La Dee-vina Comedia

Abolishing the bounce isn't about fairness. It's about making it easier to get better umpires by removing a physically difficult task which currently reduces the pool of prospective umpires. For a start, it will make it easier for more women to become field umpires at the top level.

Who have you got in mind? Surely not me?

I don't mind either rule change in themselves but what I don't like is the tinkering with individual rules here and there. For example, removal of the sub and increasing the number of interchange players to five shouldn't be done without considering other related matters such as numbers of rotations and whether four or five (or something else) is the right number of players on the bench. Similarly, removing the bounce shouldn't be considered without also examining the ruck nomination and "no third man up" rules. To be fair, perhaps these matters were considered. It would be helpful if the AFL said so, if they were.

Can anyone confirm that there's a clause in King's contract which states that his time with us doesn't formally start until he's had a face-to-face meeting with Ghostwriter?

I think these days it should be "it's work from home we know"

I prefer to think of it as a reminder of how hard AFL premierships are to win. I'll always want more, but there is enormous emotional value in remembering 2021. And it's also appropriate to once again express my gratitude to the 2021 playing group, Simon Goodwin and his coaching team, and all who made it happen.

And so say all of us...

What's in the 50-page guide? Surely it's not 50 pages of notes about running. Does it also include dietary advice? What else?

The "Quiet Day For Lord" headline in the bottom right-hand corner is more evidence - if any were needed - that God is a Melbourne supporter.

I think you are correct. I believe conditional is a tense while subjunctive is a mood.

I haven't read this whole thread, but it's worth remembering that for the last 5 years (ie, 2020 to 2024) the competition had five different teams as Premier. Nevertheless, there is something fundamentally wrong with free agency if the free agents keep going to the teams at the top of the ladder rather than the other way around. It may not work out, but bravo to St Kilda for making themselves attractive enough to entice some quality free agents.

Not as good a name as Peter the Great, and marginally worse than Ivan the Terrible.

But you would have to expect his fingerprints are on this particular crime scene.

Incomparable. Closest I can get is to say a mix of Pendlebury (for his ability to make the game slow down around him), a gazelle and Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto.

I'm a Melbourne member and I'm very happy with the way we've arrived at Steven King as our coach. Also, if you've quoted him correctly, his English use is poor. It should be "If I were a Melbourne supporter..." as he's using the conditional subjunctive tense.

I agree with this. Also, the journos might have their noses out of joint because the story didn't leak.

I'm old, but not that old! I can remember football before the "out on the full" rule was introduced which preceded the "deliberate out of bounds rule". This comment really belongs in another thread, but I'll be disappointed if they change the "insufficient intent" rule next year. I think it's a terrible rule and should ultimately be abolished. But it doesn't have to be replaced with a "last kick/handpass out of bounds rule". It could be replaced with a quicker "throw the ball immediately back in" rule. This would eliminate the wait for the slow, lumbering, nominated ruckmen to arrive. Such a change would result in the need for teams to re-think their structures (one ruckman on the ground won't be enough). In short, I'd rather a comprehensive review of all the rules, but only after a review of what we want the game to look like. That would mean no rule changes for 2026, but significant changes in 2027, all introduced at once. And that would at least give teams the chance to think about how to prepare their playing lists.

With a King as coach and a CEO whose name in Italian and Spanish means "war", I'd like to think our coach's pre-game addresses will be like this, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother..." or "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more..." Both from Shakespeare's Henry V

I'm interested because we need to strengthen our back-of-house. Maybe the outsiders on the selection panel showed that they may have value beyond selecting the new coach.

Is Matty Whelan a full-time employee of the club?

It was always going to be this message. No-one is ever going to say, "We chose the second-best candidate and we're happy to make do." Realistically, every time a new coach is appointed, by definition, that person is the best choice at the time.

I voted "yes", but my answer may have been different in the unlikely event that a hypothetical new appointee happened to be coaching against his new team in a Preliminary or Grand Final

Is that because King's about a foot taller? Seriously, I'm pleased we've gone with an experienced assistant rather than a recycled senior coach. The last recycled coach who coached a team to a premiership at his second go having not succeeded first time round was Malcolm Blight at Adelaide. And that was in the last millennium. We'll never know (at least, I hope we won't because it would be a breach of confidentiality) but it would be very interesting to know what value the various members of the coaching selection panel brought to the process.

I agree. Nevertheless, I'm surprised we're not hearing about any Board challenges.

I wish they all still wore long socks on the playing field.