Accepting Mediocrity

. .

Pretty much everyone follows the same formula predicting the final 8. Step 1: write down the 8 teams that played finals last year; Step 2: cross out the team that created the worst off season headlines (Collingwood); Step 3: insert flavour of the month from outside the 8 (Carlton/ Freo). If we'd finished 8th instead of 9th last year, most would be picking us to make finals.

To be fair, I think quite a few in the camp against this rule change (myself included) aren't necessarily anti-change per se. Your first sentence highlights my main concern - we haven't seen it, because it hasn't been tested, nor does it sound like they have consulted with coaches. The AFL's form on this isn't great - they have introduced a raft of rule changes in recent years, mostly under the guise of reducing congestion and increasing scoring, and I'd argue that not a single one has worked as intended. The thing with these rule tweaks is that they will almost certainly have unintended consequences, which history suggests are impossible to predict without the benefit of hindsight, and tend to have frustrating teething issues with over-zealous umpiring interpretations. This one might turn out to be successful, or it could be an unmitigated disaster; the point is that I'd rather see potentially significant tweaks such as this to be trialed in state leagues first.

Yes, that would be no different than the current rule ie; if the man on the mark takes a forward step before play on is called. It's fundamentally different to the current rule. Otherwise, why bother changing it? As it stands, you're within your rights to move laterally when standing the mark. It's important in several contexts - for example, if a player runs past for a handball receive, you don't just stand there dumbly waiting for the umpire to call play on - you can move sideways off the mark to put pressure on them. Or if a forward is kicking at goal from the boundary, as a defender standing the mark you can follow them when they run around so that they still have to kick it over the mark.

Add this to the long list of poorly thought out, untested rule changes the AFL have introduced on the back of the myth that high scoring = good football. If a player takes a mark, and takes a couple of lateral steps and is clearly about to play on, is the bloke standing the mark seriously just meant to stand there glued to the spot until the umpires call play on? They'll be paying an extra dozen 50m penalties a game. Although that will increase scoring, so I guess the AFL will pat themselves on the back.

I don't have an opinion on Mifsud one way or the other. Matt Rendell's quote was that, as a recruiting manager, he would be unlikely to recruit an indigenous player unless they had one white parent. Sure, his underlying point might have been that Indigenous players from remote communities face additional hurdles adjusting to the AFL, which is obviously valid. But what he said was racist in the most literal, unambiguous sense possible. The widespread outrage at the time was pretty well justified.

Good on Champion Data for trying, but Aussie Rules just isn't a sport that lends itself particularly well to meaningful statistical analysis. Most other sports have reliable KPI's - rebounds, batting averages, etc. What defines an elite AFL player is essentially how damaging they are with ball in hand - but it can't really be measured by disposals, disposal efficiency, clearances etc.

Viney has got to be the weirdest choice for forum whipping boy in the history of Demonland. Foot injuries are always concerning; we've had plenty and I can't remember a single one turning out to be minor.

We haven't had a good opening combination since Hayden and Langer retired. Katich and Warner were great but never played together, the rest of our openers have been a steady string of NQRs. I'd leave Warner in for the SA series (assuming it goes ahead), his record over there is actually pretty good besides sandpapergate. I like Harris but he's looking more and more like another NQR with each passing test. I'm all for giving batsmen an extended run, but 2 x 50's in 10 tests doesn't cut it. Bryce Street is one to watch, he's been making big runs opening the batting for QLD and he's only 22. I'd open with Warner and Pucovski for the SA tour and the Ashes, provided their form is OK. Zampa isn't a red ball cricketer, his first class bowling average is nudging 50 at 4 an over. Great limited overs player though. I'm hoping Pope develops into a test quality leggie, but he's pretty raw. At least he can turn it.

Ah, pre-season. At the same age, Cyril had been one of the best afield in a premiership team. Not to take anything away from Kozzie, but geez that's an unhelpful comparison. I never get the 'Cyril was overrated' crowd. If he's overrated, so is every other small forward to ever play the game. Sure it was infuriating listening to BT et al wet their pants with excitement every time he went near it, but he was genuinely one of my favourite all time non-demons to watch, and saved his absolute best for finals. Mark of a true champion.

We've been spoilt for batting depth for a long time Macca! Sadly the days of Lehman, Hussey, Katich et al toiling away in the Sheffield Shield seem to be over for now. It's been an issue for a fair while, but Smith and lately Labuschane have been good enough to paper over the cracks. I agree with you on Paine, I think he's exceeded most people's (fairly low it must be said) expectations as captain. It will be interesting to see if he captains the Ashes side next summer - it probably hinges on how the tour of South Africa goes you'd think. When he steps down (probably either just before or after the Ashes), I'd be giving the captaincy to Marnus. Sends the wrong message to give it back to Smith, and the idea of a fast bowler (Cummins) captaining doesn't sit well with me. There aren't any other alternatives really.

Also, take nothing away from India. We had a lot of passengers, but Pujara was an absolute wall against some brutally hostile bowling from Cummins. Pant also played the innings of his life (again). The kind of resilience in the face of adversity that you can only dream of as a dees supporter.

Pattinson is injured again, wasn't available for the Sydney test so I assume he wasn't fit for Brisbane either. In hindsight, we probably should have given Neser a debut on his home deck in place of Starc. Hindsight is easy of course, Starc was still topping 145kms deep into day 5 so you'd think his drop in form is mostly above the shoulders. Conditions haven't suited him, but he hasn't looked right all summer. I'm willing to put Labuschagne in the elite category now, he's played 18 tests in enough conditions to show that it's not a fluke. Things always seem bad after a home series loss, but I don't think our batting stocks are completely dire. Pucovski, Smith, Labuschagne and Green look like a good nucleus for the next 4 years plus. We're an opener short assuming Warner is nearly done. Renshaw has faded badly, but he looked ok in the few tests he's played and he's still only 24 - hopefully he's one that can step up. The #5 spot has question marks all over it. Head's been inconsistent, but he's only 27 and has time to improve. Otherwise I don't mind the look of Kurtis Patterson (although injured and out of form lately). Fraser-McGurk is a few years away but looks a real talent as well. Our lack of spin bowling depth is a problem that doesn't seem to get mentioned. Will be an issue next time we tour the subcontinent for sure. Swepson maybe? Assuming Green's bowling improves (which I think it will), that gives us the option of playing 2 spinners. I'd be trying to find our next test spinner before Lyon retires (which could be sooner than later given his recent form). Controversial opinion maybe, but I'd do the opposite for the SA tour. Green and Pucovski pick themselves in the top 6, but I think that's enough youth. I'd look at playing someone like Khawaja at 5. Not the answer long-term, but at the end of the day he's got a test average of 40+, and in the absence of any youngsters piling on runs in the Shield he's probably better than anyone else. I think it's counter productive to pick someone just because they're young, then shatter their confidence by dropping them when they inevitably don't make runs. I think Starc is a 'horses for courses' bowler, he's deadly if it's swinging but a liability on flat wickets. I'd replace him with Pattinson (if fit) or Neser, I don't buy the 'you need a left arm quick because footmarks for Lyon' argument.

Clutching at straws to blame Paine for that, he had a good test (and a pretty good series save for the horror show in Sydney). 320 should have been enough, we lost the series because Cummins and Hazlewood were the only two bowlers that showed up. Every time Starc or Lyon came on the pressure evaporated. Nothing wrong with Paine's fields so not sure how you can pin it on him. Full credit to India, one of the all time great backs to the wall performances. Pant is a star.

Lol, that's like arguing that the charges against DeGoey aren't serious because hey, who hasn't brought a girl home after a night out. Sexting isn't the issue - it's the lack of consent.

I hate Friday night games; watching us get obliterated ruins the whole weekend. Sunday twilight games are the go. At least we get to enjoy a couple of days of foolishly naïve, care-free optimism before we get belted.

Surely p2j is the same poster as jakovichscissorkick and whatever other pseudonyms he was posting under. If he is trolling, he's remarkably consistent, I'll give him that. I get strong boomer vibes.

IMO 'premiership window' is just another one of those meaningless buzzwords used by pseudo-intellectuals on footy talk shows. Was the bulldogs window open in 2016? Tigers in 2017? We've been saying for a decade that Geelong's demise is imminent, but we're yet to see it. Flags are won by damn good sides; it really is that simple. We're not (yet) in the 'damn good side' category, but only the most pessimistic dees supporter would say that we haven't got most of the required pieces. When things click, other sides have shown that it's possible to contend for flags very quickly.

It's not as though we've never played him up the ground. But Salem's produced his best footy (by far) at half back. I do think he should be encouraged to take more risks though.

It feels like Weideman has been around a long time, but it's worth remembering that only played 40 odd games. Only the Buddy Franklin's of this world are dominating matches at that point of their careers. Yeah, there's a bit of chicken and egg, because if Weidman's form had been better, he would have played more senior games. But most of the matches he's missed have been due to injury, and most of his extended periods of poor form have coincided with lack of fitness. Also, people need to temper their expectations of a top ten pick. The average #9 draft pick plays 94 games. Provided that he doesn't have any further major injuries, Weideman will exceed that when he's 26 and entering his prime. Scott Gumbleton, Mitch Thorpe, Luke Molan, Lucas Cook were busts. Sam Weideman is not. I don't think he'll ever be in the discussion for the best forward in the league, but he'll be an important player for us for the next 8-10 years.

There's no doubt twitter has a massive problem with censorship. You brought up Eric Coomer earlier in the thread, but it's the cases you don't hear about that are a far bigger problem. Take Charles Gomez (yep - the same Gomez that was arrested for assaulting a police officer in the Minneapolis riots earlier this year). He's a a far-left ex-democrat with strong socialist ties that sits on the Election Administration of Georgia (a supposedly impartial commission). Remember those 4000 'missing votes' (from Republican counties - the missing votes always are) that magically turned up Georgia the other day when Republican observers were finally granted access? There are screenshots of leaked emails going around that not only show Gomez buried them, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally thousands more votes out there (doubtless long since destroyed by now) that will never see the light of day. Twitter and Facebook have both censored all posts sharing the screenshots of the emails though. They've magically disappeared. Probably because they never existed and Charles Gomez is a fictional character I made up 2 minutes ago. You were probably suspicious reading this post Wrecker, because you know from my posting history that I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. If you'd read this on twitter, or was shared by a mate or whatever, you wouldn't have bothered to fact check, because it fits with your underlying political narrative. Same goes on the other side of the political spectrum, obviously. We live in a post-truth world, but fact-checking does not equate to censorship. Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. Carry on.

Pffft. Evidence is for schmucks.

Why bother bringing it up then? For reference, there were 4 confirmed cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election. Statistically, it's more likely that a US citizen gets struck by lightning than commits voter fraud. So yeah, I'd very much doubt it too.

Are you seriously still clinging the fraud line dude? It's like trying to argue we were robbed of the 2000 grand final because of questionable umpiring decision in the third quarter. In a country where over 150 million votes are counted, there are bound to be a couple of isolated cases of fraud, as there undoubtedly is every election. But there's zero evidence of fraud on any meaningful scale, other than a few nuffies parroting something they saw on twitter. That would be disinformation. Huge difference. But you're right that it's easy to find a media source to legitimise any dubious opinion.