La Dee-vina Comedia

Now there's a thread topic all of its own. Of course, depends on your definition of success. However, I assume you mean as an individual (as opposed to seeing Robert Flower succeed by being a Premiership player). If that's what you meant, and with no disrespect intended, Fitzpatrick doesn't come close. I'd probably run with Jurrah, given where he'd come from.

While I understand your point, a lottery is 100% chance. With recruiting, I believe that there is a science to it, but the science isn't yet perfect. The science also can't take into account unexpected injuries. It can take into account previous history (such as ACLs prior to recruitment or a history of concussions) but impact injuries (broken bones, for example) are not possible to predict. I think our recruitment in the last few years has been significantly superior to the Bailey/Neeld era and I expect a lot of that has to do with greater skills and knowledge on the part of our recruitment team.

The AFL was always going to say publicly they were pleased with AFLX. It is an organisation which rarely admits it gets anything wrong. Behind the scenes might be different, though. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when McLaughlin provides his "official" report to the AFL Commission on AFLX.

I see a big difference between tackling or bumping a player with the ball (both which I consider to be unavoidable, as long as the tackle or bump is fair) and tackling or bumping a player who does not have the ball (generally, but not always, avoidable). It's the latter that concerns me. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the risk of concussion, particularly when players do not have the ball. I know there is an argument that the primary purpose of that bump is to stop the player who is bumped from immediately returning to that passage of play. I'm saying reducing the risk of concussion from that tactic (the bump) should be more important than stopping that player from continuing to participate in that passage of play.

I'm not sure this strategy does anything to encourage kids to PLAY sport. It might encourage them to watch more movies and play more X-box and even watch more AFL, but I think it's a long bow to say that this strategy will lead to more play.

I continue to be concerned that much of the discussion here is about whether May's bump hit him in the head or not. Concussion can also be caused by whiplash. That's why I don't think the rule should just be about making head high contact or even whether the impact was low or medium. I believe the rule should be but whether the player (in this instance May) needed to bump at all. If I was designing the rule I would say that if the player had no choice, then all clear; but if he had a choice, one week, irrespective of whether there was an injury or not and more weeks if there was an avoidable injury.

Clever strategy from your parents. I bet you got to eat all your lunch without the school bullies stealing it from you.

Or Round 2, if you're May.

Asked and answered. Are they playing under AFLX rules in this game?

Useful if we all remember this before writing off too soon draft picks or players traded in as being not worth what we paid for them. I could have written the exact same words in the current Cameron Pedersen thread, too.

This post is so good I couldn't just click on a button to "Like" it. I need to add, "Excellent. Well stated."

It's obvious to me that they are a well-managed organisation. It's no coincidence that sales are increasing under a management regime which chooses to sponsor the MFC. The above can be read flippantly...or it can be appreciated that the sales increase might reflect the possibility that the Australian organisation has a well-developed strategic plan which includes sponsoring a team that (1) plays in the most popular competition in Australia, (2) has a support base which may have a higher proportion (than other clubs) of those who are well enough off to buy their cars and (3) is a club that has a standing which suits the Jaguar brand.

I would rather the AFL and all clubs (and Demonland's posters) took a consistent line on concussion. Should May have been suspended under the current rules? I don't know. Should the rules be clear that a player should be suspended if he hits or bumps another player in an incident which is avoidable and might cause concussion (whether it did or not)? Absolutely.

If breaking a team rule gets a player suspended, then there is something wrong with the team rule.

I've just seen the footage for the first time. Under the current rules I have no idea whether he should be suspended or not. But if we're fair dinkum about concussion and stamping out unnecessary on-field violence, then the rules should make it clear that any avoidable late bumps on players without the ball, whether they make contact with the head or not, will result in a suspension. That will stop it from happening. And that will be good for the long-term health of the players and the game itself. That would mean the only question to be asked with respect to this incident would be whether it was avoidable.

It's only taken about a decade (or perhaps more) for our defenders to learn not to go three or sometimes four up in a pack. Surely our forwards can learn from that...particularly as two (McDonald and Smith, or three if you include Hunt) used to be defenders.

The AFL won't be happy if Christian's year starts with multiple successful challenges to the Tribunal. Would seem to suggest that the MRO might need to rethink his approach. Not returning to the ground in a practice match? That seems an odd parameter given clubs regularly rest players in practice matches (including JLT matches) whether it's because of plans to limit game minutes or to protect players from possible injury. In itself, this should be a ground for appeal.

I haven't seen him play yet this year, but from what I've seen so far, he knows how to run, jump, tackle and mark. His kicking is not bad, but not great, either. His greatest weakness is his understanding of the game itself, that is, what to do with the ball once he's got it. I don't know if he'll make it, but I suspect that the bit in his game that's missing might be something that could be quite quickly learnt. And if that's correct, he could be come a valuable commodity - too tall for small defenders and too fast for tall defenders.

I'm not sure he flies under the radar and more. Among my non-Melbourne supporting friends and work colleagues, he seems to be the third player (after Gawn and Oliver) who they comment on when discussing the best players in our team.

Dieter, usually when I read your posts I think your name refers to your nationality; today, it seems that I should read your name as someone who is careful about what he eats.

What is it about these black and white photos which make people look so much older than they were? Is it the clothing? Or the hairstyle? Or is it just the way we think about older photos? Norm Smith was born on 21 November 1915, which means he could not have been any older than 49 when this photo was taken.

Should we be worried?

The Herald Sun poll will be considered deficient by the AFL because it doesn't include the views of those billions who live overseas.

Were you meaning Richmond supporters? If so, there's a typo in your post as I imagine you meant to write that they are "rank and vile" supporters.

Two crimes against English here. "It's understood" is completely unnecessary and who describes people as "faces"? They don't have bodies? minds? souls? Ugh