Engorged Onion

How many [censored] lawyers are there in this place 🤷‍♂️😂

@binmanintuitively it makes sense that there is a response from people who invested every thing to become an afl player. You live your playing life in a bubble and no one else ‘quite gets it’ no one else understands the ‘rigours’ and what they had to put their body through. Because they were institutionalised by their peers, coaches, club stalwarts and the media, that glory comes through physicality and pain. and if you don’t quite get it, how can you understand the lived experience of what it takes, and the acceptance of brutality and that collisions are ‘part of the sport’ that made ‘me’ who I am? it’s an affront to the identity of those players who are less self reflective and less evolved that culturally we have shifted as a society.

Funny, I thought the same thing - Horn, whom I rate as a journalist, left me a little gobsmacked with that last bit.

Not sure if this has been posted earlier. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/sep/11/concussion-an-issue-afl-cant-afford-to-smother

I disagree whole heatedly 😁, its a method that has meant we have been in the top 4 for effectively 3 seasons... Disappointing when it doesn't come off.. sure... the method is not the problem, our inaccuracy on the night was.

No bombing.. but kick it long to Max because he is floating and his strength is marking? I'm confused. That looks good on the intercept... but when we are having repeat entries... as per every single game.. all of a sudden kicking to our strengths becomes an interpretation of long bombing...

Wonder if Collingwood supporters things Bucks has it in for them?

Accurate 🥲

What’s the alternate when our F50 has a massive density of players, precision kicking is not the answer, because there isn’t the space. Doing some quick maths 50m x 90m (wider and getting narrower) 4500m / 40 players is guarding 110msq each (that’s a 10m x 11m grid), there is stuff all space. It’s then turned over, and the risk is that the opposing side carves us up and has a cleaner shot. So Goodwin plays the percentages, boundary, sure tougher shots, but it either goes out and we reset or we kick a point and reset… and contribute to the density. We’ve moved on from Pagan’s Paddock due to calibre of the athletes.

Thats a) an overreach and b) no different from other sides throughout the entire season, where it plays out the same for North, for Hawthorn for Collingwood etc etc The context of clean ball is the most important thing, we have less of it due to the gameplan (and that doesn’t mean the gameplan is flawed). Anyway, if you (that’s a general you ,not you @McQueen or @The heart beats true) were coaching, and we had fairly consistent territory in our forward half and re-entry after re-entry - with 40 players in the F50 arc… in all seriousness, what is the best approach when there is such a density of players - that’s the ultimate question. The problem isn’t delivery anymore than any other side, nor is it our act of bombing it… more than any other side, that works fine when there are an equal amount of players, not the defending side having a +1 We play their percentages, and expect the re-entry outnumber will outweigh the amount of times a team can slingshot out of their D50- and thus they have cleaner entries. Our issue this year is that we have 2/3 injured key forwards, which no team can cover that, and then our capacity to have multiple re-entries, which is great, and exacerbates the issue of density of defenders… I for one do not know how to ‘stretch’ the opposing team… when we have such an amount of re-entries.

It is undeniably concerning to observe the apparent inconsistency in the discourse surrounding player safety within the AFL framework. It is imperative for key stakeholders, including influential figures such as Mr. Barrett, to maintain a consistent and unambiguous stance on matters of paramount importance such as player safety. The characterisation of certain acts as "footy acts" seems incongruent with the previously expressed concerns regarding head injury litigations. It begs the question: to what degree is the AFL genuinely committed to the welfare of its players? Regarding Mr. Maynard's actions, upon review, they appear to demonstrate a level of recklessness that is, at the very least, questionable in the context of a professional sporting environment. Such behavior potentially exposes both players and the league to unnecessary legal risk. If the underlying facts as presented are accurate, there is a compelling argument for Mr. Maynard to be subjected to the stipulated disciplinary measures. It is incumbent upon the league to ensure that its rules and regulations are enforced consistently, thereby upholding the integrity of the sport and safeguarding the welfare of its participants. Further - whilst quaffing beers in Cairns after a 6am flight from hell... If Angus is diagnosed with CTE following his tenure in the AFL, the implications for the league could be multifaceted: Legal Implications: Potential litigation against the AFL is on the horizon if there's a direct link between his condition and in-game injuries, presenting a significant financial risk. Financial Concerns: Beyond potential settlements, we could see rising insurance premiums. Moreover, valuable sponsorships might waver if brands opt to distance themselves from any controversy. Reputation: Such a diagnosis would undoubtedly dent the AFL's image, possibly diminishing fan loyalty and grassroots participation. Player Relations: Health concerns could resonate louder among players, leading to calls for enhanced safety measures. Possible Rule Changes: In response, the AFL might contemplate adjustments to game rules, emphasizing player safety, head gear permanent? Emphasis on Medical Research: It would be prudent for the league to bolster investments in pertinent health studies to comprehend and counteract the risks better. On a side note, one can't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes conversations currently underway within the AFL and its 'optics' department. Given the gravity of the situation, I suspect there's significant deliberation regarding their public stance and potential rulings this week. 7 weeks. On another side note, I'm very very much of the opinion I do not want my son to play AFL due to the ballistic nature of the sport and the longitudinal concerns that go with it. He however, can choose to make his own decisions on it.

I strongly think that is a reductionist view Macca. Dealing with it meant we had less rotations, a key player out for 4/5th of the game - and we still got within 7 points (and should have won if not for shonky kicking.

Brown, TMAC, Fritsch, Petty, Melksham - all forwards and all have been injured for significant parts of the year or currently incapacitated. Perhaps there is a link between the players you have on the ground (and their caliber) and your chances of winning... Matter of fact - if you Google AFL Injury Ladder and AFL Ladder - there is a remarkable resemblance.. year after year after year...

Carnage tonight. Expect T Mac to play like it is his last game and he has to go back to Edenhope tomorrow... 😍

Hows your stomach, bit tender??

Marvelous that. Working on that one earlier today, or had it in the arsenal for awhile?

I don't have much to add - but doing a sportsmans night in some backwater (don't worry I live here) - seems really bizarre... or is it classed as 'fan engagement'? "Watchya doing tonight darling" "I'm going down to the Dunes to enjoy some 'content'." 😆

I already have a visual of you, already, wincing and rubbing your stomach at opportune moments... then collecting an academy award. Do what you gotta do!

Vibes are like

It's never as black and white as that. He would have expressed his worries about what he could 'feel' as he knows his body best... if as detailed elsewhere, he pushed through as directed, and subsequently tore his hamstring, after being told he will be 'fine' - rightly or wrongly it would be hard to trust best available advice going forward... just to rinse and repeat rehab.

Amstel or Heineken?

Mrs EO, has worked for the state government for many years, whereby any given project will ultimately have a process of 'community consultation' - whereby the community is requested to provide input and feedback. This input is openly and empathically taken on board.... then the government just do what they were originally going to do anyway 😆 Perhaps this is the philosophy. Pros of Player Empowerment: Ownership & Responsibility: Giving players a say might make them feel a deeper sense of responsibility for their performance and the team's results. If they are part of the decision-making process, they may feel more accountable and invested. Boost in Morale & Confidence: Recognising that they have a voice can uplift the players' spirits, leading to a boost in confidence. This could potentially translate into better on-field performance. Enhanced Team Dynamics: Players, through daily training, may have insights into who's in form, who’s synergising well, etc. Their input could lead to better team dynamics on the field. Potential Risks: Bias & Favoritism: Emotions and personal relationships could come into play, leading to selections based on popularity or friendships rather than form or strategic needs. Pressure & Stress: The added responsibility might not sit well with every player. Some might feel added pressure knowing they had a say in team selection, especially if the results don't go as planned. Undermining Coaching Staff: This could blur the lines between coaching staff and players. If players frequently go against a coach’s wishes, it could erode the authority and respect that the coach holds. Overthinking & Analysis : Players might get bogged down in overthinking their choices, which could detract from their primary focus – playing the game. For me, player empowerment is a noble idea and could provide various benefits, it's not without its potential pitfalls. Balancing the two – perhaps through a hybrid model where players provide input but final decisions rest with the coaching staff – might be a more practical approach... a la what I said above.

It's superb logic The AFL sanctioned media and the ex players bang on about how ruthless the sport is, how lucky you need to be , and that it's incredibly tough to win a flag. And then you're 'lucky' if you win just the one... The media's propensity to deliver two contrasting narratives about the same subject, as we see in the AFL, is not an arbitrary act but a clever tactic rooted in our evolutionary biology and psychological inclinations. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are wired to respond to stimuli that provoke strong emotions, be it fear, joy, anger, or surprise. Such emotions historically helped our ancestors navigate threats and opportunities in their environment, ensuring their survival. In the modern context, media capitalizes on this by presenting polarized views, aiming to evoke the strongest reactions and ensuring higher engagement with their content. This is also supported by schema therapy, which suggests that individuals develop schemas or cognitive structures based on their past experiences. When the media makes a hyperbolic statement that challenges an individual's deeply held schema about their club or any other beloved subject, the individual is naturally inclined to react. If the media claims that the sport is ruthlessly challenging, yet simultaneously undermines the effort it takes to win a premiership by suggesting it's just "luck", it taps into fans' emotions, compelling them to engage, discuss, and ultimately, stay invested in the AFL 'product'. You are the product, you pay their wages.

Most relevant form line I have ever seen to suit my emotional agenda. 🙌