La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

Seems right. I think he's on very good terms with himself.

Someone invoked a mercy rule. Lowest scoring game in over 20 years.

Just out of curiosity, why is the average length of games in 2018 given and not 2019? There's quite a disparity between the shortest and longest games. I assume the low scoring, particularly the low number of goals, is the main reason for our game and the Richmond/Collingwood game being so short.

Maybe. Although I think both words equally apply.

We seem to specialise in trading homonyms.

McDonald-Tipingwutu says 'Hi'

Obvious? Why ANB and not Jones?

Not that it matters, but that's an odd number (excuse the pun) of "quarters" (should I say, thirds?). Particularly if the wind was blowing consistently one way. I'm just glad the players had an opportunity for something a bit more than traditional training although somewhat less than real match practice.

The problem with watching on TV has always been knowing what role each player has. For example, was Jones completely out of form or did he do his job by dragging a dangerous Carlton player away from the ball? If he was out of form, he's on very thin ice. Conversely, it's clear that Joel Smith needs a lot more experience...but the only way to get that is for him to keep playing. As Essendon plays a small forward line, I can't see a place for Oscar McDonald anyway, so I think it becomes a question of whether Smith gets replaced with a smaller defender such as Hibberd or Lockhart. At the other end, should Weideman come in, and if so, for Jackson or someone else? Finally, Pickett missed through stupidity. But who should he replace? Is it time for Jones to go (but see above)? Assuming no injuries, I suspect there will be minimal changes, with only Weideman and Pickett possible additions for Jackson and Jones.

Late, but... 6. Gawn 5. Oliver 4. Petracca 3. Salem 2. May 1. Langdon

Not sure that Brayshaw plays his best football as an "outside" player.

Sort of thinking it's time to close this thread. I'm not saying it doesn't address important issues but it doesn't seem to belong in a Melbourne Demons thread (even though it started with discussion about a former Melbourne player) or, for that matter, to be going anywhere at all.