La Dee-vina Comedia

Until I hear otherwise, I'll assume Weideman isn't playing because his ankle isn't 100%

A quick google search tells me that the Marylebone Cricket Club was founded in 1787. I don't think we can claim to be the world's oldest sporting club. Oldest football club? Possibly Oldest professional sporting club? Possibly

Perhaps the club meant to say "oldest football club" rather than "oldest sporting club"

So, just on this statement, doesn't this mean the Melbourne Cricket Club is 20 years older than the Melbourne Football Club? And surely the Marylebone Cricket Club is older still.

In an email last night, the club made the following statement: But is this correct? I thought there had been discussion about this on Demonland previously where it was suggested that we might be the third-oldest still functioning sporting club with one of the English soccer clubs (Sheffield?) being the oldest. I wouldn't expect the club to knowingly misrepresent the facts...but on the other hand, we know that everyone in the AFL can be economical with the truth when it suits. Is the club correct?

Interesting. I don't know what the average crowds were back then, but I wonder whether the Spanish Flu pandemic which was about in 1919 had anything to do with the low number?

Emergencies for when we're Running on Empty.

You're more of a masochist than I thought! 5 weeks of the BBC World Service. True, it's great for 30 minutes, then they just keep repeating the same stories, over and over. Bit like some Demonland posters, actually.

I assume one of Hore and Lockhart will play as the seventh dewfender, depending on whether we need a mid-sized or small defender. With Bedford and pickett already announced, that would seem to leave a fight between Weideman, Brown and Jackson for the final tall foward spot, probably in that order, subject to Weideman's ankle being OK. That would leave Brown, Jackson, Sparrow and either Hore or Lockhart as the real emergencies.

While I haven't actually seen any information that the millenials are the ones who don't have the attention span for a longer game, I suspect you are correct. And it's not just AFL. Cricket has the same problem, hence the emphasis on shorter formats of the game.

Actually, before the Covid-19 issues arose, TV networks were asking for shorter games and shorter breaks because the broadcasts were too long to hold people's attention. Therefore, I doubt the broadcasters are going to complain about shorter matches. Fewer matches, though, might be more problematic. I sense lots of work for lawyers in the next months or years interpreting 'Force Majeur' clauses in various contracts.

I disagree. I think social disruption caused by individuals being unemployed, underemployed, socially isolated and restricted from going about their normal daily affairs may lead to various negative consequences varying from mental health issues to marauding gangs going on a rampage just for something to do. People need to be kept occupied and entertained. If the AFL can help by entertaining people, it should do so. If it's forced to stop because Covid-19 affects players or officials, they should stop. But while eveyone is healthy, let them play. Not only will it entertain people, it still provides work for people in various industries, including media, transport, stadium management, healthcare, etc, albeit at a far lower level than we would all like.

If this draft proceeds, I'd suggest looking at Billy Stretch and Jay Kennedy-Harris, if they've maintained their interest and fitness levels. The 50 player lists essentially means more depth and they are the epitome of depth players.

In recent years, games have been 20 minutes plus time on and that has led to quarters being about 30-32 minutes each (sometimes longer). I suspect at 16.5 plus time on, quarters will run to about 25-27 minutes in real time, which is not hugely different to how it used to be in the 60s and 70s. The 16.5 minute quarters appears to be a measure to allow teams to play more games with fewer days breaks in between. Similarly, the expansion of lists to 50 players (which I've seen reported but not officially stated - can anyone confirm?) is said to be for this reason, too.

Any reasons given for the change in time? I'm just curious.

In what way that it actually matters? It can muck up footy tipping competitions and planning for what to do on the weekend (or Thursday night), but what am I missing? How are fans affected?

There is one big difference. We already know there will be no spectators at the AFL games, so the decision directly affects fewer people. Sure, we would all like to know, but really the timing of the decision only affects the teams playing tomorrow, plus necessary officials and the AFL's "media partners".

Social distancing is not the same thing as workplace distancing. That's not a flippant comment. There are still plenty of people who are working in close contact with others. (And a big shout-out to all the healthcare and aged care workers still doing their jobs. And to anyone else who has to work in close confinement with others.)

What is the nab League? Is that the name of the under-18s competition?

I believe it's to allow shorter breaks between games should it be necessary to "cram" more games into a smaller timeframe. It's consistent with the other idea which I've seen media claim is a done deal although I haven't seen anything official, that allows or requires clubs to extend their lists to 50 players. I am surprised at the amount of cynicism in this thread. We are in very unusual times and the various measures being announced or talked about all deserve consideration. Some might be good ideas and others not so much, but at least the AFL is trying to keep the competition going. I know some (like SWYL) think it's crazy to play a contact sport. The alternative view is that society needs to be entertained at a time like this, and AFL games, albeit with no crowds, is one way of doing that.

With so few people flying, it might not even be necessary. We might end up with a plane to ourselves as the default position anyway.

It's not often that our game not having any international interest can be to our advantage. But having no teams in the competition from outside Australia helps keep the 2020 competition a possibility. With travel bans in place it is obviously much harder, or even impossible, for those competitions which have teams in different countries. While I understand the view of some that we shouldn't be playing at all, I can also see that as a society we need entertainment, particularly activities that can be consumed at home. If it is safe for the AFL to play (and I appreciate it's a big 'if' and that it's a very changeable landscape), I think they're doing the community a service by continuing to play.

If there are not enough games played to have a meaningful ladder for 2020, one option might be to use the 2019 ladder positions. Another, though, might be to take the last 5 years to smooth out the impact of a single year's results. I don't believe there is a perfect solution, whichever way it goes. And if the AFL asks clubs to draft now to boost lists to 50 players, maybe there won't be an end of year draft at all as clubs will likely have to shed about 6 players each before contemplating any new additions.

If there's no state league, no school football and no Under-18s, should make for an interesting draft. Players will be drafted based on 2019 performances.

I've been unsuccessfully trying to self-isolate from this thread but somehow I keep getting sucked back into it. My weakness, I know. Now I'm going to try again. See you all again in other threads.