After Grog Blog

WHAT WE GOT HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMEMORATE

Who said newsreaders were thick?

Ernie Sigley: "What was your favourite Paul Newman film?"

David Armstrong: "Bullitt."

That will be news to car chase affycondos everywhere. There followed some chat about why it didn't matter that Armstrong was wrong. No point admitting that the 3AW newsy probably had no idea about Newman's films and was either one) guessing, or two) making it up... or three) both. Newsreaders should steer well clear of that folksy fakesy media banter.

HAND GAGGERS

At least Gerard Whately on Offsiders had the balls to go with the CH-word, but the rest of you, stop pussyfooting, and spit it out.

Jackie Epstein:

Bomber: we lost our way

Geelong coach Mark Thompson admitted the side lost its way yesterday after failing to capitalise on a dream season with back-to-back premierships.

Jackie Epstein:

Ling says pressure was the key

Geelong midfielder Cameron Ling has excused seemingly selfish play from teammates by admitting the occasion may have overwhelmed the side.

Rohan Connolly:

Bold, brave Hawks upset shabby Cats

It wasn't supposed to happen. Not yet, anyway. Not when Hawthorn was up against a team that had lost only two of its past 44 games of football. Not when its opponent was s strong and as experience as Geelong.

Rodney Eade:

The Hawks took their chances, as simple as that

Hawthorn executed superbly, whereas Geelong kicked itself out of the game. In any contest, especially at the elite level, you need to be able to take your chances. When Geelong controlled the game in the second quarter, it could not inflict enough scoreboard pressure.

Caroline Wilson:

Stunners

The 2008 grand final will be written in sporting history as the day the champion cracked under pressure from the relentless and youthful challenger.

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBA

It gets right on my tits when assorted hipster deadshits refer to the grand final as "going to the big dance". Like most every other footy import - "from the paint" for example - I wouldn't mind so much if the person saying it had trace elements of tongue in cheek, but as with all the other aggravating sayings, it's said po-faced and screams "How cool am I".

Anyway, the big dance: who is going to lead win? Well, no idea. Both Hawthorn and Geelong play the physical style of footy necessary to win big matches. Mark Thompson, who learned his footy under the thug Sheedy, certainly knows footy is a contact sport. That's how Geelong have been playing for the best part of two years. But Hawthorn, under the guidance of Dunstall, Dermot, Clarkson, Viney and Hardwick, all hard nuts, also know that big footy is about big blokes knocking over big blokes. It's not about sexy manoeuvers: setting up a loose man, isolating mis-matches, freeing up a transition. On the big day it's simply a case of "you stand next to him and stop him getting a kick." Naturally it follows that the team with the meaner attitude and the stronger bodies generally prevails. The biggest, baddest side almost always wins the flag.

Tomorrow, if Geelong are 100% on their game, they should win. Hawthorn's task is to knock the Cats off their game, to frustrate their ball movement. The Cats love to sweep the ball down the ground, hand-balling through congestion, but if the Cats can't overcome any counter-tactics - including Extreme Unsociable Football, or what the rest of us call "going the knuckle" - they will lose. The question is: can Hawthorn negate Geelong?

They can. Hawthorn have beaten Geelong three out of the last four times; even in the round 17 match that Geelong won it was more a case of Hawthorn losing rather than Geelong winning, if you get my drift. Although Geelong were missing Ablett and Ling.

The odd thing is, Hawthorn's game-plan IS about freeing up the loose man. But that is on the back of a crowded defensive set-up that the Cats' possession game may struggle to penetrate, especially with their ordinary key forwards. Hawthorn wins by stopping sides, ahem, progressing the ball down the ground, and then hitting them on the rebound. They move the ball extra-ordinarily fast into an open forward line, giving Franklin, Roughead and Williams space to work in. It was apparent from the first five minutes of the prelim that StKilda had failed to suss Hawthorn's game. Too many times the Aints gave the ball to Hawthorn, who simply strolled in for easy goals. And with all the focus on Roughead and Frankiln, Williams gave them a hiding. If the Cats turn it over going forward, they will need to put the clamps on Hawthorn's break-away runners going back the other way.

Then there's the clearances. In Mitchell, Crawford, Sewell, Lewis and Bateman, Hawthorn have the grunt to match it with Ablett, Cory, Enright, Ling, Bartel and Selwood. They won't easily be pushed off the agate. If Hawthorn can break even in the guts and grunt, they will be well placed to win on the back of their rebounds.

The person with the most to lose is Mark Thompson. Up until the opening rounds on 2007 there was a suspicion he was a bit of a dud, but it's hard to argue with the last 17 months. The Cats look great when they get their game going, swarming all over the opposition. Still, how much credit should he take for that, and for Geelong thumping Pathetic Port in last year's grand final? Geelong have a lot of very good players, it's not readily apparent how much of Thompson is in their winning ways. His instructions could have been as simple as go out, get the ball, kick goals. Not so Hawthorn. All year people have been braying about Hawthorn's style. Thompson will look like a right idiot if Geelong are beaten by a heavily hyped and talked-about tactic like Clarko's Custard.

Geelong, as the favourites and the so-called champion team, would cop a hiding in the media for losing the match that mattered. Their flag against Port would be discounted. The CH-word bandied. On the other hand, a Hawthorn loss would be excused as a part of a learning curve, as a necessary stepping-stone to future great deeds, unless they get caned.

Geelong can't afford to lose, but Hawthorn are currently $2.75 at Sportingbet, which strikes me as very good value indeed.

KEEPING DOWN WITH THE JONESES

Poor little poor girl:

No "huge garden". An "above-ground pool". Allowed to play tennis by "the rich people". Tough break. Not to mention the work-house horrors of growing up in a stately Victorian home in Hawthorn. Rudd and Turnbull have a lot to answer for, starting an alms-race with their living in cars and rented accommodation.

It used to be bad form to boast about how rich you are, but it was just as bad form to go on about how poor you were. Or so our maid and gardener would often argue.

SACROSANCTIMONIOUS

The dictionary crossword is my righteous quest.

But can I get 16 Across? Be fvcked!

I AM LEGUME

A quote for the AGB.

"You're no journalist, Green Bean."

GRUMPY GRAVY

Boom! Fvcken! Tish!

TURN UP THE VOLUMES

Stephen Matchett, in Saturday's Australian, writes about the literary nature of The Wire:

Literary classic, serially

ANYBODY who argues that television has helped destroy the great tradition of the novel is not paying enough attention to, well, TV, or at least to serial dramas.

This format, born on network TV, now has audiences independent of the networks.

Take The Wire, which has aired here on cable TV and is perhaps the most interesting example of the post-network world. Certainly this show uses the form of the TV drama, those 60-minute series (if you include the ads) that are broadcast at the same time every week and in which the same characters appear in stories that are entirely self-contained or form some sort of serialstory.

And, belatedly linked from last month's Age, Ken Nagoohen compares "sophisticated TV" for "discerning eyeballs", which is less painful than it sounds, with the turd flavoured Chiko roll that is modern film. For me, TV has been better than film since, oooh, around about the most recent fin de siècle.

Idiot box wises up

Kenneth Nguyen finds out why it's now hip to be square-eyed.

A FILM CAN BE SO carelessly made as to be vaguely humiliating. I learned that a few months ago while sitting through the Doug Liman science-fiction attempt Jumper. The young character's habit of jumping around the globe at will seemed a metaphor for the tossed-off screenplay, which did little but leap from one underdeveloped scene to the next with an adolescent's attention span. I read later that the offending script was inspired by a comic book. So too, it seemed, was the acting: the performances of Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson were not just blockish but appeared to have been manufactured wholly from recycled wood. As I sat in the Jam Factory next to my girlfriend - she grimacing at the fact that it was her choice that had subjected us to this profound underestimation of the audience's intelligence - I had but one thought: Oh, to be at home watching television.

MISTAKE AND ELWOOD

Today's Herald Sun. How could anyone confuse John Belushi's Joliet Jake Blues from the Blues Brothers, with John Goodman's Mighty Mac McTeer from the vastly superior Blues Brothers 2000? Imbecile! The latter, a fin de siècle classic, has funnier dialog, better songs, cooler performances, a cute kid - a cute kid! - and is not at all an exercise in cashing in, kerching, kerching, by the numbers movie making.

"The light was yellow, sir."

CARROTS JUILLIARD

He plays the tuber.

What's that? The carrot's not a tuber? Get rooted.

SIDESHOW RULE NAZI

Sideshow Roy, ya big head, build a bridge and get over yourself. The "Test players only" sounds bad enough, but the "rule Nazi" stunt, in particular, is the territory of your more dumb-arse schoolkids.

Bar row put Andrew Symonds on the outer

ANDREW Symonds controversially announced during the Harbhajan Singh appeal hearing last summer that "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player".

Symonds is discovering that friendships with opposition players, or his own team-mates, are never a given in international cricket. On or off the field.

He is also discovering that no matter how many runs you make or save, no matter how many wickets you take or defend, that your place in the Australian side is never a given.

Symonds will be left out of the touring squad for India, which was picked last night, and is said to have a lot more work to do if he wants to be back in the team for the Australian summer.

For a man known to announce in bars that certain spaces are for "Test players only", being on the wrong side of the divide must come as something of a disappointment, not that Symonds has shown any reaction to his axing from the national team.

...

Symonds' reaction to being fined during the recent West Indies tour grated with team-mates, too.

Stung $3000 for missing the team bus, he became what one person described as "the rule Nazi" and would ensure he was on the team bus five minutes before it was due to leave.

At the exact time of departure, Symonds' watch would beep and he would announce that the doors had to close and the bus had to leave and anybody left behind could walk or be fined because that was the way he was treated.

TESQUAD

Now, come on. NO ONE says Test. Squad:

McGain to tour India, Symonds out

Australia: Punter (capt), Pup (vice-capt), Champagne, Sarfraz, Braddin, Flatty, Shameless, Hungry, Mitchell Johnson, Krab, Krazy, Bing, Bryce McGain, Peter Siddle, Paper Cut

Need nicknames for Johnson, McGain and Siddle.

THE PROOF OF THE POSTING IS IN THE READING

Tuesday night I (Godemons) wrote this comment at Demonland:

Godemons, Sep 9 2008, 10:03 PM
This just in!

Robbie Warnock is set to sign for Visy and do part-time work for Carlton.

(Amcor would protest, but they want a piece of the action.)

There followed:

mousey, Sep 9 2008, 11:05 PM
Where have you heard this mate? source?

And this:

Sylvinator, Sep 10 2008, 12:41 AM
Obviously everyone realizes that Godemons has simply made this story up completely. If it were true he would have provided a source. there is no source.

And this:

Bailey's Babies, Sep 10 2008, 10:37 AM
warnock won't go to carlton- this visy things sounds like a crock of BS

Later, on another thread, I wrote this:

Godemons, Sep 9 2008, 10:26 PM
Will Carlton want White now that they think they have Warnock?

Which attracted this:

Redleg, Sep 9 2008, 11:31 PM
What is the source?

Well, it's good to be King!

Blues win race for Fremantle ruckman

DESPITE not playing finals football for seven years, Carlton yesterday scooped its rivals again, with young Docker Robert Warnock nominating the Blues as his new club of choice.

Warnock's preference should result in another big signing by Carlton, which last year headed off a host of clubs to secure prize recruit Chris Judd from West Coast.

Melbourne and Richmond are likely to miss out on Warnock after the 21-year-old's manager, Colin Young, yesterday informed Carlton general manager of football operations Steven Icke that his client had chosen the Blues.

What is it with posters demanding that unless you reveal your source, then you must be making shit up? Get stuffed. Sure, a lot of posters DO make shit up, but the likes of Mike Sheahan, Caroline Wilson, Patrick Smith and Greg Denham don't reveal their sources, so why should I? (Some would say we already know Caro's and Patrick's sources: The Affle.)

You should have seen the flack I copped in August 2002 when I wrote that Shane Woewodin was being traded.

BOGGLE OX

Debi Enker, reviewing Seven's footy coverage in today's Green Guide, opines that Nathan Buckley "can parlay his knowledge of the game, and perceptive readings of strategies and player performance, into illuminating observations as it unfolds." Fair enough... but how would she know? There is a mistake in her first sentence which is the kind of howler that says to me she has barely ever watched Seven's footy.

Close your eyes and you might imagine her sitting at her desk, frantically trying to make deadline: "Someone, anyone, tell me something, anything, about Friday Night Footy!"

AFL Semi-final
Channel Seven, 8pm

TV's best football commentary team, anchored by Bruce McAvaney, Dennis "Ox" Cometti and Nathan "Bucks" Buckley, gathers tonight to cover the clash between the Western Bulldogs and the Sydney Swans. It's a lively, well-informed and astute triumvirate. McAvaney, with his terrier-like excitement about the game and firm grasp on all the stats related to it. Cometti, with his rich voice, left-field pop-culture references and inspired off-the-cuff remarks. And this year's versatile new recruit, Buckley. The former Collingwood captain has been proven to be more than just a commanding former player with a profile that's handy for network promotions. He's also one of that rare breed who can parlay his knowledge of the game, and perceptive readings of strategies and player performance, into illuminating observations as it unfolds. While it is true that the nervy Rick Olarenshaw still has some delivery issues down on the ground with his injury reports and interviews, when it comes to the commentary booth, this team triumphs.

What's more, while he's a terrific commentator, most every real footy devotee knows "Ox" Cometti's remarks are anything but off-the-cuff.

Deb: May the Schwarz be with you!

PANDARAMSHACKLE

Jamie Pandaram, writing in Monday's Age, has bungled together a complete balls-up of an article:

Clarke's ambition put to test

MICHAEL Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article — on his leadership — because he does not wish to project the idea he is big-headed.

Judging by hundreds of blog postings since Andrew Symonds' dismissal from the team camp in Darwin, Clarke has accomplished little that should boost his ego. Rather, they wrote, he needs to explain his actions, describing the 27-year-old as a Cricket Australia clone and ruthlessly ambitious leader-in-the-wings, among other critiques.

Tabloid cheap shot intro best suited to TT or ACA:

Michael Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.

Since when did journalists start taking their lead from (un-named) bloggers and posters:

Judging by hundreds of blog postings.

Or use un-named bloggers and posters to put the heat on players. Do your own whinging:

they wrote, he needs to explain his actions

And as for this:

It's hard to imagine Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh or Ponting having divided the public so early in their tenure, yet the differences between Clarke and any captain to come before him are so pronounced. The ear-bling, tattoos, cheeky on-field banter, right-handed batting and left-handed bowling, famous model for a fiancee and multimillion-dollar endorsements make him an ideal candidate for jealousy and criticism.

James. Mate. You cannot, in all honesty, write that even the sainted Tubby, and especially the oft-criticised Tugger, would have been immune to a shitload of sledging had they been captain in the here-and-now of mass cricket blogging. The internet barely existed when Tubby was skipper, and there were only about half-a-dozen cricket blogs when Tugger pulled the pin - none of which were in the Strayan online newspapers.

As for "early in their tenure". Well, Captain Tugger drew his first series in the Windies in 1999 and dropped Warne for the last Test. You cannot tell me that dumping Warne and keeping MacGill in the side wouldn't have generated performance-enhanced levels of "debate" had the internet coverage back then been what it is today.

SEX!

I mean, six.

GAYZA

From the Herald Sun Pulse. Not sure, but I reckon I'm picking up a theme:

Did they get a TAFE student to come up with that mascot? It's terrible. Look at the Titans for inspiration: strong, muscular, not skinny and gay.
Nicole

That mascot is soooo gay. We are the laughing stock of the nation. Where do we get Titans memberships?
Joseph

Wow! Are you guys trying to be a bigger joke than Freo? This is horrendously gay.
Mark of Adelaide

What an embarrassment and that gay Roger Ramjet mascot, OMG!
Jo

Then there's Meet GC: Embarrassment one day, pathetic the next.

Update! The internet giveth:

Courtesy of Carneagles and FootyHQ.

Courtesy of belzebub59 at Demonland.

CHUNKARRHOEA

Some colourful clues in recent crosswords. This appetite whetter was in yesterday's Big Snodger.

The answer, for those of you interested in these matters, and I'm sure there are many, is lientery. Might have to shoe-horn it into a rant. Or a limerick.

The Dictionary Cryptic in the Weekend Australian contained these three.

The mechanics of the clue are fairly simple: l - u - v - vies. But don't ask me what Bill Hunter (1 across) has to do with luvvies.

This one is taking the ssip.

Deep.

This rabelaisian dooble-ontonder could partner another crossword favourite: seraglio.

A unique clue, if you get my drift.

SEPTEMBER TO DISMEMBER

Once again, SEN are driving me to violent crime with their "September to remember" jingle. Surely a production meeting would conclude they slaughtered it last year. Get rid of the Sports Updates, too, while you're at it. Waste of bloody air-time.

Speaking of disunmembering... this morning KB had listeners call in with the favourite finals memories.

"My stand-out Grand Final memory was Hawthorn winning in 1989 - especially Gary Ablett kicking 8 goals."

He kicked 9.

What is it with footy folk and faulty memories? Or, most probably, other people's memories. A while back, a bloke rang up KB to rave about Adem Yze's first game: "He had a blinder. Got about 30 touches." In fact, he had 5 kicks and 1 handball. Bet he never saw the game. If I had a Hutton's Ham Hamper for every time a talk-back caller was wrong, I'd be a very fat man.

The sooner talk-back radio bans talk-back the better. There must be other ways to make the on-air people seem clever.

DO THE METH

Teacher + family man + part time job + cancer = drug dealer. Welcome to Breaking Bad.

Watching the first episode of Breaking Bad last Thursday, 8:30 on Showcase, I wondered whether American TV producers will ever run out of ordinary people/extraordinary predicament scenarios. But then, just as soon as I'd concluded they will probably never run out of them, it occurred to me that it doesn't matter. It's all about how well they do them.

I never bought Weeds, the other program in which a suburbanite starts selling drugs to make ends meet. It seemed to me as if Weeds was hedging its bets. Hook the viewers by putting a "heroine" in a tight spot, have her sell drugs around the neighbourhood, chuck in an early-doors sex scene, but don't go in too hard: heroine should peddle harmless, everyone-does-it marijuana. Were the DEA to drug test Weeds and its paraphernalia, they would doubtless find trace elements of cop out. Breaking Bad, on the other hand, has Walter White, a chemistry teacher at a New Mexico high school who has just been diagnosed with cancer and faces two years max, deciding to cook and sell crystal meth, a far less savoury chemical enhancer altogether. While Weeds has the watered-down feel of a network television show, despite emanating from Showtime, Breaking Bad, even on one showing, has a more natural and gritty feel to it, topped with lashings of black humour.

So, how well do they do Breaking Bad? Well, pretty well.

MIGHT AS WELL FACE IT, YOU'RE A DICKHEAD TO MISS

Set your videotapes, or digital set-top IQ box recorders:

Love Sick: Secrets of a Sex Addict

A beautiful young wife stands to lose everything when she becomes addicted to sex.

~~ Tomorrow, Seven's midday movie.