titan_uranus

Or allow people to argue whatever he said wasn't actually racist, or "wasn't that bad", or something like that. Putting the slur into the media puts it in front of kids' eyes. We're trying to eradicate this language, not perpetuate it. There is literally nothing to be gained from publicising it.

They're not as blatantly wrong as Twitter is making them out to be. The first one in that video is clearly at least an arguable dangerous tackle. Redman pins an arm and drives him downwards. It's line ball to me, could have gone either way. Similarly the second one is a bit 50/50 on whether he had prior opportunity: if he didn't, it's a free for holding, which is what was paid. Personally I reckon he had prior opportunity.

Yes and no. Yes, in terms of being able to beat teams like the Dogs. No, in terms of it not being as big of a weakness for us as it is for them, if it doesn't work. They've invested so much of their list into their midfield. It results in crazy depth in that part of the ground but weaknesses at either end. I'd prefer us to be better at centre clearances than we currently are, but we know we can play top 4 quality football without it. I don't think the Dogs can.

As I asked above, what do you want to discuss?

What are you arguing here? We should know what Walker said so that we can debate it? What do you want to debate about it? I suspect you want to see what he said so that you can consider whether you think it was "bad" or not. There is no doubt that what he said was racist. He has accepted that it was. Once it's racist, nothing else matters.

2014. 8 straight H&A games away from Melbourne - two have been our home games sold to the NT, the other six have been away games. Since 2010 there have only been two years in which we haven't played West Coast in Perth - 2013 and 2015. That's 9 times in 11 seasons we've been sent to Perth to play the Eagles. In the same time period, we've played them in Melbourne three times, and one of those was at Marvel (2011). Two MCG games against them since 2010.

I've never suggested otherwise. I'm focusing only on over 60s, for whom the advice has consistently been to take AZ, or over 40s, who have been able to access Pfizer since May - there's no advice issue for those groups. And I'm only focusing on those who have made a deliberate decision not to get the vaccine. There is clearly a supply/access issue and as I said, that's completely separate. I don't believe so. I'm under 40 and I received AZ after discussing it with my GP, who provided me with advice on the risks and benefits.

It's incredulous that Selwood gets just a fine for that. We know fines don't deter Selwood. He's had three this year alone. It's a disgrace. He's a disgrace.

Yep. Bear in mind, also, that West Coast has only beaten a top 8 side once all year - Port Adelaide in Round 3. They're 1-5 against the top 8, with us and Brisbane to play.

This is simultaneously a sarcastic comment noting the Dogs' and Geelong's losses, and truthful. Don't forget Port is near certain to finish top 4 despite having a 2-5 record against the top 8.

I literally said "Of course, if you have not been able to access Pfizer, that is a different story." If you have chosen not to be vaccinated, you are part of the problem. What is the basis for someone over 60 having "some sort of issue causing them concern getting the AZ"? I submit there isn't one.

Not sure about percentage but they are 7-3 at home and 3-6 away from Perth. But they're 1-2 in their last three home games, including a loss to North and a 10-goal loss to the Dogs. And the win before that was a 5-point win against Richmond.

Sure, on the metric of wins against good sides, we continue to be the front-runner. But we'll have to agree to disagree on Geelong's flag threat rating, They're as big a threat to us as the Dogs are, IMO.

For the same reason that it was silly to assume that Geelong/Sydney would win every game from here, it's also silly to write off a side like Geelong because they lost this week. Geelong's lost two games since the start of May. They're absolutely still a massive threat. We're obviously right in the thick of the contest, the more so if we win tomorrow and can use the last two weeks for top 4 positioning without the risk of falling out.

Fremantle getting blown apart by Brisbane. If they lose, it guarantees that a side will make the 8 with 11 wins (or worse). Might finally be time to end any of this never-ending debate about expanding finals to 10 sides. Do we really need more 11-11 or 10-12 sides playing finals?

Not as much as winning clearances (taking away the Dogs' biggest strength) and getting it inside 50 quickly, putting pressure on their backline. If Peter Wright can kick 7 goals against their backline, TMac/Brown can as well. Do you see us going 3-0 from here? If not, it likely makes no difference to us.

The game today showed a few things. The first is that the Dogs are eminently beatable if they're not dominating the middle. Essendon won clearances 47-31 despite the Dogs fielding Bontempelli, Liberatore, Macrae, Treloar, Hunter, Smith and Dunkley. They kicked I think 5 goals from centre clearances. If the Dogs aren't on top in the middle the rest of their side isn't amazing. The second is that accurate goalkicking is so important. The Dogs had 2 more scoring shots and 21 more inside 50s (60-39) but lost. Essendon's unlikely to go 15.7 every week, kicking set shots from the pockets and 60m out, but they've done it in a game they needed to win. Essendon has GC and Collingwood to come. If they win both they finish 11-11. With their percentage, that means they're close to certain to finish in front of West Coast, Fremantle or St Kilda if they also finish 11-11. Get ready for the Essendon hype train to kick into full gear.

We haven't done anything yet. First we have to win tomorrow. That puts us on top. Then we have to outdo Geelong and the Bulldogs by a game, because we'll only be half a game in front. So, if we beat West Coast tomorrow, and then Adelaide, but lose to Geelong, both Geelong and the Dogs will pass us unless they lose another game (which requires Geelong to lose to St Kilda, or the Dogs to lose to Hawthorn or Port).

It's not black/white. If you are over 60 and you have chosen not to be vaccinated despite all the AZ available, you are part of the problem. If you are over 40 and you have chosen not to be vaccinated despite Pfizer being made available to you nearly three months ago, you are part of the problem. Of course, if you have not been able to access Pfizer, that is a different story. And on the issue of "emergency approval", there is no such thing. See here: https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-were-covid-19-vaccines-rushed-through-approvals-or-given-emergency-use-authorisations-in-australia And on the issue of the safety of the vaccines, there is no real issue. See here: https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-do-we-know-vaccines-won-t-have-long-term-safety-risks-20210803-p58fc7.html Key point on safety is this: if there was a problem, it is highly likely we would know about it by now.

This isn't as good a result for us as people think. If we go 2-1 from here and the Dogs go 2-0, the Dogs will finish above us - even with this loss, we still have to win all three games, and/or the Dogs have to lose to Hawthorn or Port (in Melbourne), for us to finish above them. It's certainly possible (Port's in form, for example), but it's still not that likely. But Essendon's win puts them in pole position to finish in the top 8, particularly if we beat West Coast tomorrow (Essendon has the percentage buffer over all their competitors).

Odd that J Smith was an emergency until yesterday and now Hibberd's replaced him. Injury to Smith? More concern that Salem will be a late out and Hibberd is.a closer replacement? I'm OK with Melksham getting Viney's spot, but he sure as [censored] will want to play well. If he lifts to 2018 levels he could really improve our forward half efficiency. If he plays at 2019-21 Melksham levels, we're screwed. It's not that bad recently, actually. We've lost the last three, one of which was the disastrous prelim. But the other two were a Friday night in 2019 where we led at three quarter time (and should have led by more, but Garlett ran into an open goal and missed), and Round 1 last year, where we got jumped early but then matched them with 7.5 each after quarter time (and that was a weird game as it was played after the announcement of the season suspension). Prior to the prelim we won back-to-back games in Perth, and the one before that in 2016 was a six point loss, again where we led a three quarter time. And in the middle of all that, we also played a reasonable game against them at Alice Springs in 2019 - again, a game in which we led at three quarter time.

The Sydney win is enormous for us. We only need to win one more game for the season to ensure we finish top 4. I'd dearly love for it to be tomorrow, so that we don't have to take that pressure into next week vs Adelaide, a game with "danger" written all over it (albeit I reckon Adelaide spent their last emotional tickets on the Showdown last night). Not sure I can barrack for Essendon today. For one, a loss pretty much rules them out of finals, but a win puts them in pole position. For another, a loss to the Dogs opens the door to Port finishing top 2, which could mean our first final is on the road.

Actually in my mind I was thinking about the Bulldogs game, not sure why I referenced the Hawthorn game (two consecutive MCG games in front of no crowd, they all blend together I guess). And yes, against the Bulldogs I thought the wet football made us even more fumbly than we are otherwise at times prone to be.

Still some doubt over TMac: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demon-mcdonald-in-race-to-be-fit-for-monday-night-clash-20210806-p58ghb.html

It was wet vs North Melbourne too, another home game they lost. But it did hurt vs Hawthorn just three weeks ago.