Little Goffy

Ok, so I can now conclude you genuinely didn't understand my response. Always a comfort. Hoarding distorts the market, reduces production, creates an artificial shortage and inflates prices overall, not just for the specific sale involved. It is absolutely not a victimless crime. By seriously, if such things as social contract, meaningful regulation, non-exploitation of vulnerable people and so on are all so troubling to you, you're quite welcome to move to Kentucky and vote for Gary Johnson. Things are really rocking in the appalachias, I hear, pretty much your dream come to life. Please, go, and stop sponging off the good life created by other people's commitment to coherent civilisation.

Are the AFL just keeping it a surprise, or do the umpires have to book through Ticketek?

The hype about Melbourne has reached the point where I am getting nervous again. About 5 days ago I was downright placid in my confidence, but now... there's a veritable geyser of bathwater.

Somehow I'm as tired of Richmond winning premierships after one, as I was of Geelong winning them after 3. Strange that I've grown to really dislike Geelong only in the time since they became zombies - marching on into finals every year but not really alive. Entitled, arrogant, sooky, soft-cheating zombies. Hawthorn I've never much liked, the only thing better than beating them next week would be beating them in the grand final. Y'know, for all that, I think I've joined the 'don't much care, just bring 'em on' crowd.

Lol, I'm guessing your not an economist. Buying something to specifically withhold it and create a shortage, and then exploiting the crisis prices, is historically the greatest scourge on the market system and is directly responsible for a variety of financial crises and even of famines multiplying in scale. Come to think of it, I'm guessing you're neither an economist nor Irish. In this particular instance, you have a simple situation where the withholding of tickets in a context of already tight supply is inflating prices far beyond affordability for a 'reasonable' consumer. In turn, the actual provider of the product (the MCG) is being denied the revenue from their product because there are fewer seats actually filled and thus fewer people making ancilliary purchases (overpriced food and drinks). As the crowd also contributes to the value of the product (you don't go to games to experience the fabulous plastic seats) the actual value of the product is diminished. Every single person and business affected by the scalper's behaviour is disadvantaged. It is the embodiment of 'market failure' and one of the few areas where even the most rigid of free-market flag-wavers will sternly bring out the red tape for fear of, you know, total collapse of the system, or at the least riots.

Deliberately drink too many of a variety of incompatible drinks so I get a mighty hangover the next day, so that every hangover for the rest of my life reminds me of the moment, easing the pain. Because I know how to plan ahead. Nah, I'll probably just enjoy a few deep breaths and a smile.

Carlton, surely?

What really pisses me off is that those prices are set with no expectation of actually selling them all. Sell 5 at 500 and toss 5 in the bin, still better than selling all 10 at 200. Derty precks.

Proverbially. I believe there was a baby involved.

Anywhere suitable in Sydney? The pub around the corner is alright but might have a bit too much of a 'normal' friday night crowd. Would want to have at least a few proper football people around. Even Geelong supporters to point and laugh at. Will be taking the lovely person who often struggles to watch games because she feels like it is her fault if we're doing badly, and also the impending father-in-law who is visiting, speaks barely a word of English, but 'gets' AFL and sure as all bleep knows how to get into the spirit of it. The pure joy of not being able to understand a word of what Bruce or BT are on about, I am truly jealous. But seriously, any recommendations for inner-west or CBD Sydney?

If there was a way to go digging through these last twelve years, surely a collection of Martin Flanagan's various articles about us, as a club and as fans, would be the best option? Only writer I've ever felt was describing a Melbourne Demons I recognise.

People keep offering our club nice big cups of bathwater...

Uh, ok. Keep an eye on the antichrist for me, cheers. Evil espirit de corpses?

Really they should be interviewing Mark Thompson's drug trafficker mates. Big Meh all around from me, anyway.

I am very confident I will never quite understand why this post quotes my silly little aside or even why it is in this thread. Truly bewildering.

Well, espirit de corps sure beats l'eau de baigner.

I really dislike glib slogans. Always goes back to 'Never stop never stopping" for me. Fun little video though.

Oooh, adding to the bottom-6 Hall of Fame, Nathan Carrol's tackle on Fraser Gehrig, the single most important moment the last time we won a final. By coincidence I found the Demonland match report when I was looking for video of the incident.

I actually agree with your general point but it did remind me of something my brain dug up from the archives. And since the topic is the 'importance of the bottom 6', well, is there any better case for it than the great, the only, the unique, Simon Godfrey. 2006 Demons with Simon Godfrey - 10 wins 1 draw 5 losses 2006 Demons without Simon Godfrey - 3 wins 3 losses. Come to think of it, any chance Demonland can bring him in for a podcast. Maybe ask him if he ever forgave Robertson for stealing the 3 votes in his epic game against Richmond that year, and any tips for tagging Ablett, who happens to be the only player still active from the 2005 final.

Wait a moment... If the MVP is the most overrated award, how come Taylor Walker didn't win it?

2004 Josh Mahoney! (kind of our very own, or is now, anyway)

I think in the end the strength of the 'bottom 6 importance' case is that it necessarily includes the whole team. Not so much an argument of 'these specific six players must do well' as it is about looking at the contribution that can be expected of any player in the 22. Illustrated by the debates in this thread about who is in that bottom six. Fritsch, Vandenberg, O.Mc. I would reckon that when our bottom six becomes full of players that can be debated about as having too many merits or playing their roles too well to be considered bottom six, we'll be laughing all the way to the trophy cabinet!

Correction: Carlton would have been romping their way through finals if the top FIVE were what mattered. Also, I've seen some silly arguments in my time but to argue that the best 6 are what matters by listing the best 6 and noting that they are the best 6 is taki g circular reasoning to an impressive level. Is it enough to point out that the best 6 at Richmond has been much the same since almost as far back as Terry Wallace times?

Let's call it the Stephen Armstrong Principle. Your 'bottom six' don't have to be great players but they need to play their part effectively and not be leaving slack which your top players have to pick up. If your best six won finals, Carlton would've been romping it home for a decade.

The main thing I'm taking from this is that we have a lot of genuine quality players who fill their role really well. That and it gives the list a whole new look to have a few of the absolute top bracket players. I wonder where we'd slot in some of the players from our previous 2004-5-6 finals? Not sure many would make it in, which is kind of exciting.