La Dee-vina Comedia

If we think we wasted a couple of years under the previous Football Department (or more, if you believe, as I do, that the Bailey era wasn't much chop), then Toumpas has really only had 18 months of proper management (meaning coaching and all the other stuff that makes a football team cohesive). Same with many other players, too.

I get that Dawes seems an obvious replacement for Pedersen. But who helps Gawn in the ruck? If Fitzpatrick is recalled to play in the backline, I can't see him pinch hitting in the ruck as well. Perhaps one of Jamar or Spencer have to play to provide that second ruck option, unless Fitzy plays a forward/ruck role. I appreciate that Dawes plus another tall changes the mix, but I just can't see Gawn doing it on his own. I wouldn't mind seeing Bail come in for a permanent on-ball role just to see if he's up to it. I understand he got a large number of possessions at Casey in that role. It may not work, but I'm convinced he's not worth using as a defensive forward so I'd like to see him use his running capacity where it might actually be useful.

Clearly you should have been in the car and the Dominator in the MFC offices with WJ.

It's probably more accurate to say that the bookies don't know much more than us, but they assume the people betting large sums of money with them do. They respond to unusual and unexpected betting patterns and make changes accordingly.

All those other onballers must have played really well for vandenBerg to have missed out.

If the draft minimum age is raised, it will be even harder. Playing regularly in finals helps. Tuck won 7 Premierships, which would mean a minimum of an additional 21 games if he played in all the finals matches of those years, which he probably did. Plus more any years Hawthorn played finals in which they weren't Premiers would have helped his tally. Likewise Richmond won five flags while Bartlett played and also lost a few, too, which would have helped his tally. It would help our players to reach 300 if we started playing finals regularly. And we supporters wouldn't mind that, either.

Good stuff. We invented the game and we have the first women's team. More power to them. Let's hope Demonland supports the women like we support our men.

Is a defensive forward a necessity? If so, if M Jones and Bail don't play, who takes that role? M Jones on Murphy and Bail on Johanisen (sp?) did their jobs. However, if Viney, Tyson and Jetta are ready - meaning fully ready - they should come in for any three out of Bail, M Jones, Riley, Newton and Brayshaw (only if he needs a rest).

Actually, the bigger shock is that I actually noticed. I'm not usually one who identifies match-ups. But Bail stopped Johanisen (I'm not sure if I've spelled that right, but Nasher can fix it with square brackets) and with M Jones stopping Murphy a lot of the Bulldogs run was successfully eliminated. So, even though M Jones and Bail didn't appear to do that much, and, with Riley, will likely be the first to be omitted when Viney, Tyson, JKH, etc are ready to return, they did their job.

Not sure it would have been the smart play. The clock was at about 32 minutes gone at that time. He may well have known that the siren might blow while the ball was in transit. In hindsight, of course, it looks obvious and at any other time in the game it would have been the right play.

I agree M Jones doesn't deserve votes, but this statement is overly harsh. His job was to keep Murphy quiet and he did it pretty well. After M Jones was subbed out Murphy came into the play. Now to my votes: 6. vandenBerg 5. N Jones 4. Hogan 3. Vince 2. Cross 1. Toumpas

Given Hawthorn replaced a player (was it last week?) with someone who wasn't even listed as an emergency, we should recognise that the last three players picked by any team is a bit irrelevant. It seems more likely to me that Fitzpatrick is the mystery injury of the week.

Cause or effect, though?

You are quite right, of course. I'm sorry I added that bit in because the real point of my post was to highlight that the AFL has scheduled us in a premium timeslot. If supporters don't turn up tomorrow to a 2.10 pm Saturday game at the MCG, against a Victorian club and when the weather is fine...we, as supporters, will only have ourselves to blame if we find ourselves in future years consigned to the worst timeslots.

Unfortunately, the marginally smaller average force may be over-ridden by players wearing helmets going in harder because they think they are better protected.

The biggest shock to me is not the squad but that we're playing at the MCG at 2.10 pm on a Saturday. We need a big crowd plus a quality team performance to encourage the AFL to give us more of these premium timeslots. It would be a huge setback if (a) the supporters don't turn up and (b) the team doesn't. To all those posters who have said they won't be coming because of the team selection, to borrow a term used elsewhere in this thread...you've got pea hearts. Get there and support your team. Not just for tomorrow but to send a bigger message. If the supporters don't turn up, why should we expect the players to?

What have GWS done to be punished so cruelly?

Chris, just after deciding that you'd provided us with the line of the day, along comes Dees2014 with this pearler that knocks you into second place.

In my view the argument that the AFL chose its Tribunal members to get a particular outcome doesn't stack up. It would have been obvious to the AFL that if the AFL Tribunal was seen to be somehow biased or deliberately chosen to deliver a particular outcome that WADA would appeal. Therefore, the AFL would not have gone down this path. Of all the possible reasons WADA has for appealing the AFL Tribunal decision, I anticipate bias of the Tribunal is not one of them.

Hey DC. Have you bought a new keyboard? One with a Shift key.

An interesting job description.

If you believe that the reason the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it did "Only because certain people refused to speak and certain crucial evidence was "lost"", didn't the AFL Tribunal come to the only decision it was possible for it to make under such circumstances? If you want to argue that (1) people being able to refuse to speak or (2) that the "loss" of crucial evidence is some form of contempt of the process, that's a different argument and one that shouldn't be allowed to slip through to the keeper without further consideration.

Wasn't it ASADA's job to join the dots, rather than the Tribunal? That may sound like a pithy and pedantic comment, but wasn't that the way the process was meant to work? ASADA had to present a case that would "join the dots" to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal and, in the Tribunal's view, failed to do so.

How about Tony "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" Bennett? Different sort of music, but still going at about 85.

Weren't Salem and Kelly both Brighton Grammar boys (along with Jayden Hunt)? Must have been quite a team.