old55

Yes I have to pay extra for those devices though. It's a Sony Smart TV about 3 years old but it's not an Android model.

It is a decent outcome but IMHO all the games should be FTA. I don't have Foxtel and my Sony Smart TV is only a couple of years old but is not Android so doesn't support Kayo. If this was a normal season I would definitely be going to this match - I'm willing to pay for that but not Foxtel. How am I supposed to see this match?

Anyone know what's happening with TV coverage? I don't have Foxtel or Kayo and in the original fixture I was either going to the game or could see in on FTA for all but one game. Is this game going to be FTA? Under normal circumstances I think it wouldn't be but I would go to the game. I'll be [censored] off if I have to pay a subscription to see it.

Hawthorn have to win it in the next 2 years because after that their list is totally stuffed. I think it is possible that they could win in that timeframe if everything goes right for them - they're at least equally as likely as us. But we've got 5-8 good years ahead to pull it off.

I've posted this before but I cannot understand why this tactic isn't used more often, or at least kick to space if there is any. The amount of times I've seen us go in the air to say Jeffy one out against a tall defender drives me crazy. Just kick the dribbler, most players can do it. Kozzy one out vs Hurn with the dribbler coming in ...

afl.com.au still doesn't have the final teams!

This post is AFL related.

I believe I heard Dr.Norman Swann on ABC's excellent Coronocast podcast: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/coronacast/ That data from China suggests that about 80% of infections were undiagnosed. If that's the case in Australia our current infection tally is 700 (diagnosed) x 5 = 3,500. 25 million / 3,500 = approximately 1 in 7000 Australians are currently infected. Approximately 400 AFL footballers participating in R1. Likelihood that one is infected is approximately 1 in 18. You can make up your own mind whether it is reasonable or not to go ahead with the football.

When are they flying out - do we know?

Let's say they played 10 minute quarters - would that make a difference to recovery? Let's say they played 40 minute quarters - how about that? There's clearly some point that the duration of the quarters makes a difference and that has to be balanced with the spectacle as a match. They've gone for 16 minutes which sounds like a good compromise to me.

They've got more than one ball. Have you seen behind kick-ins recently?

You won't sell me with a boxing analogy. Like I said earlier then - why don't we just get every player to run a half-marathon before the game and don't change any rules then.

Fatigued players just cannot play as well. This is a very simple concept to grasp.

You've missed the point I'm trying to make. Many here are advocating a solution based on limiting rotations thus causing fatigue and therefore reducing congestion. But that is a poor solution.

Fatigued players does not provide a better game, it means more skill errors and a poorer spectacle where players are unable to perform at their optimum. How can this be better? Maybe we should make all the players run a half marathon before the bounce eh? Less congestion because there's less players per square metre is a far superior solution.

It's a great idea as @Dr. Gonzo and @Fat Tony say. For those who doubt less players wouldn't affect congestion. Would it be more congested with 30 per side, less with 10 per side? The way the game is played has changed and the rules need to adapt to maintain the free flowing essence. Decreasing the number of players is the least invasive rule change - in fact it doesn't actually change any in-game rules. 6-6-6 and zones are horrible misdirected actions. The sweet spot is likely to be 14-15 per side, and I'd keep the four interchange.

FWIW, AFL Computer models - aggregated here by Squiggle predict us finishing 15th (13th - 16th) with 9 wins (8-10 wins). https://squiggle.com.au/ladder/ The "colour bar" on the RHS - the size of the "block" represents the likelihood the team will finish in that position. Top 4 = 5%, Top 8 = 19%, Bottom 4 = 37% You can click on each team to see the detailed prediction of each model. I'm not buying what they're selling but is that because I have more detailed knowledge of the MFC situation or because I'm an overly optimistic supporter?

Too much hysteria about investing in talented injured players. 2/3rds of the list actually play - about 30-32/44. That's 12-14 who don't play. If one of AVB, Bennell, KK or Smith make it then it's worth the risk IMO.

It's 100% clear that is the case, as soon as he is even near fit he's straight into the team. The FD highly rate him.

Yes the FD don't regard AVB as a "depth player", if fit he's guaranteed starting 22, however Kent is a depth player.

Gold!

Only up against Smith and Scully.

Tomlinson vs Frost - @Dr.D and @TGR what did you make of last night?

If Nathan Jones is the worst player in our 22 this season we are going to have a very good side in operation.

You lost me at "Oliver is slow"