La Dee-vina Comedia

I can't imagine the match committee thinks about playing indigenous players just because its indigenous round. What's next? Picking monarchists to play on Queens Birthday?

Your post is missing the word "out" from your last sentence.

In my opinion, Stretch needs to be bigger. I realise he can't make himself taller, but he needs to bulk up to stop being pushed off the ball so easily. Hunt needs to improve his disposal. Bigly.

And this is our next big challenge. Holding our form. It's not so much about winning (admittedly, that's a nice outcome), but consistently playing the football we are capable of. We need to show that we no longer have those runs of goals against us or quarters where we seem to switch off. Then we'll be taken as a serious contender. And if we do that this week, we should win. But will we?

You said that you would put a player who is surplus to requirements on the list if they came cheaply. I just think that statement is internally contradictory. If they're surplus to requirements you are wasting the limited number of slots allowable on a list for a player who, by your own definition, shouldn't be on the list. I'd rather take an unknown in the draft and see if they develop into someone who is useful.

My centreline would have to be: Flower Power Love

So you're saying Harmes returned the favour and gave Lamb some curry? We're definitely into Masterchef season now.

I think we have shown over the last few years that we know how to manage contract negotiations very well. If we were being managed like Carlton over the last decade, I'd be much more concerned. Which makes me think...if we were Carlton, what would happen? I suspect we would trade Tom McDonald to the Gold Coast for their first round draft pick which is on-traded to GWS for 6 GWS fringe players to be added to our list. And if we were Collingwood, we would be prepared to lose Tom McDonald in order to keep the dollars that he should earn in the pool just to make sure "favourite son" Weideman can be retained. If we were St Kilda, we would look at trading Tom McDonald for three players who between them each have one or more recurrent, career-threatening injuries, off-field behavioural problems and are already known to be homesick for WA. And if we were Fremantle, we'd be trading Tom McDonald to free up cash to pay secret payments to hush something up.

Nice work. I'm not going to prepare a full team, but I know that my half-back line is going to be Christian Battle Lyon.

I think you answered your own question in the first half of your sentence. Even if a player is "going cheap" they still take a spot on the list and consume some salary cap.

Sounds like a benign medical condition.

I understand your point. Nevertheless, even though it might be played by the teams, they play for us. If there were no supporters there would be no competition. It follows that the games should be played in front of as many people as possible. It's also why the AFL needs to balance the cash it gets from TV rights from the exposure provided on free to air TV. The more games which are played on pay TV, the fewer people there will be watching. And that's not in the longterm interests of the game. I just hope the way they calculate value from TV rights takes into consideration not just cash paid, but numbers of potential viewers able to see the AFL product.

There's a lot about the draw I don't like, but in this instance I'm on the AFL's side. The AFL's job should be to ensure the most people as possible can get to each game where their team is playing. Big supported teams can't get all their supporters into the cattery, hence those games are and should be played in Melbourne.

Can Demonland please run a poll to decide whether a day where the temperature is forecast to start with a minimum of 11 degrees and rise to a maximum of 27 should be described as "hot"? I don't think it should but it seems others do. Either that, or people keep believing that it will be hot just because there's an assumption that it's always hot in the NT (which is true for the Top End but not Alice Springs).

It also means he turned the ball over 4 times out of those five kicks... that's not good.

Fitzroy definitely did it...against us. They kicked a then record score of 36.22. 236 to our paltry 6.12.48 out at Waverley in 1979.

Haven't seen it but on the radio broadcast (SEN) they thought the umpire had believed Gawn had stepped over the mark. The commentators talked about how Gawn took a couple of steps back and then came forward the same number of steps when McKay took the kick. However, they didn't confirm whether Gawn actually stepped over the mark or not. PS: The SEN early Sunday game commentary team is not bad. Gerard Whately and Peter Donegan calling the action with Adam Cooney adding interesting comments from the boundary. They also have Danny Frawley but I don't see that he adds much value. My favourite Frawley-ism of the day was when he claimed during the game that all the Melbourne forwards had kicked at least one goal. At that time Hogan, Smith and Spargo hadn't.

Irrespective of the decision, I don't understand why we have a three tier system (MRO, Tribunal, Appeals Board). Personally, I think the process for all alleged offences should see a determination by the MRO with players or the AFL able to appeal the MRO's decision to a higher authority (call it a Tribunal or Appeals Board). That higher authority's decision would then be final. That still ensures procedural fairness and resolves everything much more quickly.

The bit that I don't understand is how an umpire not indicating his (or her) way out will actually make any material difference to the time.

It depends on what a person thinks "iconic" should mean. I can understand why some think it shouldn't be #31 because RDB played and coached other clubs; I can understand the support for #2 and the argument for #9 because of the various records David Neitz holds. For me, however, it has to be 31 because Barassi was the dominant player of his era AND at the same time Melbourne was the most dominant team in the competition. Those two reasons make 31 iconic whereas the numbers 2 and 9 were worn by great players but, through no fault of their own, they didn't play in great teams.

The only number that surprises me is that someone thought that the data after only 8 rounds could be considered meaningful and worthy of analysis.

I haven't seen either incident but is it possible that the umpires will be suspended for putting an illegal block against each Curnow off the ball?

A few years ago Luke Hodge in an intentionally friendly way put his arm around an umpire. Did anything come of it at the time? I know that action was completely different to what Hawkins, and the Curnows have done but if Hodge wasn't suspended it may suggest there is room for players to touch umpires when there is no malice intended.

Worsfold learned his coaching trade from Malthouse as did Neeld. I suspect they talked the same language with respect to gameplan and player management which made Worsfold feel comfortable. My opinion is that the game has moved on from the Malthouse approach (gameplan and player management) leaving both Worsfold and Neeld behind.

I wouldn't even swap him for all of those other 4.