La Dee-vina Comedia

I was never a fan of Dunn when he was with us. But having heard him speak since he left, I can see why he's considered a leader. Speaks well, and has been an assistant coach for their AFLW team which shows his leadership potential. It's also a reminder that the best players don't have to be in leadership positions. I'm confident no-one thought Nick Maxwell was the best player at Collingwood throughout the time he was their captain - but he's now retired as a premiership winning captain.

I'm not quite sure why a player who played every game last year, was 36th in goal kicking, equal 24th in score involvements (equal with Brayshaw) and equal 10th in goal assists for the whole competition isn't considered to be one of the "automatics"...at least until someone better comes along (which you'd say for everyone selected as an "automatic"). Alex Neal-Bullen clearly needs a new PR agent.

For once, I'm pleased with the AFL. By amending this rule they've tinkered with our gameplan and removed what I thought was our consistent weakness last year. Sure, having the extra on the back of the square might occasionally have helped us win the centre clearance, but how often did that result in a turnover because we were a forward short? The strategy we used should have been reserved for teams anticipating losing centre clearances, not winning them.

He's hardly gone out on a limb suggesting that the 2019 Premier will come from one of the teams that finished in the top 4 the previous year. While that hasn't happened in the last few years, I would have thought it was pretty much the norm. I'm not a fan of Malthouse, but I'm actually quite surprised that he's playing it so safe. I would have expected him to choose at least one team from left field.

I'm not quite sure what you were expecting. "Wild untapped potential" would have been snapped up in the draft period. Lockhart is being selected effectively as the last rookie pick in our draft. What's there to sell? If he makes it, well and good. But the odds of him becoming some sort of star player are long. Any attempt to "sell" this recruitment would be just setting him up to fail in the eyes of supporters.

Is this a good or a bad thing? Does it mean we have a superstar ruckman? Or does it mean the club lacks depth in the rucking department? Or a bit of both?

This one's obvious. It's an allegory portraying the MFC at the time as donkeys.

I seem to recall the AFL does this every year with each of the team captains. But why? What's the marketing value of this photo? I'm not having a go at the AFL (there are plenty of other more important - and unimportant - issues to do that), but I'm genuinely curious. Why is this photo taken? What's it used for?

And the other 26k are recycled members courtesy of Visy.

So, if I understand this thread correctly, Brexit is about putting in place a hard border so the club that started the Irish experiment is the only one from hereon able to recruit players from Ireland. On the other hand, the Western Bulldogs have aligned with the Norse god Thor and can recruit whoever they want from Norway.

That information has already been published somewhere (I heard it being discussed on breakfast radio today). It might be a tie-in, but it's not the reason for the get-together.

Essendon might be the only club smart enough not to waste any of their players time with this.

Clearly the clubs think attendance is a pointless exercise. It's made even more so by those clubs - including ours - who have more than one captain. There were only 17 in the photo when there should probably have been more than 25.

Not sure why you added the "pick 4" bit. Adds nothing.

I think we may have drafted some sort of Benjamin Button. According to Knightmare (see above) on 14 June 2017 he was 183 cm tall. According to Mad As Hell on 2 October 2018 (in the Jay Lockhart thread started last year), he's 177 cm. If he keeps shrinking at this speed he'll change sports and become a jockey before the Spring Racing Carnival. Some confirmed height and weight numbers would be appreciated.

I completely agree with you. If you inferred something else from my post, I need to improve my writing skills.

While that's true for me, too, one of the major differences between now and when I was a kid is that some AFL players have shown by their acts and deeds that they are anything but superheroes. Whether it's because pervasive media means we see it more or whether there are more modern day players than old-timers who are jerks, I don't know. But my best guess is that professionalism, which has introduced more money and more spare time, might have contributed to the negative. Having said that, I still think compared with many other sports, the AFL ratio of superheroes to anti-heroes (and worse) still stacks up well.

What I'd really like to know was what McLaughlin recommended to the Commission. Did he recommend twilight? Or did he recommend the status quo? Might tell us a lot about his grip on power if it was the former and he got rolled.

I heard a wonderful story about your wife, Ernest, which you apparently told. But I can't tell it here. Suffice to say she apparently enjoyed joining you in all your favourite activities including hunting, fishing, drinking and more. (I'm not sure which of your four wives the story refers to, though.)

Please accept my condolences.

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.