La Dee-vina Comedia

Now that I have your attention, it beggars belief that not once has Alistair Clarkson been voted by the AFL Coaches Association as Coach of the Year. See Caro's story here. My reason for starting this thread is really to question whether we put too much faith in coaches generally to make wise decisions. I wonder how many get involved in day-to-day decisions not directly in their specific area of knowledge, such as decisions on individuals to be selected at the draft?

Would we be better with an ace or two Kings?

No. Never.

I really hope you mean "staples" and that you haven't been eating horse meat as part of your diet.

When I went to school, I'm sure I was taught that the average and the mean were the same thing. So, can you tell me what the difference is so I can understand your post better. (Good post, by the way.)

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

Yes, I do. But I understand others do not. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive or even cautious, but to my way of thinking they've been caught cheating and they've been found on the balance of probabilities to have been injected with TB4, but it wasn't a criminal trial about the taking of illegal drugs and therefore I'm sticking with my view that "convicted drug taker" isn't the right language to use. However, I'm not disagreeing with the CAS finding or the penalty imposed.

No problem with that...or calling them "penalised substance abusers" (thanks, ProDee). I just think we should call it what it is. Language matters.

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were. Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it). I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

It might be different for others, but the last four posts are stuck at the end. The rest of the thread now seems fine - but you have to manually find out where to re-start your conversation because the thread assumes there is nothing new because of those four posts.

Ditto. Both sentences.

While I'm not sure where he fits in the team, he seems to me to have been so conditioned by the Neeld gameplan that he takes too much time looking for an option before disposing of the ball. That then inevitably puts him under pressure which then leads to many of his turnovers. (It's hardly surprising that the player Neeld chose as captain would embrace the Neeld way of playing - whether he agreed with it or not.) If he can fully disentangle himself from the Neeld style he may yet resurrect his career. I'd like to think that after more than two years, he will be able to play the game we need him to play today.

I'm not sure about WJ's use of the expression "top up players". Makes me feel like we've done something wrong.

Remember when that church in Hawthorn put up the poster "What would you do if Jesus Christ came to Hawthorn?" Imagine the answer being, "Move Jack Fitzpatrick to centre half forward." It wouldn't be as re-assuring for the Hawthorn faithful as the original response: "Move Peter Hudson to centre half forward".

Not a nice visual.

I think the term 'cult hero' is generally code for someone for whom the descriptors 'champion', 'star' and 'highly skilled' do not apply. It's one step up from 'journeyman'.

Hmm. I see nothing in bold. But LITTLE was capitalised. Is that a hint? All too subtle for me.

Redleg, I'm just trying to decode your little hint about the mystery benefactor. Surely "white knight" isn't code for Matthew Knights?

It's actually the back page lead in the Herald Sun. I doubt anyone here ever thought Fitzy would be a lead story anywhere at any time.

And in a roundabout way, the issue of concussion (and other collision injuries) is driving the rules changes regarding interchange rotations and the ill-fated substitute rule. The theory is that multiple rotations allow players to play more in high-speed, short bursts leading, so the argument goes, to collisions of greater force. While it sounds logical to me, I don't really know if there is evidence to back that argument up. But if there is, I think the rule makers should be looking at drastic rather than minor changes to the limit on rotations. If it meant protecting players better, I'd be happy to bring rotations down to, say, 4.

Hopefully, just opportunity. Brayshaw possibly played earlier than Oliver might because of a weaker list overall.

Only one member of a selection panel needs to have that experience. That Garry Lyon didn't wasn't his fault. If we didn't have anyone with that experience on the panel, you can blame the Board and the CEO of the time, not Lyon.

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth mockThe meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss,Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger:But O, what damnèd minutes tells he o'erWho dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!

You sure you didn't mean to write "growing & smoking grass ??"

Depends. If they're covered in tattoos I'd prefer he wore long sleeves.