Mazer Rackham

Tough game because North really believed they had it over us. (With good reason.) And belief goes a long way. Whereas we were in choke territory, where according to champion data, we are ranked #1. But another step taken on our long journey ... 18 15 to 13 8 shows how all over them we were. In the game day thread it seemed like NMFC were always 2 seconds away from a withering blast of goals to humiliate us for another year. But on the ground we were clearly better. After the initial onslaught, which surely we must have expected ... how else were NMFC going to win? ... we pegged them back and they never looked like getting in front again. Could so easily have been a 10 goal win. Some players were down but that's okay. Good teams can cope with that. If you need every player firing to win, you’re probably in the bottom 4. Gotta hand it to Goody. Doesn't act the goat in the coaches box, which leads some to believe he has no idea. But who wanted Wagner in for round 1? Wagner hasn't disgraced. Who wanted Bugg in? Hasn't won Brownlow votes, but hasn't blown it either. He has a way of chiming in when it's really needed. Kent? Frost? Bombing it long inside 50. Crazy stuff. Somehow the chaos it created led our smalls to boot the lion’s share of the goals. Maybe this Goodwin guy has a better handle on things than he lets on. Oh, and ... Go Demons!

Does that come in the 4 litre or the 5 litre cask?

If you get tired of the life you're living and need someone to take over, let me know

He means, some humans with asparagus don't get to bite it. But he loves banana fritters.

Don't forget we still owe Carlton for last year. Also Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn, .... well just pencil in the whole comp!

Mrs Bugg and Mrs Kent

No. It's impossible. In fact, I think he kicked the goal and I'm only dreaming it was overturned.

I've got the sound off, but I wonder if Ed is a little gun shy. Making very very sure he doesn't do something stupid, like compare Daw to a fictional primate movie character.

Brown is actually a good player. (A forward who can kick straight? Yes please.) so sometimes he will beat Oscar. We're bombing it in to create some chaos, which is working for us. Bugger, Jeffy, Pineapple Fritter.

North are going to throw the kitchen sink at us now. They know we're thinking about the hoodoo. If they get 4 up again we might not haul it back a second time. Critical to put them away. If it's down to the wire we're in trouble.

really dull game with both teams coming away disappointed would be ideal so far not too far off it entertaining for the lol factor pies up but anything to keep bucks in the job

Elephant stamp for improved effort. For them, that's really good.

If the AFL could manage to follow their own "interpretation" of this, it wouldn't be an issue. But who am I kidding ...

Inside Gil's head, right now: "Terrible idea! Americanisation of our game ... imagine having three games. Three games of 90,000 people at the G ... all buying pies and chips ... I mean the gate takings would be incredible, but ... terrible idea. The TV stations would love it of course. We'd have to charge them a lot more for TV rights. Hmmm ... but terrible idea. We'd sell lots of advertising too. Maybe get special "grand final series" sponsors in. At a premium rate. Hmmmm .... terrible idea .... hmmmmmmm ....."

In the match fixing thing, Warne and Waugh were careless and thick-witted and were 5 minutes from being sucked into Hansie Cronje territory. They deserved to go for stupidity if nothing else. Can reasonably be seen as a F$&@k up. In the diuretic thing, after Warne missed games with a shoulder injury, his mum didn't tell him to back off the baked beans and chips and maybe hit the jogging machine. No, she (renowned sports scientist that she is) advised him to take a "weight loss" tablet which "just happened" to be a masking agent for steroids, which just happen to be great for recovering from shoulder injuries. I don't buy that that was a F$&@k up.

Not sure I see where the "mess" is. It's supposedly not on any banned list and looks like it's being tested by actual scientist/medicos. It seems to fit more into the pain relief category than the performance boost category. If it's suss the AFL can ban it. Whateley's nose for this kind of news is way off anyway. He tried to wave away the EFC drug scandal, and don't try to talk to him about Damien Oliver. You'll hear a whooshing sound from how quickly he changes the subject.

A-aaaaaaaaaaaah A-aaaaaaaaaaaah You better beware, you better take care You better watch out if you've got long black hair He'll come from behind, you'll go out of your mind You'd better not go, you'd never know what you'll find A-aaaaaaaaaaaah A-aaaaaaaaaaaah You look in his eyes, don't be surprised If you don't know what's going on behind his disguise Nobody knows where Ben Brown goes He'll steal your woman out from under your nose Does anyone know the way? Did we hear someone say: "We just haven't got a clue what to do" Does anyone know the way? There's got to be a way To block Ben Brown!

Embrace it. Enjoy the spectacle wherein each round we will learn that Jack is an unappreciated star / an eternal dud. Make your own worm, AFL score style, of the oscillation between star/dud. Correlate it with Port's win/loss record. Thrill to the flow on effects about Hinkey's genius and Goodwin's flubbery. (And vice versa.) It's going to be a 23 week (+ finals?) ride, so make the decision to enjoy it.

So, to sum it all up ... Watts is a star, and a good ordinary player. He has the complete set of skills, and major deficiencies in his skill set. He is the best kick for goal in the league, and doesn't kick many goals. He will tear it up at Port, and he will fail at Port. He will humiliate the MFC, and he will vindicate the MFC.

Start of last season, the AFL put on their web site some videos illustrating how certain frees would be "interpreted". And guess what, one of them was the Selwood-style ducking. New interpretation: no free kick will be paid if the player ducked into or caused high contact. And guess what again, under the "good bloke", "champion of the game" interpretation, the rule has been forgotten and Selwood can again do it freely. The AFL has the memory of a goldfish. And their laws are a mess.

No. Coaches have no idea about what's best for the game. They know what's best for their team, and will lean on it and lean on it until the AFL gives way and makes it law. If coaches could have their Christmas wish lists fulfilled, there would be no bouncing of the ball while running with it, no marking, no handpassing (only throwing), the ball would be round, there would be 60 players on the ground at all times with mandatory interchange every 30 seconds. Malthouse is an ex-coach which makes him only half credible.

It's well known that "top" teams get better treatment from the umps. The umps, like any spectator, seem to know who is "supposed" to win and conform to the script. So if (eg) last year's grand finalists play last year's cellar dwellers, the cellar dwellers can expect the rough end of the pineapple in the important 50/50s. (They might get some cheap evener-uppers later.) Not the rule, of course, but it is the trend. This applies to individual players too. Champion players get away with more because they're better players so naturally less likely to infringe ... aren't they? The very best attain the legendary status of "good bloke" and can do no wrong at all. I mean a "good bloke" like Hodge wouldn't callously shove a bloke into a goal post, would he? A "good bloke" like Judd wouldn't eye gouge another player. A "good bloke" like Selwood wouldn't spend a career bending the rules to his advantage. A "good bloke" like Ablett wouldn't approach the umpires at quarter time and give them some friendly advice unless he really had their best interests at heart. (Imagine if Clarry tried that.) The umps have a really hard job, made harder by the conflicting direction they receive from above. Classic example: the protected zone. Hard policing of it this year. Red hot! Strictly by the book! For an entire round. By round two, forgotton. Because the chumps at AFL house have realised that the wording is too strict! What is the intent of the law? By the end of round 2, the player with the ball was again being crowded, or the man on the mark harassed, which are the very reasons why the rule was brought in. And these amateurs (literally) have to adjust to this change of direction. Add in deliberate out of bounds, ducking, sideways kicking for goal (moving off the line of the mark) ... they end up umpiring to a set of rules that exist only in someone's head. (This year it's Hocking's.)

That could mean that at least some rules are being adjudicated correctly some of the time. Which is indeed a dangerous precedent. I expect the AFL will clamp down on this nonsense immediately.

"Volume control"

Get a grip on yourself. There's plenty of hate to go around. No one needs to miss out.