Skuit

I'm beginning to suspect that the current doob disarray and public disgruntlement is being 'deliberately' left to run as a softening process for the introduction of a last touch amendment. Classic governmental maneuvering - demonstrate (or leak) how bad it can be with a heavy left or right shift and the polity will just about accept any degree of compromise in accordance with your actual original objectives.

The Eagles provide some level of support to the national amateur expat team in Cambodia (I think as an equipment sponsor and providing jumpers) and their players have gone over to help out with some volunteer projects in the past. More of a community outreach thing I think than through some misguided expectation they'll ever see a return.

Mercedes? Western suburbs? Odd.

Where does FA compo fall if you've traded out your future natural pick or swapped them within a round? Say, if Hawthorn were to hypothetically lose a Band 1 free agent this year?

Yes, this is all very reasonable, and I obviously argued an extreme position to highlight potential reasons the default deferral to the coaching panel shouldn't be accepted as absolute. The sizeable variation in coaches' votes for our match last w/e itself provides another case-in-point. The coaches and fans share the same ultimate motivation, but coaches have additional short-term motivations, such as player relations, contending with the media, and holding onto their jobs. Last year the footy department persisted with Frost in the forward-line, motivated by the hope he would improve there and fulfill one of their needs, while most punters could see quite early on that the experiment wouldn't prove successful and that he was be far better suited down back.

I would, but I'm afraid that Clarry would know my precise whereabouts and my girlfriend will find out.

Not at all. I read it again just now and it came off as very harsh indeed. And apparently I'm writer by trade. It's time I learned how to use that cheeky Demon emoticon.

My sincere apologies Dappa Dan. I certainly didn't intend to offend. I was playfully referring to the chaos it caused when you referred to Oscar MacDonald as 'Ozzie' in a previous thread. Ironic, as part of that mock-rant spoke of effective communication and I'm afraid I failed miserably in having my tone understood. I don't think you're a troll and I'm sorry again to have upset you.

Do you mean they had the name 'Ollie' next to the name 'Wines' on the bench, as in the footballer named Ollie Wines sitting by himself? Or that Clayton Oliver, universally known by the nick-name 'Clarry', was on the bench next to Wines? I'll assume that you're trolling again, or else misunderstand a basic fundamental in the development of language; namely that the words we use have to be consistent in meaning and understood by both parties for there to be such a thing as communication. Anyways, yay for Choo-Choo!

This creeping default position in arguments here is becoming annoying, especially with the inconsistency it's applied. It's time for a little push-back. There have been many many people who have made a living out of football in the past, who have been sacked, because they evidently got it wrong. There are many many people who hold jobs that are not my profession who I am certain I and half the people here could still do better than. There are many many very intelligent people with strong analytical attributes who have been attending football for many many years. These people often don't get the opportunity to be involved at the highest level of football for existing outside of the circle. AFL coaches are people, with prejudices and blind-spots, and while they have inner-access to information we are not privy to, they are also operating in a highly insular environment and with the usual work-place hierarchies. They are also more highly scrutinised, and this can also have an impact on decision-making. The collective wisdom of the posters here has been proven to have been correct many many times in the past. IN: Wagner OUT: Melksham

There is no malicious intent from the media or the AFL or the umpires regarding the MFC. Perhaps god, but that's it. I wish we had reason to take a trench-mentality approach, but we don't. Everyone wants us to succeed for the good of the game. The reason nobody cared about our 8-goal 3rd qtr., is because the match was horrible, the goals didn't translate to a thumping, and, frankly, Essendon was spent and even with 8 goals the quarter wasn't all that exciting. We are 3-3: the radar is exactly where you would imagine it to be.

Three sets of opposing brothers for Melbourne v Collingwood and we can change the Queen's Bday to the William-Harry Cup.

Oliver scores a likely 3 Brownlow votes and people say he handballs too often - fine TMac is rock-solid in defence and people say he needs to improve his kicking - not fine Hogan boots 4 goals and people say he needs to lead-up more often - fine Watts gets in the bests and people say he needs to be stronger in the contests - not fine Conclusion: often people critique the critiquing rather than the critique.

Many have commented this week on Pedersen's humility in the press, but I've been wondering if it's been part of his career-problem. There's a certain lack of competitive confidence (off-field), like he has been told at various stages in the past that he's a dud and he's believed it. Contrast with the self-belief of a Chris Dawes, and you can see why perhaps he hasn't been selected ahead of other players when possibly deserving. Gawn came out and said he was going to be the best ruckman in the league. Cameron said that he basically expects each game could be his last (among similar comments). I personally wanted to give him a rev-up.

Yet Joe took 13 marks and had 9 shots on goal. Clearly a very clever tactic to unsettle your opponent, and we should consider recruiting a fleet of mature-aged nannas for our forward set-up next year. If only Jesse had wiped some smudge from Rowe's cheek and given him an awkward, hairy kiss on the lips then we could well be atop of the ladder.

Maybe Nat has already changed his training regime with a transition in mind and an active focus on improving his kicking during the off-season? I also feel like Judd was taking a back-handed dig somehow but I can't quite pin-point it.

And yet for all their supposed peripheral vision, the Hawks certainly didn't see 1-5 coming.

Saty was referring to 'pressure acts', buried behind the paywall in the Hun's match-report. The combined number for JKH and ANB sounded high (24), but I have absolutely no idea how they are recorded, relative numbers, or how many JKH contributed to this total. Although Champion Data tweeted this recently: Most Pressure Acts in a single game: 49 - K.Jack, 46 - T.Liberatore, 45 - J.Redden, 44 - T.Liberatore

Now off to the 'post-match-discussion thread' to discuss the result . . .

It seems that you can't even critique that you can't critique anymore. I largely agree with you, and said he was in the bests. But Jack still has the capability to be a better player, and the level of criticism he has been subjected to in the past shouldn't have any bearing on current critiques.

But then they become unaffordable anyway and after you've invested in their development (though I suppose you get greater trade returns). Anyway, I wonder if this same mentality led us to Weid contrary to what Roos had previously said about not drafting key bigs early.

I think everyone was waiting for that sport to start where you kick the ball to your teammates.

The needle has swung so far in the other direction that you can't even critique elements of Jack's game anymore without a rapid backlash. I was similarly disappointed a week or so ago by some of his efforts when he was in everyone's bests. And if he didn't get that dodgy free in front on the w/e, I would have been rather upset at his effort in that marking contest as well.

And Sam Mitchell is slow.

I think Liam may be in with a decent claim for that title.