mauriesy

Frawley has denied he's asking for $800,000 despite 'newsbreakers' like Barrett falsely peddling the amount as recently as this morning's Sunday Footy Show. I'd say this was pretty adamant: "Frawley ... strongly dismissed reports he is demanding $800,000 a year in his next contract ... "the media pumped it up that I'd put $800,000 on my head. I don't know where they pulled that from. It's just not true," he said. I'm not asking for $800,000: Frawley

6 Dawes 5 Tyson 4 Viney 3 JKH 2 Vince 1 Jetta

This victimisation stuff is a load of c@rp.

Over in the derby, Aaron Sandilands had the same number of possessions (21) as Dean Cox (12) and NicNat (9) combined. He had 50% more hitouts (38) than Cox and NicNat combined (13 each). That means Fremantle have a 'bonus' player somewhere else on the field. Doubt the Eagles can keep playing NicNat in his current form.

In Melbourne's last five matches the scoring has been as follows: For v GWS 7.5 v Carlton 12.9 v Gold Coast 11.12 v Sydney 5.8 v Adelaide 11.4 Total 46.38 Against GWS 10.19 Carlton 7.16 Gold Coast 11.20 Sydney 9.15 Adelaide 9.13 Total 46.83 The thing that really shows out is the opposition's scoring against us ... same number of goals but 45 more behinds ... nearly twice as many behinds as goals generally. What would be your explanation for this? 1. We've just been fortunate that the opposition have kicked badly 2. Our greater pressure in the back half leads to the opposition 'choking' on set shots 3. Getting numbers back makes the opposition try a lot of shots under pressure or wider out near the boundary. 4. We're making the most of our inside 50 opportunities. 5. The defensive side to our game has improved completely around the ground. 6. All of the above.

That equates to about $15,000 per tackle.

In an ideal world 'equalisation' would mean every club getting the same number of Saturday night games, blockbusters, interstate games, Sunday twilight games, FTA TV coverage etc. etc. However, as long as the AFL follows the 'grow the pie' model of revenue maximisation, they are going to schedule and fix all these games to develop 1. the most attendances, and 2. the biggest TV audiences in order to grow income from TV rights. For clubs like Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc. they therefore need to 'equalise' incomes to compensate for predominantly being given worse times and less TV exposure. Two games where the attendance is, say, 55,000 and 30,000, is not as much overall revenue as one game of 90,000 and one of 20,000. It may not be ideal, but under AFL 'growth' strategies' it is reality and it won't change. I don't see McLachlan changing that approach much, so we have to make sure we get our fair share of the (expanded) pie What clubs like Melbourne do with their money is then up to them. They can, and have, made mistakes. But they need to make mistakes on an equal footing, not from the position of already being disadvantaged. If in the future we pull our fingers out and get towards the top end of the ladder with good footy, of course things will change. I'd personally then be happy for the revenue Melbourne helped generate to go to other cellar-dwelling clubs.

As long as the AFL is fully committed to equalisation, I doubt there'll be much change to policy as it affects Melbourne. McLachlan's greatest immediate challenge will be sorting out ever-increasing costs for the average mum-and-dad football goer, handling their dissatisfaction, and restoring equity between them and the corporates. I actually liked Demetriou. His replacement could have been worse, like Adrian Anderson but he saw the writing on the wall and left.

Cutting the maximum payment under the PPL from $75,000 to $50,000 is largely a stunt to regain lost ground. It will lower the total projected cost of $5.2 billion by a small fraction. As Abbott said himself, there aren't many women of child-bearing age earning $150,000 pa.

Yep, there's been no real advancement in footwear, orthopedics, injury management or training techniques for the last 50 years. They should all train in Dunlop volleys and play in ankle-high leather boots.

I used a door in my house for 20 years. Ten years ago I did some renovations and removed it. Every now and then I still try to use it. Ever re-arranged your kitchen and looked for the cups in the old place, even years later? Habituation is very strong.

So the Liberals: In opposition to the Hawke Government ... opposed assets testing of pensions in 1984 As the Howard Government ... relaxed the income tests for Family Tax Benefit (A) introduced Family Tax Benefit (B) introduced a non-means tested Private Health Insurance Rebate introduced a non-means tested Baby Bonus increased the generosity of superannuation tax concessions for the well-off relaxed eligibility for the Seniors Health Card In opposition to Rudd/Gillard campaigned against income testing of the Baby Bonus opposed the suspension of indexation of the upper thresholds for Family Tax Benefits promised to reverse means testing of the Private Health Insurance Rebate opposed modest 5% taxation of superannuation pensions above $100,000 said any reduction in the Baby Bonus for second and subsequent children was akin to China's One Child Policy opposed the abolition of the Baby Bonus As the government again ... want to provide women earning $150,000 per year with a $75,000 parental leave payment Rather ironic that Hockey now wants to end the dreadful 'Age of Entitlement'.

Originally with Tempy and Gorya to become Tempy-Goyra-Patchewollock (try chanting that), or 'TGP' for short, then became Ouyen United a few years ago after TGP merged with Ouyen Rovers.

... in the draft for the Patchewollock thirds.

So if there's going to be some 'heavy lifting', who's going to do it?

Why are you surprised he may not be 'happy'? He wants to get out and play football, he sees his cohorts playing every week, and all he can probably feel is debilitating back pain and limited movement. Back pain is notorious to fix. On top of that there may be some social stigma that it's not 'real', even though it can be one of the mpost severe pains you can experience (maybe short of kidney or gall stones). I damaged my back with a pulled muscle last year doing something as simple bending over to do up a shoe lace. It took six weeks (aided by Dr Voltaren) just to get over that. The pain was excruciating, every move hurt, and I was just trying to walk and sit without agony, let alone run or play football.

I cut and pasted to show that some here simply want to drop Terlich and include Clisby, based solely on Terlich's three 'clangers'. The fact that they want to drop Terlich and include Clisby before he'd even played for Casey makes it worse, not better. Maybe people here need reminding that even though he's older, Terlich has played the grand total of 26 games and is still very much learning. As are Viney, Tyson, Michie, Matt Jones, Hogan, Salem, Toumpas, Kennedy-Harris, Kent, Riley and Clisby (all in the 0-30 range). We simply haven't got the 'Sydney-Geelong-Hawthorn-Collingwood games-played' spread (Sydney had 14 players over 150 games, for example). I'm not sure what everyone expects, but it seems to be very unrealistic.

What exactly did Clisby or Strauss do on Sunday at Casey that justifies them replacing Terlich in Melbourne's backline? Terlich had 3 'clangers' on Saturday night (behind Viney with 6 and equal with Pedersen, Dunn and Matt Jones, all with 3). However, overall he had 16 possessions, with a DE of 81.2% (ranked 3rd). He also had 8 marks (ranked 2nd) and 6 tackles (ranked 4th). Supporters let 'clangers' cloud their judgement about players, probably because when they happen they are so prominent. The rest of the work he does, which is most of it, is very good and I doubt Roos will want him dropped, including for the example he sets.

No it isn't. 1. The derivation of laconic is from the Greek "Lakinikos", meaning "Spartan-like". The Spartans were known for their terse speech. 2. The romanticism of the 'laconic Australian' was originally (and correctly) a person of few words. In fact it was someone who didn't need many words to be understood. If it has shifted, it is towards the characteristic of being 'laid back'. 3. The shift has never been to what the OP and others are suggesting, i.e. to a meaning of 'lazy' or 'uncommitted' (lackadaisical). In addition, using terse speech or being 'laid-back' are still positive attributes, unlike being 'lazy' which is definitely negative. Ignorance shouldn't just be accepted as 'change'. Really poor usage should be resisted, not encouraged. Which does still raise the question as to whether Watts is just 'laid back' or actually 'lazy' (i.e. lackadaisical).

We had our chance to get Dangerfield but we took Morton. The bird has flown.

Why do people say 'laconic' when they mean 'lackadaisical'? 'Laconic' actually describes a person 'of few words'. 'Lackadaisical' means 'lacking enthusiasm and determination, or carelessly lazy'.

100% would do.

Because he is verboten in this thread.

That's also all Spencer does at the moment.

I heard Jack Dyer once say "he kicked it laterally across the ground at right angles". You too can commentate like Bruce McAveney: make "question-statements", like "He's a good player isn't he?" or "That was a great kick, wasn't it?", or "He's going to be something, isn't he?" reserve a few special words like "special", "terrific", "caress" or "ooooooooh!" for players like Buddy, Cyril or Stevie J. know the nicknames for the best players so you sound matey with them. have lots of obtuse stats at your fingertips. otherwise just link the play with "ta", like "Viney ta Cross ta Jones ta Dawes"