General AFL thread 2016

[pebblesofsand]

Really good read on styles of play, list management and keeping your supporters happy even if you down the bottom of the ladder. Jeez even Dermott makes a couple of good points.

“They realised there’s so much wasted manpower contesting every ball in dispute when they could just win one and then retain possession through skills."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...d-identity-crisis-highlights-need-for-rethink

 

[austinnn]

I never knew The Guardian had an AFL section, so thanks for that. Doesn't seem to have anything about the Saints for some reason.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I never knew The Guardian had an AFL section, so thanks for that. Doesn't seem to have anything about the Saints for some reason.

Yes he should have used St Kilda as the reference point rather than Carlton.

That's what I love about the Saints and Richo at the moment - you can actually see what they are trying to achieve - whereas if you are a Collingwood or Richmond supporter you would be tearing your hair out in absolute frustration.

 

[freebloke]

I never knew The Guardian had an AFL section, so thanks for that. Doesn't seem to have anything about the Saints for some reason.

The guardian is a shit newspaper site... Just a extreme left / green mouthpiece

Just compare the headlines over a period.

In any case, I have very little respect left for footy journalists... they all disgraced themselves during the Essendon drugs saga, barring Patrick Smith / Nick McKenzie / Caroline Wilson (surprisingly).

 

[Diehard Saint]

Yes he should have used St Kilda as the reference point rather than Carlton.

That's what I love about the Saints and Richo at the moment - you can actually see what they are trying to achieve - whereas if you are a Collingwood or Richmond supporter you would be tearing your hair out in absolute frustration.

I save that for the umpiring decisions

 

[sauce_head]

The guardian is a shit newspaper site... Just a extreme left / green mouthpiece

Just compare the headlines over a period.

In any case, I have very little respect left for footy journalists... they all disgraced themselves during the Essendon drugs saga, barring Patrick Smith / Nick McKenzie / Caroline Wilson (surprisingly).

Take that back!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/jul/01/the-joy-of-six-tony-lockett

 

[pebblesofsand]

The guardian is a shit newspaper site... Just a extreme left / green mouthpiece

Just compare the headlines over a period.

In any case, I have very little respect left for footy journalists... they all disgraced themselves during the Essendon drugs saga, barring Patrick Smith / Nick McKenzie / Caroline Wilson (surprisingly).

Yes - you're right - stick with the Murdoch press - absolute first rate reporting - about the Kardashians.

 

[freebloke]

Yes - you're right - stick with the Murdoch press - absolute first rate reporting - about the Kardashians.

I am not advocating herald sun either. Murdoch press is hated, yet the nameless leftist press of guardian/fairfax prime us for the carbon tax. Which one is reliable! One you know that has a set viewpoint or one which pretends as if it doesn't!

Just don't like the guardian, herald sun or the age. Too many agendas.

AFR and The Australian to provide a left/right bias balance for me, even if I have to pay for both of them.

I do miss some footy news, but I think despite the overall crappy site and app, the AFL site provides enough content these days. For additional goss, bigfooty is enough.

 

[Mowman]

Really hope Collingwood sign Bucks up for 10 more years

 

[NarklesHelmet]

not sure why the heat isnt on rosco lyon, freo have the smae amount of wins as brisbane

Ross has been throwing a few others under the bus to distract everyone from the season. Sumich gone, their President gone and rumours that more assistants will follow. Because of course their problems couldn't be down to Ross at all could they, has to be the assistants fault .

 

[Verdun]

I am not advocating herald sun either. Murdoch press is hated, yet the nameless leftist press of guardian/fairfax prime us for the carbon tax. Which one is reliable! One you know that has a set viewpoint or one which pretends as if it doesn't!

Just don't like the guardian, herald sun or the age. Too many agendas.

AFR and The Australian to provide a left/right bias balance for me, even if I have to pay for both of them.

I do miss some footy news, but I think despite the overall crappy site and app, the AFL site provides enough content these days. For additional goss, bigfooty is enough.

Yep Big Footy is the site to catch up on footy stuff - Murdoch is an evil fu...r and his tentacles extend; don't know what you are on about with priming for carbon tax reckon you have swallowed to much Abbott rubbish....Carbon pricing was proposed for a reason; Herald sun is very different to the Age I know which one I would believe

 

[Plumber66]

I am not advocating herald sun either. Murdoch press is hated, yet the nameless leftist press of guardian/fairfax prime us for the carbon tax. Which one is reliable! One you know that has a set viewpoint or one which pretends as if it doesn't!

Just don't like the guardian, herald sun or the age. Too many agendas.

AFR and The Australian to provide a left/right bias balance for me, even if I have to pay for both of them.

I do miss some footy news, but I think despite the overall crappy site and app, the AFL site provides enough content these days. For additional goss, bigfooty is enough.

And the Muslim terrorists. Don't forget them and how the lefty media is allowing them to invade us and implement sharia law.

Have I missed anything?

 

[freebloke]

Yep Big Footy is the site to catch up on footy stuff - Murdoch is an evil fu...r and his tentacles extend; don't know what you are on about with priming for carbon tax reckon you have swallowed to much Abbott rubbish....Carbon pricing was proposed for a reason; Herald sun is very different to the Age I know which one I would believe

I am not saying herald sun is any better.

I worked in the energy industry, and the crappy scheme was really bad. One could buy overseas carbon credits for 5 bucks /CO2 tonne then. But the labor pollies put a domestic contribution limit of min 50% in there so that carbon prices were bought at $20/CO2e onne. That's 4 times what it could have been. If you run the line about Australian investment, well, think about how many times you would pay 4 times the price of anything that's advertised on cheaply from a reputed vendor in Europe.

Good luck reading lotto win stories on the age. That's all they are good for. soft Gambling advertising.

 

[freebloke]

And the Muslim terrorists. Don't forget them and how the lefty media is allowing them to invade us and implement sharia law.

Have I missed anything?

A strawman argument. I never saw an article in that vein on The Australian.

That view that right wing media is arguing that is something heaped on them by the leftist media.

I think every muslim is a regular dude trying to earn a buck like everyone else. It's just some "radical " preachers who need to be reined in to avoid something like the Lindt cafe siege or the murder of police accountant Curtis Cheng by a 15 year old.

 

[Plumber66]

A strawman argument. I never saw an article in that vein on The Australian.

That view that right wing media is arguing that is something heaped on them by the leftist media.

I think every muslim is a regular dude trying to earn a buck like everyone else. It's just some "radical " preachers who need to be reined in to avoid something like the Lindt cafe siege or the murder of police accountant Curtis Cheng by a 15 year old.

Like them or not, media such as Guardian, Saturday paper and AIMN do a far better job of journalism and reporting real stories than the msm do.

Even the ABC board is stacked with Murdoch cronies.

 

[freebloke]

Like them or not, media such as Guardian, Saturday paper and AIMN do a far better job of journalism and reporting real stories than the msm do.

Even the ABC board is stacked with Murdoch cronies.

Not really. Guardian is more extreme left than fairfax. It's the worst one out there.

I don't know about the others, but I did check "The Guardian" this morning. Their headlines primarily in translated form were

- bring refugees onshore
- Lucy Turnbull is no good at her job

Real front page newsworthy stuff there.

ABC Board stacked with Murdoch cronies? Well, here's bit of primary research:-

http://about.abc.net.au/who-we-are/the-abc-board/ - Click link on the sides to read bios of each of the board members.

Chairman - James Spigelman AC QC - Between 1972 and 1976 he served as Senior Adviser and Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of Australia (Gough Whitlam from Labor Party) - Clearly someone with Labor links

Managing Director - Michelle Guthrie - once worked for Murdoch, but also worked for Google.

Matt Peacock - Former ABC journalist and professor with Sydney University, authored the book Killer Company (HarperCollins, 2009), a history of Australia’s largest asbestos manufacturer, James Hardie

Peter Lewis - former channel 7 employee - extensive channel 7 work history. Anyone would know that Channel 7 and Murdoch are competitors, so clearly not a Murdoch crony.

Simon Mordant - investment banker - shows no link with Murdoch on his profile

Dr Kristin Ferguson - ex RAF. Independent non executive director with experience in construction and mining companies as a board member. No links shown with Murdoch based on profile. No media company related experiences shown.

Donny Walford - history as a recruitment person and runs own business on coaching / executive development. Again, no history of employment or links with Murdoch.



Overall, from the above list, a grand total of 1 from a total of 6, have any known connections with Rupert Murdoch. So much so for ABC board being "stacked with Murdoch Cronies".

That's the kind of leftist BS smear that goes on in the world.

 

[gringo2011]

Not really. Guardian is more extreme left than fairfax. It's the worst one out there.

I don't know about the others, but I did check "The Guardian" this morning. Their headlines primarily in translated form were

- bring refugees onshore
- Lucy Turnbull is no good at her job

Real front page newsworthy stuff there.

ABC Board stacked with Murdoch cronies? Well, here's bit of primary research:-

http://about.abc.net.au/who-we-are/the-abc-board/ - Click link on the sides to read bios of each of the board members.

Chairman - James Spigelman AC QC - Between 1972 and 1976 he served as Senior Adviser and Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of Australia (Gough Whitlam from Labor Party) - Clearly someone with Labor links

Managing Director - Michelle Guthrie - once worked for Murdoch, but also worked for Google.

Matt Peacock - Former ABC journalist and professor with Sydney University, authored the book Killer Company (HarperCollins, 2009), a history of Australia’s largest asbestos manufacturer, James Hardie

Peter Lewis - former channel 7 employee - extensive channel 7 work history. Anyone would know that Channel 7 and Murdoch are competitors, so clearly not a Murdoch crony.

Simon Mordant - investment banker - shows no link with Murdoch on his profile

Dr Kristin Ferguson - ex RAF. Independent non executive director with experience in construction and mining companies as a board member. No links shown with Murdoch based on profile. No media company related experiences shown.

Donny Walford - history as a recruitment person and runs own business on coaching / executive development. Again, no history of employment or links with Murdoch.



Overall, from the above list, a grand total of 1 from a total of 6, have any known connections with Rupert Murdoch. So much so for ABC board being "stacked with Murdoch Cronies".

That's the kind of leftist BS smear that goes on in the world.

Someone did a fact check on the ABC being a left wing tool and they found that a majority and quite a conclusive one were aligned to right wing politics so someone is wrong.

 

[freebloke]

Someone did a fact check on the ABC being a left wing tool and they found that a majority and quite a conclusive one were aligned to right wing politics so someone is wrong.

I am not being antagonistic, but would you mind providing the source of the aforementioned research?

 

[pebblesofsand]

Not really. Guardian is more extreme left than fairfax. It's the worst one out there.

I don't know about the others, but I did check "The Guardian" this morning. Their headlines primarily in translated form were

- bring refugees onshore
- Lucy Turnbull is no good at her job

Real front page newsworthy stuff there.

ABC Board stacked with Murdoch cronies? Well, here's bit of primary research:-

http://about.abc.net.au/who-we-are/the-abc-board/ - Click link on the sides to read bios of each of the board members.

Chairman - James Spigelman AC QC - Between 1972 and 1976 he served as Senior Adviser and Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of Australia (Gough Whitlam from Labor Party) - Clearly someone with Labor links

Managing Director - Michelle Guthrie - once worked for Murdoch, but also worked for Google.

Matt Peacock - Former ABC journalist and professor with Sydney University, authored the book Killer Company (HarperCollins, 2009), a history of Australia’s largest asbestos manufacturer, James Hardie

Peter Lewis - former channel 7 employee - extensive channel 7 work history. Anyone would know that Channel 7 and Murdoch are competitors, so clearly not a Murdoch crony.

Simon Mordant - investment banker - shows no link with Murdoch on his profile

Dr Kristin Ferguson - ex RAF. Independent non executive director with experience in construction and mining companies as a board member. No links shown with Murdoch based on profile. No media company related experiences shown.

Donny Walford - history as a recruitment person and runs own business on coaching / executive development. Again, no history of employment or links with Murdoch.



Overall, from the above list, a grand total of 1 from a total of 6, have any known connections with Rupert Murdoch. So much so for ABC board being "stacked with Murdoch Cronies".

That's the kind of leftist BS smear that goes on in the world.

Calling the Guardian extreme left only does one thing - demonstrate your lack of understanding political systems and ideologies.

The Guardian is at worst a social democratic paper with its focus primarily on social justice within a capitalist system. I don't I've ever seen the Guardian advocating nationalising industries - have you?

As for bringing refugees onshore - no they are advocating we take responsibility for our actions rather than hiding our mistreatment in some other country and pulling a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" cop out. Seems fair enough to me.

Anyway - back to the footy.

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

How on earth is the offshore detention issue not worthy of the front page? When the UNHRC and UNHCR both tell you you're torturing people isn't it time to maybe consider a different approach?

 

[gringo2011]

I am not being antagonistic, but would you mind providing the source of the aforementioned research?

I think it was in the Age about a year ago. You could see if you could find it on there.

 

[Sassafras]

Big mistake St Kilda going with BLK apparel next season IMO. Buy up the current stuff why you can.

 

[VDS66]

I am not being antagonistic, but would you mind providing the source of the aforementioned research?

what you are basically saying is that any media that publishes stories which do not align with your obvious right wing / conservative biases means that they must automatically be left wing propaganda.

If you are true to your convictions about the so called smear that goes on, then you would welcome these publications for revealing the truth and not heeding to political spin (both sides) that is spouted in the msm.

My guess is you're an LNP / One Nation voter because they are the majority who constantly use phrases like leftist media.

 

[VDS66]

How on earth is the offshore detention issue not worthy of the front page? When the UNHRC and UNHCR both tell you your torturing people isn't it time to maybe consider a different approach?

Because right wing bigots want them kept there?

 

[freebloke]

Calling the Guardian extreme left only does one thing - demonstrate your lack of understanding political systems and ideologies.

The Guardian is at worst a social democratic paper with its focus primarily on social justice within a capitalist system. I don't I've ever seen the Guardian advocating nationalising industries - have you?

As for bringing refugees onshore - no they are advocating we take responsibility for our actions rather than hiding our mistreatment in some other country and pulling a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" cop out. Seems fair enough to me.

Anyway - back to the footy.

Guardian is a leftist newspaper, based on the news slant they have given. Also, here is a definition of "left" as per wikipedia, which quite clearly shows that the label I've applied is OK.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. The term left wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[6] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[7] The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century,[citation needed] usually with disparaging intent, and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views.

The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,[8] communism, anarchism, and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.[9] Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[10] including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,[11][12] as well as a wide range of parties.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Never said The Guardian is advocating nationalising industries - again a strawman argument introduced by yourself. How about you get your definitions sorted out mate!