binman

Some random thoughts: I'm 100% not in the 'juries out camp on Brayshaw. A smart, strong natural footballer whose versatility and ability to play in multiple positions is a strength not a liability. Goodwin noted as much in his presser when asked about the role he was going to play this year. I watched the replay and thought he was pretty good actually - tackled well, made good decisions, good hands and kicking solid. I concede there are a number of players fighting for his spot and so i might be proven be wrong on this but i think he will start round one and all things being equal stay in the side through the year TMac up forward is geniuys move. he provides a focal point and is now key from a structural point of view. Allows Hogan to be more mobile and roam far and wide and brings the smaller player into the game with his ability to bring the ball to ground. A key strategic focus for the dees under goodwin has been getting the ball in quickly and long from pack situation to about 30 metres out from goal (combined with looking for the short option when we are running the ball down the ground into space). Can be frustrating as it seems they are just bombing away sometimes but it is clearly a Goodwin ploy. TMac helps it to work. In many ways he is playing the classic Carey type CHF role (though perhaps starting deeper). The other thing is how well he kicks for goals. Elite. I'll admit i was surprised they didn't play Frost. It might have been a match up thing and maybe he will get a run this week but nt a great sign for Frosty, a player i really like. I suspect his biggest problem is his kicking. You simply cannot afford to cough the ball up from HB

Whoah that's better. I saw this pic on the phone and thought you were in bondage leather and chains with old wrinkly skin. Not that there;s anythging wrong with that. But now i see it is i assume the artist's chain and arm. By the by i thought our firts year was 1859. Also by the by love the tat

Who is calling him to be dropped? He is a lock best 22 and will be a mainstay of this side for the next 10 years. Ther will be a fair bit of humble pie eating on DL. I'm looking forward to comments like 'playing well now, but needed to step up', 'where has this been?', 'he was lucky we had dearth of KPDs', "he was gifted games so he should be repaying us" blah blah blah. For anyone with an ounce of football knowledge his ability has been obvious since his firt game and his development clear, Which is why he has been in the side bar being dropped once, for one game, since his debut. Good thing the footy department have more than ounce of footy knowledge I did see that Deemania56 has selected a side for JLT2 and has dropped him. Which gives me some hope that poster might have the fortitude to take my long standing bet. Walk the talk so t speak. We'll see.

Yes agree tappy. It is silly to focus on the errors some players make not what they do well, particularly when it is a function of confirmation bias, i will stop doing it and hope others do as well.

Lever played well but not 'sensational'. He is class. Though made at least 3 bad errors, two of which that cost us goals. The indecision and holding onto the ball and getting be pinged as a result right in front of goals. Failing to spoil an easy mark to the smallish north player who is prematurely balding. And most frustrating of all when in the second quarter he spoiled a marking attempt, didn't kill it, hit into into the corridor and straight to a north player, releasing him to carry the ball though the center and into an open north forward line. Lucky for him that TMac's younger brother wrapped up Brown, got the ball over the boundary line and saved another goal from his errors. But he is young and will learn.

Very tricky day. here's my tips: best bet: gailo chop (good vale too, i think he is an energing stating satr and hrtnell won't catch him) Best value: snitty kitty Long shot/each way: Lord of the SKy Good luck all

Don't think so. Dom is best 22 and coming off his best pre season at the dees. Assuming the calf is as small as being suggested and barring any other injuries will play most games.

All true enough. but those things, in my world view don't disqualify America from being considered a great country. But as i pointed out clearly we were never going to agree on whether America is a great country. I maintain it is. But that is obviously based on my own criteria. A criteria that means that i believe Russia, China, Japan and Germany are all great counties despite their human rights record and that fact all have been guilty of genocide against their own people and those of other countries. But lets stop now. Demonland's dark web makes me dizzy.

Yep, agree

Would also mean two wins in a row. Our bunnies

If you were to disqualify a country from being considered great by things such as war record, history of treatment of its indigenous people or how it went about colonising and treating other countries not a single country could be considered great. Not one. When i say America is a great country i mean in a historical sense. I have said on DL before that the movie Life Of Brian provides some great analogies for life and once again it delivers in this context. I'm thinking of the 'What did the roman's ever do for us scene' here. To paraphrase: Apart from helping establish the principles of democracy, advances in medicine, advances in science, helping defeat Hitler and fascism, brilliant artists, brilliant thinkers, great writers, driving all manner of technological advances (eg flight, the telephone, space travel, computers etc etc) and promoting a culture of human rights through the last 100 years what has America ever done for us. in this context I found this article from the Atlantic Magazine from March 1959 fascinating

To be honest with an opening statement such as being 'over getting into unwinnable bun fights on this site' i don't see the point in bothering to give my definition of greatness, given you have made it clear that you will counter any points i make. So i won't bother. Just accept that i think America is a great country and i'll accept you don't think it is. Done.

For undeniably great country the number of gun related deaths is an extraordinary state of affairs that is some ways unparalleled in history . And not only do their elected representatives, from both sides, do nothing, they ate enablers. .

Wrecker, i'm not sure if it was intentional but this statement implies the two issues are comparable. Which of course is completely not the case. It is impossible to compare the two. A quick google threw up hundreds of articles that make this point, but this one sums up how absurd the comparison is: The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. America's gun control 'problem' is full scale out of control. The numbers are staggering. Staggering. On the other hand it is hard to mount an argument they actually have a Islamic terrorism 'problem' at all let alone a 'massive problem'. This article, in the wake of the obscene Las Vegas massacre sums up things well, when it says; The Las Vegas massacre is a symptom of a problem more serious than terrorism: the lack of effective gun controls in the U.S. As I have reported previously, between 1970 and 2007, a total of 3,292 people in the U.S. were killed by terrorists. Almost all those deaths occurred on a single day, 9/11/01. That averages out to fewer than 100 deaths from terrorism a year. In contrast, more than 32,000 Americans are shot to death every year, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Of those, more than 11,000 people are murdered and almost 20,000 kill themselves. The U.S., which has more firearms per capita than any other nation, has rates of gun-related killings much higher than any other developed nation. The irony is that at the heart of the gun control issue is the notion of freedom and not having the government control its citizens. And the completely out of of balance response in the USA (and here too for that matter) to terrorism has stripped US citizens of their rights, impacts on their freedom in any number of ways (eg intra country air travel) and most ironically of all has enabled the government to control its citizens in ways that 20 years ago would have been unthinkable (eg monitoring private conversations and email use, surveillance, right to detain etc etc). Go figure.

Yep. My mate puts our bets on. Hopefully we got best fluc as it came in from 14s

I like him too. I backed him and Royal rapture who is alos good value. Super tricky day, particularly at Flemington and on days like this you can back a couple of horse in some races and still make a good profit (assuming one of them wins!). Have done this a few times today

I was tempted to make my bets bet Mark Zahra in the jockey challenge. Was terrific odds at 2.80. Good start from him with an early double and will be al but impossible to beat from here given the second fav Williams is yet to score point. I backed Clark for the JC in Sydney so whilst i didn;t back Santos 9forgot yout tip 77 - foolish) i was happy he got up as Clark was riding it.

Best bet Randwick Race 4 no 2 Deploy Bets value Randwick Race 8 no 1 Frolic Best longshot (or each way if you prefer) Flemington Race 6 no 5 Rimraam

Funny use of the word observations. But agree on TMac's younger brother. he was unsighted all night.

World record

Indeed. I dont mind the odd exotic much to my mates chagrin as the take out by tge bookies is so high and the long terms return well in their favour

My mate who i bet with is a huge Don Scott fan. Framing the market properly is critical no doubt and perhaps equally important is staking (which of course is related).

An edit/change to the above. Best bets are never going to just the best chance of winning, regardless of odds as sometime a horse that meets that criteria is going to be way to short to bother with, Winx for example. Last week the horse most likely to win anywhere in the country was She Will reign given the class edge and field size. But way too short to bother at $1.20 (unless you want to risk 10k). So my best bet definition would be: Best bet (the horse with the best chance of wining at backable odds - usually something like 1.70 and up in a field of say 8 horses, $2 for fields of 8-12 and $2.50 in fields over 12) Perhaps the bets idea is for each of us to define our best bet according to our own criterion, but we probably should know what that criteria is.

I agree on nominating an each way special. Or more accurately a bets longshot as i tend not to like backing each way. I usually prefer backing for a win for all horses, with my long shots often a saver in a race where i back something shorter. That said i wilI sometimes back a place if i think it is value (some horses, like Downhearted just don't win but often place). The other bet type is best value. Which is a little confusing i guess, in so far it is folly to back any horse that does not represent value (ie is unders) and really getting this aspect right is the key to winning in the long term. But what i mean about best value is a horse that i think is well overs ie over its true odds and therefore represents good value. To be really good value it needs to be over 4-1 or so (if shorter you need to put a sizable bet on to get value). To further confuse things is i guess a best bet could be the one you think is best value. but leaving that point aside how about each week we nominate: Best best (the horse i/you think is the best chance of winning, regardless of odds - logic would suggest that these are usually likely to be short) Best value (the horse is that well overs, in your opinion) Bets longshot (lets say a horse paying over $10) Using that criteria, last week my selections would have been: Best best: Itz Invicible/Gailo Chop Best value: Black Heart bart, before its scratching obviously and Super Cash after Bets long shot: Lord of the Sky