Skip to main content
Topic: Lance McGovern (Read 9559 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #30
So why is his approach to training and fitness now being described as unprofessional?  And why does he have to complete a specific training block before being considered for selection?

I get that the coach has to stand up for his players but it sounds like Mitch was being a decoy at training too.  It’s not a good look for the coach to be saying one thing and the club to apparently contradict his message.

My main concern is how McGovern lost condition this far into the season.  I would have expected Russell to pick up any fitness issues before they became a concern.

Did they call it unprofessional? Teague said at his presser last week that McGovern had barely made it to they training track due to ongoing issues with back and ankle problems. Maybe he was a decoy. If he wasn't in shape to get a kick you have to use him as something. Now they are going with a conditioning block for him. Interesting time this late in the year. Should have been a long while ago. Shouldn't have been playing and sorting his issues.

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #31
Shouldn't have been playing and sorting his issues.

Maybe McGovern was playing injured because our other forward options aren't reliable or professional?

Sometimes it may be easier to shoot the seasoned professional, like kicking Daisy, sMurph or Casboult, rather than risk stomping on a kid and losing them for life! The shot across the bow!

I'm OK with what Teague said, I mentioned in posts a couple of weeks back McGovern was doing all the right sacrificial things, stuff that Charlie, Casboult and McKay benefitted from but left McGovern with very little personal gain. Stuff guys like McLean and Wright used to do that got them no credit. Creating space, dragging opponents away, the opposite of the kids who take everyone in the vicinity to the football!
The Force Awakens!


Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #33
For the tenth time.
Don’t respond without reading the post.

You mean this post;

Yeah he should have thrown him to the wolves
Much better way to win your players trust
Bolton’s gone. Get over it

That somebody posted in relation to the below comments from DJC about Teague that do not mention Bolton!

The “ongoing back and ankle injuries” that McGovern is said to have been carrying for some time turn out to be just extra weight from a lack of professionalism when it comes to training  >:(

So much for Teague’s strident defence of McGovern as the decoy forward.  A newby mistake and one that he should learn from.

Lance may be able to provide Mitch with an old tyre to drag around Princes Park.

Circulus in probando ::)
The Force Awakens!

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #34
You mean this post;

That somebody posted in relation to the below comments from DJC about Teague that do not mention Bolton!

Circulus in probando ::)

That’s the one.
I’m sure being so clever, you can join the dots



Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #37
The club and players are having an each way bet IMO. I don't understand if he's out of shape because of injuries, laziness / lack of professionalism, or both ? And why has he held a spot up until now ? If he's too injured to do his role, he shouldn't be playing, and if he's too lazy to train properly he most certainly shouldn't be playing.

Yet another badly handled situation by our club. Frankly, calling our club amateurish is an insult to amateurs.

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #38
The club and players are having an each way bet IMO. I don't understand if he's out of shape because of injuries, laziness / lack of professionalism, or both ? And why has he held a spot up until now ? If he's too injured to do his role, he shouldn't be playing, and if he's too lazy to train properly he most certainly shouldn't be playing.

Yet another badly handled situation by our club. Frankly, calling our club amateurish is an insult to amateurs.

Yet we have Andrew Russell as head of fitness and conditioning.

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #39
The club and players are having an each way bet IMO. I don't understand if he's out of shape because of injuries, laziness / lack of professionalism, or both ? And why has he held a spot up until now ? If he's too injured to do his role, he shouldn't be playing, and if he's too lazy to train properly he most certainly shouldn't be playing.

Yet another badly handled situation by our club. Frankly, calling our club amateurish is an insult to amateurs.

Interesting.

PaulP, as people who have both stood up for Bolton, don't you see that this is a little bit of an idictment on the MC led by Brendan Bolton?

In round 1, it was an eyebrow raiser to have played both of Alex Fasolo, and Mitch McGovern ahead of Jack Silvagni.

It sent the wrong message to the group.  A bloke who had employed his own running coach in the off season, had a really solid pre season and gotten himself in the best nick of his career (JSOS) was dropped for round 1 so we could play Alex (broke my arm in a drunken incident) Fasolo, and Mitch (Brackets/stress fracture/out of condition) McGovern?

Teague's led MC has dropped him after giving him a period to prove his worth as well as dealing with the injuries to McKay and Charlie Curnow.

We had plenty of opportunities to drop Mitch this year and havent done it.  That means there were intangibles he was bringing to the table that wasnt to do with his own performance. 


"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson


Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #41
Interesting.

PaulP, as people who have both stood up for Bolton, don't you see that this is a little bit of an indictment on the MC led by Brendan Bolton?

Thry, I think PaulP highlights that the problem is probably bigger than the coach, while your words suggest an idea that the coach is the major or primary contributing cause. It seems obvious to me that PaulP probably thinks the root cause is a much bigger umbrella issue that the coach works under.

What was the mandate and has it changed, it seems so!

Are we really judging apples for apples?
The Force Awakens!

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #42
Interesting.

PaulP, as people who have both stood up for Bolton, don't you see that this is a little bit of an idictment on the MC led by Brendan Bolton?

In round 1, it was an eyebrow raiser to have played both of Alex Fasolo, and Mitch McGovern ahead of Jack Silvagni.

It sent the wrong message to the group.  A bloke who had employed his own running coach in the off season, had a really solid pre season and gotten himself in the best nick of his career (JSOS) was dropped for round 1 so we could play Alex (broke my arm in a drunken incident) Fasolo, and Mitch (Brackets/stress fracture/out of condition) McGovern?

Teague's led MC has dropped him after giving him a period to prove his worth as well as dealing with the injuries to McKay and Charlie Curnow.

We had plenty of opportunities to drop Mitch this year and havent done it.  That means there were intangibles he was bringing to the table that wasnt to do with his own performance.

Yes, I agree all that is plausible, but it doesn't (at least for me) clarify the issue. There are many possible reasons as to why he was played then and dropped now.

Re: Lance McGovern

Reply #43
Thry, I think PaulP highlights that the problem is probably bigger than the coach, while your words suggest an idea that the coach is the major or primary contributing cause. It seems obvious to me that PaulP probably thinks the root cause is a much bigger umbrella issue that the coach works under.

What was the mandate and has it changed, it seems so!

...............

Yes, that's right. Maybe Teague isn't operating under the same type of pressure, and doesn't need to worry about playing the better players to deliver wins. Maybe he wants to make a point that he won't play favourites. Maybe he wants to protect his mate by getting him out of the team to ensure his reputation isn't sullied any further. I could go on all day, but at the end of it all, I have no idea.