La Dee-vina Comedia

If we'd scored another 26 points we'd have a percenatge of 100 and taken Hawthorn's place in the eight. It's just so typical that we can't get the job done.

JC's had about 2,000 pre-seasons to get it right. I doubt either McDonald or Weideman will succeed if they are the only tall forward. I'd like to see them play together. It still might not work, but I think there's a much better chance of success if they are sharing the load. After all, Tom played his best football forward when he was the second tall. Now he's the only tall, and it becomes a different game for him altogether. Mind you, if he gets his body right, Petty might overtake both of them and in the not too distant future it might be a Petty/Jackson tall forward combination.

Do they? Is that the agreed protocol? I'm only asking because the testing regime is so much more rigorous for AFL players and, presumably, officials who mix with them, than what applies to the rest of society.

I don't understand the point. Wouldn't mixing up the team potentially make it worse as it would enable a more widespread distribution of the virus should it somehow get into the club?

That's true. On the other hand, the public could take the opposite view. I'm not sure Hawthorn, Port Adelaide or Collingwood get public sentiment on their side because their President's speak out. I'll half agree with you on this one. In this particular instance, I don't think it's the President's job. Rather, that's what I expect the CEO to do. I would expect the President to speak out on more significant and strategic issues, such as big picture funding matters, mergers, club identity questions, etc. I expect the CEO to discuss operational matters. I realise this particular matter is something we've not seen before, but all said and done, it's still just an operational matter.

Not arguing, but just asking. Why does it have to be in public?

One for the trivia buffs. In the history of the game, has there ever been a team selected, not played and then had changes made to it before the next game? On a serious note, if that happens, it will need a bit of careful ego management for any player who might be omitted this week. I know clubs have to trim their off-field costs, but under the current circumstances I hope our club, and all clubs, are still investing appropriately in player welfare.

I don't know if they do or they don't. But I also know that standing up for our club doesn't have to be done in public view.

Typical. AFL requires both our teams to wear away strips!

Is "paranoia" the correct word to describe this post? Assuming the AFL changes from Premiership points to percentage of games won (to accommodate what will have become the abandoned game) I would say we should have won both our games by sufficient margins and been on top of the ladder.

I expect Jackson to play for two reasons. Firstly, Goodwin has consistently (although not in every instance) given debutants two weeks rather than one before being dropped. Secondly, and more importantly, we need insurance in case Gawn or McDonald are injured during the game. Of the 26 selected Jackson is the only player that has the height to be able to help out. I also wouldn't be selecting a team anticipating wet weather. The forecast is for less than 1 mm of rain with only a 60% chance of any actually falling.

Good work, Picket. Much appreciated. And I see you've adopted Kevin Bartlett's radio commentary style where we know something is happening but not always involving whom.

This thread would be so much more interesting, and probably with some very different opinions, if Norwood had joined the AFL instead of Port and wanted to wear their original jumper.

Forgive me, MFM, as I mean this in jest, but i can't ignore the delicious irony... you're not

Were you using your ostrich quill pen at the time?

And I assume it's one of the skills coaches need to have. I expect "old school" coaches (and I have one recently retired coach in mind) might have pushed some players with a "blame" approach and in the olden days it might have worked. Today, however, attitudes have changed and I would expect a coach apportioning "blame" to a particular player would find that the technique just wouldn't be beneficial for most players.

The whole "Collingwood exceptionalism" attitude personified by Eddie McGuire is irritating. However, having read the article, if Port signed a contract which specifically limited the wearing to a single instance as Eddie claims, then I can understand why he is now upset. As much as I would actually like PA to be able to wear their prison bar outfit in Showdowns, I would rather the principles of an agreed contract be adhered to than let a petition persuade the AFL to break the agreement. That would be weak administration. (Of course, what's claimed in the article may not be true in which case my view of the outcome might be different).

As an aside, I wonder how Fritsch would have felt post-game if we hadn't won? As supporters we get emotionally invested in the result and I assume most (all?) players do, too. If we had lost that game I could imagine Bailey taking it very hard. It's no wonder professional sports people are prone to depression given they must sometimes feel they have the equivalent of the weight of the world on their shoulders brought on by supporter as well as club and teammate expectations. I should probably keep this in mind after we lose our next game and before I consider who to blame.

I think you are saying we shouldn't play him if it's wet because he doesn't have a solid body. But wouldn't his skill be exactly what would be needed in wet and slippery conditions? While it is universally accepted that wet weather football brings down the overall skill level, my view is that the more highly skilled players are less badly affected than the players who's skill level is not as high.

Fair answer. While Hunt may not have been correct, I'll assume on face value that he is and therefore I'm satisfied we have an empirical source. I am not having a go at the TV networks when I say this, but there is such a big difference in understanding the game (and for me, that means enjoing it) when watching it live at the ground compared with on TV. Sure, I think the TV networks could do a significantly better job, but I also understand that there are constraints they have to work within. Having said that, let me reiterate what I've pleaded for before. Please give us more wide screen shots and fewer close ups. I don't need to be able to decipher the players' tatts, admire their muscle definition and blanche at their spittle. I'd rather see the structure of the game.

I know that used to be the plan before the 6-6-6 rule when we had a forward running off the half-back line for every centre bounce. I didn't like it then because when we got the ball we were outnumbered in the forward line so the tactic appeaed doomed from the outset. If we're still doing something similar, I didn't pick that up on the weekend. And if we are, I still don't like it.

"To do so he dropped a player back" - But did he? How do we know that? It wasn't possible to see that on the TV broadcast and I don't recall any of the Fox commentators mentioning it. Was it mentioned on a radio broadcast or by the coaches in their press conferences later? I'd just like to find the empirical source of the claim that Carlton played with one behind the ball before accepting it as a given. "Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck" - The problem here is that when Jackson went into the ruck for the first time towards the end of Q1 there was an immediate momentum shift towards Carlton. I suspect that's why Jackson did little work in the ruck during the game. It's quite possible that if he were given more time in the ruck, the results for us would have been worse. I accept, however, that if he's in the team, he would appear to be the best option to give Max assistance. Thankfully with 16 minute quarters Max should be able to ruck most of the day without assistance.

I'm not sure how many "high risk, high reward" cases clubs should be taking, especially if list sizes diminish. But if the Bennell deal provides the high rewards we hope for - and so far, so good - it might help people understand the KK strategy better.

I agree. But if he's going to go under the name of "Pinball Wizard" he's going to have to expect people are going to think he's a deaf, dumb, and blind kid.

I think we could help him at selection by playing another true KPF. Against Carlton he had to do all the heavy lifting in that regard. Against Hooker and Hurley, it becomes even more important that he's given more support. (Unless it rains a lot...which is forecast.) On that basis, I think Weideman or Brown (preferably the former) comes in at the expense of (maybe) Jackson.