The Taciturn Demon

Well said. I also think there's a little bit of revisionism going on around here about what he's done in his career to date. He wasn't just OK in the Premiership year; he was absolutely critical to the success of that backline.

No, I agree. That Richmond comment was just me at my most wildly optimistic. In part it comes from the fact that, although I've had concerns and quibbles with how this team plays over a long time, I haven't had the sense that "This has been coming" like so many others on this forum. Yes, I've worried that we would naturally fall away or that the response to our predictable 22/23 style would be an overcorrection, but suddenly being creamed by teams with no runs on the board - nah. I'm interested in what happens next, too. Particularly given that some extremely important players are now well into their 30s. I'm also not interested in "bouncing back". Yes, a far better performance on Monday is important. But if it's just a on-off reaction to an embarrassing effort, who cares?

I feel the same. So much about that game was so unusually bad that it almost felt dream-like. I half-expected Goodwin to go into the press conference and go full Chris Scott: "A virus ran through us this week. We thought about replacing half the team." But no. So what is it? "We're overrated" has come up a lot on here. Almost certainly true, but it doesn't account for total un-competitiveness for a full three and a half quarters two weeks after being thoroughly rinsed by West Coast. The optimist in me says "Well, Richmond had some huge losses in their 2017 and 2019 Flag years". The realist says the same as you: something's going on.

I don't find myself subject to the Mandela Effect very often, but AFL rule interpretations is an exception. I could have sworn that shortened reasonable time interpretations were instituted at the start of year maybe two or three seasons ago and very quickly dispensed with. Did I just imagine this? Another that I'm certain was tried many years ago (and which made sense, but would have been difficult to umpire) was that if the tackling player dragged the ball in and held it to the player over the ball, they (the tackler) got done for holding the ball. This happens all the time these days. Another was that a push in the back was a free kick. Ha ha. What a duffer I am. As if that would ever be a rule.

Long-time reader, first-time contributor. (I was on Demonology years back and always appreciated the thoughts of much more knowledgeable, perceptive and insightful Demons supporters than me.) I appreciate that anyone who makes it to this level, let alone plays dozens or hundreds of games, is an exceptional footballer. But everything is relative... Lachie Hunter. What's going on there? What do Goodwin and the decision makers like about him? I know he may not play this week, but in the recent press conference, Goodwin made it sound like he desperately wanted him in the team as soon as possible. Is there something he does really well that isn't obvious to a person (me) with (at best) a mediocre understanding of the nuances of modern football? I ask because from what I see, the "brilliant footy IQ" we heard about at the time he was recruited, has never materialised. I don't remember it being there at the Bulldogs, to be honest. I don't see him as a particularly good kick (even over 25 to 30 metres), he's not a robust player, he doesn't kick many goals, he seems to take players on at the most inopportune times and the underground handball is almost like a tic. I see last year he was in the top 150 in the league for score involvements (behind only Petracca, Pickett, Viney, Neal Bullen and Chandler). Is it as simple as that? Despite the apparent sloppiness, is he in fact a very effective link player? Or is he just a known quantity benefiting from a reasonably conservative football department? Is it simply a case of better the devil you know than a debutant or five-gamer?