titan_uranus

No, not at all. I'm merely saying that of all the players to stuff up the protected zone rule, the one who did hasn't played at AFL level for 2.5 years (i.e. it's not that big of a deal).

More like MIC (missing in clip).

Adelaide are also abysmal.

Not sure how much "worse" any of those actions are. A factor going the other way is that his teammate (Zerk-Thatcher) had already been suspended and, surely, Essendon would have read the riot act to the entire playing group. After that, it's hard to believe another Essendon player broke the rules (I'd be similarly gobsmacked if another Melbourne player stuffs up). I agree with you that McKenna probably shouldn't be getting a bigger suspension than Zerk-Thatcher, Pickett or Spargo simply because he caught it and they didn't (unless he knew he had it but didn't comply with the rules, in which case season-long ban minimum, I say).

If we kick 100 points in a real match and our tall forwards kick 0, is that "embarrassing"? I don't care who kicks them so long as we score enough to win. Getting Melksham back into form is equally important as TMac/Weid at any rate. You're in form for over-reactions this week, I reckon. It was an intra-club scratch match. Frustrated players who'd trained all week and had the game pulled away from them through no fault of theirs. And your major concerns are the Bennell 50 (which was bloody iffy, and at any rate committed by a player who hasn't played at AFL level for 2.5 years) and "possibly Jetta looking upset". Seriously? You're upset that a player showed emotion? I'll give you the Langdon one, but really, are these things we should genuinely be worried about?

Yes, they didn't kick any goals, but are we really going to call TMac/Weideman "horrible" for what we could see of them in a 6-minute highlight clip of an intraclub match?

Looks like Brayshaw, Jetta, Jones and Hibberd all started for blue. At some point Hibberd, OMac and Rivers switched (the latter two started red then went blue). From that footage, which is obviously limited, I thought Melksham looked infinitely better than last week.

Brayshaw started in royal blue. Wasn't dropped this week but is the FD considering he's on the fringe?

Gawn says we put our best 18 on one side to begin with but then shuffled jumpers midway. Also mentioned Jones played - I'm increasingly confident the line about him carrying injuries through training was rubbish and was just designed to soften the blow around him being dropped.

Let's wait for Port today who might be the only side to put in three strong performances. Collingwood not too far off. Everyone else has put in at least one sub-par performance. In a normal season, that would be a refreshing positive. I think our lapse against Carlton needs to be put into this perspective.

Yeah if he's knowingly breached the guidelines, particularly after Essendon already had a teammate break them, my sympathy goes out the window.

I didn't hear this, but it's possible he trained after the test, but before the result was returned. Because it's logistically impossible to arrange the match on an hour or two's notice. They'll slot it in later in the year, on a few week's notice.

You can, but my understanding is that false negatives are quite uncommon. It's common to have the virus but show no symptoms, but that's completely separate. Apparently the type of result he produced yesterday (the "irregularity") was a low viral count, with today's test a higher count, suggesting it's in the early days. That's consistent with the idea he got it quite recently. Regardless, the key will be the next round of testing on Essendon players and staff.

Meanwhile West Coast go in with their tall forward line and can't take a mark. Carlton's tall forwards last week didn't exactly set the world on fire, either. (Having said that, I'm also surprised we planned to go into tomorrow with just TMac. Possibly horses for courses because Essendon is small and fast).

So, just to confirm, if we had the opportunity to beat Essendon tomorrow, we would be in front of Richmond, West Coast, Geelong, GWS and the Dogs. Each of those sides has had a shock loss to an ostensibly worse side (Richmond to Hawthorn, WC to GC, Geelong to Carlton, GWS to North, the Dogs to St Kilda). This season is clearly ridiculous. And, I'm not suggesting we're any good, but our only loss so far is West Coast in Perth. We also beat the side which just beat Geelong in Geelong.

The impact on our preparation from last week to next week is unavoidable, there's nothing the AFL can do about that. We're not going to get "compensated" - we're unlikely to be the only side to cop this, and even if we are, it's a preferable alternative to having no season at all. If there are no other tests (unlikely, but let's run with it), then I guess the hope would be that we play Essendon at the end of the season prior to finals: that way both sides come off the same shorter break.

I've just seen that footage. Certainly worse than I had imagined, given he was in the middle of a drill and then returned to it without appearing to clean/wash his hands. I don't know what we or other clubs are doing but of course, every time someone gets tackled I'm sure they release plenty of spit from their mouths, so the risk of that sort of thing happening is going to be inherent in any AFL match.

AFAIK current protocol allows players to do a whole lot of normal activities within the community. If people in the community spread the virus, the risk will increase that a Victorian player will contract it from going to the supermarket, or getting a haircut, etc..

Unless he discharged that snot onto another person, it's likely to be a complete non-issue.

There's a lot of misreporting and speculation on here. He trained yesterday but he hadn't returned the positive test yet. First one yesterday afternoon, second one this morning. There's no evidence Essendon did anything wrong. He didn't bring it back from overseas. There's no evidence he personally has done anything wrong. So what happens from here? I suppose the best case scenario from here is Essendon goes into isolation, all of its players and staff test negative a number of times, no other club tests positive, and the comp continues with the infection being limited to just McKenna. Frequent testing is the only thing keeping the comp going. If we test players frequently enough, we'll catch a positive test before they play another team, limiting the need to put people into isolation. Can we get through another 14.5 rounds plus finals like this? If the infection rate in Victoria is starting to rise again, you'd have to think it's going to be a tough ask.

For some context about how this year is going so far, if we win on Sunday we will finish this round above Richmond, GWS, the Dogs, and at least one of West Coast and Brisbane.

Not sure this needs to be said again, but maybe it does: we didn't "get rid of Hogan", and when he wanted to leave we cashed in for what was available and what we needed (a KPD in a year where we'd scored heavily but lost games through a poor defence).

It's sad to say for Jones, but Melksham has more upside. We can't tolerate repeat performances from him like last week, and there's now ANB and Jones outside the 22 pushing for his spot, but if he turns it around it improves us far, far more than if Jones turns his form around. Melksham's link between half-back and the forward line in 2018 was critical to our success and will do wonders for us if/when he gets that back. I feel for Jones (obvious) and ANB (given he wasn't our worst last week) but for both, their omission is justifiable IMO.

Requires Fritsch, Hannan and vandenBerg to compete in the air. Critical that they are fit enough that they don't need to rest on the bench for long periods, and they are able to compete with Hurley and Hooker. And also that they are fit and willing enough to crack in on defence. Also requires our mids to continue their improvement from last week in terms of delivery inside 50. Long bombs without thought will most likely be ineffectual. There is the scope for positive improvement on last week with this team, though

Risky strategy IMO. Maybe Smith to the forward line to replace Jackson? But if Smith goes forward, who takes his spot in the back six? If Smith doesn't go forward, I guess we will need to back Fritsch, Hannan and vandenBerg to contest with Hooker and Hurley. That is a big risk IMO. Tomlinson to provide ruck relief (which is only a limited amount of time with shorter quarters)? Jones being dropped is the correct call. I suspect the comments about his minor injuries are designed to help soften the blow. I feel for ANB who has lost his spot despite kicking 2 and starting well, but the reality is there is more upside in Pickett, Melksham, Bennell, Hannan, vandenBerg and Hunt than there is in ANB. We know this from the past few years of evidence. So I'm comfortable with it.