La Dee-vina Comedia

I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall someone from the club saying that they had a budget to work within (not sure if internally set or determined by the AFL) and that the club decided to use some of it on families instead of the players left behind. I'll see if I can find any evidence to support my (admittedly dodgy) memory.

Before saying it's "another poor decision by the club", let's think why that was done. Some possible reasons (stated with no evidence, just brainstorming ideas): there's a limited budget and the club can't afford to take everyone related to the above, within the budget allocated, the club wanted some of the players with young families (such as Jack Viney with a newborn) to be able to bring their families with them, so diverted dollars for this purpose the players left behind won't play any senior games in the next 5 weeks anyway with no possibility of any seconds matches while in a hub, the players left behind may be better managed with "intensive coaching" in Melbourne the players who won't play a game might have been considered to be disruptive (through boredom, for example) the money saved by leaving a few players behind might allow the club to keep some other people (coaching or admin staff) employed etc

Who knew? Apparently there is a collective known for a group of butchers. It's a goring of butchers. I'm not sure why, but having read this thread, that name somehow seems appropriate.

I think you're on to something. I would have thought a gameplan which is "penultimately" good would mean it's the second best plan. In a match with two teams it would mean we are destined to finish second every time. Explains where we are on the ladder.

This. Allegedly Daniher's motivation to move to Sydney is to leave the Melbourne bubble (somewhat ironic at the moment). I can't see him being interested in moving to another Melbourne-based team. He might as well stay at Essendon, which is what I still think will happen.

Sounds like some form of Japanese cuisine

I'm of the view that we did the right thing, but that's because I have the same opinion of anything David King says as Mick Malthouse says. That is, I always disagree with them. Also, we'd be in much worse shape if our defence hadn't done as well as it has in the last few games.

It is entirely illogical to suggest that the AFL is somehow punishing Melbourne. The AFL needs Melbourne not just to survive, but to thrive. The alternatives for the AFL are much, much worse. I know that there is a view that the AFL wants to find a way to introduce a team in Tasmania, but Melbourne disappearing is far more harmful to the AFL than the addition of a new team in Tassie. (On the other hand, if I were a North Melbourne supporter, I'd continue to be very nervous about my team's future in Victoria.)

I've always been of the view that every club, from 1st to 18th, should conduct a review at the end of each season anyway. What matters is who does the review and what mandate they are given. In some years it can be internal, in others it should be external. It's important that clubs neither rest on their laurels or assume that the path they have been following - whether it's rebuilding, wholesale change, changing coaches or "topping up" - is the right path. At the end of this season (assuming we end up somewhere down the bottom) I'd be of the view that the review should be wholly external to allow tough decisions to be made on the structure and personnel of the whole club from the CEO down. I stress that I am not saying that any specific inividual should be moved on. We may have the right people but the wrong structure; alternatively, we may have made some poor personnel choices. A proper independent, external review has the best chance of finding this out.

Weideman's photo is in today's paper (The Age) showing him as part of the squad. (Actually, it shows him kissing his partner goodbye). So he's one of the additions. The other way to look at this is that those who have been left behind must be a fair way behind. Whether that's because of injury or form, probably doesn't matter. The point is, their papers had effectively already been stamped for the next 5 weeks. For those who haven't been injured, that's got to be a strong hint they won't be around in 2021 when it appears that list numbers will be reduced.

Glad I didn't open this thread until today (Monday). If I'd opened it yesterday I would have been miserable and despondent sucked into the vortex of another gloomy Sunday. Or worse, this Gloomy Sunday I would hope the club responds in two ways. First, the current coach and team have to recognise where the deficiencies are and try to do something about it. Secondly , because I suspect the current coach and team won't be able to do the above (because they've been trying for 18 months without success), I hope the club commits to one of those "root and branch reviews" that look at all aspects of the club's performance and adjusts accordingly. It doesn't necessarily mean Goodwin has to be replaced. It also doesn't guarantee his job is safe, either. But one simple question that could be looked at is this. Is there a correlation between the high number of inside 50s, the low conversion rate into scores and the lack of an identified forwards coach? (Or do we have a forwards coach but refrain from naming him on the club's list of coaches on our website?)

That's exactly why I gave him votes. We lack players who can create damage on the outside. Salem is one who can do that, so it's better when he's not "in and under". What I don't fully understand is why he is given a lock-down role as a HBF at the same time that he appears to be needed as the receiver.

I noticed Richmond players regularly holding up play after marks and free kicks. (I suspect most teams do this, not just Richmond. We may possibly have done the same yesterday but watching as a one eyed supporter I tend to miss when we infringe.) If the AFL clamped down on these obvious delaying tactics by handing out 50 metre penalties all the time it would do two things. It would stop it from happening and it would help with the flow of the game because the delays are obviously strategic to allow the team without the ball to run back and block space. Seems to me to be an easy way to help "fix" the game.

If I'm Simon Goodwin, I'm worrying about 21 other players before I worry about Gawn's game.

6. Gawn 5. Hibberd 4. Petracca 3. May 2. Salem 1. Fritsch (Hannan needs to do more than a few flashy cameos to get votes from me. But I am pleased to at least see those occasional sparks from him.)

I expect to get a more truthful response on Demonland than anything the club might publicly provide (and I'm fine with that). The only problem is that the truthful Demonland response might still be less accurate than the possibly untruthful, official response!

I think they've bought a Turing Tumble to make the fixture.

I thought that would be the answer. But the obvious follow up question is if we are playing a zone, doesn't that mean every player becomes an intercept player? If the answer to my follow-up question is that we play a mix of zone and man-on-man, frankly, that doesn't make sense.

A serious question for everyone who claims Lever should play as an "intercept defender". Doesn't that leave the opposition with a free forward? In other words, doesn't every defender have to be accountable for a forward?

Ditto Mark Thompson and Mick Malthouse at Collingwood. And Alistair Clarkson, too.

I hope things have improved... https://junkee.com/coogee-bay-poo-mystery/179190

Unfortunately, it seems most if not all coaches seem to susbcribe to the idea that stopping the other side from kicking goals is number 1. I wish you were right. Football would be in a much better state if you were. It is interesting to note that in soccer, your goal (meaning where the team scores, not the team's aim) is the one you defend; in AFL, your goal is the one you attack. It would be a shame if AFL ever changed so a team's "goal" becomes the defensive one.

Hawthorn and Essendon have been tipped to head to the Gold Coast, though it’s unclear whether they will go to Sydney first - a 14-day quarantine period would be required if they head straight to Queensland. Melbourne, St Kilda and North Melbourne have all been linked to New South Wales, with several areas including Manly, Coogee and Wollongong named as potential hub locations, though Olympic Park is a strong option. That leaves just Carlton and Richmond with their new homes unclear. That means our catch-up game vs Ess won't happen for at least a month. I wonder whether the 14 day quarantine starts when a team arrives in Queensland or leaves Victoria. If it's the latter, Essendon could go to Sydney first to play us and then play in Queensland the following week.

Goodwin's biggest problem was letting Jack Watts go thereby allowing the status of whipping boy to be transferred to himself.

"By the powers vested in me by no-one in particular, I hereby announce that Willmoy is not allowed to enjoy, celebrate or otherwise have any warm inner glow should the Melbourne Football Club win the 2020 Premiership." Same goes for all the others saying this season should be dumped or doesn't count for anything. In fact, someone should put together a list of all those who have said so. Might make for an interesting read later in the year. Mind you, I don't expect us to win the flag this year, but whoever does absolutely will have earned it.