binman

True. But i suspect moving forward, Schache wont be competing with JVR to give Maxy a chop out. He will be working on his ruck craft at Casey. Based on his performance in the Swans game he'll be working on it at Casey for the foreseeable future.

An interesting dynamic created by the Opening Round concept is that 4 of the 8 teams (dees, giants, suns and lions) will be playing their second games for the season against teams playing their first (the pies are playing the swans and the tigers are playing the blues). Every year commentators talk about teams having a bit of ring rust in the first round and struggle a bit to pick up the speed and intensity. That could well be a myth, but if not, the 4 teams that played in the OR tjhat play teams playing their first games for the season could have an advantage over their opponents.

If it's between Tmac and BBB, and assuming both are are at the same level fitness wise, i suspect they will go with Tmac becuase he can do some centre square ruck duties, whereas BBB can't, and is a better ruck inside 50 than BBB. If they play BBB, JVR will have to give Maxy a chop out and i'd prefer he is allowed to just play forward.

This is the best emoji they could find for a demon? Looks more like an angsty goat. Better than the ones they chose for the hawks and Giants i guess.

As a rule, I'm against gratuitously booing oppo players. But all rules need some contextual flexibility, and im willing to make an exception in Maynard's case.

Just got home from being away for the long weekend Reading this thread, thinking it might be safe from the des copping grief form their own fans. Alas, not to be. DZ's post above was written during the Giants v Pies game, one the Giants went on to smash the Pies (easily could have been more). I'll keep reading. I wonder if I'll see multiple posts writing the Pies' flag chances off. Because you know, poor loss first round and it curtains and all that. Even if it is against a finalist from last year on their home deck in tricky conditions. Reasons = excuses. Some equal opportunity hyperbole. Or maybe there might some balanced comments about where the Pies are at?

I have two question. Mutiple teams have now had a clear strategy to physically target Max the whole game. This includes opposition rucks and talls smashing him at every ruck and marking contest. And every player taking the opportunity to bump into him and block him when he is running contest to contest. First question. Is there a line there in terms of that strategy being OK, particularly the blocking. Is it in the spirit of the game (yes, I know it's a tough sport etc)? On the latter, yes we got one off tge ball free when naxy was knocked to the ground. But there were heaps of other times he didn't. Should we be agitating with the afl to protect Max. And the second question is, yes Fullarton will help as he can give Max a a chop out, but what strategies can employ to mitigate the effectiveness of the oppo targeting Max?

Except for his kicking.

I just did/was. But you make a fair point. There were plenty of others who played worse.

I'm not one to bag players, and was more than happy to be open to the idea schache might be OK. But as we saw with weed, if a player hasn't got instinctive grunt and fire they rarely can develop it. Slippery night, so the talls get a pass on marking, but his lack of second efforts and inability to hold his ground are woeful. Both were on display in a contest where Grundy marked on the wing, on his chest. Weak effort by schache. They got a goal as a result. And those attributes means it hard to see him making it as a second ruck.

Has been an issue for several years. As has been a pattern not to adjust our method. Ironic that on a night we should of been kicking long for territory, we were linking up with hands. Again, our poor kicking was a massive factor. Slippery conditions exacerbate our kicking iusues because it exposes poor technique. Which made the decision not to start billings even more perplexing. And slippery conditions expose how much we rely on maxy's marking. Did he take a mark last night? Such a frustrating game to watch. Infuriating

Good call.

Joey reckons the swans are 'geared up'. Big if true.

Missed that.

Been drinking? Fine at my end.

35 minutes in and they have barely mentioned the dees I get that it is the swans 150th celebration, but it is also the bloody opening round and we're pretty keen to hear about our club too.

Curious.

Before he came to the dees, i always thought he was super over rated. Don't get me wrong he's solid ruck, got tap work and he is a fit bugger. But he is dead slow and short for a ruck. Now that he has left, normal transmission can resume He's plodder. The idea that this an even battle is ridiculous. Max will school him.

How good has the England India test series been. Awesome test match cricket.

It's bad enough the media is out to get us without statisticians and mathematicians jumping on board the anti dees train! Even @WheeloRatings is agin us, predicting a 7.9 point loss: https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_previews.html

I would be. In fact surprised is way too mild a description of what my reaction would if Fullarton plays in this match.

Berlin.

A terrific band. Funny you should mention the bass player, one of things i loved about them was their rumbling, swampy bass lines. The vid i posted, Passenger Blues, is a great example. Listening to it now on Spotify - they have 74 monthly listens , so plenty of scope for rediscovery! The Deadly Hume was also a great name for an indy band in the 80s given the indy rock circuit basically consisted of Melbourne and Sydney bands driving up and down the Hume in dodgy vans and old station wagons. And a tragically prescient name too. One of my all time favorite bands, and one that i really think was destined for greatness and huge popularity, particularly with the Nirvana lead grunge explosion on the horizon, was Eastern Dark (which i have little doubt you know well hardtack). Around for little more than year, they crashed their van on the Hume on the way down to play gigs in Melbourne (one of which i was going to, and a mate's band was supporting). Tragically their lead singer, James Darroch (ex Celibate Rifles - such a great, funny name for a post punk rock band) died, and the other two band members were seriously hurt. They had not long finished recording an EP, produced by Rob Younger of Radio Birdman fame (a brilliant producer) called Long Live the New Flesh. Realized posthumously, it is 16 minutes of simply fantastic power Ramones inspired power pop. Great, clean sound and mix too. One of the great Australian records. Best of health HT - positive vibes coming your way.

He had the right to brace for contact? Yep, that's exactly what he argued. A ridiculous argument. Because, one he initiated contact. Two, since when is bracing for contact defined as turning your body and bumping an opponent with your shoulder to their head? In fact to brace for contact in a situation where you are falling is defined in the Collins dictionary as: 'If you brace yourself against something or brace part of your body against it, you press against something in order to steady your body or to avoid falling' A definition difficult to apply to Maynard's decision to bump. And easy to apply to the logical way of bracing for contact when falling towards someone - putting both hands out to brace the fall. Why did the AFL not challenge Maynard's defence he was bracing for contact by choosing to bump rather than the way 95 people out of 100 would do in such circumstances if the aim was to protect himself? Again, try this experiment. Stand and fall face first to the ground. What is your INSTINCTIVE reaction to brace for the inevitable contact with the ground and protect yourself from harm? I'm not sure about you, but for the vast majority of people it ain't turning your body and smashing your shoulder into the ground. And (getting into the territory of whether this was in fact an unavoidable incidental football act, as opposed to the reckless act it so clearly was - as evidenced by the sickening impact) Gus was not really the 'ball carrier' as such. It's interesting you raise the viney example. IIRC he braced for contact, by turning his shoulder, when a player with the ball ran at him. He did so to protect himself from a danger HE DIDN'T INITIATE. And further, he wasn't moving towards his opponent, his opponent was moving - at speed- towards him In such circumstances, his decision to get into a ball to protect himself was completely reasonable. And unlike Maynard's decision to bump to brace for contact, is EXACTLY what most people would do to protect themselves in such circumstances. Unlike Viney, Maynard initiated contact. And critically, very much unlike the Viney incident, the ball had left the area. Remember, his argument was he merely attempting to smother. Well he got nowhere near doing so. The ball was 20 metres away by the time of contact. And finally, why did the AFL not drill down on the defence it was a football act? The obvious rebuttal to that spurious defence was that, sure a smother is a football act, but was that really a smother as it is generally understood? Running full tilt at someone who is running at you, jumping 10 foot in the air and completely missing the ball? That's a smother? A smother is generally understood to mean diving at the foot of the kicking player, hoping to literally smother the ball as it leaves the boot. So the person smothering has to be pretty damned close to the kicker - not 30 metres away. Besides, if it really was a 'football act' why is that first time (as far as I'm aware of) that a scenario like that has ever happened, where a player knocks out an opponent when attempting to smother?

Alot to love in this post. Great, short lived Sydney band. Family. My second favourite city. Dees. Go redlegs.