sue

That's my usual MFCSS thought. As I've posted years ago, can Brown fritter away time at the end of a close match using his long run up? I cannot see anything in the rules about that (or anything related to 30 second rule!), but it seems as long as the player starts walking in before 30 seconds, he can then take as long as he likes. Does the clock starts again as he walks in? I think so but not sure.

I like the name Sideshow, but I wonder what North supporters called him? And Brown's response?

maybe, but being 'virutally incognito' lessens the odds of detection. Anyway, good luck to him (except when he plays us of course).

That's not my recollection of the nature of negative comments about Brown. Most criticism has been that he is a 'one-trick pony'. The videos indicate that is true only in the sense that his one trick is kicking lots of goals. Of course there are questions about his 2020 and injuries etc. But what better option is on offer?

Well we can take the second one then.

I suspect the only real sideshow is the North Melb club.

I got the impression at the time that he at first lowered his elbow to brace and then raised it again hitting Vlaustin. Looking at it again, it's less clear. But if he was genuinely bracing only, why does his arm clearly extend after he hits Vlaustin? Wouldn't it stay close to his own body?

I just watched the youtube of his 61 goals (some of it at high speed). As I posted earlier on about one of his hightlight videos I don't know why people say he is a one-trick pong/leadup forward. Does quite well from long bombs into the forward line. He does get a lot of goals from frees where his opponents grab him or interefere in some way as they panic about his reach. I only saw one where I didn't think he deserved the free.

Sorry OD, but I think you meant graphite or somesuch, not lead which is made of...... lead. I reckon in the first half the tiger were thinking "it's wet weather footy, just kick it off the ground etc" and made a mess of it. It was never bucketing down, but they played like it was. Later they started playing their usual game which is nowhere near as choatic as some think it is.

Like in 2018?

Umm no analysis of the game a half time. Just some random “entertainment “? WTF?

This thread brought to you by the Hairshirt Manufacturers of Australia.

They'll probably bring in Cameron early then...

Strange that the AFLPA is about the only union in the country that has so much power these days.

Which Russian oligarch do you have in mind to own the MFC?

Well that settles who I will be baracking (too strong a word) for in the GF at least.

You are right - the lower ranked votes are more likely to be affected By the things I mentioned

You are right, going to zero interchanges increases the chance of players injuring themselves staying in the game because they can't be replaced. While injuries affect the ability to interchange, they are less likely for an injured player to stay on the field. Maybe have 4 reserves? Or fewer interchanges.

I agree the umpires are not in a great position to vote, but I'm not sure the coaches rankings are without issues. For example, I expect they sometimes use the vote to make a point within the club, reward someone for doing their job etc, all of which may not be relevant to them being best and fairest.

How about a limit of zero interchanges, just 2 reserve players as it was in days of yore? With no chance to rest footy will no longer resemble an under 9 kid's game. And 16 a side only goes against the laws of the game if the laws are unchanged! Have you handled the out of bounds change yet? A move to fewer interchanges is the moderate version of zero interchanges - there might be a sweet spot where it stops congestion without losing whatever advantage having interchanges gives. Though I'm not sure what advantages they actually give. Can anyone enlighten me? Anything more than could be achieved with more than 2 reserves?)

Well he could do a good job in one area (keeping this season going) and do a bad in another (look of the game). The latter may have a longer lasting effect.

Sorry I don't understand why you asked that. I don't recall addressing how long we should give Goodwin in my post if that is what you are asking. I was just pointing out Dr's remark about Hardwick being under the pump earlier on may be relevant to Goodwin's position. But if you are asking that, I'd think Goodwin better show some very clear progress in 2021. But if someone has the stats on the number of Richmond fans calling for Hardwick's head year by year and when he started to come good, I am open to reconsidering.

Of course it proves nothing but I don't think Dr was saying it did. Just the obvious one that people were calling for Hardwick head before he got to where he is now and maybe, just maybe, the same may happen to Goodwin. Was there any evidence that Hardwick had more ability than Goodwin at a similar stage? If not Dr's 'assumption' was perfectly reasonable.

No. You forgot to say “we all know that”.

Training will be difficult. There is no flat area there big enough for an oval unless the military base is razed.