La Dee-vina Comedia

Wasn't there a Freo game recently where Cam McCarthy kicked the winning goal with just a few seconds remaining? Or am I confusing two different games?

And, conversely, didn't I read somewhere that one club's players (was it West Coast?) have got their isolation training regime wrong and a number of players have sustained soft tissue injuries?

Actually, I can. Just think of the delayed finish to 2020 as a replacement for the 2021 pre-season and dump the pre-season competition formally known (for a short while) as JLT. While I fully expect a whole raft of significant changes to the administration of football with perhaps some changes to the way the game is played (such as numbers on the bench or even on the field), one thing that I suspect the AFL will want to retain is the 22 week competition. In my view, it's not just about the needing to satisfy its media rights deal but also about convincing the community the product is the same. And will also stop encroachment of other sports and recrational activities into the AFL's winter window.

Yep. I was one of those kids.

Never would have picked this as the reason we haven't won a premiership since 1964. I thought it was because we weren't good enough.

And then there are AFL footballers who share names with other well known Aussies such as Paul Kelly. (1) Swans footballer; (2) Deputy Chief Medical Officer; (3) singer-songwriter; (4) political jornalist. At least, I assume they are all different people.

We should have done this with the Febey twins. Play one in the first half and then play the other one in the second half.

It may be a financial necessity, though. Pre-Covid-19 I can understand the concept of players not in the seniors and not injured playing a game each weekend to maintain match fitness and get more practice. However, we may have to get used to the idea that non-playing members will be just that in any given week. They'll train with the team during the week, but won't have a game to play on the weekend. Do I like the idea? No. But it might be the only financially viable way to go.

The last six #11s are all ruckmen (admittedly, Mitch Clark was more a forward than ruck). Is it accepted club "policy" that #11 is now reserved for a ruckman? Or is it just that the ruckmen who followed Jim Stynes want to wear his number if the opportunity arises? Or is it nothing more than coincidence? 1988 – 1998 Jim Stynes (No. 37, 1987) 2001 Troy Simmonds (No. 46, 1999 – 2000) 2002 - 2004 Darren Jolly (No. 41, 2001) 2005-2010 Paul Johnson 2012-2013 Mitch Clark 2015 - Max Gawn (No. 38, 2011 - 2014)

Interesting thread. I like that Paul Salmon is your "best example" which suggests you've either forgotten about Gary Ablett Jr and Eddie Betts or you don't think of them as "good examples". Trent Croad is another "good example" because he played in a Premiership on his return to Hawthorn.

Why is it arrogance? If the AFL season is to recommence in 2020, adequate warning needs to be given to clubs, players, umpires, venues, media partners and everyone else with a role to play. I fully expect any announcement would come with a qualifier that it's based on various assumptions and if circumstances change, the AFL reserves the right to delay once more. But arrogance? I don't see it. I just see careful planning and management.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

Good thing you didn't go with "best interstate player drafted by Melbourne". That would have been Darren Jaman.

Agree with both points above. In addition, when we last had a 12 team competition, the population of Australia was 16 million. It is now 25.5 million - a 60% increase. In the same time, the number of clubs has increased by only 50% . In raw numbers the talent pool hasn't diminished. What has happened, though, is that there are more options for potential players to choose from, some of which pay much more handsomely than being a professional AFL player.

I don't know enough about the economics of the VFL to know whether it can survive as a standalone competition. My best guess would be that it would have been struggling before the Covid-19 induced economic downturn and will therefore be in real trouble from now on. What I don't like is the way it's structured as a mish-mash of a competition. It's neither one thing or the other. It's part AFL reserves and part independent competition, which leads to conflicting outcomes and expectations. The standalone clubs want to win; the AFL-linked clubs want to use it as a tool to rest, educate and bring players back from injury. Add to that a playing schedule which seems to have byes all over the place and it's not really serving a purpose that suits anyone. While I would rather a standalone reserves competition, I can't see that happening now either, given the economic circumstances which will put pressure on list numbers. My prediction is that the AFL will formally separate from the VFL in the next year or two and the VFL will live or die on its own merits.

You'll need to think this through. The moment someone remembers a player, they've effectively disqualified themselves from winning the quiz because they've just proven that the player was not forgotten.

If the players have a beer in one hand and the goanna oil in the other, how do they pick up the ball? (It's OK, I know what you mean and share your purist view)

While the number of players required to go back 120+ years is amazing, there is a gap where Hardeman wasn't with the club for a while. And I suspect during WW2 Jack Mueller might have been missing whle on active duty. I guess that's not much different, though, from a player missing a season or two through injury.

Firstly, I wish the rules had been changed so players with long-term concussion weren't delisted but put on some sort of temporary long-term injury list. That is, they still stay conected with their club but they don't count as a number for list purposes. That being said, when AFL returns in 2021 it's going to look very different. With expectations of reduced list sizes, I can't see why we would wish to add a perenially injured player to our list.

My football philosophy for the last 30 odd years is to think the opposite of whatever Mick Malthouse says. Sure, he's coached a few teams to Premierships in that time, but I've been immensely happier ignoring his curmudgeonly commentary.

Arcane trivia question which I need help answering. A radio commentator well past his prime (maybe Barassi?) got distracted one day while calling a Melbourne game in the 90s. He asked whether there had ever been another team with five players with a zed in their surname all playing in the same game as were playing in this game. My question is, who were they? I assume Neitz, Schwartz, Yze and Bizzell. Who have I forgotten?

All guesses: 1. Allan Jakovich 2. Jack Watts 3. Froggy Crompton Good quiz, by the way.

Wasn't he part of some deal involving Gasper? I vaguely recall some amusing connection.

Greg Parke was so obscure in the late 60s/early 70s that they couldn't even spell his name correctly on the bubblegum card. (Was not really obscure at all. Wonderful contested mark. Less said about the kicking, the better).

Memory plays tricks, but I would have the same top four in the same order. All players have off days, but I seem to recall more disappointing games from Neitz than the other two.