Winders won't play - no way they would risk him he is too vaulable. Just very thankful it wasnt the dreaded ACL. Staggering he wasnt awared a free with the sliding rule.
According to Wayne Campbell, the umpire was right because contact was above the knee. Who knows how Winders managed to hyperextend his knee if there was no contact below the knee but the important thing to remember is the umpire is always right... Oh, and Wayne Campbell is clearly a moron.
Thanks for the report!
Hows jobey one looking physically? Full steam ahead?
He moved freely at training yesterday. Figure he's due for a big game this weekend :)
Great news!
Has he looked a bit off on the track the last few weeks that you've noticed? I've got this idiot mate who's a hawthorn supporter who keeps getting into me saying hes no good atm physically and Bombers playing him fwd as a result. Hoping for some signs he'll be back to his expectant best.
I may sound a bit ungracious but with respect and appreciation for most of your reports, a little less analysis and a little more reporting would be great!
Criticism is welcome.
The problem is that if I was to describe (report) each drill in each report it would become very repetitious because they do many of the drills over and over each week. Similarly if I was to report how well each player trained the answer would generally be "pretty well" and again the reports would be fairly meaningless and generally repetitious.
For this reason I always try to describe the general atmosphere at training as a guide as to what is happening e.g. Before the Footscray game it was "workmanlike"which turned out to be pretty much how they played.
If something special happens like a new drill or a special event I feature it e.g. Fletcher's birthday.
The analysis has a two fold purpose - firstly to try and make sense of what is happening and secondly to provide topics for discussion. e.g. "Are they training under enough pressure."
Often the reports are enhanced by photos from Karma Bomber and sometimes someone else will write a report from a different perspective which is very refreshing.
I hope this will help you to better understand the complexities of writing a string of reports which on the surface may seem very simple.
What I took from Barker Bomber's post, was that he prefers the old style footy reporting, which was fairly much a kick by kick description, rather than the style adopted in the late 1990's which covers key moments and the overall theme of the game.
Agree with JM that giving a kick by kick description would be boring and repetitive. At least with the old style footy reporting each game was different, which is not the case with training.
I get the feeling that other than loving the club and being happy just to see the players train and interact, and make your own observations, training is pretty boring. The fact that a dropped mark or a nice goal from the boundary makes the report kind of backs this up.
Not that I find Jackie's reports boring, I just mean the reports are basically all the good bits without the repetition.
What I took from Barker Bomber's post, was that he prefers the old style footy reporting, which was fairly much a kick by kick description, rather than the style adopted in the late 1990's which covers key moments and the overall theme of the game.
Agree with JM that giving a kick by kick description would be boring and repetitive. At least with the old style footy reporting each game was different, which is not the case with training.
l have no problems with JM reading between the lines concerning what he sees at training. His interpretations h ave been pretty accurate from what l can see at this distance.
What I took from Barker Bomber's post, was that he prefers the old style footy reporting, which was fairly much a kick by kick description, rather than the style adopted in the late 1990's which covers key moments and the overall theme of the game.
Agree with JM that giving a kick by kick description would be boring and repetitive. At least with the old style footy reporting each game was different, which is not the case with training.
l have no problems with JM reading between the lines concerning what he sees at training. His interpretations h ave been pretty accurate from what l can see at this distance.
I think it's the rest of us reading between the lines of what JM writes that is the problem
What I took from Barker Bomber's post, was that he prefers the old style footy reporting, which was fairly much a kick by kick description, rather than the style adopted in the late 1990's which covers key moments and the overall theme of the game.
Agree with JM that giving a kick by kick description would be boring and repetitive. At least with the old style footy reporting each game was different, which is not the case with training.
l have no problems with JM reading between the lines concerning what he sees at training. His interpretations h ave been pretty accurate from what l can see at this distance.
I never said that. I was merely pointing out that it seems that Barker Bomber may like the older style match reports - This was to help younger Blitzers who may not have grown up with these kind of reports.