La Dee-vina Comedia

Not just draft boards. There's been a fair bit of trade between the clubs, too.

These are good points (although I don't believe Wildcard is the right move) but can I just fact-check the statement, "the NRL has gained ground and in fact, is starting to out-rate the AFL"? Hasn't the NRL been outrating AFL on FTA and pay-TV for many years?

Rewarding the 9th and 10th placegetters reminds me of this: 104-Year-Old Man Awarded WWII Medal Just To Be Nice - The Onion

I look forward to the post-season discussion in 2030 when the AFL decides to bring in a "Pre-WildCard Round" for teams ranked 10th to 13th to see which one gets to play in the WildCard Round the following week.

Viney was standing on a ladder, I assume.

The AFL is so pathetically reactive. Maybe there is something that they've done in the last 20 years which is truly innovative, but if so, I can't think of anything. If the AFL really believes the end-of-season bye is bad for football because there's a "dead" weekend, there are other ways of fixing that including: move the bye to the week after the Preliminary Final instead of playing 9 games each week (apart from the weeks of the bye rounds) as currently structured, play a mix of 8 and 9 games each week for the whole season including the last weekend which is currently without any AFL (men's) games. Sure, it means the ladder is uneven throughout the season...but does that really matter? (And that's what we had this year, anyway.) start the season one week later. None of the above are perfect solutions, but all are better, in my view than a "wildcard round" which is effectively meaningless anyway as none of the teams playing in that round will have a realistic chance of contending for the flag anyway. Who's going to be interested in watching what will turn out to be two additional meaningless games?

I'm prepared for the media beat-up saying something like, "Cultural problems persist at the Demons with new players forced to train apart from the rest of the squad."

Does "plain clothes" mean not in official red and blue gear? or were they about to arrest someone for breaking the law?

Maybe this should be on the Look-Alikes thread:

I like the idea of Nairn playing for Narrm.

Do we know AMW is fit? Or are we just assuming because 12 months will have passed by the time the season commences, he will be?

"Melbourne might change tact". Interesting mis-use of the English language. Fits right in here on Demonland!

I just like his name. Is there a Fred on any AFL playing list at the moment? If not, who was the last Fred to play VFL/AFL? I can remember Fred Swift for Richmond, but has there been a Fred in the 50-60 years since he retired?

The main problem with the advantage rule is the alternative. If it were to be abolished altogether, clubs would regularly give away "professional" free kicks to hold up play.

Mitch Marsh the cricketer looks like he'll be joined by Mitch Marsh, the AFL footballer, after next month's AFL draft.

I anticipate a tweak to the amended rule within weeks. It will make it clear that only one player needs to "stand" while all other players will be allowed to leave, as long as they leave the protected zone immediately. Of course, it will be much harder to umpire than that - who knows which player is the one who has to "stand"? I'm convinced eliminating the "stand" rule is still the best option.

It seems to me your second line and third line can't co-exist. Though, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I agree. I still believe having so many interchange rotations is the game's greatest evil as it allows onballers to keep up with the play making the game look like primary school football. Increasing to five players on the bench may yet make it worse. If the AFL is going to persist with five on the bench, I would love to see interchanges limited to 20 a game (plus extras for blood rule and while concussion assessments are undertaken). That would, in effect, allow one rotation per player on the bench per quarter.

I find the change to the 6-6-6 rule to be the most interesting. The justification for the change makes no sense to me (why not just enforce the 6-6-6 rule within the prescribed time, rather than worrying about how long it takes for the players to get inside the goal square?) It will be interesting to see how coaches use their 6 forwards and defenders now that they have more freedom to move them around. PS: If the issue is about reducing time, why not cut time after a goal is scored before the next centre ball up? The broadcasters have really pushed this out to allow a 30 second ad (in the case of the free-to-air broadcaster) plus a replay.

What we lack, though is really tall forwards. We have plenty in the 193/194cm range, but no-one that's around 200cm+. Max Heath might help to resolve that deficiency, but I could see the club drafting a really tall forward if there is anyone good enough.

We need a "Thanks, but no thanks" emoji.

Maybe it's just me, but I think I understand the clue...but it hasn't helped me solve it, too.

Observing what passes for media analysis of list building over the last 20 years or so, there appear to be two schools of thought. One is that clubs should draft key position players at the beginning of a rebuild to give them time to develop and then supplement them with midfielders, who are generally easier to find, in subsequent drafts. The second option is draft lots of midfielders first and then trade in key position players to fill gaps. The problem with both theories is that the analysis always seems to be post facto rationalisation. Having said that, the second option is what worked for us in 2021.

Or either get rid of the Rookie List altogether, or return it to its original intent and only allow on it players who have never been on a list before and/or aged under, say, 21 years old.