La Dee-vina Comedia

Of course, if we lose against Richmond I'm sure Demonlanders will find no shortage of players to demote, along with Paul Roos, Dave Misson and even Saty.

I can see the headline now. After saying Petracca only plays if Garlett does not, Melbourne plays Garlett and Petracca and it goes pear-shaped leading the Herald Sun to write "Roos rues ruse". Just a pity it's not against North Melbourne which would have allowed the inclusion of an extra 'Roos'

Obtuse, but definitely a possibility. Good suggestion.

Help me, please. Does the number '287' have any significance? If so, what might it represent? (I appreciate that it might be relevant to the owner of the car, such as birthday on 28 July. But if it has some MFC relevance, I'd be interested in knowing what that might be.) Any suggestions?

Don't discount the possibility that "resting" Oliver is code for "omitting" him. Someone had to make way for Vince and Garlett (if he plays). Demonland is full of suggestions as to how to do that with no-one really being convinced that anyone who played against Collingwood should be dropped. Matt Jones "soreness" is possibly genuine given the sore ribs he apparently received last week. Oliver had a poor game compared with his previous performances and compared with the other 21 who played. It's quite possible that Oliver was left out because (a) he was arguably the least impressive last week; (b) he plays less game time than everyone else which puts extra pressure on the others - particularly given the interchange cap; and (c) a view that resting him is not necessarily a bad thing to do.

From Plapp's report: "Jack Trengove: Jack had 20 possessions, eight tackles, three clearances and kicked a goal. Trenners played a little bit on the wing, inside fifth and sixth." It might be obvious to others, but can anyone enlighten me about what "inside fifth and sixth" means?

The "microwaving" story arose after a Richmond member in a fit of pique following a standard Richmond performance (which would be sub-standard for most clubs) claimed on talkback radio that he was going to "tear up his membership" only to be embarrassed when it was explained that "tearing up" hard plastic would be a physical impossibility.

Martin should not be allowed to play this week. If he does, perhaps it's time for the AFL to look at implementing a rule that takes a post-concussion decision out of the hands of the clubs. It's tempting to suggest a mandatory week off for any player who is knocked unconscious, irrespective of the length of time. But I'm not a doctor and that might be too blunt an instrument.

In fact, watch the closing credits at the end. Every episode he does something physical purely for the cameras. He might throw his pen in the air, lean over the table or pick up his running sheet. It's all highly disciplined to make sure that there is something for the camera to see rather than an otherwise static desk with four panelists impersonating Easter Island statues.

Haven't I read somewhere that Maric has played the last two VFL games? If that's correct, I'm not sure what else he could do to be ready to play. On the other hand, if Deledio plays I'd accept that he may not be full ready.

I don't think she makes "stuff up". What she's good at is turning "stuff ups" of others into stories which don't always warrant the coverage that they're given.

We saw in the GWS game that Gawn moving into the forward line while being the number 1 ruckman didn't work as it made it too crowded and prevented Hogan from getting a clear run at the ball. That's not to say Gawm couldn't spend time forward when he's not rucking. But it's hard to see why you'd do that - if Gawn is playing he should be used where he is most valuable, and that's on the ball.

It's meaningless with respect to winning the flag. But it is not meaningless when it comes to: getting more prime time and televised free to air games in 2017 getting more members in 2017 and getting those who are already members to upgrade to higher paid options (ie, coterie membership, etc) retaining sponsors and/or extracting more dollars from those sponsors plus getting new sponsors giving players the experience of playing in finals giving players who are thinking of leaving a reason for staying giving players at other clubs who we might be interested in recruiting a reason for coming And there are probably other things, too. On the downside, we'd start pre-season training later...

Of course, if you replace "MFC" with "ALP" this would be a front page newspaper story about Labor Party branch stacking.

My guess is Richmond complained to the AFL that playing Melbourne more than once would be unfair and that they should be given the double-ups against easier competition.

I'm now a bit less positive than I was to Huffington Post given its use of "less" when it would be better (ie, correct) to have used "fewer".

In a separate but related question, why can't the MFC and the Scorps arrange it so that the Melbourne players use their MFC jumper numbers as their Casey jumper numbers? There might be a transitional problem in the short term but it would be easy to administer if Casey's own players were all given numbers from 50 upwards. Both clubs need to recognise that the alignment requires marketing and part of that is making it easier for Casey followers to recognise who the players are. That becomes easier if all the Melbourne listed players use numbers that the public are more likely to recognise.

Just shows the coaches have no idea.

What gets forgotten in the discussion about the Tyson/Salem/Kelly deal is that the value is not just about the player's skill but the number of games played with that skill. The equation that matters is whether Tyson's average output times games played plus Salem's average output times games played is equal or better than Kelly's average output times games played. Unless injuries intervene, it's pretty hard for me to see how Melbourne is going to lose on that metric. It seems likely that all of Tyson, Salem and Kelly will play (say) 200 games each. So unless Tyson's and Salem's average output is half or less than Kelly's, Melbourne will win.

I think you're underestimating Hutchison. What he knows about football is how to make radio and television programs which entertain. He plays the antagonist to ensure the three others have something to "bounce" off. I think you'll find that everything he does and says is about creating frisson, not about being factual or informed. He leaves the "genuine" opinions to the other three panelists.

Just to tidy up a loose end, on Footy Classified it was made clear that Clarkson would never take Dimma's job. They are not just coaches but extremely close friends. And I agree with Nutbean - Caro didn't say Clarkson would coach Collingwood. She said just enough for some people to think she said it (and put herself in the position of being able to say "you heard it hear first" if the unthinkable, one-in-a-million, highly unlikely set of circumstances actually happens).

You're confusing name with occupation. Wagner was a composer.

It is very difficult to tell when watching the game on TV how well defenders are doing their job. As the TV generally follows the ball, you can't necessarily get a sense of what defenders are doing to prevent their opponents from getting to the ball and how hard they work off the ball. However, what was noticeable about Dunn's game yesterday was the excellence of his kicking. I believe he has completely changed his kicking so that rather than the long but high kicks which covered distance but gave every man and his dog time to get under them, he now delivers more direct, low passes which hit their targets more quickly. Whether it's Dunn alone, or the coaches who have made that change, kudos. It makes Dunn's kicking a much more powerful weapon. (Now it's time for someone to teach that skill to Garland).

There are various surprises after 4 rounds, but Jesse Hogan with only 1 vote is surely one of them.

I think we should try and convince the AFL to invoke the heat rule and allow two extra on interchange. Firstly, it will be easier to get the AFL to agree to that than to identify who loses their place in the team and secondly, Richmond's 23rd and 24th players will be nowhere near AFL standard.