Macca

Yep ... and the VFA went to 16 a side in the early 1950's. For the reasons why use the Occam's Razor approach. I'd go to 16 a side just to see where it takes the game. Too many are turning away and there are too many complaints. No other sport has these issues. It's just footy. I'd keep a version of 666 though. (6-4-6 if we went to 16 a side) And reduce rotations to 10 per side per game. We might see the clubs recruit more athletes but what we might see the clubs recruit more footballer types. The latter type of recruiting might come later. But the game would have less congestion and as a result, less tackling. Keepings-off would still exist but less-so if the length of a kick for a legal mark to be taken was increased to 20 or 25 metres. All I know is that most people I know watch way less footy these days and I myself barely watch the sport at all. Apart from our games of course. Those who are turning away from the sport need to be catered for rather than condemned. Loyalty is a 2-way street.

Yeah the footy isn't great but it's times like these where you find out a lot about the club Wadda. Tanking aside, we need to still act like professionals. Both collectively and as individuals. The reason I mention tanking (and it still goes on) is that list management and recruiting for needs started way before the point that we're at right now. So we almost certainly have our eye on a certain type or a certain player (much like we did with Oliver) As much as I'm a skeptic with drafting I do recognise that the best of the best are quite often at the pointy end of the draft. So we can do both ... fight out the season and find out who we want to go with as well as having an eye on the future. So I will be watching the last 6 games with avid interest. As well as the Ashes! (along with the golf, le tour, EPL, MLB & the horses) ha ha

I have heard about the Basketball World Cup recently but not sure on the details Wadda. As for the Ashes, my theory on winning over there (or anyehere for that matter) often revolves around individuals scoring centuries. Do it enough times and you set up wins ... and if a player scores a big hundred it's hard to lose a match. So we've got Smith and who else? We need Harris, Warner, Khawaja or someone else to make some big scores (as well as Smith) Our bowling is fine but our bowlers need scores that can allow them to bowl to targets. Can't say I'm all that confident but we live in hope!

Apart from all that drafting is flawed anyway so the debate/argument is based on mistruths, myths, incorrect projections and crystal ball gazing. In a nutshell the draft is a bit of a lottery with lots of hidden nice prizes and any number of busts But I agree with your reply Gonzo ... up to a dozen clubs 'Qualified' for priority picks which were obviously tanked for. We just did what the others did but our drafting results were poor (which, when taking into account how flawed the draft is could have easily been predicted) The draft believers will disagree and that's their choice. I'd rather look at the truths surrounding drafting. Putting an absolute value on a draft pick number is flawed too. The Hogan/May deal with a top-end pick involved as a bartering tool makes more sense. In the end we swapped Hogan for May. A 'virtual' swap per se. May is older but looks to be a good asset and who knows what Freo will get with Jesse. I wouldn't call it win/win (yet) but both clubs got what they needed.

Can't be sure but his payout might have been the same whether he resigned or was sacked Was he contracted beyond this season? My guess is he hasn't lost out in a monetary sense. But not many resign although RDB was never sacked in his 4 stints as coach. Matthews? Jeans? Kennedy?

We're 5 & 11 after coming into the season where the expectations were very high (from most) So it stands to reason that there would be mounting tensions. A shake-up of the assistants with at least 10 changes to the list is my tip. As for Viney, when he is fit and raring to go is when we see his value. His kicking efficiency drops away when he plays hurt. At his best he's a bull who can break tackles and then deliver the ball unimpeded (it's then up to the forwards to produce) His value decreases quite sharply when not fully fit. He's not the most accurate of field kicks so he needs to be 'freed up' to hit targets (or kick to advantage or space) Being co-captain he'd want to always play and he strikes me that that is how he is wired anyway. Which in turn makes it tough for the selectors if they want to rest/rehab the player. Unlike others, you only have to look at Viney from the get-go to know whether he is ready to go or not.

June/July are huge in terms of Overseas sport and then the EPL starts up in less than a month. The NFL not long after. Spring Carnival and then the home tests vs Pakistan & New Zealand. Until then we've got 2 more weeks of the Tour de France, British Open Golf and our Demons might even win a game or 2! I'm a bit of a fan of Rugby League these days so there's that too. Rugby Union World cup in September. Champions League? Oh ... and a little urn gets played for kicking off in just over 2 weeks! There's a bit goin' on.

Yeah ... was talking to a few people today and they couldn't fathom why they would schedule all 3 at the same time on the same day. Plus, the 'Tour' was on as well so there was a feast of sport. There's probably a dozen world-wide sporting events that need to be watched uninterrupted and the Cricket World Cup & Wimbledon are 2 such events for many people. There's a point of difference with the FI's & Cycling but events such as the GF, State of Origin, Boxing day cricket and such like need singular attention. The Open Championship (Golf) is another and that will get most of my attention next weekend. Big sport just never stops Wadda!

They won't be replaying the match Wadda as the World cup just returned home! The Poms might be all about fair play but there are limits! Deciding the World cup by the most amount of boundaries is high farce. Who thinks of these things? Laughable really. A tie would have satisfied some but finding a winner of a sporting tournament isn't rocket science.

We could but Preuss doesn't have good hands. And he's up forward to take grabs. If we had some decent small forwards then Preuss providing a contest would be of more value. He can at least do that. We know he can ruck and is very able back-up to Max. The effort was there on Sunday ... he's just not a threat and doesn't really know how to play as a key forward. But who else is there? Petty did ok and Tim Smith might be available (?) Weideman again? You may be right Bub ... give the big boy 6 more games and see what comes of it. Season is shot anyway and Preuss might just start clunking them.

Yeah that was a questionable decision but the umpire might have thought that Stokes had completed the 2nd run. Again, he has to make a quick decision. To be honest, I much preferred the days when we just accepted the umpires decision and got on with it. The rub of the green. But I have never been one to question umpiring decisions so I prefer to take the good with the bad and wear the odd bad decision. The LBW ruling is different as we're talking about bad rulings by the lawmakers It's those who I have a problem with. We make it hard for the umpires in cricket much like we do with footy. And the most boundaries decides the World Cup? Schoolyard type ruling Just keep playing another over each until you find a winner.

Re the technology ... I don't trust ball tracking but might prefer it if more than half the ball was hitting the stumps for an LBW appeal to be upheld. Anything less than that and I'm not satisfied. But that's just me. As for the reviews and the howlers ... the only way to get it close to 100% right might be to review every appeal - which creates another issue of course. Unintended consequences kicks in. But they (the ICC) should at least be able to find a better way. But it's the ICC we're talking about! Bottom line - Taylor wasn't out. And it's a World cup final and Taylor is a gun batsman. But I don't have a problem with the umpire giving Taylor out ... like many, he probably thought it was out and has to make a quick decision. If the process of ball tracking was quicker the umpire could have sent the appeal straight upstairs. But how many times before it could become farcical with numerous frivolous appeals?

Ì Was all of Australia barracking for Roger & the Kiwis last night Wadda? Loss/loss but that's sport for you. And both lost in such a narrow margin that would really sting Still, it was a great night of sport ... bleary eyed today though!

I'll be heading over to the tennis soon ... cricket on audio with the F1GP commentary online! Federer winning Wimbledon again takes precedence and I really hope he can do it. A perfectly behaved all time great hey? Should be more of it ... nice guys don't always finish last.

I didn't see it Wadda but you can't be behaving like that after a dismissal ... it's just not cricket! Looking at how the match is panning out you'd reckon the Kiwis are going to have to get to 250 at least. But at 5-186 after 42 overs they'll do well to get to that figure. New Zealand's bowling has been very good throughout the tournament so you never know.

Why bring in technology if that technology can't be used as originally intended. Now it's about when you use a review and when you don't use a review. Again, not the original concept. We still have howlers. In a World cup final. Rub of the green worked better ... the whole LBW technology ruling is all over the place. The same result can be out or not out depending on reviews or whether the appeal was given out or not out originally. We're back to where we started from.

Kiwis have started nicely ... 1-91 off the first 20 overs. Hard to know what a competitive score might be (all things considered) Anything over 250/260? The rule of thumb is often touted as you double the score of a team from the 30 over mark (with enough wickets intact of course) So if the Kiwis could get to 150 off 30 overs they might end up with 300. Edit: Kiwis are now 4-152 after 35 overs (lost 3-61 off their last 14 overs) 250-260 would be a good result from their position now.

Weekend Special MLB Monday 06.07am Oakland Athletics vs Chicago White Sox Oakland Win (-1.5) $1.90

Hunt trails his man again from a rushed kicked forward. Is he ever going to learn? Easy turnover as a result and an opportunity lost. Eventually the Dogs scored their 3rd goal All because Hunt chose to play from behind. And all our forwards do it so he's not alone. Undisciplined football ... coach killers.

Excellent point with regards to defensive pressure in our forward line t_u ... and it could be argued that those of our own (midfielders) who venture into our forward line don't apply enough defensive pressure either. Are the coaches demanding that forward line pressure? You'd like to imagine so but we can't be sure because we haven't seen it (of at least enough of it) Bulldogs & Tigers won flags on the back of defensive forward line pressure (amongst other factors) so we are a ways off that. As you said, even a 25% improvement would make a big difference. Overall tackle counts in our forward 50 would be a good pointer ... especially if the number was abnormally low. Our eyes tell us we're miles off so we probably only need confirmation with the actual numbers.

We've got about 15 inbetweeners on our list. Overall output - way below average. But the issue is that there are too many inbetweeners in the overall system (who are clearly not up to it) The sport would work better with a dozen teams. So there are 6 too many teams thus too many C & D graders. In terms of opportunity the AFL offers a lot but that comes at a cost of quality. The actual skill level falls away dramatically past the top 150 players. And any number of the best players are often injured Our club's issues with so many average (or worse) players is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem The other issue is that there is too much 'management' of players as opposed to actual coaching. It's not like soccer where the people in charge are managers.

If we were to look at our midfielders as a collective then you'd see that the output is a bit down on last year. But the fall hasn't been off the scale like it has been with our collective forwards. Gawn is not quite as dominant, Oliver the same, Harmes good now after a slow start, Brayshaw not as good as last year, Viney has had his issues whilst Jones is now better suited to a back flank. Lewis is no longer a factor so the output isn't fantastic but they've had no one in the forward line to kick it to all season. ANB is ANB. A good forward straightens up those disposing of the ball (by foot) We miss Hogan more than we thought we would. For instance, Brayshaw is playing the same as he normally does (gets on to his non-preferred side to create seperation) but his kicks are often intercept marked or to a contest. To my eyes he's doing the same thing but with different results. Ditto for the others in the midfield when dispatching the ball into the forward line.

And a couple/few of those 7 top-end picks will almost certainly be below par. That's how drafting works. There are no absolutes despite what we're told. The 'hope' attached to drafting leads many to ignore the bad news that inevitably surrounds drafting. So an extra pick increases the percentage play rather than guaranteeing another good player. As a coach, Dew should know this so why he doesn't want what is best for his own club is quite baffling. You take what you can get and if you don't ask, you don't get. I understand all the rest of it with regards to building a great list and a great club but again, you scramble for all that you can get in this league. We'd be a bit alarmed if Goodwin was in conflict with Bartlett over a priority pick. I guess the GCS are a bit out of sight, out of mind so that might explain the difference of opinion between the Pres & Coach.

Coach-speak? Goodwin wouldn't be concerned about our midfield anywhere near as much as he would be concerned about our forward line Collectively our forwards can't win their own ball and they often butcher the ball when they do get it. Petracca is the outlier as he does win his own ball but is questionable in front of goal ... his kicking action needs to be reconstructed. As for the others in the forward line ... I've outlined my reasoning in the above posts. I don't often blame the A-end of a problem but in this case, the forwards are largely to blame. They are clearly not up to it so they either improve dramatically (as a collective) or we make lots of changes (more so in the off-season) Today's result rests with our forwards. If they manage to fire, we can win. If not, we'll probably lose.

So it is not really about Weideman per se ... collectively our forward line has been woeful so in a team sport, changing 1 player in a dysfuntional unit isn't going to fix things. I'd be more inclined to play Oliver, Jones or 1 or 2 others forward for the remainder of the season and then do-over the forward line in the off-season. Target a key forward from elsewhere as well as some medium sized and small forward talent.