La Dee-vina Comedia

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?

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.