La Dee-vina Comedia

Which is now where he belongs...unless he lets you alter your avatar to save the rest of us from cringing every time we read one of your posts.

Thanks, that explanation is both interesting and helpful.

I don't know what the bolded bit actually means. But doesn't someone have to decide which actions should be measured and recorded in the first place and how much to weight a handpass, kick or tackle? And who decides what qualifies an action to be a "1 percenter"? This is what I meant by referring to assumptions having to be made by people who build the model in the first place.

I swear every year the new recruits are getting younger and younger. Maybe that's just me getting older and older. Anyone else feel the same way?

How unhygienic is it for Champion Data to be drinking our bathwater? It seems to me that Champion Data's statements are based on raw stats processed by an algorithm. There must be assumptions incorporated into the algorithm and those assumptions are created by people. Hence, it is not entirely incorrect to refer to CD "analysing" the stats and providing its "opinion". Seems to me, though, that the moment organisations state that they've used an "algorithm" to do something, the belief given to whatever follows seems to increase by about 33%. (Note: that last figure is not created by an algorithm so please treat it with caution.)

No such thing as "just a nurse". Spoken with unnecessary humility.

I'm not sure we should own it. I expect it would be more economical for someone else to own and build it and for us to take out a long-term lease as a key tenant (say, 20 years with a 20 year option). Or we could master lease the whole thing and then sub-lease components, such as the office space and any F&B outlets. I would have thought the less capital we tie up in something like this the better. (That goes for any development, whether it's Yarra Park or elsewhere).

That photo Saty took of Bedford makes him look like some sort of magician who has superb levitational skills. The laws of physics suggest that ball shouldn't be where it is.

Unless he chooses to play cricket over football.

I've posted this before, but i don't like the concept of reserving lower numbers for better players because of the message it implies for those players who are given the higher numbers. It's effectively saying, "We're not really that sure you'll make it, so we're putting you down the end with the other nqrs." I appreciate the argument that some players might be motivated by that insult and work harder to prove their value. But for every player that does that there might equally be not only another high-numbered player for whom it has the opposite effect but also the possibility that players granted low numbers who allow that to go to their head and don't work as hard as they should. I would rather a more measured approach which might place a new player next to a player who might be good for their development. Preuss next to Gawn, for example. And it doesn't just have to be development in a skills sense. It might be trying to maximise their personal development. Hypothetically (because I don't know the players), it might be best for his development for Bedford to be next to Jetta in the locker room, so give him the vacant number 40.

There's the proof that our plan is the optimal solution.

Let me be the first to ask a dumb question. Does the vertical leap test measure absolute height or height above the player's own height. In other words do the King twins, who average 203 cm have a 30 cm advantage over Chandler before they even take a leap? If so, the Chandler twins (ie, Kade and Kyle) are the second best of everyone, they must have a helluva jump.

Why does he have to do the first to achieve the second? Couldn't he do both?

A sparrow that walks like a swan? Doesn't even sound possible.

I anticipate clubs will soon have to employ an actuary just to ensure they calculate points value correctly.

Was it Jack Dyer or perhaps Mike Williamson (or someone else) who kept referring to players making errors "at the psychological moment"? And what does it even mean?

You seem to be channelling a former PM who is not worthy of naming who (in)famously said that Workchoices was "dead, buried and cremated".

That's why I suggested mounting a sentimental campaign rather than one based on common sense or logic. It's amazing the foolish things the human race will do in response to sentimentality. (Next you'll be arguing that anyone associated with Collingwood aren't actually part of the human race. Can't argue with that.)

The better strategy would be to mount a sentimental campaign for Collingwood to relocate to Victoria Park. We could then take over Olympic Park

RG is correct that Governments and Opposition parties will use creative language when necessary to give them subsequent wriggle room should they want to do something (or not do something) which they were to politically scared to support (or oppose) prior to an election. I'm not saying, however, that in this instance that any non-specific response should be presumed to disguise a particular position.

Seems like they've been listening to the ghost of Jack Dyer: "Line up alphabetically by height".

I suspect the lack of foresight wasn't the only problem. I presume we would have had insufficient financial resources to do anything there anyway.

As a matter of interest, and asked with genuine sensitivity, would the AFL have to get some form of legal clearance from the Human Rights Commission (or whatever it's called) whenever they want to hold an indigenous-only event or choose an indigenous-only team? It's clearly a discriminatory practice albeit well-intentioned.

Maybe we weren't asking for enough in the first place. Perhaps we should have added a Formula 1 track to Yarra Park and to raise the railway to a Skyrail to the plans and then agreed to a mediated compromise by removing the F1 component and the Skyrail. Isn't that the way politics is meant to work?

In the 6-6-6 configuration, is there anything stopping one of the 6 "mid" players, such as a nominal wingman, from starting just outside the 50 metre line at a place which could be called CHB, even though it's 55 metres from the opponent's goal. If so, would seem to make a mockery of the rule change.