Be very careful , the fun police will get you !Some of the stuff in AFLW is cringe as.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Be very careful , the fun police will get you !Some of the stuff in AFLW is cringe as.
Be very careful , the fun police will get you !
Yeah the conferences and fixture for a start
?The new mini NAB adds are about to start and one has a girl looking like Mona Hope , god help us.
and time and time again the quote attributed to Horse has been proven to be false. He had no issue with Florent playing on like he did.
He and Buddy are our only tatts players. Dangerous individuality and flair in evidence.You might be right. Zac has great dare and the pace to break through lines, but I have not seen much evidence of a great footy IQ. Attribute wise, he is not a see ball get ball type, despite his physicality. Most of the blokes Horse apparently is running through the mids are notable for their footy IQ and discipline.
I am not sure where Zac's best position is.
Really? Fake news? He did take issue actually. He said that the fact he kicked the goal made it ok. The implication was that if he missed he would have been criticised or worse. A qualified approval at best. The reference to living and dying by the sword has a not too subtle implication of discipline if he had missed.
"The 19-year-old's kick never looked like missing, but Longmire told reporters after the game he would rather the forward had held up play by going back to take his kick. (issue)
"That might have been a preference at that particular point in time," Longmire said with a laugh. (issue)
"Any way what will be, will be. I had an old coach who used to say you live by the sword, (you) die by the sword and he went for it and he kicked it. We'll take that as well. (issue)
"It was good to see him kick it, the young kid. Sometimes it's great as a young bloke, isn't it? You don't have any fear, you just go about it and what will be, will be.
"That's what's good about him. I just spoke to him then and he just said, 'What's the problem? I went back and kicked it'."
Once again an inspiring reference to Denis Pagan and North Melbourne circa 1990's from Horse. The most authoritarian coach since Genghis Khan is being called up as a role model. Are you seriously suggesting that the report on AFL media made up the quotes?
I don't know how you know that. But we know for sure Horse does not want players playing on as he imposes a possession game. The point of my reply was the extraordinary claim that Longmire didn't take issue with kid playing on. The quotes from the AFL media report make it clear that:Again. Every coach in the AFL would have wanted Florent to hold the ball at that point of the game. No doubt about it.
The quote were after Longmires response to a direct question “would you prefer he had held the ball” to which he responded with a laugh “the might have been the preference...”
I don't know how you know that. But we know for sure Horse does not want players playing on as he imposes a possession game. The point of my reply was the extraordinary claim that Longmire didn't take issue with kid playing on. The quotes from the AFL media report make it clear that:
1. He did take "issue" - which I define as a misgiving or complaint.
2. Longmire chose to make his misgivings public.
3. Longmire's misgivings were not misquoted or even more extraordinarily "made up".
If you want a mirror image of Longmire's coaching style and treatment of players check out Anthony Koutafides criticism of Denis Pagan. Outmoded game plan, favouritism and discipline without fairness.
No swearing this time , what you called me was offensive and I didn't lower myself , goodbye.Yeah man, thats you. Do you get out on the town and scowl at women who dare to ink their own bodies??
Not surprised to see you regard degrading someone as a good time. Sad tho, plenty else to do.
Well someone did say it was "made up". "and time and time again the quote attributed to Horse has been proven to be false."Nobody had said it was made up. It’s context.
What drew the response is as important as the response itself. Had the reporter said “how good was Florents goal” and Horse responded “yeah, but he shouldn’t have played on” you might have a point. But that’s not what happened. He was asked a direct question as to whether he would have preferred he held the ball, to which he responding whilst laughing, yes.
And I know that’s because it’s common sense. I have coached and if the players were aware of the state of the game (time), I would want them to hold the ball in that situation rather than take an unnecessary risk that could potentially give the ball to a desperate opposition who would know they have one more shot at taking the game away.
Fortunately for us Florent iced the game, but it could easily have been a different outcome.
As for Longmire not wanting players to play on, I am not sure that is accurate either, but that’s a different discussion. It’s about making the right decision for the right circumstance, not “don’t play on”.
Well someone did say it was "made up". "and time and time again the quote attributed to Horse has been proven to be false."
False is an adjective meaning :
- not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
- made to imitate something in order to deceive.
- illusory; not actually so.
- The quotes i used were not false. And Longmire did take issue with the kid playing on. Its irrelevant to the point of my reply whether other coaches would have wanted Florent to go back and take his kick. Why did Longmire make his misgivings public. He could have just said "good on the kid" and kept his misgivings to the dressing room. Which he should have.
I don't know how you know that. But we know for sure Horse does not want players playing on as he imposes a possession game. The point of my reply was the extraordinary claim that Longmire didn't take issue with kid playing on. The quotes from the AFL media report make it clear that:
1. He did take "issue" - which I define as a misgiving or complaint.
2. Longmire chose to make his misgivings public.
3. Longmire's misgivings were not misquoted or even more extraordinarily "made up".
If you want a mirror image of Longmire's coaching style and treatment of players check out Anthony Koutafides criticism of Denis Pagan. Outmoded game plan, favouritism and discipline without fairness.
1. He said more than that. He said you "live by the sword" The clear implication was that if Florent had missed the goal there would have been consequences. I once had an interesting conversation with Rocket Eade after we lost the 96 GF. I asked him what it was that was the key to the turn around in the players after he took over from Barassi. Now Rocket a lovely bloke outside the coaches box didn't criticise Barassi. But he said something to the effect that the players when he came to the club were fearful of making mistakes and had been coached not to take risks. He said he coached them to take risks and back themselves in. If they made a mistake he didn't want them to go back into their shell. He encouraged them to try again and risk it. That is great coaching. Longmire does not coach that way. His equivocation in regard to Florent is symptomatic of how he has the group playing cautious and defensive football.You are unable to consider any situation involving Longmire without immediately drawing the worst possible conclusions. It is irrational.
He was directly asked if he would have preferred Florent to stop. He laughed and indicated he would have, but that all was fine and he complimented Florent's willingness to take the game on.
To suggest this was some sort of unwarranted and unfair public attack on a player is frankly absurd.
1. He said more than that. He said you "live by the sword" The clear implication was that if Florent had missed the goal there would have been consequences. I once had an interesting conversation with Rocket Eade after we lost the 96 GF. I asked him what it was that was the key to the turn around in the players after he took over from Barassi. Now Rocket a lovely bloke outside the coaches box didn't criticise Barassi. But he said something to the effect that the players when he came to the club were fearful of making mistakes and had been coached not to take risks. He said he coached them to take risks and back themselves in. If they made a mistake he didn't want them to go back into their shell. He encouraged them to try again and risk it. That is great coaching. Longmire does not coach that way. His equivocation in regard to Florent is symptomatic of how he has the group playing cautious and defensive football.
2. You write that quote was "false" Not wrong or inaccurate but false which I reasonably interpreted as "made up". The noun "falsehood" in the law means a lie. And apparently i am irrational. Turn it up. I didn't launch an ad hominem attack on you as conspiratorial or paranoid as you claimed that a series of quotes on an AFL news site were lies or "made up". Perhaps we can keep it civil. Its neither irrational or absurd to draw a conclusion as I did that Longmire expressed a "misgiving" or in your terms "issue" over a kid who took the game on, backed himself in and kicked a winning goal. Longmire was effusive about the kids self belief and ticker. Not. I knew a judge called "Whispering Death" He would smile as he punted your case out of court. I will take myself off to the Big Footy gulag that is the fate of the criminally insane Longmire dissenters. I wrote that with a smile. So its okay.
It's the only gambling in Australia where it is not a requirement that the odds be posted prior to payment. You're right about the big clubs being in old existing areas though. Are you sure the spend is still declining? I knew it was in 11 and 12, but I thought it had begun to increase again with the advent of larger jackpots.Ohh but I didn’t explicitly state it! Stalker indeed lol
I actually wondered if anyone was paying attention
I am not a big fan of ‘gaming’ either. I think though that the biggest clubs aren’t in the poorest areas by design per se, they have been around a longtime. I will concede though that they have grown to be the biggest clubs because of the desperation of lower socioeconomic in the areas they reside.
My job is specifically to account manager these bigger clubs and pub groups, so I know exactly what you mean. Most of the major clubs realise that gaming is actually declining is overall spend per bet (not patronage) and they are having to diversify into other areas particularly in significantly improved dining experiences.
Pretty sad regularly seeing those buttons being pressed though.
My god some people are perfect humans.
Some people are going to 'love' this article
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-17/longmire-reveals-reasons-for-scg-and-inside50-struggles
Some people are going to 'love' this article
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-17/longmire-reveals-reasons-for-scg-and-inside50-struggles
"We didn't get the ball out of our back half as efficiently as we wanted to, so therefore that put not only pressure on our inside 50s, but our repeats against, so they're areas we need to get a bit better at."Some people are going to 'love' this article
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-17/longmire-reveals-reasons-for-scg-and-inside50-struggles
You wroteYou are just continuing to prove my point here. Do you really think that the "live by the sword, die by the sword" comment should be interpreted as a threat against Florent? For starters, Longmire was quoting a former coach of his, not saying that was how he felt personally or how he coached the team. In the context of what was said the phrase was really the equivalent of "you win some, you lose some", instead you are using it to justify your belief that the players are afraid of Longmire. He followed up this statement by praising Florent's attitude.
So, when he speaks metaphorically you chose to take the worst interpretation of it. When he speaks explicitly and clearly you chose to ignore what was said entirely.
Where did I say the quote was false or made up? Please direct quote me on it, because I am pretty sure that you are the one that is making stuff up.
I made the point that it was taken out of context and that you provided an extreme interpretation of it, one that doesn't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny. When it comes to Longmire you are irrational.
The coach was asked a direct question about what his preference would be in a situation where the game is on the line, a player takes a mark and has the possibility of soaking up the little time remaining or playing on, risking a turnover that would lose the game. He answered honestly, and it was the same response that every single coach in the league would give. He answered with good humour that he would have preferred the player to take the more conservative approach, but he also praised the player for his confidence and willingness to take the game on.
You have decided to interpret this totally innocuous exchange in to evidence of Longmire's culture of fear and repression, suggesting he publicly attacked and threatened a young player, likened Longmire and Florent's relationship to the totally toxic situation at Carlton with Koutifidis and Pagan... It is just such an incredible leap that is not justified by the evidence.
Why do you make such a leap? Beacuse you have become so dogmatic about Longmire being a problem that everything you see now becomes evidence to justify your pre-existing narrative, no matter how tenuous the link is, no matter how much you need to twist things to fit. That is irrational. I don't have another word to use to describe it.
1. I was replying to robbieando's original comment where he did write "and time and time again the quote attributed to Horse has been proven to be false." Falsity where I come from implies and means made up as in a falsehood. I know its really old hat to insist on linguist precision but really if he had written that this was a matter of interpretation, I would have passed on because we have had that discussion ad nauseum. The bloke who wrote that hasn't replied to my comment about his claim that the "quote" (not the interpretation) was "false" so I wont push on in that regard. But its an extraordinary thing to write that the quote was false. I understand that you are differing about the interpretation which is fair enough.You are just continuing to prove my point here. Do you really think that the "live by the sword, die by the sword" comment should be interpreted as a threat against Florent? For starters, Longmire was quoting a former coach of his, not saying that was how he felt personally or how he coached the team. In the context of what was said the phrase was really the equivalent of "you win some, you lose some", instead you are using it to justify your belief that the players are afraid of Longmire. He followed up this statement by praising Florent's attitude.
So, when he speaks metaphorically you chose to take the worst interpretation of it. When he speaks explicitly and clearly you chose to ignore what was said entirely.
Where did I say the quote was false or made up? Please direct quote me on it, because I am pretty sure that you are the one that is making stuff up.
I made the point that it was taken out of context and that you provided an extreme interpretation of it, one that doesn't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny. When it comes to Longmire you are irrational.
The coach was asked a direct question about what his preference would be in a situation where the game is on the line, a player takes a mark and has the possibility of soaking up the little time remaining or playing on, risking a turnover that would lose the game. He answered honestly, and it was the same response that every single coach in the league would give. He answered with good humour that he would have preferred the player to take the more conservative approach, but he also praised the player for his confidence and willingness to take the game on.
You have decided to interpret this totally innocuous exchange in to evidence of Longmire's culture of fear and repression, suggesting he publicly attacked and threatened a young player, likened Longmire and Florent's relationship to the totally toxic situation at Carlton with Koutifidis and Pagan... It is just such an incredible leap that is not justified by the evidence.
Why do you make such a leap? Beacuse you have become so dogmatic about Longmire being a problem that everything you see now becomes evidence to justify your pre-existing narrative, no matter how tenuous the link is, no matter how much you need to twist things to fit. That is irrational. I don't have another word to use to describe it.
Some people are going to 'love' this article
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-17/longmire-reveals-reasons-for-scg-and-inside50-struggles