Creationism only confuses the masses

I think the sash comes from wearing those wrap around tag things. Thats what it looks like. The old jumpers are all button up ones, like cardigans. Could explain the patterns.

what about the sash on the jumper, I can only think of river plate and corinthians as non afl clubs to have worn this design. also the brisbane fitzroy yoke on the jumper (the blue bit) and monograms, sturt subiaco carlton claremont south adelaide (?) for example.

Pip, A lot of rugby/league players i have seen kick a sherrin, after learning how to, can kick it a fairly long way (not as accurate though, and cant perform a low quick kick). I think it has to do with the extra swing they get from a sideways kick technique. ive very rarely met anyone who can kick it sprinting without learning for weeks either. It is very hard to perform, especially when you are tired. I myself am still learning how to perform the quick low kick effectively in games all the time. Oikee, Stripes are very Aussie rules like. Perhaps it comes from the use of traditional designs more than modern ones?

oikee - ah, welcome back. A while no banter. You'll notice above that even as late as Michael C said | February 9th 2009 @ 11:29am (2 days ago) | Report comment I was still trying to stick to topic.........but, the others had hijacked it beyond recognition by then. Fire works at Docklands with the roof shut is a very bad idea. May - - I'll check the fixtures and find a good game. Fri May 1, Nth Melb host Coll at Docklands on a Friday night,

I see you are still defending your code there gloriously M.C :) And Milster is also hard at it defending his :) Either way i dont think the outcome will be affected , both codes will still be around in 5 years time. I noticed the thread started off as a colour of jersey issue and then turned sour not long after this, just wanted to mention the stripes, very AFL. Hullfc also have the black and white stripes, rugby league that is, football club, but they use the fc without ever having to go to war over the f.c. Looking forward to the new season M.C . I noticed that the storm are having there 1st game played at the dome against the Dragons, that might be a cracker. :) Do you enjoy fireworks? Still hoping to get down to see you around may M.C, could have some further news for you then. We have a court case coming up shortly, not sure about the date so we are working around this date, if its sooner than later we should be O.K for the trip down there. Hopefully by then this bushfire tradgety will have subsided. Cheers.

Forgetmenot Yes - I am equally amazed by it as well. If people find it boring to watch - that's fair enough - that's everyone's perogative - but if they say it takes nothing to control an oval ball over the distance of 60 metres, then they are clearly talking through their hat! I have coached in non-AFL regions, so I am very familiar with seeing people out on the training track coming to grips with the game first time (and we are talking extremely low standard amateur level). I have never met anyone who could walk through the door first time and be remotely useful to me as a player, even by the end of the year. I did once coach an ex ACT Kookaburra (rugby union) who had a fantastic build for the game, great athlete and very good all round sportsman. He could also torp the ball a good 50 metres (the only non-AFL person I have ever come across who could do that consistently). His main problem was that it's a big jump to go from torping the footy playing kick to kick, to actually doing something useful with the ball in a real game! It's not as if anyone is going to let you stand there, take your time and torp the footy at will!! Which brings me to another point, non-AFL people, including those who are used to kicking a ball in other codes, underestimate the difficulty of kicking the ball accurately over long distances when you are running flat chat - all of them - withouth exception - have an urge to do a little skip before they kick - not a good look on game day! And let's not even talk about handballing quickly and accurately (being able to spot someone up 25 metres away) and bouncing the oval ball while sprinting. Now, I'm not saying these skills are impossible to pick up - they clearly aren't - but I am saying that many underestimate just how difficult they are to pick up, and most importantly, do effectively in real game conditions.

Pip, It amazes me how so many people say it is easy to kick a Sherrin, let alone kick it 50 metres. I often take people out to have a kick who have never played the sport (as well as a lot of internationals who have only seen it played on telly for about 15 minutes), and all they do is swing and miss, or they bend their knee to much. I suppose it is like people saying that throwing an american football is easy, or saving a high powered soccer goal is easy, or perhaps even serving a tennis ball. They look easy because the people we see do them most often have been doing it their whole life and it is second nature to them.

KB, Thanks for your kind words. There are many people far worse off unfortunately. MC, Currently in Brisbane and will be in southern QLD all week, back in Melb late Friday arvo', I'm hoping to get to the game. cheers Redb

Pip - the time for getting back and taking a set shot is not that great anymore either, and many players are still breathing big, and not as settled as they'd like to be, there's a few 'rushed' set shots these days. If set shots were easy, everyone would be doing them!!

Sam About a third of all goals are scored from marks and frees, and I accept that the actual shot at goal is not all that interesting for the neutral (very different if it's your own team of course). Now I have no intention of converting you, or anything like that, but you shouldn't equate the time a player has to kick the ball from a set shot with it meaning that players have plenty of time generally. That's far from true! The game is lightning fast - I promise you - lightning fast - in general play, players have next to zero time to dispose of the ball, honestly, it's next to zero time. To use the oval ball with precision when someone is on your hammer is one of the great wonders of Australian Football - do not believe for one second that it is easy to spot up a player 60 metres away when you are running flat chat and someone is on your hammer.

Sam - oh dear..........that'd be like saying I didn't realise Greg Inglis was aboriginal (do you follow NRL? I don't, but I DO know that much). Do you realise so too are Anthony Mundine AND Cathy Freeman. ;-) I agree that the Syd vs WCE GFs and most matches they played across that couple of years - were rippers. Many games are like that until one team or the other cracks. It's like test cricket when Australia at their best might be matched by the opposition until tea time, after which the opposition would crack and Australia would win the day conclusively. btw - I've always been able to appreciate the low scoring games - in the past, usually related to rather wet conditions and a muddy cricket pitch in the middle of the ground. A good shoot out can be great too, to teams evenly matched backing themselves to beat the other. Whatever match it is, it's two teams trying to work to their strengths. Believe me, most supporters of teams don't find it boring when its their team - - but, like a 0-0 draw in soccer - many elements of the arm wrestle are lost upon the neutral. Some media folk crap on a bit now and then. It annoys me. I remember in particular a game 2 years ago, North Melb fought hard to overcome Essendon in a relatively dour contest. One Jackie Epstein (also writes on MVFC) writes an article about how bad the game was from a neutrals perspective..........missing perhaps the point that the people most likely to read the article were North supporters wanting to know why we won and how we pulled up ready for next week, and Essendon supporters concerned about why they lost and who might be right to return next week. Yep.......it's lost on some folks........but don't generalise about 'Melbourne folk'. What we DO find boring is flood vs flood. Very much gives the impression niether team is trying to win........and, in many respects - - one may as well be watching soccer where that effectively IS the structure of the game. But, not in AFL!!!! And this brings people to consider some sort of positional imposition on the play/ground. Perhaps a little netball style........but, really, it'd be hard to police and starts requiring limits on movement and we really don't want too many of those. What we DO want, and the Swans provide, is a variety of strategies across the league.

Michael C I didn't even know Buddy Franklin was aboriginal to be quite honest. My point was if you had more Peter Daicos's or Michael Long's playing the game I could perhaps watch it more often. It just seems the stronger, taller and fitter you are, the more advantage you have in AFL. It is ironic that the best AFL games I found were the Sydney v West Coast clashes where the points were hard to get, and possession was cherished. It makes for more intense viewing. But I suppose the Melbourne folk don't understand this view as the Swans are deemed boring. Different strokes for different folks I guess..

Millster - I'll work thru this one from yesterday - MC - be careful in your twisting of words. No-one carps on about AFL finals rewarding mediocrity. Even the slightest bit of memory would enable you to recall that this issue of mediocrity and finals was not AFL specific and more simply had to do witth the stupidity of ANY code allowing an entire 50% of the ladder to access the post-season (so NRL and HAL are just as guilty as AFL, with only Super14 having a more sensible balance of just under 30%) There was a fellow, who received 'critical acclaim' from the anti AFL peanut gallery, who posted a quoted article from someone masquerading as an academic that specifically attacked the AFL as the ONLY competition with half the comp in the finals etc etc (may ONCE have been the case, perhaps 15 years ago - - but, certainly the poster of the article and those giving it cheers showed their willingess to attack the AFL rather than regard truth and accuracy - by the fact that they overlooked the many 'modern' examples including ones with MORE than 50% of the competition qualifying for finals - basketball in particular). And on another point you are very transparently choosing an argument of convenience here. Would you prefer to follow a sport where the majority of games were decided by 3/4 time (ie where the last quater was basically a waste of time)? Or one where results were close and varied enough that one needs a whole series of games to determine an outcome? And where does the issue of rewarding consistent performance come in here? Fat lot of good to dominate a game for 3 quarters if you are then shit for the next 5 weeks… are the majority of games decided by 3/4 time?? I don't know what competition you're talking about. Just like a 2-0 deficit in soccer is so often dependant on who scores the next goal, likewise, in AFL, a 3 goal 3/4 deficit is similarly dependant upon the 'next goal'....in soccer you need that 1 extra goal to hit the front. In AFL you rarely have an exact 6,12,18 point margin for too long, the behinds ensure that you can have a goal for goal exchange of the lead. Soccer fans must grasp the examples of a 3 goal turn around in the last 10 mins as their thread of hope at the 81 min mark facing 0-2 deficit. LIkewise, even a 10 goal quarter time lead has examples in history of being a loseable position. Even an 8 goal 3/4 time deficit - - - and it ALWAYS is based on who kicks the next goal. That's what sports is about. Sometimes you win, lose, come from behind, win drawing away, get hammered etc. The variety of potential outcomes is the key. Finally back to the randomness - there is more than the centre bounce. Neutral throw-ins from the boundaries, and bounce-downs whenever play comes to a halt that is not ‘holding the ball’. To me these aspects are an admission that the game is dangerously close to basketball and needs such contested moments to mix things up a bit and provide some unpredictability. ??? the game IS about contested situations. There is plenty of turn over anyway, most of the best scoring opportunities, as in many sports, are based on turn overs, rebounds from defence, catching the opposition unbalanced. Striking swiftly, like a tiger!!!! The neutral restarts are just a glorious addition that - unlike the farce of a RL pseudo scrum or the farce of a RU line in with the ref restarting over and over because the ball wasn't thrown in straight........other sports give the impression of a 'contest' without really allowing the actuality of one. You may not like it, but, I love the neutral restarts. Is it an admission of anything? No idea what you're on about on that front. You will note that I am leaving entirely alone my biggest issue when discussing mediocrity and AFL which is that one cannot judge the code NOT to be mediocre overall when it is so closed, insular and devoid of any external reference points for the league’s overall quality. this one only matters if you choose to beat yourself up over it. PResently, the best AFL team each year is undoubtedly the best Australian Football team in the world. It's the best standard you can see in that year. Now, why you'd want to watch Perth Glory who might be the 2000th best soccer team in the world..............the answer to which might actually be the same. That is. It DOES NOT matter. Not everything HAS to be benchmarked to some overseas notions or standards. It's sport. Sport is about the contest. When you watch your local suburban clubs do battle - - the fact that they aren't professionals and the ground could be better and the skills and fitness could be better...........it doesn't matter. It's about the 'contest'. Which is why sometimes 15th vs 16th might just provide a really entertaining and willing contest as teams battle to avoid the wooden spoon.............ah sheesh...........that's how it used to be, now these games become the inverse battle for number 1 draft pick. (yup!!, ya got me there!!!). :lol:

Sam - your phrasing then was shocking - - as you started the statement talking about aboriginal players in the AFL, and you finished referring to Lance Franklin - - a tall aboriginal, well - - just how WAS I supposed to interpret it? I accept and criticise many short comings of my sport. If you read my comments you'll see that I'm often having a go most specifically at the rules of the game committee. as per above and I DO lament that the AFL hierarchy and rules committee seems to have black marked ’stoppages’ in Aust Footy which DOES reduce the OBVIOUS set play opportunities. The less obvious set plays do exist, but are very often not discernable. and if you find the way in which Lance Franklin goes about it as boring........then most certainly the game of Australian Football is definitely NOT for you. And that's fine too. btw - only 1 HAL player excited me, a little fellow named 'Fred'.........the only player who created excitement, who looked to apply some intensity and seemed to desire to make something out of nothing. The rest - of the HAL - very much lives off the reflected glory of top notch soccer (which it ain't), and the people who follow it and advocate it (why?) seem to do so more as a hard nosed politcal style stance - - and not because the product is any good. Should I apologise for advocating Aust Football? Should I apologise for its short comings? Y'know.....too much action!!

Michael C I meant that most AFL players are tall athletic bores (white players if you must), not aboriginals. I am aware that most aboriginal players short, and play with flair. So I do know what I'm talking about. Do you think I haven't tried to watch the game on TV. I have watched a lot of sports all my life and do compare to others. Maybe if you listened to my points more carefully you would understand mine and a lot of oyhers point of view, instead of throwing insults at me. Maybe I opened a wound. I understand your point about many goals in football not being beautiful, but I don't fly off the handle about it. Because every sport has its weknesses I know,but you can't seem to accept the fact that your sport does. Maybe that's why it hasn't done much past the Victorian border. Ignorance mostly comes from you I think.

Gawd Sam - I read back to this piece of absolute ignorance - Some aboriginal players in AFL might excite, but most of them are tall, athletic bores like Buddy Franklin. To watch him kick a goal. take a mark or scramble for the ball on the ground is just uninteresting. re aboriginal players in AFL. "but most of them are tall, athletic bores like Buddy Franklin". That is so wrong on all fronts. Most aboriginals in AFL are relatively short. Very UNLIKE Buddy Franklin. There has always been a dirth of tall key position indigenous players. You again illustrate your absolute ignorance. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about - - you just make yourself look stupid.

ren and pip - since we agree the build up in Aust Footy can be super critical and what the game is all about, we agree that there is beauty, both latent and obvious, there is great team play - - then there are also those anti climactic umpire driven goals, 50 m penalties for a verbal etc...... ......but, for soccer folk to believe (and they actually DO???) that their game is exclusively the 'beautiful' game,......a game in which you use your head to propell the ball, in which you tackle with you legs and without super heavy duty shin guards (the only reason the players 'look' so tidy with their socks all pulled up) then every 2nd tackle would break a leg, and a game in which you CAN score own goals?!?! For the 'beautiful' game, there is ugliness and baseness in spades. there is beauty. But sheesh, don't think soccer has an exclusivity on beauty. Soccer DOES though have super obvious set play opportunities. they happen extremely slowly. i.e. the time to set up for a DFK, or a corner - - it's such a time eater - - and I DO lament that the AFL hierarchy and rules committee seems to have black marked 'stoppages' in Aust Footy which DOES reduce the OBVIOUS set play opportunities. The less obvious set plays do exist, but are very often not discernable. But - believe me, forward lines that 'function' are due to highly drilled teams with plans A, B, C and D etc. Millster - don't you go being overly dramatic about goals. We know that in soccer, there's only so many decent goals, there's a lot of chaff in there, and my point about the number of 'pure' goals that have not being touched, deflected etc is pretty small. The 1 in 10 rule generally applies, but, when you remove the penalties that 1 in 10 blows out a bit more. That's NOT a scoring ratio upon which to base a bragging game about goals. That's way, way too close to sporting fluke. I much prefer being beated by a team that out plays us, sets up their goals and deserved to win. A team that beats us on the basis of 'fluke goals'.......that's galling.

Sam - actually, far, far less than before. There was an era of full forwards, Lockett, Modra, Dunstall and Ablett during the late 80s and 90s (ironically the latter stages of the Daicos career). These days, without an out and out super star key forward, teams are forced to be more creative. And if you want to see Daicos style goals - ironically Collingwood have a few guys who will regularly provide you such - - such as Alan Didak, Dale Thomas, and Leon Davis in particular. My North Melbourne relied pretty heavily last year on small crumbing forwards like Matt Campbell and Lindsay Thomas, or Brent 'Boomer' Harvey - - a fleet of some of the smallest players in the comp. Your whinge is ignorant. You obviously don't require much of an excuse to NOT watch. Btw - the kicking of the goal, just as in soccer, where so often the goal is hardly the thing of beauty (i.e. an easy little tap in, a relatively ugly deflection of defenders or forwards or woodwork etc) - - it is the play leading to the goal. The lead up, the contested mark, or the contentious free kick. You sound like someone judging only on the basis of the 'highlights' seen on 'national' sports 'magazine' shows, where, frustratingly they (just don't get it) show people kicking goals from set shots. Harrumphhh. The reality is that we want to see the big marks, the goals on the run and from tight angles etc. You perhaps might want to try watching a game or two. btw - you CAN, in fact MUST, have vision even whilst running and kicking. The thing about a game like Aust Footy is that the best players have assessed the situation before they take possession and have a plan of action. Their peripheral vision is crucial. If you haven't been able to figure that out, then forget it, you're obvioiusly not able to 'open your own eyes'. When you have the ball, the need for vision is crucial, the need to get balanced, to find space, to deliver correctly or to slot the goal - - - doing these things at full speed are super difficult. The bodily threat of being bodily tackled from any direction is totally foreign for example to most Rugby players. Fair enough, a soccer player might get his legs taken out from any direction.

Ren He still doesn't excite me. A player kicking a goal between two large sets of posts after the ball was handballed or tapped to him just doesn't do it for me. I'm talking about a player having vision, not running and kicking strength. I remember seeing a highlights reel of Peter Daicos and his goal scoring ability. Maybe more players like him could get people more interested in the game. These days the goals are all the same. Scored by big, tall guys who can kick 50m plus.

additionally to the earlier NFL point, it could be rgued that the college system and the bowl games offer similar opportunities to those on offer in the fa cup. A number of these college teams have gigantic stadiums ( Michigan have 116001 at ann arbor for example)