Jump to content

La Dee-vina Comedia

Life Member
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by La Dee-vina Comedia

  1. 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.
  2. Please don't make him any angrier
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. What does "technically" mean?
  13. So, now we know who the second one was who rode with Jimmy Stewart.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. Not arguing, but just asking. Why does it have to be in public?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Typical. AFL requires both our teams to wear away strips!
  25. 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.