La Dee-vina Comedia

And many others. I suspect someone with a bit of time and a good memory could put together a team of former Melbourne players who thrilled at the beginning only to fade quickly from thereon. Recent examples would include Gysberts, Magner, Mitch Clark and Tapscott.

I didn't know there was a park named after Ron Barassi Snr. Is there any specific reason why this park was named after him? Wikipedia tells me that he was killed at Tobruk and "was the first VFL footballer to lose his life in the conflict". (It's a bit ambiguous - unclear whether that means he was the first to be killed in WW2 or the first at Tobruk). I'm perfectly comfortable that a park be named after any of our defence force personnel killed in action, but I was wondering if there's more to it?

You mean this one?

I agree, but for the avoidance of any doubt let's also make clear that the runner up doesn't get the premiership by default. I couldn't bear the thought of Collingwood being rewarded for giving me so much enjoyment every time they came second.

Why do people keep making these sort of comments? I suspect the match committee picks the side based on players and the role they are expected to play, not the best 22 available players. If Vince goes out, someone will be picked who can replace him in defence; if ANB goes out, he'll be replaced by someone who can play forward and onball. That means the player who replaces Vince would not be the same player who might replace ANB. Hence, there is no relationship between whether ANB goes out before or after Vince, or at all (and vice versa).

At least he's wearing some protection on his head.

He didn't just learn a trade, he also learned some business strategy. In the business world they would call that vertical integration.

Off topic, but for those old enough to have seen both Ron Barassi and Robert Flower, who might be considered the better of the two and, in all likelihood, therefore, our best player ever?

I'll just leave this here. Personally, I don't think there should be any further comment given the seriousness of the matter.

Haven't seen the game and didn't realise that Salem played HBF. I've also read on here somewhere that Brayshaw played better once he was placed on-ball, so I imagine it might be preferable to leave him in the middle. In essence we need 5 small defenders. Could that group be Jetta, Hunt, Hibberd, Vince and Lewis?

Might be a good idea to give Stretch another chance on the wing to play Tyson's role and move Tyson on-ball (to replace Salem) where he seems more suited.

So you think a player who has played 64% of one game is impacting more for us than the guy who's played all six games and is coming third in the Coaches' Votes and leads the (admittedly pretty pointless) Supercoach points? You're hard to please.

Couldn't find room for the other 10 players?

Yes, but only because they didn't think of "Charlie out of the spa - go time!"

Which makes me wonder whether he used to have better disposal skills and, perhaps, speed, which GWS saw when they drafted him. If so, is it possible he has some form of chronic injury like the dreaded osteitis pubis (which, generally speaking, seems to have disappeared from the AFL)?

The problem with this theory is that Essendon played finals last year. It's hard to see how that fits your narrative. It's just possible that they're struggling this year for other reasons, not the least being that three of their losses have been against potentially good teams (Freo, Collingwood and Melbourne). Add to that, their two wins are, somewhat ironically, probably against teams better than the ones they've lost to.

Whereas Jack Watts stings like a butterfly and floats like a bee. (Apologies to JW. Doesn't really deserve such criticism. I just couldn't help myself)

What a difference (less than) a week makes. After the Richmond game Demonland was sinking under the weight of comments that we don't have enough depth even to make a proper squad of 22.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I notice that Tom McDonald only had 69% game time (next lowest was Hogan with 71%, who I know had an injury concern; and Spargo with 74%). We also know that when fully fit, he generally plays 95% plus game time. So, was he just being managed or did he appear to have an injury? Hopefully it's the former.

Glad they went with the Heaven's Door name rather than Dylan's somewhat lesser known "Vomit Express".

I didn't see the game, but do we have two players called Harmes? There appears to be approximately the same number of people giving Harmes votes as want him dropped for the next game.

I've read this over and over. It's not about your proposed changes but your writing style. It's not iambic pentameter, a limerick or a haiku but you write very poetically.

So, who are the other five? Of course, I'm really just fishing to uncover who you'd leave out in this rather hyperbolic statement.

Nice work here...

Fair point. But it's why I don't usually read his stuff because it doesn't inform me. Out of curiosity I read this one and learned nothing.