Macca

A similar reaction came with the punters after a run by Avilius in Melbourne last Autumn (Australian Cup) It was reported after the disappointing run (1.4 length 5th) that Avilius had contracted an ulcer/abscess in one of it's eyes. That's got to affect a horse. But punters are an unforging lot so the good odds were on offer in it's next run. It duly won at 7-2 (overs) I got on and I might have even made it my best bet here. And other times horses just don't run well because of some unidentified problem (like weariness from a solid campaign - which happens a lot) I thought Vega Magic's odds were a bit too short anyway. Sprint races often throw up mixed results (especially at Caulfield or the Valley)

Hang on a minute Wadda For a start Oliver gave the horse a near perfect run. Sat just behind the leader on the fence and then got the dream run on the inside. The horse never left the rails. But then the horse didn't go ... it was later reported that the horse has a hot spot in it's foreleg. If serious the horse may well be retired. I knew there was something wrong with the horse as soon as it didn't have that kick. I didn't need confirmation. I did my money too so you're not alone. Go back and have another look at the race Wadda. I understand that you may be hearing about the possible injury to the horse for the first time so thus the cross wires.

It's all about the X's & O's in certain games not about the actual output. Although from an overall perspective it is about output. But if you're measuring things by goals kicked by key forwards in certain games it's a short-sighted view in today's footy (crowded forward lines etc) To me a forward line starts and finishes with key forwards who have a presence, can take a mark and can kick straight. But they can't do it all the time these days. But the 'threat' has to be there. Stuff that is hard to measure. It's like not having a proper ruckman ... someone like T-Mac, Weideman, Tim Smith or Watts will eventually be outpointed to a point where the opposition can only lose if their coaching is incompetent. A journeyman ruckman like Nankervous will suffice though because he's a proper ruckman. So if you've got 2 dud key forwards the same sort of outcome can occur. As we saw this season. Not playing key forwards isn't going to work either as the opposition will find another way to gain a strong advantage in that situation (unless you've got 3 or 4 champion other forwards like Chapman, Johnson et al) Our lot apart from our key forwards are below average as well. Petracca is our best but he has goal kicking issues. So describing our forward line as dysfuntional isn't overstating things. Our issues are quite identifiable if the truth be known. But fixing things is easier said than done because of the restrictions with recruiting. I can remember when the club (and the supporters) thought our troubles were over when we recruited John Tilbrook. We placed him on a half forward flank in a dysfuntional forward line devoid of talent. And then the players wouldn't kick it to him. Starvation corner had a whole new meaning And then the supporters blamed Tilbrook! That's how it works but I see things way differently. You put a gun small forward into our dysfuntional forward line right now and he'd be wasted somewhat. Surround him with a couple of top-notch gun key forwards and it's a different story. So one comes before the other. Working from the opposite way is high risk. We'd be easy to coach against and the outcomes indicate that as well. You put Lynch & Reiwoldt into our forward line this season and we'd be playing finals again.

What are you saying?

Yet many questioned as to why Pail McNamee was prepared to make a play for Jono Brown back 11 years ago. Brown was exactly the type of key forward that we needed (to replace Neitz) and I was all for it. Was only going to be for 4 or 5 years but Steven May falls into the same bracket in terns of probable years of service. In the ensuing years the closest we came was with Hogan but his value was underplayed and understated. Measuring the value of a good key forward changed once the game became congested (along with crowded forward lines) Some players are just no good in confined spaces & circumstances. And when the bright lights shine others just aren't up to it. Others relish the contest and relish the front position (as key forwards) And that is what we desperately need in our forward line. Crumbing forwards are the add-ons. 3rd & 4th forwards largely the same.

I don't ever look at the general importance of 1 spot on the list. Considering there are often 20+ expendable types in any given year with any given club with any given list, what's 1 spot? I'd play Jones and/or Viney as small forwards to fill a need. At least we know they'd both fight hard for the ball and would get to the right spots. Jones will almost certainly be in his last year anyway whilst Viney might surprise. The other current options aren't good enough. So we could go for 3 or 4 tall forward types. 1 might turn out right whilst another might fill a need. It's trial and error or ... make a play for a big gun forward. Or perhaps 2 gun forwards over a 2 or 3 year period. Instead of all that we still.place too much importance on untried high school age draftees. Often to zero effect. We did it with May & Lever so why not shore up our forward line? Supporters get too pre-occupied with small forwards. I'm hoping the club is thinking a lot bigger than that.

Yes Melanie Tyndall lost her life after falling from a horse at the Darwin meeting yesterday.

Gotta aim for the stars CJK. Otherwise you never win. As an example I was all for the Tilbrook, Big Carl, Templeton & Moore acquisitions. May & Lever the same. But we needed to keep going with that type of thinking. Bring in 20 top players over 7 or 8 years like North Melbourne did and you become a power club that wins flags. Year after year after year. Meanwhile we languish down at the bottom of the ladder all too often. Think and act big.

My main point is that in an ideal world we'd have 2 key forwards of the calibre of Lynch & Reiwoldt (for instance) All the rest of it takes care of itself if our recruiting is always on the ball. The add-ons such as Melksham & Fritsch compliment. Small forwards for the same type of reasoning. Richmond missed out on playing in a GF on the back of 1 key forward having a day out. That's how valuable they are. Mason Cox couldn't repeat it but he got rid of the Tigers. And when you've got good key forwards who can repeat then you're on your way. Just as long as the numerous other positions are filled with talent as well.

Awful awful news with the 2 young jockeys losing their lives. Such a dangerous occupation. Deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mikaela Claridge & Melanie Tyndall. Heart wrenching.

Fritsch can be a good 3rd forward marking type ... good point. But we desperately need a No.1. We needed to replace Hogan with a like for like. A year later and the need is even more obvious. If we go with the same type of tall forward set-up we won't improve. The other teams know that as well that's why they upped the ante on pressing and pressuring our midfielders. Knowing that our forwards can't win their own ball allowed the other teams to pick apart our game plan with ease. Therefore, our inside 50 conversion rate became abysmal. And that was all evident early in the season. We need to make a big play on at least 1 tall forward from elsewhere. But 1 acquisition may not be enough. Some creative trading can get it done rjay. I reckon we need 2 as I'm doubtful on Weideman and T-Mac works best as a float forward/utility forward option. Let's face it, both players failed massively this past season so to go again with the same system doesn't make any sense. And then there is the injury factor so back-up is required. As previously stated, small forwards work best on the back of good key forwards.

We need working key forwards ... 3 of them. One of them should be T-Mac whilst Weideman has it all ahead of him. And we need back-up forwards. Petracca can often act as the 3rd forward depending on match-ups but sometimes a 3rd marking type is required. The obsession with the over abundance of NQR midfielder types needs a shift in thinking. Especially at our club. Small forwards work off the shirt-tails of good key forwards so we need to put the horse before the cart. Ironically using high-end or middle-area draft picks on forwards of any description is fraught with danger. There's the good news but lots of bad news. And the bad news shows up how flawed drafting is in general. But the bad news can often show us the right way of going about it. For instance ... a much easier and safer option is to trade for goal kicking talent. Barring injury, you at least know what you're getting when going down that path. And our needs are immediate.

If Alizee had have got up I would have had a bumper day Wadda. As it was I followed Gator who produced 5 winners. So ended up reasonably well in front. Dawn Dawn at 8.50 (boosted) was a terrific start in race 2 (another Gator value pick) As for our picks, no good but it was only a small multi investment so no biggie. Didn't follow JJ (James Jordan) as his picks were on the short side but he got 5 winners as well. The big multi was there for the taking! They are the best 2 tipsters in the business in my opinion. I'll post up their tips going forward if I've got the time but Gator's Melbourne racing tips are posted on Racing.com on a Wednesday evening (under the banner of 'Best Bets') whilst James Jordan's Morphettville tips are up just after 9.00am on a Saturday (again, on Racing.com)

I'm not as convinced as some that the club will post a big loss. Our income streams have taken a hit but the NT & Pokies revenue is/was still flowing through. At a guess we might post a loss of 500k - $800k which can be corrected going forward. But there again, we might not post a loss at all. I'm more concerned with our on-field fortunes (which effects the bottom line) The list needs a make-over/do-over ... specifically outside run, general pace, kicking skills, goal-kicking forwards and experience. And we almost certainly will need to give up something to get what we need. If a player or 2 wants out, we need to use that to our own advantage (rather than viewing that as an automatic loss) Turn a negative into a positive can always be the mantra when it comes to trading. There's always a lot of needless speculation when a team goes 5 & 17 but it's my belief that we were only one decent forward short of winning 10 games. Or if our forward line was functional, same story. Our list isn't top 4 material but more so in that area of 9 - 10 wins. But that 9 - 10 win season is dependant on a forward line that isn't dysfuntional. If we want to be better than a 9 - 10 win club, we're going to have to make a number of personnel changes. Which includes the Football Dept. Footnote: It should always be remembered that despite the club being largely unsuccessful on the field from 2007 onwards, the club continued to post profits every year bar one season (2013) For confirmation go and read our annual reports (which are readily available)

I've got Fundamentalist included in my exacta strategy Wadda. Godolphin rarely use Damien Oliver (who is aboard Alizee) so Oli might pull out an extra special ride. Apparently the instructions are to ride the horse cold and then swoop home. It's my best and $3.60 for the win is quite reasonable too. As for Vega Magic - excellent choice.

How is this for a magnificent gesture. Kudos to the Kwok family (owners of star galloper 'Beauty Generation') Beauty Generation’s owners gift $1 million to Tye Angland’s family

Here's a treat for you NFL fans Sports Illustrated NFL Preview (click on 'Activate Links', then 'Novafile', then 'I am not a Robot', then 'Slow Download') ... wait 90 seconds then your download link will appear. It's all on the up & up (and free) You can then read the magazine through Adobe Acrobat or your choice of other readers. Whilst I'm here ... the tipping comp again? 3 road winners in any given week is the task at hand (for those new to this thread) Various points are on offer as we work our way through the season in order to find an overall winner. Easy as pie (apparently!)

As previously stated, I don't have a pronlem with India's stance on DRS at all. And I stlll don"t because of where we sit right now. And because of the mixed outcmes that we've seen with DRS, India has been proven correct in a lot of ways. Pointing the finger at India is missing the point anyway. They're not the problem. But my view is in the minority so I don't expect anyone to agree with me. India has softened their stance anyway so it's all heading to a point where the umpires are going to act more like orderly's rather than decision makers. But the DRS technology has it's issues as well. I don't believe it's all that accurate so the flaws will still create arguments.

The technology is only as good as the knowledge & judgement abilities of those programming the technology. And is the programming uniform from country to country? The judgements using the technology on any given decision would be the same for both teams within a match you'd reckon. Where as the 2 umpires might judge things differently and any given umpire might see 2 similar incidents differently. I'd prefer total technology as we're very close to that outcome anyway. Any given decision can right now be challenged depending on the review situation. And the technology should get better & better. And I'm coming from a platform where I've never had a problem with umpires. The rub of the green was fine with me but we're now in the middle ground where howlers can still happen in a random way. As we saw on Sunday night. I didn't see it as out but that's just me. The majority did however see it as out so the majority is probably right. But not definitely right (IMO).

Best Bet Saturday Caulfield Race 8 No.11 Alizee (Win) $3.60

And maybe India are making a good point DJ ... this middle area we are in frustrates me more than when we had no technology at all I don't believe that India have any sinister reasons for having the stance that they have either. Maybe they just prefer an old school approach where the rub of the green ruled. My preference now is to do as you've suggested. Just review everything because the pace of the sport allows it. But can an LBW be given out if there is no appeal? ha ha I played in a SF once where the umpire told us that he would have given a player out caught at bat-pad but no one on our side appealed. The bloke missed it by a foot but according to the umpire he edged it onto his pad before popping it up to short leg. Needless to say there were any number of stunned looks as the player in question went on to make a 100 and we subsequently lost the game. A 'needless' appeal would have come in handy!

Excellent Summation DG. And like anything else in sport (or life for that matter) there are nearly always unintended consequences when change occurs (or when change is thrust upon us) But I'm in 2 minds on how DRS has effected the umpires and umpiring It could be that they have always made a number of errors and DRS is now showing them up and/or they are 2nd guessing themselves as a result of the 'accepted' technology. I reckon it's both. Baseball is experimenting with 'Total Technology' in AAA baseball (one rung lower than the majors) and I know a couple of real baseball fans who reckon that the umpires in baseball will eventually become a thing of the past. That's for every pitch and all the rest of it. Of course, no such thing is even possible in footy so the disillusionment with umpiring will rage on forever! Footy will never get close to getting all the myriad of decisions correct. But cricket can go very close to getting it near perfect. Total technology will give us that near-perfect solution but otherwise we have to put up with human error. Ongoing. The other thing we should remember is that we are often the recipients of the good fortune. It's just that our minds can neither acknowledge or even remember when that happens. But it does happen. It has to.

Arriving at the correct decisions shouldn't have anything to do with the captains and the majorly flawed review system Instead of arriving at the correct decision in a sensible way we now have a situation where a 'probable' howler happens coupled with a stuffed up review by Paine So 2 problems exist when no problem should exist. It really is quite ridiculous.

I wasn't sure that it was out as I thought it might have been sliding down leg. Might have just clipped the front pad too which could have straightened the ball up. Not sure that ball tracking picked that up or whether ball tracking is accurate anyway. Pretty images but I'm not sold. Anyway, you take the good with the bad and we threw the game away beforehand with poor bowling, average fielding and questionable captaincy. The last umpiring decision was less than 5% of it but will become the focus. To me it is negligible and it all evens itself out anyway Wadda. Given how the rulings are dealt with you have to expect a couple of poor umpiring adjudications anyway. Umpires are going to make errors. We can replace umpires but the next person in line will be no better. It will be more of the same. I see what everyone else sees. But as previously stated, the howlers still exist because we've now turned it into a game of reviews. There should at least be an over ruling party that can review decisions. So if a batsman is out (or not out) we should be able to arrive at the correct decision The whole thing really is quite amateurish. We don't actually need umpires in cricket anymore so the quicker we move to the technological age the better. Or go back to just umpires making the decisions. At the moment we're stuck in the middle and the controversy rages on. But most people just hate umpires if we're being honest so the above won't make any sense to them. Besides which, the decisions often are in your favour which most fail to acknowledge. They just see red and that's it.

To me it's like the Demons losing a GF by a point to Collingwood after leading by 6 goals at 3/4 time. But I'm a test cricket tragic ... only the retention of the Ashes will ease the pain. And I'm not confident now. Stokes, Root, Archer, Broad and Anderson (if available) need to be curtailed. And their team will be brim full of confidence now. On the other hand we will be licking our wounds. The 10 day break before the 4th Test might help though. And I reckon Starc needs to play if only for variation. There was a sameness to our pace attack in this last test.