BoBo

Look at his speed!!!!!! He’s a ruckman!!!!

Nice to have a ruckman/mid-fielding defensive player… it’s like having an extra player on the ground. Amazing player

Our forward entries are crap so far and the suns just want it more. Rowell and Miller are dominating

Suns kicking efficiency is up from last week already

Any chance you have a time stamp for Kayo? I want to see it

Buddy looked to have some… VERY… choice words for the umpire after that push in the back that he thought was against him… No 50. The new interpretation is supposed to address players talking back or questioning umpires, I reckon I’ve seen a lot of that in small doses in round 1 already. Sooo, what’s the point if it isn’t enforced all the time? Instead of allowing some players to talk back but not others depending on the umpire, creating a blurred line, the AFL might as well just make a rule that you don’t talk to the umpire during the game. At least then you aren’t leaving it up to interpretation.

A win is a win but I can see a few areas of the blues game that could be exposed pretty easily by an in form team. Richmond looked completely cooked last week. They’ve lost their greatest asset (like last year) which is pressure. It’s an exhausting way to play footy and they did it for 3 years, but they have ageing players and their core looks like it’s on a downward trajectory. The dogs have completely lost their intensity in all parts of the ground. They’re second guessing their decisions which is a confidence thing. Carlton out played them in their own game of demanding the ball more in the middle. Cripps is a super star. They’ve beaten two teams that are devoid of playing dangerous footy at the moment. The blues backline is punching well above their weight. The dogs entries weren’t great and they only had Norton as a target. The doggies also missed about 4 very get table shots. Both Richmond and the dogs forward lines and forward line entries looked very predictable. Carltons forward line conversely, was getting a lot of benefit from their mids out of centre bounces as they moved quickly and made the most of the 666 rule. If Carltons mid field is able to dominate, the Blues will win a lot of games. If teams are able to physically dominate the players around Cripps and make them earn every clearance, Carlton will struggle. I don’t see Carltons forwards applying enough pressure to keep the ball in their fifty and I am not seeing Carltons backline able to stabilise in the face of a team peppering their defensive fifty. Nullify their mid field and there aren’t other areas of their team that I’ve seen that will be able to compensate.

Psst…. Might want to edit the Ch^nk part

Give them all the hype they want and let us coast through with no attention. That works for us in my opinion.

Cripps for the Brownlow would be a good bet right now I reckon. He’s moving better than I’ve seen for quite a few years.

Man I would love to see the feed of that video link

Left field question: I jokingly asked a friend if the blues would have Voss on the phone during the game, but now I’m wondering… would that be allowed? Do you have to physically be at the game to be involved in the coaching??

Ooooooft, that would be humiliating.

Hahaha, you got me there, I saw that photo and was like ‘geez, Neeld has aged about 25 years’

Let’s be honest here, we should win by 50+ points. We were pretty clinical if not rusty against the dogs. We still put them away easier than the score line suggests. I was there and for the first time in my life, I wasn’t worried that we were going to lose at any time during the match. Bloody amazing feeling! The way the suns played last week was littered with errors against a WC team that had what, 16 players out? The Bulldogs are a waaaayyyyyy better side than Gold Coast. When I say we ‘should’ win, I’m more confident against better teams than I am against teams we might not respect. We lost to Collingwood and Adelaide last year because both teams went in harder and had more intensity than we did. We played like we just assumed it would happen. All teams will have a laser focus on how we do things this season. Hopefully we realise that every game is a tough game this year and that every team is going to come out HARD against us. We are the hunted now, we have to be ruthless and put these easier wins in the bank early as, the longer this season goes, opposition teams will have a chance to see what works against us from every opposition and they’ll adapt it into their own plans. Obviously I’ll take any win, but to be honest, I’ll be annoyed if we don’t slam this team as we bloody well should.

Is it just me or have Gold Coast not improved their skills or decision making abilities under Dew? Every game I watch of theirs (which to be fair isn’t regular), they seem to miss easy kicks and/or handball to players under pressure A LOT.

Agree a million percent. His off the ball work is immense. He constantly creates space in the forward line with bumps on defenders which gives our forwards an extra second of time. And you can tell that when a defender gets the ball… they’re looking for where Kozzie/Spargo is.

Yep 100%. Their best is definitely top 4 worthy.

Definitely. We didn’t win by much from memory. They play like a seasoned team in the attitude they have in that, they don’t seem to drop their heads and they just keep coming at you regardless of the score. Which is pretty impressive considering how young they are.

I like how Sydney plays a lot. They’re hard and have skilful youngsters. If they can keep their top players on the park this year, they could go deep into finals.

All good. No stress.

I cannot make my position any clearer to you. And at this point I can only assume you’re deliberately missing my point? The content of the conversations, is much, much, much, much worse in the cop situation. Obviously. I’m not comparing the severity of what they spoke about. *I’m criticising you, for saying that Tom Morris isn’t responsible for outing his co-worker, because he was having a private conversation* You’re using the action of a private conversation as a defence of Morris. Just like some people used the action of the UK met police, having a private conversation, as a defence. This is what the comparison is. Using the actions, which are the same, as a defence. You can’t defend Morris’ action, without defending the UK cops action. They’re exactly the same. You have said, that Tom Morris, isn’t responsible for outing a co-worker because, he was having a private conversation. Even though I’ve pointed out that he’s a journalist that would have extensive training in all forms of media. His job, is to find the very kinds of audio files, like the one he himself made and shared, (yes privately, which doesn’t matter if you’re a public identity), report it and write it up like has been done to him. The irony of a journalist losing their job by being exposed by the very thing a journalist in his field would be looking for, cannot be lost on you. I’m highlighting, that the actions, of having a private conversation about their job, in which the content is professionally damaging to himself and personally damaging to his co-worker that he outed (again, not comparable in what they were saying, but evidently both professionally damaging) doesn’t excuse a cop, or a journalist, from responsibility when, the predictable outcomes of their actions, come to fruition. What is incorrect about this? Please don’t say that I’m comparing what Tom Morris said and what the cops said. I’ve already dealt with this twice. I’m going hard on this because the outcome of Morris’ behaviour as a high profile journalist, has meant the outing of a persons sexuality for an entire nation to see. The mental health repercussions of this, could be devastating for a person. It’s not a joke and it’s not just mates having a chat. Morris is not the victim here. His co-worker is.

Would be a great own if I hadn’t already pointed out the difference in situations is the content of what they’re talking about. Unfortunately, as I highlighted, the actions are the same. Both, ‘private’ conversations that the culpable parties involved didn’t intend to be shared. So, they’re not responsible yeah? As the cops didn’t intend for the messages to be shared, as it was a private conversation? There was problematic content (again, on very different, incomparable levels) in both cases, but if you’re defending a journalists right to be shielded from responsibility from predictable outcomes because it’s a private conversation, then logically you would defend the two cops right to have a private conversation that they didn’t intend to be shared too. Unless, ya know, private conversations aren’t a good reason to commit professional malfeasance? But, I get it. It’s not nice for someone to point out the ugly logical extension of what you’re defending. All good.

Nah see this is absolute crap. He’s a journalist, that made a shareable piece of audio media that can be shared and now *HAS* been shared and uploaded to the internet (which millions of people can go and listen to it, FOREVER), completely off the back of his own actions. It doesn’t matter if he personally hasn’t made it public himself, he’s a public figure and a high profile journalist. It’s HIS actions that has made what could be a completely humiliating experience for his co-worker. He chose to create and send that codified audio media, his expectations that other people wouldn’t share it, goes to show how much he doesn’t care about sensitive information he’s sharing about people that are his co-workers. If you defend this, then you have to go onto defend the UK met police that shared ‘private’ messages of murder victims. They were also having private conversations that weren’t supposed to be made public. It’s the exact same situation, only the content is more intense. In fact, his actions are arguably worse (not in content, in actions) as he is a professional journalist that would be completely aware of the repercussions of creating audio media that can be shared/uploaded, and yet, he did it anyway.

Yeah there’s a couple of UK Met police that shared some photos in the exact same circumstances… I doubt people would argue the ‘privacy’ or workplace angle considering the photos were of deceased victims even though the circumstances are identical.