Macca

This game is a step up from last night's eyesore.

Gawn paying 51.00* for the Brownlow ... nice odds. He could dominate a dozen games or more and with the no-third-man-up rule in vogue, he may stand out even more. 16 votes in his breakout year last season could be a pointer too. *gamble responsibly

Raiders heading to Vegas ... 2019, maybe 2020. Some are saying they should just go now ... interesting to see how their fans will react. It's a different culture over there so who knows?

Clanger Totals 6 - Lewis 5 - Oliver, T-Mac 4 - Melksham, Jetta, Petracca, O-Mac 3 - Hunt, Vince, ANB, Gawn. 2 - Smith, Garlett, Salem, Hannan, Hogan A total of around about 22 clangers were made by backline players other than the Mac bros. However, mistakes made anywhere on the ground can in turn result in an opposition score. Even an easy missed shot on goal can result in an 11 or 12 point swingaround (coast to coast goals) But it goes further than that of course ... for instance, in the first quarter and a bit of Saturday's game, our non-switched-on midfield cost us dearly on the scoreboard. Not getting to a contest or not making a contest can also be extremely costly ... and some clangers are often quite inconsequential. But despite all of the above, we won the game in impressive fashion. .

ANB certainly played well yesterday and he'll need to keep that form up ... when considering his role he did well in tackles, clearances, contested possessions & overall possessions - he also linked up well and ran hard to position. And he'll know that certain other players are vying for his spot ... all good. .

I'm not disagreeing with your appraisal but if we had a fully fit list we've probably got about 30 players who could be described as 'best 22' ... more to the point is how many players have we got who can play well in 4 games out of 5 or at least play well in 3 games out of 4? If ANB can reach those heights he'll be in our best 10-14 (if the team continues to play as well as we did yesterday) ... so in an ideal world it would be 'best 13-16' and the rest of the spots are constantly up for grabs. Certain other role players and project players pick up spots (Weid, Oscar and 1 or 2 other young players) Spencer may not be in our best team but for certain match-ups against certain teams, he'll get game time. ANB should have his eye on a category A spot ... but so should all our players. Competition for spots is something we haven't seen for a long time and it's a nice problem to have.

Taylor wasn't officially with us for the 2012 off-season but it stands to reason that he would have been consulted for his opinion. That's my guess anyway. In the 2012 draft we swapped a top-end pick for Hogan which meant we had to wait a year for Jesse to become available - an inspired choice. We also somehow managed to only spend a 2nd round draft pick for Viney. Pick 48 delivered us Dean Kent. We've whiffed on a few picks but again, that's always going to happen given the nature of drafting & recruitment in general. On an overall basis our recruiting and list management has been top-notch over the past 4 off-seasons - and we're now starting to see the results.

Talent is talent regardless of age bc ... that '87 team of ours was awfully young and inexperienced too. There are other such examples including the '93 Bombers. Oliver is 19 years old and already has the head of a veteran. I didn't think we'd win today and I'm more than happy with being wrong. The way we bridged the gap in that 2nd quarter was ultra-impressive. The team looks hungry for wins. Bring on Carlton.

A few numbers ... Possessions ... Oliver 36, Jones 35, Lewis 32, Vince 30, Stretch 26, T-Mac 24, Neal-Bullen 23, Petracca 23, Viney 23, Hogan 21, Brayshaw 21, Jetta 20, Salem 20 (13 players with 20 or more) Clearances .... Oliver 9, Viney 8, Jones 4, Neal-Bullen 4, Lewis 4, Hogan 3, Brayshaw 3, Stretch 3 Contested ..... Oliver 14, Viney 12, Petracca 11, Neal-Bullen 10, Jones 10, Lewis 9, Brayshaw 9, Oscar 9, Stretch 8, Jetta 8 Tackles ......... Oliver 7, Neal-Bullen 6, Viney 5, Hunt 5, Jones 4, Hogan 4, Gawn 4, Hannan 4, Garlett 4 Hogan took 4 contested marks (the most by any player on the ground) & took 5 marks inside 50 (again, the most on the ground) T-Mac took a total of 13 marks of which many were intercept marks Gawn had 49 hit-outs - I'd say at least a dozen to advantage (?) .

Gawn was dominant for the whole game - especially in the first quarter. However, our midfield set-ups in the first quarter and a bit was all over the place. We were going to the wrong spots and the Saints were allowed to rove to Gawn on some occasions unimpeded. Exactly the same thing happened in a few games last year (against Essendon & St Kilda?) and whilst it might look like it's Gawn's fault, it isn't. He was winning the tap and hitting it to a designated spot and we were nowhere to be seen (for a time) As soon as our midfield started doing their job properly we ran away with the game.

6 - Gawn (slaughtered Hickey in a dominant display) 5 - Oliver (this bloke could be anything) 4 - Hogan (played a really good game) 3 - Jones (knocked up getting kicks) 2 - Lewis (prominent when it mattered) 1 - T-Mac (set up numerous attacking forays) Apologies to Vince, Petracca, Hunt, Jetta and a number of others. Especially Vince.

Well, again, you might have come to those conclusions Wrecker but it wasn't widely reported that way ... another example of how individual thought (however correct) differs from the reality of how things are perceived. Before the election we were hearing very little about the 'rust-belt' States and let's face it, those rust-belt states were a significant reason why Trump actually won. Hindsight tells us many things but foresight is far more valuable. The so-called experts (pollsters et al) couldn't have forecast the result more incorrectly. As for the 2nd bolded bit, Trump is fast becoming his own worst enemy in terms of getting policy through ... or perhaps it was always going to work out the way it's working out because of the way he is. As a result of the way he acts and of what he actually says, he doesn't have that mandate even though he has a clear majority in the House of Reps (he also does have a workable majority in the senate) He needs to butter-up the Republicans and garner a reasonable amount of support from the Democrats (for certain policy) but apart from that, what he has said previously is coming back to haunt him (the muslim comments etc) Whether he likes it or not, he has to play the game in order to get things done. The new health bill has failed (perhaps permanently) and his immigration bill has also failed (for now) But the biggie is the manufacturing base and the jobs associated with all that ... again, we're back at the rust-belt States and the other States who's citizens are expecting real results that suits their respective hip-pockets. If the House of Representative numbers flip in 2018 then the conflict will increase to an unworkable situation. .

Of course not ... I don't know how you could possibly jump to that conclusion. Perhaps you are having trouble interpreting what I've said or you haven't read what I've said properly. Either way, you couldn't be further from the truth. 'Fake news' ... Wrecker style. I might just try it myself - stay tuned. I can play that game. Anyway ... an example of seeing the world through the world's eyes is you forecasting the US election as another 'Brexit' ... now that was interesting. I interpreted that view of yours as you weighing up all the data and then arriving at a likely outcome. You did however have grave doubts on the day of the election and if I recall correctly, you were warming up your Hillary avatar ha ha.

What might be of high interest to you and myself personally may well be of little interest to the masses. The truth is that our personal views aren't that important in the whole scheme of things. An example of that is my view that the USA should have an inexpensive medical coverage program that looks after all and sundry. But here's the catch ... how can it be inexpensive and do the Americans want such a program anyway? And is it ever likely to happen? I don't believe that they are the sort of country to embrace such a scheme. I also have strong views about their insane gun laws and their paltry minimum wage over there. But again, my view is irrelevant if nothing is ever likely to change. Wasted words in fact.

Ha ha! ... even if that happened it's well over 2 years away. In terms of governance & policy it's all about right now ... so it's about Trump, his administration and the Republicans. I've got nothing to let go of as I've got a foot in both camps ... having a firm belief system in either side of politics is not for me. There's too much compromise involved otherwise.

Fair points Wrecker but the here & now is what matters most ... it's what effects actual lives and hip-pockets right now. The Clinton stuff only matters to those who could give a fig. As stated previously, largely irrelevant to those who are judging those with the power to make actual decisions. (Trump & his associates and the Republicans) For that matter the Democrats is yesterday's news and so is Hillary. We may as well be talking about a would-be coach who missed out on the top job. The Dems will come again but Hillary won't. Mind you, the mid-term election banter will start up in less than 12 months.

I'm fully aware of the role that Watts played last year Deestar ... and I'm happy for the MC to persevere with Watts as the 2nd ruck (we don't have a lot of other choices unless we play a pure ruck like Spencer) My concern is that Watts has had zero practice in the practice matches (ruckwork) and on top of that, he's not a seasoned 2nd ruck anyway. As previously stated, it may not matter but it might. When you can cross all the t's & dot all the i's you do so. The other concern is the heavy workload on Max. Can Watts ruck and be effective for 20% of the games? I hope he can because he might have to.

In a closely fought game, I'd rather the team being advantaged in an area that we could be disadvantaged in. It may not matter of course but with so much attention being paid to detail these days, it may well matter. I'd have preferred to see the MC give Watts a decent amount of work in the practice games (if he was always going to play as the back-up ruckman in round 1) I understand he had to sit out the first 2 games but he could have spent at least some time in the ruck in the 3rd game. Rucking is hard work ... first of all the ruckman needs to know how to protect himself and in turn hurt the opposition ruckman. Then he needs to possess the ability to win the tap-out and place that tap to the teams advantage. So practicing the art of ruckwork is imperative.

We all see the games differently and how dull would it be if we didn't all see things differently? I don't share your view AF but that doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't mean I'm wrong. If Spencer wasn't going to play in round 1 then why on earth didn't our other relief ruckmen get some work in any of the 3 practice games? And it's very important that a weak area (in my opinion) at least gets some meaningful practice. In an ideal world we'd have a strong 2nd ruck playing (and that 2nd ruck doesn't have to be Spencer) ... breaking even or neutralising sounds a bit 'meh' to me. Why can't we have a distinct advantage? One could draw a conclusion that Spencer was earmarked to play in round 1 and the MC baulked at it at the last moment. Don't be thinking I'm a Spencer fan either - it's all about the team in my eyes. Here's a thought ... if Gawn stitches up Hickey, it probably won't matter. But if he doesn't ...

Well I never actually said Watts was incompetent in the ruck. The reference to ruck incompetence was a 'general' comment and you've drawn your own conclusion. Good ruck work = clearances = score involvements (obviously, not every time) If we're doing the opposite of that then the result can be described as incompetent. I'm not sure the team gets a lot of score involvements when either Pedersen or Watts are rucking and I do believe the opposition tends to outscore us when either player rucks (if we broke it all down) Any tap-outs that Pedersen and Watts get for us are generally not to our advantage either. But that's just the eye test. For the record Watts got 42 tap-outs in 22 games last year & Pedersen fared a little better with 33 hit-outs from 9 games. We know that Gawn tends to ruck for a great majority of the games (is it 90%?) but our relief rucking is a weakness within the team all the same. And Gawn should be rucking for about 75% - 80% of the games if we want to preserve the bloke. Many others here tend to focus on individual errors and turnovers (of which there are often many) but from my point of view, as soon as Gawn isn't rucking, I'm concerned.

I don't mind persevering with the idea of Watts being the relief ruckman but again, he's done zero ruckwork in the lead-up to Saturday's game. Taps to advantage are being measured now and we're seeing more and more set-plays from clearances. Ruckwork is often underplayed but we saw first hand from Gawn last year how valuable a decent ruckman is. More to the point is that the value of a decent ruckman is quite apparent when a team doesn't have one. The relief ruckman can't be below average - in fact, the goal should be for the relief ruckman to be well above average. That's if we want to be a true contender.

St Kilda represents the same problem that we witnessed last year - they are fleet of foot and use the ball well, it's a fast track and they spread well. Plus, Hickey's recent record against Gawn is quite good. Playing Spencer could be a mistake in terms of being 1 rotation down for the midfielders and the 4th quarter is where that 1 less rotation can really hurt (especially in the first game of the season) But if he doesn't play then who does the relief ruck work? It has to be someone (Watts?) who has done zero ruck work in the 3 practice games. That's not ideal either. Turning the ball over is fatal in today's footy but losing clearances because of incompetent ruck work is also a big concern. It was a concern last year when Watts or Pedersen did the relief ruck work and it's something that Goodwin needs to fix.

Or Comey is incompetent or biased Or he may have seen the Hillary investigation & the Trump/Russia investigation as completely different to each other (for various reasons) Bottom line is the Russian stuff is not going away and could drag on for months. The Hillary stuff is now largely irrelevent ... that ship has sailed. We know who won and now we judge the winner only.

Was going to say the same re the Trump/Russia ties investigation dating back to July Imagine if that news had been made public back then? Then again any investigation of this sort might be compromised if it's made public. Didn't stop Comey from going public on the Hillary investigation (which lasted a week) Regardless, I'm not sure full disclosure would have changed the minds of Trump voters anyway. Hindsight tells us they seemed to be well and truly locked in. Those rust belt States were his. Other, associated issues would have come into play. Trump won the Republican nomination on July 19 so that might have been a close call (re the investigation starting date) Anyway, interesting times ahead (as always)

Tillerson on North Korea: Military action is 'an option'