Axis of Bob

See the violence inherent in the system!!

What if I were to say that having a faith in some kind of religion is the same thinking that led to a million people being killed during the partition of India? What if I said that believing in the seniors pension is the same sort of thinking that led to Stalin butchering millions of people? If you take things to the extreme then you will only alienate the person you are trying to educate. I have managed to link almost every person in the world to some sort of extreme nutter. See how easy it is? It's too easy and, since it's so far from how barry dawson sees himself, it is equally easy to dismiss the link as the work of some 'PC bleeding heart', rather than of someone who wants to help remove the confusion. Education is the way to help people move into the modern era, and it's impossible to educate someone if you immediately close their minds to education. This I disagree with. Racism, even at its most basic level, is repugnant. Nobody deserves to be discriminated against and pre-judged purely on the basis of their race, be it for genocide, a job interview, the rookie draft or being offered the last piece of cake at a birthday party. It isn't just socially unacceptable, it's the wrong thing to do.

I don't think that anybody outside the club would have the faintest clue about who should be captain. They are all just guessing based upon a combination of: a- Media conference performances, and b- Their favourite player. Anyone arguing passionately for a particular captain is delusional.

Yes, since your original post inferred that we shouldn't draft Manson on the basis that he is indigenous. There are many things that people say are racist, but aren't, but what you said genuinely is. There are many other reasons we shouldn't draft him: - He's a flight risk. - He will take a lot of welfare support from the club. - There is a risk that he will never adapt to AFL footy. - Poor endurance. - He doesn't fill a hole in our side. - Indifferent exposed form. - Being part of a particular racial group. That said, I think WJ went too far posting about ethnic cleansing. Many people, I've found, struggle to understand the difference between what is and isn't racist. In the end the just rebel against it, calling it 'political correctness' because they are confused. When barry_dawson, who is obviously confused about what is and isn't racist, starts being accused (albeit indirectly) of the same thinking as some of history's greatest monsters, then he understandably rebels against it. It may make people feel better when you smash them over the head with a big stick, but education is often a much better answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_fPc1mINyA Shaun Micallef is very funny, and intelligent..

Nasher, I feel it's too early to know who is going to go next year. But for different reasons to most. Because we are changing the way that we play and will be playing a very structured style, it depends very much on which players are capable of playing a specific role. This may mean that a player like Bartram is untouchable, yet a player like Blease becomes trade bait ..... or vice versa. Does Joel Mac go because he turns the ball over, or does he stay because he's got a big body and wins contests? Does Sylvia stay because he powerful and classy, or do we trade him because he doesn't work hard enough defensively? It'll be hard to have any idea until we start playing.

Williams (assuming he was the tall blond kid) looked very promising. Certainly a very good size and took one or two very strong marks. That said, it's hard to tell a whole lot from a training session! In the transition drills Blease was swapping with Davey as the small forward. Davey did some very good pressure acts in this, which was reminiscent of his early days.

So you've seen enough at state level to know he's not good enough, but at the same time not enough to know if he's worth a spot? That's nonsensical rubbish and you deserve to be called out for it. I like Warner. Is he good enough? I don't know, but the signs are good. What he does well is go on when he has the chance, which is a great trait for an opener. Guys like Sehwag, Gayle and McCullum are dangerous because they can change the game quickly. It makes the game easier for their batting partner because the bowlers are on the defensive. I'm more than willing to be patient with him, because he seems to be made of stern stuff too. While everyone is very excited about Pattinson and Cummins, I think that it's important to realise that these kids are going to be inconsistent. They'll have good days and bad days. They need a senior workhorse to help them out on the bad days and shoulder the workload. Siddle is perfect for that role. I also thought he bowled well without luck and would surely keep his spot for the moment.

I agree, in part, Nasher. Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish. That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day. I don't have a problem with his dismissal yesterday, though. That's his scoring zone, but he just didn't get over the ball enough. It's one of his great strengths, the cut shot, and his technique means that he can cut balls far closer to him than most batsmen. It's a style you often see at lower levels of cricket. It doesn't make it bad, but it presents a different set of challenges.

As a medium forward with good athleticism and poor endurance, how much better could he be than Jurrah? Because that's who he would be competing with for a spot.

mephis, if you are claiming that people want Jurrah not to succeed then you either misread the situation completely or are simply trying to agitate based on some mysterious agenda. Jurrah was all of the things that you mentioned at various times this year and his previous years (except 'slow', which you must have made up). All of those things relate to his weakness, which is his poor endurance. 'Lazy' - at times, especially defensively. 'No second effort' - often happened. 'Under-performing' - based on his huge talent he often did under-perform based on everyone's high expectations of him. High expectations are not given to players people don't think are any good. It was, and remains, a very strange post. Hence my continued/ing confusion.

What is the reward?

Is my sarcasm meter not turned on, or are you actually suggesting that people don't want him to succeed because he is aboriginal?

Michael Klinger. Couldn't get a spot at Victoria because he was behind: Elliott, Arnberger, Mott, Hodge, Moss, Harvey, etc. Of those, Arnberger was from NSW, Mott from QLD, Moss from NSW. We have also brought in Chris Rogers, Graeme Rummans, and I'm sure others whose names escape me at the moment. These have been designed purely to win games in the Sheffield Shield, not produce Australian players. Look, right now, at our Shield side (although we are giving more opportunities this year). Chris Rogers won't play for Australia again, yet we have brought him into the side from WA. Peter Handscombe can't get a gig despite churning out runs all year. Michael Hill made runs last year, yet can't get a gig. Brett Forsyth can't get a game. Keath has been struggling a bit, but if you're trying to churn out Australian players then you'd accept that. The other side is that participation in Victoria is declining. NSW grassroots cricket is very strong, but not so in Victoria. A strong Victorian side is all well and good, but kids don't say 'I want to be like Chris Rogers'.

mephis: People DON'T WANT Jurrah to succeed? Seriously? He's one of the most exciting talents in the AFL, he plays for our club, and you think that people don't want him to succeed??!?! His backstory is one of the most incredible in the AFL, he's one of the most fun players to watch going around, yet you think that people don't want him to succeed?!?!?!?!? We pinched him from under the nose of Collingwood, yet you still think that people don't want him to succeed?!?!?!?!? Wow! Please ..... why don't people want him to succeed?

Firstly, I think that we are in possibly the best position of AFL clubs to deal with the issues that Manson clearly faces. Secondly, I don't think we should it. Why? - We are not a big club and we should be focusing our limited resources on things that are going to give us the most benefit. Things like coaches, medical, player salaries etc. Not just money, but we should also focus our football department time at more important things than micro-managing 'Hail Mary' rookie picks. - We don't need him. A medium/tall forward that is unlikely to be able to play far from goal. There are only so many of them that you can play in a team (I'd say the number is between zero and one) and we already have a lot of medium forwards that would be more benefit to the team such as Jurrah, Howe, Petterd, Morton etc. Even if he turned out to be really good, could you play him, Jurrah and Howe in the same team along with Clark and Watts? Probably not, so he'd have to be better than those two (who are pretty damn good). Even if he is, it won't be by much, so why don't we focus on areas that are we need to improve? In short, he's a big risk based on the drain of financial and human resources - and the reward for him being good is virtually nil. Now I'm not the CEO of Lehman Brothers, but why bear any risk if there is no reward?

How can you have 'greater than' symbols for style of play? How can you quantify the unquantifiable? That is aside from the fact that you have somehow equated the style of the mercurial, sublimely skilled Johnson with the honest, scrappy, courageous Petterd, rather than the mercurial, sublimely skilled Jurrah. Very strange.

Stevie J was not the odd one out that I was thinking of. Certainly in terms of style.

You tell him, jcb!! If there's two things I can't stand, it's racists and the dutch!

"This interesting and rare surname, found widely recorded in Gloucestershire, is the Anglicized form of a Dutch name which may have arrived in England at two periods in English history. Firstly, it may have arrived in Gloucestershire when Edward 111 brought Flemish weavers over to teach their craft to the English, with many settling in the Cotswolds. More likely however, the name followed later from Holland due to the religious persecution of French Huguenots, by the Duke of Alba who suppressed the Protestant revolt in the Netherlands (1567 - 1572), and who fled to nearby countries." Read more: http://www.surnamedb...k#ixzz1ezf4QtWj And jcb, I'd let go of the Nasher bashing. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory. Nasher is clearly a racist. He obviously hates all anglicised dutch aboriginal Turks. What a shameless racist.

Zac Dawson Tom Lonergan Trent Croad Chris Tarrant What do they all have in common?

According to the tabloid Prendergast sees Sellar as initially playing in defence. Very interesting indeed.

You need to learn to read between the lines, jumbo.

I see him more as a player who doesn't know exactly what he should be doing. A bit of a lost player on the footy field, so he didn't naturally find the footy. At Glenelg he was thrown around a lot to help the team (as often happens with SANFL clubs). He has athleticism, he has ability, so he may well show a bit when he is given a very set role to perform. That may be as a contesting tall forward (with strict parameters) or as a purely defensive tall defender. He could well thrive being told that he is to run here when the ball is there and just bring the ball to ground. A simple game may be the making of him. ..... maybe. Smith's problem was different. He was a plodder. He was a big body, but when he played against other big bodied players he just didn't have the athletic power to do anything.

Big difference between Sellar and Smith - athleticism.

We could have stopped Cloke .... by putting Frawley on him. Just like Geelong can stop Buddy by putting Scarlett on him. But Scarlett rarely plays on a good player because of his damaging run. Same sometimes happens with Frawley, and did happen on that day.