La Dee-vina Comedia

(deleted)

Mind you, it's not a patch on (arguably) the most famous newspaper headline ever: The genius behind ‘Headless Body in Topless Bar’ headline dies at 74

Not sure I agree.

May 5. Gawn 4. Oliver 3. Bowey 2. Pickett 1. Langdon

We lost to the top team by one point! Why all the gnashing of teeth here? The only change I would consider would be bringing in Viney if he's ready. I'm not sure who for, though. As much as I want to get games into the first and second year players, perhaps one of them needs a rest?

I think it's OK, as long as they don't get off at any of Malvern, Armadale or Toorak Stations.

I can see either Howes replaces Lever in the side or Howes, Bowey, Salem and Judd play the four "small" defender roles allowing Windsor to return to the wing. If that latter is the case, it would suggest that the "Windsor to the backline" experiment is over.

Which one? They have so many!

No need to change on my behalf. I was just curious as to its etymology in reference to our training reports.

People overlooked for the top job often move on. I don't know whether David Chippindall, our acting CEO, wanted the job or not, but if he did, I could see him now looking elsewhere for a promotion. And that's fine.

When did the expression "flush run" join the lexicon? It seems to have become all the rage on Demonland over the last few weeks. It's not a term I'd previously heard of until about 6 weeks ago.

Won't help as we don't know how to hold onto a lead. (With apologies to the caller to radio about 10 years ago who first used that line when Richmond kept losing)

Let's consider whether the rule is needed at all. The alleged purpose of the deliberate/insufficient intent rule is to keep the game moving. This is because (1) there is an expectation that the game is a better spectacle if it is kept moving and (2) a ball going over the boundary line causes play to slow. I think consensus would likely be that point (1) above is valid - the game is better when it moves quickly and we don't have rolling mauls. I'm not convinced, however, that point (2) necessarily has to follow. As the rules exist now, I suspect a ball going over the boundary line does cause play to slow. But what would happen if we got rid of the inane "ruck nomination" rule and just threw the ball back in immediately instead of waiting for the nominated ruckmen to make it into position? I think the game would continue to move quickly and we remove one of the more difficult rules for field umpires to have to interpret.

Probably a bit harsh, but I think he was closer to an undertaker than a caretaker.

He's one of very few players we have who shocks me when his shots at goal miss. I agree with others that he strikes me as a future senior coach.

I had also completely forgotten who Mark Riley was, too. Which makes me wonder, who else has been a caretaker senior coach for Melbourne? Am I right in saying Greg Hutchison and Todd Viney? Was Neil Craig? Who else? (I'm sure there have been plenty)

I haven't seen it, but the contestant must be some sort of obsessive-compulsive, schizophrenic, manic depressive with a fine taste in football teams!

It's certainly a curiosity that the Western Bulldogs with 6 wins and a percentage of 126.5% got to make a selection before Essendon which has 6 wins and a percentage of 85.0%. But, it's just another impact of Cyclone Alfred - Essendon's win percentage of 60% (6 out of 10 played) is higher than the Bulldogs with 6 from 11 (54.5%). In no world, though, does anyone really believe the Bulldogs are "worse" than Essendon this year. And, as an aside, it also shows how the draw can also affect the mid-season draft. Some teams may have played more teams at the bottom of the ladder compared with others. Nevertheless, I'm not sure there's a better method than that chosen to determine the order.

The MRO/Tribunal system is just one of many problems facing the AFL and I'm not sure there's sufficient talent at AFL House to fix all the problems. So, this is where Demonland can help. We could develop a better system and hand it over to the AFL. To get the ball rolling, I'd suggest that the system identify the difference between a football act and a non-football act. The Alex Pearce, Paul Curtis actions should be dealt with as football acts. The Liam Baker one (where he pushed his elbow into the neck of his opponent who is already lying prone on the ground) is a non-football act. Non-football acts should have much stiffer penalties than football acts.

Hasn't TMac said his days as a permanent forward are over because his feet can't take the constant need for 180 degree turns? Or did I just make that up?

I'd fix the problem in another way. Remove the nomination rule and just let anyone go for the tap out. More often than not it will still be the ruckman, but if the throw is a bit wayward...what's the big deal? Randomness with an oval ball is part of the joy of football. Randomness of the throw-ins can be likewise.

I'm not convinced there's a role for Viney in the midfield anymore unless he's being played as a tagger. The gameplan doesn't suit his "dump kick" style. However, I could see him being a damaging small forward and certainly better than Spargo at that role. I think AJ provided just enough to stay in a winning team. I could also see McDonald coming in for May, but only if May needs to be "managed". So, assuming Viney is good to go, just the one change for mine: Viney for Spargo.

Pickett 5. Oliver 4. Salem 3. Gawn 2. Petracca 1. Langdon Gawn gets marked down a little (probably a bit harsh, I know) because his opponent was also pretty good.

I'm as surprised as anyone that McDonald is the one to miss out. But the red-hot form he started the season with has tapered significantly in the last couple of weeks. I still think he's been playing better than May who looks to me like he's struggling to bend over. Nevertheless, I suspect there's more method than madness in this selection shock.

Where's General Soreness? Gone AWOL?