La Dee-vina Comedia

It's an interesting point made in the OP. I suspect here have been a few players that meet the criteria of fast + endurance + skillful, but I doubt there have been many. Exercise physiologists will probably be able to point out that pace and endurance require different muscle and body types - after all, sprinters don't magically turn into long distance runners due to aerobic versus anaerobic requirements. And then you have to add in the skill component. Nevertheless, of the current crop, I suspect Isaac Smith might be as good an example as any.

As a rule, I really dislike Thursday night football. I hope this week I can make an exception.

The problems we have are a team issue, not an individual player issue. The evidence for that is 2018. So, I'd suggest not worrying so much about the performance of specific individuals and instead try to find why the team is not playing like the team of 2018.

I'm always fascinated about how much criticism or praise is heaped on a player or a recruiting decision after just a few games when history shows that winning premierships requires a long-term view. If any supporter group should understand that, it should be Melbourne supporters.

When people say this, they're always remembering the few good things he's done. Keep in mind that he's only played 66 games out of a possible 138 (so less than 50%) in the time since he was drafted and has kicked just 65 goals in that time. Not what I'd call a "required player".

Really? Not sure I agree with this statement. Actually, I am sure...I definitely don't agree with it. There is a world of difference between the fitness levels of VFL and AFL.

Surprised that Jetta was listed as "career worst game". I though it was much, much better than the Port game. (I didn't see the Geelong game, so can't compare it with that).

Nice attempt at diversion!

Unless there's an injury (perhaps Tom McDonald?), or a key player ready to return (Lewis?), I wouldn't make any changes. Part of the problem at the moment is a lack of cohesion. Too many players are unfamiliar with the game style because they've played so few games together. In the three games we've played Sparrow, C Wagner, Lockhart, KK and Hore who are all new to the club this year. And as much as there is criticism of the defenders, I think much of the problem lies with the forwards placing insufficient pressure on the opposition's defenders. It's why I suspect ANB will remain in the team. I'm not sure about this, but I think his job on the weekend was to run Saad ragged to prevent him from influencing the game. And I think he succeeded. (Unfortunately, when ANB had the chance to pick up the ball he fumbled too often, hence the concerns about his play, which I can understand).

6. Brayshaw 5. Oliver 4. Gawn 3. Harmes (curbed the impact of Shiel when moved on to him at quarter time) 2. Fritsch (even though he was playing the spare man in defence which is why he got the ball so often) 1. Hunt (not just for the three goals, but for the courage and pressure applied)

We also got caught by a mood change, partly (but not solely) due to the rapid increase in sports betting. The consequence of the rapid rise in sports betting is not just a greater focus on sports integrity (and that's a good thing) but anti-gambling advocates use any tool available in the armoury to garner attention for their cause. Any hint that there might be something inappropriate happening in sport is pounced on as an argument by the anti-gamblers as to why sports betting is bad.

I think there's a hint in the Herald Sun story where it says that at the time Gillon McLachlan claimed he didn't know what "tanking" meant. I imagine the AFL decided that "tanking" could be defined to mean that the players who were on the field didn't try (or, didn't try hard enough). The AFL may have concluded the players did try to win and therefore didn't "tank". That the club did other things (players in for surgery, playing players out of position, etc) may not have been considered to be "tanking" but "list management decisions". It's not dissimilar to President Clinton's argument as to why he claims he didn't lie when talking about what he did and didn't do with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky".

Nice pivot. Gets the thread back on track. I'm going to be at the game, but if I were watching on TV or listening on radio, I'd be might disappointed if none of the commentators mention how the Wagners looked "composed".

Situation normal. Just like the Daniher years. Even numbered years we were princes; odd numbered years we were paupers.

The transcripts. Up until now it's all been conjecture. The Herald Sun (somehow - and that's something that the AFL should be worried about) has got transcripts which definitively tell us what Bailey and others said in their interviews.

Robbo is the chief football writer. I don't believe he has a management role. It would be the Sports Editor in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief (or whatever title the day-to-day editor has) who would make this decision. I would expect Robbo and Warner had no say in it at all.

Good food for thought in Jack Russell's post above. There is a broad question here about the media's role and the public's right to know. Is it any more or less newsworthy because it's sport? Is it newsworthy ten years after the events it refers to? With respect to the first question, I think being sports-related, rather than politics, business or crime, still means it's newsworthy. As to the ten year issue, I don't see how that reduces its news value, as long as there is something new, which in this case, there is. The bullying and harassment question is also worth considering, but I wouldn't like to see the media prevented from publishing for that reason. That would lead to the media being prevented from publishing many things that hurt other people's feelings. It would be used as a blunt censorship tool. (The better answer is to stop buying rubbish newspapers!) In short, I think it's newsworthy and while I don't work in the media, if I were editing the Herald Sun, I'd publish it.

I've just seen the Herald Sun. I think it's worth mentioning that contrary to some comments earlier today, none of the story was written by Mark Robinson (unless he's contributed to something online). It's all the work of Mick Warner, a Richmond supporter. So all that conspiracy stuff about Robbo, his being an Essendon supporter and that's why it was published today is way off the mark. In fact, it's so far off I'd suggest the mods should delete all those comments.

...and then we'll be accused of tanking deliberately to get the media to apply the blowtorch to get our season up and running. Then in 2029, the Herald Sun (should it still exist) will have a front page story about the Demons tanking in 2019, which will get our 2029 season up and running...

This is the key point. The AFL (as it was then) is fundamentally to blame. It established the system which encouraged tanking and then turned a blind eye to the practice. If I recall, it was only when the Victorian gambling regulator said it was going to investigate that the AFL reacted. A quick Google search found this - see page 7

And I assume you know the HUN is owned by someone who has a pathological dislike of Bill Shorten and is known for instructing his editors to use the paper for political purposes. I think the owner's political interests trump the editor's football interest! Coincidentally, The Age today has a fascinating story about the Murdochs with a reference to their willingness to use their media assets in this way.

There are a number of posts in this thread suggesting that the article was published today because Mark Robinson is an Essendon supporter. I very much doubt that Robbo had any say as to when it was published. I think the first comment I've copied above is far more likely - that the editor of the Herald Sun needed a story to avoid having to put Bill Shorten's budget reply on page 1. As to the story itself. Ho-hum. By name it's the same club, but a decade on it is essentially a completely different organisation with a different Board, admin and almost a completely different playing list. And don't forget, many of the players on the list today would have been too young to even be aware of the "tanking issue" when it happened. To them, it's ancient history.

He composed beautiful music, but he was a terrible human being*. [*This comment may be subject to a fact check in a different thread]

Whose?

Let me take a run at it: Your question: "how does ANB. PETRACCA, and to a lesser extent HUNT hold places??" Possible answers: Because they are doing what the Match Committee asks of them, even if they don't do it often enough or because the coach wants them to stay in the side because he believes there best chance of improving is to stay in the seniors or because even when not playing well they're better than the alternatives. Your question: "Why Recruit Pruess if ya not gonna play him?" Possible answers: Because he's not fit enough or because he wasn't recruited to play this year, except in an emergency (ie, Gawn injured) or because he was recruited to learn how to play the role to become Gawn's eventual replacement. Your question: "If Jeffy is fit sheeeeeit surely a 150 gamer is better than C Wagner???" Possible answers: Because he's not fit enough or because he's not match fit or because the Match Committee want to be sure he's fully committed to doing all the hard work, such as pressuring and tackling, which he seemed not to be doing last season. Your question: "Billy Stretch whilst not a great fan surely deserves a run at front runner ANBs expense??" Possible answers: Because he's not doing what the coach asks him to do. I don't know what that is, but maybe he doesn't apply sufficient pressure.