La Dee-vina Comedia

As a matter of interest, do supporters of the NRL feel the same way about their competition and its administrators as so many Demonlanders obviously do? (Disclosure: I don't agree with most of the comments in this thread. I've always believed that if it's a choice between a [censored]-up or a conspiracy, go with a [censored]-up every time.) Edit: In case it's not obvious, the censored word is an alternative to "rooster".

And I'll miss you. Picket, your training threads - and all training threads - are great value.

Let me divine the future for you. Expect to see the following positive posts over the next few months: I'm/he's/they're fitter than I've/he's/they're ever been before I've/he's/they've not missed a session/ missed a beat (on draft night) He comes from a quality family (on draft night) We got everything we wanted

Whether he mentioned 'tough love' or not, the better question is whether 'tough love' would work? Gone are the days when players would do everything a coach asked without question, even if that question was internalised and never stated out loud. That's the coaching style of yesteryear and was highly successful for John Kennedy, Denis Pagan, Mick Malthouse and others. Today's generation of players (and that generation generally) have different expectations as to how they should be treated. I suspect the handling of Clayton Oliver needs to be very different to that of Angus Brayshaw which would be different again from Steven May. It's been said before, but a good coach understand the game; a great coach also understands his players.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to deactivate your Demonland account.

It must be something about this game and team that we love that people who I assume are in fine mental health suddenly exhibit extraordinary paranoia when discussing football issues. Whether it's discussing free kicks, umpiring, the MRO/Tribunal, the AFL media, or the fixture I am consistently amazed at how many posters seem to believe that somehow the MFC and its players are victims of bias and/or corruption. I can't decide which threads exhibit the most paranoia. What say the rest of you?

Very interesting article. Watts deserves credit for recognising his own failings rather than trying to blame others for the mistakes he admits he has made. I'm not sure if he would ever have made it, even if he was with the power clubs at the time such as Geelong or Hawthorn. However, it's clear that the Melbourne he found himself in was clearly the wrong club for him. (As a side note, as interesting as the article is, it could do with some significant editing. There's a lot of repetition there. Nevertheless, it's still a good read.)

Andrew Dillon has a clear opportunity to forge his own path as AFL CEO here. As he builds up his footy operations team under Laura Kane he should be instructing her to be bold with all aspects of the game itself, including the rules, umpiring and the MRO/Tribunal/Appeal processes. And he needs to act quickly. If he leaves it too long, he'll be accused of being reactionary rather than progressive.

Absolutely agree with everything said here, even point number 4 which clearly has nothing in it which is factually incorrect.

I've stopped watching non-Melbourne games but simply because there is too much football on TV. Thursday nights has tipped me over the edge.

It's not quite the same, but Essendon in 2000 was so upset by not getting into the GF in 1999, that they went through the whole 2000 season where they won 21 out of 22 home and away games (and the pre-season competition which they also won) without once singing the theme song after a win. In the team's view, winning a H&A game was not good enough. They didn't consider themselves to be winners until they won the Premiership, which, of course, they did.

Conversely, for every Dylan Grimes (and Nick Daicos, Travis Cloke, etc), there are plenty of younger brothers who aren't as successful as their older siblings. A couple of ours that come to mind are Tom Flower and Brian Stynes.

Seems likely. Similarly, Gresham is said to be on $800,000 in his first two years. It's all because of the AFL's herbs and spices compensation formula. Apparently, only the pay for the first two years of the contract, rather than the average of the contract, is used by the AFL to calculate the compensation picks. Hence, restricted free agents who move get ridiculously high payments in their first two years to "help satisfy" the club who loses the player, thereby encouraging that club not to match the bid.

Even if a club chose to draft him, it doesn't mean he would agree to play with them. He might choose to retire instead. It's similar to the Greenwood situation in that he would only be drafted if he and that club had already agreed to contract terms.

We're only "exploiting" the rookie list because it's called a "rookie list". If it was called a supplementary list, no-one would blink an eyelid. For what it's worth, I like the original idea of having a rookie list for young players only (eg, under the age of, say, 21) or for what's now classified as Category B.

Was Collingwood's "Do Better" report solely about indigenous issues or did it address other matters such as misogyny?

How does it affect the soft cap? I thought the soft cap related to expenditure, not revenue. Do you mean that depending on where we spend it, it could affect the soft cap? If so, surely there are ways to make use of it without the soft cap being affected?

I think getting on a third AFL list will qualify him for the honorific title of "journeyman". And a hearty round of congratulations, too.

Media struggle at the best of times to multi-task. I suspect at the moment most of their AFL resources (ie, reporters and producers) are on leave because it's the AFL "off-season". As such, they may only be able to cover one AFL story per day. And the Collingwood premiership cup engraving story would have been planned in advance to make it easy for the media to cover.

No "probably" about it. Playing AFL and then suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as a senior coach requires a steely resolve.

Actually, from a scientific point of view, viscosity measures how thick something is in the water.

Can someone remind me why Moniz-Wakefield is category B? Is he from another sport? Born overseas? Something else?

Beautiful ambiguity. I can't work out whether you're saying that others on here are not draft gurus but think they are or whether you're of the view that you consider others to be draft gurus while admitting that you are not.

Not really. McKay adds physical size which Zerk-Thatcher doesn't have. Nor does any other Essendon defender. It's a significant upgrade. I can't understand the Gresham pick, though. Doesn't seem to fill a need. Essendon already has plenty of smaller midfielders and small forwards.

Do we have another list spot freed up if a player is banned (see Joel Smith thread)?