Routh's political opinions shift and change over time. He clearly has views that span left to right. He self published a book in 2023 on the war in Ukraine with the following quote :
"I get so tired of people asking me if I am a Democrat or Republican as I refuse to be put in a category and I must always answer independent," he wrote.
I guess it's dumb on my part to suggest that America might be a better and safer place to live if they weren't freely and legally allowed to carry assault rifles, and if they weren't constantly pursuing a factually incorrect, hate filled political agenda, but what do I know ?
Agree Pauly, IMO every footballer is hard and tough given the game they play (ie by default). We need to be "harder" off field IMO, that is more ruthless and not hanging onto nice guys who perennially injured for far too long. Then we all sit and wonder why what appear to be silly selections by the MC occur. Just Imagine if we had players of the footballing calibre of Martin, Marchbank and Cunningham available every week. I would hazard a guess and say that would be worth a couple of extra wins a year (the difference between making the 8 or top 4).
No doubt.
I have at times wondered about the difference between perception and reality, and whether people are led by labels and the media. One catchphrase that immediately comes to mind (there's a few others) is the "unsociable Hawks." I mean, what exactly is this, and how does it manifest itself on game day ? Did our players cop more knees in tackles and more whacks in the head when we played them ? Did they try and cheat the rules more than other teams ? Was it more sledging, more slamming players into the side fence, more whinging to the umpires etc ? And if any of these things are true, what corrective actions did our club take, and if not, why not ? Sometimes I really think the media just give something a name and a direction, a bit of marketing wizardry, and the sheep invariably follow.
I should also add that our our current coach is probably the toughest most uncompromising player of his generation. I'm quite confident that if this hard/soft business was really a thing, he would be asking for more players like him.
I respect that supporters will have a range of opinions, but as a general rule I would never question the hardness of any AFL player. It's neither realistic nor sensible to expect every bloke to play like Mitch Robinson, and if you're going to question someone like Bryce Gibbs, then you should also question someone like Scott Pendlebury. There's room for different types in AFL footy. The salient issue is to be hard to play against, not to be hard per se.
This type of proposition, which broadcasts a kind of "good ol' days" vibe, is similar to laments about players only chasing the paycheck, not bleeding Navy Blue, not playing for the jumper etc. All ill advised and all to be avoided IMO.
So depending on each persons thinking prior to the game the result has left us with...
Group 1-Relief it's over ...on to 2025 Group 2-Disappointed but resigned. Group 3- Angry and upset.
The level of disappointment will vary according to our expectations. Some will move on quickly, others may take a bit of time.
What generates the expectations and reactions is results to some degree, but the bigger generator I would argue is personality type. You can predict with a high level of accuracy how the various posters on here will react to a given situation, and that includes all of us.
I don't think folks watch it for any reason other than the spectacle. If you have an interest in politics, how it works, how it can be manipulated and how it can influence our lives... you watch. It not about who has the best policies, it's about who performs best because in the end policy counts for absolutely nothing unless you win the election. You can have the best policies in the world, but if you're not in a position to implement them, they're useless.
In my opinion Harris won the debate clearly. Do we know a lot more about her policies and how they would differ from Biden's Nope. She was a bit vague, using some 'facts' out of context, but not as many as Trump who basically told a few 'porkies.' What we do know is that she stood toe to toe with Trump and more than matched him. So in terms of the election it must have had some benefit however minimal. Does that matter to us? Of course it does. Like it or not what happens in the USA affects us and the rest of the world. America would be very different places under Trump as opposed to Harris.
America will be different under Trump for some people, but for the majority it won't matter. Democrats have hitched their wagon to identity politics, so you may see a little improvement on abortion, LGBT issues etc., but anything that negatively impacts their corporate donors (the same corporate donors for both parties) won't change. The twp parties are virtually identical on anything to do with fossil fuel, big pharma, banking etc.
The GOP under Trump are basically the Democrats with the mask of civility ripped off, and the crudeness, vulgarity and crassness of corporate America has been laid bare for all to see.
I wouldn't vote for either party, but the GOP can't even be bothered challenging their audience with something original, instead resorting to the old "dog eating" trope, straight out of the Asian slander playbook.
I really don't understand how people can watch even 30 seconds of that sh1te. It's purely performative, the triumph of spectacle over anything of substance, and another step in the seemingly limitless degradation of public discourse and the political process.
It wasn't funny at the time but the commentator said that Acres lowered his eyes. They must have been around his ankles
Just one of those nights where everything was off. At least our recent form indicated that we were off the boil. The Doggies went into their EF looking a million bucks, and even they were made to look ordinary.
I think it was a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario. You either play seniors with experience who lack match conditioning, or kids who are not yet able to sustain 4 quarters of AFL footy, who may not be up to speed with structures and game plan etc. It's a lose-lose IMO.
The last couple of junk time goals yes I agree. But not before that IMO.
And can I also just add. If Fagan seriously thinks putting the cue in the rack in an EF is a good strategy, then he needs a good talking to. If you're that cocky by half time, it's little wonder they have no silverware to show for their efforts.
