Banter Geelong V Richmond - GO!

[Wosh]

In the interests of keeping your back and forth shite fights out of match threads so normal people can talk.

Keep it clean and above the shorts
Off topic rubbish clogging up match threads will be moved here, knock yourselves out.

 

[takethepowerback]

Why do successive flags matter? To who? You? Congrats

Did you win flags while dominant/dynasty teams were around? I didn’t see any.

I saw hawthorn win their last flag two years before your first, and missing finals every season you won the comp, and going out in straight sets the year before, and after, your first. OOOH!!! Well done.

At least the Cats had a finals win over Hawthorn in a flag year the season before Hawthorn’s first grand final at the start of their big run, and while they still had most of their 2008 team intact, or did that escape you?

No no we definitely didn’t win any of our flags at a time when there was a dynasty team around did we

F**k, aside from MR’s little spreadsheet of finals wins against Geelong does ANY tigers fan - literally ANY - (BF Tiger excepted who actually knows his stuff) understand what research and facts are about?

Geez mate, how the hell can there be two dynasty teams at the same time? You think there's two teams winning two in a row at the same time? Or 3? Or 3/4? Are you ok?

Of course dynasty's matter, that's why you listed a bunch of dynasty teams earlier. So they matter to you too..

There wasn't a another team winning successive flags while the tigers were, no. Because we were the dynasty team..the team that beat Geelong in QF, PF, and GF. My second favourite trilogy of the era to the three flags, it leveled up each time.

Like I said, 07-11 cats were a dynasty team. Scott inherited one flag on the back of it off a list he didn't build. The scott era cats ain't a dynasty team, and they don't win flags when dynasty teams are about.

 

[Mr Meow]

The father son rule of the day was a godsend for Geelong … but it was just the rules of the day.

Got G Ablett at 40… Bartel (7), Kelly (17) and Stevie J (24) came earlier in the same draft. Geelong would’ve offloaded 1 and maybe 2 of those picks for points in the modern system - he wasn’t going top-7 so would’ve kept the Bartel pick.

In 2004 got N Ablett at 48. Egan came at 62. That was Geelong’s last pick that would’ve been gobbled up in a point match on Ablett…. Egan CHB in AA team of 2007 I believe.

Then obviously Hawkins went 41 and was a unanimous pick-1, so wouldn’t have got Selwood.

So no Stevie J, M Egan or Selwood … and maybe no James Kelly in updated father-son rules….

What a great free kick for a dynasty … but just the rules of the day so good luck to them. Probably no dynasty without it though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Going without Selwood and Kelly would've been the outcome on today's rules. The latter's pick the bid to secure Ablett.

Selwood and Kelly had 1 AA between them between 2007-2010. 2011 they were vital pieces, so perhaps that flag from the trilogy would be in question.

That isn't nearly as important as having prime Dusty, Rance et al as a reward for years of being a basket case. As soon as the music stopped it was right back to being a basket case. Lucky the net is there to catch the Tigers time and time again.

 

[South of the Yarra]

You can be sure.

I was the guy that called your kids half white because you're white. Then you told me to go f**k myself because you believe they're full blooded indigenous.

Who are you to judge someone's Aboriginal identity. Appalling comment.

 

[Username Anthony]

Who are you to judge someone's Aboriginal identity. Appalling comment.

Who are you to judge my judgement?

 

[South of the Yarra]

Who are you to judge my judgement?

Not sure you realise the impact your comment could have on some Aboriginal people. Your judgement is appalling, telling someone how they should see their Aboriginal identity. Just another racist flog.

 

[Username Anthony]

Just another racist flog.

If that's the way you see it, you're wrong. Remember, I'm not the one denying a part of myself. You come across as delusional to me.

 

[sleep]

 

[South of the Yarra]

If that's the way you see it, you're wrong. Remember, I'm not the one denying a part of myself. You come across as delusional to me.

Not close to wrong, you actually have no idea what you are talking about. What right do you have to tell a person how he should view his Aboriginal kids. Just pathetic. The words 'half Aboriginal' or 'half white' can be highly provocative and offensive.

 

[PhatBoy]

If that's the way you see it, you're wrong. Remember, I'm not the one denying a part of myself. You come across as delusional to me.

No one is denying anything it’s an identity it isn’t a cake.

I don’t tell my kids that they are half this or half that. I tell them that they ARE THIS.

So that way when they participate in cultural events with other kids of indigenous heritage they don’t have to sit and hear bullshit like ‘you aren’t as aboriginal as this other kid so you only get to do half the cultural activities and learning. When they get taught about their heritage on my side I don’t tell them that they are half something so that they have to feel like they aren’t as ‘English’ as the kid raised on cricket and rugby union by two parents from Kent.

They are what they are and they aren’t slices of them from this place and other slices of them from this place. They are not part indigenous. They are indigenous. They are not part of anglo heritage, they are of Anglo heritage.

Your binary definitions of what their identity should be doesn’t stack up to what everyone else’s should be, especially mine as a parent, and theirs as adults when the time comes for them.