binman

gotta love those numbers from Jones. Respect

Another negative: again easy to bag Grimes (but yes woeful kick) but it didn't cost a goal. As opposed to Howes kick out that did cost us a goal - coming after an unbelievable decision of in the back against Viney to Trenogove who missed a sitter - we dodged a bullet and Howe shot us in the foot!

Positive: great to see garlo back in form Negative: that was an appalling error by Dawes and one that goes completely against the Roos game plan not to mention terrible given the situation in the game. He had to go to the boundary side, just had to. I'm a huge Dawes fan but that was an almost unforgivable error of judgement. At least Grimes had the excuse of the ball being in a play on situation. Poor execution but still. Dawes had all the time in the world to choose the right option and elected to go the corridor. The umpiring was terrible, just terrible. How on earth could have they pinged Jones and Viney. And what about Vince getting his head ripped off?

something about c&b being deliberately obtuse

blimey. Those stats are a real buzz kill

Its not about how many people live in the country it is about how many people play aussie rules. The numbers of boys playing Aussie rules is dropping in direct correlation to the increasing participation rates in other sports. Remember the discussion is about elite level talent. To develop elite athletes you need a pyramid. The ones at the top rise up and come from all the other levels. Its all about numbers. Of course you can pump heaps of money into a small number of players and hop one makes it but without a large ongoing pool it is a one off. The point about professional sporting comps is a very good one. In 1992 (the year c&b chose to illustrate his point) AFL had probably only been a fully professional sport for 5 years and since then the demands have exponentially grown (ie commitment, athletic requirements, levels of fitness etc etc) and the game has become much more about aerobic capacity. In short AFL now demands elite athletes not just very good footy players who could play their position really well. In 1992 teams could and did carry players who would not get a game today. Does anyone think Allen Jackovich would get a a game these days, even with his brilliance? Here is the MFC list from 1992. Many of those players would not get a game today, even with the advanced training (or perhaps because of the huge increase in training demands) as they either would not have the required athleticism or the 24/7 commitment and dedication demanded in modern footy In 1992 there was no local fully professional union or soccer comps, the NBL was faltering and there was not nearly the same amount of money in cricket. In the southern states AFL had the first call on most of the elite players. This is simply not the case now.

a fair bit less actually. But as the a league grows so will the salaries. This is what the afl fears. Once the a league gets to that level it suddenly creates a step between local and international and the a league becomes a lot more attractive and realistic as a pro option. The wanderers are a phenomenon and Melbourne city will be huge with the backing of Manchester city

there is a correlation but only in so far as a game that is watched by a lot of people has a good chance of being a game kids might be inspired to play. Hearts and minds. But not a direct correlation. The afl wish there was. If your hypothesis was correct then the opposite would be true ie sports that no one watches would struggle to get particapants. But there are a number of examples that disprove that. More kids play basketball than Aussie rules despite it not being on free to air and no one going to NBL games. That is why there are Aussies playing NBA. What about golf? The PGA can barely operate a tour here. No one watches it on TV and apart from the masters few go to see it live. Yet Australia have the worlds number 1, 2 in the top 10 and probably 8 in the top 100. Why? Because somamy people play golf in Australia. Of course participation is influenced by free to air coverage but look at soccer. It is thriving in terms of participation despite not having free to air coverage until last year. Another example? Take tennis. Ratings of the oz open is huge. Wimbledon gets great coverage. Hundreds of thousands attend the open. Yet over 20 years participation has been falling away. The result? Were we once ruled tennis we are now also rans.

with all due respect c&b I don't think you get it. Its not about how popular a sport is as measured by television audience and attendance. Its about how many people play the sport.

I reckon he gets a game because he (like Bail) runs his guts out both ways, which as we all know his a pre requisite to be selected in a Roos team. As is doing what he is told and playing his role (see his comments about Watts). Jones does his job.

That's an interesting point. However i think the other issue is these days kids play a broader range of sports and AFL does not have the same monopoly over elite athletes. My young fella is a good example. Took a year off footy to concentrate on basketball, but now wants to play soccer instead of aussie rules. For this reason the academies are crucial and it is why Eddie is dead wrong. The gamble is that we can convert athletes in the northern states that might otherwise play say rugby to aussie rules. If we can't then 18 teams is too many an standards will (and have) fall away.

This from a poster who has the gall to accuse another poster of struggling to post 'a reply of substance'. Comedy gold. In any case what that's saying about arguing with fools? I think i'll follow this advice. The ignore function on DL really is one of its better features

Right, gotch ya. We can only hope that Hird cops a show cause.

....and since when does using a pathetic analogy of a 'retarded' child to support an argument constitute an intelligent debate?

in the words of a great thinker, watcha ya talkin' about Willis

Sure the cats eased off. That does not change the fact one iota than in the last few years that would have been a 100+ point loss, even if they put the cue in the rack. The point is that unlike the last few years we didn't put the cue away

Good summary bedraggled and thanks again wj. Bd I disagree I think about the six months being taken off the table. I reckon they will still offer they to the players for two reasons. One, even though I guess the players are involved so far it is ESS v asada. Secondly they will want their help to get dank and maybe third.

is that the same Bernie Vince who kicking out from the city end shanked it straight to a cats player who kicked a goal.

Yeah right on. I have only just realised that i have accepted 50 years of failure. My god what i was thinking! Thank you so much macintosha for helping me see the light. Now that i have i expect that from here on in we will rarely be beaten and the flag that is rightfully ours will happen in 2015. I'll book my tickets now. Thanks again macintosha. Keep up the good work (by the way i do wish you had told me earlier as i would have loved to have seen a flag this year)

. Interesting point made in that article. Asada put forward that ess and hird agreed to a joint investigation and subsequently a huge amount of info was collected (which etc now want put aside). They argue that if ESS had raised their concern then they would have changed their approach.

the key is to be consistently delusional.

Not a glass half full kinda guy? But i agree we could get smashed if they really come to play as i feel like we're hitting the wall a bit. That said if they are a little off and we are really on, an a day that might be a slog (remembering they had a slog last week and only beat bullies by 13 points at home) we might cause an upset. So much better this year, even though we have only won 4 games i go thinking a win is some chance rather than last year we're avoiding a thrashing was the best you could hope for

Was a forward as a juniour iirc. I'd like to see him half forward

As if you would criticize them - to their face - you keyboard warrior!! .....sorry about that i had a sudden dose of the Satrys

it was an absolute shocker wasn't it. He made some point criticising what he called the football commentariare (or some such thing) that made no sense whatsoever. Who edits that paper?