La Dee-vina Comedia

The AFL has always been able to justify games in exotic locations (China, New Zealand) by talking about how much value in dollar terms they got out of the exposure. If they believe the exposure in Queensland would be worth more than $50 million, (or $35 million if it's just about the GF), or, more correctly if they can find some figures that justify arguing that it's $50/35 million worth of exposure, that would make Brisbane the easy choice.

I wondered at the time, and still do, whether Melksham's poor kick was actually a well thought through strategy to keep the ball low because of the wind but one he poorly executed. The converse was Fritsch's floater which looked terrific until it swung sideways.

A lifetime's experience tells me that whenever you have a choice between a conspiracy or a [censored]-up, choose the [censored]-up every time. I don't think the AFL is clever enough to organise this conspiracy. It is, however, perfectly capable of this type of mistake. (As an aside, lots of AFL staff got the chop yesterday. I wonder how close Steven Hocking was to the Gil-otine blade? Seems to me there's a lot in his job description that isn't going the way that it should.) Edit: for "censored" read "rooster", or at least the derivative or nickname often used inoffensively as in "Coq au Vin" (Let's see if that passes the officious auto-censor. I had used a zero instead of the letter o, but that didn't work)

I suspect the main driver about this change is to save money. I assume the extra costs of flying plus, presumably, accommodation, are offset by other savings. Maybe there will be a significant reduction in the number of teams to be fielded across the four states/territories.

Good Lord! Olivier. I know Clarry has been accused of acting, but this is going too far! Good to see so many defenders getting votes in a game in which Goodwin complained about the lack of defensive effort. I assume he was talking about the mids and forwards more than the defenders. At least the back half did their job. I agree that May, Lever, Tomlinson and Salem should all be in the votes. And I struggle to identify two others from the other 18 players on the ground.

Questions any club would have to ask: Can he play to the same standard as when he first started his career? Is his head in the right place? If not, will it improve if he comes to us? Is his body OK, in particular his troublesome foot? If not, will it improve if he comes to us? What will list sizes be in 2021 and beyond? Does that limit the number of "project players" (if he's considered to be a project player) that the club can have on their list? Could we use him or do we have his position adequately filled? Will his asking price fit comfortably within the salary cap? Is he worth the remuneration he asks for? Could his pay packet end up causing other players to be aggrieved or even force them to leave to create space? If so, who would he effectively replace on the list? Would we want to lose that player? With this year's draft compromised by lots of father/sons and academy players combined with a lack of junior football because of Covid, is he a better prospect at the price to be paid (in draft picks) than what may be available in the draft? Given none of us know the answers to any of the above, how can anyone say they think Melbourne should pursue him or not?

You're not going to like the incontinence hotline, either. Every time I call they say "Please hold".

Do you mean that you would delay paying or not be a member at all? I don't understand the former - if you always intend to re-join, why delay just because of a loss? If the latter, it just doesn't strike me as being something I would expect from someone as passionate as you obviously are. I understand the use of the word "donation", but to me being a member is irrelevant to winning and losing. Do I want us to win? Of course. But my membership is about belonging, not whether we are a winner or not.

Is he wearing any shorts?

Not sure we can allow your opinion to count. It's almost a post which should be deleted by the moderators on the grounds of offensive taste.

As a matter of interest, did the MRO make any comment on the incident? As a matter of course, I think the MRO (or someone working for him) should look at every incident which causes a concussion. There are two reasons to do so. One is that the AFL should be looking at all instances of concussion to see what happened and whether any changes are needed to game rules, umpiring, game style, instructions to clubs, etc to protect players. Secondly, if they looked at every incident, there would be no accusations of players being unfairly treated should some incidents be looked at and others not. In this instance, I would be in doubt that vandenBerg would be cleared of any wrongdoing.

I hope you're right, because if that were to be true, that would make him better than Ronald Dale Barassi. Given you could argue that wingmen today are also considered to be midfielders, that would make him better than Flower, too, and probably a whole heap of others. Flower is my favourite of all time. I would be surprised if anyone who saw him play doesn't claim Flower as their favourite, unless they're old enough to remember Barassi and a few other players of the late 50s and early 60s. Today's team? I have a soft spot for Salem. I like his silky style.

You might have gone a little early. If Gawn and Preuss (and Jackson) are unavailable this week, Brown might come in so that Tom McDonald can play as the ruckman with some backup from Weideman.

You mean you can't see the similarity between the two of you? Absolute doppleganger.

There's probably been some research done somewhere, but whether it's coaching, being CEO of a company or leading a country (or hosting a daytime TV show. Hello Ellen), I suspect you can get away with authoritarianism while you're successful. For everyone else, it probably doesn't work. And similarly, I suspect it doesn't work once you cease to be successful.

I thought Twitter and the dark web were the home of conspiracies. I was wrong. This thread has them covered.

In the RSN story accessed through the link it includes this line, “Not only did he text Brodie after the game, but he also bought Brody’s partner a bottle of wine and wrote a nice letter.” Just because it's an online story doesn't mean basic checking shouldn't be done. Couldn't they at least find out how to spell his name and do so correctly rather than having a bob each way? And well done to AVB for his actions and Taylor Adams for bringing it to the public's knowledge.

Thanks @Demonised. This is a very interesting article. I can't imagine any political party here proposing such a system because of their fear of the mainstream media owned by wealthy families who, one would expect, would oppose such a scheme. However, the AFL doesn't have to worry about that and could easily introduce something similar with respect to the size of fines it chooses to impose on players whether it's for on-field or off-field indiscretions.

I think J Wagner has a good feel for the game and I don't question his toughness or willingness to get his hands dirty at all. I just think he lacks pace. In the role that he has, he needs to be quicker or the forwards he will be playing on will run rings around him.

It was told to me by a "friend of a friend" of a current AFL player that there are two types of coaches. One who demands players adhere to his expectations. If you don't, you're out. That's the Mick Malthouse style and that of his adherents (Mark Neeld, Scott Watters and perhaps others). The other style is the coach who works to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each player and works to try and eliminate those players' weaknesses. That's the Paul Roos style. I suspect today's players are more suited to the Roos approach.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressive". I abhor any sort of violence on field. I don't even like the unnecessary pushing and shoving and certainly anything more than that, such as punching or hitting should be stopped. The easiest way to stop it is to suspend perpetrators. Fines will have no effect.

Maybe the system has to change again. Why not separate the decision on guilt from the determination of penalty? It would be like a jury deciding whether a person is guilty while the judge imposes the sentence. I sometimes wonder under the current model as to whether the preferred penalty is determined first with the decision which is meant to lead up to the penalty "retrofitted" to suit the preferred outcome. Separating the process of determining guilt from the penalty might overcome any such concern.

An even simpler fix would be to get rid of fines altogether and replace them with suspensions. I would keep fines for umpire contact, melees and perhaps some other categories, though. Just abolish fines as a penalty for any offence involving violence such as punching, kicking, spitting, biting, head butting, etc.

One of the codes (is it the NRL?) fines players a proportion of their pay. In that way, imposing fines is equitable. Mind you inequitable fines is a feature of society. Whether it's a parking fine or failing to wear a mask in Victoria, fines don't vary based on an individual's income. Part of the reason for that will be the difficulty in calculating a person's income without getting into the issues associated with tax returns and privacy. However, given the salary cap, the AFL must know exactly what each player is earning which would make it quite simple to calculate.

I don't like Monday or Thursday nigt games, unless the following day is a public holiday. I would, however, enjoy regular Sunday night football, whether the next day is a public holiday or not.