La Dee-vina Comedia

What I find more surprising than more captains picking St Kilda than us is that not one of them picked North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Gold Coast or Collingwood. (I think it's too much of a stretch to expect any of them to choose Richmond, Carlton or Brisbane). That's not to say that I think those four will all make it, but with 17 (or more, if co-captains did it jointly) making selections, I just thought there might be room for at least one of these to be chosen.

You didn't see the air quotes I was using? I didn't mean to imply that Matthews wasn't a thug. I was trying more to explain that thuggish player was not uncommon and that he wasn't the worst in that regard. If I remember correctly, the reason why he was charged over the Neville Bruns incident was because the then VFL had not taken enough action to clean up "behind the play" incidents which subsequently put pressure on the police to act. And I know it's a subjective argument, but I respectfully don't agree with SWYL. I think all the players I mentioned above were more "thuggish" than Matthews.

I'm not quite sure what you think I've misunderstood. All I was saying was that while Matthews was a thug, there were others far worse than him and none of them with his talent. Given the precedent set by Matthews being charged, players such as Ron Andrews, Robert Muir, Carl Ditterich, David Rhys-Jones, Jim O'Dea and many others too talentless to remember should consider themselves lucky not to have seen the inside of a courtroom in response to their exploits on the field.

I agree he was a thug - just that many other players were more thuggish than him, and all of them less talented.

He may well be the only VFL player to have faced that scrutiny but many more players were more thuggish than Matthews. His prosecution was media motivated and while what he did to Bruns was unacceptable, he was "unlucky" to be made the scapegoat for on-field, off-the-ball violence. Many players from that same era are lucky not to have longer "criminal records" for essentially similar behaviour. In my mind, Matthews does not have a mixed legacy because of this or his other violent acts. He just played the game hard like many others but (in my opinion) better than anyone else in the last 50 years.

Any particular reason? For example, are you not members or, perhaps, "not-yet-renewed members" and they were encouraging you to join/rejoin?

And to some extent Gary Wilson would have had the same problem being seen as Robbie Flower. He also played in teams which received minimal TV coverage. It's not like today. In those days cameras only recorded two or three games each round. If you didn't see them play live there was a good chance you didn't see them at all. (On the other hand, until South Melbourne relocated to Sydney every game was played in Melbourne or Geelong, so attendance was easier than today.)

I assume you're talking about his brother, Tom. For those who didn't see R Flower, he was graceful, skillful and courageous. I can't think of any player I've seen before or since who he could be compared with. Perhaps the best comparison with a player today would be Nat Fyfe. Sure, Fyfe is taller and stronger, but so is the average player today.

One of the problems for Robbie Flower was that he played in an era when Melbourne was generally poor (or worse) and only one or two games a week were ever televised. Accordingly, most of the panel making the selections wouldn't have seen him in the flesh and would barely have seen any footage of him playing. And for what it's worth (and I've been watching footy since the mid-1960s) my top 4 would be Matthews, Carey, Ablett and Ablett. Not sure of the order of the last two, but probably Senior before Junior.

Not disagreeing with you, but apparently Frost has an injured toe and couldn't be considered anyway.

Who, exactly, are you referring to? It's all very confusing now with the mob, the Dons, etc.

I'm amused that discussion on this thread has significantly dried up since the possible involvement of Mick Gatto was floated. Amazing how everyone goes silent when he's considered to be near.

Is it still the case that if you're under pressure and deliberately rush a behind that's deemed to be OK, but if you are under pressure and deliberately cause the ball to go out of bounds you're penalised? If so, I think the rules are flawed.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that the Herald Sun is a newspaper. It's actually an AFL paper. It is well known that it sells more papers when it has major AFL stories so mines that territory continuously. Essendon would have known that and used it to its advantage.

If we win Round 1 my pessimist streak will return and I will assume we'll lose the next 4 games. However, if we lose Round 1 my optimism will make me believe that we'll win the next 4 games. Basically I need psychological help as I don't know what I want to happen in Round 1.

If it makes you feel any better, a person's view about their own "speed" is a subjective assessment. In a year or two, Usain Bolt will know he has lost his speed, but will probably still be within the ten fastest humans on the planet. Trengove might have wanted more speed, but he might still have enough for what the team needs. And I accept he might not be quick enough. If that was all he could bring to the table, he wouldn't get another game. Whether the other things he can bring - game sense, marking ability, mental toughness - are enough, we'll know before long. Like, I think, all of us, I wish him well.

Having just read Mick Warner's story I am very dubious. I think its very dangerous to assume that the claims of the "disgruntled employees" are necessarily accurate. Essendon has apparently stated that the claims are false and have been reported to the Police. I'm not sure what the Police involvement is about although if the Essendon FC position is correct, perhaps it is to investigate whether the employees have made fraudulent claims to WorkSafe. If any part of their claims can be proven to be false it would then bring into question the rest of their statements, whether they are accurate or not. While this never-ending saga has conditioned us to believe that anything the club did is beyond imagination, just maybe what's being written about here did not actually happen. And who amongst ever thought the the AFL-linked John Elliott who would get into the most trouble would be this particular one?

Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you. But my nostalgic self rather likes the old-fashioned look of a "clean" jumper.

While I do like the idea of us earning money through sponsorship, I also really like the look of jumpers without added corporate branding. It's not all downside if we don't get a back of jumper sponsor.

Training is more than just the sessions we are lucky enough to have our track watchers report from. There's also time spent in the gym and doing other stuff we don't get to see or hear about. Who knows - maybe the failure to meet KPIs was for not spending enough time in the gym. Or he turned up late to (or fell asleep in) a team meeting. If our seasoned track watchers think Jack's intensity on the track looks fine, maybe they're right and it's not on the paddock that any problems exist.

Maybe this is the point of it. Not so much as a reminder for those who were around and remember but as a form of education for those too young or otherwise not involved with the club five years ago.

Add in Bernie Quinlan and the facts speak for themselves. Name your child Bernie and he or she could be one of the great long-kicking champions of the game.

Such as Jordan Lewis at Melbourne. Fits your definition. At least in my imagination.

I think you've mistaken having sympathy for the Demons with Sympathy for the Devil.

I agree. But the point he's making about a ruckman winning the Brownlow is actually addressing an interesting side issue. The Brownlow has been too heavily weighted towards midfielders for the last 20 years. Getting rid of 3rd man up will help true tap ruckman; and limiting interchange to much fewer than now would give key position players a chance of winning.