Macca

For what it's worth I reckon Trump would have won anyway ... albeit by a narrower margin. I'm not sure many flocked away from Hillary at the last moment ... they'd for the most part already made up their minds. I also reckon that it's going to be difficult to prove whether there was a link or collusion between the Trump team and the Russians ... maybe a 20 - 30% chance.

That's not what this is about Biff - you know that. It is obviously about whether there was any collusion between the Trump team & the Russians re the election process and whether there was any cover up. Time will tell (or maybe time won't tell )

Yep ... everything is connected on the footy field and there are always flow-on effects. I hate losing as much as anyone else but against the current trend of thinking, I rate rucking more than ever. That thinking was brought about by having a ruckman/follower like Gawn When Spencer returns we'll at least be able to 'somewhat' break even in the ruck.

We are on track ... we just need a ruckman. We're not a 4 quarter team yet and nor should we be expected to be a 4 quarter team yet either. If we were we'd be premiership material (and we're not - not yet anyway) We've gone from having the best 'taps-to-advantage' ruckman in the league to having the worst 'taps to advantage' ruckman. Consquently, the teams we are playing against have ruckman who are dominating us like Gawn does against others. A double-whammy effect. And that is no slight on Pedersen either ... he is battling against extreme odds and is obviously doing his best. I'm happy for Cam to remain in the team once we do get Spencer/Gawn back. Without a ruckman of note, we are/were always going to find it difficult to win games. And that is a reason, not an excuse. Jacobs this week will be more than a handful. Those who don't rate ruckman won't agree .... perhaps they'd be open to trading out Gawn once he gets fit. And before anyone wants to point to the clearance numbers against Hawthorn ... those numbers aren't real and are a misnomer. In terms of clean clearances, our numbers were woeful. Again, the Gawn/Spencer factor at play.

Normally the announcement of a President sacking an FBI Director would be absolutely stunning news but because it's Trump pulling the strings, I don't think anyone is actually surprised. At first glance it looks to be a straight-out brazen move to get rid of someone who may be a real threat to his presidency (re the FBI investigation led by Comey into the possible Russian connection to the Trump campaign & the election etc etc) Or, at the very least, the sacking of Comey comes at an odd time ... it was only a few short months ago that Trump was singing his praises (Comey) Politically it's a clever move in terms of buying time if the motive is to disrupt the investigation but those who might have thought that there was nothing in the Russia investigation might now be having 2nd thoughts. Trump could have inadvertently upped-the-ante against himself. Nixon managed to delay proceedings with regards to the Watergate investigation for close on 2 years and this new saga is following a similar path (if indeed, the allegations turn out to be true) From the Washington Post ... Tuesday night firing of Comey: ‘Nixonian’ or uniquely Trumpian?

Good find Wyl ... It's interesting that Goodwin played in premierships under Blight who played in Premierships under Barassi who played in premierships under Smith.

Most I speak to share your thoughts ... in soccer they talk about dynamic disposals but I reckon that might apply more to Aussie rules. Top players rarely waste a kick or a handpass - of course, the best players possess great vision so it stands to reason that they won't waste a disposal. Our forwards are still often caught out playing from behind - how do you measure that? In the first half the Hawk defenders were leading our forwards to the ball ... unacceptable. Roughhead plays in front constantly and therefore receives his fair share of free kicks. That's footy.

The clearance numbers we are given are often a nonsense. Neutral outcomes from a tap-out are awarded to one team or the other so as to match up to the total hit-outs. Clean clearances should be the measure. And often more than half the hit-outs result in neutral outcomes. The actual hit-out numbers are also often a nonsense - many of the so-called tap-outs are totally ineffectual. We're now getting the taps-to-advantage stat and about time too. Gawn was giving the team numerous taps to advantage and often, those taps to advantage resulted in clean clearances. That's his value (apart from his around the ground marking and link-up play)

Spencer will be back a lot earlier than Max and Jake can be a key component until Gawn does return. In fact, if Spencer had have played yesterday, we win the game. He would have won enough tap-outs to advantage to make a difference. Even if it was just 5 or 6 more clean clearances from his taps. We only lost the game by a kick. We also were quite inept in the first quarter and a half with numerous turnovers and fumbles. No excuses for that happening but the rucking issue remains problematical until Spencer returns. They might give King a go but he seems a fair way off right now.

And also realistic, bub. Most clubs are in the same boat ... except the best clubs might have 12 - 15 players who play well most weeks. Even the gun teams over the years had 5 or 6 players who were expendable. In 2012 & 2013 we had 1 player who was able to play well most weeks ... and that largely explains why we were so poor. X amount of 'good' players generally converts to X amount of wins (give or take a couple) And that's also providing that a club has a good culture and a decent coach & coaching staff. And good admin. The bottom line is that we all have to deal with playing players who either aren't up to it or are inexperienced. It's just a fact that the pool of good players in the AFL is not that large. There might only be 120 in total. If we get to a point where we have more than our fair share of the real talent pool, we'll play finals. You've got to have a ruckman though, all the same. And that's not an excuse, it's a reason.

Allowing for injuries, we haven't got 28 first choice, 'starting 22' AFL players ... so we have to play 2nd raters, kids, inexperienced or unproven players and the like. How many first choice, starting 22 players have we got? I'd say about 13 - 15 and of those 13 - 15, only about 6 - 8 can be relied upon to play well most weeks (right now) So players like Hunt, Brayshaw, Oliver, Oscar, Weideman, Hannan, JKH, Frost, Harmes, Wagner and the like have to learn on the job ... and they either sink or swim.

McEvoy wasn't generally palming or tapping the ball too far from the centre ruck circle either ... that was almost certainly a deliberate ploy by Clarkson to curtail our midfield strength. It worked too as we just couldn't clear the ball away from the stoppages with any sort of purpose or designed plays. Against Essendon we had 29 clean clearances but how many did we have yesterday? I wasn't keeping count but it would have been nowhere near that number. Maybe a dozen but that seems a high figure. Clarkson had the game played on his terms (in a lot of ways) but our turnovers & fumbling was a major contributing factor to the loss. And of course, our lack of a quality ruckman.

The clearance numbers are often a misnomer. In terms of clean clearances we were shockingly awful. Without Gawn and to a lesser extent, Spencer, we're probably only going to get our clean clearance numbers up when the other mob aren't very good (Essendon) In all our other losses this year we've been down a lot on the clean clearance count (in terms of what those clean clearances could be if we had a proper ruckman) When Gawn taps the ball to our advantage we're often able to bring the ball into our forward line crisply and with purpose. Spencer is obviously not as good but Jake is still a big step up from what we've got going for us now. We might have sharked more taps yesterday but we wasted the ball when we did get it. And we were often under extreme pressure when we did shark the taps. A tap to advantage is exactly that. The other area where we were atrocious was in our around the ground turnovers and our general fumbling. In both areas we were deplorable. The clean clearances will remain problematic until at least Spencer returns but the turnovers & fumbling needs to be eradicated as soon as possible. If we don't improve those 2 latter areas against the Crows we'll get smashed. As it stands, their rucks will probably have a field day anyway - and that will probably be enough for them to win the game.

Here's a more than decent podcast made recently by the BBC about Kerry Packer and the World Series Cricket days ... 5 Live Sport Specials - Kerry Packer: The revolution that changed cricket

I'm hoping that this thread becomes obsolete in the near future but it could be that the real threat from North Korea may be in 4 or 5 years time (if their weapons program becomes much more sophisticated) In the meantime and in that time frame, diplomatic means may win out. China can and should be doing a lot more and if China really do want the Americans to not step things up, they should in turn step in. I know Trump has said the same thing but these are my own thoughts CBF.

What can I say ... I'm just living in the past ... races off to edit

Good breakdown FB ... although Hurley would be the most likely to be 3 & 3 you'd reckon. Worsfold 4 to T-Mac and Goodwin 4 to Petracca?

Had a keen eye on the clearances because of the rucking situation we find ourselves in. Only counted those clearances where one side or the other gained a clear advantage. So for the sake of the exercise I'll call them 'clean' clearances. The AFL site had the clearance numbers at Melbourne 40 & Essendon 31 with the hit-out totals at Essendon 45 & Melbourne 25. But I dispute both sets of numbers. A lot of the hit-outs went nowhere and here's how I tallied up the clean clearances ... 1st Quarter ,,, Melb 6 Ess 3 2nd Quarter ... Melb 4 Ess 3 3rd Quarter ... Melb 11 Ess 6 4th Quarter ... Melb 8 Ess 4 ----------------------------------------- Totals ... Melb 29 Ess 16 So we did very well at the stoppages, all things considered. The decision to rest Leuenberger played into our hands as Bellchambers* is possibly the worst 'authentic' tap ruckman going around. But the Bombers might have planned long ago to rest Leuenberger because of the 5 day break from their ANZAC fixture. They might have also thought they'd lucked out with Gawn & then Spencer both being out but our MC had other ideas and turned the tables on them. Those who are planning on watching the replay might like to see what numbers that they come up with themselves (re 'clean' clearances) I did mark the clearances hard without any bias involved. There might be a +/- factor of 2 or 3. What is also interesting are the clean clearances after half time compared to the first half (the heat going out of the game etc?) *Bellchambers contributed to about a dozen of our clean clearances - well done big fella! Kudos.

I agree JR ... Petracca has a touch of Darren Jarman about him and he knows where the goals are. And he's only going to get better & better. Play him out of the goal square with a licence to roam with Jesse up at CHF. We can play another tall at deep forward as a sort of a modern day decoy (i.e. take a tall defender out of the play) The key is to move the ball quickly into the forward line with pinpoint passing or to one-out situations. Do that and we'll trouble most teams. The 3rd quarter today showed what we're capable of.

Clarrie has been monstrous in the 2nd half - the kid is a gun.

Some tired lads out there - we've given our absolute all. Ess running on fumes and we've just about spent our petrol tickets too. Take the win and move on. Always good to beat the Bombers - by any margin.

Hit-outs Ess 37 Melb 19 Clean Clearances Melb 21 Ess 12 (3rd qtr Melb 11 Ess 6)

Tap-outs Ess 20 Melb 10 Clean Clearances Melb 10 Ess 6 The AFL site has the clearances at Ess 16 vs Melb 14 but a lot of those clearances are not really clearances at all. Many of the clearances awarded result in neutral outcomes.

I'm doing the numbers with my own eyes (telly) and I'm marking the clearances harshly (in other words, the tap-out needs to result in clean clearances) May only do it to half time because I want to watch the bloody game

Tap-outs Bellchambers 10 (4 to Melb adv, 3 to Ess adv, 3 neutral) Pedersen 2 (2 to Melb adv) McDonald 2 (both neutral) Neutral 3 (no clear winner) To sum up we've got 6 clean clearances versus their 3 clean clearances from the ruck duels.