La Dee-vina Comedia

I would argue this the other way. AFL football is a professional sport and as such those who run it need to respond to the wishes of the people who pay to attend. If the public are saying they don't want to attend any particular ground, the AFL should do something about that. Either don't schedule games there or make the venue more attractive to encourage people to attend.

My guess is that he replaces Harmes in the midfield. That's not to say Harmes will be omitted, though. I could see Harmes taking Fritsch's role as the mid-sized mobile forward.

Forgive my ignorance, but what role or position(s) has Woey been playing at Casey?

I think Oliver is arguing, "I like my hairstyle the way it is and there is no way I'm going to wear a beanie to cover it up. And, in fact, anyone who wears a beanie has no sense of style."

I think I heard that Goody felt the pre-game overnight stay at Geelong was such a success that they're all now at the Quest Docklands Apartments and will stay there until 90 minutes before game time.

Keep in mind that Gawn will be 32 at the end of the year. What we may be seeing this year is the inevitable decline because of age of one of the greatest ruckmen the game has seen. If Gawn's career comes to the end sooner than any of us may want, Grundy becomes a critical player for us given that we have no viable third ruck option just yet. In fact, I have always believed Grundy was recruited to enable us to continue to be contenders while we still have Oliver, Petracca, Lever, etc once Gawn retires.

Yep. I didn't notice Bowey's involvement as much as others did. Interestingly, I just went and looked at his stats to discover he had the same number of disposals as Neal-Bullen (19 - the same as Lever, Harmes and Pickett, too) with 4 marks (to ANB's one) and zero tackles to ANB's 3. I'm not trying to compare them on the basis of stats - I'm just surprised I didn't notice him, other than when he popped up for that very good goal.

The Age is reporting today that Oliver is likely to play this weekend. If that's correct, I see him as a straight swap for Harmes. I posted earlier that I would also pick van Rooyen to play Smith's role and then try Smith in Fritch's role. I'm now wondering whether Harmes should play the Fritsch role. I accept that Harmes is an unreliable kick, but he's a good mark for his size and can provide the mobility we are lacking in the forward 50. So, assuming Oliver is good to go, I'll change my suggestion to: In: Oliver, van Rooyen Out: Fritsch (inj), Smith

Assuming Oliver won't be back and that Fritsch will miss, I'd bring in van Rooyen to play Smith's role. Smith survives to play Fritch's role. Harmes was a liability yesterday. I think it's either Jordon or someone new to replace him. If Howes is ready, does he come into the backline and Rivers goes midfield? Or is Woewodin the one who comes in as a direct replacement? I'm unfussed about whether Melksham or Jordon (if he's not picked in the main squad) as the sub. So, my suggested changes are: Out: Fritsch (inj) and Harmes (omitted) In: van Rooyen and one of Jordon/Howes/Woewodin

6. Viney 5. Petracca 4. May 3. Hunter 2. Langdon 1. Neal-Bullen (yes, really)

And he's standing next to former Carlton player, Milham Hanna.

I really hope this is not a typo. For everyone's sake, I hope you weren't intending to type "bitter".

The sub won't be announced until Sunday. You may be misreading the post that references Spargo as the sub who played last round and is not selected in the final squad...but he can still be chosen to be the sub. (Could the AFL find a more complicated way to announce teams?)

That could be done. That would presumably result in less revenue for the broadcaster which would then translate to lower rights payments to the AFL.

I agree - it was poorly worded. I certainly wasn't trying to be critical of those players in any way. What I was trying to say, but obviously poorly, was that the club was a perennial failure in the period 1965 through to 2018 so that any forward struggled to get the opportunity to kick goals. And I agree that Greg Parke was the best mark of his era. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him play.

That's a pretty sad list of full forwards if you compare with some others. Hawthorn: Hudson, Dunstall, Peck, Franklin, Moncrieff (plus Brereton and Matthews) Sydney: Lockett, Hall, Franklin Geelong: Hawkins, Wade, Donohoe, Ablett Sr, Brownless

That seems to be the unwritten MFC rule, although illness or injury can mean a player is a late withdrawal. As I see the proposed interchange selections, the final squad should include one of the tall forwards (Brown or van Rooyen), one of the tall defenders (Petty or Tomlinson) and one of the small forwards (Pickett or Spargo) plus one of Melksham or Bowey. Given we're one shy of a full complement of small defenders, (presuming Sparrow doesn't actually play HBF as selected) I assume of those two it will be Bowey. My best guess will be an interchange of Bowey, Pickett, Brown and Petty with either Melksham or Tomlinson as the sub.

Weideman's a German name. They're obviously related.

I know you like your "lols". But what's the first lol supposed to mean? You're laughing out loud because a player's career, in your view, has come to an end?

I'm astounded that Mark Williams wasn't already in the Hall of Fame.

20%? Compare with this study, which says the prevalence rate of problem gambling in Victoria is 0.81% of all adults. See here: https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/study-of-gambling-and-health-in-victoria-findings-from-the-victorian-prevalence-study-2014-72/ Quote: "The prevalence of problem gambling in adult Victorians is 0.81 per cent (35,500 people). While the percentage has not changed significantly since 2008"

At this stage, it's just an Australian Parliamentary report. Which recommendations are adopted remains to be seen.

Nicely argued. The point about funding integrity is a good one to make.

The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

Engineering wouldn't be the only problem (if, indeed it were to be a problem). Ownership of the air rights above the road could be more complex than it seems. I know that building bridges over the railway line next to the MCG was delayed for years because no-one could decide who had responsibility for maintaining the bridges.