|
|
Post by Krang7 on Oct 4, 2007 12:00:20 GMT -4
You want examples of ambiguous responses? OK, here goes: "We're looking at all our options" "I can't answer, that's a hypothetical question" (Jean Chrétien's favorite) "It's early in the season, we're assessing the situation" "We're taking it one game at a time" "What we're really concerned with is winning on Friday night" None of those non-answers addresses the coaching situation, so they'd be ambiguous responses, not to mention useless. But McDuck wasn't ambiguous - he said he had NO PLANS to change the coach. I see no reason not to believe him. Not happy about it, though..... Those all basically imply that he's at least thinking about making a change, except for maybe the last one which would have nothing to do with the question at all. I'm sure he knows that's what everyone would think if he said anything like that. He'll also know that an outright denial won't make people certain that he's not thinking about it, but it's about all he could say in that situation. Basically "yes" means "yes", "maybe" means "yes" and "no" means "maybe". It's as good as he could do. |
|
|
|
Post by North Shore on Oct 4, 2007 12:30:08 GMT -4
So what would he say if he had plans to make a coaching change? Ambiguous response? ...Give some examples. Example: Q. Given the Team's slow start are you considering replacing the Coach?
A. There's been a lot of speculation about that but we've always worked well with Coach Jean and We're excited about the Teams prospects this year. We have great talent on the club with Guys like Morrison, Latal ... Its ambiguous and does not answer the queston but people skilled at handling interviews usually have an agenda and an answer they want to talk about and they just make the question fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Krang7 on Oct 4, 2007 12:40:37 GMT -4
But what if the interviewer catches that and says, "hey, you didn't answer my question." Any good journalist would.
I'm not saying whoever asked the question is a good journalist, I have no idea either way, but Serge might have assumed that he'd get called on it so he gave a straight answer (whether it was a lie or not).
|
|
|
|
Post by North Shore on Oct 4, 2007 13:20:06 GMT -4
But what if the interviewer catches that and says, "hey, you didn't answer my question." Any good journalist would. I'm not saying whoever asked the question is a good journalist, I have no idea either way, but Serge might have assumed that he'd get called on it so he gave a straight answer (whether it was a lie or not). I Agree 100% a good Journalist would have the follow up question and it would be met with another non responsive answer. My take on Serge's comment regarding "no plans", and I hope I'm wrong, is that there will be no coaching change. My impression of Serge, based on nothing but the occasional media appearance as I have never spoken to him, is that he is like a dog with a bone and if he has an idea in his head nothing will shake it loose. He seems to have the idea that Jean will become a successful coach and he has no plans for a change. I think the coaching issue is apparent to everyone who follows the team and the threads on this board reflect that this is believe to be the team's #1 issue. There is no serious thread started yet for the Remparts game, there are no active threads discussing quality of play, particular players or their efforts. All eyes seem to have focused on coaching issues and the coach. |
|
|
|
Post by rocketlauncher on Oct 4, 2007 13:31:04 GMT -4
I don't think that Serge was buying time by saying he has no plans to make a change in coaches. He does not care what everyone thinks. If he was trying to be sneaky and make Jean believe he is ok...it would be a change for Serge. Last year he announced in the paper that he was replacing Dave Flanagan before he even told Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Oct 4, 2007 17:48:09 GMT -4
When was the last time anyone has heard an NHL GM say to the media that he was planning on making a coaching change during a season while they still had a coach employed? There have been times when they don't give a full endorsement of their coaches but have never heard an NHL GM basically fire a coach through the media, which is what Savard would be doing if he came out and said something like "We are looking to make changes behind the bench" or "We have been talking to potential coaches".
Like I said before, he may very well have been serious about no plans for a coaching change, but he isn't going to come out and say he has plans to make that kind of change when asked about it by a reporter. If he was planning on making changes which is contrary to what he said, it doesn't mean that he was lying because there are certain things that are meant to be done in a private manner. Who would want to wake up some morning and read in the paper that your boss was looking to replace you with someone else?
If Savard did it that way with Flanagan as was suggested earlier, then he would have a hard time finding any decent coach.Most coaches wouldn't want to work for someone who does business that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Oct 5, 2007 15:30:33 GMT -4
No one likes to lose, and when the going gets tough, that is the time to rally around and show support, not denigrate every effort that is being made to correct the problem. What are the facts in regards to where you said that every effort is being made to correct the problem? People have since asked or wondered what efforts are being made without an answer or facts about those efforts. No facts here I guess....... |
|
