La Dee-vina Comedia

So does that forward line.

It's just come to me. Put a roof on top of the MCG and put turf on it. Right size, right orientation, right location.

What rubbish. You really need to get that chip removed from your shoulder.

What about during the off-season when cricket is played there? Admittedly, there appear to be fewer and fewer cricket matches there each year, but while there are cricket pitches in the middle of the ground, that's going to be a problem. Mind you, I've lost so much interest in cricket, if the powers that be are all in favour of the MFC having the MCG as its training base and moving cricket permanently elsewhere, I wouldn't object.

I admit to not knowing the difference between AI and machine learning, and I don't care to. All I really want to say is that if you're located in Canberra and working in AI...please tell me you don't mind people wondering whether you're doing something to improve our system of Government.

Players are tough and want to play. Melksham strikes me as being one of the toughest (I'm not sure why I think that.) Is it possible he wouldn't show he was in pain so as to get back onto the ground?

Gameday night matches.

For anyone too young to remember Flower, these figures are solid evidence that the bulk of the era in which he played was equally miserable for Melbourne supporters as the recent years in which Jones has played. However, Flower's ethereal brilliance made attending Melbourne's games a joy. Winning was just a bonus.

You'd have to assume the Match Committee will be thinking about whether to move Hunt to the backline this week, particularly if both Lewis and Hibberd miss (and Jetta, May, Lever...). Not because they will want to do so, but we're running out of troops back there and he at least has some experience in the role. I hope they find a way to keep Hunt forward.

I recommend readers skip that and go straight to pages 100-115. They're the readable bits I mentioned. (Hard to believe it's the same author.)

For a really good analysis, have a look at pages 100-115 of this extremely readable academic thesis which discusses the politics of parklands when the National Tennis Centre (aka Melbourne Park and Rod Laver Arena) was first proposed. It's a fascinating read and hopefully has been looked at by the club. It explains how difficult it is to get any developments which impact on parkland in the area.

Agree. But the more I think about it, the more I think our expectations are based on flawed logic. While the quick play on from full back with the designated kicker running 15m before kicking looks fast, a ball actually moves more quickly when it's kicked. Ergo, if the ball is kicked out immediately from within the goal square, it increases the chances of it getting to the other end more quickly than if it is run out of the goal square first.

Who? And why is their schooling relevant?

Too much inconsistency in this post. Surely you want a robot rather than an independent human doctor to confirm the diagnosis.

I don't understand this point. Being a member of a club - whether it's a sporting club or some other type - means you want to associate with what that club stands for. It doesn't mean you have to attend or participate in all its activities. I'm happy to have anyone be a member of the club whether they want to attend games or not. Keep in mind there is a whole group of potential members who will never be able to attend a game because they are infirm, live overseas or in non-urban Australia or are just too nervous to watch games live. There's a supplementary value from having people sign up as members whether they attend games or not. Sponsorship today is about the sponsors getting access to the club's database of members to enable direct marketing. The more members we have, whether they attend games or not, the more valuable that database of names becomes to enable larger sponsorship dollars.

I suspect the 6-6-6 rule has had no impact other than making the playing field look good at the bounce of the ball after a goal or at the beginning of each quarter. The real concern I have is the way the rule was introduced without a proper trial. A couple of half-hearted try-outs when neither coach is trying to win a game (or willing to show his hand) clearly isn't going to prove anything. The AFL should have used a full season of State League (ie, VFL or equivalent) footy to trial it before it was introduced. That should be the same for any proposed rule change other than an emergency rule change which might be needed for the purpose of enhancing player safety.

If we must have this thread (and I guess we have to), we should agree to two rules: This weekend's game is not to be called "the Preliminary Final replay". Someone in the media will call it that. I'll accept "re-match", but only just, given the changes to playing personnel. But it's definitely not a "replay". A win will not be "revenge" for the result from the last time these two teams met. The stakes are very different.

Clearly, he's the apple of your eye.

"Branch stacking" by another name.

I haven't seen this announcement, but any announcement made today might be dependent on a particular result come this Saturday. If I were Parramatta, I wouldn't be spending it just yet. And even if the party making the promise wins the election, there is still no certainty. Political promises are exempt from truth in advertising laws.

Maybe we'd all be better off if we changed tack and kept the possums and got rid of Parliament.

If Lewis doesn't play (either because of injury or the travel factor), it means the following defenders will be unavailable: Lever, May, Hibberd, Jetta, Lewis - arguably all in our starting seven. That leaves Oscar, Frost, Hore, Salem, Wagner and Fritsch as players who we all accept as defenders (even though many of us would prefer Fritsch to be on the wing or further forward). We will therefore need one more defender. I imagine the match committee will need to decide if we need another tall defender, in which case I expect Petty to play or a more mobile backman, in which case we essentially have no-one so we will be looking at either moving Hunt backwards (undesirable given Hunt is in the process of learning the forward role), playing Jones there (tried before without success) or trialling someone else in the role, such as Brayshaw or one of the new kids.

Is it really necessary to have two ovals, one the size of the MCG and the other the size of Marvel? Couldn't one large oval suffice with line markings drawn to represent the MCG and Marvel playing areas? Also, I know a number of posters, DV8 in particular, are keen for a social club to be included in the facility. I don't see this as a priority and wouldn't like it to be the only reason why a suitable location can't be found. As to being granted money from the Federal or State Government, I see that as a given. As soon as we have the right proposal, the Government(s) will cough up. Governments are not selective based on the name of the team. It's just about the logic of the proposal. (And it won't matter who is in power.)

Alas, they're playing under an alias.

Indeed. Whether Fevola and/or Crawford are funny or not, they're not recently retired players. The footy show was at its best when it had entertaining current players as part of its roster. Whoever thought an audience would warm to footballers who retired a decade ago doesn't understand its audience. I'm surprised they didn't appreciate this from looking at the comments on their MySpace account.