Copuchas

Clarry went one handed because he didn't want to commit to the contest. Ditto Langdon on the ground ball. Jeez they're hard to watch....

All dates from team selection last night. Dogs ins are good, Gawn didn't get up, English did. Hitherto nervous Dogs fans piled in.

21 degs forecast, sunny with low humidity. But the strong westerly is still forecast (32kmh gusting to over 40). That is slightly diagonally across the ground at Metricon. Probably not a great day for Naughton and a fair bit of ground ball to be won.

Actual Dimwit quote: “Because I guarantee you a few players out there making comment, mainly David Schwarz, I played a Grand Final (in 2000) against that bloke and within 20 minutes of the game he was crying, so (he should) have a look at himself at some stage.” I have always hated every one of the thugs from that 2000 team of scum: Wallis, Hardwick, Long to name a few. Indeed, it has carried over to the point where I abhor Richmond more than any other team in the AFL and I am hoping like hell there's an Adelaide oval elimination final coming up. If I was Goodwin, I'd get the Ox to address the boys during the week.

It's worth keeping in mind that VandenBerg has had two quite significant head knocks in his last outings. It would be abnormal if this didn't impact his output. I'll be watching intently this afternoon to see how he goes.

Whilst I'm completely aligned with the thrust of your thread Nasher, I'm really surprised not to have read any analysis on the near elimination of biased umpiring performances during the Covid crisis and the obvious conclusion that the "noise of affirmation" phenomena is an irrefutable reality.

All MCC members are required to nominate the club they support. Tickets should be made available to the Full members of the competing clubs in the first instance, with a ballot process if necessary.

well I guess he did have a brother so there's some evidence....

Silvagni out with gastro so it's one apiece on the withdrawals front...

The biggest concern I have with Jack is that he's stopped pivoting on his feet when laying tackles. I think they concluded that the driving action in his aggressive tackling was conveying too much pressure through his feet and exacerbating his injury. His tackling has fallen away dramatically and lost its impotency as a result. A great shame as it was his one wood.

One aspect of our post season surgery count that warrants further investigation is the extent to which they were collision related injuries attributable to an aggressive contested game style. I liked the contested brand the Dees played last year but found myself wondering what the physical toll would ultimately be. It would be an interesting analysis for someone to undertake a very crude cut of contested footy ranking versus non-soft tissue injuries. I also wonder how sustainable it is to have contested footy as your one wood....or even worse, your only wood. You need look no further than West Coast to see it's not natural to be able to bring that level of commitment week in, week out.

You and CBDees and others keep referring to the oval as if that was the only component of the proposal. It was the six storey building over the railway line that fundamentally alters the Wellington Pde streetscape and vista that was the fatal flaw.

I'm heading along Hells Bells, also for the first time.

I agree Chook but I suspect the plan would call for the ball to be put in the hands of Hibberd, Salem and Lewis whenever possible (in much the same way as is the case for Frost and Omac). The key issues here are the height of the West Coast forwards and the bigger bodies. Smith with his leap and bigger build is better placed to contend in the air than perhaps Fritsch is. It's a very tough call but I'll certainly understand the thinking if it goes that way.

Do you mean Stevic or Rosebury? Meredith wasn't umpiring HAW v MEL last Fri night.

there is incompetence when it comes to AFL umpires and....well....then there's Nicholls and his officiating of MFC games. His sustained bias against Melbourne rules out incompetence (which is random) and leaves you with the unpalatable options of corruption or hatred. I haven't to date been able to postulate a credible theory around corruption so I am left to conclude it is a deeply rooted hatred of the MFC that has a conscious or subconscious manifestation in his match day officiating of MFC games. But make no mistake, it is REAL and he is a cheat. On the flip side, it was pleasing to see Rosebury tell Howe to get up after the push from Caddy. Clearly it should've been a free kick but Rosebury is an experienced umpire who was clearly aware of the niggle being deployed by Howe so let it go. That augers well for Friday night as there'll be plenty more of that from Howe and Sicily as they try it on our young Dees. I hope Aaron smashes the pair of them Jordan Murdoch style....

Margetts was dropped for not paying the foot fend off by Greene..... And I just read on Hawks Big Footy that Stevic is one of them.....so solve for 23!

As a frustrated MCC member who can't get MCC visitors tickets, I'll be buying a few kids tickets using MFC memberships that haven't seen a shot in anger all year and then getting pass outs from the MCC reserve in to the public reserve so that we can keep our group together.

Actually, this is probably closer to the truth of the true drivers around this project than anything in this thread to date!

Hahaha, I've just done the same thing CB. 1st time I've communicated with a Green politician in my life! My message slightly different to yours possibly!

Daisycutter, I'm not sure time will allow me to do justice to your request. A few pointers for consideration though: 1) People buy in to any community in part for the amenity of the local area. The amenity of East Melbourne is substantial and property values reflect this. In no particular order: access to the city, quiet streets (relatively for inner city); parks, gardens and sporting fields in close proximity (note they are ALL different, a fact lost here on Demonland); the extremely attractive street scape and views across parks and gardens eg from Wellington Pde; heritage buildings and homes; nearby sports and entertainment precincts; quick access to major arterial roads and public transport etc etc. All are drivers. 2) Negative amenity also exists in East Melbourne: crime; drug and alcohol affected citizens passing through to neighbouring suburbs, restricted access to parking, high level of illegal parking by non-residents; aircraft (particularly helicopter) noise; peak hour cut throughs; outrageous council taxes; very restrictive planning regimes (good and bad perhaps); etc etc 3) The demographic in East Melbourne is an older demographic and that's likely to always be the case as homes are generally smaller in size and the nearby schools aren't attractive to those who can afford properties here. 4) The whole discussion on here presupposes that local residents would derive increased amenity from losing a current park facility in order to have it replaced by a sporting field. In addition that the lost amenity of the Wellington Pde street scape is either unimportant or an improvement. And that the as yet unsolved MCG car parking issue (and subsequent flow-on to East Melbourne and Richmond streets) can be exacerbated with no consequence. 5) My contention is that the net outcome for the majority of residents is negative amenity and therefore it will be vigorously opposed. And the fact that the seat is currently held by the Greens at both a Federal and State level and that the Melbourne City Council is a residents amenity focused council will make it difficult for a State Govt of whatever persuasion to ride roughshod over the concerns I've flagged and others that will be raised. 6) The case against becomes more compelling when the MFC can absolutely achieve the vast majority of it's requirements by staying at Gosch's Paddock, modifying it to be a truly elite facility and constructing commercial premises / HQ in an already established sporting precinct that is a stone's throw from the G. Witness the building that went up as part of the tennis centre redevelopment project as an example and see my earlier comments on redeveloping the clay tennis courts area. In any event, time will tell.

I thought Rupert Hamer died in 2004! I know the issues that concern residents because I'm integrated in the community. You sound like you're integrated in the construction industry. Any conflict of interest to declare?? Anyway, let the horses run. Hope you got your flyer in the post from Ellen today asking what concerns you? I'm seriously thinking about filling mine in and I abhor the greens!! Taking the dog for a walk down in Yarra Park now...

2-3 stories is multi-storey CBDees and is exactly what residents don't want! Well apart from yourself.... And as for Daisycutter's let's not get too hung up on parking approach....this just exacerbates the existing problem of saturated parking for residents in East Melbourne. And that's before parking has even been reduced or eliminated in Yarra Park... which I might add is inevitable. I'm all for the Dees having a home but it must be where adequate infrastructure can be placed. From any perspective, the Jolimont location looks like a forced fit. Another possible site is the en tou cas tennis courts on Swan street that are part of the Melbourne Park complex. Put a building in there similar to the one that was built adjacent to the tennis center, relocate the tennis courts to the roof of it. Direct linkage across the rail lines to the G via the existing footbridge. Redevelop Gosch's paddock to incorporate an MCG sized footprint (not that the Tigers seem to have too many MCG difficulties given training's on the small Punt Rd ground!). All of these pushbacks and more will be thrown at this project and by any analysis it's difficult seeing it overcome them.

so one minute it's the ease of undertaking commercial activity (presumably for tenants and their customers) and the next it is parking for MFC players and officials via the Brunton Ave MCG southern stand car park will be fine? Really?