La Dee-vina Comedia

Roos has just given a press conference where he has said that Hogan will be named but still has to pass a fitness test. So, I would surmise that if Hogan plays, Dawes will not. And if Hogan does not play, Dawes will. Either way, the Weed plays.

The family tree approach to judging coaching is well respected. Whether it's the Tom Hafey family (Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse followed by John Worsfold, for example) or the Norm Smith family (Ron Barassi followed by Malcolm Blight) or the John Kennedy family (David Parkin and Leigh Matthews subsequently followed by the Scott twins), etc, there is logic in the idea. Successful coaches teach future successful coaches. Of course, not every descendant in the family can be a success (Hardwick, Hird, Voss...and many more) but the opening post makes sense overall.

Is it possible some of their players are already in witness protection and what we're seeing are stand-ins with a passing resemblance to a football team?

Arguing "they're due for a loss" after 9 straight wins does not instil confidence.

If the less-than-reputable people get control of the club, it will be interesting to see if Richmond can continue to hold a poker machine licence.

Personally, I think we should drop the discussion about cancer, stress and Dean Bailey. The discussion is unedifying, unhelpful and irrelevant to the topic.

There might be an exception - did Tim Watson quit St Kilda without a payout? Apart from that possible exception, though, I agree with you.

What this healthy list also enables one to do is consider the quality of recruitment and development in the last few years. With only two players unavailable for selection (and probably one or two more not fully fit returning from illness or injury, much as Salem) we still had a high proportion of our players either former rookies or late draft picks (ie, 50+), such as Wagner, Harmes, vanedenBerg, Hunt, Jetta and the two McDonalds. I haven't compared that with other teams, but that seems like a pretty high strike rate to me.

I'm trying to think of the correct use of 'pot' here. Pot-stirrer? Pot calling the kettle black?

Especially if he reads Demonland. I have the same amount of nervousness about Goodwin as I would have with any new coach being appointed (including when Paul Roos was appointed). But given that my main concerns today are about what appears to me to be lacklustre coaching on gameday, I'm less concerned than I might otherwise have been. I think Roos has been outstanding at fixing the non-gameday issues, including (but not limited to) establishing a proper player development program, improving the playing list and fixing a number of severely damaged player psyches. I think the time is right for Roos to move on but I won't for one minute be anything less than extremely thankful for what he's done for the club over the last three years. We have a competitive team again.

Because leadership is a 7 day a week proposition, not a 3 hour gameday responsibility.

Now this thread is just getting creepy.

I can be silly 7 days a week, win, lose or draw.

Matt Jones is another who racks up numbers that I don't see. (That may partly be because I sit on the wing so identifying who does what on the other wing can be hard to see).

While some might quibble and point out that you should have gone with "2 pay more attention" I'd suggest it's time to extend yourself and go cryptic. Why not "toupee" or, even better, go fully cryptic with "a patch of false hair for covering a bald spot"?

I like Wagner but I think he's run out of steam. He seems to me to be labouring and doesn't have the fluidity we saw earlier in the year. I also notice he seems to prefer handpassing to kicking which, for someone who I think is a good kick, suggests the possibility of a leg injury.

I appreciate your point. But I would argue something has changed - the problems you refer to now occur far less frequently overall. It just so happens that they happened a lot yesterday.

I think the players had the umpires covered. If the contest had been decided by who had the most howlers, the players coasted to victory.

I was also impressed by his use of the body to (legally) bump GC players. Many times he provided opportunities for his teammates to either get the ball or have time to dispose of it properly by physically blocking or pushing the GC players off their line. His game wasn't perfect but I have more confidence in him than I do in Garland or Dunn when it comes to taking on the monster forwards. (Note: that last comment reflects my concern about Garland and Dunn not being physically tall enough for the job.)

Final result. (Pity about the confusion of playing days at the bottom, though. I guess our social media coordinator is continuing on with yesterday's pattern of inaccuracy.)

In which case Viney, Tyson and Kent shouldn't be playing. (At least Tyson tried kicking on his right. Viney and Kent kept getting caught trying to get on to their preferred side.)

Joeboy, I've tried to work out what you mean. I've tried logic, satire, sarcasm and none of them make sense to me. So, what exactly do you mean by this?

For which I am grateful.

I blame Jack Watts. If he hadn't improved the younger McDonald wouldn't receive so much criticism.

Might explain why he's not in the team. Seven changes after a win? It might have been an ugly win, possibly the ugliest I've ever seen, but really... If Hogan doesn't get up (and I suspect he will play), I'd bring in Spencer. If Hawthorn play Ceglar and McEvoy, I'd be thinking of playing Spencer anyway. It wasn't Dawes' worst perfromance, but if Spencer comes in and Hogan plays, then Dawes has to go. Garlett looked completely out of sorts. Kennedy should be rewarded. If Salem is ready, he should come in for Wagner who I like but seems to be struggling to keep up. Unless Vince is injured, in which case Salem for Vince.