La Dee-vina Comedia

I don't think it's a vexatious hoax. I think it's a genuine letter of complaint probably sent by a disgruntled and not particularly literate Essendon supporter. If I;m right, Workcover would be obliged to consider whether to investigate and would, I suspect, speak to the author to find out whether that person has any additional information to add. If the complainant has nothing further I expect the complaint would be filed marked NFA (No further action).

I agree. "Investigation" is a loose word used by journos to make the activities of law enforcement agencies seem grander than they actually are. (I used to have a senior position in a law enforcement agency - not Workcover - so I can comment on this with the knowledge of experience). I expect Workcover has seen how ASADA has been pilloried and would have taken action to cover itself by contacting every Victorian AFL (and possibly VFL) club for an explanation of what each club's supplement program entails. Only if it thought there was anything suspicious would it then go to the next step of making further inquiries and only after assessing the results of those inquiries and if it was still concerned would it contemplate conducting an "investigation". It's a long bow to draw to suggest that because someone asked Workcover to do something that they will have actually done it.

Any discussion on best kicks should consider (a) right foot long, (b) left foot long, © right foot short and (d) left foot short. You could also include set shots v on the run as well as those trick shots for goal invented (or, at lest, perfected) by Peter Daicos. On that basis, the best kick on the ground last Sunday was Michael Hurley, the only player who could kick with either foot naturally. As I haven't yet seen Salem kick with his right foot, I think Jack Watts is our best. But Salem may turn out to be better.

Probably a typo. You've answered everything, thanks. And now my brain no longer has to hurt.

If you're right (and I think you are), then I have another problem with the stats. If we've conceded an average of 10.8 goals per game (meaning more than 10 but fewer than 11 goals, rather than 10 goals and 8 behinds), then we have conceded an average of 64.8 points per game by way of goals. But if we're only conceding an average of 69 points per game, this would suggest teams are averaging 69 - 64.8 = 4.2 points by way of behinds. And this we know not to be true given the inaccuracy of our opponents. My brain is now hurting even more. I wish I hadn't started thinking about this.

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article? It says: "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team" So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69. And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

Riley was really, really poor. That he was subbed out half way through the third quarter rather than with only 5 minutes to go suggests the coaches thought so, too. Will Roos give him a chance to redeem himself? He's the only player I can see that might be replaced. If so, it's either for Gawn or JKH, depending on structural needs. I would have thought JKH would be the better option.

Today, in the Herald Sun I must have watched a different game to most other posters here. I cannot see how Kent makes the top 6. Yes, he contributed well, but he wouldn't make my top 10. With such a huge inside 50 differential, I had to give the top three to the best three defenders (and apologies to Jetta for not including him). 6. Dunn 5. McDonald (even with his errant disposals) 4. Grimes 3. Jamar 2. N Jones 1. Watts Edit: clarifying which Jones (although I think it's probably obvious)

Still not working on AFL website. I'm not very tech knowledgeable, but even if it were working, it's streaming, so internet access would be needed to watch it - is that right? So, is there a way to download it (legally) to enable watching later without internet access?

Kent, McKenzie, Evans and perhaps Nicholson* seem to be the players ready to be considered for senior selection based on these reviews. It's been said before, but I really like the infomation we are given in these profile reports. *The comments about Nicholson are ambiguous. It's unclear whether the comment "He has been in better form over the past few weeks..." is intended to mean he was better before this game or including this game - it makes a big difference to where the coaches might have him in the queue for senior selection.

The Roos style make umpiring errors more significant. In a low scoring game, the power of the umpire to award a free kick has greater significance. Think of it like the power of a penalty spot kick in soccer. In such a low scoring affair, such a decision can determine a game. Similarly, by playing an ultra-defensive, low scoring style of game, the impact of the decisions of the umpires increases. Of course, it's 50:50 whether we may be the beneficiaries or the sufferers in any game - but by accepting Roos as coach we have to also accept that umpiring decisions have the potential to have a greater impact on the final result.

Believe it or not, people like Old Dee and me were part of a younger generation once. The song worked for us then. Can't see why it wouldn't work for a new generation tomorrow.

Looks like an old list - unless Frawley's problems have returned.

Win more games and no-one will care what the words of the song are. And if you wanted to rank songs of all clubs dispassionately, I'm sure our would be in the top 6. So what needs fixing?

I hope you mean two steps forward and one step back. Your version was what we had to put up with in 2012 and 2013.

If people don't like games where very few goals are scored, the so-called World Game is in a lot of trouble. And given that soccer is doing fine, I think AFL will survive the occasional low scoring affair, too. I'm with those who found Monday's game compelling, rather than boring. The advantage of a low scoring game is that either side still has a chance to win until quite late in the contest.

I suspect the poor kicking for goal in the last quarter was caused by tired legs. Collingwood's pressure was relentless - similar to what we applied to the Swans a few weeks ago. That pressure meant our players had to run further and harder for longer. By the end of the game, Viney could barely kick the ball. All in all, we played a top 4 team and stayed with them for most of the game. The number of goals we kicked is irrelevant. Edit: spelling accuracy in the last sentence. Presumably caused by tired fingers

I don't think pace by leg is the issue. It's pace by ball movement. We take too long to move forward. Primarily between the arcs. By the time we've made a decision it's too late so we go backwards to keep possession.

There are posts everywhere which include what are now embarrassing comments. It's time we made an official list of humble pie statements. I'll start: Lynden Dunn - I apologise for repeatedly stating you weren't worth keeping on our list. I was wrong, and so horribly wrong. Neville Jetta - I apologise for claiming that you're a great trier but too slow. I was wrong Cameron Pedersen - I apologise for stating that you weren't up to AFL standard and that the only time you showed anything it was in defence. I was wrong.

I agree with your comment...and add that the same thing happened not long after when Jamie Elliott took a mark around the 50m line in front of the MCC members. Except the umpire seemed not to care that Elliott played on before the umpire could "line him up".

If ever a game needed us to be "top heavy with talls" it's when playing Essendon. They'll be playing Daniher, Bellchambers, Ryder, Carlisle, Hooker, Hurley and Fletcher (if fit). That's a lot of tall timber to combat and we're playing a very small backline. Our defenders have played exceptionally well but size will be a problem next weekend unless we move one of Pedersen or Frawley back. So I'd keep all the talls in. Salem looks tired, and Terlich and JKH each played their worst game for the club to date. All have credits in the bank for mine, but if they are tired or injured each could be rested (which doesn't necessarily mean playing with Casey). Given the need to boost the height in defence, Terlich might find he gives way to allow Frawley to go back and I suspect Salem needs a rest. The ins I suspect would be those with the most compelling form from Casey. I don't know who they are, but suspect based on the way the senior side has been picked to date it's out of Kent, McKenzie, Riley and Toumpas.

Good coaching, then. Bail started on Pendlebury who was outstanding in Q1 (although Bail still got a lot of it too). Vince was moved on to Pendlebury from quarter time and held him quite well while doing significant damage himself. I admit to not realising Bail was on Lumumba, but Cross on Beams also worked for most of the game, too. In short, our coaches chose their match-ups pretty well and showed an ability to think through changes on the day.

6. Dunn 5. Jetta 4. Vince 3. N Jones 2. Cross 1. Pedersen

Guys, Machsy's just trying a bit of humour. Over the years this site has been full of hyperbole with "could be anything" one of the most derided expressions. My other favourite to deride is any claim that someone is giving 110% (or any number over 100%, as if it were possible). Clearly you didn't find Machsy funny, so I won't add that I can see Fitzy's alternative employment as a stand-in for the giraffes at the zoo.

I found it interesting that Demetriou on Footy Classified just last week all but said that the media conference was a "stunt". He didn't use that word and he was very careful with what he said, but if I recall correctly he said something like "the media conference didn't end up the way we (the sports CEOs) thought it would". I'm actually surprised his comments didn't get much (or perhaps any) subsequent media coverage.