La Dee-vina Comedia

If the conflict was disclosed as suggested by the article, I don't see any problems. If anything, the only party which might have acted questionably is ClubsNSW and then only if they deliberately ignored the conflict, by which I mean they didn't confirm arms length negotiations between Demetriou's company and CrownBet. I have to add, though, that the photo of AD amused me. I'm so used to seeing Stephen Dank on his phone whenever the media is present I wondered whether that was who was on the other end of the call.

Did you sleep in Yarra Park overnight?

Ditto. And I've been following the club since 1964.

I'd suggest that the two best teams in a single year out of the last 40 years were probably Hawthorn in 1988 and Essendon in 2000. We timed our challenges for the wrong years.

It's more about biology than timing.

No-one. I'm not a great fan of apportioning "blame" for honest mistakes. I doubt the recruiters deliberately stuffed up the pick; I suspect the coaches didn't want him to fail; and as Gysberts would have been a teenager when he was first drafted I can't see why anyone should blame a child who discovered after a reasonably short period of time that the rigours of an AFL career weren't for him.

I wonder whether we were doing enough (or any) assessment of the psychology of potential recruits in Prendergast's time. And do we do it now? If we're doing it now and not then and the reason we didn't do it then was a lack of resources, I might be prepared to cut Prendergast some slack.

Don't know. But he used to write quite well. He had some good articles in The Age after he retired as a player.

Wow. You're a tough marker. His 1989 Grand Final was the single best performance I've ever seen from a player in a Grand Final. (And possibly the best Grand Final I've ever seen, too.)

Author of one of the best quotes of all time.

Four exclamation marks! I'm trying to work out if that has the same value as 4 "likes" or "0.25 likes". (By the way, I have no problem with your post. We just disagree about the value of co-captains. For what it's worth, I suspect it makes no difference to a team's prospects of winning a premiership whether they have good or bad captains, single or co-captains, or even no captains at all. And if anyone wants to sing that to the tune of Colonel Bogey March, go ahead.)

Alex Jesaulenko. Could play on ball, half back flank or as a key forward and all equally well.

Actually, I thought he was talking about the third player in being from the team who already had possession of the ball to help hold it in.

I don't like co-captains because it symbolises weakness in the people chosen. In other words, having gone from sole captain to one of two co-captains, the club has, in effect, said Nathan Jones isn't good enough to be a captain on his own. I'm sure others will disagree, but if Nathan Jones was indisputably a quality captain, would we have even contemplated having Viney (or anyone else) join him in the role?

Does anyone think the rule changes over the last decade in a supposed effort to "speed up the game" might have had a counter-intuitive effect? For example, allowing kick-ins immediately after a behind is kicked, four boundary umpires and the short period between when a mark is taken and play-on is called are all relatively new. But they have all reduced the amount of time players get to rest during play. If the players had that extra rest, would there be a need to have as many interchanges? Which then flows on to players having longer rests on the bench rather than in breaks in play on the field and therefore more burst speed.

I'm not sure there's a problem to fix, or, at least, a problem of sufficient concern that something needs to be done. Ignoring the two newbies, every team bar Richmond has played in a grand final since 2000. The teams that haven't won premierships, by and large, have been incompetently managed for significant periods of time which has limited their success. It's not the fixture that's done that. But, the fixture has some elements which impact on the enjoyment of the product (separate to the ultimate result). There are three aspects that should be locked in: Every team should play each other team once and only once in the first 17 rounds. That adds to the enjoyment for supporters because it provides a much better appreciation of how their team is travelling compared to all the others. The first 21 games should be locked in well in advance to allow planning for supporters with travel arrangements and for clubs to maximise commercial opportunities. I'm not yet convinced of the need for round 22 to be "flexible", but I can accept that there may be value to try to even up rest times for clubs likely to play finals. Of course, if the bye after round 22 is to remain (and I'm definitely against that) then the argument for flexible timing for round 22 disappears. Blockbuster games which have become traditional and some themed rounds (indigenous, heritage, etc) should continue.

And we've got Brighton Grammar

I haven't thought through whether it's a good or bad idea, but one aspect of it I really like is that it would mean every team would play every other team once and only once in the first 17 games. Irrespective of what happens with the last five games, I would be far happier with the draw if this simple fix was made. It would give everyone a clearer reference point as to how their team was travelling.

Denis Pagan on SEN today talked about missing out on the coaching job at Melbourne after John Northey moved on. We seem to have moved on a bit on the admin side, thank goodness.

You do realise that in the one post you've proposed rule changes and indicated you don't like rule changes? You're not alone. It seems most people oppose any rule changes...except for the ones they like.

He seems pretty explosive every time Carlton plays us! And Williams absolutely dominated clearances, probably more than Judd or Ablett. As an accumulator and expert distributor of the ball. Couldn't run out of sight on a dark night but had the best hands in the business. Possibly ever. Think of him as being like Sam Mitchell, but with dynamic hands rather than feet. He's the player that Oliver is most likely to emulate.

Vince's second half in 2016 was poor. There may be good reasons for that and if he's back to (or near) his best he needs to play, but not in the backline. He looks out of place there. But I fear that age might have caught up with him in which case he may struggle for game time. I can't see how we wouldn't play three talls. All of Frost and the Macs are mobile. And if one of them is unable to play, I would expect Garland or Wagner to take their place, or Pedersen if we need a particularly strong body. I envisage a team of three tall defenders (Frost and the McDonalds) and four small defenders (Hibberd, Jetta, Hunt and either Salem/Harmes/Melksham, depending on other needs). Those seven players allow for the necessary rotations with the four small defenders also spending some time on the wings.

My first thought was, "nah, its worthless". Then I thought, what if it was made officially available for anyone to buy? What would someone pay? And I think you're right. Some rich, mad Essendon supporter might pay multi-thousands to have it. Which is the madness of elite sport - people will pay way more than they should for something that is actually worthless. Like a Melbourne membership in 2013.

For anyone who's interested, we've never had a player with the surname Morse. But Code played 6 games in 1978. (With thanks to Demonwiki)

You're forgiven for your flippancy due to your late arrival on Demonland. But you have to understand in the dim dark days of just a few years ago the intra club was considered a highlight because it was the one game of the year where we could claim a victory...or, at least, not suffer an enormous loss.