La Dee-vina Comedia

While the changes look good on the basis of individual talent, I'm trying to work out who replaces Tomlinson on the wing. I assume Jetta and O McDonald will seamlessly replace the roles played by Rivers and Smith respectively. Arguably, Weideman is a tall replacing a smaller forward in Hunt, although one could equally argue that Bennell is Hunt's replacement. Either way, Weideman comes in for a small or smallish forward. It seems unlikely that Bennell will have the fitness base to play on the wing. Ditto vandenBerg and probably Hannan. The seems to leave Melksham, Harmes or one of the midfielders such as Brayshaw to take Tomlinson's role. Or maybe I'm overthinking it and as listed, vandenBerg plays wing with others helping out when he needs a break.

This is an excellent post. However, I disagree with the comment "it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around". It sometimes may be, but not always. Depends on the character (ego) of the person who missed out as much as the competence of the person who is appointed CEO. I've worked in many organisations where people who applied for the top job missed out but just got on with business with no rancour. I can't say whether Mahoney should or should not have left or been moved on; that can only be known by Mahoney himself and the people within the club.

Nevertheless, the President has said he believes we might be able to survive independently without becoming beholden to the AFL. That's a positive sign. I assume Pert should be given some credit for us being in this situation. https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/06/30/demons-may-not-need-afl-assistance-after-all-but-they-need-supporters-to-dig/

Having read the article I'm a bit doubtful about the statistical underpinning of the data being used. It's based on 9 kicks by Oliver and 11 by Gawn (or maybe the other way round). Yes, the numbers show a worrying trend and, yes, we can all see that Oliver's kicking (and handpassing) is rushed and often either misses a target or finds a team-mate under pressure. However, purely on the numbers, they are really just being used to confirm what we can see. Classic confirmation bias.

From the context, I assume you use the expression "gun for hire" as a negative expression. But wasn't Peter Jackson the perfect example of a "gun for hire"? It's not like Jackson applied for the job or took it to further his AFL administrative ambitions. I'm also not sure why "Boring as" is mentioned. Being "boring", or the opposite, would seem irrelevant to the role.

Unlikely, I would have thought. The 6.05 pm slot provides Foxtel/Kayo with an exclusive product which I can't imagine them being prepared to forego. Foxtel have been crying out for better games and now they have a Melbourne game they must be over the moon with excitement.

Look, I know they're playing badly, but I don't think this punishment is warranted or helpful.

I'll reserve my concern for airline pilots, surgeons and people who deal with explosives rather than footballers. On point, it's also quite possible that there's a quid pro quo here. While footballers with newborns may struggle in the early days after a baby is born, their football might benefit later from having a more secure and stable home life.

Lots of men who get paid "a hell of a lot of money" take time off when a baby is born. I think it needs to be pointed out that the last half of your final sentence does not reconcile with the comment mid-way through it that "you fully support" that players might want to be with their families.

You're welcome. And while on this theme, the collective noun for Demons is apparently a "legion of Demons". I might be wrong, but I think the correct collective noun for Demonland contributors is a "misery of Demonlanders".

They must also be concerned about the possibilty of list size reductions, as has been discussed as part of the leaner, post-2020 AFL, and the impact that might have on their own careers .

Might want to change "Injury List" to something else that can include those not in NSW as they are automatically unavailable. I note Matt Rowell is described as a "superstar" after only 5 games. I doubt anyone thinks that's an inappropriate description.

I'd like to think that whatever those reasons are, they were explained to each player individually in a conversation with one or more of the coaches, preferably including Goodwin.

As a protest because Dan is an Essendon supporter?

We could have used the Israeli Defence Forces?

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.