La Dee-vina Comedia

I wonder how much Match Committee thought the drop off against Carlton was brought about by having too many "new" players playing at once. Bringing Pickett in would make that worse unless a "new" player goes out. Of the newbies, it's hard to make a case that Bennell should stay in ahead of Jackson (for structure reasons) and Rivers (performance and position)

And Hibberd

Do Demons even have skins?

"Pretty basic stuff" but only if you have one or more forwards who can actually take a mark, of course.

It's not just the players' fitness but also the defensive gameplans which can be pursued because of that fitness. I've come to the view that it might be time to abolish interchange and replace with up to four substitutes. It would require a new level of strategic thinking at both Match Committee and on game day. I expect the coaches and probably the players would be against it. But neither group is part of the paying audience which is really the only one who's opinion should matter.

It won't be Preuss. He's still on the injury list. And I don't think he's a forward option, anyway.

Who are you playing as a tall forward?

Can someone change the title of this topic? I thought the poor kid had passed away!

Swings and roundabouts. St Kilda has had the worst free-to-air TV exposure during the same period. Travis Auld from the AFL explained on SEN this morning that the early start allows Freo to return to Perth before midnight the same day which is important for future scheduling as the 14 day quarantine period would have gone an extra day if they arrived after midnight.

There are two big differences this year in the way we understand how our players are tracking. Firstly, we get virtually no training reports from Demonlanders. While our crew are not impartial and don't always agree with each other, they are more "honest" in their assessments than any club reports on training. Secondly, there is no seconds competition on which to measure a player's performance. Accordingly, any player might be pushing for selection and we wouldn't know it.

Just seen this. "The Feed" refers to the SBS Current Affairs program. Bad news for Collingwood, I would have thought, although the club will survive it.

Please don't make him any angrier

I should rephrase what I meant. The enforcement of the rules was different then. Players were able to get away with actions which today they would not, partly because of technology (more and better cameras today) and partly because of an attitude difference where thuggery was (comparatively) tolerated. All I'm saying is that if the rules in his playing day were enforced the way they were today, he would adapt and still likely be the best player of his generation.

I assume you appreciate that AFL players are already required to operate under a much more stringent set of rules than the rest of us. That includes greater restrictions on social contact as well as twice weekly testing. That's why different decisions can be made about how long an individual might have to isolate.

You really think Matthews wouldn't have modified the way he played if he had been required to do so? Apart from the flaws you refer to, I think he's the best player I've ever seen (excluding those for whom I only saw the tail ends of their careers, such as Whitten, Polly Farmer, Barassi, Skilton etc). I think with that talent, he would have changed the way he approached the game to ensure he could continue to play. Mal Brown I'm not so sure. I suspect his VFL career was very brief, in part, because he couldn't change.

I think he'd get a game. He'd just have to play differently. And while I'm not defending his approach, he was doing what he was allowed to do by the rules in place at the time. The administration of the game then was more problematic than the actions of any individual. That's both in relation to the physical as well as psychological aspects of the game (using the word "psychological" possibly incorrectly, but attempting to address things like racial abuse.)

I don't see any problem. Once the club has accepted an organisation as a sponsor, it has an oblilgation to support the sponsor. We also have McDonald's, Furphy, The Sporting Globe and Coca-Cola as partners. I'm sure there will be some who might object to them being promoted by the club. The time to decide is before the sponsorship is accepted. I don't think you can pick and choose which ones to promote and which not afterwards.

Unlikely I would have thought (unless there is absolutely no alternative) as it affects all sorts of things including betting markets on products such as the Brownlow Medal, trigger points in player contracts, etc.

I expect the next story to be criticism that the investigation is not external or independent. And that would be a fair criticism. I can't even see how Collingwood can see how this can play out well for them. If the review finds Collingwood's behaviour has been racist, the club will be criticised and, if that's the case, deservedly so. If the review claims Collingwood's behaviour has not been racist, it will be described as a cover-up and Lumumba will still be aggrieved.

Why? By the time Essendon plays Carlton on the weekend the level of risk of an Essendon player having caught Covid-19 and not having been diagnosed is significantly reduced compared with tomorrow. I can't see why the whole competition needs to be closed down.

I'm pleased we're not playing tomorrow. Irrespective of the DHHS decision that only Jimmy Stewart is deemed to be a close conatct, I think there is still a level of risk that another Essendon player might have contracted the infection which has not yet shown up in the testing progam. The longer our players stay away from that risk, the better.

What does "technically" mean?

So, now we know who the second one was who rode with Jimmy Stewart.

I initially misread, or, at least, misunderstood Ralph's tweet and somehow thought that every person in Australia was at risk of getting Covid-19 from McKenna, either directly or indirectly. Just goes to show how conditioned I've become during this time to subconsciously thinking the worst.

Of course, knowing our luck, the repalcements Essendon might be forced to use might turn into superstars once they get into the side so we end up facing a stronger rather than weaker team. By the way, I don't agree with your premise. It's a difficult enough year as it is. Let's just let the best players play, whoever they play for. I don't know how I'd feel about beating a sub-standard team if they had better players available, anyway. How would that really benefit us? So we get four points but get away with sub-standard football in doing so? Or worse. We lose and become the competition's embarrasment. Again.