Memo to Ron Reed of the Herald Sun. Quoting comments from anonymous fan websites is ordinary journalism. Don't we (well some of us) look to experts in newspapers for expertise and information? I suppose these fan comments are a guide to the feelings of the ordinary fan. But if we want to know the thoughts of internet posters we will log on.
Amongst a list of silly comments from web fans Reed includes this: 'One even said: "Andrew Bogut can't grow a beard."' Excellent journalism and pertinent information. Bogut, in this exclusive interivew, dismissed the internet punters as men eating hamburgers by their computer. Ron, if you get another chance to interview Bogut, our best Basketballer and a potential NBA superstar, please do not quote comments from fans on websites. It is a waste of Bogut's and our time. And great inclusion of the word bogus. I'm sure Andrew never heard that before.
But Reed is not the only Herald Sun culprit. From Mark Stevens: "One (fan site) had Cooney out for the year. Another fan posted that Cooney had ruptured his achilles and was gone for 2007." Well Mark, you are payed to go to team training to find out this information for yourself, a job many men would give their right arm (and more) to do. So perhaps you could give us legitimate, researched information, rather than baseless, sourceless speculation from an internet poster. We all know they're full of crap.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Roos' pre emptive strike on new rule interpretations.
Paul Roos is a smart man. He was a smart footballer and he is a smart coach. The AFL, on the other hand, is not so smart. It is obsessed with changing the game’s rules. Every year it introduces new rules in the pre season competition. It changes umpire interpretations for the official season and these interpretations are re interpreted as the season goes on. For the first rounds of the year the game is in complete disarray. Angry coaches and players are muted by the AFL dictatorship. Umpires, who like players have honed their instincts over years of practice, now second-guess their decisions because of new interpretations forced upon them. And the media lament the destruction of our game. And implicit in every negative comment about the state of today’s game is the view that the game was better before.
One new interpretation for this year regards the ‘push in the back’ rule. (Thank god they have left holding the ball alone for once.) There will be a stricter interpretation of players touching the back of an opponent in a marking contest. Paul Roos knows that in the opening weeks of the season he will be forbidden from attacking the umpires (and the AFL) for their new rule interpretation, so he has launched a pre emptive strike now, and in doing so he has pointed out some of the reasons for the AFL’s obsession with changing the game.
"Why do we always look back to the past in order to change our game?" Roos asked in The Age. It’s a good question. The AFL would insist that its constant efforts to speed up the game are evidence of it looking forward. But perhaps the people who drive opinion in the media are obsessed with a nostlagic idea of a game that never really existed, and they are the ones always looking back. Perhaps the AFL is simply obsessed with change and wants to perfect a game that is brilliant because it is far from perfect. Whatever the reason, the league cannot resist tinkering with rules early in the season, before everything goes back to normal.
It is natural for older footy fans to romanticise the past, especially when that past contained all in brawls, bags from full forwards and long kicks to the forward line for hangers. And so many of the tabloid critics offer stinging criticism of today’s game plans without real solutions, apart from ‘kicking it long’.
Roos, for his part, might know that many new AFL rules are aimed at eliminating the supposedly negative (and frustratingly successful) game plan that his Swans have perfected. And galvanizing the public, coaches and players against the AFL might serve his club’s cause. He has certainly got on the front foot early, and when the world goes crazy in round three because the umpires are a disgrace he can happily sit back and say I told you so. The rule changes will be modified and the Swans will begin their mid season charge. Whatever his reasons, Roos makes some very good points. The game is not broken. Sure, there are ordinary games between ordinary teams, but there always will be. And sometimes the game is slow, but it is often fast and extremely exciting. But the AFL should remember that things don’t necessarily need to change to stay positive.
One new interpretation for this year regards the ‘push in the back’ rule. (Thank god they have left holding the ball alone for once.) There will be a stricter interpretation of players touching the back of an opponent in a marking contest. Paul Roos knows that in the opening weeks of the season he will be forbidden from attacking the umpires (and the AFL) for their new rule interpretation, so he has launched a pre emptive strike now, and in doing so he has pointed out some of the reasons for the AFL’s obsession with changing the game.
"Why do we always look back to the past in order to change our game?" Roos asked in The Age. It’s a good question. The AFL would insist that its constant efforts to speed up the game are evidence of it looking forward. But perhaps the people who drive opinion in the media are obsessed with a nostlagic idea of a game that never really existed, and they are the ones always looking back. Perhaps the AFL is simply obsessed with change and wants to perfect a game that is brilliant because it is far from perfect. Whatever the reason, the league cannot resist tinkering with rules early in the season, before everything goes back to normal.
It is natural for older footy fans to romanticise the past, especially when that past contained all in brawls, bags from full forwards and long kicks to the forward line for hangers. And so many of the tabloid critics offer stinging criticism of today’s game plans without real solutions, apart from ‘kicking it long’.
Roos, for his part, might know that many new AFL rules are aimed at eliminating the supposedly negative (and frustratingly successful) game plan that his Swans have perfected. And galvanizing the public, coaches and players against the AFL might serve his club’s cause. He has certainly got on the front foot early, and when the world goes crazy in round three because the umpires are a disgrace he can happily sit back and say I told you so. The rule changes will be modified and the Swans will begin their mid season charge. Whatever his reasons, Roos makes some very good points. The game is not broken. Sure, there are ordinary games between ordinary teams, but there always will be. And sometimes the game is slow, but it is often fast and extremely exciting. But the AFL should remember that things don’t necessarily need to change to stay positive.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Lyon steps nicely into Thomas' shoes.
Do we have a new master of nothing? Grant Thomas perfected the art of maximum words for minmum sense. His replacement Ross Lyon may well take over the mantle of the most senseless man in football. In the Herald Sun today
"I had to find out what was and was not in place. It doesn't make it right or wrong, what I'm bringing, but subjectively I thought we should go this way and that took a while to nut out," Lyon said.
Gold
"I had to find out what was and was not in place. It doesn't make it right or wrong, what I'm bringing, but subjectively I thought we should go this way and that took a while to nut out," Lyon said.
Gold
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Channel 7. Act Now! Get your head out of the Sandy.
At first I was quietly optimistic, but as the season gets closer I wake up with the sweats every night. Sandy and Bruce together for a Friday night blockbuster? Surely this is what winter nightmares are made of.
Apparently Sandy Roberts will not present or commentate footy in 2007. This is good news as he is a poor and redundant commentator and can ruin a good game of football. Whether Bruce McAvaney’s return to footy commentary is a good thing remains to be seen. He was a great commentator, but he has been out of the game a while. And his performance at the Australian open was disconcerting. Bruce’s passion (obsession) for footy is his greatest asset. His love for the sport was never in question and last year football commentary was dominated by bitter ex-players complaining about the modern game. So his return should be refreshing. But McAvaney’s unbridled love for sport and statistics were taken to new levels at the Australian open, to the extent where he seemed to be parodying himself, enthusing over the most mundane of sporting moments.
But my night sweats do not consist solely of the mindless chatter of Bruce and Sandy. Dreams can so quickly become nightmares. The best nights are when the mighty Demons charge to a flag. It’s a recurring dream but lately its ending has changed. Instead of Neitz slamming home the winner the siren never sounds and Bruce muses openly about the new offerings on Channel Seven this week. We never get that flag, but we do get a brief synopsis of season 4 of (insert shit American cop show import name here). Making sports commentators chat about a television show during a sports game is a low, cheap, pathetic ploy and should be banished now. Nine have done it with the Cricket and Seven, with their insatiable greed for dirty advertising money, have done it relentlessly this tennis season. If seven persist with this technique drastic measures will be taken. Trust me.
But still there is optimism. Cometti will be there. And who can resist his velvet voice and subtle one-liners. But Cometti, for all his greatness, was exploited by Nine. Football commentary is about football and not the personalities of those that commentate, and Nine, like all commercial radio stations, were obsessed with the supposed personalities of its callers. I hope Seven lets Bruce and Dennis commentate, and respect the game for more than advertising dollars and the celebrity of its callers. Cometti is made great by the game that he describes, and seven executives would do well to remember this, and to let AFL be the showpiece around which they base their coverage.
Television commentary is hard. Tim Lane, once the most respected voice in the land, lost a lot of his presence on Channel 10. Drew Morphett, in contrast, reinvented himself after leaving Channel 7 for radio. The new footy network should select its callers carefully, and balance its quota of ex footballers with intelligent, unbiased commentators who know that the game is bigger than any network personality around. Then I will sleep through the winter.
Apparently Sandy Roberts will not present or commentate footy in 2007. This is good news as he is a poor and redundant commentator and can ruin a good game of football. Whether Bruce McAvaney’s return to footy commentary is a good thing remains to be seen. He was a great commentator, but he has been out of the game a while. And his performance at the Australian open was disconcerting. Bruce’s passion (obsession) for footy is his greatest asset. His love for the sport was never in question and last year football commentary was dominated by bitter ex-players complaining about the modern game. So his return should be refreshing. But McAvaney’s unbridled love for sport and statistics were taken to new levels at the Australian open, to the extent where he seemed to be parodying himself, enthusing over the most mundane of sporting moments.
But my night sweats do not consist solely of the mindless chatter of Bruce and Sandy. Dreams can so quickly become nightmares. The best nights are when the mighty Demons charge to a flag. It’s a recurring dream but lately its ending has changed. Instead of Neitz slamming home the winner the siren never sounds and Bruce muses openly about the new offerings on Channel Seven this week. We never get that flag, but we do get a brief synopsis of season 4 of (insert shit American cop show import name here). Making sports commentators chat about a television show during a sports game is a low, cheap, pathetic ploy and should be banished now. Nine have done it with the Cricket and Seven, with their insatiable greed for dirty advertising money, have done it relentlessly this tennis season. If seven persist with this technique drastic measures will be taken. Trust me.
But still there is optimism. Cometti will be there. And who can resist his velvet voice and subtle one-liners. But Cometti, for all his greatness, was exploited by Nine. Football commentary is about football and not the personalities of those that commentate, and Nine, like all commercial radio stations, were obsessed with the supposed personalities of its callers. I hope Seven lets Bruce and Dennis commentate, and respect the game for more than advertising dollars and the celebrity of its callers. Cometti is made great by the game that he describes, and seven executives would do well to remember this, and to let AFL be the showpiece around which they base their coverage.
Television commentary is hard. Tim Lane, once the most respected voice in the land, lost a lot of his presence on Channel 10. Drew Morphett, in contrast, reinvented himself after leaving Channel 7 for radio. The new footy network should select its callers carefully, and balance its quota of ex footballers with intelligent, unbiased commentators who know that the game is bigger than any network personality around. Then I will sleep through the winter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)