-
Posts
16,307 -
Joined
-
Days Won
54
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Macca
-
Yep, the inconsistencies are quite profound. These sporting organisations are often making determinations that you scratch your head about. FIFA, the AFL, the NHL and other sporting bodies are not always known for making sensible decisions. The NFL have got this one horribly wrong. On a lighter note, here's some highlights of today's "Hall of Fame" game As for the tipping comp, I'm leaning towards leaving it as it is unless a majority want to fine tune it (anyone wanting to know about that "fine tuning" can scroll to the top of this page for details) By the way, our first meeting (Packers/Vikings) is on Thursday night football (Oct 2) I guess a lot of us watch these games on a Friday night after work and I'm a big fan. Kicks the weekend off in an ideal way. Bridgewater may well be up and firing by then but it is at Lambeau. Unlike previous years, this season will see a lot of big match-ups scheduled for Thursday night football (CBS are covering the first 8 of them) ... My Packers are taking on Seattle @ Seattle in the first one on Sept 4 (this is also the first game of the regular season) The last time we went there "Goldengate" happened and Rodgers got sacked 8 times! I'll always give Green Bay a chance with Aaron at the helm but it's a toughie first up (to say the least) ... Here's the full schedule of Thursday night games
-
The Diamonds and the Kookaburras bring home the gold - dominant performances and well done to both teams! Still 3 chances for gold - the Mens cycling road race and 2 chances in the squash ... we're up to 47 gold as of right now. Interesting that we went from winning 12 gold in Delhi in the gymnastics to 0 gold in these games whilst England went from 4 gold to 9 gold in the gymnastics (from Delhi to Glasgow) That reversal in gold medal performances was another major factor in England heading the gold medal count. ... Silver lining for Australian gymnasts after worst return in 36 years
-
Yeah cfh, I'm also happy to leave it at it is and I believe that yourself and Strafford would have still won with the new system that I'm proposing. The simplicity of it is that it's not a time consuming thing (for the participants and myself) We'll see if we get a bit more feedback but I'm happy to go either way. Not sure there's any other feasible way to do it anyway so it would probably be either/or. I've added 1 or 2 more bonus weeks and that might be change enough (as well as starting off everyone on a point) As for the Demons, I just can't believe our kicking to position skills - it kills us. We're getting hold of the pill but we keep butchering it. Get Darren Jarman down there I say - we could do worse ... one more kicking coach to add to the plethora of other coaches surely wouldn't go astray. Here's some news on your new bloke ... Teddy Bridgewater And The Quarterback It Factor
-
Yeah TD, watched the Kookaburra's match ... it was fairly tense for quite a while there. England are just strong everywhere it seems - they're represented in 6 gold medal bouts in the boxing I believe. Rather than be annoyed about it, I say hats off to them. Them doing so well effectively makes us sit up, take notice and ... try and do something about it. However, without banging on about it too much, unless we come up with a way of matching their funding, we may continue to lag behind them. I wouldn't be against a similar "lotto" style funding idea for our Olympic athletes but I have my doubts on whether that could happen anytime soon. The UK model and how they distribute their funds is excellent though. As you indicated in an earlier post, that medal haul (including only 1 gold) that the UK derived from the Atlanta games seems to have been the catalyst for drastic change. Still, the games have been terrific to watch and I'm eagerly looking forward to the last day on the track tonight. I'll be tuning in to the hockeyroos as well and the boxing is always a must see for me (there's just something about amateur boxing that appeals)
-
Tanking has been going on for quite some time in a number of sports where a priority pick hasn't been on offer. The thinking is the same all over - offer up a prize like the first pick and a number of sporting teams or clubs will take the bait. The priority pick increases the likelihood of tanking but it's not the sole reason that tanking takes place. Too many link tanking to the priority pick far too much - the lower the pick the better, is how most or many would view things. Hard to prove but if logic is applied, that thinking stands to reason. I don't have a great deal of faith in the draft and have always had that view so therefore, I see very little point in tanking for a marginally better placed draft pick ... however, mine is probably a minority view. Now, like me, you may may not see the benefit in tanking for a lower pick but do you speak for the "probable" majority? (or a large number of other people) GWS are probably tanking. I reckon they've done it before and the AFL turned a blind eye - out of sight, out of mind. The footy public won't care unless the footy public wants a head to kick. Most people couldn't care less about GWS and it's doubtful they'll care unless GWS become a threat.
-
We're in 3 of the boxing finals and we're in with big chances in a number of other sports over the next 2 days. 50 gold medals is still achievable and I'm hoping we can actually exceed that total. England almost certainly have us covered but we may look back in future years and not be at all surprised with their achievements in these games. As it stands, they were always going to do well when we consider how well they did at the London Olympics. Look for the UK to do very well at the Rio Olympics. Where we've not achieved gold medals is in the gymnastics but that probably has more to do with England and Canada catching up to us rather than our gymnasts suddenly becoming way less proficient at their disciplines. Anyway ... ... Australia’s golden girls glitter in night to remember
-
More and more clubs are going to plan their free agent acquisitions very early on. Frawley may well have already received an "In principle agreement" that he would find hard to knock back. He and his management might have decided to "play off" that possible deal and see what else comes their way. Just speculating here as I'm not sure whether he's staying or going or whether he has received such an offer. I'd prefer if he stayed as I can see a future for him as a player who can play at either end of the ground for us. We have looked a better team whenever he has played forward for us (generally) Look for him to shine in the last 5 games though.
-
The ongoing knee injury is all the more reason why he probably took the 6 million on offer (2 million in his first year) The offer led to the lie ... even Jimmy intimated that. I'm not necessarily making excuses for Scully but he received an offer that would have been awfully difficult to refuse. As someone else remarked, blame Sheedy. It's the worst deal for a C grade footballer in history (from a clubs point of view) But hey, out of sight, out of mind. The football public doesn't really care about GWS or Scully. If it was Collingwood or Carlton that had paid him that enormous amount of money, it would be a completely different story. I could see a deal like that fragmenting a traditional club. When Hogan starts to shine, we will have well and truly won out on the deal anyway. As things have turned out, Scully is just a below average midfielder.
-
Can't imagine quoting that number of people in that sort of way again but ... there's a logical explanation if you choose to read on ... I'm happy to run the tipping comp again this year and am open to ideas. The 3 road tips concept seemed to work quite well but it might need some fine tuning (just so the participants can regularly pick up a point instead of bombing out most weeks!) We could leave it as it is or we could change the way we award points to ... Option 1) Award a point for getting 2 out of 3 correct with 2 points awarded for tipping all 3 correctly or ... Option 2) Any other type of variation on the theme. Bonus points could again apply for weeks 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 (with week 17 worth triple points) Double points would apply to the other 5 bonus weeks. In those bonus weeks, whilst the double or triple points would apply if you get all 3 tips correct, 1 point only might only ever be awarded in those same bonus weeks (for getting 2 out of 3 correct) In other words, regardless of the week, getting 2 correct out of 3 tips only ever rewards you with 1 point. For instance, an example of that is week 2 ... tip all 3 road winners and you receive "the 4 points" but ... if you only get 2 right out of 3, you still only receive 1 point. This effectively emphasizes a greater reward for tipping all 3 "tips" correctly. I'm in favour of changing the way of awarding points to option 1 but again, I'm open to ideas. Also thought that we could allow participants to join the comp at any time (those late starters are always playing "catch-up" anyway and besides that, the more the merrier) The top point scorers from last year's comp ... 9 - Strafford & cowboy from hell (joint winners) 7 - pantaloons & Macca 5 - Gorgoroth n.b ... thought we could start all participants off with 1 point as well ... there's nothing worse than sitting on the dreaded zero So ... the first time you put your tips in, you would then automatically qualify for a 1 "participation point" n.b 2 ... there's no real need to reply to this post (unless you have another option on how to do the comp - keeping in mind that any other option perhaps shouldn't be too cumbersome or time consuming - both for the participants and myself) ... aside from that, you can just start putting your tips in when the games start (if you want to participate in the comp) Anyone else who I haven't quoted is welcome to join in. In other news, believe it or not, the first pre-season game is on Monday morning (10am AEST) ... Buffalo @ NY Giants. Can't see any TV listings yet but there's another 16 games on next weekend. There's sure to be a game or 2 on cable or OneHD.
-
I wonder if our funding might increase on the back of England (and the UK in general) doing so well at these games and at the London Olympics. If ever there was living proof that lots of funding = lots of medals, it's been with the remarkable turnaround that we've seen from the UK. Here's a website that explains it better ... UK - Investment in Olympic Sports (Rio) Within that site, you can click on 'Historical Funding Figures' to see the vast differences in total spend by the UK from the Sydney Olympics onwards. Of course, the money needs to be spent wisely but it seems that they're doing that quite well. Fairly sure the Australian institute of sport was set up soon after the Montreal* Olympics and by world standards, our current level of overall funding isn't shabby but ... the system in the UK looks like it delivers a lot more dollars. *At the Montreal Olympics, Australia's medal tally was 0 Gold, 1 Silver and 4 Bronze (that tally makes the London Olympics medal haul look positively magnificent) Of course, it was the steroid era and it's safe to assume we weren't dabbling.
-
If people are frustrated by Vince's disposal efficiency (DE) they shouldn't be. The numbers don't tell the full story. Rather than handpass the ball to a stationary target or give the ball off to a player who is probably going to be under pressure, Vince often likes to instead gain metres for the team by getting the ball moving our way (by foot) Only problem with that is that our players often play from behind so Vince's kicks can sometimes result in a turnover. If our forwards and those forward of the ball can play in front a lot more, watch his DE soar. As it stands, I believe he's right up there in metres gained anyway. I like his no-nonsense approach. He's a very good player - smart, has footy nous, reads the play well and uses the ball better than many of our other players. He's a B or B+ player and we should be thankful that we've got him for a few years. An excellent swap for Sylvia as its turned out (a virtual swap)
-
Sylvia was almost certainly going to turn out to be the player that he is. That wasn't necessarily predicted, it's just the nature of things. He was a standout under 18 player but that form often doesn't convert to AFL level. The pick number (3) next to his name can cloud people's judgement. Sure, Col's got some great skills but some players just never get any better than their under 18 year. Morton was another very good player at under 18 level but neither should be condemned for not becoming very good players at AFL level. It's just the way things turned out. No amount of good coaching is going to change things much either. Maybe 10 or 15% improvement might come from good coaching but nearly all the top players work the hardest and have a huge inner drive. Again, at 17 years old it's difficult to evaluate those qualities. The draft is a lottery, always has been and always will be. There's no way that anyone can ever evaluate a 17 year old with any guaranteed accuracy. Haven't we all seen enough "busts" yet? I can't comprehend why people still get so disappointed and frustrated. All prospective young recruits should be viewed equally and fairly - at any club. Also, any draftee is potentially even harder to evaluate since the AFL became a much more contested game (circa 2005) Where our club has made some obvious errors (IMO) is turfing out (prematurely) our experienced players and ... not trading enough for some experienced talent. Recruiting Vince and Cross has a been a step in the right direction. We could do with a few more - Cross and Vince won't be around forever.
-
I agree, Smithy. Before the games began, I though England would push us. We picked up a lot of gold in the Gymnastics at the last games in New Delhi so ... with 10 individual events in the Gymnastic "artistic" to come, we may need to do well in those events again. Other than that, we may well pick up 1 or 2 gold medals in a variety of sports (T&F, Hockey, Netball, Boxing, Diving)
-
Before the games, the bookies had the Aussies at $1.02 to win the gold medal count and ... the Australian "line" was over/under 79.5 gold medals ... here's a more in depth explanation I can't see us getting anywhere near 80 gold medals but I reckon we might hold off England. Hope so anyway.
-
I've added an exclamation mark for you La Dee (for greater effect) ... The most worthless explanation mark
-
Oz 30 (87) Eng 27 (74) Campbell sisters shine as Australia dominate the Glasgow Games pool again
-
My issue is we're then left with only 2 KPF's. One gets injured and then it makes it hard to win games. As it stands, Hogan can't get on the park and Dawes has had his injury issues. Fingers crossed both of them are always available but I still believe we need a 3rd option anyway. Pedersen can pinch hit and Gawn might come on but a solid, 3rd, KPF would be ideal. We need another player who can play as a KPF and I've been quite happy with the role that James has played. Now, he may be gone anyway but as of right now, I see him as a required player.
-
Yep, and if we use the PP qualification rules as a guide, it's astonishing that we didn't receive a PP last year. Not even a 2nd round PP - nothing. Did they think we were tanking? (again) I understand that these 2 types of draft compensation have no real connection but as you intimated, the AFL can't ordinarily be trusted.
-
Great news ... Paul will need at least 2 more off seasons to get our list up to shape. It's ages away, but entering 2016, we might even be a contender for a top 4 spot (if everything falls into place) Next year, we need to get as many wins as we can and be pushing for a spot in the 8. A fit Hogan and 3 more topline midfielders and watch us climb the ladder. I wonder if this news has some effect on Frawley's decision? I'm holding out hope that James stays because we need him (in my opinion) Otherwise ... we may need to use a pick that we'd ordinarily use on a midfielder on another KPP.
-
I reckon to get the chance to represent your country at just about anything is an achievement in itself. Got to be a truckload better than us hack footy players and cricketers ... we're a dime a dozen! Jess' bronze shouldn't be downplayed. Track & Field and in particular, distance running, is a tough sport for any individual to medal in. Mick Shelley's gold in the men's marathon was a great achievement also. But well done Jess!
-
Fair enough dc My call stands though and it's related to the fact that we didn't get a PP last year. Whether we want to accept it or not, that 7 month investigation had residual effects. I hope James stays and my reasoning is partly because I'm not convinced we'll get band 1 compensation for him. Also, we need a 3rd big bodied forward to support Dawes and Hogan. Certainly someone who can hold down a key forward post if one of them is injured. I really hope that James finishes off the season well and ... stays. In a perfect world, we can use our top end draft picks on some quality mids.
-
Trying hard to not go too far off topic here but there's an obvious connection (IMO) ... If Frawley were to go, would we get definitely get "band 1" compensation if we also had the no.1 draft pick? The powers that be might think it's a bit rich for us to have both picks 1 & 2 in the draft and award us a "band 2" pick instead (which is at the end of the 1st round of picks) But ... if our first round draft pick was say, pick 4, they then might look at things a bit more favourably and grant us band 1 compensation (pick 5 in that case) Remembering that he's currently not in our top 10 salary earners* and ... the compensation would also depend on his age and the length and amount of his possible new contract at another club. Apart from that, I suspect that the "bands" may be judged, in part, arbitrarily. The AFL won't necessarily be doing us any favours here. *This is because his current contract was "front ended" Edit: fixed the "band" explanation
-
We (arguably) played our best game for the year against Port last week. Let's face it, if we'd have won the game, we'd almost certainly be calling it our best win for the year. So, I say we improve on that form and blow Brisbane off the park ... the players must be absolutely sick and tired of losing so they might double their efforts. Why not? That would make it 5 wins with 3 winnable games to come (the Hawks game will be tough) 7 wins or maybe even 8 wins with another 4 or 5 games that we "couda" won is not a bad return (all things considered) Most of us would have taken that at the start of the season. I'm still hoping that it happens.
-
You might have noticed that I've focused on finishing the season off with more wins (3 would be nice and 4 would be great) That would give us a 7/15 season or an 8/14 season and almost certainly would rule us out from finishing last. Sounds and looks a damn side better than a 17 or 18 loss season. I know it's a bit of a longshot but you can bet that the players and coaching staff firmly believe that we can win all our remaining games - and so they should too. That's the business they're in - winning.
-
I agree with a lot of what you've said and ... I like your "blue sky" thinking, BB but ... essentially, you and I are looking at this from different platforms. I reckon that's the case with nearly all conflicting views. The conflict often comes because we're not on the same page to begin with. Your summary about where the club is currently at is hard to argue with and I'm not arguing those points. We just have different views on the repercussions of finishing last. We're going to find out one way or the other (soon enough) I made the very same argument when the discussion about whether we should keep Neeld on or not was about. My argument then (and I stand by it) was that all sorts of areas of the club can be adversely affected if the misery continued. Getting Roos and PJ on board has lifted a lot of those areas but we don't need a setback that a spoon could possibly bring. Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world but ... instead of a huge growth spurt that a club might have with a 'relatively' successful season, we may be looking at a bit of incremental growth only with a bottom of the ladder finish. Of course, it's debatable what a relatively successful season is or isn't but a strong finish to the year for us (3 wins?) wouldn't hurt (considering where we've come from) I'm specifically talking about off field growth and revenues as I believe that on the field, we're in excellent hands with Roos and co. Bringing in some established talent can be effected too if a club is not looked upon with favourable eyes. It's my belief that we need to trade for some genuine A grade talent and even though a better placed draft pick might get you that talent, I firmly believe that far more importantly, we need to be an attractive destination. 18th from 18 ain't attractive. Picks 3, 4 or 5 might be just as valuable as pick 1 to another club.