sr36
Hall of Famer
I want to know how many cherry tomatoes you need to make 30 litres of spag bol.Thanks VP, also about a third of the toms are cherry that I roasted in the oven, with a few herbs & oil.
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.
I want to know how many cherry tomatoes you need to make 30 litres of spag bol.Thanks VP, also about a third of the toms are cherry that I roasted in the oven, with a few herbs & oil.
I would watch that.
Comprehension is your friend. I said a third. Then remember how much else is in there to make 30l.I want to know how many cherry tomatoes you need to make 30 litres of spag bol.
There's quite a lot of cocking shows that involve a bit of chasing around before launching and slipping him a nice beauty with s**t around that.It would be ******* hilarious.. are there any cocking shows like it..
I'll get the Nid to flick some of the grub at me.. so I can launch myself at him.. play fight a bit.. but slip him a nice beauty for a laugh then have him chase me around the kitchen and s**t like that..
Sorry but that is a laughable comment. Buckley was treated the same as any other assistant coach. He was given an opportunity to coach a "line" and was in the coaching box at all times.
The onus is more on Buckley to soak the information in and draw on Malthouse experience to further his coaching learning.
Head coach no.1 responsibility is to coach the senior team, not to develop other coaches. The assistant coaches need to take more of a proactive approach and want to learn.
If Buckley had no interest learning from Malthouse, a 3 time premiership coach, then that is all on Buckley.
And if Buckley coaches 10 years without a flag, then Malthouse should not be blamed for Buckley's failing. Especially when Buckley's man management skills has been brought to task by many players.
Nah, not laughable at all. Any other assistant coach is generally retained or selected by the senior coach so there's an entirely different relationship between them than having a usurper thrust upon them, particular if as I assume he was an unwelcome addition.
I don't recall ever saying that Buck's success or failure would/should/could be attributed to MM but that has absolutely zero to do with how he groomed/prepared him to take over the senior role. We can only judge on what we see and MM was extremely cold toward Bucks through that transition. That doesn't speak to Buck's keenness or otherwise to learn from MM, that speaks to MM's openness toward taking Bucks under his wing. Bucks is a very smart man and he'd glean a lot just from working with MM despite that frostiness. He's generally accepted to have orchestrated the changes to our forward structures and play leading into 2010 after all.
Nah, not laughable at all. Any other assistant coach is generally retained or selected by the senior coach so there's an entirely different relationship between them than having a usurper thrust upon them, particular if as I assume he was an unwelcome addition.
I don't recall ever saying that Buck's success or failure would/should/could be attributed to MM but that has absolutely zero to do with how he groomed/prepared him to take over the senior role. We can only judge on what we see and MM was extremely cold toward Bucks through that transition. That doesn't speak to Buck's keenness or otherwise to learn from MM, that speaks to MM's openness toward taking Bucks under his wing. Bucks is a very smart man and he'd glean a lot just from working with MM despite that frostiness. He's generally accepted to have orchestrated the changes to our forward structures and play leading into 2010 after all.
This is where it all becomes really unbelievable. Apparently MM iced and locked Bucks out, yet gave Bucks enough control to orchestrate the key pillar of our game plan - the forward press? That doesn't make sense. If he orchestrated that- he wasn't locked out. If he was locked out, he didn't orchestrate anything.
Giving Bucks credit for the forward press as well as claiming he was locked out by the senior coach just sounds like you're pushing a pro Bucks anti MM line without factoring in logic or reality.
This is where it all becomes really unbelievable. Apparently MM iced and locked Bucks out, yet gave Bucks enough control to orchestrate the key pillar of our game plan - the forward press? That doesn't make sense. If he orchestrated that- he wasn't locked out. If he was locked out, he didn't orchestrate anything.
Giving Bucks credit for the forward press as well as claiming he was locked out by the senior coach just sounds like you're pushing a pro Bucks anti MM line without factoring in logic or reality.
This is where it all becomes really unbelievable. Apparently MM iced and locked Bucks out, yet gave Bucks enough control to orchestrate the key pillar of our game plan - the forward press? That doesn't make sense. If he orchestrated that- he wasn't locked out. If he was locked out, he didn't orchestrate anything.
Giving Bucks credit for the forward press as well as claiming he was locked out by the senior coach just sounds like you're pushing a pro Bucks anti MM line without factoring in logic or reality.
You've nailed it mate. You can't have it both ways. I'm in the camp that Malthouse locked Buckley out and hence there is no way that Buckley could have instigated the forward press. And on the off chance that he did, then there is no way that Malthouse would implement it if only out of single bloody mindedness. So it's one or the other and those that argue to the contrary are demonstrating an emotive positive bias towards Buckley and the opposite to Malthouse.
Where has MM ever given Bucks credit for the forward press? Bucks was the forwards coach at the time and it was the general scuttlebutt at the time that it was his idea but I can't recall MM ever attributing anything to Bucks about it. That MM was smart enough to embrace that concept doesn't change anything or confirm anything about their relationship, just confirms that he was a cunning old fox.
Shades of grey sr.
MM was frosty towards Buckley, we all saw that and it was reported at the time. That doesn't mean he was completely shut out and had zero input.
Our coaching team would have been completely dysfunctional if that was the case. The coaches don't work in a bubble, they have overseers too.
Buckley's and MM's relationship during '10 & '11 would probably best be termed "cooly professional".
You seem to suggest that it was 1 or the other which I doubt. And it has nothing to do with bias toward either, merely observations on the course of events.
no anchovies in any of these tomato sauce recipes:
Authentic Italian Tomato Sauce - Quick, Easy & Delicious
An easy Italian tomato sauce made from scratch with just 5 ingredients in only 10 minutes!www.insidetherustickitchen.com
scroll in this one for ingredients:
How to make the perfect tomato sauce
Felicity Cloake: A true classic of Italian cuisine, it is perfect for meatballs, pasta, pizzas and more. But are fresh tomatoes essential, or can you go for tinned? And what should add to enhance the flavour?www.theguardian.com
Real Authentic Italian Tomato Sauce (No Can's Here) Recipe - Food.com
Here’s the deal….if you want REAL authentic Italian tomato sauce, you’ve come to the right place. Sure you can save yourself all the time by opening awww.food.com
Sicilian Pasta Sauce Recipe - Food.com
My grandmother is Sicilian, so naturally this sauce was passed down from each generation to all the girls. Hope you'll enjoy it as much as my familywww.food.com
Homemade Italian Red Sauce
This Italian red sauce recipe is simple to make with crushed tomatoes, tomato paste, onion, garlic, fresh basil, and a few basic pantry items.www.allrecipes.com
Yes I am and sensing Malthouse to be the personality that he is, there is no way he would take on board a Buckley led initiative, no matter how good it might have been. Think it through logically. It's clear that Malthouse was filthy re the succession plan. If nothing else he wore his heart on his sleeve and there were numerous public occasions, starting with the original press conference, where it was obvious.
Of course the counter is that you could be right and another scenario is that Malthouse was the architect of the forward press and also embraced Buckley whole heartedly. What do you think?
I'm thinking of starting a thread just for Anchovies - thoughts, recipes, salt tolerance, where to buy superior brands, are they threatened with extinction, anchovies vs sardines etcI wouldn't make a tomato based pasta sauce without adding an anchovy, but then again I don't add salt.
I like that you think you're the only 1 bringing logical thinking to the subject, but then you offer conclusions that seem to suggest the opposite.
MM was a shrewd coach and I doubt he'd have any qualms at all adopting the ideas of others as his own. After all, he wanted that ultimate success. A lockout such as you suggest would have destroyed the fabric of the coaching team. Much more likely that MM was less than his charming self in his dealings with Bucks, as per the public showings. The antithesis of the warm nurturing Paul Roos - Longmire/Goodwin or Worsfold - Rutten relationships we see played out in other succession plans.
Yeah, but MM was a prickly tosser in his dealings with many, well before he arrived at Collingwood. This isn't about whether MM could be a prickly tosser. I'd happily agree with your version of events if it was just a matter of suggesting that MM was probably a prickly tosser towards Bucks. I agree that it's likely that he was a prickly tosser towards Bucks, but the notion that often gets thrown around is that he intentionally stalled Bucks's development as a coach through locking him out. It's quite possible that he did. I certainly wouldn't put it past him. I'm simply suggesting that if you believe that he did this, it doesn't make any sense to credit Bucks with the successful idea and implementation of our forward press.
He definitely would have “credited” Bucks is we lost in 2010.
Quote - Jason Cloke played a better GF in 2002.
I like that you think you're the only 1 bringing logical thinking to the subject, but then you offer conclusions that seem to suggest the opposite.
MM was a shrewd coach and I doubt he'd have any qualms at all adopting the ideas of others as his own. After all, he wanted that ultimate success. A lockout such as you suggest would have destroyed the fabric of the coaching team. Much more likely that MM was less than his charming self in his dealings with Bucks, as per the public showings. The antithesis of the warm nurturing Paul Roos - Longmire/Goodwin or Worsfold - Rutten relationships we see played out in other succession plans.
That comment was appalling (Bucks had a similar doozy as well regarding Mayne)
I'm not talking about MM giving credit to Bucks. I'm talking about us giving Bucks credit. I've got no idea if Bucks deserves the credit for the press. Just saying that if he deserves that credit, MM doesn't deserve to be accused of maliciously locking Bucks out. The two ideas can't co-exist.
Yeah, but MM was a prickly tosser in his dealings with many, well before he arrived at Collingwood. This isn't about whether MM could be a prickly tosser. I'd happily agree with your version of events if it was just a matter of suggesting that MM was probably a prickly tosser towards Bucks. I agree that it's likely that he was a prickly tosser towards Bucks, but the notion that often gets thrown around is that he intentionally stalled Bucks's development as a coach through locking him out. It's quite possible that he did. I certainly wouldn't put it past him. I'm simply suggesting that if you believe that he did this, it doesn't make any sense to credit Bucks with the successful idea and implementation of our forward press.
Yes there is, millions of them...It would be ******* hilarious.. are there any cocking shows like it..
I'll get the Nid to flick some of the grub at me.. so I can launch myself at him.. play fight a bit.. but slip him a nice beauty for a laugh then have him chase me around the kitchen and s**t like that..