La Dee-vina Comedia

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?

And that's partly because they're neither one thing or the other. Their online versions mostly just rehash what's in print. I haven't got a solution for them, by the way, unless they can find digital profit centres that can offset their loss-making traditional media businesses.

I think to be fair, as a business model the only way print has any chance to survive is to replace much of the "news" with opinion as the "news" will almost always be out of date by the time the print newspaper is bought (or delivered). A "newspaper" which had only "news" would be stale; at least with opinion pieces it is able to deliver something analytical and thoughtful. At least, in theory. It depends, of course, on whether the opinion writers are worth reading. Love them or hate them, that's what Andrew Bolt, Caroline Wilson, Martin Flanagan and Terry McCrann do and why they are crucial to those newspapers.

I think what you'll find you're left with is barely edited media releases masquerading as news from politicians, businesses and anyone else. The evidence to back that up is the lack of a byline on much of the Herald Sun's copy.

Nice combination pun and ambiguity. Either you want us to get doctors who can perform at a higher standard or you believe we have unwell doctors...which is kind of funny, yet disturbing (that you care) at the same time.

You sure know how to insult people!

Chazz, I presume you don't mind being "trolled", shamed or criticised. If not, this has to be the most ironic post on Demonland ever.

Troy Menzel? Tom Bell? Mitch Robinson?

What does this actually mean? I assume the crack you are referring to is in the bone which makes up the heel. So is it a bit of bone growing in the wrong place?

I'll miss him. He's the thinking person's Mark Robinson, even down to the bogan voice. Love him or hate him, he's been working at a newspaper company struggling to move with the times and effectively stuck in no-man's land. As an example, it goes to print too early to include coverage of night football matches and hopes readers will jump online to catch up. Every one of those readers who goes online is potentially one less buyer of the newspaper. I don't blame the current management of Fairfax or The Age. It goes way back to the days of Ron Walker and Fred Hilmer who mistakenly did not believe the online world could ever replace print and didn't prepare accordingly.

This thread seems to have morphed into dietary advice.

Wearing a helmet sometimes encourages players (in all sports) to take greater risks than they otherwise would because of the belief in added protection. I hope Brayshaw doesn't fall for this trap - although I imagine it's more a subconscious thing which may be hard to overcome. Either way, whether he wears a helmet or not, I'm sure we all wish him all the best and hope that he never receives another concussion.

The photo which accompanies the promotion for Jeff White's interview in the forthcoming podcast helps explain why he was so successful. I had no idea he had four arms.

I'm surprised how many people find coaches' post-game press conferences (or any media interviews by coaches) informative. I find with the exception of two coaches, the remainder, whether their team has won or lost, speak either in cliches or without saying anything meaningful, or both. The two exceptions are Chris Scott and Nathan Buckley who I find fascinating precisely because they are forthright and honest (or, at least, appear honest). The worst - by far - is Ross Lyon. The remainder just seem to be treading water. Similarly, if I read an article published in the paper, I find that I will read the analysis but just skip over the bits where the paper regurgitates a coach's comments, whether I've heard them already or not.

One thing that is often overlooked is that the State of Origin series for NRL has reduced interest in the regular NRL series. Crowds see State of Origin as the pinnacle of that sport and as such consider the regular NRL season as (relatively) inferior and therefore of lesser interest. The same thing has happened to whatever the Sheffield Shield is called now. In cricket's case, it's because of over-saturation of test cricket on TV. The Sheffield Shield has been killed off as a spectator sport by the very people who should have nurtured it.