La Dee-vina Comedia

Irrespective of everything else, I'm quite surprised at the number of people who don't like Adam Goodes as a footballer. As far as I can recall, he's the only player I have ever seen who can (or, at least, could) genuinely play every single position on the ground. I'd be happy if some of ours could just be good in one designated position.

Australians like the rest of us? I'm not sure I want to lumped in with all Australians (whatever that means, by the way) anyway.

Really? So why did you bother to post the above?

Biffen, someone's hacked into your account. The argument above is sensibly constructed and formatted. You need to contact the Administrators and get your identity back.

The tough, hypothetical question has to be asked: If you were told the only way we could beat Collingwood is if you were to "like" one of Picket Fence's posts, could you do it?

Sorry to do this to you Praha, but there is no unfettered right to free speech. That's why laws of defamation exist. And to probably misquote some judge somewhere, you can't just yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, either. Nevertheless, if we want to have a society where we can have as much free speech as possible, society has to accept the responsibility that comes with that. I also note with some irony that the physical act of booing is probably the least articulate form of speech ever.

I wouldn't have thought we have a "tall backline". One of our ongoing problems for the last decade or so has been an undersized defence (although not just in height, but also strength). I assume that was the primary reason for recruiting Frost. Neither Dunn or Garland are tall enough to play key position when the opposition has a gorilla forward. Tom McDonald is a "tall defender" but, as we know, hasn't played there recently.

Surely if vandenBurg, Harmes and ANB play in the seniors (Melbourne, that is), Oscar, King and White play in the Casey seniors. It's all a bit silly. I'm in favour of abolishing the "Emergencies" anyway. There seems to be no problem plucking another player and playing him instead of those named as an Emergency, so why persist with this farce?

There's something seriously wrong with Australia if Adam Goodes is forced out of his job and Bronwyn Bishop gets to keep hers.

Why can't it be both?

Two. I'm with you, rpfc.

...check the calendar to make sure it's not April 1.

Whatever reasons might exist to keep or trade Garland and Dunn, I'd be willing to bet their punching the ball over the line is a direct instruction from the coaching panel.

If I recall correctly, when JKH was drafted I believe he was praised for his work ethic. Isn't this also what Roos was saying when he picked him to play at the beginning of last season? What evidence is there that he has a "very suspect work ethic"?

You'd think enforcing rule 15.6.1 © more strictly might help. How often do players from all teams punch the ball over the boundary line when they spoil a marking contest? Because of the problem of umpires being asked to determine whether the players' intentions were deliberate, though, it might just be easier to pay a free kick whenever a player punches the ball and it goes over the boundary line without being touched by another player, whether intended or not. That would encourage players who punch to try at least to punch the ball inboard, keeping it in play.

Let's get serious here. If you're going to use a quote from Richard III in the subject line, why haven't you gone with the opening line, "Now is the winter of our discontent"? Seems much more appropriate to me.

Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. It's a sad indictment on society when alternative interpretations with negative consequences can be made from those four words. Unless anyone thinks it's necessary, though, I'll leave it as it is.

I'm not convinced about retaining Cross. While I thought he was one of our best against St Kilda I've also seen games where he seemed unable to keep up. My view is that the only games in which he can add value to the team are the ugly games we play in where the ball moves slowly. This gives him time to get to the right position, which he does very well. But if we are to get better, we need to be playing a style of game which I don't think he can contribute to. In short, if our aim is to play a better brand of football, I can't see how Cross can be a part of it. Conversely, if Cross is still in our best 22 next year, then I think we're not moving forward the way we should be.

You might be thinking of Peter Hudson. Just read the first bit here.

I should have added that my preference is not to introduce new rules but to start with unwinding changes made in the last 20 years which may have been well intentioned at the time but perhaps, instead, are the source of the problem. These include changes to interchange/substitute; kicking in after a behind is scored; hands in the back rule; various rules associated with ruck contests; deliberate rushed behinds, etc. I'm not suggesting every one of these rules has contributed to the problem directly, but some may have had a downstream, or indirect, effect which has contributed to the problem.

I've noticed that when the team run through the banner onto the MCG for each game, Jack Watts inevitably is accompanied by a young child. I don't see other players doing this. Is this something specifically that Jack Watts organises? Or is it a club thing which enables kids to choose any player they want but they always choose Jack Watts? If it's the latter, it shows the popularity of Watts. Does anyone know the backstory?

I think a bloke with the initials JC did so about 2,000 years ago. Played for Jerusalem, I think.

Instead of "last touch out of bounds" what about "last kick, last handpass or last deliberate punch out of bounds free kicks". Such a rule would not penalise players who are trying to gather the ball but fail to do so. It also wouldn't penalise a player who has the ball and is tackled over the line. But it should encourage teams not only to try to play through the corridor but also to kick, handpass and punch the ball towards the centre corridor and not towards the boundary line. In effect, this removes the discretion from the umpires who now have to judge whether the player who kicked, handpassed or punched the ball did so deliberately.

That might improve the "gameday experience", too. Not only is it something modern that kids might enjoy, but it all happens before the first bounce after which disappointment inevitably follows.

We'll be in real trouble if UNESCO heritage lists our gameplan.