Macca

I can also fully understand why many wouldn't share my views on footy - to each his own. However, there's just far too many footy fans who are dissatisfied with the sport for it to be just a generational issue. It's odd that the detractors (often aged over 30/35) weren't critical of the sport in the 70's,80's, 90's or even in the early 2000's - it's just now. This same demographic doesn't have the same attitude with other sports that they like either - test cricket, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and other sports do not attract anywhere near the same levels of criticisms from those who have always liked those sports. 2 or 3 reserves in any sort of capacity which doesn't involve rotations isn't enough - I'd be prepared to go to 5 or 6 reserves (subs) to offset the ditching of the interchange. The other changes I've suggested are just re-establishing the sport as it once was - which wasn't all that long ago either. .

The modern game is where it is because the coaches redesigned the sport ... and the AFL has stood idly by and let them do it. If the AFL had have stepped in when they should have, we wouldn't be witnessing the unappealing aspects of the sport that we currently witness. I've yet to meet or hear of a footy fan who doesn't really like positional play - yet for most of the games, we don't get to see the players in their rightful positions ... and does anyone genuinely enjoy watching 30 players on the ball at any given time? My fix ... Any backwards kick to be automatically "play on" A kick must travel at least 20 metres for a mark to be awarded Ditch the interchange (rotations) altogether ... if a player comes off, he stays off. 4 reserves (or subs) After each goal all the forwards and backmen must be inside the 50 metre arc until the ball is bounced (which would finally give a purpose to the 50 metre arc) Quicker ball-ups when a pack starts forming (or when a free kick is obviously not going to be paid) The umpire to throw the ball up with more immediacy to help break up the play. Like 'Munga' my concern is whether the current generation and/or the next generation will have a genuine love for the game ... in my opinion it's not enough to just have a strong allegiance for your team or feel an obligation to the sport out of loyalty. Previous generations had footy as a clear no.1 with daylight to their next preference. These days, the choices are vast so footy has to be great. It's not played outside of this country so we have to get it right (and bullet-proof) Finally, I feel like we are now watching a bad version of a hybrid style of rugby/soccer. Our game used to stand apart from all the other sports - now it just looks like a chaotic mess. Cosmetic changes aren't going to change the look of the game but I reckon that's all the AFL will do (if that) .

I think you're right dp ... haven't seen all of the last 2 stages but apparently Froome withstood a number of challenges. Quintana looks to be the only one with any sort of chance but Froome seems to have him covered. Tonight's stage is a short one and they've just started out ... category 1 climb right from the get-go! Live coverage from the official site SBS.com tour tracker

Yep, I remember that post of yours - well researched. What stands out to me are the home teams at the MCG when there's a big crowd there (60,000+) ... if a club knows it's going to get 5 opportunities like that in any given year it can set some decent budgets. And if they know that they can bank on that return, year after year, then it helps that club with marketing, memberships, sponsorships, coterie, merchandising etc etc. It's a huge advantage because that extra money helps with the FD spend and other such vital footy areas that the less advantaged clubs don't have. So it's overspend and go into debt or cut back on spending to balance the books (which Jackson has needed to do) We get punished with a lack of prime-time free-to-air TV games because of our lack of success (which is more than likely a decision made by the broadcast partners) but we end up getting punished again with lousy fixtures for not being a "big club" And the AFL would know full well how disadvantaged we are too ... they are the people responsible for implementing the measures that causes our club to be disadvantaged. Whether that's deliberate or not is open for debate. What we can do to alleviate the problem is to win more games ... we could also possibly approach the other big clubs like we have with Richmond in the Anzac eve game ... A rotating round 1 clash and perhaps a rotating home game in May, July & August against the Dons, Blues, Cats & Hawks could be put forward (at least in idea form - with some sort of theme attached?) You don't ask, you don't get. Richmond have 3 such arrangements with their round 1 clash against Carlton, the dreamtime game and the Anzac eve game against us. (they've also had home games against the Pies in 7 of the last 9 years)

It's been that way for a long time but as the sport has got bigger, so too has the footy public's knowledge of how it all works. The huge amount of money from the broadcast rights and the colossal amount of revenue from all the club's pokies venues is a case in point ... all the clubs should be in a very healthy state but the gulf between the rich and the not-so-rich is (in part) caused by the favoured fixturing that the big clubs receive. I must stress that prime time free-to-air TV spots is a completely different issue ... as an example, it's entirely possible for our club to have home fixtures against the Pies, Blues, Dons, Tigers, Hawks & Cats every single season ... without even 1 of those games ever being played on a Friday or Saturday evening. But it never happens ... most years we're lucky to have 2 out of those 6 teams as opponents in home games. 27 of our previous 44 home games (over the last 4 seasons) have been or are against interstate teams. Again, it's the accumulative effect of these low drawing fixtures which hurts us (in a financial sense) It's any wonder we need to sell a number of these games off to the NT.

And it's the accumulative effect over a number of years which creates the bigger gulf. As an example - 5 x 60,000+ crowds might equate to 5 million+ in revenue whereas 1 x 60,000 game only equates to perhaps 1 million in revenue. That's at least a 4 million dollar head start every year for up to a half a dozen Victorian clubs (in theory) Thomas' other notable points were very important too ... the unseen stuff that someone like Jackson would know only too well. Winning more games would help (somewhat) ... do that and it would give our CEO some decent ammunition for a better deal. I guess a lot of us have got some reasonable solutions to a complex issue but we're talking about a governing body who have their eyes firmly planted on the almighty dollar.

Unfortunately we just don't fit the template to get a fair go with the fixture (that's a "fair go" not preferential treatment) It seems to meet the AFL's criteria to receive a decent fixture a club needs to ... Have a large membership Have their supporters attend games in large numbers Attract a large TV audience Be a successful team on the field Play an attractive brand of football However, I'd argue that the above criteria shouldn't be the criteria at all when fixturing games ... prime time TV games aside, all the clubs should be on an equal footing when running a "fair" competition. As a comparison, even the smallest clubs in the EPL always receive home games against all the big EPL clubs (those games become big money spinners for those small clubs too) The fixture shouldn't favour the bigger and more powerful clubs at all. Considering it has done for 15-20 years now, it's any wonder there's now a bigger gulf between the rich and the poor. The Bulldogs, Saints are often in the same boat as us and North probably would be if they were struggling on the field. All because of the AFL's manic desire to maximise crowds and TV numbers. Something has to give when that's the goal so the smaller clubs become expendable. Other smaller clubs like GWS & the GCS are "company stores" (so to speak) so they obviously don't face the same financial pressures. In the end, we continue to receive a fixture that just doesn't bring in enough revenue ... 7 home games against the interstate clubs with 3 of the remaining home games against the other smaller clubs (Bulldogs, Saints & North) has become the norm. That spells disaster when compared to the "other" bigger Victorian clubs who consistently receive up to 5 home games each against the other big Victorian sides. The same pattern has been in place for quite some time now. Up to 5 big home games for a half a dozen Victorian clubs versus our 1 big home game (QB clash) X multiple years is grossly unfair. Sometimes we're lucky enough to receive 2 decent home fixtures (next year we should be the home team against Richmond on Anzac eve) The solution (in part) is to drag ourselves up to the middle tier (or above) and hope that Jackson can then get a much better deal for the club. In the meantime, he might want to push for a home game to start the season against one of the other big Victorian teams (Essendon or Geelong?) The real solution is for the AFL to start acting like proper custodians of the sport. Does anyone honestly believe that can happen?

Current standings Rest day tonight but then it's 4 days in the Alps ... Stage 17 Preview ... Profile ... Stage 18 Preview ... Profile ... Stage 19 Preview ... Profile ... Stage 20 Preview ... Profile ...

It seems Geoffrey is none too happy ... here's his column from the Telegraph ... Ashes 2015: There's no shame in losing to a better team like Australia. It is shameful to bat way England did ... and here's the BBC podcast of day 4 of the 2nd test ... England Collapse to Catastrophic Defeat

... and it's only a matter of time now you'd reckon (mind you, my predicted outcomes during this test have been more than a trifle astray ) I should just post in hindsight ... much easier that way although a little boring. The consensus over there is that the game has been and will be decided by whoever won the toss and decided to bat first. So if the England hierarchy have had an influence on how the pitches have been prepared (so far) then it may have backfired. If*, as expected, Australia go on and win this test, then we might expect the next deck at Edgbaston to have a lot more life in it (England would need a "result" wicket) Anyway, here's another BBC podcast for those who might be interested ... this time, Michael Vaughan with an hour long phone-in from day 3 *Rain might help England or they might bat their socks off in their 2nd innings and save the game (there is a small amount of rain forecast but more of a negligible amount)

Puts a new angle on "The Postman always rings twice" hey? ... What a complete nutter - 80 kgs of "post" seems a tad high, all the same. Anyway, you're right with your summation of how the race is heading JJ - the only bit I'll add is that Froome still has to carry out what shouldn't be too much of an ask for him. Stages 17 through to 20 are all in the Alps and all 4 of them are difficult as far as I can make out ... previously we've seen 3 tough stages in a row in the Alps but I'm not sure that they've been 3 of the last 4 stages. So ... it's possibly the toughest finish to a tour we've ever seen. The other thing to remember is that some of Froome's rivals are so far back they've got no alternative but to attack. I'll post up the profiles and previews of the 4 Alp's stages next Tuesday (assuming they all fit in one post)

Order is restored by the looks of it .... hard to see us not winning this test from this position BBC podcast day 2 (includes Geoff Boycott's summary and an interview with Mitch Johnson)

Deep Purple with "Black Night" (and the story behind the origins of the song)

Bit tougher today ... 87 runs only in that session. Smith looks at ease out there ... a fine player who seems untroubled by circumstances surrounding him. "Greg Chappell like" in that respect. Voges goes but we're building a large total.

Clarke might come up with a sporting declaration to open up the game. More so the time factor rather than an amount of runs.

Ha! Unfortunately our footy club is in it's own special category when it comes to ideal outcomes. I've learnt over the years to have tempered ambitions and reasonably low expectations. It's the only way I can deal with it! As for the cricket ... the state of a wicket can change expectations as well ... the Warner dismissal is a bit irrelevant now in the whole scheme of things. Graeme Swann compared the track to one he might expect in Nagpur.

If the match turns into a draw it brings us back to square one (apart from getting a bunch of batsmen some runs in the bank) Getting 20 wickets on this deck might be easier said than done - much might depend on Lyon. Fingers crossed! .

Yep, we couldn't have asked for a better result for day 1 - to only be one wicket down is a remarkable outcome. Now to press for victory - the pitch is a very good one for batting but a large score allows Clarke to attack. Haven't heard the following podcast yet but I'm sure Geoffrey Boycott has some complimentary things to say about the Aussies (and perhaps some not-so-nice things to say about England's efforts) ... BBC 5 live Ashes Report - Day 1

Yep, there's a lot of runs in this wicket and we need to take advantage. Getting to lunch only 1 down is a big plus. .

Glad you're confident mate ... the Poms will be, that's for sure. A bit surprised that Lehmann described the first test debacle as a "hiccup" ... did we win even one session in Cardiff? Nevill is playing his first test and he may be more worried about not making a mistake. There's pressure on Voges to perform - he doesn't get the same luxury of patience that a younger player would get ... he was brought in to make runs from the get-go and the time is nigh. Mitch Marsh is playing his first test in England and it won't be easy for him either. I reckon he's got a lot to offer but unlike Voges, we need to be patient with Mitch. If our top order doesn't perform, we could easily go 2 nil down. Bayliss has got England playing with confidence and aggression. I still believe we can win of course but we'll need a number of things to go our way.

I reckon England will be happier with Nevill & Mitch Marsh in the side as opposed to Watson & Haddin ... we've lost a lot of experience in one hit and suddenly our middle order and late middle order looks suspect . Clark is still a bit more vulnerable at 4 rather than 5 and a batting order of Voges, Marsh and then Nevill is hardly going to make England all that fearful. Make no mistake, they'll be going all out for a win and we'll need to bring our A game in order to win. Lose this and we can just about kiss the Ashes goodbye. The red herring is that Stokes & Wood are excellent exponents of reverse swing so their attack will once again be a handful. They bat deeper and have a settled side who know how to play in their home conditions. We were comprehensively outplayed in Cardiff and it will take a major turnaround for us to win this test. They've got their tails up and we need to improve big time. What is going to most interesting is the state of the pitch - the Aussies shouldn't be expecting a lively track - white, flat, dry & a bit on the dead side is my tip. Obviously hoping for the best but I can't say I'm all that confident.

Current standings Over the next 3 nights the riders venture into the Pyrenees ... 3 tough stages which should start sorting out the general classifications. Froome leads the way but the other notable riders in the race aren't all that far behind him. There's sure to be an attack or 2 over the next 3 nights (it should also be noted that we're in the Alps next week for another 4 tough stages) Preview stage 10 Preview stage 11 Preview stage 12 And here are the 3 profiles ...

There were a dozen or so players from Essendon's list (at the time) who weren't listed amongst the 34 who were given infraction notices. Of course, identifying who these players are is important because our media might one day decide to ask these players why they weren't given infraction notices. Those players who apparently didn't transgress the drug code might be questioned as such ... Were you afraid of needles like Zaharakis supposedly was? Did you in fact know what you were going to be injected with and said no? Were you not inclined to walk across the road to the anti-aging clinic to get hundreds of injections in the stomach with "unknown" substances? If so, why not be a part of it? Were you concerned that these unknown substances might have been PED's so as a consequence, you weren't prepared to risk your career by taking these substances? Did you know from the start that a number of these substances were in fact PED's and you wanted no part of it? Did you challenge those players who did happily agree to have copious quantities of these substances injected into their bodies? Did you challenge those responsible for creating and administering the injection program? If not, why not? Do you regard those 34 players who did undertake and agree to the injection program as being "innocent victims?" The 34 players issued with infraction notices Essendon's 2011 list Essendon's 2012 list .

... and if the players know that Hird knows what they were given, wouldn't they feel compelled to ask Hird what they were injected with? Especially after 2 and a half years ... wouldn't they also ask Hird where the records of what they were given are? These are just ordinary, natural questions ... yet, the public have been fed this fabrication of lies, deceit, spin and what-not of naive statements that the players are so-called "victims" ... it's just rot, total rot. Of course Hird would have worked with Dank with regards the whole injection program. - it stands to reason. Yet many genuinely believe otherwise. The most annoying bit for me has been the public's reaction - where there should be total outrage right across the board, there hasn't been. Again, if this was an overseas sport involving another club, that outrage would be there by default. There would be almost zero sympathy and the 'victim card' would be dismissed out of hand. And Essendon and the AFL have fed off that lack of public outrage. The large majority have wanted this whole saga to go away from the word go almost certainly because they don't want their sport tainted like many other sports around the world are - that's my take on it anyway.

Along those lines anyway ...more so clam up, play dumb, deny everything & stick pat. To me there's no question that Hird knows what the players were given ... he was the coach overseeing proceedings. So they walk across the road on numerous occasions to receive copious injections of various substances under his watch and he doesn't know what they were given? Why would anyone buy that bs story? He knows all and so do many others. .