anything interesting about teams from 3rd to 13th. But it's open season on 1st, 2nd, 14th, 15th and 16th.

If you think the reason that article was written was "the opinion business" then you're sadly mistaken. No-one cares about his opinion, he says himself he knows little about football. He's writing stuff, with sensationalist headlines, because he knows that's what will be read.

He's writing to keep himself in suit-jackets and BMWs. NOT to report on the game, and not to help the world of football as it exists.

Hiding behind the "opinion" excuse is what keeps these little amoebas from being held accountable.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

There is hope however. SEN does great work. The Ox is always respectful and knows when to draw the line. I hate Mark Robinson, but I think most of the time he uses reason to the advantage of football. SEN is good, but it's clear why. Sport, (and the individuals therein) is the spring from which their jobs and income flows. Bite the hand that feeds you and SEN would fold quicker than people think.

1) The Ox might want to avoid today's article by Trevor Grant. I suspect, though, that he'll use it as fodder for this arvo's show. For what it's worth, Ox is good value as a drive-time sports host, but he gives me nothing as a special comments side-kick.

2) Robinson does some good work, but he's a pearl-clutcher. He's unlistenable when he gets that high pitch squeal going as he's trying to panic home a point.

[Hards 2]

Not sure what all the fuss is about - for the first 6.5 weeks we were clearly the worst team in the past decade.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

1) The Ox might want to avoid today's article by Trevor Grant. I suspect, though, that he'll use it as fodder for this arvo's show. For what it's worth, Ox is good value as a drive-time sports host, but he gives me nothing as a special comments side-kick.

2) Robinson does some good work, but he's a pearl-clutcher. He's unlistenable when he gets that high pitch squeal going as he's trying to panic home a point.

Agreed.

Ox's special comments are just going. About the same level of profundity as all the others. What makes him great on SEN are his attitudes and his humour, and the stuff you read between the lines. He's robbed of that on game-day when he calls for channel 7.

And Robinson can go ok... but I agree. He'd be the guy down at the pub who craps on about the same garbage over and over again... and when he talks you kind of tune out and fantasise about winding up a big haymaker and sending him sprawling into the pool cues. His voice and short temper annoy me, but at least he says things...

[titan_uranus 25,016]

I don't think we were the worst team of the past decade; rather, we played the worst football seen of the past decade. This is the team that made 3 consecutive finals series, and, with Essendon, was the Victorian team with the most finals appearances between 2000 and 2006. Compare that with Richmond, Carlton and even Hawthorn's last decade, and I think we come out on top. Still, I understand what he's getting at.

[Kit Walker 225]

Not sure what all the fuss is about - for the first 6.5 weeks we were clearly the worst team in the past decade.

Yep.

35+ posts in this thread.....

[Billy Baxter 0]

Hmmm, give or take a couple of players, we are virtually the same TEAM that palyed finals footy a few years back!!!

[jez 0]

well he did smoke a bit of pot when he was young

maybe he could have better spent that time learning to articulate his views

might have got himself a job at a real newspaper

[praha 11,240]

You're all blowing this out of proportion. He meant "The Melbourne 2008 team is the worst team in the past decade", not Melbourne over the past 10 years. He's right. Melbourne over the first 6 rounds was the worst performance by a team in 10 years.

[Golden Monkey 1]

yeah I read this article this morning and couldn't believe the rubbish.

he is clearly saying melbourne are one of the worst teams OF the decade, not the last 6 weeks or 2 years, but performing over the whole period of a decade.

No he isn't! :|

I'm sorry Rogue, he may not have meant to say this but it is what was said.

Here is the exact sentence:

"On Sunday, it led by nearly nine goals against Melbourne, one of the worst teams of the past decade, only to lose by a goal."-Damian Barrett | May 07, 2008

If he were referring to just the fiest 6 matches of this season the sentence should have read:

On Sunday, it led by nearly nine goals against Melbourne, a team that has this season put in one of the worst performances seen by any team of the past decade, only to lose by a goal.

By saying "one of the worst teams of the past decade," he is publicly stating that a team that in the last decade (1998-2008) has appeared in 5 finals series, including a Grand Final. Produced a Coleman Medalist- David Neitz 2002 and a Brownlow medalist- Shane Woewodin 2000 is one of the worst performing teams of the past decade.

I repeat, he may not have meant this but his poor english skills have meant that he has made the above statement.

"Melbourne, one of the worst teams of the past decade"-Damian Barrett | May 07, 2008 the worst piece of journalism in the past decade!

[Dalrot 85]

Can't believe this has made 2 pages over 1 line.

Who cares? It's only the Herald Sun.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Can't believe this has made 2 pages over 1 line.

Who cares? It's only the Herald Sun.

Rot, one of the most apt posts on this thread.

One of the biggest storms in a teacup I have read in ages.

[rpfc 28,407]

You're all blowing this out of proportion. He meant "The Melbourne 2008 team is the worst team in the past decade", not Melbourne over the past 10 years. He's right. Melbourne over the first 6 rounds was the worst performance by a team in 10 years.

Exactly. The end. Everyone shut up and stop defending the indefensible, you are embarrassing the club.

We had a percentage of 52 at half time last week for f@#$% sake!!

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Well at least Barrett did his job properly (that is, to get people talking about it)