nutbean

We have such a plethora of ruck stocks - so you trade out your all Australian ruckman - yup makes perfect sense to me ...

My rusty memory remembers a career of two halves. His first seasons he played in the centre and won a brownlow medal - he was unselfish and continually put his head over the ball getting concussed on a few occasions. This is where i get bit rusty - did he get injured ? I recall that for some reason he was out of the team and a young Chris Connelly took over in the centre and was an instant hit. Wilson came back to play on the half forward flank and kick lots of goals. At was at this time his game did change and he could be accused a little of being a little selfish and showboating. He was so strong in the hips and very good overhead for his size.

I'm with you... coulda woulda shoulda...if my sister had balls she'd be my brother. So many impossible to know outcomes masquerading as probabilities.

Disagree. I think you are confusing motivation with implementation. Getting your agenda passed into legislation or policy which you don't like thwarted is a skill no matter how repugnant you may find the stance. Howard worked out the best way to defeat the referendum on the republic was to give the electorate too much information and lock them into one position only. He set up the referendum to fail. You can call it cynical, lacking in vision and appealing to the ignorance of the electorate - but did it work ? As much i disliked the outcome I cannot back away from suggesting that Howard was a clever political operator. Contrast this to the plebiscite - i read an article about the gnashing of teeth from some within the liberal party about an unintended consequence of this plebiscite. There were a multitude of 18 - 21 year olds that were not registered to vote and apparently have little interest in politics (Turnbull v Shorten etc). However they have been galvanised by this single issue and there was over 100,000 plus new registrants to vote which also means that these same 100,000 plus who in all likelihood will not be liberal voters will now be voting in the next general election. The Libs are apparently not happy about this unintended consequence. This is an example of dumb politics.

I firmly believe that people of all sexual orientations have the right to be married and as miserable as I am.....

Turnbulls predicament is of Turnbulls making - instead of waiting a little longer for Abbott to totally implode and have his party begging for him to to take the leadership, he went early and had to do deals with the Bernadi's of the world to get the top gig -those deals included no free vote on gay marriage, climate change policy and the republic. On more detail on legislation for SSM you are damned if you do, damned if you don't and the Howard strategy on the republic was a perfect example. Instead of Howard asking "do you want the queen removed as head of state" which may have got a majority yes vote , he went with asking if people wanted a republic and outlining the model. Do you remember the main reason that came out for the defeat ? The model was that president would be elected by a 2/3rds majority of parliament - that would have made it bipartisan. People rejected that saying we want to directly elect our president. So we have a system now that our prime minister who does some wield power ( although legislation must get through both Houses of Parliament ) who is not elected by the people - Keating, Turnbull, Rudd mark 2, Gillard mark 1 to name a few, but the public got up in arms about not being able to directly elect a president whose role was ceremonial. Mindnumbingly stupid. It was a referendum set up by Howard that was brilliantly designed to fail.

I find this whole debate infuriating. Climate change, immigration, indigenous affairs - there are so many sides to these issues - they are not black and white and for every one argument you can bring up on these issues there are counter arguments ( whether you agree with them or not) that warrant consideration. This is such a non issue that affects one part of the community and one part of the community only. This law could have been passed 10 years ago and the only impact on my life would have been a couple more wedding invitations. One needs to ask why are we even having a plebiscite ? Anyone who say so Australians can have their say are kidding themselves. This was an Abbott invention to delay and muddy the debate. If anyone wants to stick to the argument of a say for all Australians, I will bring up safe school programs - thanks for bringing that red herring into the debate wrecker - anyone care to explain to me why we are having a plebiscite on an issue that affects such a small segment of the population yet safe school program which affects all our youth at school we have zero say in ? That issue is left to the pollies to handle. The plebescite has been brought in purely as a political strategy designed to give the best chance of failure. It has had far from overwhelming support from the party that is meant to be championing it. It should have always been a free vote in parliament - that's what those bozos are elected and paid to do - understand the will of the people who voted for them and enact.

Tell me what legislation you have ever seen in your lifetime that has been made available to you before any election and your vote ? Common sense isn't all that common.

So by this wonderful logic I presume you never vote in any election ? After all politicians and parties don't tell us what their legislation will look like - they campaign on broad brush policy. The whole notion of how this simple act of allowing same sex marriage age will affect things like "safe schools" is such a nonsensical argument. This safe schools legislation is not tied at the hip to same sex marriage and has already had movement and purported changes independent of the same sex marriage vote. All we are being asked to do is vote on same sex marriage. Any other issues like safe schools and religious freedoms (or any issue for that matter) may or may not be brought up in parliament and may or may not be enacted.

And if you can't see why the traditional marriage ad was disingenuous at best then I can't help you as you are probably too blinkered to understand. i know exactly what I am voting for as it is clear on the form. Again if you don't understand a simple one sentence question then I am afraid I can't help you. As to what will be legislated that is up to the blokes in Canberra as this should have been in the first place instead wasting time and money on a non binding plebiscite.

I am not sure you even read what you post. If you want to accuse others of pointing to things and not having the courage or foresight to say what is wrong with and therefore it screams lack of thought - What exactly did you do in your opening post ???? your opening post pointed to the whole freakin ABC ( and Getup and Intifa) without any reference to how they might be ruining the campaign - I think you may have trumped (pun intended) the one ad I pointed to ? So what is wrong with the ad ? We are not voting on safe schools program, we are not voting on whether a kid was told he had to wear a dress, we are not voting on whether play acting two of the same sex getting married is right or wrong, we are not voting on religious freedom. We are voting as to whether two of the same sex can get married.

And you didn't catch the coalition for marriage ad on television ? You keep talking about open mindedness but you continually demonstrate your lack of balance. You simplistically categorise most issues into left or right. I have a news flash for you - across the spectrum your "left" and "right" are guilty of extremes, dishonesty and exaggeration As soon as I see the categorisation "left" or "right" it just screams lack of thought.

But made a fantastic sponge cake......

If you are telling a "family friend" that you want to leave your club and play for another club - well, I believe that the player might be the one at fault not the family friend who can't keep his mouth shut ? How many "friends of Hogan" were quoted on here telling us he was leaving ? Take all this stuff with a grain of salt. (I have been reliably informed that Tom Scully will stay at the Dees)

His disposal by foot is iffy at best - but I have told you a million times before not to exaggerate. He turns it over too much but he does not go at 50% and I would suggest that even if 5 kicks a game miss a target and really hurt us, if he averages close on 30 kicks then 15% are hurting us. Having said that - Hawthorns success was pretty simple - have players who can find the ball and can dispose it. We now have plenty who can find the ball. We need more that kick well and when we get those players they will go past Tyson in the pecking order.

Gee comparing TJ to Dom is harsh on TJ - TJ was an elite ball user EXCEPT he would occasionally try for an overly ambitious kick that wasn't on and therefore turn it over. Dom just has trouble on occasions hitting up very simple targets or blazes away to the opposition.

After your often used 3 word description for Dom, we have now taken to calling him "PBW" when we watch the game !

i believe tomorrow is wharfie mouth Wednesday....

joeboy - pretty good assessment.

And here is the problem - it is not about learning to tackle. In our middle part of the year when we were on a roll we were close to the top of the pops for pressure acts and our tackling was exemplary. Saturday's tackling was not a lack of knowledge - it was a lack of desire and application.

I am always for improvement. Right here and now - who would you replace Tyson with that is on our list. At this stage no-one. So it is like anything - if we can trade to advantage then fine. But at this moment Tyson is not keeping anyone out of the team. I absolutely hope we can get better midfielders as this Saturday showed exactly where we fell down. We could not hit a target to save ourselves. One of the keys to winning any game is footskills and we are lacking. Tyson unfortunately sits in the "iffy disposal" category which is a shame as he doesn't have a problem getting the ball.

This was your response to "Why not the midfield for not rolling back quicker and putting pressure on?". I would counter that I am not expecting mids to win one on one defensive contests. I expect mids to roll back hard and pressure to try to ensure that the ball does not enter our defensive zone with any fluency. you will find that most team (unless they are really horrible by foot) will hit up a target if allowed to carry the ball through the centre of the unopposed. This pressure will help the stat of opposition scoring so often on entering of our defensive half but wont stop the losing the defensive one on ones. Frost and Omac are the best body on body footballers. TMac is better but still not his strength - he is better at intercept marking or coming over the top and spoiling. Nev is surprisingly good for someone his size and so is Hibberd.

I didn't think that was the case. I thought that players contract's expired after the trade period ended so you had a chance to trade players who were coming out of contract but before the national/preseason draft.

Arya rocks my world. When Nev Jetta retires she would be the perfect replacement in the back pocket.

me too. It was a Tuesday and it was raining.....