Macca

"And here's the final score ... Melbourne 10.10.70 defeated Richmond 7.27.69. In further news (as we reported at half time) the Aldi store in Victoria St has sold out of its supply of microwaves ovens."

Well, I was all over the polls during the US election and many/most of the news outlets were proclaiming a Hillary victory because of the polls ... the podcasts that Silver is associated with were as well. I listened to nearly all of them. Many of the staunch Democrats are still in shock ... they didn't see a loss coming. What I've learned from it all are that polls are dicey when it comes to immigration and matters of race. Some/many people hide their true intentions. If Le Pen gets into the final 2 with the far-left candidate (Jean-Luc Mélenchon) as her opponent, do the majority of the French voters then vote for a candidate from the far-left? By the way, I don't have a dog in the fight as I never fully buy into party politics from any side ... my interest is in the process and the outcome.

It might also be a case where she (as an individual candidate) fares much better than the party she represents. Polls can tricky to read as we all found out with the Trump victory. The 'rust-belt' only became a real talking point on election day and after the election with Trump. This time around there are no electoral college votes at stake but Le Pen needs to finish 2nd or better to get into the final vote (May 7) ... it might be a case of her vote count being solid enough to gain 2nd place with the winner being a candidate that doesn't appeal to the majority of French voters. And that's when it can get interesting.

Yeah, I was assuming that that would probably happen but was interested to see how many primary votes a candidate like Marine Le Pen does actually receive ... and also, what might happen if Marine made it to the last 2 candidates. The following article from CNN explains things better ... Win or lose, Marine Le Pen is a nightmare for the EU

Well I'm nearly 'over-it' but mainly because I reckon the punishment was fair enough. What I would like to see is an admission of guilt and for the EFC club to face up to it's responsibilities to the sport - won't happen though. They remind me of common criminals who never admit to their crimes. Also, the AFL had a great opportunity to get really tough with regards to PED use ... but that didn't happen and almost certainly won't happen either. There's too much money at stake and in their eyes, PED use is far too difficult to curtail. So we get a softening in all areas - in turn, the footy public and the whole order of things is kept in check. Weekly blood tests which results in blood-passports would help enormously ... instead of that the players are subjected to 1 or 2 urine tests (on average) per season. Token.

Have any of the 34 players ever said a bad word about him? You would think they should especially after being rubbed out for a season. Strangely quiet though ... 4 years later. Anyway, some of us were saying exactly the same thing as to what you've said both here & elsewhere in early 2013 TF. Not that many of the footy loving public were ever listening back then. Even now many just want to turn a blind-eye. But that's the nature of sports fans the world over ... we shouldn't ever expect anything otherwise. The media will in turn reflect the public sentiment and there you have it. At a guess I'd say there's any number of copies of the records - and those records will almost certainly never see the light of day either. The big losers were the EFC ... they are still in recovery mode and will be for quite some time. As for the drugs-in-sport issue, most have come around to the realisation that all sports are tainted with PED use (with some more so than others) But there's big money at stake in sport and those monies must be protected. Could have said that 30 or 40 years ago too - it's not necessarily a recent phenomenon. I'm assuming that you've heard all of the above before but others might not have.

It will be interesting to see how Marine Le Pen fares in the current climate (Le Pen is the leader (President) of the National Front political party in France) Anyway, here's a couple of up-to-the-minute podcasts about her chances ... Up First 21/4/2017 (NPR) The Daily 21/4/2017 (NY Times)

Can't complain with the Packers schedule either ... our home games are all winnable. We're @ Atlanta in week 2 with other road games at Dallas, Pittsburgh & Detroit but I relish the games against the good teams. Helps having Rodgers of course. We've got Seattle at home in week 1 - Lacy might have a bit to prove first up for the Seahawks. The Falcons are at the Patriots in week 7 (SNF) ... that will be interesting.

And just like that the EPL title race just got interesting again. It's still Chelsea's to lose as Tottenham would need to just about win-out but 4 points can be whittled down to 1 point in the space of 1 round of games. Ironically, Spurs play Chelsea next up in a FA Cup semi-final.

A blast from the past with the 'Punter to Punter' crew

Not a pass mark ... it would be if we had a average list OD. 3 & 1 would have been acceptable. We need to win at least 2 of the next 3 and with Hogan back next round & Lewis ready for round 6, we can do. We can win all 3 if we're switched on. However, if we lose 2 of the next 3 or lose all 3, we're in trouble. We've got the Crows in round 8 and our nemesis (North) in round 9 so we need to win now. One week at a time is for those who are actually involved.

I may be in the minority here with regards to ruckwork & taps to advantage. Gawn back to Spencer is a significant drop ... yesterday was a great example. 58 taps to 22 with many to their advantage (especially in the 3rd quarter) You often only know the value of a great ruckman when you haven't got one. I don't drink I meant it in the sense of 'home-town' decisions ... which is a staple in sport re officiating. i.e. ... in order to win against the WCE at Subiaco you need to be a much better team to start with (maybe not 10 goals better but better all the same)

I've always felt that if a team is a 5* goals better team and that team in turn plays to its capabilities, then luck and the umpires aren't a factor. We could have gone into yesterday's game as a 5 goal better team but for one reason or another, we didn't. A 1 point win would have sufficed yesterday. *Make that 10 goals when visiting the WCE at Subiaco

There's a whole bunch of reasons we lost yesterday OD ... 1 kick in it means a big slice of luck too (but using the luck element would be making excuses) Ordinarily I'd be confident against the Tigers next week with regards to bouncing back but the game starts in the middle and Jake needs to have a good game (in terms of rucking) Do that and we'll be right in it.

Yep ... Garlett & Watts are quite good but both players still miss shots that they should get. It's a confidence thing and whenever I see any of our players turn their backs on the goal (and not try and improve the angle at the same time) I see a player who perhaps doesn't relish the opportunity to have a shot. I'm treating last week as more of an aberration but the issue remains. And it's an issue with a number of our players ... there's no one player who is the chief culprit although Kent, Hogan & Harmes don't fill me with a lot of confidence. A positive is that our midfielders are starting to score more goals (as a collective) The other positive is that we're no longer talking about endless 10 goal thrashings. We're right in the games now and the expectation is to win. The players looked gutted at the final siren yesterday.

Some of our players are ignoring some absolute basics when in the process of having a set shot for goal. I see the same errors time and time again and it's as if they can't believe their good fortune in having that set shot ... Walking back with their backs to the goals (a no-no) ... every single moment counts when lining up for goal plus there's always a chance to dish the ball off to a player in a better position. Not trying to improve the angle of a shot ... walking backwards towards the opposition's far behind post should be the default move and we should be doing that 100% of the time. The umpire may well be awake to the tactic but not always. Also, a number of our forwards also get caught playing from behind far too much - but that's been an issue for years. A good forward relishes the front position - all the great forwards have that instinct. Of course, a forward doesn't have to be in front every time but must do when the ball comes in quickly or in a haphazard way. Basics.

Yeah, we've come a long way but if our senior players were all playing their part along with the youngsters putting their hands up, we'd be 4 & 0. I prefer to focus in on the better and more senior players because they set the standards. The fact is that of the 10 players (I'll include Lewis as well) who we could confidently say we can rely on, only 1 of them did well yesterday. Of course it's just 1 game but I'm not sure how we can win games with so many players either down on form (Jones, Jetta & T-Mac) out of form (Viney, Tyson & Vince) injured (Gawn) or suspended (Hogan & Lewis) We can either wonder how we got so close against Freo or imagine how much we would have won yesterday's game if most of those 10 players were major contributors. Of course we've got a much better list but we've still got to actually perform on the day. We've still got to get it done. Most of our best players yesterday were the kids and whilst that's a nice blueprint for the future, it's not a great blueprint for right now.

Our best players are collectively well below par and that's one of the reasons we're dropping games ... and we don't have an abundance of top/good players on our list (right now) Last year we had Jones, Vince, Hogan, Viney, Gawn, T-Mac, Tyson and probably Jetta & Watts. A top/good player should be expected to play well and/or beat his opponent 4 out of 5 weeks (or at least 3 out of 4) So ... fast forward to yesterday's game. Here's that same list of 9 players ... Jones (a quiet day) Vince (not at his best) Hogan (unavailable) Viney (out of form) Gawn (unavailable) T-Mac (average day) Tyson (prolific but still wasteful) Jetta (not at his best) Watts (was quite good) Of course, we've got others now who are now stepping up to the plate including Oliver, Hunt, Salem, Petracca & ANB but we aren't getting anywhere near the same output from the senior players (and that list now includes Lewis) It's been an issue for years with regards to our senior players ... we need to get a lot more output (aside from an injured Gawn) and it needs to start next week.

In the end it came down to 2 evenly matched sides and 1 had to lose We got smashed in the ruck though (22 - 58) and that was the difference. With Gawn playing we could have been expected to have at least broken even but given the form he is in, we probably would have had an edge in the ruck. Spencer toiled manfully but was clearly outpointed. In turn, we forfeited any advantage we could have had with regards to clearances and more importantly, clean clearances. Take away that advantage and that brings them (Freo) closer to us. Same goes for our upcoming games. Added to that we were without 2 more of our most important players (Hogan & Lewis) We at least get Hogan back next week but the rucking could remain an issue. That's not to say we can't win without Gawn - of course we can. It's just more difficult without him. Clean clearances often result in scoring opportunities and we need to figure out how to create clean clearances without Gawn.

My understanding is that the players are on an agreed contract amount and that amount is guaranteed. There might be some added incentives like a decent B & F finish but if a player is on 600k or 700k, they get all that money in full (a good amount of that contract might be paid up front with the residual probably paid monthly or possibly fortnightly) I highly doubt that a player would get docked money for being suspended. Perhaps they should do but the maximum fine for most indiscretions is 5k ... that agreed amount is part of the collective bargaining agreement that is still in operation by default. In a nutshell, none of Lewis, Hogan or Vince would be out of pocket for being suspended.

The Leafs made it ... tough series first up vs Washington though GTG. I've picked the Capitals but you may surprise. Still, it's playoff hockey where anything can happen and often does ... here are the 8 matchups with (for what it's worth) my picks in dark italics. East Montreal vs NY Rangers Ottawa vs Boston Pittsburgh vs Columbus Washington vs Toronto West Minnesota vs St Louis Edmonton vs San Jose Chicago vs Nashville Anaheim vs Calgary

Every time me missed one of those very gettable shots at goal Geelong got the ball back with sole possession ... on a number of occasions they eventually scored from those numerous possessions but quite often we ended up getting the ball back off them and worked our way into a position to have another very gettable shot at goal. Only to miss again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. It happened at least 7 times in the first half and about as many times again in the 2nd half. I was keeping tabs and posted as much at half time on the game day thread - here's the post The game should have been over at half time and definitely over at 3/4 time. And we could/would have won the game in even more convincing fashion if Lewis & Hogan had been available. Take the worst 2 players out and replace them with those 2. What could go wrong did go wrong. Losing Max just added salt into the wound.

Adam Scott would have to be a realistic chance as he does finish well and is only 3 behind. However, Justin Rose might just be too good in the end. 31 on the back 9 today from Rose might be pointer. Spieth, Garcia, Moore, Fowler, Hoffman & Schwartzel are all within striking distance as well. As always, high drama will almost certainly ensue. Especially on the back 9.

What has now happened to Gawn has a lot to do with the original discussion about his workloads and what might happen if those workloads were to stay the same or if they were to be reduced. Whilst he was on the ball for 90% or more, then having a 2nd ruck like Watts or Pedersen isn't really an issue ... however, that amount of workload for Max can increase his chances of getting injured. And look what has just happened. So, my original argument still stands. I wanted to lessen the workloads on Gawn which meant that our 2nd ruck position became one where a 'fill-in' probably wasn't going to cut it. It will be interesting to see what Gawn's workloads are when he returns - I'm thinking that the MC might take the conservative route Anyway, it's probably best that we agree to disagree on this one AF but I can see your point.

Some of us are (and were) looking at more than just one game AF ... we're having a separate debate where both arguments can be right. You're right, our kicking for goal yesterday cost us a victory but against a better opponent where we do kick well for goal, the rucking can then become an issue. And we might find that out as early as next week. My issue with Jack is that if Max rucks for say 75%* of the time, then Watts can then get exposed (if he has to ruck for 25% of the time) By the way, Watts did very well as a follower/midfielder yesterday but his actual rucking was below par. The Cats had 56 tap-outs to Gawns 20 and Watts got 9 (and I'm not sure that any of his 9 taps were to advantage) With Spencer now taking on the main duties the coaching staff are now going to have to come up with a decent plan. And Spencer isn't in the class of Max Gawn so the plan has to be at least somewhat different. *75% or perhaps 80% should be the maximum amount of time that Gawn plays on the ball.