La Dee-vina Comedia

On a slightly different tangent, I'd like to see us develop a new "blockbuster" game. Essendon and Richmond created the Dreamtime game and deservedly have it to themselves; I'm not sure whether Richmond or Carlton did the heavy lifting, but they now appear to have a stranglehold on the opening game in round one. It's time we created a new blockbuster. I'm not sure what it should be or who it should be against, but I'd look at whether the 'Field of Women' concept could be converted into an annual blockbuster, perhaps on Mothers Day. It's important for the club to create a new blockbuster game because there is no guarantee that Queen's Birthday will continue as a public holiday for much longer for three reasons: (1) We may become a republic; (2) When the Queen passes away the holiday may depart with her; (3) the Victorian Government wants to establish a public holiday on the Friday before the Grand Final (dumb idea, in my book) but given Victoria already has more public holidays than any other State in Australia, the Government might "abolish" one public holiday to create the new one, and Queen's Birthday would be a logical one for a pro-republic party to identify as the one to be chopped.

P-Man, don't discount the possibility that you can be both nuts and correct. What I like about this thread is that after three rounds of football ,we (the supporters) haven't all given up on the season already. I like that. It makes a nice change.

How does an AFL Tribunal make a finding about Australian baseball? If I were the AFL I wouldn't want a tribunal of another sport getting involved in my affairs.

I'm basing my votes on Kevin Bartlett's call on SEN: 6: Him 5: He 4: He's 3: Himself 2: His 1: Them Gee, it's hard work listening to his commentary. Half the time it's unclear which team the "Him" refers to. So I might have just given votes to someone in the Adelaide team.

Really? If the Tribunal wasn't comfortably satisfied that the players took TB4, then it stands to reason that the Tribunal couldn't be satisfied that someone else provided it. This decision seems to be a logical extension of the last. (I'm not arguing that the previous decision was correct - just that the decision regarding Dank's involvement just logically follows.)

Don't forget that the RSL brought into the idea in the first place. As the President of the RSL at the time, Bruce Ruxton was a massive supporter of the concept. My understanding from speaking with a couple of RSL Head Office types is that the RSL credit the Anzac Day game as a significant component in the resurrection of Anzac Day as a major day of respect. By the way, the RSL's Victorian CEO, Mike Annett, is a Melbourne supporter.

"Drowning by Numbers" had one of the best made-up games of all time - "Hangman's Cricket". Up there with Quidditch and Vaccination (from The Accidental Tourist)

Being on the interchange bench (if indeed he starts there) just means he won't be on the ground for about the first 90 seconds. It's been a long time since being named on the interchange bench meant a player was necessarily close to being dropped a level.

Another one to add to the list: Last time a Demonland training thread was not derailed: About 2008

Not sure that the last six words of that post belong in this thread.

Why don't we ridicule the supporters of another club instead. I'm sure that on Collingwood's equivalent forum they're debating the relative merits of Blokesworld.

Literally, yeah (or maybe, depending on who you ask)

It's an interesting article, however it overlooks the possibility that the reason why the first few draft picks may not become champions might just be the quality of the clubs who select them in the first place, rather than the intrinsic qualities of the players themselves.

It's the curse of being born a pedant. I similarly detest the use of the word "average" to mean "poor" and anyone who claims they are "putting in 110%". I appreciate that English, probably like all languages, is fluid and that many words have changed their meanings over time ("terrific" being an excellent example. I don't think anyone uses it meaning that the matter is terrifying.) Right now, however, I'm not ready to allow "literally" to mean "figuratively" when there are perfectly good alternatives which could be used.

Slightly different, but still waiting for a Melbourne player to kick 100 goals in a season.

So, you go with the modern use of the word "literally", then.

To be fair to the coaches, the effort has to come from the players. The box shouldn't be necessary. Or, to put it another way, for as long as the team has to rely on the coaches' box for instructions (or motivation), we're not going to be a real contender.

Mind you, on this logic both teams should have lost...

Is this a hint about team selection? Steven Stretch ‏@StevenStretch 6h6 hours ago Ready for the big clash V the Crows at Adelaide oval this Saturday! #godees #myheartbeatstrue https://instagram.com/p/1b5nINnS6J/

I always thought Petterd was handy but nothing special as a player. But as a person I thought he was fantastic. His comments when he left the club were all class. He didn't whinge and responded that he understood the position the club was in and why they made the decision that they did. Good luck to the fella.

Reminds me of this which I must admit I had always thought was attributed to Joe Namath.

We played 4 tall backs? Who? I assume Dunn, McDonald and Garland make the first three. And although I didn't see the game, I assume Jetta, Salem and Howe were the other starting defenders. Are you saying Howe is a "tall back"? In fact, I suspect our longer-term problem might be that McDonald is our only true tall back. Garland and Dunn play on talls but aren't quite big enough themselves although that's not to say they can't play well in that role. (And neither Rivers or Frawley could play on gorilla forwards, either). I appreciate that Frost and O McDonald may have been recruited to fix that deficiency, but neither is playing there at the moment.

Seems like you're confusing WADA with the Jedi knights. "Help me Obi Wan Kanobi. You're my only hope."

According to the AFL website, the nominated back six played 544 out of a possible 600% game time. So, either another 56% of game time was played by one or more players or we played without five (or even fewer) defenders for some of the game. It seems to me that on those figures a 7th defender is required and it would make sense to me if it were Lumumba (or Grimes, Toumpas, or whoever) playing back when the team requires it and on ball the rest of their time on the ground. I didn't see the game at all, but it seems to me the biggest deficiency at the moment is the second ruck position. We know Jamar cannot ruck on his own all day. We know Dawes can't provide back up and I suspect we all believe it's not what we want Hogan to do. Frost doesn't strike me as a pinch-hitting second ruck, and neither does Pedersen. Can we play one of Spencer or Gawn with Jamar? If so, I think one of them comes in for Frost, unless there's a spot for Frost in the backline which I can't at the moment see. As Jamar plus Spencer/Gawn slows us down compared with Jamar/Frost, I think vandenBerg may have to make way for JKH.

In 2012 and 2013 we saw performances like the second half in the GWS game for full games and often week after week. In 2014 we saw those same performances for halves and quarters but more irregularly. This year I was expecting we'd see it once or twice. Let's hope the team responds by showing that such a performance is now a rarity and not the new normal.