La Dee-vina Comedia

The Tribunal has an extra arrow in its quiver not available to the MRO. It can take into consideration a player's exemplary record. That option does not exist for the MRO who can only judge a matter on the criteria available. Whether Ablett used the "exemplary record" option or not, I don't know, but I'm just pointing out that the Tribunal and MRO can come to different results on the same incident. And if Ablett, who has played more than 300 games over 18 years and has won two Brownlow Medals and throughout that time has never been suspended and only once been fined (for accidental contact with an umpire) can't get off on the "exemplary record" criterion, I don't know who could. In other words, Ablett was always going to be cleared to play by the Tribunal.

I think if we're praising Petracca's performance, we're setting a low bar. I expect a lot more from someone with his talent. Yes, it's good to see his ground ball work, but he also needs to be taking marks, kicking goals and just getting the ball more often.

I'm pretty sure he's an avid fan of Julian Burnside.

Or perhaps The Steven May Schooner

Watching him on Saturday, I think the problem might be his back, rather than his legs. He seems either unwilling or unable to bend over which may explain why he goes to ground so often when there is a ground ball to retrieve. He's still willing to stand his ground in marking contests, knows where to position himself and (most times) kicks with precision, but it's not sustainable to keep him in the side for much longer if he can't pick up the ball from the ground. The time will come for him to retire -possibly quite soon - and I hope when it comes it is done in a respectful way.

Saw this today and decided it summed up this thread quite neatly:

Actually, we play seven defenders rotating through the bench, so Salem can remain in the defensive slot. I like the idea of him on the wing, but it frightens me who might be the seventh defender if it's not him.

Couldn't find a spot for Salem?

I'm amazed that Oliver was on the bench for the last minute or so. I recognise that every player, particularly midfielders, need regular breaks but I would have thought our best clearance player should be on the ground at this critical stage of the game.

I like that Demonland allows Melbourne supporters to express their views (apart from extremist, defamatory and derogatory comments). But this thread is the most aggressive I've ever seen. I'm both amazed and dismayed by some of the arguments. Mostly, though, I'm disappointed that anyone can defend a man punching another person. It doesn't matter whether that person was intellectually disabled or not. It doesn't matter that the Hawks supporter caused the attacker to lose his beer. What does matter is that a single punch can kill or maim someone for life. Everyone, do yourselves a favour and have a look at the James Macready-Bryan Foundation. I don't know him or anyone around him, but his story should remind us all of what's really important. And while you're there, think about making a donation.

That's true, but we're not talking about the umpires in this thread. (Actually, I thought the umpiring was reasonable on Saturday apart from two glaring errors. One, when Roughead dropped the ball when tackled in the 3rd(?) quarter and it was called play on and the failure to pay the obvious 50 metre penalty in the last when the Hawks kicked the ball away well after the free kick was paid.)

Is that the name of the sequel to a very well known Monty Python movie?

Do we really want to pursue this? It's a fundamental part of Oliver's game. Why would we want to change that?

You should have gone with "Fake news". Seems to be working for others.

I'm genuinely surprised to see Petracca get votes. I had no difficulty identifying the top 4 in my votes but struggled with the last two, but at no time did I think Petracca's game was vote-worthy. In fact, I wondered after the game whether he might be close to a demotion to Casey. Amazed how we can see things so differently.

Tom McDonald played his second half against the Hawks much more like he played last year with strong overhead marks. Hopefully that's what he needed to be switched on for the rest of the year. What a difference one half of football can make. If he had played the second half of Saturday's game like he had the first, I suspect he would have been playing at Casey next week.

6. Harmes 5. Gawn 4. Oliver 3. Salem 2. Lockhart 1. Hunt

Any theories as to why Tim Smith's back injury and Keilty's promotion were not announced until today?

Please stay away tomorrow. On the contrary. It's a good sign. If you're nervous about team selection it means you still have hope. It took me a while to comprehend the changes. Nevertheless, this is how I see it: O Mac replaces T Mac who replaces Weideman (no surprises there) Jones replaces Viney in the guts, which means one of the defenders replaces Jones, nominally on the wing. That's probably going to be Fritsch, so Wagner, in effect, comes in for Fritsch. Another possibility is that Salem moves up the ground with Wagner taking his place, but I think that's less likely.

Who's injured and likely to be missing from the Hawthorn team?

And that's our fault. I recall reading somewhere that when Peter Jackson came to the club he couldn't believe that we'd not made more of this opportunity. It has the possibility of being turned into a blockbuster event but we've somehow let it slip. To make it a "blockbuster" game, we need to promote it more, get another club involved who we play every year to provide a sense of occasion and eventually tradition (I'd choose the Bulldogs), involve our AFLW team in some fashion and persist with the "pink ladies" walking onto the ground as it get people involved, raises money and awareness and gives the event a "purpose". It should also be a night game as it would make the pink ladies walking onto the ground more theatrical. In addition, we should make use of of our Number 1 female ticketholder (do we have one? If not, we should) as the face/voice of the round. It can't be that hard to be creative and make it into an event game which draws at least 60,000 people to the MCG every year, irrespective of the positions on the ladder of the competing teams.

Actually, none of that stuff annoys me. I'm yet to see a team win the Premiership because of those advantages. And for what it's worth, I don't think Collingwood made the Grand Final because of a "soft draw". They still had to win two finals, including one against Richmond, to get there.

I know there have been exceptions, but Goodwin usually gives a player two games after a promotion from the VFL before dropping them again. I agree that Garlett wasn't that good last week, but perhaps a second outing will see an improved output. (I also think that if he's having a quiet day, the coach should have him as part of the four in the centre at a ball up a couple of times. It helps him get involved.)

If we're at the bottom and head north...aren't we still at the bottom, but just a bit closer to the equator?

Do you have data that supports this? I would have thought if the AFL has "lost" supporters, it might have lost them from the younger generation. I'm also doubtful that any of "heavily compromised fixtures, home ground playing advantages and inequitable drafting" have had any impact on the general level of interest. I suspect most people don't think about any of those matters impacting on their level of interest. And you're mistaken about my opinion. I like the concept of the father/son rule (and eventually daughter's for the AFLW, too). That we've not been that successful has more to do with the professional approaches of those who have (particularly Geelong and Essendon). They have clearly kept selected families (such as the Watsons, Fletchers, Danihers, Abletts, etc) involved in their club.