AGB Footy

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

Sporting commentators are an eternal source of irritation in the AGB romper room. Especially when it comes to over-exaggeration. There are millions and millions and millions of examples but one that crops up again and again and again is "THAT'S THE BEST CATCH THERE EVER WAS!" as an international cricketer of 15 years experience accepts a miss-hit dolly at midwicket. The sort of catch a blind, incontinent grandmother, or Phil Tufnell, would swallow with her teeth still in. Now we're in the football season so we shouldn't also ignore the time honoured "THAT'S THE BEST MARK I'VE EVER SEEN!" after a finely honed athlete accepts a chest mark beside the point post after a 15 metre kick out. And his nearest opponent is in the next suburb. Another that bugs me is the exaggeration of a teams improvement. A team that has a buzz about it. Like Freo. Granted Freo have never before won five in a row, but today Tim Gossage or Dean Kemp or the other guy, Whatsisface, I think it was Whatsisface, described their win thus... "That's FIVE in a row! It doesn't get any better than that!" Disregarding the far fetched notion that six is probably, possibly, I-could-be-out-of-line-here-maybe better than five there's only one forecast. Bleak. Bleak with a sprinkling of gloom. With nothing more to play for they may as well chuck it in right now. Do these commentators EVER listen to themselves?

THE INK'S DRY! SO SHUT UP!

When the Beatles came to Australia they did so on the back of a pre-Beatlemania deal. They weren't happy about the payments but they never the less honoured their obligation to tour here. The point is, they, or maybe Brian Epstein, had signed a contract. Either way they'd entered into an agreement to serve up a series of concerts around this here wide brown land. Like it or not, they had to come. And they did.

Now we're faced with a similar situation here in football central. The Melbourne Cricket Club (MCC) who manages the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) has signed a contract with the Australian Football League (AFL) that stipulates there must be one game in each week of the finals up until 2032.

In Week 1 games can be swapped with interstate venues should four interstate clubs win the right to host one. Possible but not probable because this would mean four interstate clubs fill the positions 1, 2, 5 & 6. These are the required finishing positions to host finals in Week 1. However, should this happen, as is possible this year with six out of eight interstate clubs in the final eight, (Won�t last, Sydney won�t make it) then the MCG can put a final "in the bank". In other words, they get the right to claim an extra game the following year. This game would come at the expense of Telstra No-Dome which would have to give up a final the following year to satisfy the terms of the MCC/AFL contract. Granted interstate clubs could once again fill positions 1, 2, 5 & 6 but mathematically this is highly unlikely. Never the less I concede it may happen but it's a bridge we don't yet need to cross. And anyway, it�s also possible Victorian teams could fill these positions and thus put the game ledger back into the blue in one hit.

In Week 2 two teams are eliminated and two teams have a bye as a result of the previous week�s games. Therefore there are only two games and so the situation becomes more focused. Twice West Coast (1996 & 1999) and once Adelaide (2002) have had to travel to the MCG on the back of a higher ladder finish than their opposition. With only two games there is also less latitude to put aside games for subsequent years. There is a clause that allows the MCC to claim an extra game in Week 1 but thus far they have chosen to exercise their right to host a Week 2 final.

The week that seems to cause the most angst it Week 3 when the Preliminary Finals are played. Last year it could have been even more pronounced should Melbourne have beaten Adelaide in their semi final. Melbourne would have then played Port Adelaide at the MCG after Port finished on top of the ladder and Melbourne finished sixth. However, the MCC consider this a big weekend and therefore are reluctant to give up a game they have the rights to.

Week 4 is Grand Final Week and there is never any debate that the Grand Final will be played in Melbourne. Everyone accepts that the Grand Final will be played at the MCG for however long the MCC wants it.

In yesterday�s Australian Via Patrick Smith raised the issue once again. If you manage to hear him on radio or see him on TV you�ll see him raise it again before the end of the season. He�s not alone, however, on each occasion there has been a chorus of moaning from the aggrieved club, the AFL and other sections of the media. Mike Sheehan is the lead football writer at the Hun and he too has been very vocal.

Surely though, there�s not an issue. The AFL, not we hope, a drunken Yarra Park hobo, signed the contract. Interestingly, in 2000 both the AFL and the MCC came together and re-ratified the contract to the satisfaction of both parties.

Why won�t the MCC change their mind though?

1) There�s no guarantee Collo Dome would give up a final without a fight. It�s AFL headquarters and is constantly running at a loss so it want�s �Product� too. However, the AFL is on the record as stating the swap would be on, but where�s the proof? We know the AFL is riddled with compromising deals and seems to operate on a day to day ad hoc basis. Who�s to say they mightn�t have an excuse to hold a game at Collo-Dome regardless of the situation with the MCC.

2) They don�t believe in the �They earned it� notion. There was a potential squeal in the air when Port Adelaide realised they may have to play a match at the MCG. But HAD they earned it? The MCC would argue they had in fact LOST it by losing to Collingwood in Week 1 of the finals. Adelaide also knew at the start of the season that they had to finish in positions 1 or 2 to guarantee a home final through weeks 1 and 2 and finish on top and win Week 1 if they wanted a home Preliminary Final. All teams know the lie of the land, as does the AFL. After all they signed and revisited the contract. It wasn�t sprung on the interstate teams at the last minute. Ultimately their destiny is in their own hands. You finish on top and win once and you�ve got no problem.

3) The MCC need their own �product�. The AFL have siphoned off a lot of big drawing games to No-Dome. They�ve got to hang on to what they�ve got.

4) They signed a contract with the AFL and they firmly believe they are acting within their rights to host a final each week. The stadium could mount a reasonable argument that ALL finals should be played there since it is the home of footy. There�s no argument in the NRL. After Week 2 they just play all the games in Sydney no matter who�s in it.

However, there�s hope for ALL US MCC MEMBERS. From the tone of Smith�s article it would appear he�s given up on a change of policy from the MCC. �The AFL and public combined have one last play to make� Not sure why he�s tried to include the Victorian public in the equation. We want the final here. However, he can�t resist a typical jibe/soft gambit.

Just say that Fremantle and Port Adelaide were forced to play their preliminary final at the MCG. And only 30,000 people turned up. A crowd of a measly 30,000 might just shame the MCC to change its mind and the contract. It is football's only hope.

Shame who? The crowd goes TO the MCG not the other way around. If they don�t want to watch Port v Freo it�s not going to worry the MCC. They still get their final. It�s the AFL who has the problem. A problem of their own making. A problem they could have tried to rectify a couple years back. Perhaps they should invite ex Channel Nine honcho David Leckie, who signed away the rights to final�s telecasts, to peruse all their future contract signings.

All I know is I�ll be walking the 200 metres from my front door. Through the turnstiles without having to line up or pay. Then sitting wherever I like, draped over five empty seats, drinking coffee, eating hot dogs and thumbing my nose at all the interstate clubs stewing at the unfairness of it all and who seem to think they have a divine right to have a final at home. Ha Ha! Don�t get mad, come visit. It�s a nice place. A great ground. A fine spectacle. You�ll enjoy it. I might even buy you a beer.

NOSE TO THE GRINDSTONE!

Jaysus! I can't believe how hard some people work! On the other hand....

Need some financial guidance? Well, don't go here! Or here! Or here! Or here! Or here! Learning aides? Buy Lego instead! Environmental advice? Buy a pot-plant! Need a phone? "Please hold. We value your business and we'll be with you as soon as one of our consultants is available." Sur. Prise! Cue the music!

When I got home tonight there were 75 emails in my inbox. The majority of which related to the following significant workplace issue....

"Name the 20 past & present AFL players who have had hyphenated surnames...."

1 Arthur  BARR-KEMP
2 Len BOYD-GERNY
3 Che  COCKATOO-COLLINS
4 David COCKATOO-COLLINS
5 Donald COCKATOO-COLLINS
6 Danny DEL-RE
7 Rochford DEVENISH-MEARS
8 Dick FENTON-SMITH
9 Robert FORSTER-KNIGHT
10 Audley GILLESPIE-JONES
11 Gary LAWSON-SMITH
12 Rod LESTER-SMITH
13 Hector LINGWOOD-SMITH
14 Bruce MCMASTER-SMITH
15 Simon MINTON-CONNELL
16 Trent ORMOND-ALLEN
17 John PETER-BUDGE
18 David RHYS-JONES
19 Lewis ROBERTS-THOMPSON
20 Ivor WARNE-SMITH

And how come you bone-idle, big-money, fat-cat, gouge merchants forget first year Docker hyphen, Leigh Wardell-Johnson. Lord help us! Not content with bludging on the boss-clock you can't even get the question right!

WHAT A BIG PAIN IT'S BEEN IN FOOTBALL!

Today in the Australian there's an item from Patrick Smith (They haven't updated yet) about the Imbroglio at Hawthorn. In it he criticises the attempt to blame Hawk skipper Shane Crawford for the present problems besetting the family club. In Smith's words�.

"Now, to suggest this is because Crawford has thespian ambitions which he displays on a segment in the Footy Show is to sense a group of players, and even a board, who are desperately trying to blame everyone bar themselves for their apathy.".

I agree. To blame the best-prepared player in the league for his team's troubles is plainly ludicrous. That�s right! Name me a fitter footballer! Especially when it revolves around his part-time (Reported as half an hour a week) theatrics.

Crawford's a player that any club in the league would love to have. What's more he's about the only person at Hawthorn busting a gut to get the club over the line each week. Granted, by some convoluted Napoleon Bonaparte meets Quentin McHale hyperformula he mightn't be the best captain in the league, but there's no one else at Hawthorn who stands out who could do the job better. And no-one else there who works anywhere near as hard at his game. Even last week when the Hawks were smashed by Essington, he got the most possessions. So, enough Crawford bashing please. It ain�t his fault.

However, it's not about Crawford I'm primarily concerned. In fact I don't give a toss if they come bottom. I hate Hawthorn and the nasty membership-card burning, gap-toothed, drooling simpletons who call themselves Hawthorn fans. They've been spoilt! They've had it too good! In my lifetime they've had more success than any other club has. So, a few years on the bottom won't hurt them. And if does? If they go out of business? Shrug. So what! More money for the rest of the Melbourne clubs.

Nope, Hawthorn's not the issue. You may think otherwise, but no, Hawthorn ain�t my problem. True! That present position is firmly occupied by the Footy Show�s "satirical?", House Of Bulger, and to a lesser extent the pathetic dream schtick they dished up on the Sunday Footy Show. The one hosted by media puppet Gary Lyon. Please! Let Lou Richards rest in peace. Whaddaya mean; "He's not dead yet?" He sure looks it.

To paraphrase Isaac Newton after the football landed on his head; �WHY?�

Now it's true, I hardly ever watch the Footy Show now. Players mumbling club doctored cliches is neither informative, intelligent or entertaining. Neither is Eddie spruiking Collingwood. Nor Sam Newman dressing up as a drunk. Or mocking morons. Or the incessant shilling of mobile phones, cars, airlines or personal promotional products. Usually bad sporting books/biographies. Or collections of sporting jokes. The show lacks spontaneity and has become unfunny, over-blown and full of it's own self-importance. Continually (as ever with Nine) mistaking, or maybe not caring about, ratings for quality.

Ask yourself why the laughter always sounds the same. Or why the cheers are always the same. Do you think it�s because Spider Everitt has just delivered a riposte worthy of Wilde? Luke Darcy a caustic put-down Dorothy Parker would envy? Of course not. There�s a cheer leader. They virtually don�t let you in unless you sign a contract directing you to laugh/cheer on-cue. Let me spell it out. S-t-u-d-i-o A-u-d-i-e-n-c-e. As dim a witted bunch of slow learners that ever strode the tide of TV Times. It may as well be canned laughter. Ever wondered why there�s so may puzzled looks on the audience faces. These are first timers. Probably last timers. They haven�t spotted the gag. They�d need an electron joke-o-scope to spot the humour. They�re wondering why everyone is rolling about as if Woody Allen has just told the story of Mrs Berkowitz and the Moose. Those that are genuinely laughing are on a day-trip from Mont Park Psychiatric Hospital. And they think they�re at the zoo and gawping at wanking meerkats.

Now it�s sunk to a new low. The skit segment The House Of Bulger is about as bad as TV gets. It�s the kind self indulgent filler that only a show that thinks it can get away with anything does. It�s a cross between Skit House and the short lived, Arcade. Only worse. That may sound funny. Well, I guess it is. But not in a pleasant way. To get an idea of the laugh-a-decade sensation try placing a banana skin (Eternal comedy prop) in the middle of your kitchen floor and continually slipping on it so that you fracture your eyesocket on the corner of the cutlery draw. Champagne comedy, not. And just as painful as sitting through Bulger.

If Nine have any sense at all they�ll spot the dud. I�m surprised the big fella hasn�t rung up and squashed it like he did that Doug Mulray stink-beetle back in 1992. The stunned silence as they throw back to the panel, before they take their laugh-cue, should be indication enough the skit stinks. Tottie Goldsmith�s another. Australia�s own Ted McGinley. And the fact that half the audience at home goes for an extended tea-break. Or changes the channel. Once Big Kezza susses that the segment will axed quicker than you can say THE Bold and THE Beautiful.

The Footy Show spent hours knocking Live & Kicking. Seven�s pathetic attempt to cash in on the footy/variety show connection. With it�s cheap stunts and cringingly lame segments. Todd Viney anyone? Doug Hawkins setting his chest hair on fire? Or sculling beer upside-down?  Well, split my sides! Sadly the Footy Show�s become exactly what L&K tried to be. The only difference is that Nine have always sold a show better and they�ve always had better set designers. They LOOK more professional. Doesn�t mean it�s better TV. It just seems better. Don�t be fooled punters.

If you want real footy talk with natural humour and consistent attention to detail check out Fox League Teams. It�s streets ahead and has a real asset in ex-Essington  ruckman John Barnes.

Remember, the Footy Show wins Logies. Say no more!

SINGH HER PRAISES?

Lately there's been a lot of fish-wrapping dedicated to Vijay Singh's refusal to play with Annika Sorenstam. And his, now typical and pathetic "I was taken out of context". No you weren't! Stand by your comments you squibb!

Patrick Smith has also mentioned it in Today's Article. For what it's worth, I agree with both Smith and Eldrich Tigger who suggest she should play more than the one scheduled tournament. Let's see exactly how good she is. One weekend won't tell us anything.

Robert Lusetich also has an article in today's Australian. Unlinked of course. I can't be bothered navigating around their website in a vain search for an article I know I'll never find.

Anyhoo, in making his point about gender matches he tenders the oft repeated precedent of the Billy Jean King v Bobby Riggs match from 1973. Jaysus! Can we stop that analogy. Better still, let's terminate it with extreme prejudice and bury it deep down in a mass grave somewhere in Siberia.

That match was between the world's Number 1 female player, playing at the height of her powers and an aging, never-was, loud mouth blowhard. A dickhead to boot. There was never any doubt that Little Miss Moffatt would win. She was a much better player and probably would have beaten him in his prime. If you really want to settle that argument put up Lleyton Hewitt against Serena Williams. Watch him flog her 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 while watching Rocky, eating hot-dogs and sculling beers at end changes.

Golf's different. Sorenstam's not in danger of getting aced or tackled or out-sprinted or clubbed behind the ear. From a physical standpoint, all she's got to worry about is her driving length. She's bound to be shorter off the tee but there's nothing, at the moment, to suggest her game will be technically lacking. If it is, let's find out what her short-comings are. Now we get a chance to see her and the best male golfers go head to head in their prime and therefore make a valid comparison.

However, you would expect the blokes to win, but you won't know unless you put the match on.

Patrick also makes mention of Gabriel Zombie and his refusal to stand by his comments last week regarding Melbourne coach Neil Daniher. I agree with him that the Zombie should have stood by his comments. There's nothing at all wrong with the President indicating to the footy public that a losing coach is under pressure. As Daniher himself said, "It's bloody obvious!"

However, it's typical of Smith's nasty streak that he tries to make a point out of the Zombie's subsequent apology to the footy department. Maybe he was struggling to fill his word quota. There's nothing at all wrong with Zombie fronting the players to reassure them there's no chance of any board upheaval and apologising for any indication to the contrary. Smith's assertion that Zombie "is now contrite about something he swore he didn't say" is typical media nitpicking.

I've no doubt the Zombie over-emphasised his initial position. No doubt that he talked it down in a clumsy way. No problem with him apologising to the players. BUT. There's no doubt that the essence of what he said was correct. In fact, "The bleedin' obvious". The media could have, maybe should have, treated it as such and recognised that a president berating his players is not indicative of the end of the world but more a case of "What's new!"

Coincidentally on a completely unrelated tangent. Nothing at all to do with anything. Not trying to deflect the spotlight away from Melbourne....

Ian Dicker is Under The Pump. Shane Crawford can't Handle The Pressure. Peter Schwab is Feeling The Heat. And the Hawks Plunge To New Depths.

THE WEST AUSTRALIAN

A family paper? What's Your Decision? Centimetre Perfect football coverage?

BEEEP BEEEP BEEEP BEEEP

Ancient media proverb ask - "What's the sound of one truck backing?"

The Zomby yesterday....

"The pressure's well and truly on the football department."

The Zomby Today....

Szondy emphasised Daniher was "under no pressure whatsoever"

Caro Weighs In. Once more With The Girls. So does Patty Boy.

I have to admit the Zomby's got it all arse about. It's supposed to go like this....

Lurking Notebook, Pen & Trilby - "Gabriel, you've lost three on the trot. How do you think Neil Daniher going?"

Zomby - "Well, Lurker. Good question. Thank's for asking it. All of us here at the Melbourne Football Club are fully behind Neil. We believe he's the fourth best wonderful coach in the league. He's doing a fantastic job. We're wrapped and we'll be appointing a new coach in the morning."

Not like this....

Lurker - "Gabriel, how's Neil Daniher going?"

Zomby - "Well, Lurker. Good question. Thank's for asking it. We think the football department sucks. Everyone there's under notice. Neil's a goose. A bumbling bumpkin. In short, an appalling coach. Couldn't win a chook raffle. We've just re-signed him for three years."

Perhaps that�s what the pundits mean when they say he�s being naive. It�s footy-code for not telling porkies.