bing181

Laughable. And he was let go for much the same reason that Howe and Watts were let go.

Of course they did. Egg. Face.

You may be right of course, but all we have from the intra-club is the play leading to the goals, which isn't much. We don't really know who was playing where, what they were asked to do - we don't even know how long they played or who might have been rested etc. Difficult to draw conclusions, but if they were going to stick with Jackson for Essendon, would imagine they'll do the same for Geelong. But what would I know?

Not repeatedly. (he's tested negative 5 times over previous weeks).

Tuesday is the next test. All other players/staff were tested again Saturday (all negative).

Not if you're being tested, and tested on multiple occasions. And it's disingenuous to suggest "we don't know". We do know, which is what all these protocols for isolation etc. etc. are based on.

Understatement.

Given the reliability of these tests, the chances of 5 false negatives on the same person are as good as zero. Re a false positive, he's been tested a second time, and that's positive as well.

Incubation period + testing. Do your homework.

He did NOT pick it up in Ireland.

It's not only Australians who have the right to live/work in Australia.

Actually, there have been no new cases linked to the march. As Andrews said, apart from known clusters and a couple of arrivals from overseas, it's all family gatherings.

Not really. "The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine." https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-0504

On the surface, yes - but those changes could only be at the expense of Jackson, and the selectors have already shown that if they select someone for their first game they'll back them for at least a couple of games, no matter what.

And ...

The setup before this as the ball came in was fine. It's just that Smith and Lever made the wrong decision. Though moreso Smith, you feel that Lever coming in across May/McKay would have easily cleared the ball, it's something he's good at. But with Smith crashing in from the left, Lever didn't get to the ball, which under Smith's momentum spilled right.

Interesting here - where both Lever and Smith should have stayed down. They left their men (Smith/Betts, Lever/Lang) to jump for a mark that May had covered ... with predictable results. McKay was the only Carlton player who flew, Lang and Betts stayed down to walk in an easy goal. (Jetta was upfield on Gibbons.) Going to be a long season, ironing out these kinds of mistakes and developing the kind of understanding that's needed to avoid them takes time.

What part of "Carlton started playing better and we started playing worse" is so difficult for people to grasp? Nothing to do with Goodwin and the coaches. Except the first quarter, when the players did what they were supposed to. (Though Carlton are a much better side than people are giving them credit for, and on paper at least, a better side than us.)

Confirmation bias 101.

Inexperience and immaturity. Running hot/cold, inability to sustain a high-level performance, lack of consistency ... all the classic signs, and not just in footy either.

Oh yes. And you can add Watts and Hogan to that list as well.

Was more to it than that.

Actually, Jetta did play on Betts, (also Murphy). Have a nice day.

You're not actually. It's all about accurate kicking. And decision-making. And the biggest area where it's an issue is in the midfield, with predictable results in the forward line.

Contradictory statements. The cattle are absolutely the problem here.