La Dee-vina Comedia

There's a serious lack of AFL nous on the AFL Commission at the moment. It's almost as if the Chairman is over-compensating by getting someone who is not yet retired from the game. I suspect Dangerfield will be an excellent Commissioner...but not yet. He needs to spend some time retired first to get a better perspective. There are plenty of smart, suitable, relatively recently retired AFL footballers who would be better choices at this time.

Thanks for clearing that up. After I posted my query I started to think that perhaps "bants" was a typo for "rants". I wouldn't have been able to concentrate for the rest of the day not knowing whether bants meant banter or rants!

Hasn't he also got professional qualifications as an architect (or something like that)?

When Craig Hutchison took over the running of SEN, Finey lost his on-air position there. After that he did some podcasting with Rohan Connolly using the Footyology site. I'm not sure if he's doing that any more, though.

Apologies in advance, layzie...but for some reason this expression annoys me probably more than any other. After all, what other sort of facts are there? And before anyone answers...I know the expression "alternative facts". But if you think about it, that just proves my point, doesn't it? PS: What are "bants"? Slang for banter?

Not really. If Oliver is back and with Brayshaw and Viney doing so well in the midfield, Petracca can play a lot more time forward. Handy option. Having said that, I still think it's more likely that one of Smith or Grundy will replace Petty as a tall forward.

Didn't we play 7 defenders? May, Lever, Smith as the "talls" and McVee, Bowey, Salem and Rivers as the "smalls". When Petty came off, Smith was moved forward and Hibberd slotted into defence.

Who's on your list? I've got Neitz and...maybe SOS, even though it was only on occasions. (SOS still kicked over 200 goals, though. Good effort for a full back).

6. Brayshaw 5. Viney 4. Gawn 3. Petracca 2. Hunter 1. Neal-Bullen

While I agree, the club might feel that Smith needs to play a full game. With no Casey game this weekend, this is the only option. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tomlinson is the sub.

Does anything need to be cut? Can't clubs go over the soft cap and pay a "tax" as penalty to the AFL?

Tonight Brett Rosebury breaks the record for umpiring the most AFL games when he runs out for the 503rd time. I know it's not specifically a Melbourne Demons post, but without umpires, we don't have a game. Reading the article reminds me that for every new or changed rule that our players need to learn, so, too, do the umpires who we expect to get it right first time and every time. So, congratulations Brett Rosebury. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/afl-umpire-brett-rosebury-creates-history-with-most-games/102684112

The irony of this post is that you're the one being cynical. (That's not a criticism, by the way.)

I don't think that's necessarily correct. If they do it again before the end of the 2024 season, I believe they would be penalised for that breach specifically AND fined the suspended $50,000. In my view, they are very lucky this time not to have also been penalised 4 or 8 Premiership points, although also fully suspended until the end of 2024 or 2025.

As I see it, Sparrow comes in for Woewodin. The only other possible change that I can envisage is which of Smith, Tomlinson or Hibberd is in the starting 22 with one picked as the sub and the other missing out altogether. There are arguments for and against every option. Best guess: Tomlinson plays, Smith as sub, Hibberd unlucky and misses.

You've just written the bulk of Goodwin's motivational address for Sunday. Well done.

Excellent article in The Age today from Prof Peter Brukner about being a club doctor. He should know - he was ours for a while. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-would-you-be-an-afl-club-doctor-20230801-p5dsw0.html

Where's the evidence that Gawn is a "bit banged up"? can't see it myself.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Port didn't win any premiership points in this particular game. And if premiership points are to be a penalty for this type of offence, they should be deducted whether a team wins or loses.

I disagree. Each player will be in front of Clarkson for the first time in a long time and will be playing for their career. It's not about winning the game, but winning over the coach.

One of the problems I see with the "resting" scenario is if the replacement performs well. For example, if Hibberd comes in for McVee and Hibberd plays very well, what happens the next week? Does McVee come back? Who for? I'm concerned about the psychological damage that can be done to players who are told they are being rested who fear they may miss out on getting back in time for finals.

The actions of Port will, I suspect, lead to independent doctors being appointed to be present at every ground solely to monitor for concussions and to have power to remove players from the game. I also suspect the penalty will be something like a $150,000 fine plus the loss of 8 premiership points, with the points penalty being fully suspended. That will serve as a warning, not just for Port, but for every club. And rightly so.

Depends on context. Works well in this sentence: "We're the best, forget the rest".

Max Lynch retiring due to concussion. Concussion forces 24-year-old Lynch into premature retirement Good luck to the kid.

Why on earth would we want to rest anyone? The forward combination of Petty/van Rooyen/Melksham has worked. Just once. They need time to prove they are the real deal and the midfield combination has to be part of that work in progress. Of course, if better players are available they should be picked when available (ie, Oliver/Fristch/Sparrow for Harmes/Woewodin/Jordon, or whoever).