La Dee-vina Comedia

Has Goodwin already been made a life member of our club? If not, that needs to happen. (Perhaps not immediately, but at a time when he's ready to accept it.)

So, do I take it from this that Brad Green has been guided in this decision by some people who live in the Victorian town of Cohuna? And did they tell him to act in a way that shows he has the cojones? 😁

I suspect we used an outside PR/crisis management firm to draft it.

My apologies KozzyCan if you thought I was in any way being critical of your post. It was not my intention. I'm just aware of how these decisions can be looked upon differently as circumstances change.

Sacking a coach after a win might be a better strategy than doing so after a loss, particularly if it's a bad loss. It potentially allows for a more respectful announcement, a less-stressed playing group when they are told, and it makes it look like a more strategic rather than knee-[censored] decision of the Board.

Who is Murray Davis?

I believe that on Demonland in 1965 there was a similar post which said "Thanks Norm. Now we can start moving forward as a club."

Why do you think that? It's not like re-cycled coaches are particularly successful. If my history is correct the last re-cycled coach who didn't coach a premiership team who subsequently did at his second try was Malcolm Blight at Adelaide. Re-cycling premiership winning coaches hasn't been a complete failure (Malthouse, Matthews), but plenty fail second time around.

You've got a future writing rom-com scripts.

Is it any different from Caleb Windsor collecting the goal umpire last week (or the week before, perhaps?) when trying to touch the ball going through the goals? I mean, obviously it's different in the details, but both players had their eyes on the ball and could reasonably assume that the umpire wouldn't get in their way.

Like who? I assume Dan Houston is an example (but do we know whether he was ever truly interested in coming?) Who else?

No-one ever invites me to parties. Don't know why.

I'm a member of the MCC and just received an email inviting me to respond to a survey about the MCC and the use of the MCG. I have used it to request that the gameday experience be improved by getting rid of the music. If you agree with that and are also invited to respond to the survey, please ensure you make the same comment. I have also asked that those teams who use the MCG as their home ground not be required to have a home game at Marvel. I know that's not likely to change and is a decision of the AFL, not the MCC. But it's still worth saying.

I often wondered what the collective noun would be for a group of fitness professionals. Now I know. It's a mantra of burges.

It would be nice. But there's much more value to be had from working on other matters. I'm just interested in putting limited resources (including time) into areas where we can get the most value.

Actually, probably not. The likelihood of these same players facing the same set of circumstances once again in their professional career is remote. I'd rather they concentrated on things that are more likely going to be relevant such as field kicking and kicking for goal.

There's so much to digest in this single sentence. (If it's a cultural reference to something, it's gone completely over my head.)

I'm not convinced Petty comes in for May. I think Howes is more likely given St Kilda's relatively small forward line.

Do we need a third tall defender against St Kilda? I would have thought Howes for May might be a better option than bringing in Petty as a key defender. However, Petty could play forward instead of Jefferson, although Johnson could be preferred because he's a better option to assist Gawn.

If Greg Swann gets his way now that he's at AFL HQ, he's going to get rid of the ruck nomination rule and have the field umpires throw the ball up and the boundary umpires throw the ball in much more quickly. That will necessitate teams playing at least two players capable of being ruckmen on the field at all times. I suspect it will be delivered as a rule change at the same time as the sub is abolished in favour of a fifth interchange player. (I support the first idea, but not the second, even though the coaches will argue that the fifth interchange player allows them to play another ruck option.) Max (and every other number 1 ruckman) will need more help on field if this happens.

I'm disappointed that the mods haven't deleted this post which is horribly sexist. Or at least edited out the last 10 words which are completely unnecessary.

You're classifying Pickett as an on-baller?

Yes, you do!

Selection integrity means different things to different people. For some, it's about trying to win here and now; for others it's about building a team for the future. In that latter example, players need to be tried to see if they are worth persevering with. They may not be ready yet, but if they show enough potential, then it's also important to give them game experience now, even if they are not yet fully ready. Hence, I agree with DeeSpencer. I've seen enough to know that Billings is not the answer, even though he might be a better prospect than some others to help us win a game in the short term.

It's definitely a no-win situation. If we had come out at the beginning of the season saying we were "rebuilding on the run" every loss would have been viewed through the prism of tanking. (Not only that, what would such a statement have meant for the playing group? Why would they have had any incentive to try their hardest? And why would supporters bother to attend matches? or take out memberships?)