Who’s The Real Floater, Don or Mike?


I know writing about writers can be a bit tedious, and others do it so much better than I (6thSens), that I do my best to avoid doing so.  But, sometimes, when what was written is so silly, and redundant, it deserves some criticism.

I’m speaking about todays D. Brennan piece in the Sun re: Comrie.

I’m on the fence as to whether he should be resigned, and this is due in large part to Mikes questionable work ethic.  He is reportedly well liked among his peers, which is certainly important, but he has been known to take too many shifts, if not nights, off.  In many ways, from a depth perspective, he is another Fisher.  When at his best, he can hang with other top 6 forwards, but if he let’s his effort slip, he is merely a 3rd liner, but in Comries case, he doesn’t bring the secondary skills (defense, hitting) that Fisher always provides, no matter his depth status.

To me, this is where the debate belongs, on the merits of his play.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan has stooped to a silly and, frankly, insulting  argument when discussing the situation vis-a-vis Comrie and the Sens.  Comrie’s family wealth.  I’ll acknowledge that this is worth reporting, as it is an interesting, if not germain fact.  But, lets face it, this isn’t merely mentioned, then dismissed, it is repeatedly trotted out and eluded to whenever Comrie is mentioned in relation to salary.  IT DOESN’T MATTER!

Would you want your salary adjusted to reflect the income of your family members?  Sure, the vast majority of us do not make the sort of money Comrie will, or have families with the wealth of the Comries’, but, in comparison, many of us have parents who have done as well or better then ourselves financially.  Should our employers mitigate our salary expectations accordingly?  Should our co-workers, or clients expect us to accommodate our income expectations accordingly?  No.  So where does Brennan get off making an interesting, although  irrelevant, fact into some sort of point worthy of consideration?

It’s wrong, unfair, and at the end of the day says more about Don’s lack of effort in producing a story based upon sound pro/con arguments vs. high school gossip calibre drivel.

Should Mike be resigned?  What a great question and, to me, within which lies more then enough interesting perspectives to generate a great read (I’ll be posting on this soon).

Don, re-light the fire buddy, you’re floating around out there.

GN

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: