La Dee-vina Comedia

I actually think one of Spencer or Weideman will play to provide a tall forward target. If Spencer plays, which I think is the better option of those two, Pedersen becomes the target. I also expect Melksham to tag Johannisen. The unlucky player to miss might be Bugg.

Defenders also have the advantage that the ground gets wider in front of them giving them more opportunities to be efficient. Forwards have a narrowing ground which makes it harder to be efficient because it gets more crowded and it's (comparatively) harder to keep the ball in play. For example, every behind kicked counts as an inefficient disposal.

Both The Age and the Herald Sun had different Melbourne stories on their back pages today. The Age is about how we might play Johanissen; the Herald Sun about us pursuing Jake Lever. When was the last time (if ever) we lead both papers' AFL coverage with completely different stories? I doubt that it would have happened if we weren't now considered to be a newsworthy club...for the right reasons.

I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier but perhaps in a clearer way. Our major problem has not been the lack of a ruckman. We've coped with that quite well. It's the lack of a big bodied key forward which has seen us struggle during periods of games. We improved against Collingwood when Pedersen went forward and swapped roles with Tom McDonald. The question for me is not about who rucks but what is the best structure overall. We are much better (at least until Hogan returns) with Pedersen playing forward. It makes it so much easier for Petracca and Watts. For that to happen, someone needs to replace Pedersen as the ruckman. That is either Tom McDonald or Spencer. In my mind, the real question is whether we want Tom McDonald in the backline or as a ruckman? I'd say play him in defence. Therefore, play Spencer (or Gawn if he's ready, of course) in the ruck. And then move one of Salem, Vince or Lewis out of defence to replace one of Harmes, Bugg or Hannan (probably Bugg).

How, exactly, are the metres gained measured? For example, and using simple numbers so we can use Pythagoras's Theorem, if a player 40 metres left of the centre of the ground (ie, towards the wing) kicks the ball 50 metres towards CHF, does that count as 50 metres gained (the hypotenuse) or 30 metres (the direct line from the centre)?

I shouldn't have doubted you. According to this, 666 in Hebrew actually translates to Nero Caesar.

There's one accurate line in the story, though. "But even a stellar resume like [his] doesn't get you instant promotion at the Demons."

Prove it!

Conversely, James Hird came back from his navicular injury to play very successfully. Let's hope Tim Smith can, too.

Mark Neeld coached one win in every 6.6 games.

I suspect watching the game at the ground and watching on TV give two different experiences. The TV allows for a closer examination of skills; watching at the ground provides a better appreciation of positioning and work rate. I'm basing my comments on being at the ground without the benefit of having seen it on TV. If Bugg can fix his kicking, he could be a good player for us. But at the moment he's a liability. I don't care how often he takes screamers, niggles the opposition or scoops up crumbs. If he's unable to execute well enough and regularly enough the basic skill of kicking properly, the value of his good work is nullified.

I haven't seen the replay but I was at the game and I thought that at every centre bounce when Pendlebury was there, Melksham was right next to him. And every time Pendlebury came to the bench for a spell, Melksham did the same. It was only after half-time that this changed.

The players with 4 votes each must have been 4-0, 0-4, 2-2 and 3-1 (or 1-3). So, without going to any other sources such as comments made in media conferences, there's a 50% chance he got votes from both coaches. And a 50% chance he didn't.

And here are the Coaches' votes. I had Jones as best on ground so clearly one or more of us has a bit to learn. MELBOURNE v COLLINGWOOD10 Christian Petracca (Melb)4 Jeremy Howe (Coll)4 Steele Sidebottom (Coll)4 Clayton Oliver (Melb)4 Adam Treloar (Coll)3 Nathan Jones (Melb)1 Michael Hibberd (Melb)

Goodwin made two changes at half time that changed the game. Pedersen and T McDonald swapped roles, so McDonald did most of the rucking. He was no more or less effective in that role than Pedersen. But Pedersen going forward made a huge difference and made it much easier for Watts and Petracca to get into the game. To enable Pedersen to spend more time forward, Spencer should come in for one of Harmes, Bugg or Hannan (probably Bugg). The other change was taking Melksham away from Pendlebury. Melksham had done an excellent job but it meant we were an attacking player short in the midfield. We looked much better with three attacking on-ballers instead of two. Which means I don't know what we should do with Vince, Lewis and Melksham. We can't play them all behind the ball. Which suits me, because I think Lewis or Vince are better up the ground anyway. Nevertheless, assuming no forced changes, I would say Spencer for Bugg (or Harmes or Hannan) and that is all.

Average what? Do you mean attendance?

I thought Bugg was poor today. There. I've said it. And I didn't think Hannan was as good as others seem to think, either. However, I think Hannan has the right skill set. He just needs to get the experience of AFL-paced rather than VFL-paced football to become a potentially seriously good player.

6. Jones 5. Oliver 4. Petracca 3. Hunt 2. Salem 1. Hibberd

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.

Winston (Churchill, not from 1984) said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." I think he was on to something. The idea that an uninformed, or even worse, ill-informed individual can have the same value at the polling booth as a fully informed individual is almost, but not quite as troubling as the idea that only certain individuals should be allowed to vote.

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?

I really should have concentrated more in the Home Economics classes when I was at school.

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'm surprised so many people assume Wagner would go out for Salem. Why Wagner and not Bugg? I rather like the idea of Salem playing on ball and half forward. Provides more class around the ground and a greater chance of kicking for goal accurately. I'm assuming Harmes is ahead of Bugg, but Salem would be ahead of Harmes, too. I also wonder about Spencer being both named in print and excluded from selection in a media interview on the same day. I don't recall Goodwin or Roos before him playing "games" with selections trying to keep the opposition and supporters guessing. I can only assume...um, I don't know what to put here.

This statement reflects the discussion on the Rohan Connolly thread about what is news - is it fact or opinion?