La Dee-vina Comedia

"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.

I think Demonland will become mayhem if we draft draft both Xavier Taylor and Josh Lindsay. The ensuing confusion over whether posters are referring to Xavier Lindsay, Josh Lindsay or Xavier Taylor will be quite something.

Wait! As you were. My mistake. The Premier is in 1 Treasury Place.

For a moment there, I thought you'd strayed into political commentary. One Spring St is the address of the Victorian State Premier's office.

Agree with all the above. We're (checks date on the computer) already three weeks into October, so it's now more than seven weeks since our 2025 season ended. When does training officially begin?

Please tell me his nickname is Hydrogen.

If that's the penalty for making a mistake, we are really setting high standards.

You read it right...but it was written wrongly. I also saw him written up as 29, but I think it was either a typo or some confusion regarding his age at the end of his contract.

The idea that this might be a weak draft seems to rely on the following views which can't all be correct: it's weak all the way through the top 10 are good, but after that the draft falls away quickly there are no standout obvious top 10 players but the draft overall isn't bad. I've heard all of the above stated in the media. Given 90% of the footy media just repeats what others say (yes, I'm talking about you, Damian Barrett...but you're not alone) I'm not sure if any of it is true. So, for those who follow under age football in detail, what's your view about the quality of the draft, and, in particular, what's likely to be available at picks 7 and 8 (wherever they finally land)?

Sometimes I feel new coaches take a year to assess what they've got before making changes to the playing list. That's not always a bad thing. However, whether it was driven by King or not, I like that he's coming in and changes are happening now, rather than in 12 months' time.

The role might still exist, but just not for Oliver.

With North trading out Finbar Maley and trading Spargo in, they've gone from having a player who could get the ball but couldn't kick it, to one who can kick it, but can't get it.