La Dee-vina Comedia

I'm not in favour of any change where we don't know before the season starts who we play and where for the whole home and away season. (I'd also prefer to know when for all games, but I'll accept that keeping the options open for round 23 is not unreasonable.)

I think it's a silly idea, but the various problems with the fixture as it stands requires the AFL to consider what options are available to improve it. I'm sure there are other problems but the main ones seem to be: trying to find equity when there are 18 (or, perhaps soon, 19) teams playing 23 games. How best to distribute the "double ups"? an unequal and arguably unfair distribution of games at various grounds. For example, the use of GMHBA Stadium scheduling games so that each team gets a similar distribution of 5-day, 6-day, 7-day and 8+ days breaks throughout the season

Looking at the team selection, I would expect only one of Tomlinson or Hibberd to play, unless there's a late withdrawal of one of the other nominated defenders or one of Tomlinson or Hibberd is the sub. The other six defenders (May, Lever, Salem, Rivers, Bowey and McVee) are all ahead of Tomlinson and Hibberd and we play seven defenders, not eight. I suspect Tomlinson will play while one of Chandler or Laurie will replace Spargo. Smith, in my view, will again be the sub.

OK...but for every team that has wins "drying up" another team is being, er, flooded with wins. They cancel each other out, for goodness sake!

Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers. So, what's a "debit"? PS: (1) I love Joeboy's work, even when I don't agree and (2) ANB is a critical player in the team for all he does when he doesn't have the ball, such as taking the hits to allow Petracca and others to do the pretty stuff.

What's the context for the use of the word "Dry"?

Players have to have a life outside of football. Their mental health is just as important as their physical wellbeing.

Agree. But what I think will happen is that fewer people than the AFL expect will bother to attend the last 6 rounds. For the bottom six seasons, the games are totally meaningless and for the top six, I predict many people won't bother going when they know they'll see the same teams play in finals just a few weeks later.

The other problem with the proposal is that the last six rounds where the top teams play each other effectively removes the need for a finals series. Unless we're happy to see the same teams playing each other over and over again. (Rather like Melbourne playing Brisbane last week which was the 5th time in less than a year. It was reported somewhere that in that same time, some teams have not played each other at all.)

Hidden in plain sight might be the AFL's long game...adding Tasmania but losing one of the current teams to bring the total back to 18.

I think the term " 17-6 fixture redraw over wildcard weekend" doesn't mean that these games are all played during one weekend. Rather, the "over" means "preferred to".

Designed a great knife, though.

The wildcard round idea might be a distraction. The Age is today reporting that the idea was discussed between the AFL Executive and club CEOs yesterday and was not well supported. However, another idea apparently was more popular. That would be a 17 round initial season where every team plays each other once. Then, the remaining rounds sees the top 6 (as they are at that point) playing each other again, the middle 6 similarly and the bottom 6 playing amongst themselves. I can see the attraction...and a huge problem. Who's going to want to pay TV broadcast money for meaningless games played between the bottom 6 teams?

I don't know what the methodology is, but I'm amazed we're considered to be a marginally better chance to beat Adelaide than St Kilda is to beat North Melbourne.

Please tell me the dog's name was Rover.

Well done to you, Timothy. I can recall two Melbourne players who went successfully into politics. Ray Groom became Premier of Tassie and Brian Dixon was a Minister in the Hamer Government of Victoria. Have there been others?

If Petty doesn't play, my preference is Tomlinson. However, we also have Turner waiting in the wings. Does anyone believe Turner might get the nod over Tomlinson if Petty doesn't play? I would be surprised if there are any other changes. We're getting to that point in the season where stability becomes important. Even though Spargo does little to enthuse, I don't see any obvious replacements, so I suspect he keeps his spot.

Second suggestion for coach has been privately delivered. Feeling confident about this one.

That's counter-balanced by the Grand Final being played at the MCG.

Add Jared Rivers and you have three winners from Melbourne. According to Wikipedia, equal top with three winners each are Sydney, Fremantle and Melbourne. Upon closer inspection, though, you'll see that Brisbane Lions have had two winners and Brisbane Bears also had two, so I would suggest it's reasonable to argue that Brisbane is on top of this particular ladder with Melbourne in equal second.

In itself, a wild card weekend doesn't necessarily mean there would be no more bye week. The AFL could theoretically start the season one week earlier and still have a bye and a wildcard round at the end of the season. After all, just wait for coaches of teams who finish 7th and 8th arguing that its unfair to have to play an extra week when teams above them have a bye. It would be stupid to have a wildcard round and also a bye because teams finishing 1 to 6 would have a two week bye, but doing stupid things hasn't stopped the AFL before.

The draw as it currently stands recognises the positions of teams in the previous year. The top six teams from the previous year have a nominally tougher draw than the middle six, while the bottom six from the previous year have what should be the easiest draw. On that basis, the AFL could improve the equity of the draw by limiting the finals to the top six teams. I know it will never happen, though. And as to the wild card round? What a waste of time it will be.

I'm surprised Daniher got three votes from Fagan. Daniher's lack of defensive efforts and the way he was out-manouvered by van Rooyen in most of their rucking contests was, frankly, appalling. I'd go so far as to say for all the good Daniher did, you could also argue that his laziness cost Brisbane the game.

Also worth adding that having Grundy means Max isn't worn out by the end of the year from having to ruck 90% of every game he plays. Also, we want to have chances of winning premierships every year, not just this year, and especially while we have generational talent like Oliver, Petracca, Pickett (and others) in the side. Grundy's recruitment doesn't just have to be looked at as a success or failure in its first year. Having said that, if both parties accept that Grundy should move on after this year, it's not like he'll move on without some form of compensation, such as players or draft picks of commensurate value.

I assume Ashcroft and Sheezel will be two of the top three. Who would be the other one on the podium? Mitch Owens? Jye Amiss? Is McVee a chance?