La Dee-vina Comedia

Didn't we get priority picks a couple of times?

I haven't seen the game so I won't give votes, but I did listen to the 3AW call and I'm pleased that they raved over Jetta's game and consistently said he should be the All-Australian small defender.

Essendon I can understand. They made finals last year and appeared to be on an upward trajectory. Travis Auld was on 3AW on Saturday and grilled about the Friday/Saturday night scheduling and made a complete hash of it. He argued very unconvincingly that it had something to do with scheduling difficulties primarily associated with ANZAC Day and ANZAC eve. (In my view that might affect the two or three weeks before and after 25 April, but not the whole year.) The 3AW panel (Tim Lane, Caroline Wilson, Leigh Matthews and Jimmy Bartel) were not persuaded by his argument at all.

I guess even someone known as "Junior" eventually becomes an old McDonald.

Minor quibble. I don't think the suspension was at all controversial. Bugg's action that caused the suspension might have been, but not the suspension itself.

This thread has me thinking...have we recruited more players from other clubs than the reverse? That is, how many Melbourne players have continued at clubs after starting with us? It would seem to me that over the last 15 years or so, we haven't seen too many start with us and end up somewhere else.

QD, you can believe a person who used to be the Chief Executive of the AFL or you can believe me. The choice is entirely up to you.

Daisycutter, you might prefer this one:

Does Dean Terlich qualify? Wasn't he a Swan first?

The AFL is to football like Mendel was to genetics. They publish incorrect facts which just happen to have the correct conclusions. This century didn't start until 1 January 2001, not 2000. Hence, the data used for 2000 shouldn't be included. As it happens, Carlton played 25 games in 2000 and won 17 of them; Melbourne also played 25 games, but only won 16. So, the correct figures are that Carlton has played 392 matches for 140 wins with a winning percentage of 35.7% whereas Melbourne has played 390 for 142 wins and a percentage of 36.4%. You can thank me later.

Recent Premiers have also had strong VFL teams which is a sign both of depth and a good run with injuries. Let's hope that trend continues.

Ahh. That would make sense (or not, given that the percentage of our own total infringements is relatively meaningless as a measure being compared with other teams. It's the absolute number, rather than the proportion, that might be vaguely interesting or relevant.)

0.6% of what? If we "lead" that particular category then it can't mean 0.6% of all centre bounce infringements. It might be obvious to others, but I genuinely have no idea what this number means. Any ideas?

Do the stats back this up? That is, are Max's hitouts to advantage numbers higher than they were earlier in the year? It seemed to me in the last couple of weeks that our midfield was dining out on Max's work at a much higher rate than earlier in the year. I'm not sure what "hitouts to advantage" actually measures, but my eyes told me that our midfield has never had the consistent ability to take a tap and dispose of the ball properly as much as it has over the last two weeks.

Actually, I can understand where he's coming from. Our wins in the last few weeks have come from dominant team performances rather than from the efforts of a few individuals. On the other hand, the players he's selected from other teams showed out because their teams did not. It's the nature of what he's doing - he's looking at individuals. There's already another mechanism which measures teams - that's called the AFL Premiership Ladder.

I don't buy this argument. In 1986, being the last year of the "traditional" 12 team competition, the population of Australia was 16 million, meaning there were 1.3 million people per team. In 2018, the population of Australia is 24.7 million, meaning there are 1.3 million people per team. The talent pool should therefore be the same. Sure, there's competition from more sports and other non-sporting opportunities, but the average 17-18 year old who is drafted is far more professionally prepared than 17-18 year olds 30 years ago. I'm also not sure the standard of the game has dropped. It might be that all games are now shown which means we get to see the good and the bad, whereas back in the "good old days" we saw fewer and perhaps better games (because of the selectivity of which games to show.) It's also possible we just choose to remember selectively and remember the good games and not the bad ones.

There's a lot to like about what Paul Roos said but for an articulate person he really butchers the language! Lot's of half-sentences and incomplete thoughts. Nevertheless, you can work out what he means even if it doesn't have the linguistic elegance of a Winston Churchill. Or Hemingway.

I think Adelaide being "severely injury depleted" isn't quite right. They've got injuries and to some important players. But not that many. I think the media is overstating the impact injuries had on Adelaide and (with some exceptions) have been understating how poor Adelaide's team of uninjured players actually played.

Go on, admit it. You are. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Maybe we should change the word "demoted" in the thread title to "promoted".

Some ideas for the AFL to consider: start the Friday night games earlier so they don't finish so late regularise starting times (and days) instead of having them flip-flopping all over the place. Having a routine makes it easier for people to plan to watch (or attend) games. reward form when fixturing insist on at least four games per week being on free-to-air TV. There's no point in the AFL getting good money from a pay TV provider if it means people aren't watching the product I'm tempted to say "improve the on-field product" but (a) I'm not sure they know how to do that and (b) we're proving this year that exciting, watchable football is still possible without any need to change the rules. stop copying the NFL. As it happens, NFL ratings (in the US) have been dropping, too.

Can't work out is serious, cynical, satirical or sardonic. Daisy provides some insightful commentary from the boundary. Very few others, including Dipper, ever have. That may not be Dipper's fault. He may have done the job he was asked to do. if you need evidence as to how producers impact on the way presenters do their job, contrast Brian Taylor's serious Friday night calling with Bruce with his former role as caller and jokester on a Saturday night with Luke Darcy. Two completely different versions of BT.

Hogan has kicked 26 goals after 10 games. In 2014, our top goalkicker for the whole year kicked 20. Our next worst since the 1920s was 26 in 2008. Note - I haven't named the players in 2014 and 2008 because it's not about them. They were the beneficiaries (victims?) of playing in poor teams.

Two things come to mind. Firstly, I assume the team chooses to dispose the ball by hand or foot as quickly as possible to generate the fast ball movement. A player bouncing the ball is (usually) running with it, but essentially no faster than the opposition players flooding back at the same time, so bouncing the ball helps by giving the opposition time to block space. Secondly, I assume it's a team rule to dispose the ball if at all possible, rather than running with it. I could imagine a possible exception is the player who's kick will be the shot at goal.

6. Brayshaw 5. Hogan 4. Neal-Bullen 3. Jones 2. Viney 1. Oliver Lever, Lewis, Salem, Jetta and Hibberd are all unlucky, primarily because the midfield did such a good job, the ball didn't come their way often enough. When it did, they repelled very well. And Gawn is unlucky because I'm only allowed to give votes to six players.