I don't know much about the Women's footy leagues.
But I would think given Carlton is applying for a team we should have a dedicated Notice Board setup for the discussion of the girls league, recruiting, coaches and performance.
If we don't get the nod for a team we can always shut it down later. But I think we at least need a notice board to keep up with discussions and potential recruits/draftees.
It's close lets cut the NAB Cup sh1te and get it started.
I think we are going to see the media reporting a lot of "Nobody saw this coming" type stories after we smash 9thmond destroying their 2016 hopes.
I've seen enough from our midfield types during the NAB Cup that if we field a full strength line up we have them comfortably covered. Our only major concern is ball use, but their's is not that much better.
Given the irresponsible nature of some sporting fans, and looking at the falling price points and performance of high tech solutions. I cannot see any reason for people to still need incendiary type flares.
Seriously, the new LED type devices are as bright if not brighter than incendiary flares, and the LED devices work in daylight when smoke might typically be used. Obviously there is no alternative to the smoke type flares for military and rescue applications, but for civil use it's hard to justify the need for the smoke type flares under any circumstance. The people most likely affected will be boat owners, and the LED versions are priced similarly or even cheaper than incendiary devices and work just as well if not even a bit better.
Mark Latham's comments really sparked off some debate around our office today, it was quite interesting to listen to the results. Not defending Latham as he's a knob, but it has prompted a debate.
Note these are general observations specific to certain debates and not generalisations that can be broadly applied.
While there was a general consensus damning domestic violence, some glaring differences appeared between the genders on either sides of the debates about why and how. Some of the best points came from individuals who had been through separations, they seemed to center around manipulation versus negotiation.
Divorced men stated they felt helpless in a relationship, like their partner wasn't listening, all the odds were stacked in the females favor from a legal and social perspective, and that they were pawns being manipulated in a game that had a predetermined result. One guy said his former partner knew the answers to the questions, the opinions of friends and family, well before he even knew there was a problem.
Some females painted themselves as the oppressed victims of failed negotiations. They said they had wanted a good outcome but asserted they couldn't find a solution and the discussion(negotiation) ended badly.
In the end I realised I was possibly hearing arguments from different perspectives of the very same debate. What the females described as a negotiation the males described as manipulation.
What was very disturbing was a minority from both genders that can be best described as radical. There was clearly a small percentage that politicised the debate and painted all males as being abusive and all females as scheming.
Some men clearly admit to thinking of females in a possessive sense, some on religious grounds, they were a minority but they are deliberately displayed as being the norm by certain political factions.
Some women believe many victims of domestic violence contribute to it. They think some women believe men are easily manipulated and that they actively try put this into practice, more often than not it ends very badly.
I don't understand how this debate can proceed to a solution when it's not inclusive, certain parties are deliberately trying to find a solution that doesn't include the other. It's doomed to fail, the sides of the debate want the how but will not concede to a why, and they do not wish to treat each other as equals!
No more, it can't be tolerated, it's time for our Line in the Sand game.
Quote from: wikipedia
Hawthorn players were allegedly directed at half time, by Club Director Dermott Brereton who played for the Hawks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to "draw a line in the sand"[1] and take a physical stand against the Bombers to make it clear that they wouldn't take the intimidation any longer. Brereton denied the allegation but admitted to advising senior players "to stand up to any Essendon aggression".[2]
Win, lose or draw, a statement needs to be made!
There is no better opponent to make this stand against than the Cheating Kents!
I suspect the Dawks will make a statement about EFC this weekend!
I agree that our boys melt whenever challenged. That was evident under Ratten and still continues to this day under Malthouse. However I see the workrate thing as a separate issue. And both I think are related more to on-field leadership than off.
Really, we melted under Ratten, are you sure?
As I recall we made the 2011 SF only to lose by 3 points in a Perth SF against West Coast. No doubt we were inconsistent, but melting, hardly!
Furthermore, we had the odds against us in that game with some heavily "influenced" umpiring going down! The ideal circumstances for a meltdown team to meltdown, but we came back!
It appears back then we were a hell of a lot closer to success than we are now!
And all that with a list that was apparently NFG and perhaps even inexperienced at the time!
I don't understand why this bloke cops so much heat from supporters.
He hasn't played 50 games yet, mostly due to injuries, so we have only ever had glimpses of what he can do. But when fit he looks more than capable of mixing it with the best in the league.
For example, here is a head to head between White, Tuohy, Everitt and Casboult. Keeping in mind White and Tuohy play mostly back which naturally attracts less rating points.
Watching the WC ODI final I thought I'd post this question.
For me there is space for all three forms of the game as they are quite different, but it's is not clear to me they will all thrive.
T20 is a great short form game, good for families, TV and sponsors. But I am not sure it will survive as we see more of the tricks learned in T20 brought into ODIs. Is T20 destined to become redundant?
ODIs seem to be the mature option for cricket lovers even the T20 starters. I appreciate you still get dud ODIs, but when you have a bloke in great form batting why would I want to watch them bat for a maximum of 20 overs, when I can have a full innings to observe? Those big hundreds in ODIs at good strike rates are spectacular, better than stuff coming out of T20 in my opinion.
Test is the pure form of the game, the best the bowlers can offer against the best the batsmen can offer. I think test is where the bowlers have a chance to show their full range of talents and for that reason I suspect it will remain the premier form of the game that cricket lovers migrate towards.
