La Dee-vina Comedia

It's a great read, but not sure I agree with this bit, " Plenty of late, hard hits, scuffles, following with the elbow when you lose out on a contested mark. Both teams played like they felt hard done by, which in turn created more scuffles, more malice, more venom in the contests." It's not what I saw.

Will be interesting if Chandler loses his spot to Pickett. If he does, I'll have to assume his vote came from Longmire.

It was interesting to see Rivers in the midfield rotations yesterday. I don't know if that was because he was playing on a specific person and followed him in there or not. But I can't recall us in the Goodwin era ever using one of the nominal seven defenders in a midfield role. As to changes, Pickett for Chandler who becomes the sub with Melksham being omitted. It's tough on Chandler, but he's effectively playing the Pickett role. If Brown is injured or needs to be rested, I'd bring in Tom McDonald. If Hibberd is injured or needs to be rested, I'd bring in Tomlinson.

I'm really curious as to what has been censored here. I'm conscious of the Demonland policy so am not asking for the censored word to be disclosed. However, is it simply just a case of a typo with the intention to write 'shut' being erroneously written? After all, the u and i are adjacent on a qwerty keyboard.

6. Oliver 5. Grundy 4. Petracca 3. Langdon 2. Hunter 1. Rivers Really sorry I couldn't also include Jordon.

Major League Baseball in the US now gives players a special patch to add to their uniform when they debut. It's all about the collectibles market. I expect the AFL will eventually follow suit. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-30/mlb-rookies-to-wear-debut-patches-bound-for-collectibles-market?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business#xj4y7vzkg

For those who follow US sport and the conference system, do the same teams remain in the same conferences every year? I would find it somewhat depressing if we went to two conferences and played against the same 9 teams every year and only against teams in the "other" conference in finals.

Ignoring Sam McClure for the moment (or always). I think the data presented here for all Victorian clubs, except North Melbourne, is impressive. For every club (except North) to have an average home crowd of over 24,000 is quite extraordinary. I can remember as a child growing up in the 70s looking at the newspaper summary of the weekends' games when all six were played at the same time on a Saturday. It used to include a figure showing attendances at each game with the total each round usually somewhere around 120,000 on a good weekend, so an average of 20,000 per game.

They've fed the hamster and it's back spinning the dynamo.

Mind you, it would be a bit surprising if the club wrote instead, "He's not noted for going at the ball hard, he's usually away from the contest and his follow-up at ground level is average". In other words, take all pre-game praise with a grain of salt and hope that he delivers on the main stage.

I like the way the company has referred to the tech person as the "Senior" Infrastructure technician to lend gravitas to how seriously they're taking this problem.

Not sure how big he is, but just on this single page alone the MFC says he's both 193cm and 194cm.

Mick Malthouse leads the pack for curmudgeonly commentary. But, DS, you're closing fast.

Also, people's expectations have changed. Most suburban grounds in the 60s and 70s had little seating, except for club members. The standing room allowed for bigger crowds, but it was far less comfortable overall.

I'm hoping it's reminiscent of John Coleman's.

I wonder whether GWS will eventually relocate to Canberra.

Of course he didn't. It's the beginning of his busy period given it will also be Palm Sunday.

If the AFL issues a 19th licence to Tassie, as seems likely, it would be strange to leave the competition with 19 teams. Surely there will either be a 20th licence issued or one of the current ones returned. So, if there is to be a 20th licence, is SA the best option? I would have thought Canberra would have been a more logical fit. I'm not expecting Darwin to get a licence because I can't see how they could hold a team together because of the distance from home for most players and the not particularly comfortable environment (meaning both the weather and lifestyle) for them to live in.

Apparently with a combined total of 2,844 games, we played our most experienced team ever last week in the game against the Lions. It's still a long way off the most experienced team ever, which was Geelong in last year's Grand Final, with a total of 3,855 games played. I'm surprised that it was our most experienced ever, given that there weren't that many "older" players in the team. Source: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html#12 (Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If so, feel free to delete.)

I thought this thread had been bumped by someone posting "and Steven May getting into trouble". Which I guess I've just done.

Bad idea. Too much Willie Nelson might encourage him to smoke illegal substances.

I'm more concerned with how Viney plays as captain. I fear that he may over-react to the responsibility to the detriment of his own game. He always strikes me as the sort of player who, in trying to give 100% in everything he does, sometimes goes too far. In other words, he becomes his own worst enemy. On the issue of VC, does it really matter? Gawn remains captain for all the non-on field responsibilities, of which I assume there are plenty. In fact, I've always believed the on-field role of Captain isn't that important compared with the off-field.

If you look at the injury report, I think you'll find WCW is already out with a foot injury.

Am I the only who who read this post and for a fleeting moment thought the poster was suggesting that Bowey or Spargo be Grundy's relief ruckman?

I haven't read this whole thread, so this question may have already been asked and answered, but if May and Petty both play is using Tomlinson as Grundy's relief a viable option? I'm not averse to van Rooyen playing, but we have to recognise that Grundy needs support for up to 6 weeks, not just one. Is it feasible for van Rooyen to be second ruck for 6 weeks?