La Dee-vina Comedia

That's an interesting mathematical challenge, OD.

I really hope you're speaking with your tongue firmly in your cheek. Otherwise, I suggest you seek help to adjust your rose-coloured glasses.

I have the same view about Tom McDonald's disposal. His ungainly (OK, awful) kicking action puts heart in mouth, but I'm not convinced the end result statistically is much different to most other players. It's just that when he misses a target he gets pounced on more than others.

I initially read that as "sponsors". Talking of which, I noticed in Alan Richardson's press conference that Hankook Tyres now sponsors St Kilda. Does that mean we missed out or does it mean that our rates have risen and Hankook can't afford us? If it's the latter, it would suggest that we are now a more marketable club than St Kilda.

I wonder if Goodwin actually said these things or whether the technically correct wording should be "Matt Burgan says he believes Goodwin thinks: Oscar just oozes leadership..." That's not to say the Goodwin didn't approve them and therefore has to take accountability for what was published.

Under this plan, who would you play as second ruck when Gawn has a break? If Watts goes to the backline (which I doubt will happen), I would expect Spencer to play.

In a similar vein, when did we last have a percentage as high as 133.33%?

And of those in Roos team, I think I could only say that Tyson, Cross, Frawley and maybe Howe (as each was playing then) might make it into Goodwin's team.

Because everything catches fire?

Is it the AFL or Telstra that's blocking the replays? (Not that I expect that will change your opinion about the AFL CEO.) I assumed it was Telstra as a way of protecting its investment.

And there's talk of Casboult being suspended. Mind you, while he can take a good contested mark, he doesn't do much damage when he has the ball. As for our team, I can't imagine anyone being omitted. So a replacement needed for Smith and maybe Vince. If Tyson's fit, he comes in and plays in the midfield. If it's the only change necessary, I suspect Salem or Lewis will go to the backline. If we need second player, I expect it will be Harmes (unless Hibberd is fit).

Hogan got top votes on 3AW. Given by Leigh Matthews who made the point that it was his versatility (being able to go on ball) as much as his marking that made him BOG. Old habits die hard? For a few years we needed to differentiate N from M Jones. Not any more.

If Daniher misses out because he "can't kick" I'm afraid Hogan might have to miss for the same reason. Neither Daniher or Hogan are reliable kicks for goal but both get the ball often enough that they can still make this list sooner rather than later. But not yet.

If that's the case, win or lose, it's going to be a hell of a lot better than watching us play just 4 years ago.

Perhaps they just meant that he was no longer underdone and ready to play.

Why would that be? What's the difference between a player being injured and not playing and being retired and not playing? In fact, could anyone say they knew for sure what Dane Swan's status was after he was injured last year? And what about Chris Judd? (Having posed the question I admit I have no idea whether either Collingwood or Carlton were allowed to promote a rookie in each case).

I'm lazy enough that once I've got some documentation that calls my child "Baby Comedia", the child better get used to the name because I'm not going to bother changing it.

Let us know how you get on signing up someone with a date of birth that's in the future. And, much more importantly - congratulations.

There's a permanent spot to fill following the retirement of Lumumba.

When you're winning it's called a "knock on tactic". When you're losing, it's called a fumble. I know what to call what I've been watching for the last decade.

Gillon McLachlan claims to have "forgotten" to raise the timing of the Grand Final at yesterday's Commission meeting. It is impossible to believe that an item as important to the AFL and of such interest to the community at large would be raised orally and not supported by written arguments. At the very least it should be listed for discussion on a written Agenda which the Commission should be following for its meetings. So, either Gill's a liar (when he said he "forgot" to raise it) or he's incompetent (for not having the matter listed in the Agenda for discussion). Or both.

Hird working in the media is one thing. It doesn't equal AFL acceptance, though. I'll be far more interested in seeing whether he turns up at any AFL-organised events, such as the Brownlow Medal count or the Hall of Fame dinner. Actually, it's not really a question of "if", it's more a question of "when". At some time I'm confident that the AFL will want to put everything to do with Essendon 2012 behind them and part of that will be welcoming James Hird back to the so-called AFL family. And whenever that happens, it will be too soon for some. Cue Beelzebub and SWYL...

Measured and thoughtful as always.

Artful fence-sitting, jackaub.

*Bump Here's a reason not to have co-captains. Either (1) there's a second photo with Jack Viney replacing Nathan Jones, (2) there's only the one photo and Jones won the toss and represents the club, or (3) Jones is considered the "senior" of the club's captains. And if it's (3), then Viney should have been VC. Mind you, perhaps the other advantages of having a co-captain outweighs this example of how it doesn't work...but only if Jack Viney doesn't feel slighted by his omission from the photo.