binman

Fear not, we'll hear plenty from the Doom and Gloomers (sounds like a goth version of Bay City Rollers) this season. Any loss and they'll pop back for a 'just being realistic, telling it like it is, a good team would never lose that game, same old problems yadda, yadda yadda' truth telling session. And of course they'll be back in force after our inevitable post bye losses and/or sub par performances that are in part a result of fatigue from loading, causing the now annual Demomnland knickers in a knot meltdown.

Reupping this thread. Anyone who want to put their flag in the ground about where we will finish the 2024 home and away season AHEAD of round one has three days to do so. Current data: 116 members have voted and the prediction ladder looks like: 5th to 8th - 44 votes: 39.29% Top 4 - 43 votes: 38.39% Missing finals - 25 votes: 22.32%

Brings to mind one of the great songs, and one of my all time favourite covers. By the by, this version is 21 years old. Listen to the first 20 odd seconds of this video, spoken word from Joe strummer (not on the cd or any other version) - incredibly prescient about the world today (and pretty relevant to clarry too). Genius gets thrown around alot, but it's apt for Joe Strummer.

Policy might be too strong a word. I mean he might have said it at some point, but surely it's not set in stone. BDJ is the logical sub imo given he started against the tigers, was the sub against the blues and there is no obvious best, or borderline best, 22 available (with the possible exception of woey I guess).

All three players look like they share Donald Trump's makeup artist.

Brown Dog Junior (BDJ) will be super sub (opinion not fact).

All big ticks for clarry. But also a massive tick for the club, how it has handled this situation, and yes its culture. And a massive cross for the media and the media model. Slam us for months with all the preseason from hell and salacious innuendo bulltish. Drive a narrative not supported by the facts. All's fair in clicks and war. And then don't balance that with any retractions or contrary stories and information. Sure, when clarry gets back and we are travellimg ok there will be a few token redemption stories, good for clicks. But they won't come close to balancing out all the slanderous, false narrative rubbish the media has thrown at the club for the last five months. By the by, Sammy is one of the few footy journalists I respect. He has been a lone voice of balance and non hyperbole. Good on him.

I think it is an important question. Because really the only rebuttal I've heard against banning is a variation of it's an exciting element of a brutal game. Part or the game. But so was hitting and sniping players behind play in the 70s and 80s. And getting off because there was no video review to catch hits thst were missed or a blind eye was turned. But the VFL was increasingly out of step with community values. The level of violence in games was no longer accepted by the community. It took matthews sickening hit on Bruns to trigger a video review and start reducing the number of striking reports. Few would argue the game is not better for it. I'd argue the bump is similar in some ways. The difference is it is legal violence - a football act. One that until relatively recently was legal even if a head was struck. The similarity to striking behind play twofold. One is a bump, even if a head is not hit, is also brutal. Two it achieves nothing positive for your team - unless you consider taking out and/or hurting an opponent as being a positive (and in any cade you can hurt with a tackle). Unlike kicking, marking, tackling and handballing the game would lose nothing the bump, currently a football act, was outlawed. The sport is plenty brutal without taking players out with a bump. As for two players running at each other, personally in such scenarios ie to protect yourself from inevitable contact I'd allow bracing for contact which is a natural, instinctive action. Some head injuries are inevitable in such a chaotic 360 degree sport. For example in marking contests, which I wouldn't ban by the way as unlike bumping high marling is a fundamental of the game.

Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

Which was ridiculous. Broke his jaw. Should have got 6 minimum.

Ban the bump. That was a text book example of why. And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so. Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent? Nothing. He had already disposed of the ball. Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free. If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad. Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

No food outlets at Goshs, although on Punt road there is servo (though with a young un you will probably need to cross the road at tge swan and putn road intersection) Pretty sure there is a toilet in the park somewhere. Players seem to be fine with post season happy snaps and autographs after training, partic for little kids.

Those last two kicks!

Oliver equals viney. Alan Windsor was deliberate.

No need for that Andy

I think we are trying to bring them back. There were couple in the blues game, coincidentally one from trac to Oliver that ended up with Alan Windsor kicking his second.

Correct weight (i love his runs and carry and pass to Darren Bennet in the second vid):

How long for?

Cuture related shoulder reco - out to mid year

Yes, that is very true - he can be a brilliant kick, particularly those penetrating 60 metre bullets that can be so damaging and set up so many scoring chances. His vision is also brilliant. Those kicks are incredible when they come off (but as we saw against the blues, can give the opposition good turnover scoring opportunities when they don’t). Few players in the AFL can hit kicks like that - a factor in the halo effect no doubt. And you're right, his technique, in particular the ball drop, is the issue. Ironically those 60 metres darts are often off one step and slightly accross his body. And his technique is heaps better. He should stick to those kicks. People have talked alot about our forward 'connection" - weird footy speak for the critical last kick inside 50. Tracc acknowledged that kick is an issue for him in the interview posted a few weeks back. And it is - for average kick to score ratio for the kick inside 50 tracc was dead last for us last season. Nibbla was #1. With better kicks like Windsor and billings we will be less reliant on tracc kicking inside 50, which will help with our 'connection' issues. But I'm not really wanting to bag tracc. My initial point was that nibbla is held to a different standard than say tracc. Nibbla is a much better kick than generally given credit for. The data and eyes bear that out. Yes, like tracc and every other player, he miss targets. But also like tracc he is capable of brilliant kicks that set up gilt edged scoring opportunities.

I think tracc is safe from becoming a whipping boy. Of course he is a star. One of the best six players I have seen play at the dees. His score involvements is terrific evidence of how good he is, and how important he is. But that isn't particularly relevant to kicking skills (all players in a scoring chain are credited with an SI). And doesn't change the fact he is a terrible kick.

That's a fair few best 22 to be fair. They need Williams up and about I reckon. They lack a bit of class.

Weird typo by me. I meant more urgent. Tj was the anthisis of urgent.

Absolutely. And it creates a problem for the opponents, which we saw last night. For better or worse, analytics is a big part of the game now. For example the risk reward equation taking on a high risk kick into the corridor (or last year for us trying to pick out a plsyer inside 50 as opposed to bombing long). The risk reward equation is different for each player. For example the blues are desperate to get the ball into saads hand down back. He had the green light to go for the kick to the corridor. But what if they can't get it to Saad? Instead it ends up in the hands of a less skilled player. Do they take the kick to the corridor on? What's the team rule? You could see that hesitation and confusion play out last night. And they didn't really take the corridor on because the risk reward was skewed the wrong way, as evidenced by the 2 or 3 times we intercepted in the middle and scored (I doubt it was more often than that). So, the blues were slowed down and often forces to kicked to an outnumber.