Skuit

Would be the winner of Richmond or Hawthorn. So, in effect, we (4) travel away in the first week against the top team, while the team below us (5) stays at home against the bottom team, and then gets to potentially play us the following week at the same venue. All the more annoying if Richmond were to draw an interstate team initially. Finals system needs to be fixed. Opens the comp up to skullduggery.

Fair enough. Thought I'd heard people saying they got it from the MFC, but it may have been initially generated by the MCG.

I think his poor disposal has been overstated also, but it was pretty horrible on the weekend. To add to your list, I believe the bombs are somewhat a coaching directive specifically for Jayden and a couple others, and in so he is also often trying to execute high-difficulty kicks. Also, watch closely and he's nailed some absolute beauties this year, generating scores and creating opportunities straight off his boot.

Round 13 - and where were Port on the ladder? What has been the percentage of increase in AFL attendance numbers since 2006? Please understand, this is not a complaint. I will reframe the question though: why did the MFC get its projections wrong for attendance figure?

@ demonland make an impassioned call-to-arms and everyone gets all backs-up defensive in an obvious doth-protest-too-much guilty conscience manner. It's okay. It's not about you. Where was everyone? is a good question. Build-up couldn't have been better. Massive ins, including Trenners. Watts' 150. Positive press re. the RAP launch and debuting out indig strip on the MCG. And, a super-important match on our march to the finals against a fellow top-four contender who plays a similar, attractive brand of footy. Signs were there for an entertaining contest. Comparing previous crowds is redundant in the same way as it is citing losses following our Darwin fixture. We've been shite. The figure may have been good relatively-speaking, but it's fair to ask why it wasn't better (as the MFC had itself expected). My guess, a lot of fans lost their nerve and were expecting a loss - compounding other issues such as the weather etc.

faulty - we went toe-to-toe with North last time, instigated most of it ourselves, and absolutely smashed them when it was 'on'. They certainly didn't successfully beat up on us. I would argue it was the exact opposite, we successfully beat up on them and lost the match when we backed off from the fight.

I'm a bit confused this week. From the very start of the third quarter, it was just a string of dodgy calls from this pin-head - call after call after call against us - that I thought there's no possible way anybody could refute he was biased against our club. It was so blatant that I even sensed one of the other umps was embarrassed and favouring us to even it up. Dodgy, inexplicable free in the middle - Port kick it forward, and we get a 50-50 in defence. I even spent 3qtr time drafting a diplomatic letter for the MFC to send to AFLHQ - roughly along the lines of, 'While the Melbourne Football Club are in no way alleging bias or questioning Nicholls' professionalism, there is a strong supporter perception of bias, and although unreasonable, there could be an unfortunate media and public reaction should he make further erroneous decisions in the future which are to the opposition's advantage. Such a reaction would ultimately diminish the standing of the game and bring unwanted attention to the MFC. We therefore request that the AFL schedules alternative umpires from its talented roster to officiate future games involving the Melbourne Demons.' I don't normally do this crap - write angry letters to agencies and accuse umpires of bias. I had even considered wasting the rest of my day putting together a video package to send to the media. The guy has sent me bonkers. But then he paid a couple important dodgy ones our way in the final quarter. What the hell is going on? Is he just a terrible umpire, coincidentally terrible against us? Or did he get a tap at 3qtr-time from his mates? See - bonkers.

Does your daughter have a genetic predisposition for lowering her eyes?

I've brought it up a couple times and it's driving me nuts because I can't find any reference to it on the interweb - I have a vague persistent memory of the club having to do the exact same with a young Jack Viney. Anyone? Maybe Saty - you could just ask him?

Excuse my language, but that umpire Nicholls is a [censored] [censored] camel [censored] [censored] stain

So in summary, you're basically saying relax, we've got this?

Maybe he and Watts snuck in a few celebratory tequilas before the game? Jack certainly played as if he were drunk.

Home: Richmond Away: Richmond

Defensive structures looked good down back vs Port. Has Simon made a small concession to his kamikaze game-plan? I had mostly come to accept that goals leaked out the back would be a part of the Goodwin parcel, but for a couple matches after the bye I felt we'd eased off on the high press a fraction and set the zone a little deeper. Just a small tweak. Then we got wiped out by Adelaide. Is Trenners the new compromise? Dunn, Grimes, and pretty much Garland have all been shown the door for not fitting the fast, attacking mold down back, and in the off-season some were even questioning Jetta's place going forward due to a similar assessment. On this criteria, and based on the tiny tiny sample size with all due caveats, it looks like Trenners still won't make it. Yet, while Jack doesn't have the exceptional dash and attacking flair (and at times, his chosen options took me back to another era), he was solid and reliable, and I was much happier with him there in defence than Bernie. As others have said, he had also taken on a marshaling role. The question I suppose is; is it possible that Trenners is taking up a new role in the team, a stabaliser of sorts alongside Nev? A small compromise to our gung-ho game-plan? And then should he be judged on different criteria?

Actually, memory-loss is a fairly common side effect of rohypnol.

This ‘confirmation bias’ fallback is the new, ‘Well, I trust the coach's opinion better than that of some bloke on the internet’ argument. It’s not confirmation bias, but the illogical defense against criticism toward a particular common aspect of a player’s game which in turn frustrates the critical party and makes it a greater focal point, leading to an increasingly exaggerated cycle of sharper and less-balanced criticisms and ever-more hysterical defences.

Crossy's magic cream?

Thought that was a big ol' blunt in the birthday-boy's hand there for a brief second.

How many posters has Jeff had this year?

Sure. But why would Beamer bring up the notion of 'karma' if not for the belief that Neeld was guilty of some moral wrongdoing? Brent clearly felt that he or others were mistreated. If you listen to the podcast, he is rather magnanimous toward Neeld but it's easy to infer his primary gripe relates to Neeld's lack of people-management skills - in contrast to Beamer's obvious passion for and efforts to foster a nurturing environment at the club. You keep saying Neeld took over a dying club, but I think you're conflating club and team.

SWYL - I don't imagine Brent would be across the finer points of Buddhist theology, but 'karma is a [censored]' is a pretty big statement from someone who supposedly just merely 'jumped ship'.

You should call your insurer. You may be entitled to a discount on your home-and-contents premiums.

I swung by our training session at TIO but he was a no-show.

Take it to the No T$ No BS thread Chook.

Playing in the VFL, no? It's a tight group, and the boys will be chuffed for Gus making his return. Might even get a few extras down to watch.