La Dee-vina Comedia

Confirmation here that we've offered a second round draft pick from next year for Hibberd. Essendon wants a second round this year.

The club hasn't used the word "delisted". That's been used here and I assume by the media. What the club said was that there were list changes and that the three players were not being offered new contracts. I'm not sure what else the club can say or do to make it any more dignified.

I'm sure Satyr can speak for himself, but his statement is no more or less relevant than the alternative view espoused by others on this forum that they could see that the Essendon players were "juiced up" and noticeably bigger during the first half of that season. As you say, neither view is relevant to the issue.

On this point, do the payments to Category B rookies, or whatever it's called, get included in the salary cap? I expect in the overall scheme of things the amount these rookies get paid wouldn't be much, but I'm curious nevertheless.

While I understand what you're getting at, don't forget all players upon induction into the AFL are also told exactly what they are expected to do with respect to checking everything personally with ASADA. So while you are correct that they might find it hard to stand up to their Essendon boss(es), by not doing so they ultimately did stand up to their AFL bosses.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a regulatory authority investigating whether Luke Hodge actually uses that food preparation service (is it called Light and Easy?) They may be a perfectly sound option for the average human being but I find it hard to believe a professional AFL footballer could survive on those products alone.

Sports people do things and take things that improve (or, if you prefer, enhance) their performance all the time. That's why they take protein supplements, eat massive amounts of food and train with weights. I'm not defending the EFC - they had a responsibility to ensure that their players only took legally approved performance enhancing products. And the players, too, had a personal responsibility to ensure what they took was legal. Did what they take do anything to improve their performance? Who knows (although I've said before I doubt it - I think Dank is a charlatan and should be behind bars). But that's not the point. If a product or practice is banned - so be it. The user wears the consequences.

Did he actually say that Dawes and Pedersen are list cloggers AND both should be delisted? If he didn't add those last five words it's an arguable proposition. If he did add the last five words, it is still arguable, but on more tenuous grounds.

But you seem to forget that at picks 112, 129, 146, 163 and possibly even 95, we'll get who we want because there'll be no other clubs bidding at that time. Just think, we can make our selection at 146 without being nervous about who we might miss out on at 145. (Insert appropriate emoticon here).

I've said it previously, but I don't see Wagner being promoted to the main list as a certainty. He deserves to be but the recruiting and list managing system we work under encourages the club to keep him as a rookie who is immediately promoted at Round 1. That gives us more flexibility at the draft. I don't like it, but we have to use the system to our best advantage.

So, of all the embarrassing records we did break this year, which is your favourite? I think mine is not having lost three games (or more) in a row. Spreads the pleasure better through the pain.

To put some perspective on how far we've come, in 2013 we won two games and had a percentage about 4% points lower than Essendon right now. And that was with two expansion teams in the competition (which is why we were 17th and not 18th). That's a massive improvement in three years.

You're not the ghost of our former President Billy Snedden, are you?

Good point.

Didn't we beat Port in Darwin at night in 2010?

When was the last time we went through a season with out losing a game by 60+ points?

The family tree approach to judging coaching is well respected. Whether it's the Tom Hafey family (Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse followed by John Worsfold, for example) or the Norm Smith family (Ron Barassi followed by Malcolm Blight) or the John Kennedy family (David Parkin and Leigh Matthews subsequently followed by the Scott twins), etc, there is logic in the idea. Successful coaches teach future successful coaches. Of course, not every descendant in the family can be a success (Hardwick, Hird, Voss...and many more) but the opening post makes sense overall.

I appreciate your point. But I would argue something has changed - the problems you refer to now occur far less frequently overall. It just so happens that they happened a lot yesterday.

He won't be any taller in the forward line, so he's not going to be a KPF, either. What position would he play? I honestly don't know what his best position is any more.

Dunn has the disadvantage of being 'only' 192 cm. That's not really tall enough for a key position defender. If he can't be a key position defender, what's his position going to be? In other words, I don't think he's competing for a position in the backline with either of the McDonald's or Frost. Rather, he's competing with Wagner, Hunt, Lumumba, Garland and White. And if he can't find a spot in the backline, I'm not sure there's anywhere else for him.

A challenge for the rest of the season: When did we last go through a season without losing three games in a row?

And he's also not "cheating". He's playing the game as allowed by the rules. If he was "cheating" he would be penalised. I would prefer the rules to be changed so the tactic he has successfully employed (along with other players) is not rewarded with a free kick. It should just be play on and if the player tackled disposes of the ball incorrectly, or not at all, a free kick should be paid against him.

Don't forget even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Pity you weren't quite correct. It would have been post of the year for mine. (I initially read it the same way as you, too.) If the umpires are continually paying a free kick it's more likely a problem with the rules, not the umpiring. And that can be easily fixed. Frees against don't need to be paid automatically. It should be considered a legitimate tackle. If the player disposes of the ball correctly, play on. If he disposes incorrectly or not at all, a free should be paid against him. Yes, but does your wife know?

OK - thanks for the clarification.