binman

On 2/10/2016 at 8:36 AM, ProDee said:

The following interview confirms what has been discussed over the summer.  Watts will play deeper to goal with a view to actually kicking goals.

35-40 goals must be the aim for a tall forward playing closer to goal.  He needs to impact the scoreboard.  It's his best chance to impact games.

"My whole preseason has been up forward"  "the aim will be to try and kick some goals"

He hasn't trained in the midfield and clearly the club wants some goals out of him, which is how I'll be measuring his output.

I'll admit that i'm surprised that, based on Watts's comments the plan appears to be to play him closer to goals as i was sure he would play high half forward wing.

As Watts says the aim will be to kick goals and as such it is only reasonable to judge his output by the number of goals he kicks.

35-40 goals as a  KPI is not unreasonable, though for me feels a little high as Hogan was our leading goals kicker last year with 41 and no doubt will be again this year (and for the rest of his career) but i would be rapt if he could kick 60. There will also be Kent, Gartlett and Petraaca looking for their cut of goals. Also how many goals Watts might/should snag will be influenced by how many wins we get and even more importantly if we play a more attacking  game (which seems likely).

So i reckon my KPI would be 30-35 goals.  Either way what is interesting, particularly in light of our bet, is that if the aim is to kick goals then he is likely to be dropped if he doesn't.

Whilst i would prefer him up the ground it is possible that playing deeper will help him by making the coaching staff's expectations crystal clear in terms of what he needs to do to be picked each week - kick goals. This could help free up his thinking and keeps things nice and simple.

Also i get frustrated that Watts doesn't back himself more often and have a ping at goals, rather than give it off. Making goals the key aim might see him go for goals more often and given how good a kick he is that can only be a good thing.

On 11/02/2016 at 7:53 PM, praha said:

I can see Pedo being our Dew.

In the sense that he can't get off the ground?.

If the appeal does not get off thew ground i look forward to reading Bruce francis's 20 page dissection of their 200 word dismissal (written in French)

" the Swiss court made several key legal mistakes in their frankly corrupt decision to summarily dismiss the players right of appeal. Under the Human Rights Charter....."

Good lord please not HM as head caller

14 minutes ago, Jaded said:

 

This photo... the smiles... *swoon*

Who is the block with Petracca?

Man oh man Francis is out there. Loved this line:

'I am delighted that you have read my response to CAS’s 16 strands in the cable. I am the only one who knows enough to pick up misrepresenting the evidence.

and this: 

 'Forget the legal experts, they know bugger all. They may have worked a few hundred hours on the project. I have worked for over 10,000 hours on it. You know I have torn apart the CAS verdict and WADA and ASADA but you haven’t the guts to say so.

Now that my fellow posters is pure comedy gold.

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

For what it is worth I wonder if the result was any different if CAS only reviewed the decision of the AFL Tribunal ie it wasn't 'de novo' at all.  From what I can tell there was no new material as evidence. 

I don't think this is the case. Chris Kais covers this question in his excellent piece WJ has previously provided a link to. He says:

'It is also not true to say that no new evidence was produced.

First, WADA submitted new analytical evidence showing elevated TB-4 readings in the urine samples taken from two Essendon players in 2012. For the reasons listed in Point 1 above, WADA wisely did not rely on this evidence in its closing submissions (CAS Decision [150]) and the CAS Panel rejected this evidence.

Secondly, and more importantly, new evidence was provided which fundamentally changed the approach of the panel. This new evidence came from one of WADA’s experts, Dr James Cox. Dr Cox ‘wholly convinced’ the CAS Panel that the substance compounded by Nima Alavi’s assistant—and tested at the Bio21 laboratory—was TB-4 (CAS Decision [132]). It was due to this new evidence from Dr Cox that ASADA made a submission abandoning its previous ‘links in the chain’ approach as the presence of TB-4 at the Como pharmacy meant it was no longer necessary to prove the source of the TB-4 (CAS Decision [115]).'

A terrific piece and i've been reflecting that the best information about this whole saga has been via new media: Demonland, blogs, twitter etc. The worst information has almost all been provided by the mainstream media.

25 minutes ago, old dee said:

This year he is a drug cheat serving his time.

next year he will be an MFC player.

No. This year he is MFC player serving his suspension. He is one of ours now. 

By the by the NAB game against the dogs is out at craigeburn and the capacity is only 6k. With a membership you can get a ticket but have to pay $5. Sounds a bit funny but i reckon it will sell out so i bought my ticket already as even with a membership you won't get in if all tickets are sold

Tickets can be bought here:

http://premier.ticketek.com.au/shows/Show.aspx?sh=NABCHIG16

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

They won't get as far as having appeal heard. They may apply but as I can't see for life of me in what way it would qualify the appeal will undoubtedly be denied.

Flinders Street, all change. This train not going.

Perhaps they'll appeal the knock back of the appeal.

48 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Throughout the length and breadth of this often confusing episode in the history of our game, one man has stood out like a beacon providing his own breathtaking insights to add to the fog of confusion surrounding the mystery of the Essendon 34 ~ Essendon players appeal of doping ban is a fight for their reputation, Mark Robinson writes

Ughh. Another woeful bit of writing, which fails to make mention of the obvious contradiction: the appeal, even if successful will do nothing whatsoever for the players reputation in terms of being branded drug cheats. Nothing. They are not appealing the finding but the process and a successful appeal will not change the cold hard fact an independent tribunal determined they used banned drugs, or for that matter the fact that players lied to ASADA when reporting their drug use.

Two other things: on SEN the other day in that road crash of a radio spot, he mentioned the CAS judgement being shredded by legal minds (yes that's the word he used). He must have been chuffed with his choice of word because he uses the same phrase in this article, this time adding non legal minds (what ever that is) ie the CAS judgement has been shredded by legal and no legal minds. Prey tell Robbo who are these minds of whom you speak? Surely journalism 101 is that a comment like that is backed up or else its just pub talk.

The other thing: he couldn't help but sneak in another defense of Hird, in a bit of twisted logic that frankly hurt my brain. 

I looked at some of the comments in the article and they are almost universally anti the players and Robbo. Ironically this attempt fight for their reputation may just do further harm to it. 

5 minutes ago, Chris said:

Here is a pearly of a comment from the delusionals on the Hun site.

"I cannot believe they can be convicted fairly when the standard of proof is 'reasonably satisfied'. This is a complete nonsense.  So without any positive drug tests the body adjudicating the case can 'feel' that the vibe is that they are guilty.  

 

Until the standard of proof is at the very least on the 'balance of probability' (civil jurisdiction) then the AFL must walk away from WADA and the Court of  arbitration for sport."

Maybe News limited is paying for the appeal. Apart from the lawyers they have the most to gain from this dragging on.

I'm only half joking

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

was he guilty at the tribunal "beyond reasonable doubt"? 

Copped 1 week for striking Nick Holland and IIRC rightly was dead unlucky to go down. he should have appealed it to CAS. 

Perhaps they should give Jobes medal to Chris

2 hours ago, Choke said:

I heard a pretty straightforward argument the other day on Triple M.

You can't win the Brownlow if you are suspended for any game in the season. Jobe has been retroactively suspended for that year. He is therefore ineligible simply based on that. 

I wonder how Chris Grant would feel if Watson retains his brownlow

Just now, Delusional demon 82 said:

Gill walking around Tullamarine dressed as a Roman centurion "Where's Jobe of Essendon? "

Are there any Gwillians here? Perhap a Wobbo? Or any Wobe Whaaatsons? There is a Wobe Whaaatson? Guards welease him, welease him!

2 minutes ago, Die Hard Demon said:

Blue vs White, mini match simulation until a score is registered. Then play is reset at different parts of the ground. Players are clearly tiring a bit.. resulting in a few missed hand passes & kicks. But follow up work has been good & still very vocal. Standouts for me have been Dean Kent, with his clean ball work in close, quick sidestep & immediate accelerate away from the pack.. a thing of beauty. Sam Frost took a brilliant contested mark. Looking the goods. Iv seen Ben Kennedy doing some impressive things in close. And just witnessed a graceful sidestep from jets & a lace out pass to a leading forward. 

Stop it. Just stop it. I can feel my annual Pollyanna Syndrome coming on again 

23 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

I don't believe that's the case. CAS don't make those decisons, nor do WADA or in this case ASADA, as McDeviit has made clear. In your example it is up to the IOC to make the call on medals just as it is up to the AFL to make the call on the Brownlow.

20 minutes ago, GM11 said:

In my opinion, signing Michelle & Daisy is a no brainer.

This is a football club. They are talented & driven football people.

You can't ignore the positive impact they have had.

This club is become a positive career choice at every level. You could not have said that even 18 months ago.

This  type of forward thinking will continue to drive this club to a successful future.

Spot on. All organisations benefit from having a diverse work force so its a big tick from that perspective, as you say they are obviously both very talented and driven and it will no doubt be a very positve move in terms of us setting up our women's team.  So as you say a no brainer. In the past though no brainers were beyond us (and it appears are now beyond the AFL)

41 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Did he say CAS? How could CAS doctor evidence? Doesn't he mean ASADA or WADA (not that I'm saying that either of them did)? But how would CAS, which only came into the picture late in the process, even have the opportunity (let alone the motive) to do so? On the other hand, if it can be shown that either ASADA or WADA doctored evidence...well, then the appeal's going to happen, isn't it?

I heard Robbo on SEN and seriously he was almost incoherent. He sounded smashed. It was appalling and you could tell Allen and Harford were embarrassed. Id be sacked if i spoke in an official capacity like that. 

The article he wrote on the subject was trash, containing not a single logical reason why Watson should not lose the brownlow. Not one. His main thrust is that he is not comfortably satisfied that CAS's comfortable satisfaction the players took banned drugs is sufficient reason for stripping him of the brownlow ie it doesn't prove he is a drug cheat. The other argument is that the AFL have said all along they want to protect the players and now they have the chance. Is he for real? 

His radio spot was even more random, including the CAS doctoring evidence comment and a long ramble about how impossible the CAS judgement was to read with all of its legalese etc (a document that though long and detailed has been praised for its clarity by John Fahey and others). He clearly hasn't even read it and he is coomenting on the case. Beggars belief.

The Chief Football writer at the Herald Sun? An insult to Mike Shean and Alf Brown

They must have been told to look mean because they are all frowning. Except one man. 

39 minutes ago, givemethecure said:

IT IS "LOSE" NOT "LOOSE" FOR CHRIST'S SAKE

In which case it definitely does not spell the end

2 hours ago, Delusional demon 82 said:

Seriously,  the game is 2 months away and we're are already trying to psych ourselves out of it.  There is no reason for negativity in February.  

This anxiety around melb dropping games it should win is at the heart of our mindset problems as a club and a supporter base and is both infectious and paralysing. I've been just as guilty of this kind of thinking before.  The facts are we have everything to be positive about this season and they have everything to be concerned about. 

If the players bring the required effort then on ability we will win and win easily.  But we fear the players won't turn up or we worry about what might happen if we should lose, we don't want to seem confident or positive and fear the embarrassment if we lose and look stupid... and so it becomes a self fulfiling prophesy. 

I'm not saying we should be more arrogant , but just back ourselves in and let the confidence build with an exciting young side. 

I'm too young to know but I doubt this kind of thinking would have existed in the swooper northey days 

 

All good points well made. 

However you mention you are young. After 40 years of following the dees no loss would come as a surprise to me. None. 

9 minutes ago, Chris said:

It holds up if people reportes as fact that he injected the players with banned drugs and they forgot the allegedly part. 

Perhaps but only if he can prove he didn't administer a banned drug. However there is no way a civil court has the capacity to determine his guilt or innocence in this regard. How would they? They would have to repeat the entire investigation, which they simply won't entertain.

In any case he has been found guilty by the AFL and NRL and an independent body in CAS is comfortably satisfied (a similar standard to a civil case i would have thought) the players were administered banned PEDs. Surely a civil court would accept these findings, particularly in the absence of records proving otherwise.

51 minutes ago, Chris said:

It may well come down to his thought that he didnt inject banned substances. If he can prove he didnt then he could go after all who said he did as it was a lie and defamed his character. I would like to see him try as he has to prove they lied, not them prove they didn't.

I don't think that logic holds up, at least in terms of journo's as they are reporting by and large the accusations made against him and then the guilty findings. Perhasp Demitriou but my recollection is that his main criticisms were around the nature of program itself and given the EFC's own investigation famously called it a pharmacological experiment can't see how he was defamed.

In any case i doubt he can prove he didn't administer  illegal drugs and i also doubt a civil court hearing a defamation case is going to faff around and give Dank a forum to try and prove his innocence and attack his enemies.

Like so much Dank says it doesn't make sense. I cant see how running defamation cases will help in any way to clear the players names in so far as they are not going to be determining what drugs the players used, just whether he has been defamed. 

In any case given he has been banned for life by the NRL and the AFL,  chose not to defend himself in either instance and an independent tribunal has determined the EFC players were administered PEDs by Dank i can't see how a court would bother exploring the player's innocence.

Add to that he doesn't have any records that one assumes if he is telling the truth would exonerate both him and the players. Which raises another obvious question. He claims EFC erased those records. Apart from the fact that is simply not plausible that he didn't keep his own copies (i mean come on) why on gods good earth would EFC destroy records that proved the players innocence. 

I for one can't wait for his court cases.