Gator

The landscape has changed in that it's now possible for a good ordinary side to pinch a flag. The competition has never been more even. But I'd rather note history in the main and not an aberration or two. Develop some genuine stars of the competition with quality support crew and you'll invariably stand upon the dais late in September. If our players develop into their potential (yeah, that word) we really could see multiple opportunities to secure flags. Put simply, the cream of our youth is the envy of the competition.

Quigley never does a phantom draft. He never attempts to guess which club will take who. He just rates them on ability. And obviously in the case you mentioned he got it wrong. I wouldn't let that dissuade you from his ability to observe.

Yours is the easy argument and hard to argue against. Full credit to Richmond, after years of failing and losing in the first week of finals their senior players finally stepped up and there was total buy in to the game-plan from the rest of the group. They had virtually no injuries and the second easiest draw in the competition. But they still had to get it done and they did. Four years in finals out of the last 5 years showed they'd been there abouts. Martin, Rance, Cotchin, and Riewoldt are stars. They weren't always stars, but they're now the best collection of 4 players in the one team in the competition. Petracca, Lever, Oliver, and Hogan are not stars. Nor is Viney. And it may take them the same amount of time it's taken the Richmond players. Or not. Or they may never get there at all. So for me it rests on whether we develop stars. It always has. You give me a collection of stars and I'll show you a premiership.

Defence isn't a waste. Never be vulnerable to those that wish us harm and we have to have the capacity to do our bit when needed. It's reciprocal. The submarines are an utter joke. Turnbull and Pyne are a disgrace. Talk about wasted billions over SA politics. Border protection protects your children. We should know everything about those who want to walk freely amongst us and not lure those wishing a better life to a death at sea. And nor should we encourage the scourge of people smuggling. i'd like politicians to be better paid. To get the best you have to provide an incentive. Why would those with clever minds want to be on a politicians wage ? And I don't like career politicians. Once upon a time professionals thought they could make a difference after they'd succeeded in business, the law, or industry. They'd make a contribution (or otherwise) and get out. Now it's a gravy train forever. Politics shouldn't be a "career".

Your first answer isn't the question. But at least you can stop referencing your care to future generations, as it's no different to mine. There's no moral superiority. As for Australia and "our donations". You know, the wasted billions ? It's taxpayer money. It's not the government's to waste. Where do you think this money comes from ?

Hi Martin. You were certain more would happen in trade week. What happened ?

Supporters carry on when average players are traded. Supporters carry on when a 2016 AA player is recontracted. FMD

Yeah, I've read their convenient guesses. IF CO2 really drove temperatures you wouldn't have 4000 ppmv in an ice age. I agree though with their reference to the sun. Solar energy drives temperatures, not CO2. See link. http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl Have a read of this. Some light reading for the weekend. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html Btw, answer my question. Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? And comment on the following. Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. As for NASA ? They're a waste of space. They fraudulently manipulate data. I'm exceptionally happy to admit I only quote them when it suits me. Reason being ? Zealots love NASA and the IPCC.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. So your moral superiority, or should I say virtue signalling, is greatly misplaced. If CO2 drives temperatures why was the planet in an ice age when CO2 was 800 percent higher ?

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust. I'm a skeptic. Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. And the best you can do is call someone cheap ? If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear. I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

It is laughable. Just more dud predictions. Why don't you comment on the NASA report on Antarctic ice sheets ? Why don't you comment on 20,000 years of sea level rises, but much slower rises since humankind ? Why don't you comment on the IPCC report that says confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low ? Why don't you comment on the fact we're spending billions of dollars on climate schemes when we contribute 0.045% of atmospheric CO2, i.e. we don't heat the planet and nor can we affect the climate by any reductions in emissions ? 97% of CO2 is natural and 3% man made. Of the man made we contribute 1.5%. CO2 does not drive temperatures. You're just another zealot addicted to climate porn.

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. Interestingly, rises have been less in a coal driven world. I have a graph I'll upload later. In the meantime...

This Australian team seems in conflict with a NASA report from just two years ago regarding Antarctic ice. Oct. 31, 2015 NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Btw... Here's a link to a PDF policy report from the IPCC in 2013, which includes comments on the intensity of tropical cyclones. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low. Comments ?

Did you read that article with a straight face ?

Btw, what happened to the good doctor ? Left ?

By the best in the business. Quigley is a freak with his footy observations.

I believe we'll play finals in 2018 in which case we haven't given up a pick inside the top 10 for a player worth at least the equal of pick one. Can anyone name a better 3 year, 50 game, 21 year old player to be traded to another club in the last decade ? Anyone ? For these reasons alone this period can't be ranked any less than "great".

Tweener.

Horrible time. I HATE 3.20pm starts.

I see you're still fighting the good fight, Wrecker, as futile as it is. I have no doubt that Leftist climate zealots are immutable in their views and that even if anthropogenic climate change was unequivocally proven to be false they still wouldn't change their minds. There's no point engaging them. I post for some of the silent readers, who just may have an open mind. 444 million years ago CO2 was over 4,000 ppmv (compared to today's 403 ppmv Sep. 2017) yet there was glaciation, as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a clear counter to the argument that CO2 is the driving force of climate change. But still it won't make a difference to those addicted to climate porn. About 1% of earth's atmosphere is gases, including obviously CO2. CO2 is about .04% of the earth's atmosphere. What is continually overlooked is that mankind contributes 3% of atmospheric CO2 compared to the 97% which occurs naturally. Australia contributes about 1.5% of that 3%, or in other words .045% of atmospheric carbon. Australia's contribution to atmospheric carbon is negligible, almost nothing. For this privilege we spend billions of dollars in order to lower the planet's temperatures when we a) have no impact on the planet's temperature and b) can't change it anyway. Genius. Future generations will look back at the futility of these wasteful exercises wondering why their forebears were so inept. They'll write books that will be analysed in classrooms. In the 1970's climate scientists were worried about global cooling. Then it was global warming. But the planet stopped warming, so now it's climate change. It has always changed and always will change. Our crops weren't going to grow, but now we're having record harvests. The planet has been greening for 30 years. In fact, there are plenty of arguments to suggest that some warming is beneficial and certainly better than cooling. There's no evidence to suggest the planet is warming "dangerously". There are supposed to be more hurricanes. They're the lowest they've been in a decade and until recently one hadn't landed on the US mainland since 2005. It was the longest streak since 1851 when they started keeping records of hurricanes in the US. Climate change is more about globalisation and re-engineering the world's economy than it is about solving any dire threat. Of course, none of the above will stop the climate zealots. I know that. But in time the noise will become less and less. Btw, Wrecker, I have a few of the dopey zealots here on ignore, so you'll understand why I don't engage. You know the ones, where up is down and down is up.

OK. Fun fact. In 153 games Watts has never kicked 5 goals in a game. In just over half a season starting as a forward (round 9) Tom McDonald has already kicked 5 goals in a game.

Interesting observation. A Father of another high profile player made the comment to a friend of mine, "Jack likes the limelight too much".

I get the "finger pointers" argument. I get that you think we didn't play hard or hold our nerve. It's such a simple argument how could anyone not "get" it or separate it ? My delusional Brother won't move on either. He's boring me to tears. What you seemingly don't get is that I let the cobbler's cobble. I'm not privy to every decision they make and I'm not going to second guess why they didn't play harder. Maybe it was a sign of good faith to Jake to get it done quickly in a trade they deemed fair. Maybe they wanted to keep their good reputation to get deals done. Maybe they couldn't be certain how things would pan out if Adelaide didn't blink and other permutations came into play. But guess what ? I DON'T CARE. I'm not paid to do their job. I think the deal is fair, for reasons I've already outlined, and I've moved beyond the cost price. Naturally, you can please yourself. As for your personal remarks... It's my opinion that some are "bleating". If you find that offensive you're a snowflake. It's just my opinion. It's a word. How it can offend you is extraordinary. I haven't used the term "babies", so you're incorrectly aligning that to my postings.

Up to you. I'm not invested in your emotions either way.