La Dee-vina Comedia

The CEO of Marvel Stadium was just interviewed on SEN. He said the most extraordinary thing I can't recall ever being said by an AFL employee before. He said they got it wrong. To be fair, he's trying to ensure that everyone feels safe at the footy but he recognises that the security personnel behaviour was too intimidating. He said they're meant to be friendly and engaging with the crowd and if that's not happening, they've got the balance wrong. Good on him for admitting that what they're doing isn't working the way it's meant to. But also, good on him for recognising the importance of fans at the footy feeling safe and enjoying themselves.

If May plays on Hogan, I expect the result of that single contest will be simplistically viewed by some as a proxy as to whether we "won" or lost on those two trades.

I wonder what the people of Sardinia think of the AFL's rather cheesy position on maggots? Here's some food for thought (although be warned...if you have a delicate stomach, this might not be for you).

If it makes you feel any better, statistics prove that most premiership players are not sons of premiership players.

I don't disagree. I only said that IF one were to be retained, I'd keep Keilty over T Smith. If it were up to me, I wouldn't keep either.

Tim Smith might be ahead of him now, but Smith is already 28 and has only played 10 games. While I think neither will be kept, if I was keeping one, I would retain Keilty because I think he has more upside than Smith.

The AFL seems to have left open the option of abusing AFL HQ.

I like the way you've nonchalantly dropped in the last line. Without explanation, as if it's so obvious nothing more needs to be said.

I can't understand why May was on De Goey at all. It wasn't just being caught in transition. He matched up on him in the 6-6-6 formation - the one time when you can truly see who is playing on whom. I should add I don't agree with the earlier assertion that the Pies went through May as an identified weakness. Rather, I thought May played well. In fact, the defence as a whole did a terrific job.

I challenge anyone to understand free kicks given away in rucking contests.

First, Salem (although Monday performance was an aberration). Second, Melksham.

If Jones had played for almost any other team, or in almost any other era, he would have another 10-12 games just from playing in finals. He's been loyal and missed out on so much, but I can't justify playing him if his form doesn't warrant selection. Other great team players, such as Stynes and Yze found that even if you've played 250+ games, the end can come very, very quickly.

Who amongst us would have had Sam Frost in seventh position at this time of the year? Well done, Frosty. And great work from Marty Hore, too. On the other hand, it's symptomatic of our season that there are only two forwards (Melksham and Hunt) who have scores that are not in the truly embarrassing part of the Demonland ladder.

Last year many of his marks were uncontested because he'd got away from the defender; this year he's not holding marks because most of them are in contested situations. I assume that this means he's not getting separation from his opponent and I therefore presume that the problem is with his feet/ankles, more than his hands.

I think we've had some players in the past who might have watered into wine. Not sure they're the type of players we need, though.

Anything but. We've played all of the following this year who have played their first games for the club - Lockhart, Keilty, Preuss, Baker, Hore, C Wagner, Sparrow, Koladjashnij. Most (I think all but Hore?) have played wing or forward. In addition, inexperienced players such as T Smith, Kennedy-Harris, Spargo and Petty have had games and players such as May and Lever have played, but not often. With so much change it's hardly surprising that there is a lack of cohesion (to use Goddwin's favourite word this year). the only thing predictable is the result...and the poor kicking for goal.

On what basis can you say this about either CEO? (I realise you've said you "don't know about Pert" but clearly written in a negative form.)

There's good news in this. It would seem to suggest the defence (after a very rocky start to the year) and the midfield are at least getting the ball forward. Quality of that forward movement seems to be a problem which is surely easier to fix than teaching players how to actually get the ball in the first place.

It shouldn't need stating but Fritsch plays in the backline because we haven't anyone else. Against Adelaide, he started there because five of the nominal starting back seven (May, Lever, Hore, Jetta, Salem) were out injured/ill. Yesterday it was because Frost was concussed early. We should remember how valuable he is in that (1) he so far has not been unavailable due to injury and (2) he is a reasonable option to push back when necessary. I imagine both the Match Committee and Fritsch himself would rather that he play on the wing or forward, but needs have required that he play in defence.

Problem is, he should be taking leaps and bounds, not steps. He started well, but I felt went missing for long periods in the game.

6. Gawn 5. Harmes 4. Oliver 3. Brayshaw 2. May 1. Salem Salem would have been higher but for some inefficient disposal. Fritsch would have been in the votes but for the same reason. In some respects the whole back seven could have been considered for votes. How we were only 20 points down mid-way through the last quarter with such a putrid performance from the forwards was due to their excellent work.

Is Clayton Oliver working part-time as a barista?

Not sure I can agree with this line. How many members actually vote in football club board elections? While supporters are passionate at the ground I think they are generally extremely disengaged in anything beyond watching the game.

That can work if Fritsch moves to the forward line in place of Spargo and Hore takes Fritsch's position in the backline. Alternatively, Fritsch could go to the wing and JKH from the wing to the forward line.

In all seriousness, I think there is another related issue that needs to be resolved first. What is the name of the sport? Is it "Australian Rules Football"? or "Australian Football"? or simply "AFL"? In recent years there seems to have been a drift to calling it "AFL", but in so doing it becomes confused when referring to the sport itself in other circumstances. For example, does Casey, a VFL team, play AFL? What about the Essendon District Football League? or TAC cup (or whatever it's called now) or school footy? What game are they playing? Is it logical to play a game called by an abbreviation which means "Australian Football League" when the League is actually the administrative body? If I were at AFL HQ I'd want the question of product name resolved before worrying about a fresh, new logo.