La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

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

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.

Irrespective of who's who, that's a lot of people in the coach's box. I'm not sure if I was senior coach I'd want that many people all trying to advise me. If, however, half or even two-thirds of them are just there to watch and can keep their mouths shut, I could live with that.

I'm not in favour of "term limits" for club Presidents. As long as Glen Bartlett continues to show he's an effective President and wishes to be re-elected, he has my vote. But for all the talk about Nathan Buckley's tenure, how does McGuire's position as President of the Pies not face scrutiny? I don't deny that he has done a lot for that club, but given the ongoing on-field poor performance, what appears to be a declining membership and frankly, declining relevance, where is the anguish among Collingwood supporters for renewal? I find it all quite strange.

To be fair, I suspect I miss plenty on here.

He will look like a combination of the Collingwood and Essendon jumpers - a mix of white rage, boiling red blood and a face as black as thunder.

I'm not quite sure who's punning, who's trolling and who doesn't quite get the joke.

Thanks. Thinking about this a bit more, it's a bit hard to know what to make of it. Are we tackled more because we have the ball more than the opposition (seems like a positive); or are we tackled more because we're too slow to get rid of the ball when we have it (seems like a negative)...or both?

Keep it up Skuit. I suspect we all agree that it's probably a bit early to be too proud of these stats, but I'd rather be in the positive than the negative. Just one question though...for the tackles against stat (which I assume means opponent tackles for), is it better to be 1st or 18th? In other words, is being 7th close to being the third best or the third worst?

That's the irony of being a club that has a relatively low income level from the pokies. The less you receive the easier it is to replace. Hawthorn, Carton and Collingwood get greater revenues and therefore will find it much harder to wean themselves off the pokies, should they choose to do so.

I'll guess that cnbc = close but no cigar. Which, if that's right isn't very helpful, because it means I still don't know what dftft is! Anyway, I'll leave the acronymic anguish behind me now. It's not particularly on topic.

What's the Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology got to do with it?

don't feed the flipping troll?

Err...didn't you say "With all due respect to past administrators much of their time was consumed dealing with political or religious agenda pushers"? You must have had a reason for saying that. It's a bit rich to resile from that statement now you've been called out on it.

Did we actually try to argue that we shouldn't play on Sundays for religious reasons?

Can you give an example of a religious agenda which was being pushed? I don't remember any.

Can you give an example of a religious agenda which was being pushed? I don't remember any.

In the last year or so we've seen clubs such as Collingwood, Geelong and Hawthorn talk about poker machines, some for and others against. Yet I don't recall our club engaging in the debate publicly. We've become the first (since North Melbourne quite some time ago now) to take an active step to remove them. I like that we've become a club of action rather than words.

Whether we like it or not, the AFL operates a form of socialism (via the draft, salary cap and distributions from HQ). To do otherwise would see the competition fail with the strongest clubs eventually preventing the weakest clubs from ever improving their position. If that were to occur, the competition would inevitably die. Nevertheless, within this framework clubs need to be accountable for their actions, including financial strength and good governance. We should not, however, confuse real-world economic practice with the needs of a sport like AFL.

I agree. In fact, apart from jealousy, why do people care if the rich get richer? Surely what really matters is that the poor get richer. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.