Macca

Clean Clearances Melbourne .... 9 (3 centre) North Melb ... 7 (5 centre) They are beating us badly with their pressure & their own much better ball movement.

Here's a rough draft ... Group 1 ... West Coast, Fremantle, Sydney, GWS, Hawthorn, North Melb Group 2 ... Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Brisbane, GCS, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs Group 3 ... Melbourne, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Geelong. As a consequence, we'd get 5 home games against the big clubs at the MCG every single season. All the double-up blockbusters stay and all the derbies stay. All the teams in each group play each other twice as well as playing all the other teams in the 2 other groups once. The winners and runners up from each group qualify for finals together with the 2 next best performed clubs from any of the 3 groups (2 x wild-cards) Final 8 seedings can still be based on W/L ratio & percentage.

Yep ... and I reckon a lot of Victorian footy fans would adopt a Tasmanian team as their '2nd team' And that could mean lots of folks heading down to Tassie on a semi-regular basis. Just to get away for a weekend. I've heard the 'population' argument ad nauseum and whilst it's an argument that a Tassie team may not ever become a super-power, more than half the current teams will never reach that status anyway. Especially the ongoing 'propped-up' teams.

GWS needs extra funding of up to 10-15 million per season ongoing ... ditto for the GCS. Brisbane have a better financial base but the Lions will continue to lose money and will eventually need greater funding by the AFL. Again, that will be ongoing. For proof, read their annual reports. The media won't be highlighting any of the above because it's not a juicy enough story and most of the sporting journalists are in line with the AFL's doctrine. A Tasmanian team would find it hard to break even at least initially but if the same levels of funding were given, they'd do it quite easily. And we know that the levels of funding given to GWS & the GCS will be ongoing. Perhaps indefinitely. The Swans were still getting funded in the early 2000's and I suspect it was longer than that. I reckon there are way more potential rusted on footy fans in Tasmania than the combined numbers in Western Sydney & the Gold Coast. And it's the rusted on fans that defines a club. They buy the memberships, go to the games and show real support. The TV money argument is bs too. I could mount an argument that the GCS & GWS are pseudo Victorian teams. After all, where does all the money come from to fund these teams? And where do all their players come from? I get the whole 'grow the game' argument and it's an argument that I somewhat agree with - so Tasmania needs representation as well. And the AFL could fund the start-up team just like they fund start-up teams elsewhere.

If we had 3 groups a lot of those fixturing issues would dissipate (in theory) The games against those teams from outside your group could have a home, then away (the following year) component. But it's almost certainly never going to happen that way ... the league has instead decided to add 2 more finalists so the compromised fixture will probably remain. So, our club needs to be super aggressive with regards to maximising our home fixtures. We're not going to be granted any favours so PJ's initiative with the ANZAC eve game is a beauty. We should therefore be able to strike a deal with the Bombers if we're predominately going to be playing them in the week after that ANZAC eve fixture. Another opportunity opens up as a flow-on effect.

Yeah Gonzo ... as dc said (above) I can see the other side of the argument and for what it's worth, the extra 2 finalists wouldn't have been my choice. However, I wanted the league to do something and I wasn't a fan of zero football in the weekend before the finals (from a continuity viewpoint) I see the new initial 2 finals as a sort of a prelude to the major finals ... we'll get used to it (some may not)

Like a few here, I'm a big fan of the division & conference model that the NFL employs. You're a bit of an NFL fan too so you know how well it works. Of course, nothing can just be simply transplanted but the eyes can always be plucked out (that reads as a bit Frankensteinish) I've been a critic of the 18 team ladder because I find it too cumbersome so I can't be too critical of the AFL's initiative ... it's not the change that I'd do but the extra 2 finalists does give incentive to those teams who might be sitting on 7 or 8 wins after 17 or 18 rounds of footy ... what we get now are way too many dead rubbers and too many teams angling at a higher draft pick number.

The standard of footy would drop with so many teams dc ... unless one of the divisions was the superior division as you've suggested but ... we're still left with an inferior 2nd division with a greater proportion of inferior players. If we've got 120 good players running around right now then that number of good players would be spread thin with more teams. Nice idea though. I'd like to see teams out of those regions that you mentioned but the only way to do that would be expand the league (Unless a team or 3 relocates) I prefer and still like your idea of 3 groups ... and leave the groups as they are for a prolonged period of time. You'd already have the rivalries to begin with if the 3 groups were set up properly. Your model would have the teams playing each other twice within the groups whilst playing every other team once outside of the groups. Dead rubbers may be less so because of 'group-rivalry' (much like what happens in the NFL) In the meantime, teams could be enticed by the AFL to play more games in the less represented regions (Tassie, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, the Alice - even Ballarat & Bendigo) We could have just the 2 wild-cards out of the 3 groups but we know the AFL are almost certainly going to bring in 2 more finalists so if that's the case, 4 wild-cards from the 3 groups could apply.

Impeachment proceedings may or may not eventuate but I reckon he's becoming a lame-duck president already. Much of what he wants to implement is either completely unworkable ((the wall) very hard to implement (immigration policies) extremely difficult to overcome (rust-belt jobs) etc etc. The heath-care bill was always going to be an ongoing work-in-progress without any finality. But as you said Choke, it's the jobs that he needs to somehow bring back and it's hard to see him being able to do that successfully. The real test for Trump is when we get to the mid-term elections. The Republican candidates both in congress and the senate will all be wanting to save their own skins and Trump could well become surplus to needs. Impeachment proceedings could eventuate if there's strong evidence that Trump and his team were in collusion with the Russians re the election or if Trump himself has attempted to pervert the course of justice (re Flynn, Comey et al) That aside, the upcoming election for all the house of representative seats is where we'll see where the real loyalties are. The senate less so as most of the senate seats (24-9?) up for re-election are democrat held seats.

All this angst over 1 or 2 extra spots on the list which might be reserved for ruckmen is quite counter-productive. In any given year, we could name up to a dozen listed players (who are not ruckmen) who are on borrowed time anyway. Sometimes it's more than a dozen. In 2012, 2013 and other years we had up to 20 listed non-ruckman types who were on the road to delistment. Having extra ruckmen on the list is sensible insurance. They can always be traded on if they're any good so there's trade value at play as well. As it stands, how many midfielders and half back flankers do we need? If we see many of those types as depth players, why not the same thinking for ruckmen?

I watch him closely on a regular basis and he's so clever at milking high contact, it can't be seen with the naked eye. The only way to pick up what he and others are doing is with slo-mo vision. Opposition players are not targeting his head or neck area yet he (and others) continue to receive copious quantities of high contact free kicks. McLean is another who is most adept at it. Anyway, most high contact free kicks should never be paid in the first place. It's always been an over-adjudicated decision that I've always detested. And I don't and won't blame the umpires either.

Ha! I just edited my post to include the would-be target area for the tackler. For years players were told to target the hips but doing that now allows the player being tackled to have his arms free to handpass. So the tacklers are trying to pin the arms which just exacerbates the issue. I can see the issue getting worse as more and more players become more adept at milking high contact. As stated previously, if they cut out the ticky-touchwood high contact free, the issue may be remedied.

Joel Selwood can milk a high contact free kick like no other ... the umps can't pick up how he is doing it, nor the supporters, viewers or the commentators. The ruling was always going to be exploited by the players as the game became more professional and that is what we're seeing. Exacerbating the issue is that tacklers often no longer target the hips because that type of tackle leaves the arms free to dispose of the ball. The solution is to simply never pay high contact free kicks where the contact is incidental. Rugby League, Union & even soccer allows incidental contact around the neck or head area but we've always had an interpretation that is far too ticky-touchwood. I reckon the original ruling (way back when) was more aimed at stiff-arm tackles to the neck/head area or if the intent was to tackle high. The rules committee (or it's equivalent) is where we should be pointing the finger.

Whilst I see the move of having 2 more finalists to be unnecessary in one sense I'm not sure it's much of a big deal in the whole scheme of things. They were probably more concerned about the bye weekend before the finals so to have 2 extra finals fills the void. To not have footy played at all for one whole weekend at the business end of the season does not make business sense. And make no mistake, footy is big business these days. Last season many/most were aghast at the thought of not having footy played in the weekend before the finals. Those complaints died off but the AFL have decided to fill the void anyway. So I see the move as a business decision rather than a football decision. As a consequence, 2 more teams get to play finals and that will ultimately appease 2 more groups of supporters and the clubs themselves. And that's why the club presidents are in favour of the change - that stands to reason. We all know that the premier team predominately comes from the top 4 anyway ... the Bulldogs win from 7th should be seen as an aberration so in all reality, positions 5th through to 10th are more often than not just making up the numbers .... and the 'numbers' suits the business model and gives real hope to 6 sets of supporters. Ultimately, we all support the corporation otherwise known as the AFL. They are going to do what suits their business model like any other business would do. I'm looking at this from a practical point of view.

Doggies were fantastic in that quarter ... their whole team just seems to switch up a few gears.

Johan Brunkvist with 'Downtown Lounge' followed by Hiromi with 'Seeker' (the full version)

Like others I see it as a bit of a money-making exercise but the supporters of those teams who finish 9th & 10th will embrace it ... including our members & supporters if we ever finish in those places on the ladder. I'd felt that the ladder has become too cumbersome with 18 teams and would have preferred dc's idea of 3 conferences groups instead. Just the 8 teams playing finals with that system though (1st & 2nd qualify from each of the 3 groups together with the 2 next best performed teams) Finishing in the top 6 now becomes a goal as well as the top 4 and the top 2. The new system also alleviates the issue of the 'footy-bye' before the finals. In the 2nd week of the finals (which used to be the first week of finals) the Thursday night game would probably be one of the qualifying finals (1st vs 4th or 2nd vs 3rd)

Quintana takes the lead in the Giro d'Italia after a gruelling climb to the finish in stage 9 Unfortunately the Giro isn't being shown on SBS due to rights restrictions but the event can be seen on Eurosports if you've got cable. Here's a stage by stage preview ... stages to look out for with regards to difficult clubs are stages 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 (mainly the last week) Edit: And now Dumoulin takes over the lead after a superb time-trial in stage 10. Dumoulin holds a 2:23 minute lead over Quintana after Nairo had a poor time trial. There's plenty more to play out though.

Hindsight tells me that we were in disarray back then ... with no one particular person to blame. We had issues at board level, with our administration, the FD & coaching and our playing list was well below par. What we've seen from early 2013 is a process of a rebuilding of a club from the ground up ... and we've still got a lot of work to do. The best performed sporting teams (worldwide) never rest up.

I've seen enough DX ... we get a good run with injuries and we'll get to 13 wins. Winning the way we did on Sat night is worth more than 1 win. The whole squad should be brimming with confidence now. Collectively our midfield can perform at A class. We might hit a wall for a short time but every team will experience that with the type of footy that is being played this season.

Fearless football on show and who needs a ruckman? All things being equal we're back on track for some September action. Whilst we're in the midst of footy's version of that Seinfeld episode where we do the opposite, we could leave T-Mac forward when it suits and possibly play Hogan at CHB (in bursts) when he returns. Vince should be used as a tagger whenever applicable and when Gawn returns, we'll be even better. Our combined midfield is now quite capable of dominating games (as we saw last night) Petracca in there adds another dimension. Exciting times ahead.

Gotta go with Pittsburgh this time GTG ... and would it be Nashville's first appearance in the final if they get through over Anaheim? It might be their first conference final appearance. Anyway, I'll be tuning in. Anaheim v Nashville Ottawa v Pittsburgh

Couple from 'Fall Out Boy' ...

The investigation is not necessarily a media driven thing ... it's actually an FBI investigation or at least it was. We may see an independent investigation now anyway or perhaps a bi-partisan involvement from both sides. As stated previously, they'll need to find a real link to the Russians and then proving that link is going to be awfully tough. And then what penalties could they bring? I do believe it will drag on for quite some time though. Maybe at least a year. Nixon was going to sack J Edgar but baulked at it once he realised how much dirt Hoover had on numerous individuals (Nixon included) ... Flynn and now Comey could have a bit to say now that both have been removed from office. From the New York Times ... In Firing Comey, Did Trump Unleash the Next Deep Throat?

Well I don't care about Hillary or the democrats ... you'll need to direct those sorts of comments to the left wingers here. I understand that your preferred candidate won but that stuff doesn't interest me at all once the dust settles. It's about the here and now so the winner (Trump) now gets scrutinised much like a footy coach does. Whoever talks about the also-rans in that sense? This is all about Trump and his team and the investigation ... and that investigation is a very real thing. It isn't going away despite Comey now being out of the picture. Unless of course the right-wing news outlets have decided to ignore the story. Oh hang on ... The left wing news outlets are often just as bad so for once you really are conversing with someone who is actually impartial. You're a free thinker Biff, you should join me. I can't see someone like you being all-in with Trump ... that makes no sense.