La Dee-vina Comedia

Not that it matters, but Marty Hore is in your list twice...with the same % win. Seeing this list really makes me feel for Nathan Jones. Playing might seem "easy" for players like Jordon, Rivers and Jackson, but Jones really did it tough and the fact that he stuck with us throughout those terrible years should never be forgotten.

Not only that, we get commensurate value. We might quibble that any player is worth a bit more or a bit less (depending if we're trading in or out) but essentially there's a market rate which we get (or pay) for any player.

Really good question. Just keeping it close to home, does it happen in NRL, for example?

I know Casey is urban fringe and others have told me that Broadmeadows is apparently a long way north of the CBD, but I don't think that means we necessarily need to engage the National Farmers Warehouse.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Jackson smile once or even twice. I'm convinced he's staying.

Was that before or after people mis-spelt words like "definately"? A word about Jackson. (Takes a deep breath)...he's not that good yet. Rarely holds marks and isn't a great kick, although has reasonable ground skills. However, he shows more promise than probably any other ruckman I've seen at the same age. Certainly more than Naitanui, for example. Losing him for a week or two shouldn't be a huge problem. I would like to see Weideman play. However, the club might want to try the ridiculous Richmond approach of having a small player assist Gawn as nominal second ruck. It didn't work previously with Harmes, but I could see Melksham being given that role. In which case, a smaller player such as Sparrow or Chandler might come in. To be clear, though, my choice is Weideman for Jackson and no other changes (unless there's a Mystery Injury of the Week). [Edit: This post aged well. In the time it took to write, Goodwin has apparently confirmed Weideman to play.]

I know it's been argued that Jackson is a ruckman and midfielder and therefore two players in one. But I don't think the AFL will allow us to replace him with two other players.

I'd be in favour of the AFL awarding North Melbourne Nick Daicos. Gives North a supposed gun...and annoys Collingwood supporters at the same time. Win-win for everybody else.

I agree. But the real value is that it provides the formal mental start to the weekend's football. The fact that there is this announcement, whether people get it via TV, radio, online, social media, etc has the effect of being the starter's pistol getting the weekend of football off and running.

I doubt we'd be able to train once a week on the MCG during cricket season. But I'd like it if we could during the football season.

Before we assume complacency or laziness (as stated by others), perhaps we should consider that Fritsch might have been unwell, may have been injured early in the game, came up against a player better than him, played his role which allowed McDonald to kick 4 and Brown 3 or just had an off night.

I've been trying to work out why the delay to Round 10. Possible reasons might be: something to do with commitments to broadcast partners? something to do with commitments to sponsors? Steve Hocking has to sign off on the decision, can't find his pen and the next delivery of pens is not until the week before Round 10?

And that would exclude James Jordon who doesn't know what it's like to lose but has only played eight games.

It seems to me the longer Weideman stays out of the team, the more his reputation is enhanced. I don't think the data supports the thesis that Weideman would necessarily be better than Melksham. According to Footywire, in 2020 (all averages, except for number of games): Games: Melksham 17 - Weideman 13 Disposals: M 9.4 - W 7.7 Marks: M 2.9 - W 3.1 Goals: M 0.9 - W 1.5 Goal Assists: M 0.6 - W 0.4 Score Involvements: M 3.5 - W 3.6 Tackles: M 1.4 - W 0.5 Tackles inside 50: M 0.5 - W 0.4 Contested possessions: M 3.8 - W 3.6 Contested marks: M 0.2 - W 1.3 Clangers: M 2.5 - W 1.2 Clearances: M 0.7 - W 0.1 I've been selective, but tried to identify the stats that might matter most for the roles they play. If you want to see the full comparison go to https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=12&playerStatus2=A&tid2=12&type=A&pid1=3323&pid2=4171&fid1=P&fopt1=2020&fid2=P&fopt2=2020 Frankly, I see no obvious reason to pick one over the other based purely on these stats.

Not sure about the veracity of this data. Where's Essendon in 2000, for example? Should be somewhere in the first column.

I understand your point. However, I think one of the blights on the game is inconsistent interpretations by umpires. I don't blame the umpires, though. I blame the AFL for having complicated rules. It would be much simpler if a free kick was paid for incorrect disposal if a player has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot. That would mean a free kick would be paid to the tackler if the ball is not disposed of at all, if it is knocked free in the tackle or if it is dropped by the player.

These are full-time professional footballers who play a game for about 2 and a half hours, once per week. The rest of the week - the remaining, say, 35 hours of nominal work should be sufficient to give them any rest that they need. If a player is carrying an injury, that's a different thing. Not playing for that reason is because the player is injured, not because they need a "rest".

I saw this happen many times on Saturday night. It was so often I wondered whether the Sydney team is coached to do so. I don't understand why the rules allow for a ball knocked out in a tackle to be called play on. Wouldn't it be simpler for all concerned (and expecially for the umpires) if a ball knocked out in the tackle is an incorrect disposal, just as dropping the ball when tackled should be?

Hawkins wasn't swinging his arms about causing mayhem, though. Rather, Hawkins' arm swung around in the momentum of the tackle. What you are referring to is more like what Gaff did to Andrew Brayshaw. And that wasn't OK. The point about what May did was that he chose to bump and it has been clear for some years now that if a player chooses to bump and an accident happens with the bump connecting with the head, accident or not, the player who chose to bump is guilty. End of story.

Yes, it was. Hawkins was swinging his arm as he was being tackled and accidentally hit May in the head. May chose to bump Franklin and the elbow ended up hitting Franklin on the chin. It's because May chose to bump that makes it so different from the Hawkins incident. I accept Franklin was hit by May's elbow. However, Franklin's over-reaction (or delayed reaction) should also have been scrutinised for staging.

I disagree with most here. It's been made clear to everyone that if you choose to bump, you wear the consequences, if there is a bump to the head, even if it's an accident. May should not have raised his arm to bump Franklin in the first place. It's just a dumb action (given the rules) and could have resulted in a more significant injury (hence the reason for the rules). What I don't understand is the statement that it's a "first offence". Really? Are we talking about the same May who has been suspended many times? Does this mean every player gets a "first offence" for every separate type of infringement? Wow.

No chance, unfortunately. He could play like he did on Saturday every week and wouldn't get close. Umpires are unable to award more than a paltry number of votes to players who don't start in the centre circle for most of the game.

Josh Kelly. Same year as Hunt and Salem.

I'm confident the Saturday night commentators are fulfilling what the program producers want. Evidence is Brian Taylor's transformation when he shifted from Saturday night to Friday night calling duties. On Saturday night it was all blokey forced humour (using that word loosely). On Fridays, he's much more committed to calling the game straight. Also, special comments providers need to come with use by dates. Any commentator who has been out of the game 10 years or more has lost touch with the way the game is played and as a consequence, doesn't really add much. That's why Jimmy Bartel, Jobe Watson, Luke Hodge and Daisy Pearce impress me; and why Matthew Richardson, Wayne Carey and so many others do not.

Sorry @Nasher. I was trying to make two separate points, although they are obviously related. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you and everyone else who watches games on TV automatically descends into numptiness.