La Dee-vina Comedia

The problem with allowing players to appeal without the risk of additional weeks is that every player would do it. It would make the MRP totally redundant. My main gripe is that I don't think the level of injury should be relevant. Rather, the risk of causing injury should be what is taken into consideration. Take for example two elbow strikes to the head, each of the same force. One may cause a sore head, the other a fractured cheekbone, dependent entirely on where the contact takes place. Both should receive the same penalty because the action itself should be what is penalised because of the risk of damage to the other player, not the result.

To be fair to Richmond, the report should point out it's hard to convert supporters into attendees when they're being held at Her Majesty's pleasure.

I'd bring in Vince and Spencer for Lewis and Hogan. No other changes. I'm not going to argue why Vince, as I think it's self-evident. My arguments for Spencer are: we need to play him in some games this year. We cannot go the whole season without him having any senior experience as it leaves us exposed if we play finals and Gawn becomes unavailable it frees Watts to take on the Hogan role which has been part "stay-at-home" traditional forward and part "move-around-the-ground" oversized onballer. Watts won't be as good as Hogan at either of the roles Hogan plays, but he'll be much better overall at it than Weideman, Pedersen or Spencer. If Watts is doing that, he can't also be the second ruckman. it allows Gawn to spend more time forward while Spencer rucks. Gawn performed on Sunday like someone carrying an injury. Sore back? Sore wrist? General malaise? Giving him genuine ruck support might be timely. without Spencer (or Pedersen), there's a lack of big bodies in the forward line. Both Watts and Weideman are (relatively) skinny and need a big body to support them. That means Kent is less likely than Spencer, although Kent, if he's ready, could challenge for ANB or Hannan's spot - but not Hogan's.

I'm not sure Vince has got the speed to go with Dangerfield. Admittedly, probably no-one has, but it appears to me that Vince has slowed considerably compared with what he showed in 2015. I'm not sure that "tagging" is in Goodwin's repertoire anyway. Edit: Hunt would have the speed to go with Dangerfield, but I'd rather Hunt play the half-back role and let Geelong worry about him instead.

old dee, it seems I may have annoyed you and for that I apologise. Perhaps I'm just a little unsure how I'm meant to behave after a 2-0 (or as some in the media insist in saying "two and oh") start to the year. I'm not used to such optimism and bonhomie. Nevertheless, I trust we can continue our friendly banter whatever the remainder of 2017 and beyond delivers.

old dee, is that you? Never thought I'd see you making a comment that suggests we'll have "two power years" in the near future.

Never thought I would see the expression "Spencer for Hogan (like for like)" on Demonland. Or anywhere else.

You're not actually former India Prime Minister Desai, are you?

Different perspective. I'd rather have a sponsor than not...but yesterday at the ground the solid dark blue back of the jumper unspoiled other than by the player's number looked spectacular. If we're not going to get a back of jumper sponsor, or at least until we do, I wouldn't object to using it to promote a charity, such as Reach. A different one each week would be a good PR opportunity for the club as well as the charity chosen. You'd get a media story every week.

Excellent point made and question asked.

Selective use of stats much? More importantly, usually I like what you write, but I happen to disagree with you today. I thought Tyson started slowly but improved dramatically as the day went on. Melksham I thought was good, but not great. And Harmes looks to me to be better at half-forward than half-back.

6. Salem 5. Jetta 4. Oliver 3. Tyson (would have been higher but for too many errant disposals, particularly early) 2. T McDonald 1. Garlett If Watts' second and third quarters were like his first or last he would have been high up in the votes.

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

We're going to have to play Spencer at some time during the year. We can't go through a whole season without him having some game time if we expect to play finals. Imagine him having not played at all and then needing to be called up for a final because Gawn is unavailable. Whether this week is the right week, I don't know. But if there is any doubt about Gawn's fitness maybe he should play and Watts be required to play (for this week only) as a permanent tall defender.

Why would you say Tyson and Kent "are locks"? That's a midfielder and forward to replace two defenders. Given that, I would have thought Tyson and Harmes would have the front running (assuming no other late changes). Or perhaps Spencer plays instead of Harmes if Watts goes to the backline, although I can only see this happening if there is some doubt about Gawn's fitness.

While I agree with the point your making, it's probably a bit unfair to include Rohan Bail. While all the others you've listed were in the first 20 picks or thereabouts, he was pick 64 and performed above expectations for someone picked that late in the draft.

If you believe in omens, here's something in the media today for you. Bob Dylan actually accepting the Nobel Prize was considered as unlikely as Melbourne winning a round 2 game. Until now.

I know Caro's not everyone's favourite, but her job is to report on football. And that's what she's done here. Most people complain about her work for confusing opinion and facts. This time it's clear she's just relaying statements made by Russel Howcroft. As to what Howcroft said, I say, well done for speaking your mind in a low-key, non-grandstanding way while doing so at event to raise funds for a worthwhile charity. Interesting comments made more so by his apparent lack of self-promotion in doing so.

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.

Don't forget Kreuzer.

I would agree that playing at his best Kent would be "best 22". But his inconsistency means that for mine he's not an automatic selection (when fit). I don't think we can afford to play someone who my or may not "turn up" on the day if we have better options. I suspect Hannan has his spot at the moment. And based on one game, Hannan would hold onto his spot ahead of Kent until Kent shows he's a better and more consistent option.

I was probably a bit unclear. I wasn't saying it shouldn't happen, only that when it happens clubs should handle the player carefully so that the damage to the confidence from being dropped doesn't make things worse. It requires that clubs understand each of their players psychological strengths and weaknesses as much as they understand their physical ones.

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.

It seems counter-intuitive to me that to fix a player's "confidence" you'd do the one thing that would damage it more...drop him from the side. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but when clubs do it I hope they realise that it may well exacerbate the problem in the first instance.

My error. I just forgot to include him. I hope Tom doesn't read Demonland or he may never forgive me.