La Dee-vina Comedia

Should give an honourable mention to the Ox. While not actually spoken while calling games, anyone who can talk about a player's "longterm-gevity" or explain that a player is "a former shadow of himself" needs to be rewarded for adding such great terms into the commentary lexicon.

You'd think Roos' comments about players dropping simple chest marks might have been directed at Fitzy. Assuming (and the assumption might not be correct) that the coach's comments in the media are directed at the players more than the public, what effect would such a comment have on the player? Would he lose confidence? Would he respond positively? I know every player is different, but does anyone know whether Fitzy is more likely to respond to a stick or a carrot?

The online story has 6 sentences. Perhaps there's more to come, but are we to believe Caroline Wilson would have stopped at 6 sentences if it had been a player from any other club?

OD, seems like you might have Tonya Harding's ex-boyfriend on speed dial.

I didn't think he looked flat. If Gawn or Jamar don't play, is there any possibility of playing Tom McDonald forward so he can be the backup to Spencer in the ruck? He's got the running ability to get around the ground and it would allow (in fact, probably require) Pederson to play in the back half - the only place where he looks comfortable, although, admittedly, not particularly good. McDonald's kicking is a worry, but I wouldn't be expecting him to have many shots - rather he would provide relief for Jeremy Howe and Jack Watts (if he plays forward) and better opportunities for the crumbing forwards.

I love using statistics to make an argument. For example, Shannon Byrnes is clearly the outstanding forward in the competition in 2014 having kicked 40% of his team's goals.

Why did he play so few games at GWS? That is, what sort of injury or injuries did he have?

No. They should finish year 12 before they are drafted. Education is important - particularly for the many who, for whatever reason, don't last long in the AFL system.

I think we're no chance against GWS. But Carlton plays Essendon on Sunday night so it seems we might be going into round 4 with both teams 0-3. Surely we're a chance against them. (Waite will probably be missing either suspended or injured by then, too).

I was at the MCG and I gave him votes, so let me explain why. I thought he was one of the few who made the necessary effort to get to a position where he could be used. That requires him to take the risk of running off his player even though he knows he may have to rush back if the ball is turned over. Under Neeld I suspect the instruction was for him never to leave his man, so he didn't seem to do this. Yes, he turned it over and some of those turnovers were inexcusable. But I can see the plan and once we have a functioning forward line it won't come back as often or as quickly so he won't be out of position so often on the rebound.

My point wasn't that bad shoulders somehow slow someone down. Rather, that clubs make decisions all the time about players with known pre-existing conditions and have to make a judgement call about whether that condition lowers the player's place in the draft or trade table of values. And just to add to the point, Dermott Brereton who was involved with Hawthorn at the time of Judd's recruitment has publicly stated that Hawthorn would have taken him with pick 1 in 2000* except that he was too young but decided not to do so when they had pick 1 in 2001 because of his shoulders. *Note: I know Hawthorn didn't have pick 1 in 2000. But perhaps they may have traded for it if Judd had been available - just like they did for Luke Hodge the following year.

I don't know if you mean Russell Robertson or Mark Robinson. Either way, I still think you might be right.

Replace the words "hip problems" with "shoulders problem" and you've got exactly the same scenario with Chris Judd. West Coast knew about his shoulder problems and drafted him anyway (coincidentally at pick 3). Did they make the wrong decision?

Really? I'm of the opposite view...but I agree about the "bit of a buffoon" comment.

I thought he was OK - kept Le Cras reasonably quiet which I would have thought was his main task.

And while we're on the topic, does anyone think Wayne Carey is a good addition to Channel 7's team? I don't, not just because I think his commentary is somewhat predictable, dated and dull, but as a business decision I think it's flawed because I'm pretty sure female viewers don't like him. Perhaps I'm wrong, but would our female Demonlanders care to comment?

While Hawthorn might have brought in Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake and McEvoy, they also did the hard work of drafting and developing Franklin, Roughead, Stratton, Birchall and Max Bailey. I think the ones they developed themselves have been better overall than the ones they brought in.

That was Garry Lyon on 3AW providing special comments when Rex Hunt was calling. I'm prepared to do a deal with Channel 7. They can keep their commentary team if I can choose the directors and producers. Who thinks it's a good idea to have close ups during play so you can't see what's happening, a MegaWall which has no meaning or purpose and a huge battery of statistics available but barely used?

You're quite right of course. Perhaps I'm just in denial and wanting to transfer my thinking to something away from the obvious.

For two weeks JKH has started as the sub. I would have thought the sub should be a player who's a genuine on baller who can go into the middle and add some spark when other midfielders must be feeling tired. Using a small forward as the sub seems to me to be a waste of the sub role. As exciting as JKH was when he came on, why wouldn't you use as a sub in every game a player capable of playing on ball to make use of the extra energy he's going to have over every other player on the ground (except for the opposition's sub)? In my view, the sub should be of the ilk of Blease, Evans, Bail or M Jones (if they're in the 22, of course) not a small forward such as JKH or a slower player like Tapscott or Michie.

Completely agree - so it's worth adding that Frawley came all the way from the backline to congratulate him along with two others who happened to be nearby (and whose identities I've now forgotten). So well done JKH and Frawley.

The big question for the Match Committee is who's going to be backup for Spencer? Once that's resolved, the rest of the team selection is relatively easy as it's just swapping like for like in terms of role. Spencer can't do it on his own because (a) he's got to play against Mumford and Giles (b) he's not good enough and © we'd be in even more strife if he got injured early. Neither Pederson or Fitpatrick would otherwise be in the side but if neither Gawn or Jamar aren't available, one of them is going to have to play. With respect to the running players, M Jones is fast but he fumbled a lot yesterday; Michie is hard but he's slow and doesn't get enough possessions to justify his spot; Bail works hard and runs well but isn't quite there. (Trengove also looked as slow yesterday as he's ever looked). If McKenzie, Viney, Garland and Gawn and Jamar are fit, all should play and should replace Michie, M Jones, Bail, Pederson and Fitzpatrick respectively. If McKenzie and Viney aren't ready, then I'd play Evans and Blease.

Dunn was playing well in the backline before he was moved forward and didn't do too badly then, either. Pederson looked much more comfortable when he went to the backline for a stint but couldn't be left there because Roos needed to play him somewhere where could get a rest so he could help out Spencer. It's a crook team when the clearly not-up-to it Pederson has to remain on the ground because the even worse Fitzpatrick had to be subbed out. Dunn has significantly improved his performance in the last 12 months after being moved all around the paddock to try and find his correct position. I'd hate to see him go backwards as a result of him once again being shunted around - so he should stay in the backline and when Garland returns, he (Garland) should be played forward until the real forwards return..

6. N Jones 5. Tyson 4. Dunn 3. Cross 2. Frawley (even though he made some horrendous disposal errors) 1. Terlich (still plays a bit like N Jones in his first year...trying to do too much once he has the ball)

Seems appropriate that so many appear to be shadows of their former selves.