Axis of Bob

Of course they don't. It's a 3/4 practice match between the 30-40 players on AFL lists and whatever VFL players they could cobble together to fill out the numbers, being umpired by some assistant coaches and volunteers doing the goal and boundary umpiring. Nobody cares. I'm thankful that we can get a stream at all. I'm happy to listen to the commentary if they interview guys like Balme, who gave some interesting thoughts on the game and even how he thought we played.

Don't read the gameday thread. I accidentally did after a long offseason but immediately regretted it. It's an awful place purely designed for people to let off steam whilst not flooding the main board. You could almost call it Demonland 'quarantine'.

Good hit out. We looked pretty solid, structurally. Up forward, McDonald and Jackson contested pretty well against a really good defensive intercepting team. Plus we were solid in the air in defence, with Lever and May looking threatening in the air. Obviously we're trading some speed (Hunt, Rivers) in defence for defensive solidity, but given the pace of the game that seemed to be a risk worth taking at the moment. Up forward, having Chandler just made us look better. His speed and finishing gives a nice balance to our small forwards, with Spargo being clever and industrious and Kossie being a bit more of a high end talent. The new manning the mark rule played pretty well, as it encouraged teams to take risks and we got more even contests inside 50. It also looks like it will provide more opportunities to our hard running tall and medium forwards.

The Gameday thread is just as bad preseason.

That vision was just a player that forgot the rule. They moved sideways on the mark like they used to, but it's illegal now. If they truly thought that the player had played on then they would have run forward at the kicker rather than sideways behind the mark. There will be issues where players simply forget like this, because they are not used to the same rule. This footage doesn't mean that the rule works/doesn't work, just that some players are going to forget ... especially whilst it's being introduced.

Everyone here has condemned this before they have even seen it. I put it in the category of 'most people hate change'. There will be some implementation issues (and dire headlines capitalising on the fear of change), as there always are, but those will inevitably fade as it becomes normalised. I don't mind the rule at all. It'll annoy people (because change = scary and bad) but it will encourage less crowded defensive zones because it will force a defence to commit more players to defending short kicks. Short kicks (and maintaining possession) will now be far more valuable since they are a more attacking option now. A short kick means that there is space to attack, or finding overlap runners from behind who have space to kick. In previous seasons defenses encouraged the opposition to take a short kick because it would slow the play down and left only two attacking options: a chip sideways, or a bomb down the line. The best football happens when teams link up with handball and run the ball through a defence. It's exciting and creates goals (and turnovers too). The current 'bomb down the line' game doesn't encourage that at all because it's too easy to block up space around the ball. This at least encourages space and movement around the ball, which should encourage riskier attacking play. It isn't the high scoring we're trying to encourage, it's the risk taking. Taking risks is what generates excitement, and this encourages more risk taking because they're more likely to come off.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/18/we-were-told-go-your-hardest-examining-racism-at-collingwood-heres-what-we-found This is written by the report's authors. It gives a bit more background into their report and the thrust of it.

I actually found it to be a pretty weak article. It was trying too hard to make it a big thing but it was just regurgitating the same thing different ways ..... there's less funding across the game so there are fewer resources. It spent the first half just saying all the changes were bad, without actually outlining the changes. Once we got to them, the changes were pretty hard to identify. It's an incredibly difficult article to follow, and really poorly written. Essentially, from what I can gather, the headings reflect are: - Limited preseason: Preseason doesn't run in Jan because there is a full time coach who now coaches women and men (?). This is even though many clubs didn't have a full time coach last year anyway. It's extremely poorly written, so it's pretty hard to follow. The main concern seemed to be that SA had a camp for their top juniors but Victoria hasn't had one yet. - Growing the female game: Exactly the same as the first heading but, inexplicably, under a new heading. - The rich get richer: APS/AGS students play more football, which means they are exposed more than those who don't because recruiters will watch those games in preference to other local games. - Losing the battle of the codes: Making an unlinked claim that a shorter preseason will mean that kids will choose cricket over footy. Makes a passing comment that about T20, which is clearly the reason since young athletes can now make a living in state cricket that was previously unavailable to them. - No margin for mistakes: Essentially that the season is shorter, but also slipped in that there's an under 19 championship which gets no explanation or further reference when it seems like a major part of the equation. - Limited club resources: Turns out there's a pandemic that has meant that sports revenues are down, so there are fewer resources. Some clubs have reduced recruiting expenses so will struggle to see as much footy as in previous years. Yep, and ....? - Where to next: Supposition based upon not much at all. I really wanted to know more about what's happening this year, but the article is sooooooooo bad that it made it almost impossible to follow. I suspect that this is likely because they really don't have much to write on except for a few anecdotes and a few recruiters moaning about their jobs being harder this year based on reduced resourcing. Plus there are already a range of arguments about making 16/17 years do 4 month long preseasons in year 11 and 12. I am none the wiser at the moment. I'm more just annoyed at the authors ..... who are ...... Tom Morris (ahhhh, ok) and Matt Balmer.

Yep. I find the most telling aspect of this is that there's no unifying reason why people decided they were booing Goodes. You would ask 5 people and get 5 different reasons: 'he pointed out the racists girl', 'he did a dance', 'he didn't deserve Australian of the year', 'he faked for free kicks', 'he's a dirty player (after he slid into a pack)', 'he's just an anchor' .... etc. It was around people being told an uncomfortable truth when he was Australian of the Year. Before that there was almost no talk about any football related misgivings but rather pretty widespread acknowledgment as a respected community leader. People will try to justify it to themselves, and indeed probably convince themselves of it. But the origins of the booing were pretty clearly related to his uncomfortable truths during his time as Australian of the Year.

How do you think their sales of sneakers in the US would go if the story was that they supported a racist football club in Australia? Especially after their advertising around Colin Kaepernick last year. Anti racism is part of Nike's brand. Collingwood sponsorship is chump change compared to the money they put into their brand.

He was excellent at turning around Collingwood and getting them to the top, but terrible when they were already at the top. The two roles need different skills and Eddie showed that he's a far better salesman than he is a manager, cc as shown by his time at Nine. Unfortunately he was the last one to realise it

Goals from number 1 ruckmen: English 8, McInerney 6, Goldstein 6, Naitanui 5, Darcy 5, Grundy 3, Sinclair 3, Lycett 2, Soldo 2, Gawn 1, Witts 0, O'Brien 0, Pittonet 0. Basically, no ruckman really kicks goals. The way they get goals is through mobility or when rucking int he forward line. The problem is that most ruckmen aren't quick enough to get to the position to do damage against a smaller opponent, so the only plays where they can get forward are in slow plays with the defence camped out in numbers inside 50. The odds of marking this kick are really, really, low. You're much better off camping Gawn outside 50 ready to intercept the defensive kick and give yourself another opportunity to score. The other problem with Gawn forward is that he offers zero defensive pressure inside 50, due to his size and mobility. This allows players to break a line and get the ball past our defensive zone. This may be different with Jackson, who is far more mobile. He has the ability to link up and out run his opponent into the forward line before the numbers get there. This is like what happens with English for the Dogs. Gawn may play forward for the occasional burst to mix things up but I'd be surprised if it's any more than that.

That's probably the worst of the lot. He's making out like he's also a victim of "this constant race debate". You're not a victim, you've just presided over a culture of systemic racism of which Lumumba was a prominent victim. I agree that Lumumba didn't stand up against the racism to be placated about "the constant race debate", he did it because the club culture was racist and he wanted concrete change to that culture. It's clear, based on this, that he was never going to be able to change the culture by working in house. He needed to create the race debate at the club, and the reason that this debate has been ongoing is because the club was too busy telling itself that it wasn't racist rather than addressing the problems like Lumumba wanted in the first place. If you throw your arms around an employee that does a knee or loses a close relative then you'll be appreciated. If you throw your arms around the person who has suffered directly from your behaviour then you'll be rightly told to f### off. Imagine being consoled by the person who just king hit you on the street ..... pretty galling and blatantly transparent. Eddie clearly doesn't understand the report or what the intent of it is. He's trying to save his reputation, but these are the desperate throes of a dying man. For this to work, he needs to get out of the way so that the club has the space to make real change.

The first line is to put media spin on a report about racism, which had as a key finding that the club too heavily focused on media spin when dealing with matters of racism. It's certainly not a great sign for their ability to deal with the issues presented in the report. Eddie doesn't get it.

I agree that it's a big change. Having an active person on the mark cuts down the angles you can kick on until it just ends up being sideways or long down the line. This should allow for teams to be able to chip pass their way up the ground more easily than they have been. There may well be less playing on from marks now, as a set mark against a set defence may not be as much of a dead end as it has been. This ease of chipping the ball may have one of two effects: 1- Teams pull their players back behind the ball more and defend inside 50 where they can compress the ground more, rather than relying on slowing the ball down and forcing a long kick down the line to defensive numbers. Or, 2- Teams actually push their defensive players further up towards the ball to defend the shorter kick, at the expense of camping numbers behind the ball for the long kick down the line. It provides more options for attacking teams, although it may be quite frustrating to watch the chipping game.

I'm sure it would have many similar strands, with some clubs worse than others. What I don't think you'd find is the amount that the racist culture is driven actively from the leadership. That's the really troubling bit. The Emperor-as-president nature of Collingwood, and the 25 year tenure of it, means that the culture hasn't renewed as society has evolved. I would imagine that most other clubs would have created more inclusive cultures since the Allan McAlister reckoning in the mid-90s. I'm more inclined to believe that Collingwood's culture of racism is worse than others, as the many incidents have alluded to anyway. We would have said that in the mid-90s too when Eddie took over and his unbroken tenure since means that it is far less likely to have changed than at other clubs. Lumumba had a really hard time of it when he stood up to this culture in a hostile environment. It's taken some time, but I'm glad he is finally being seen more broadly as being on the right side of history. I'm also happy to see that even the most stubborn and outdated club cultures look like they will be eventually dragged into contemporary society, and fewer people will have to experience what Lumumba did.

That review is ..... pretty damning. It suggests that racism isn't just a few poorly handled incidents but rather a club-wide culture of racism that has followed it from a very checkered history. It shows why Eddie is leaving, as it heavily insinuates that Collingwood will always have problems with racism whilst it has elements of leadership that have "an unhealthy degree of influence over club culture", and calls for the leadership, "particularly its board" needing to drive structural changes. It'll need some pretty hefty responses but at least having a 'rock bottom' report can be a way for the club to finally become a better reflection of society.

Wrecker, I think that (unlike P2J) you are very genuine in your beliefs about this and data in the US has shown that there are many people in your position too, especially on the Republican side. However, I think that many of the facts that you've been bringing up are incorrect, which is skewing things. For instance, the quoted statement is not true. There has been no evidence (even through the many legal cases) presented that scrutineers were not allowed in to check votes. The legal fight on the night was about how far they could stand from the votes. The 'blue shift' depended entirely on when mail in votes were counted. Some states (like Ohio) counted them first, leading to it appearing that the Democrats were winning, but as the in person voting occurred (which skewed Republican) it showed that the Republicans were going to carry the state comfortably. The opposite happened in states that counted votes the other way around (most states), such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia etc. That isn't an indication that there's fraud, it's just the way the elections normally work .... but COVID meant that many more people voted by mail that had previously. Like I said before, it's simply too hard to rig enough elections in the US to change the result. The voting systems of states are just too stupid and convoluted to make it work!! There are ways to rig the election (voter suppression, gerrymandering, electoral college) in the US because they have a terrible democratic system, but their presidential election is really difficult to rig in the ways the GOP are claiming.

@4_Kent_Watts I think this is the major takeaway from here. This site has a cross section of people from real life and overwhelming majority are, at their core, really well intentioned even if we make mistakes. There are a couple of posters who might make that difficult to imagine, but sometimes you need to ignore some of the loudest voices and realise that those voices only reflect a small minority.

No, it's not plausible to have different states coordinating with each other, as you stated, because they are separate elections. It's not like Australia's, where the AEC runs the whole federal election, but rather it's about individual states running their own elections, then sending their college delegates to a final election to vote in the president (which is called the electoral college). As a result, a legal fight to overturn multiple state elections requires separate legal wine in each state, likely on very different grounds. They're independent events. So if the likelihood of overturning a state result is 5% (likely very generous), then the likelihood off overturning two states is 5% x 5% = 0.25%. The likelihood of overturning the 4 different states the GOP needs is 0.05^4 = 0.00000625 = 0.000625% Two things are implausible: 1- Multiple states coordinating with each other on election night as they run entirely separate elections. 2- Overturning the results in multiple states, as is needed to change the presidential election result.

It's actually about 50 different democratic processes. A different one in each state. Any argument you have that has states coordinating with each other is flawed from the outset, as a result. That's why overturning the results in one state is plausible, but multiple states is not.

You don't see the contradiction? So Twomey 'had no idea who was going where', but you say that we were definitely into Holmes because Twomey 'seemed very strong' that we were interested? Also, this is what Twomey actually side in his phantom draft: "The Dees have been linked to Holmes for his running power and he would get a look under certain scenarios." That, according to you, 'seemed very strong'. We wanted him so desperately that he 'would get a look under certain scenarios'. Effectively you don't know. Nor do I. But I'm not claiming to either. And if you are, then you should provide at least half decent evidence. Especially since it's probably wrong. Given that several of the picks after ours were pacy forwards (like Holmes), whilst we prioritised high IQ players with elite skills (unlike Holmes) it's probably a more likely scenario that Geelong was trying to get in before they likes of GWS, Adelaide, St Kilda, Freo and Hawthorn, rather than ahead of us.

Luckily for them, given the case against them, it would only need to have been written by a 9 year old.

Given how little clubs have seen of players this year, giving players a preseason to judge them makes a lot of sense. Once you can answer the questions you have with them, you can just offer them a contract.

That's not in any way relevant to what I posted. The result of the 2016 election was not challenged by Clinton. The FBI instead investigated the Trump campaign's conduct during the campaign, especially in regards to Russian collusion. The result of the 2020 election is being challenged by Trump. Trump is struggling to overturn the result because he needs to fight each state individually because each state has its own election (which is run differently from other states). This makes it extremely difficult to rig and also means that the Supreme Court has no say because they are state issues, which Trump has struggled to comprehend. He tried to have it heard at the Supreme Court, however they took all of 34 minutes for them to deny a hearing (because it had nothing to do with them). Nobody doubts the results of the 2016 elections. In the same way, there is no credible doubt over the results of the 2020 elections.