La Dee-vina Comedia

Did we? I mean, did we ever officially admit to tanking or be found to have tanked by an appropriate body (ie, not the media)? If not, I'm not sure that it's "fact". Without going over old ground, there have always been problems with the definition of what "tanking" means, so unless there has been a formal finding or admission, I don't think we should now be saying it's a "fact we did".

If Essendon can be believed, she would have no concerns at all. Essendon continues to be adamant that it did nothing wrong and did not inappropriately treat its players. So, if she believes that, why should she be concerned? On the question of what AD is doing or should be doing, the best advice anybody could give him is to not speak about the matter. When the question first arose about whether James Hird is or isn't being paid, AD should have said he was not prepared to comment because the matter was between the AFL, Essendon and James Hird. Instead, he fed the media machine and has effectively allowed himself to look either ineffectual or unknowing.

Unfortunately, and as usual, this thread is beginning to degenerate into "he said, she said" on a very much off topic issue. Can we stop it right here and now? Please?

We'd also have a higher average IQ and more teeth per person.

Our reporters (who do a great job - thanks to all) regularly refer to players running 300m drills. I'm curious as to why 300m is the distance which always seems to be the one chosen. Is it because it's longer than a 200m sprint and therefore does something to benefit aerobic fitness? Anyone know?

Are you directly quoting Mark Neeld?

Probably a similar thought process to all those Demonlanders who bet on MFC each week in the last few years.

You must be good at cryptic crosswords. (which is an excuse to include this link for those who also like said crosswords)

Hey KC, how are VFL lists put together? For ex-MFC listed players who retire or are delisted (ie, J Tynan, Couch, Magner and Davey from the above list) does that also automatically remove them from Casey's list too? How do they get on other teams' lists?

Disagree. Members should be counted whether they attend or not. Not everyone lives near a ground where AFL is played or can attend for other reasons (such as physical disabilities) and those people should be encouraged to become members and made to feel welcome. It doesn't matter how much someone pays to be a member from the point of view of counting - just that they have the passion and want to belong.

Just trying to identify who wrote this. Anyone know the name of any supermodels who support the Demons? Must have the lowest body mass index of any supporter ever.

Of course you're unlucky. You follow the Melbourne Football Club after all.

They may be experienced players, but they have no experience playing with each other. So while Roos doesn't have to teach them basic things like fitness, disposal and endeavour, he still has to teach them (and all the others) how to play with each other.

"I've only got coffee. Your dad pinched all the donuts" Edit: to fix embarrassingly poor spelling

I don't quite understand why posters criticise players who get the best contract deal they can, irrespective of what follows. No-one holds a gun at the head of the club which agrees to the deal and it's about the only time the players have any bargaining power with the club. For every player who's done a deal that's over the odds, there are plenty more who have failed to get what they want (eg, Cameron Bruce). Secondly, I doubt there's a player, past or present, who hasn't tried to play the best that they can after signing a contract. I suspect Davey's poor performances after his B&F year may have been a result of injuries sustained playing the role that resulted in the B&F but for which his body was not suitable. Small, lightly framed players should not be playing on ball roles other than occasional cameos. In the year Davey won his B&F he was successful but would have been battered from pillar to post.

Wow, auto-censor edits out 'i diot' and lets through the f-word.

As with most things AFL, the simple explanation (crook knee) is probably the most likely story. But the conspiracy theory that Duigan and Malthouse didn't see eye-to-eye is far more entertaining and therefore may get a life of its own. I can just see the (insert name of Herald Sun journalist/Damian Barrett/Luke Darcy) version which questions whether Duigan's psychology degree means he couldn't work with Malthouse because of Malthouse's man management "style".

I think you'll find plenty who'll disagree with you and argue instead that a player should be given one number and keep it for their whole MFC career. That number then gets linked inextricably with the player for all time...hopefully bringing us all great memories.

You could have been writing about N Jones circa 2007/2008. Jones learned to eliminate that problem. Hopefully Terlich can too. But if he can't I think he'll struggle to stay in the team as others go past him.

Bit like his playing career.

Didn't John Meesen become ruck coach after he "retired"? (Retired in inverted commas because I'm not sure whether he was delisted or voluntarily quit as player).

Thanks rpfc. Quite obvious, really.

What is this stat a measure of? Given Viney, Clisby and McKenzie each missed many games for one reason or another, I'm guessing it's not raw numbers. Is it the proportion of contested to uncontested?

Satyr, just to clarify. When you said "his words, not mine", did you mean Paul Roos's words or Sam Blease's?

Because of his running ability, do people see him as a tagger? I think his disposal isn't great, but it's better than McKenzie's. Conversely, his tackling technique is not as good as he gives away too many frees for head high tackles and "in the back". I've always thought his natural position was as a "run with" player.