La Dee-vina Comedia

You can add Polly Perkins to your list. And Tommy Lahiff. Although perhaps those two only worked on radio.

When I read this thread title my first thought was whether it was story about a Japanese agriculturalist who supported AFL.

I'm hoping the next version of the Demonland software will have artificial intelligence so if we preface a curse word with "excuse my language", the auto-censor doesn't kick into play.

Dangerous path, Chookrat. We've had more soft tissue injuries in the last few weeks than most if not all other clubs. Should we conclude that those players have taken an "unsafe variety of vague substances"? That's the conclusion your point 3 leads to.

Didn't he tell the media he was "best on the ground"...during a recent training run?

One more to go.

For the last decade or so we've been more bad than good, but, it seems to me, particularly in June. I'd like to see us go through June undefeated. The last time that happened was 2006. We still have to beat West Coast and (because of the 6 day break) Sydney on 30 June. Perhaps it's more a challenge than an "embarrassing record" per se, but to go through June 4-0 (plus the bye) would see that particular challenge knocked off the list.

Just to clarify, hasn't Dank been banned from basically anything involving sport? Or just the AFL? Personally I think he should be in gaol, but I'm not sure what law(s) he might have broken.

But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around?

That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

I agree with your last line. Given Champion Data has a stat for everything, I'm surprised they haven't come up with a stat called something like "Percentage of team disposals". I would have thought that such a statistic would allow for better statistical comparison of players from different eras when team disposal numbers were so different. It would be interesting to see how Diesel then compared with players of today like Oliver but also with other on-ballers from different eras such as Ron Barassi, Kevin Bartlett and Dick Reynolds (if they had reliable disposal stats in those days).

When was the last time we were more than a third of the way through the season and had a percentage above 100%?

So am I. We've had enough players with apparently superior disposal skills which were hardly on show because they couldn't actually get the ball. Ideally you want players who can do both (Lewis, Hibberd, etc) but I'm prepared to put up with the occasional error in disposal from a player who gets a lot of it. It's when the errant disposal numbers get too high that it becomes a problem for the team. Right now, Weideman has lovely disposal but doesn't get it enough; Harmes gets plenty but his poor to good disposal ratio is too high. So, both find themselves out of the team.

Mind you. He may have records that prove they were innocent but in so doing prove someone else is guilty. Is that why he was shot at? As a warning to keep those records a secret?

He needs help. He is still stuck somewhere between denial and anger.

I like the way you managed to put in some gratuitous but irrelevant criticism of the Poms.

You do realise that under the Federal Government's new citizenship test a Melbourne supporter hoping for a Collingwood victory is deemed to be un-Australian and you may be deported?

I think Melksham seems fine with respect to his body "standing up". It's his skills which are poor and always have been. I think he's playing just as he was, no better and no worse.

Didn't our former coach say something similar about our team after Round 2 last year? What those summaries don't say is that Watson and Stanton might have retired but for their year out and Howlett and Hocking weren't necessarily starting 22 players anyway. Also, Hooker is being played out of position. Apart from the injured players (eg Myers), it's really only Hurley and arguably Heppell that aren't performing as expected without an obvious reason. That's really no different from any other team - all teams have players not living up to expectations. For example, Jack Viney.

You left out Kelly v Tyson/Salem. And Satyricon v DeeSpencer

I think we mark McCartin harshly because (a) we want Petracca to be better than him and (b) because we subconsciously compare him with Hogan, who just happens to be a prodigious talent at a young age. Most key forwards aren't like Hogan. Hawkins, both Reiwoldts and Cameron Mooney are examples of KPFs who took time to develop. Hogan is more like Jonathan Brown - ready from day 1. McCartin may or may not get there. Personally, I hope he does. And for what it's worth, I don't think Petracca is doing enough just yet to justify his supposed talent, either. He's showing flashes of brilliance, but not enough consistency. But he is getting better.

While you've been corrected on Jezza's ethnicity I'm surprised no-one has questioned you putting Petracca above him. If Petracca should turn out to be better than Jesaulenko we are going to see the best Melbourne player since Barassi. And yet posters are saying Oliver will be even better than Petracca. Frankly, I doubt Petracca will be as good as Jezza, but there's no shame in that. Jezza would probably be the fifth best player I've ever seen after Matthews, Carey and both Abletts. Flower probably comes next.

So I assume you're expecting us to upgrade pick 18 by trading out a player. Who might that player be?

I think if I wanted to create a list of "players who improved the most under Roos", Jetta would have to top the list. The more I think about it, the more extraordinary the change has been which reinforces my belief that the only thing worse than our drafting in the 5 years pre-Roos was our player development.

It's also a relief knowing such good hands belong to our key picks. The alternative view could be that with all the talent at their disposal at the time they wasted their opportunity because of the off-field issues and should have won more than one Premiership.