La Dee-vina Comedia

Hyperbole much! If I was a parent of Wagner or Hore, sure, I'd be disappointed, but I'd still be buzzing that my son had actually played a game at the highest level. As to the team selected, I have no idea what Lockhart brings...but I suspect Geelong doesn't either. May for Hore was (I thought) predictable. Frost staying in the side is no surprise to me. Geelong play a lot of pacy forwards (Ablett, Rohan, Dallhouse, Parfitt). Frost could play on one of them, although I suspect he'll take one of Hawkins or Ratugolea. Based on last week's game, though, if the midfield and forwards don't apply pressure, it won't matter who plays on whom in defence. And Spargo and Wagner going out are hardly surprising.

You're probably right, but my argument is so much better if you let everyone believe that what I wrote is the real reason.

The alternative way to look at it was that ANB got himself into positions to get the ball to have shots at goal when others didn't look likely. I suspect that will be of greater interest to the Football Department. One of our best kicks for goal in the last decade is now playing with Port because he didn't get the ball often enough in the first place.

I hope some of them wear boots with studs suitable for wet weather. The number of players slipping over last week was embarrassing.

Yes, I should have given credit where it was due. Rude of me.

I think you'll find Lewis is out for 2-3 more weeks. I presume, therefore, that looking at your outs, Hore keeps his spot?

You asked me a question. I answered it. I'm sorry if my answer wasn't to your liking. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

A couple of posts over the week have referred to Jones playing after having been numbed with a jab or, perhaps, more than one jab. However, I haven't seen any coverage of what required an injection and when. (Before the game? During the game?) Is it possible that Jones dropped his marks because of the numbing effect of those any such injections? In other words, had he lost sufficient feeling, perhaps in his shoulder(s), to interfere with the split second timing taking a mark requires?

I thought we were in trouble when I noticed him run on to the ground before the game with his beard having been obviously trimmed to half its usual length. Haven't we learned anything from the story of Samson?

I've actually lost track of who's a realist, who's over-reacted and who is arguing with whom. I think it's time we all moved on (me included). For what it's worth, I think I'm a realist who over-reacted and started arguing with myself on this thread.

Hey, diddle, diddle, The Cats had a fiddle, Big Max jumped over [insert name]; Goody did laugh To see such sport, And the Dees ran away with the game.

? Actually, I was covering for you. So you don't have to admit to using the Copy-Paste function.

It makes me wonder, if we had played three tall forwards, whether Westhoff would have played in Port's backline. That would have been another way to stop him kicking 5 goals.

I wholeheartedly agree. I haven't seen the Cunnington incident but there is a view that Cunnington's fist connected with his victim's arm, not his abdomen, and hence the MRO decision. However, if the test is one of intent rather than outcome, that wouldn't have mattered. It's time the AFL recognised that the current model is flawed because too much weight is given to outcome rather than intent. I would give a minimum one week penalty to anyone who clenched a fist and attempted to make deliberate contact with a player, whether the fist connected or not. That should immediately stop these completely unnecessary acts which are not just a blight on the game but send a message to the community at large that hitting people is acceptable. And I'd include in this group any jumper punches, too.

Ironic, given the whole idea of a single MRO was to replace the perceived inconsistency of the MRP.

Found your Shift key, I see.

It's probably partly blind optimism. But I also think the club had struggled to know how to deal with the Preliminary Final. I sense from comments made during the off-season that the club had decided to park it as just a "bad day". By doing so, it might have allowed the players to avoid reality and, frankly, keep drinking their own bathwater. Until last Saturday. I now expect the players and coaches have been reminded how much hard work is necessary, not just to win a Premiership, and not just to win a game, but to win every moment in every game.

The Age had 12 tipsters picking Melbourne and zero Port. I can't remember The Herald Sun exactly, but it was something like 23 to 4 in favour of Melbourne. The bookmakers all had Melbourne at very short odds. I can't see how you can now argue a Melbourne defeat was "probably the expected result". Expected by whom? Having said that, I still believe the reaction on here is an over-reaction. We received a reality check. How we respond will be insightful. For what it's worth, I'm tipping us to beat Geelong. And while I tipped us last week, too, I feel more confident about this week than last, probably because any complacency (which apparently is a disease one can catch from drinking one's own bathwater) should now have been extinguished.

It's over-reaction for one game; if the losses were to continue, the reaction would then be appropriate.

I understand the point you make, but one of the big selling points to sponsors is access to the membership database. I don't know how much value it adds in absolute dollar terms, but I'm sure the more members there are (irrespective of the type of membership or whether or not they attend games) the more a sponsor is willing to pay to get access to that mailing list. Hence, getting the maximum number of members as possible is not just about match attendances, it's also about satisfying sponsors' expectations.

And looks like he's at least trying to smile. Proof that he was never interested in staying with us.

Seeing as you asked, I wonder why anyone assumes that the announcement of a "review" must mean that whatever is being reviewed must be problematic? I would expect a well run club (or business or government agency, etc) to conduct ongoing reviews of all aspects of its business including those sections which appear to be running well. To not do so risks (1) inefficient practices, (2) not identifying corruption, (3) ignoring potentially fatal flaws, (4) misdiagnosing problems, (5) failing to operate at the optimal level. I have no idea whether Dave Misson's position was at any risk. But I do know we made finals in 2018 for the first time in many years, and maybe his work contributed to that result. And your summation that he "looked at other opportunities with his family" is frankly misogynistic and assumes that his wife only looked at getting a job in Canada because her husband's position was fraught. What nonsense.

I don't wish to sound ungracious to Gold Coast, but the Melbourne that was struggling against PA is nothing like the Gold Coast that has been struggling all the time KK was with them. I don't know if he's ready to play, but if he is, he doesn't have to wait for the rest of the team to find form before he gets picked. It will still be a better team than what he has had to put up with over his career to date.

And the 4th one played Carlton and were not particularly impressive in defeating them. It may be that beating Carlton is not going to be as easy this year as the last few, but until we know more, all we can say is that Richmond didn't seem that impressive in victory and therefore all four preliminary finalists had uninspiring starts to the 2019 season.

I'll take this at face value, but what I really want to know is whether he went into the game with the ankle problem or whether the injury happened during the game. If he went into the game with that injury, and if it was the cause of his poor performance, it is obvious in hindsight that he should not have played. But I wonder whether it should also have been obvious with foresight?