La Dee-vina Comedia

I've always thought Rattan was a good coach. He had already done well at Carlton before he was ignominiously dismissed , and then had the advantage of honing his skills under Clarkson. St Kilda has made a judicious choice.

If I understand the process correctly, we only need one more mircale and we'll turn into the Saints.

Should there be a bye round, I wonder whether Melbourne might play Essendon in that week? If so, I presume that game would be played in one of the interstate hubs.

Hate to argue with you Demonland, but he is wrong. For someone who's job is to read the news, I'm surprised he hasn't picked up on the point that the players and officials he's talking about are subject to stricter contact controls and mandatory testing twice a week. That's what makes them "special".

At full forward, of course. (For those who remember the Hawthorn graffiti in the 1970s).

Of course they would. But I doubt Bartlett would have said anything about onfield performance other than bland comments that would have added nothing. Hence, Whately's approach of asking him questions to which Bartlett could give interesting answers.

More likely, Whately realised that any questions about onfield performance would have been played with a mundane, straight bat which would have added nothing to the conversation. Far better to ask questions on topics that would at least have a chance of getting interesting answers.

OK, fair enough. I have a different view in that I can see how alcohol and gambling can be enjoyable and harmless, although I accept not for everybody, whereas I believe the bad far outweighs the good with respect to firearms and tobacco (apart from a few exceptions such as firearms used by law enforcement, farmers, military). And just for the record, I don't drink much, I don't gamble and just in case my wife reads this, I don't use brothels, either.

Haven't heard that expression before. I rather like it. I wouldn't mind the double of a Covid vaccine and a flag in 2020. What a topsy-turvy year that would be!

Usually I find we are on similar wavelengths on many topics, but today I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. But I'll leave it there as I don't think the rest of Demonland needs this conversation extended.

Yep. Unlike many on here, I wouldn't have objected to betting, either. Very comfortable with that position as well as being strongly against any firearms and tobacco sponsorship. The difference is that firearms and tobacco lead more directly to illness/injury and death. Alcohol and betting sometimes do, but most times do not. I also wouldn't be in favour of sponsorship by a legal brothel, either (or, obviously, any illegal ones.) That position is more about what image the club projects, rather than any moral objection I have to prostitution.

Do you think you would still feel that way if we won this year's flag?. It's easy now to say that us winning won't happen. (It's been easy almost every year since 1964 to say that it won't happen.) But if you really mean it, you have to say now that you would feel that way even of we win the flag. My view is the opposite. I think this year's flag will be the one that will be the hardest to win, whoever wins it. They (or we) will have overcome the most disrupted schedule with the most complicated set of training and living rules, at least since the end of World War II. It will be a victory worth savouring.

Quite right. Because he was already in quarantine, the suspension wasn't "visible".

I think the club has stated that it won't take sports betting (or any betting) sponsorship from hereon. I think they might get a payment from the Responsible Gambling Foundation as part of that decision. And I'm very happy for the club not to have any firearms or tobacco sponsorship.

Didn't know anything about this brand but Google tells me they're from the Adelaide Hills. It's quite impressive to grab a sponsor from under the noses of the two Adelaide-based clubs. Well done.

Did McKenna actually do anything wrong? I thought I read that he was cleared of any breaches of the AFL Covid protocols. If I'm mistaken, then of course Robinson should equally be critical of McKenna.

Good news that we're not in as much financial trouble as we might have been. At the same time, though, we should spare a thought for the staff who have lost their jobs during the process. When the President says the club has "taken costs out", cut I expect most of that will be jobs. The club has done the right thing, but we need to remember the human costs involved, too.

Interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure, though, whether I would class playing footy as a "privilege". I see it as being no different to any other career opportunity that someone might be good at.

9 to go? We've played 3 of 17 (more if we make finals), although I accept that the season may yet be shortened.

Things are getting really tough now. We're told scores weren't kept and Geelong still won the game. Presumably on the basis of a coin toss or rock, paper scissors.

Would visiting clubs, such as two Victorian clubs, be able to play each other halfway through the 14 day quarantine period? I appreciate that for the average visitor, quarantine might mean complete isolation, but i could see that it might be different under the protocols the AFL would be putting in place with the health officials in those places.

This is a very good post, but one qualifier needs to be added. Nurses can do their job for 40 years and so can teachers. The best professional footballers might get 15 years (and a few exceptional ones a little longer). Most will have a playing career far shorter than that. Once they've finished playing football, there are far fewer jobs within football to continue with gainful employment in the same industry and many will not have an obvious career path to follow in retirement. In addition, many will finish with chronic injuries and pain. Yes, they choose it as their career, but I think we should be mindful of these additional matters before we criticise what they earn.

I feel even more sorry for his wife.

Actually, over half a century. I remember going to the football in the late 60s and 70s and being embarrassed not just by our poor performances but by the complete lack of passion among our sparse numbers of supporters. I seem to recall we didn't even have a cheer squad in those days. At least if we're winning some of the key stats it means we have something worth watching, including the knowledge that we might be able to convert that into a win. It's not that long ago we didn't even have that to enjoy. I'm not trying to disparage the guy, but in the Neeld years, most games were over by quarter time with no chance of us ever getting back into them.

Generally agree with your summation of the others, although I think the question of whether T McDonald is a full forward or centre half forward no longer matters in today's game. Hannan looks good when he is near the ball, but he just doesn't get near it often enough. I'm not basing that comment on the Geelong game. His history has shown that he can be good but only in frustratingly short patches. Harmes is best on ball. I suspect Rivers wasn't expected to be ready as soon as he was and that the Match Committee recognised before the rest of us that Hibberd and Jetta might not "get back to their best" so were looking for options. Rivers may not play all year, but with him, Lockhart, Hibberd, Jetta and Salem to choose from (I'm not expecting Josh Wagner to play any significant part unless we get injuries), perhaps Harmes will stay midfield. There's one additional reason why Harmes should remain in the midfield. He seems to me to be the best two-way runner of that group. If you have the chance to watch the replay of the Geelong game, watch closely how poorly Oliver responds when he has to run back hard. It's the part of the game that he has to work harder on.