The graveyard thread for endless off topic posturing on persons causing bi-polar responses

theDuckFarmer

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,708
Likes
10,345
Location
Ziggurat City
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
LUFC, Patriots, Mitchelton-Scott
[Fast forward to end-of-season exit interview]

Hinkley: "Chad, it should come as no surprise that I think your attitude stinks and you're not fit enough to play our run hardery for longery game plan. I've been telling you this all season."

Wingard: "Why did you keep picking me then?"

Hinkley: "I needed to preserve my 11-4 superstar status plus you are slightly more talented than Jake Neade. However, you are the second worst (after Jared) in understanding my esoteric definition of formlessness which is essential to how I want us to play. If you're not going to pull your finger out you should explore your options."

Wingard: "OK." [leaves]

Hinkley: [to himself] "At least we left no stone unturned and tried everything possible."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
16,534
Likes
42,018
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
The bolded simply isn't enough to score against the best defences in the AFL. Not every score can come from a turnover. If we do turn the ball over, it's easy, we've got a huge numbers and space advantage against a team that isn't set up and we should naturally be able to score.

But sometimes we'll turn the ball over in our D50 against a team that is sitting back on us. The plan can't be to chip our way through as the defence opens up, because the best defences don't open up.

This is how we played in 2017. We freewheeled a bit in attack which worked great against shit teams we could simply outclass, but was useless against a well organised defence who worked together to stifle us and make us turn the ball over or simply kick to a contest we were naturally outnumbered at because of the opposition +1 or +2.

A good offence will draw players out of position to find space. It's not about seeing a round hole and becoming a round peg, it's about moving the defence around through leading, blocking, dummy runs and mismatches. It's about could of quick kicks to unlock the defence that you can make because you know where your teammates will be leading to, and you can trust that your teammates will be there to support you.

Everything you say about defence, supporting, moving as one to fill holes, pressuring the opposition into making mistakes, sticking to your assignments, has to apply to having the ball in hand as well. You don't react to changes in the defensive shape, you generate changes in the defensive shape by moving players around and moving the ball around. Proactive, not reactive.

If teams know we can't move the ball to save our lives, they'll sit back on us and grind us out week in week out, just like we saw in 2018.
Didn’t I just say that the same stuff that applies to defence applies to offence?

You know the expression “the best defence is a good offence”? Most people look at that and think it means “if you’re attacking you don’t need to defend”. And that’s correct. But to me, there’s a deeper meaning. To me, it means that the best defence creates the foundations for a good offence, that is, counter attack. Mao Zedung wrote that “the only real defence is active defence.”

It’s like in fencing. You’ll score more points if you parry and riposte.

Get the ball forward by whatever means possible, halve the contest and then use active defence to exploit weakness. A combination of Melbourne’s chaos ball combined with Richmond’s full field defence and Collingwood’s running game.

6-6-6 means it’s impossible for teams to always get their players back to defend, and we don’t have trouble clearing the ball at the centre so it’s not an issue.
 

Steve Dore

International Trade Facilitator
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Posts
26,330
Likes
33,340
Location
a three hour tour.
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Minnesota Vikings, Canadiens, Ports
... I’m defining the word in the context I was using it.
Which is the same as me saying "Jay Schulz was a real spud" and then when someone takes me to task over it to say "In the context that I use spud it means courageous, a strong contested mark and a dead-eye set shot".

If you use words in a context that nobody else uses them in then you are pretty much making up your own meanings.
 

Pappagallo

#BringBackTheBars #Farken
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Posts
14,542
Likes
42,605
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Which is the same as me saying "Jay Schulz was a real spud" and then when someone takes me to task over it to say "In the context that I use spud it means courageous, a strong contested mark and a dead-eye set shot".

If you use words in a context that nobody else uses them in then you are pretty much making up your own meanings.
It wasn’t that bad. Granted not the default definition but not completely made up either like in your example.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
16,534
Likes
42,018
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Which is the same as me saying "Jay Schulz was a real spud" and then when someone takes me to task over it to say "In the context that I use spud it means courageous, a strong contested mark and a dead-eye set shot".

If you use words in a context that nobody else uses them in then you are pretty much making up your own meanings.
I’m using it in the same context as Sun Tzu:

“If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.”

“Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.”

Do you think he was advocating a military strategy that had no form...or a military strategy that wasn’t anchored to one particular style?

Perhaps instead of trying to prove me wrong, just accept it as being a correct use of the word based in the context of strategy and move on.
 

Byrons Firen

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Posts
6,691
Likes
12,042
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
the maggies
We were pretty formless in offence in 2018 and we just had zero answer for a well structured defence. We only cracked the premiership zone 100 point barrier 3 times. That's absolutely disastrous.
Last night i watched our win over reigning premier Richmond at AO on a long w/end night game.
We took the odd intercept mark in defence only to stop, chip it 20m then stop again.
Our inside 50 entries from sometime in the 3rd 1/4 to the end of the game totalled 26 for no goals.
Yeah we won the game but in classic Ports looked shitty doing it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

theDuckFarmer

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,708
Likes
10,345
Location
Ziggurat City
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
LUFC, Patriots, Mitchelton-Scott
How can you ever be wrong if you assign your own secret meanings to common English words?
When Wingard does the Norm Smith and Brownlow double next year it'll be all "when I said Wingard I meant Amon and you idiots should have understood that from the context".
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
16,534
Likes
42,018
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
A man well known for his command of the English language.
You know he didn't translate his words into English himself, right? As long as the person who translated it had a command of both the English and Chinese languages, and knew what the intent and context was, what's the problem?
 

Steve Dore

International Trade Facilitator
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Posts
26,330
Likes
33,340
Location
a three hour tour.
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Minnesota Vikings, Canadiens, Ports
You know he didn't translate his words into English himself, right? As long as the person who translated it had a command of both the English and Chinese languages, and knew what the intent and context was, what's the problem?
You know that quoting Sun Tzu doesn't really make you look like an intellectual, right?

You argue that the word formless in the context of a discussion on form in the game of Aussie rules doesn't mean what 99.9% of the English speaking population take it to mean in that context and then to support this you quote something written in the context of battles between armies using lethal force.

I agree with JimmyBeerCans, it's less about context and more about the vibe.
 
Top Bottom