hardtack

Was there a reason for Essendon not wearing their indigenous jumper today?

I can’t for the life of me understand why we are not allowed to wear our indigenous jumper! The Dogs have a jumper that is predominantly royal blue and white, offset with a bright red and some yellow(?), whereas ours is navy and deep red with no similarities at all... no wonder the umpires make so many bad calls, if their eyesight is so shot that they cannot pick the difference between the two jumpers!

I think that playing with the roof open may work somewhat in our favour (Dogs always playing home games with it closed), and the lack of crowds could also work in our favour (let’s face it, our crowds are never quite vocal enough to influence umpiring decisions). It could go either way, but will be close whichever way it goes.

Yep... I watched the Casey game from the second quarter onwards, and Ben Brown barely got near the ball, scoring zero goals... not exactly a good audition for a place in next week's team. Mitch Brown however, scored something like 2.5 and while inaccurate, showed that he can get the ball and put scores on the board (you'd have to think he would not be so inaccurate too often). However, having said that, I'm not averse to us going back to a forward line with just Fritsch, Jackson and McDonald, which worked well for us in the first few weeks. Possibly Sparrow or Chandler could come in for the Weid.

Not really... based on the last couple of years, as much as we’d like to think we could win every game, it’s quite a reasonable assumption that most would have said 9-3 was crazy talk..

I think that’s a bit unfair. Watch his 6 goal haul against North and you’ll see a lot of those were from ground ball he’d chased or had positioned himself well to get the loose ball and then managed to work himself into a position where he could take the shot. Only two were from set shots and one of those from a difficult mark over the pack (hardly silver service).

Can we please stop with these [censored] conspiracy theories... the free kick count was 24/24 and as well as the two major clangers in the last couple of minutes, there were frees paid to us that probably shouldn’t have been. We had 7 more inside 50’s (and 6 more shots) than Adelaide and a better conversion rate, but blew it with poor accuracy. When all is said and done, the Dees have only themselves to blame.

The funny thing is, how many of us would have complained at the beginning of the season if we’d been told we’d be 9-3 by round 12? I suspect most would have scoffed at such a suggestion. I hope there aren’t too many changes to the side, but I get the feeling that we might see Ben Brown back in against the Dogs.

And an insulated side pocket for the cheese (unless you want your Brie/Camembert nice and runny).

Dueling banjos no less!

Hey, that’s what Google is for! ?

I certainly hope that the players don't underestimate the Crows to the extent that Demonland posters do. For a team that was considered by most pundits to probably be wooden spooners before the season kicked off, they have been performing well above expectations. I think we'll win, but I doubt it will be a blow out... 22 points in our favour.

Out of my only couple of visits to Adelaide, the only thing that stuck in my mind (apart from Le Club Foote where I saw the Bachelors From Prague), was that visiting Rundle Mall felt like being on the set of Deliverance.

Nice to see you coming over from the dark side ? Watching the game on Sunday, I was really impressed seeing Goodwin sitting with, and talking to (words of encouragement) the players on the bench, one on one.

How are the consequences of it failing him early in a game against the Dogs, any more massive than it failing him in a VFL game and him being unable to take the field at all in the game against the Dogs? If the sub for the Dogs game is the same person who would replace him in the team (if his toe failed him in the VFL), then nothing is really lost. @leave it to deever, Viney has proven in the past that fitness has never been an issue for him, coming in after lengthy stints on the sidelines; so I doubt very much he would have any trouble slotting in, from a fitness point of view.

I would understand it if people were saying to give him another week off his feet to ensure complete recovery, but as fitness is highly unlikely to be an issue with a seasoned player, to suggest he be given game time in the VFL doesn’t make sense... if his toe fails him, it fails him regardless of where he’s playing. As long as we have a suitable sub (Sparrow), then I don’t see it as an issue.

Can you please organise a live stream?

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this point... the Dogs are the one team I really think we’re going to struggle against. They are strong across every line and play a similar pressure game to ours.

Sorry, my comment came across in a way that was stronger than it was meant. Unfortunately, assuming the players acted in self defence, the club can’t really impose sanctions unless they had some sort of policy/rule that players do not attend night clubs etc during the season... hence the comment I added.

True, but let's not forget that it was only an 18 round season... that should balance things out a little? However you view it, it was still a disaster.

Isn't 'under the influence' considered to be anything over 0.5, which is when alcohol starts to affect your judgement and reactions.

Even you refer to the other party as "their antagonist". My comment relates to those assuming that the players may have somehow been responsible for the escalation of the situation. The club has made a statement, so let's see how it plays out before accusing the club of spouting BS.

You may be correct, but it has been reported that "...neither player was under the influence of alcohol when the altercation occurred and neither is expected to face disciplinary action from the club". Is that from witness accounts, or were the police were called in (something that hasn't been mentioned) to interview those involved and to test alchohol levels?

Male violence against women should be everyone's problem... how many serious injuries or worse, deaths, do there need to be before people get the idea that intervention is not such a bad idea?

To that I would say end male on female violence... that is a BIG problem.