La Dee-vina Comedia

Omens abound. Given Saturday will be the first day of Passover, when four glasses, half full (or completely full), are drunk during the service on the Friday night (repeated on the Saturday for those who are willing), the above comment seems appropriate. Also, as the game is being played on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, I think it's a line ball between the Demons, who should have an affiliation with the events which Good Friday commemorates and the Saints who for 2000 or so years have clearly associated with Easter Sunday. Happy Easter and/or Passover, if that's your thing.

Has the AFL ever admitted to making a mistake? It's a genuine question. The closest I can come to it is recalling Gil saying they were too slow to respond to the racist issues Adam Goodes faced. In this instance, though, I could see them admitting it was a mistake, but only if McLachlan and Hocking have both already left the building, something which I think is a real prospect if the AFL starts to go backwards in popularity.

Should be Diamente Jim.

On the 3AW pre-game discussion yesterday, the panel interviewed the St Kilda coach who said that in his opinion the 6-6-6 rule has reduced scoring because teams no longer have the "overlap" player in the back half. As he explained it, by having a plus 1, teams were able to use that to create attack from defence because once they had the ball, they had the extra player which made it difficult for their opponents to prevent a quick transition from defence to attack. I have no idea if he's right or not, but it does show that tinkering with rules can have perverse consequences which might not be obvious at first blush. It's why any rule changes that are intended to change the way the game is played should be fully tested before implementation.

It's actually a really poor article. It claims that that "Disneyfication" of the AFL is "alienating fans" with no evidence to back up that argument. It's a shame, because the author may well be right. But without the data to back it up, it just becomes an opinion from a fan who prefers football the "old way". If the AFL were presented with this article all it would need to do is show that various metrics are positive (largest numbers of members ever, crowd attendance figures, participant numbers skyrocketing, (although that's primarily due to women's footy), etc). If the author's premise is correct (and, for what it's worth I fear that it is), the AFL may find that it's short term "fan activation" ideas may ultimately fail. But we're going to need the argument to be better articulated than it has been here.

If it wasn't for Carlton being on the bottom of the ladder, I would have started to wonder whether along with 6-6-6 and other rule changes, the AFL had brought in some other rule or interpretation that the ladder was to be read in reverse. Who, in all honesty, would have predicted before the beginning of the season that all of Brisbane, St Kilda, Gold Coast and Fremantle would be in the top 8 at the end of round 4?

There are 168 hours in a week* of which game time is about 2.5. You'd think that the remaining 165.5 hours would be sufficient time for any player to rest. But, clubs "rest" players all the time, so clearly the effects of a single game are significant. However, I can't see how any player should need a "rest" after only four games. If he's injured, don't play him; if he's just out of form, decide whether he needs more game time to recover touch or whether he needs to drop back to Casey for a while. For what it's worth, in my view he's playing OK. Not AA form that he's capable of, but not worthy of demoting, either. *Note: 168 hours is a normal week. Six day breaks, etc, stuff up the maths.

What surprised me most about the 0-15 Buddy score is that we had only played against him 15 times. He's been in the system since 2005, so a theoretical possibility of about 26 matches in the unlikely event that we played Hawthorn and subsequently Sydney twice each year. 15 games is just a fraction more than once per year. Mind you, I'm happy it wasn't more than 15 games in that time (unless the higher number had been due to us playing against him in finals).

I tossed up between Melksham and Hunt and decided on Hunt to reward his pressure over Melksham's creativity. Could easily have gone the other way but I was probably more aware of our lack of forward pressure in the first three rounds and weighted that aspect more heavily.

We've kicked triple figure scores the last two weeks. What exactly are you looking for? The "take it one week at a time" rule needs to be ignored this week. We have a very short turnaround for the Richmond game, so we need to select a team for St Kilda with that in mind. It wouldn't surprise me, therefore, if Lewis isn't played because there might be a view he couldn't back up and play again that quickly. It also means that I suspect ANB misses against St Kilda but will definitely play in the Richmond game. I didn't think Spargo or Stretch did anything to inspire me last night but Goodwin has more often than not given fringe players more than one week to show their worth. Nevertheless, as injured players become available, various fringe players are in line for a demotion irrespective of how many games they've played. All of Stretch, Spargo and the Wagners are in this boat. Hore would have been, too, but played well enough that he'll be retained longer than J Wagner.

6. Gawn 5. Oliver 4. Jones 3. Hore 2. Hunt 1. Viney (While Viney didn't get a heap of the ball, his in-and-under work and relentless pressure helped immensely those who did.) Honourable mentions to Salem, Harmes and Melksham.

Pink Lady, I would have thought, based on the pictures I've seen.

Took one post for the apoplexy to start!

We might. He's an emergency and there's a doubt about T Mac playing. Could ANB be the one who comes in as a late change? One thing's for sure, if that happens, be ready for some apoplexy on Demonland. For what it's worth, given the other emergencies are Spargo, Hore and Petty, I would have thought ANB would be the logical replacement for T Mac because it replaces like-for-like in running capability. I can't see how any of the other emergencies make sense as a replacement for T Mac. Not sure ANB makes a lot of sense, either, but at least having a player with the a tank to run hard all game would be maintained.

I think I will be measuring Preuss's value in the quality of Gawn's game. If Gawn plays a blinder, I suspect part of the reason will be Gawn having a proper rest, whether it's at full forward or on the bench, rather than being forced (or, perhaps, psychologically feeling forced) to ruck for as long as possible throughout the game. Anything Preuss does himself is just a bonus.

I didn't see it, but Viney has yet to impress in interviews. It's why I question whether he's truly the best choice for captain. I don't doubt his on field desire or his love for the club, but in my opinion, the role of captain includes being the voice of the club off the field. That part of the role has become significant and I don't think he fulfils that role properly.

Showed courage, too. Played with a broken rib. No she wasn't, the full forward was Phil 'Snake' Baker. And I'm reasonably sure the competition was sponsored by Apple.

Goodwin was interviewed on radio last weekend (SEN, I think) and was asked the question about Stephen May's fitness when he arrived at the club. Goodwin answered everything with a straight bat and did not give any indication that he was of the view that May arrived at the club in poor condition...until the very end of the interview when he said (paraphrasing) that "May wouldn't want to turn up in the same condition next pre-season". At the time I wondered whether Goodwin had slipped up, having been so careful for the rest of the interview, or whether he always intended to include the comment.

This sounds like the first line of a country and western song.

He clearly hurt his left ankle last weekend when it twisted under him. It was caught on camera, so there can be no dispute about it.

Actually, just in that one line Harmes is saying a lot. Firstly, he's saying that he is aware that not everyone is buying in yet. That suggests to me he knows which players haven't yet bought in. Secondly, he's saying that he's also aware that there has been insufficient effort in defending. He's not identifying anyone or any particular group (ie, not just the defenders), but he's aware of where the problem lies. In that one line, he's showing awareness. I like it.

I've been wondering what an "honesty session" really means. Why would the team need an "honesty session"? It suggests to me that the coach wanted the players to send a message to one or more of their team mates in a way that the coach could not, perhaps because of special position held by those players. If that's correct, I can only see two players who Goodwin might want such a message passed on to, and that's the Captains. And of the two Captains, I could see the possibility that the "honesty session" was to tell one of them in particular that if he's unable to lift his performance, he's holding the team back and might need to consider his own future. Or, I'm overthinking this.

Footballing maths. I suspect you might really mean 4 of our best 22.

Your ins and outs are the same.

You think that's a good thing for us?