La Dee-vina Comedia

I agree with you. In addition, the players keep asking for shorter game time. One way to do that would be to eliminate the pre-season matches and any other non-intraclub practice matches. If that was done, other options become possible such as starting the season proper a week earlier and adding in an extra bye (as much as I detest them...I can appreciate the need) and have a longer break between the end of one season and the beginning of pre-season training. I'm sure the coaches would complain, but every team would still be starting the season off the same base.

Fair enough. I apologise.

Surely we all now know that "starting on the bench" means nothing. But I agree about managing his time which may be why only one of the Jackson, Pickett or Rivers plays round 1. It might put too much load on the rest of the team if they have to take up the balance of minutes not being played by the newbies

I see the problem when players have irregular timing of payments (ie, front loaded or back loaded, etc). But if the AFL averaged total payments over the length of the contract, irrespective of the payment schedule, would this particular issue go away? On the other hand, would it increase other problems such as limiting club flexibility?

Why?

Does Demonland have a resident mathematician? While those percentage chances are based on actual events, I'm not sure that the cause and effect holds true. In other words, just because the longish term average gives those results, I don't believe it necessarily has to hold true. What is an undeniable mathematical fact is that to play finals team have to have more wins (or sometimes percantage) than the team that finishes ninth. Where those wins and losses come from shouldn't make a difference. A team could win the first 13 games and lose the rest or lose the first nine and win the remaining 13 and end up in exactly the same position on the ladder.

if we're going to have a leadership group, I'm not sure the best model would have three defenders (four if Harmes plays in defence and is chosen to join the group) and no-one forward of centre. That being said, I'm a strong believer in (1) having a single captain, vice-captain and deputy vice captain and that's it and (2) choosing captains for their off-field capabilties as much or even more than their on-field leadership.

Sloppy "journalism". Right now, it's quite correct that our opposition are the favourites, but if we beat WCE in Round 1 and GWS loses their first game to Geelong, we could well start favourites. To write definitively that the opposition "will start as favourites" is just silly and asking to be criticised.

All the best for your big day, Jaded. And good luck with the recovery from your surgery. Your occasional diversions into your private life is my favourite non-Demons part of Demonland.

Explains all this low cloud in Melbourne

I'm not even sure which foot would be under more stress in a kicking action. The one that kicks the ball or the one that's planted firmly in the ground with all the body weight going through it?

I can only assume you accidentally left off Premiership Medal

I understand why you say WTF, but why the exclamation marks? Women's Terrific Footy is a great name without the unnecessary punctuation.

Actually, I think there's nuance to this issue that needs considering. Is AFL (1) the name of the organisation which has Gil as its CEO and that runs all football, including men's, women's and children's competitions? (2) the type of football played which used to be known as Australian Rules Football? (3) The competition played by men? Given the correct answer is "all of the above", I think there is a problem about what 'AFL' means. Personally, I'd be happy with the administrative body being called 'AFL', the game being called 'Australian Rules Football' and the men's competition being AFLM, just as the women's is AFLW.

I'll take other's word for Petracca's body shape having changed, but before we laud Burgess and demonise Misson, maybe the bulk (unintended pun) of the scrutiny might be better placed with Petracca himself.

Or vice versa, depending on what we want to achieve with each game.

True. And, of course, many of these players may have been "half-European" on their mother's side.

I guess that's one way to deal with his ball drop problem. Just not the way I expected.

And Joe Rugolo, too.

I'm surpised that there were apparently only 49 players on the list. I thought lists numbering in the 40s was a more modern trend. Even more surprising is the number of names I don't recognise. Who was Wayne Barclay, Peter McCarty, Dale Lawrence, Peter Ryan, Cameron Smith, etc? The other perhaps less surprising matter is the heavy weighting towards Anglo-Irish names. I haven't compared it with today's list, but I suspect these days it's a much more diverse group with Italians (Petracca), indigenous players (Jetta and others) and other European backgrounds (Kolodjashnij, Fristch, Vandenberg, etc).

1. Barassi 2. Flower Big, big gap 3. Maybe Norm Smith? To be fair to anybody who played before the 1970s, I only have a vague memory of those who played in the second half of the 60s and really have to guess on the capabilities of anyone I didn't see. If it's players I have seen (at their prime, so that excludes Barassi), it is Flower by the length of the Flemington Straight, then probably a toss up between Neitz, Stynes and Lyon. (Max Gawn and Clayton Oliver may surpass all three by the time their careers conclude.)

I would be disappointed if they didn't. It's their job to monitor all forms of media

I wonder if this policy applies for the season proper, particularly for any game that might be played in, say, China.

Was Josh Mahoney sitting on Max's knee when he made this statement?

In the 1960s, the competition wasn't professional so (in real terms) player payments were substantially less. Ground facilities were much poorer, too, with most grounds having very little seating. On balance, I suspect the value for money proposition (again, in real terms) is today substantially better than it was in the 1960s. I also suspect (but would be happy to be proved wrong if the evidence is there) that the proportion of wages spent on attending football was less in the 1960s than it is today. What might make football seem to be relatively expensive is that society today has many more expenses overall so paying for attending football appears to be more painful. Or, to be more pithy and as the late Terry Jones might have said in an appropriate voice, "Luxury".