La Dee-vina Comedia

The only reason I can come up with as to why we need a clash jumper at all is because someone at the AFL has worked out that our jumper clashes with the Casey Demons and has decided we need a clash jumper because of it.

Or maybe the players bought their cars before the AHG deal was over and bought them at a 'special rate' from dealers associated with the then sponsor.

I apologise for doubting you. I don't recall it ever being anything other than 1422. I must have been either too young to have known or am now too old to remember.

Earlier in this thread we had a few headline gems. Today we have a new contender. Irrespective of your politics, this surely has to be accepted as a masterful piece of work:

I'm sure for every person who claims that players are being recruited more for their athletic ability than their football ability there's another person claiming the exact opposite.

1422, actually.

It's just an abbreviation for idgaf. (Actually, IG is a stockbroker.)

In absolute terms, I'm sure this is correct, but I wonder whether the distribution curve of player heights has actually changed at all other than to shift along the axis as the average height of all people has increased.

Is, or was, "Be part of the journey" being used by the club? I ask because I haven't seen it anywhere and in a tweet today the club has used "#RaiseHell".

Sounds like he had nothing at the bottom of his leg until his last year at school.

He also has a penetrating left foot but a diabolical right one. His one-sidedness is another negative which goes against him. To be fair, I noticed last year that a number of our predominantly one-sided players (Viney, Tyson and also Kent) tried to use their other side more than they had previously. I hope they all continue to work on improving this aspect of their own games.

I wouldn't say he has "zero" weaknesses. One thing he needs to improve is his attitude to the umpires. If he keeps complaining to them about decisions that don't go his way, he'll never win a Brownlow.

Sounds like a tagline for a bad Hollywood movie.

I was referring to the aesthetics. It looks great when the jumper is clean. And I can't have been clear. I have no problems with sponsorship and fully appreciate the need. I was just saying that in the perfect world if sponsors weren't needed the jumper looks best in its pristine state. But, I can't agree that not having a sponsor is a "terrible, terrible look". I still believe most people don't think about it, and if they do, they don't care.

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly, I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not.

I accept that injuries can occur at any time and that the risk of injury is not a reason not to proceed with AFLX. But it's pointless for AFL's top line talent. That's why it should not proceed. On the other hand, if the AFL truly believes there's an international market for a game that can be played on standard rectangular fields, then by all means, trial the concept. But use retired players or VFL players to prove the concept.

Wouldn't have guessed that in a million years. Apart from anything else, it's a counterproductive term. Surely the AFL should be holding onto its core product as the most 'extreme' version of the sport, and, they should be arguing, of any sport.

I didn't think the Big Bash League would work so I don't trust my opinion anyway. Generally, though, I think the AFL strategic decisions are pretty good. I think they've introduced AFLW in a smart way (albeit about a decade late) and although it's still contentious, I support the national expansion including the second teams in NSW and Qld. But that name! Why the 'X'? I'm sure the AFL will argue that it's because there are 7 players on the ground and 3 interchange players, but surely a better name if it's based on those playing numbers would be AFL7 (or AFLVII if they wanted to stick with the Roman number nomenclature...although that would be patently ridiculous). But I suspect they don't want any comparisons with Rugby Sevens. I have serious doubts...but then re-read my first sentence.

This has been discussed before, but the minimum payment was a quid pro quo for the restrictive practices put in place via the draft. Prior to free agency, most players had no say in where they ended up, meaning clubs could pay unders for no reason. In addition, players weren't always at fault. I'm reasonably confident that some of our poor performances in 2012 and 2013 had a bit to do with the coach. Why should players be penalised for (1) being unable to choose what club they are at and (2) for being poorly coached?

For example, Bernard Tomic. Although he possibly hasn't yet worked out how much of a loser he actually is.

I wouldn't want to be announcing a new sponsor any time in the next fortnight. The Australian Open will be consuming virtually all the media interest. Any leftovers will be absorbed by the Big Bash League.

Will miss Liam's excellent work. But I hope he and you enjoyed your time at Gosch's paddock.

Quite right. Now that you've mentioned the Clive James description , I think I might be mistaken about Mick Conlan's nickname.

Asking for a friend...if I (sorry, my friend) isn't on Facebook or Instagram, would he still be able to see these photos? If not, that would be a selfish* thing to do. (*Sarcasm alert...just in case)

I first heard this term used to describe Fitzroy's Mick Conlan. I don't recall him ever being accused of anything improper or having excess stress on his body. Must have had better quality condoms in the 80s.