Macca

As it stands, the outcome will be fodder for the satirists for years. "They put the wrong card in the right envelope" ha ha l just loved the way the producer from La La Land snatched the card out of Warren Beatty's hand as if he'd taken over the running of the show. So much of the whole ending was just high-farce. Fake news? You betcha! .

Wow, what a monumental stuff-up at the Oscars Faye Dunaway with the help of Warren Beatty read out La La Land as best movie when they were meant to read out Moonlight. The whole crew of La La Land were in the middle of their acceptance speeches when the blunder was discovered. It's just laugh-out-loud hilarious! The satirists are going to have an absolute field day Edit: As it turns out, Dunaway & Beatty were handed the wrong envelope. So no real blame should be attributed to either of them (in my opinion)

It's hard to find some decent links but apparently the Obama administration attempted to ban/boycott Fox news in 2009 but the left-leaning news outlets bandied together to put a stop to it. Let's hope the same thing happens this time although the solidarity might need to be led by Fox news. Various administrations or perhaps all of them have all had their issues with the press with the most notable one being the Nixon administration ... first it was the press (partly because of their reporting of the Vietnam war) ... this eventually led to the break-in at the Democratic HQ'S and then the cover-up. Speaking of which, for those who have seen 'All the President's Men', here's a documentary of sorts which features Robert Redford, Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein (the close-ups of the participants kicks in about 5 minutes in) It's quite an apt link when considering another big issue at the moment - the possible links between the Trump administration & the Russians.

A missed shot at goal from a very gettable position followed by a coast-to-coast goal from the opposition is effectively an 11 point swingaround. Or 12 points if the gettable shot at goal misses completely. Not sure how many times that happens on average per game but a hell of a lot of easy chances are missed over the course of a season. 'Opportunity cost' can result in losses as we found out once or twice last season.

Good point with regards the giving of a decent chop-out for Gawn in the practice games but they could have done that with Pedersen or Watts or even a combination of both. Neither have got any game time at all though. We may be over-thinking it but sometimes the answer is an Occam's razor outcome (in other words, the answer is staring us in the face) I doubt that Goodwin is playing ducks & drakes either.

After a bit more thought I reckon Goodwin may well play the 2 rucks in game 1 against the Saints ... he may change his mind but why would he play the 2 rucks in the first 2 practice games unless the plan was to go with 2 rucks in the first game of the season proper? We've basically played our best side with the notable exclusion of Watts ... I reckon Jack would need to replace Weideman and that might happen. I can't see a spot for Pedersen regardless. Our approach to the first 2 practice games has been fairly full-on so I see the inclusion of Spencer as a pointer rather than a hit and hope. Gawn has looked dangerous down forward and Spencer does compete well and is hard at it. Both would probably have to remain on the ground for the duration so Spencer would need to provide something when he's not on the ball. Maybe the plan is to ruck Spencer for more game time than Gawn?

... or just avoid the game day threads bing That's difficult to do for the out-of-towners such as yourself. Many here have an unquestioned belief in drafting so at pick 50 odd, Tommy should be looked upon as an absolute bargain. But it doesn't work the other way around.

Good point Wyl ... yesterday we were at times a bit clumsy entering our forward line. It's the main reason why we didn't win by a lot more. I'm not upset about only winning by 9 goals but the margin flattered them. And it's not often that we get to say that. Working our way into better scoring opportunities often requires patience but not necessarily by holding up play. Our running patterns and running routes that our players took yesterday was something we haven't seen a lot of previously. It had a professional look about it.

You correctly predicted 10 wins last year OD so I'm heading to the TAB. 2.40* is a little skinny though (to make the 8) *Gamble responsibly.

I'm already looking past the West Coast game but many others won't ... I've almost seen enough to know what to expect this season. However, it will interesting to see what sort of a team Goodwin puts out there next Thursday week. Goodwin plays for keeps by the looks of it so we'll probably be going all out against the Eagles ... but I may be wrong on that. Weideman is just a young colt who needs time ... I find it impossible to judge him correctly yet. He does need to extend his arms for marks (chest marks ain't gonna cut it) but again, it's way too early to tell and he just needs more game-time (in the seniors whenever applicable) We've spent the pennies on him (draft pick number) so we need to find out whether he can play or not. As for Frost, I like what he brings. He's got x-factor and the bloke has some serious pace. He's in my team as well as I don't see him as just another tall key back.

We're becoming a proper footy club again but we're not shouting that from the rooftops. The mantra in a footy club should always be to get the job done with a minimum of fuss and never talk about what you're going to do. We played very well yesterday and there were some great signs. That's all that really matters.

I used Watts as an example of expectations versus what we actually get. We will have high expectations on Lewis and most will want Petracca, Oliver, Brayshaw, Weideman and a few others to be top players. That may or may not happen with all that lot and if it doesn't, c'est la vie. They'll all be trying their best to be the best player that they can be but 1 or 2 may fall short.

It's actually his 7th year now Col (time flies hey?) so I reckon what we're seeing is probably what we're going to get. I acknowledge what you're saying though and he is actually getting better anyway. He hasn't always been asked to play in this fashion as we played a boundary hugging style under Neeld and in Roos' first year and a half, we were often not attacking from the backline in the way that we are now. Honestly, it's the way I want to see the team play and I can live with the odd error from any player as a consequence. If we're going to be any good we're going to need that quick drive from the backline. Even Barassi threw Robbie on to the half back flank.

But here's the thing Col ... he is what he is. He takes the game on on an almost constant basis and because of that, he's going to make the odd error. If the coaches want him to never make errors then he'd then be maybe asked to be a lock down defender who looks for the sanctuary of the boundary line (or such-like) And I don't want that - not in today's footy. Like Watts & a few others, Tom is almost certainly not going to be the player that people want him to be. Hogan's kicking action is never going to be perfect either but I can live with that too. I could add other such examples but I reckon we should be more inclined to take the good with the bad when a player's good points allows that player to reach B or B+ status. And again, Tom was one of our best yesterday ... when the game was on the line, he excelled.

The constant wanting of a player to be better than he can be always amuses me H ... not many reach pure A grade status for good reason - they are incapable of doing so. But B or B+ will do me (accompanied by 3 - 5 genuine A graders) If you've got enough of those types of players then your contending. In the Northey & Daniher era's we fell short on having enough good footballers. The ones we had were fine, we just needed about 5 or 6 more (good footballers) Currently we're pushing our 'good footballer' numbers up ... it might sit at about 7 or 8 on actual output right now but if we get the number to 13-16, lookout. The Hawks have hovered around that number for a number of years now ... Sydney & Geelong the same (more so previously with the Cats)

I could highlight other scoring opportunities that resulted from mistakes from many of our players yesterday but I'd need to provide the accompanying vision. But if people are inclined to watch the replay in a different way than how they might ordinarily do, they'll see those same consequential actions. Mistakes in the backline seem more costly but are they? The amount of clangers made by our backmen is often a low figure in relation to the rest of the team too. But hey, despite all those clangers, we won the game quite comfortably and were never challenged. Strange that.

You're too focused on Tom and won't acknowledge the mistakes from turnovers that happen all over the ground that can result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition. You (and others) also won't acknowledge Tom when he plays well ... yesterday is a case in point. He was one of our best players as part of a terrific defensive performance by all our defenders. Carlton scored 9.8 and were lucky to get to that score. But keep focusing on the negatives if that's what floats your boat.

But you're not Goodwin ... perhaps you could send him off an email stating the preferred style of play that you want Tom to play. You and others just don't get it ... Tom is being asked specifically to play the way he is and that's the way it's going to be. There's going to be the odd error in the process - that stands to reason. In half the games he plays he makes no glaring errors - you and others need to start acknowledging that. A simple target ... what 15 metres backwards or something like that? You won't win games of footy trying to be too careful - we tried that under Neeld & the result was a spectacular failure. Tom sets up an enormous amount of scoring opportunities for the team and often he is the instigator of a long line of possessions. You haven't noticed?

No, you're wrong and you're another poster who's bias is quite apparent. Any turnover or clanger in any part of the ground can result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition. The chain of possessions that can result from a mistake in the forward line is a case in point. Even a missed shot at goal from a very gettable opportunity is a good example. If all the clangers & turnovers from all our players were highlighted then you'd have a point but like many here, you'd rather be lazy and highlight the scoring opportunities that don't involve longer chains of disposal. The levels of bias against Tom McDonald is ridiculous for the above reasons. It's you and the likes of you who need to go back and watch the games more closely. Besides all that, when considering the gamestyle that the coaches are asking Tom to play, it's small wonder he doesn't turn the ball over more ... unless you demand 'lace-out' on every occasion. A player who calls for the ball has an obligation to get it too - if you've played the game you'd know that. He's your player, start giving him the support that he deserves. Lose the hate.

The Saints have given us the run around the last few times we've played them ... they are slick movers of the ball and have good leg speed right across the ground. They play Docklands as well as anyone. We'll need to match them in the above areas but we'll also need to close down their game with a strong defensive focus. Any player that we pick can't be a player who might get exploited. We bring anything less than our best and we lose. The ground itself shouldn't be looked upon as a hoodoo ground. Previously, we simply haven't been good enough to win games there ... now that we've got a decent list with competition for spots at a premium, it's time to win. Against whoever, whenever, wherever.

It was the way we played this time around d9 ... the team looked totally switched on and focused. This was definitely different to what we've seen previously. There was a real confidence shown especially amongst the young players (Petracca, Oliver, Salem, Hunt, Oscar, Brayshaw & Viney) That's my take on the game and we played very well last week too ... I'm normally quite conservative with projected outcomes but as long as we get a half-decent run with injuries, I can see good times ahead this season (September action)

Tom takes risks just about every time he gets the ball - and rather than having my heart in my mouth, I'm thinking goal scoring opportunity (for us) But some people worry about getting worried Akum His other tremendous asset is his ability to create space for himself ... it must be his first 3 steps. We've just got to learn to allow our players to make the odd error ... the next play is what matters in footy. Always the next play.

He's just a lad with very little big-game experience. As always, he'll get his chances and he'll sink or swim. I thought he competed well when the ball was in his vicinity but it's way too early to tell yet AF. If you remember, Wagner played in the practice games last year and not much kudos came his way from many here. Of course, he started off in the seniors right from the get-go and stayed in the side for quite some time. Goodwin (just like Roos) will be pulling a few surprises.

If Tom was an A grade player we'd know it and we'd be talking about it. What I do know is that he gives his absolute all and is far & away our best tall defender. I'd give him a B - B+ rating but that's not a slight on him. If all our defenders were as good as Tom we'd have the best defence in the league. If you want Tom to be pure A grade then you're probably going to be disappointed. Me - I like his style and I rate him as a top-notch defender. But not perfect. And his brother is getting better & better. Those who wrote Oscar off before he was ever given a real opportunity are a bit gun-shy now.

Is he the only player on our list who makes the odd error or is it just Tom? By my reckoning he doesn't make any glaring errors in half the games he plays. The bias & group-think that goes on here is astonishing at times. I know at least 8 demon fans who don't post on this site (or anywhere for that matter) and none of them have the McDonald bros in the gun like what goes on here. I'm convinced that many are just waiting for the smallest of errors and hey presto, they invade the game-day thread like a army of angry ants. It works like clockwork.