La Dee-vina Comedia

He also said (paraphrasing) that if Melbourne came to him and said "We need a decision soon so as not be a distraction" he'd make the decision quickly. So, why hasn't Melbourne asked him to decide? A concern, perhaps, that he might say "No. 2 years is enough", perhaps? Mind you, while he was non-committal last night he also sounded more likely than unlikely to continue into a 3rd year.

Correction: We've had a "bare minimum of wins". And enjoyment.

I don't understand the view that Thompson must be disappointed or disenfranchised with Essendon and keen to leave. While it's been a consistent position put by the media that everyone involved in Essendon would want to leave, that's not happened. Whether Essendon people are right or wrong, they all appear to be totally committed to the club and seemingly convinced of their innocence, other than for some poor governance during the period Dean Robinson and Dank were at the club. I can't see any evidence that Thompson wants to leave. If he does, would I accept him at Melbourne? Of course. What I am finding difficult is the number of posters who lambast everything to do with Essendon and everyone involved there but appear to be prepared to put all that behind them the moment they believe there's a chance that Thomspon might coach our club.

Thanks guys. That context makes a difference. It also suggests to me that far from necessarily leaving Essendon Thompson might consider his work is only partly done and wants to stay to finish the job. Whether he would stay if Hird returns as senior coach, is up for debate. Personally, I think he would stay. (I know that's not the view of Carline Wilson. I see no shame in having a different view to her.)

Really? When? I just can't imagine any senior coach criticising his own club. I accept that Thompson is coaching under exceptional circumstances but it's hard to believe any coach could get away with such comments.

On Footy Classified Paul Roos made it clear he wanted a coach that wouldn't deviate much from the Roos playing style. He stressed the importance of this to the players who become confused when there are constant changes in coach and gameplan. Given the Mark Thompson style is attack-based and Paul Roos is defence-based, I can't see any way Bomber Thompson will replace Paul Roos.

Good teams train for all sorts of end of game scenarios. But I expect Roos has had to train this squad in so many far more basic matters that worrying about how to play the last couple of minutes of a tight game isn't one of the things he's got around to yet. Presumably with time he'll get around to it. And then we'll be far better placed to win close games.

Broken ankles can cause a lot of ancillary damage to ligaments, too. There are a lot of moving bits down there which all need to fit together again. Webber - what say you?

Explains why Satyricon is so happy with the club. He's seen us at our best, week after week.

It's an improvement on last year. Then we got 15 goals down and apparently only started playing football on the following Monday when we kept being told we were training really well.

High contact is always a free kick whenever it happens. In this particular instance, though, I haven't seen the incident, so I don't know whether the high contact was actually made.

I know this sounds a bit gruesome, but what sort of broken leg did he have? Was it the James Strauss broken tibia or the Daniel Cross fibula? And did it happen in a football match or in some other way? The severity of the initial break will obviously impact on the pace of his recovery. It's not just full fitness that's required, he will also have issues with muscle wastage, ligament damage and scar tissue which all have to be overcome. Plus any psychological fears. Every time a footballer plays again after these bad broken legs (Strauss, Rohan, Nathan Brown, etc) my admiration for their courage and work ethic skyrockets.

The only bit that surprised me was the very last line where he claims "the AFL has received $3 billion from government and corporate support this past decade, including $2 billion for stadiums". I can understand the $3 billion if he's including TV right money - but if that's right, surely the $2 billion can't be. Anyway, he might be right in what he's written throughout the article but because he's a rusted on rugby league tragic who will write anything that will boost NRL and denigrate AFL, it's a bit hard to know what's objective and what isn't.

Really, really good point.

I know that before this season started I would have jumped at the chance to accept by Round 17 four wins AND had six other games where we lost by 20 points or fewer. It's even better that our expectations have lifted so much we are now disappointed to be in that position.

As well as various listed above, I'd like to see: someone kick five goals in a game the team score 120 points or more in a game Dom Tyson, Christian Salem, Josh Kelly and whoever GWS picked (or traded for) with selection 20 in the draft all play in the same game

Personally, I've found that every win in the last 2.5 seasons has been unexpected.

When will you learn? Facts and logic are not considered relevant when arguing on Demonland.

Are you an accountant and work on a Financial Year basis? How else can a post on 18 July be an "early nomination" for post of the year? (But I agree with your sentiment.)

Careful. He may decide your contribution is a gif of some moving clouds.

You forgot Joeboy: Blue, just blue

Actually, maybe the talent was better in 1959

Looking at that list of players in 1992, I'm comfortable that the talent available in 2014 is not reduced compared with then. And I have no recollection of a player called Michael Pickering who apparently came 9th in the B&F.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread post that apparently Ling commented on Channel 7 last night that he had met with Melbourne, including Roos. I heard a grab on radio this morning of Ling himself saying this. I assume it was on "Talking Footy". If we cast our minds back to other circumstances, Roos, Hird and others have followed a similar pattern of organised information disclosure, that is (1) denial, followed by (2) a comment about how it might be interesting to pursue, (3) followed by I'm seriously interested, (4) followed by I'm considering and talking with my family, (5) followed by an announcement. I think we're at Stage 2.

What do we mean when we say the "talent is diluted"? Do we mean there are fewer players to choose from, players being drafted with less talent than in previous years or a bit of both? If it's fewer players to choose from, I support the earlier post that points out the number of players required to support 18 teams is from a population significantly larger than the population which supported 12 teams. You could drill down further and point out that when it was a 12 team competition, the talent pool was only the southern States plus NT. Today it includes NSW and Queensland (as well as Ireland). If it's less talent, I also think that is wrong. Players today are fitter, stronger and better skilled than they were in the past right from the time they are drafted. So I suspect what we are seeing is a poorer standard of game, not players, because of defensive coaching and the inability of those responsible for the rules of the game to prevent the coaches from developing gameplans that are built around trying not to lose rather than trying to win.