sue

True, but I doubt if the HS is a discerning choice OD. You need to break these old habits to stay forever young.

Disagree. We want the maximum probability of winning. If they happen to not be at full strength, then so be it. If we are not at full strength, I presume you would not say that gives us an even better test. It's not testing we want. It is winning, especially to get the season off to a good start. I'm happy to be tested in the GF thanks.

Maybe not. But it's hard to explain how some stars get off when it suits the AFL. And the more stars you have the more you get off, so perhaps some there is some apparent leniency for some clubs.

While I too like an open game, I suspect we'd have seen a much less skilful game if the winning side shared in $500 million.

Even good players play worse when Under pressure

ANyone know what the 50m penalty against Spargo in Q1 as for?

And I suppose you great grandfather blamed Spain for the Spanish flu and expected Spainiards to live in poverty forever. (Actually the Spainsh flu is a slander on Spain since news of it was supressed in the UK USA and Germany because of wartime censorship in WWI - didn't want to affect morale in that pointless war. Spain wasn't involved and freely published info about it so they got stuck with the name.)

I thought the thread title was rhetorical.

While it is click bait etc, it is true that as of now you'd have to say they would be favourites to beat us. The AFL hasn't done us any favours in kicking off the season this way even if the rest of the draw looks good.

I thought having double (or more) meanings was a common trick for attracting attention in titles. Is the Redemption achieved or are we working on it?

Isn't Redemption as 'bad' as Back? But Grimes-Times' post shows that there are other ways of interpreting the title without even bending the dictionary defintion. I wonder how you'd be feeling as a Port supporter? More than a storm in a tea cup there I guess.

True. Anyway the title is spot on if you interpret it correctly: To Hell =1964. (after all where else are Demons happy but in hell?) And Back = the years since then, not in hell. When we win the flag it will be To Hell and Back to Hell at Last.

Since repeating oneself seems to be acceptable in this thread, I'll repeat that I don't think the ? is necessary. It depends on the content of the doco. As you say, no questioning the 'hell' bit, but if the doco focuses on what we are doing to try to get back, it is appropriate, though maybe "to Hell and the Road Back" would be better. There is no reason on the face of it to assume the title is an empty boast and that no other interpretation is possible. I'd agree with SWYL et al if the title was "To Hell and Back to Heaven" or used Milton's two titles, but it didn't. Anyway, a storm in a tea cup.

You don't want to read too much into the title until you see the doco. What if the doco takes the line we have been in hell and presents the 'back' bit as a struggle /process / aim but not something accompished? It is unusual to review a doco without having seen it. And what was that saying about books and covers and judging?

I'd have thought that players from Vic would be happier to play in Tassie than in WA or especially QLD.

I know it goes against modern trends and the current AFL ethos, but I'd rather they subsidise a team in Tassie where people are footy mad (and deserve a team) than try to build a second team in states where no one gives a damn.

I found it hard enough re-watching the ones we won.

Where's that picture of a storm in a tea cup? Needed here IMO.

Well at least umps will be pressured to recall bad bounces more often so we get an extra look at the logo. (Just watched the v Freo match Rd14 I think and they didn't care how bad the bounce was multiple times.)

They are on the website but in an obscure spot. Actually joining the club is a bit hidden too (why?!) - under the hamburger at the top right. Then you have to pretend you want to join and up comes the membership number which I presume is vaguely up to date.

The problem with the argument that 'facilties are better today' is that it neglects the general progress of society. So I dismiss that. But it would be interesting to know about the proportion of wages now and then. But I can put it in terms of pocket money.... I'd have needed 5 weeks saving 100% of it in 1960 to buy an annual membership. Do 9 year old kids today get 75/5=$15 a week? Maybe they do?

Yes, and we did in the 1960's too.

Others may have better data, but I think I had a junior membership in the 1960's for $1 though my memory isn't great. With the multitude of packages these days it's a bit unclear, but I think that is the same as a $71 junior membership now. Using the well-known dim-sim inflation index, I reckon that the cost is about double now*. Having paid a fortune for 5 to attend last year's QB match, I reckon it's worse for adults, but I don't have the figures. * This site would say that the value of a $1 in 1960 is $15 now whereas I assumed about $30-40. That would imply it costs 6 times as much now. Of course there are other factors over such a long period of change. https://www.in2013dollars.com/australia/inflation/1960?amount=1 (I agree that food and beverage is avoidable.)

Maybe, but surely he will only become interested in footy by the footy itself, not by some videos concerning players etc., however cool. I'm an old fogie, but I reckon going to the footy and playing it when young is what makes a footy fan. Pity the cost of going to the footy is now so huge in these modern professional commercial days.

He is playing for Southern District Crocs (what a name) in the NTFL. I accidentally saw the last quarter of a game on SBS's NITV last week and there he was vs the Wanderers I think. His team won by a lot but did not score a single point in the last quarter so didn't see much of him.