La Dee-vina Comedia

I was surprised that after his clearance work got us Jurrah's first goal (and I think also Jurrah's first point - which should have been a goal) that Gys was removed from the centre square for the next few centre bounces. I appreciate rotations may in theory make it harder for the opposition to match up, but I've always felt that [cliche alert] when you are on a good thing you should stick to it.

Actually , I think it would be more effective to run a campaign not to buy products advertised on Channel 7 during delayed broadcasts. I have a suspicion similar campaigns have worked elsewhere - but can anyone help with evidence to support that statement?

While I think he's a good tagger, he also reminds me of James McDonald - runs all day, and while not an elite kick can kick with either foot, can tag but could also be a running midfielder. Perhaps not as much in and under as Junior, but a lot to like. Perhaps we should call him "Junior Jr". When McKenzie comes back I suspect Bail will become the "second" tagger - that is help McKenzie when he needs a rest and otherwise be given more opportunity to run free. I like him a lot. Amazing what is still there in the draft at, what, pick 64 or thereabouts.

I'm not sure the answers are really adding to the debate. The real question is: Should Morton play in the starting 21 or at Casey? He shouldn't be the sub which means if he's in the starting 21, who becomes the sub? Although Dunn picked up his game toward the end, I thought he struggled overall today. Not enough to be dropped, but perhaps to be the sub to allow Morton to play a full game.

er...I wouldn't have thought so. Bartram plays tight; Jones doesn't know how to. Both are flawed but both absolutely try their hardest. I've been troubled by Jones in the past, but had him in our best today.

6. Jamar 5. Moloney 4. Rivers 3. Jones 2. Bail (I know Black got a lot of it early, but in the end, Bail outlasted him and became an important cog) 1. Gysberts Tempted to put Martin in...but just missed out.

Given Frawley will lack match fitness (and assuming he plays, of course) I expect MacDonald to be on the bench with Petterd, Martin and Jetta (sub). Maric misses out. This adds a defender, when compared with last week's team, meaning Grimes or Tapscott or both can be given a chance up the field as part of the shifts which occur with rotations.

Am I imagining it or was one of the reasons given for introducing the new substitute rule a concern expressed by the AFL that the speed of the game could lead to greater impact injuries? If so, and if the substitute rule leads to a reduction in the number or consequences of impact injuries, then the substitute rule should continue to be supported. And, if the evidence shows an interchange bench of two plus two (meaning two substitutes) is better for players' long term health perhaps that should be supported, too. Having said that, though, I'd want to see hard evidence that the substitution rule is working in this way rather than making an unsubstantiated guess. With respect to Bell, I wonder whether the persistent concussions he talked about led to the lack of awareness or vice versa.

I'm not sure about Roost It's comment favouring 20 + 2 subs instead of the 21 + 1 (but it's by no means an outlandish suggestion) but I agree 100% that it's time to ban runners from the field. With the interchange rule allowing players to come on and off they can receive messages directly that way or the interchanging player running on can carry a message to players on the field. Too often the runners get in the way. At one stage on Sunday the Melbourne runner nearly gave away a free kick (or was it a 50m penalty?) because he was too close to the action. Note: I realise this is a footy forum so I should say "I agree 110%" but I just can't...

I was looking for a boundary umpire with a fluoro green vest to sub in.

Putting him to the backline might be an option, but he can only kick on the left. Mind you, Scott Lucas played OK when sent to CHB. I certainly think trialling him in the backline at Casey is a worthwhile development.

6. Moloney 5. Trengove quite a gap, then 4. Jamar 3. Davey 2. Tapscott 1. Martin And I liked Bennell's game, too.

I thought Thomo was suggesting Lewis Jetta would play on Jack Watts... It would be a fascinating duel, though in a bizarre sort of way.

Unfortunately, the Ox also admits to having had a big problem with the pokies, too.

Gulp. is it possible that Jamar, Spencer and Martin will all play? Jamar, 1st ruck; Spencer to assist Jamar and Martin as part of the rotating tall defenders, particularly if Goodes and White both play forward? Personally, I think that would be unbalanced (having Martin and Spencer on the bench at the same time makes it tough for the runners). I'd rather play Jamar and one of the other two, preferably Martin. I'm suspicious about Trengrove's fitness, though, so I think he's a doubtful starter.

Hey, come on, let's help Dazzler out. In no particular order: Davey = Flash Jamar = The Russian Green = Greeny (how inspiring) Jones = Jonesy (ditto) Jurrah = LJ Moloney = Beamer Watts = Killer or Mega and surely Strauss is Levi What else?

I'm using IE and it's the SOE where I work, so I can't change it. And what's been happening for a week or so is that some Demonland threads (including this one) keep automatically attempting to refresh and eventually close and reload, then attempt to refresh, close and reload, etc. Annoying.

When I read "Stauss (sic) is looking like another Chris Johnson" I got excited. Then I realised you meant Melbourne's, not Brisbane's. How deflating.

I think there might be another job for Martin. I keep reading on this site about who might be the second ruckman playing forward for us because of the substitute rule. But where is the commentary about who will play on the opposition's second ruckman if he plays forward? If it's Mumford or Pyke, Martin is the only one I can see with the height to play on that player. So, I reckon Martin might play defender whenever Sydney rests a ruckman forward. If they don't, I suspect Martin will go forward to stretch Sydney's defence. That doesn't answer the question about who plays on Goodes, but perhaps takes Martin out of the equation. (And it won't be Bartram, Jones or Bail who plays on Goodes. They're all too short. And I can't see it being Dunn, either. He's the right size but has successfully been turned into a defensive forward. My guess - and it's only an uneducated punt - is Garland. He has been successful on at least one other tall, fast forward in Franklin.)

Glass half empty: Fev stops development of KPF for Melbourne; Glass half full: Fev becomes target for developing midfielders so they learn how to pass to a KPF. As long as Fev doesn't actually drink from the glass, maybe there's as much upside as down.

And the Rabbitohs are now sponsored by Star City casino. Announced 28 January 2011

It's not quite what it seems. Firstly, under legislation the maximum number of poker machines any club can have control over in Victoria is 420. Collingwood currently has the most of any AFL club (292) while North Melbourne have zero. Carlton has 60 but is expected to get machines at other venues plus the 30 from the North Melbourne Giants. However, the 30 from the Giants has to get council approval plus permission from the gambling regulator. There is no certainty that will happen. And before we get too sanctimonious, the MFC has 92 poker machines at Leighoak and a proposal to take control of 80 at The Bentleigh Club.

I've seen the documentary. It's a beauty. I recall Dipper commenting that he thought the story of the Peace Team would be covered by Oprah (in her Chicago show, not her recent Aussie visit) and that he might be asked on the show. Did that ever happen? And while we grumble, or not, about flood levies, Ricky Nixon, carbon taxes, Greater Western Sydney "poaching" players and the like, let's keep in mind that for the Israeli and Palestinian players, they've returned to a very dangerous world.

Has anyone worked out what the second table was measuring? It wasn't labelled and it had Western Bulldogs on top with $36 milliion, but nowhere in the article did any of the dollar values match up with that un-named table. By deduction, it can't be assets (Western Bulldogs wouldn't be on top). Any ideas?

The Casey Scorpions already have approval for a pokies venue at Casey Fields. Getting a new pokies venue approved anywhere is difficult and can be expensive. Just ask the Western Bulldogs - after a long battle to get Club Edgewater approved, they are still yet to turn the first sod. I suspect that if the MFC takes obver the Bentleigh Club it will be to keep it going where it is. Any other option would be too expensive. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's impossible to tell without seeing and understanding the due diligence information which the MFC presumably has undertaken.