La Dee-vina Comedia

Temporary measures have a habit of becoming permanent. Nevertheless, I'd take the money and run, whether it becomes permanent or not. Would I rather not have it? All things being equal, yes. But the world has changed and the economics of professional sport have to change with it. Added comment: We also have to consider the alternatives. If the choice is between this type of jumper sponsorship being allowed or membership and entry fees being increased, I'll take the uglier jumper, thanks. Not because of my personal circumstance, but because any increase is likely to reduce match day attendances and total membership numbers.

Twitter should start putting warnings on Herald Sun journalist tweets like it did yesterday on President Trump's.

I'll just assume Gawn, Salem and Viney lost some bets during lockdown and modified their hair (in Viney's case, facial hair) as punishment.

We might also need to undertake some welfare checks to ensure Saty, DeeSpencer, George on the Outer and all the others on whom we depend are OK.

I'm pretty sure Whitten Oval is open to the public. It was part of the deal whereby the State and Federal Governments agreed to provide funding. Other parts of that deal included providing space for Victoria University, a childcare centre and removing pokies from the old grandstand.

If we don't have a report from Saty, I'm not even sure that training has happened. How do we know these reports aren't made up, just like the moon landing?

Snap. I'd also argue that St Kilda with no free-to-air games in the first batch of 4 rounds is the biggest loser.

I think Cal Twomey needs to think this through a bit better. The logic of his article is that Melbourne is the biggest loser from the draw because we had the 3rd easiest fixture according to Champion Data's analysis. Now that every team plays each other team just once, the advantage of who you play twice is lost. Surely, however, if he wants to accept the Champion Data analysis (itself arguable), the team with the easiest draw (Fremantle) is the biggest loser.

I thought it was now 80 minutes + time on. It certainly used to be 25 minutes plus time on per quarter but I thought it was reduced to 20 minutes per quarter because time on is now more correctly applied resulting in longer games. I suspect this issue is actually a storm in a teacup with 16 minute quarters plus time on approximating the old total game time of approx 2 hours.

Hutchy is just envious. Not about Max's hair, but his height. If Hutchy had Max's height he would then be the perfect weight. Additional comment: I should disclose I have similar hair to Hutchy and am not the perfect weight for my height, either.

Reminds me of the argument used to try and justify keeping 8 ball overs in test cricket in Australia when England had 6 ball overs. The argument went that more wickets fell on the 7th or 8th ball of overs so therefore keeping 8 ball overs was justified. Argument was, as we now know, lost.

While I've obviously missed not having football to watch, I've also missed the regular threads throughout the season on Demonland, such as this one. Thanks WJ for bringing some normalcy back.

Just imagine how cold it would be standing there. I imagine the players would be itching for a run or some game play just to warm up. I still remember that game in the 1970s when the fog was so thick that players couldn't see what was going on at the other end of the ground. Someone here will remember it, but I think it was a Carlton v Fitzroy game.

Good question. Two possible answers: 1. Because shorter quarters were used in Round 1 and it keeps the game format the same for the whole season 2. Because at some time during the rest of the season there might be a need to schedule games with shorter turn-around times My own view is that I don't believe (1) above is relevant but (2) might be, although the game could be played "full length" now and shortened should the need arise.

On the other hand, like the work of an alchemist, premiership points do turn into ratings.

I haven't seen Sheedy's article, so I won't comment on what he said, but wasn't GWS established deliberately with a larger number of players which required them to "lose" some over time via trading, retirements and free agency? If so, the model effectively invited clubs to pursue GWS's excess players.

I've had a lifetime's experience of making sure I'm socially distant from any Richmond supporter.

Teams that don't have a will to win?

I don't discount the possibility that the AFL plans to reduce numbers on the bench in 2021 as a way of managing smaller list sizes as well as a tactic to try to prevent flooding. If that's the case, keeping the bench at four for the remainder of this season could be seen as an "increase" albeit over an unannounced future change. I'm all for reducing the bench. I have felt for sometime that the interchange bench with the current high cap on rotations is the primary cause of the crowded field.

This assumes that there is sufficient money available to pay people. That's what this whole debate is about. Also, I don't agree with your opening statement, unless you mean we cannot rely on volunteers by themselves. I don't have any figures, but I suspect a large proportion of the firefighting effort was undertaken by volunteers without whom the extent of damage would have been far greater.

You are quite right to point out that Cross was more than just the runner and I apologise to him for minimising his importance. At the personal level, it's a terrible time for all the coaching and ancillary staff who are losing their jobs or being required to work reduced hours. However, I wonder whether the AFL might actually be better overall with all the mooted changes which might force clubs to become more grass roots focussed. Clubs might return to relying more on volunteers and members like in the past before full professionalism took over.

It would be interesting to analyse the comments in this thread with those in the various "Would a Premiership Matter in 2020" threads to see who is saying the Premiership doesn't count this year while being profoundly concerned about finishing last.

I wonder if this means that the AFL plan to abolish match day runners altogether? I know many, if not all coaches, think they are essential. However, if I were running the new financially constrained model of the AFL, I think getting rid of runners would be an easier option than many other tougher decisions. I may be biased, though. I've been in favour of abolishing runners well before Covid-19.

Is it just me? I swear I read this the first time as if it had been said by Yoda.

How to start an argument: I accept that this team, plus or minus one or two players, is the best Melbourne side of the last 50 years. Unfortunately, I don't think it would beat any other team's best side of the last 50 years. And that includes GWS, Fremantle and possibly even Gold Coast.