Macca

Most of the areas of our performance has been covered in this thread already but a few points worth re-emphasising ... Our attack on the ball throughout was excellent ... we just lack some polish and better disposal skills - the decision making was much improved. We won the centre clearances 13-11 when previously, we've often lagged behind our opponents in that area. Overall we lost the clearances 25-31 but that's an improving number (Oliver had 7 clearances & 15 contested possessions with a very good DE%* - on debut! - one player can make a difference) Our stoppage work needs a lot of improvement but the injection of Brayshaw, Petracca and hopefully Trengove will help fix that area. Gawn nullifying and beating Mumford was a big factor ... the value of a good ruckman is often underestimated because they often break even. However, it should be remembered that many of us were concerned that Mumford could have had a telling influence - if Mumford has a decent day they win? The truth was that it was Gawn's day - well done big fella. 2nd and 3rd efforts and pressure acts was another big factor in our favour - they were often made to feel uncomfortable when they had the ball - we had more turnovers than they did but they wouldn't have been expecting as many turnovers as they had. Ignoring last years round 23 clash, we've previously allowed the Giants to play their natural game but not this time. And we ran the game out well - another pleasing aspect. They looked tired. The Inside 50 numbers was also pleasing but we've still got some issues with our forwards being caught playing from behind too often ... it takes strong discipline to demand the front position and we need to get better in that area. But the best bit was that at no stage did we drop our heads nor did we give up - in the recent past we would have lost this game. Lots of positive signs and I'm expecting an improved performance against the Bombers. *Oliver's high DE% is all the more remarkable because of how he won his possessions (i.e he was often under pressure when disposing of the ball)

Here's a clip from SNL with Kate McKinnon doing her best 'Hillary' ...

6 - T-Mac (dominant) 5 - Gawn (beat Mumford and was very influential) 4 - Viney (bobbed up everywhere) 3 - Watts (his best game for a while) 2 - N Jones (stood up when we needed him to) 1 - Vince (a solid game) Oliver, Kennedy, Matt Jones, vanders, Jetta & Salem were also prominent - contributions came from all our players. Hogan stepped it up like good players do.

Couple of clips from a few weeks ago ... first Bob Odenkirk ('Better Call Saul') on Conan then Jimmy Fallon doing 'Trump' ...

It seems every match involving any of the top 7-8 teams has a lot riding on it ... not forgetting the relegation battle that seems to have settled on one of Norwich, Newcastle or Sunderland staying up (Villa now look completely gone) Palace & Swansea should stay up but both teams still need a couple/few wins each to be absolutely safe. So it's Leicester vs Newcastle tomorrow at 7am (with Benitez now the new boss of the Geordies)

Most of the analysis of the players has been covered very well in this thread but a few points on those who need to prove a bit, the new players and those on the fringe ... Wagner, Harmes, Frost & O-Mac all showed a bit considering how raw & inexperienced they are - something to work with there with all 4 players. We've now got a decent development team so all 4 players have got every chance. They are going to make a few mistakes so a level of patience is needed. Bugg & Kennedy were both busy and acquitted themselves well ... starting 22 for both lads on what we've seen. Oliver was the standout though and he could be anything. M Jones & Grimes both did some nice bits and pieces over the 3 games ... whether that's enough to be automatic selections is up in the air ... Pedersen is needed to give Gawn a chop-out so he'll be a starter you'd reckon - takes some nice grabs just when it's needed. Kent is not really a fringe player if it all comes together for him - if the team starts winning consistently look for him to cash in. Watts looks a different player - keep it up, Jack. Apart from the above, a special mention for Nate Jones - he was very good yesterday and looks set for another big year. His chasing, tackling and harassment of the opposition was top notch. We had a number of other good players yesterday. With a number of other certain starters to push for selection in the first month of the season proper, things are looking good - we just have to find a way to win that round 1 clash against GWS.

I've been demonised (possessed) Just in time for the footy season - I'm calling it my combative mode.

Watched the incident and putting aside the weirdness of what happened, he'll either cop a lengthy ban or he might cop a smaller sentence or a reasonably small sentence - much depends on what Barry might have to say. He'll almost certainly be out for the next 3 regardless because of the red card. As for 4th spot, I reckon 2nd or 3rd isn't restricted to just a few sides fighting for those prized CL positions ... such has been the nature of the season that nothing would surprise me. At Southampton next up for your blokes - that won't be easy as they're thereabouts as well.

Wow, great stuff hardtack! The great thing with music and all it's genre's is there is a seemingly endless supply - in many ways we're spoilt for choice ... discovering* new music doesn't have to mean it was made recently. I preferred the earlier stuff from Chicago as well ... I've always found it fascinating how a number of bands/artists run out of ideas where as others just change direction and can often remain successful by doing so. *With regards to the movies, great books, some TV etc etc, the same discoveries go on ... (especially with jazz) I tend to treat it all the same way whether it's new or old. .

And Man City can only manage a point at Norwich ... loads of possession but the sky blues just couldn't create enough chances (considering the talent that was show) Now 9 points behind Leicester with 9 games left ... it's getting harder and harder to see them winning the title.

Some genius work from Mel Brooks ... certainly a tad risqué at the time (in both cases) but not sure about these days ...

And what Chicago became ended up appealing to many others (who were perhaps born later and missed their early stuff) Music is like that. As an example, Steely Dan started off as a (sort of) commercial band which I was a bit beige about and then went non-commercial with 'The Royal Scam' & 'Aja' (which is the stuff that I really really loved) and then went a bit commercial again with 'Gaucho' (which I really liked but didn't love) And there are numerous people who don't like Steely Dan at all - it takes all types. It's definitely a generational thing and we are all heavily influenced by the period in our lives of say the ages of 15 - 25 (or thereabouts) ... especially around that 17-22 age period. After that, anything new has to be really good for one to accept it readily (IMO) ... or, the music has to remind us or take one back to when we were heavily influenced. Over the years, I've learned to appreciate almost anything. That's my take on it anyway 'ht' ... and then there's the brass influence in rock that seems to only appeal to a certain amount of people. To this day, I still am blown away by the 'Peter Gunn theme' ... Tinsley Waterhouse used to do a great version when I used to see them at the Station Hotel (Prahran) Here's a couple more with that brass influence ... more BST and Chicago (the first clip is a little 'different') ... btw, the other music thread that 'nutbean' started is a beaut - couple of really good venues there with a lot of favourites from the past appearing (not forgetting of course the jazz thread kicked off by JJ)

Here's a couple with a heavy brass influence ... Blood, Sweat & Tears and Chicago

We're going to need all hands on deck for our round 1 match against GWS (it's so imperative that we win that round 1 clash and then knock off Essendon) So, I hope our new players, fringe players and those out to prove themselves show a bit but most importantly, no injuries please.

It has to be closer to 2-3 million to make the whole exercise completely worthwhile Gonzo (for 4 games) - however, if we could pull 30.000 plus to the games where we host an interstate team at the MCG, we'd be getting much bigger cheques and then we'd probably have no need to sell-off games (easier said than done) Of course, you're right about us generally hosting 7-8 games against interstate teams so it's an ongoing issue with regards to us trying to make some decent coin out of these matches. The issue is that we don't do that so the 600k for 2 games sold-off is needed to help balance the books ... we really need a Hawthorn type deal but because we've been so unsuccessful on the field, it's hard to strike any sort of lucrative deal like that. If we at least started winning more games than we lose (wouldn't that be nice) we'd be in a much better position - both in home attendances (and therefore, larger cheques) and also, for how much money we could bring in from the sold-off games (if the need was still there) Win a lot more games and we'll be much better off (either way)

Osweiler moving is a bit of a shock but money talks (if that was the main reason) ... 72 million is a lot of dosh though. Sanchez being signed by Denver seems a bit bland - have the Broncos got someone else in mind as well? There are strong rumours surrounding Kaepernick going to Denver but he's been made an offer by the Browns (and Kap wants to go Cleveland too - ??) Denver Broncos acquire quarterback Mark Sanchez

With all due respect jnrmac, Chris & Mandee, I disagree. old dee is right, it's boring Edit: As for denigration and rudeness, people here might want to scroll back and see where that all started (and by whom)

Like anyone here, I can have any opinion that I like (within reason) ... on any subject. If anyone is seeing things in too much of a black and white way it's the likes of you ... "if it's not banned, it's fine, if it is banned, throw the book at them" I'm seeing the nuance because I don't have such a 'cut & dried' opinion on PED use ... anyway, it's not like any sort of opinion on this matter is going to change how things are acted upon. We are merely onlookers in the whole scheme of things.

A PED is a performance enhancing drug that has been exposed as performance enhancing drug (but not necessarily on the banned list) We now know that Meldonium was a PED before it was banned - so, in retrospect, we find out that athletes take these PED's (like Meldonium) before WADA gets the chance to ban them. But the drug doesn't suddenly change it's properties as soon as it gets banned. The other thing to consider is that by the time that WADA have got around to banning a PED, the athletes have often moved on to their next drug of choice. I don't follow your logic because your logic doesn't take into account morals, ethics and integrity. With you, it's "anything goes" unless it's on a banned list - and I don't agree. As stated earlier, this is somewhat of a conscience vote - some will take my stance, others will agree with you. I reckon we've exhausted this subject matter but both of us have had the the chance to state our case. Let's agree to disagree.

Here's another hypothetical to ponder ... If TB4 was not listed as a "banned" PED in time to nail the Bombers, would those here who have condemned Essendon change their stance? Assuming that we knew that TB4 was a PED (even though it wasn't on the banned list) Bombers squeaky clean? yes? no? It's just a hypothetical of course because history tells us that TB4 was banned in time.

And I'm not doing that ... I'm simply saying that if an athlete knowingly takes a PED that he or she knows will give them an unfair advantage, I have a problem with that (whether the PED is banned or not) It's an opinion of mine of which you don't like or share. I'm not advocating that athletes necessarily be punished for using a non-banned PED but I'm quite entitled to have my own strong stance against such a practice. Anyway, I don't agree with your stance either. Especially your stance where you would happily allow athletes to use anabolic steroids - justifying that notion all because "it's not on the banned list" (hypothetically) is not something that I can agree with. You also said this earlier today ... "Otherwise you could say Sandilands has an unfair advantage over big max because he has a better diet!" ... I'm specifically talking about PED's so that is not a good example of where I'm coming from.

For what it's worth, I don't have much of an issue with your 2nd paragraph ... but don't punish your own club. We might have made a number of errors of judgement in the more recent past but the club needs every membership that it can get. I'm assuming you can afford one of course. My question about non-banned PED's (in this case, anabolic steroids - hypothetically) highlights the fact that a number of highly potent PED's were at some stage not banned ... these same exact drugs don't change in nature once they are banned. And, many or most athletes knowingly took these "non-banned" PED's to gain an unfair advantage - and please, I don't want to have to address nonsense other examples such as "long legs" or "extra strong coffees" ... by the way, those silly examples were put forward by yourself and a couple of other people on this thread - not by me. I was only addressing the PED's that are worth talking about.

You said ... "I would be happy for them (the athletes) to take it (anabolic steroids) if it wasn't banned" How is that putting words in your mouth? You're the one who said it. As for not buying a membership - there are other, more creative ways of punishing the AFL (and not your own club) The club needs as many members as it can get. Your stance lacks thought. Don't watch or attend neutral games - there's a start.

Anabolic steroids? - are you for real? Have you any inkling of the health issues that this drug brings? And you'd make anabolic steroids legal to take just so long as it wasn't banned. Any athlete? (all of them) Astonishing. You're obviously a bit of a stickler for rules but you've taken this one a tad too far. Of course, you're the same person who won't purchase a MFC membership because of the transgressions of others - another astonishing stance. You will punish your own club even though most (or all) of your membership fees goes directly to the club.

Well some will agree with you and some will agree with me. So let's agree to disagree. I remember when EPO was first talked about and not on the banned list ... we all should know it's qualities by now but it was initially viewed with a deal of scepticism. Of course, it became the drug of choice for any number of cyclists but for quite a while the cyclists were taking it knowing they couldn't get done for it. And they knew it was a PED - in my opinion. As I mentioned earlier, what if steroids wasn't on the banned list? Would you be ok with an athlete taking steroids even though it wasn't banned? (hypothetically)