La Dee-vina Comedia

I also thought about giving ANB votes. It seemed to me Geelong's strategy was to play our play makers close and not let them get any easy disposals. And within that strategy it seemed that most emphasis was placed on closing down Viney, ANB and perhaps Harmes more than any other players. They weren't allowed to run amok and hence got caught with the ball or had to dispose under pressure. It was well executed by Geelong and even under this pressure Viney, Harmes and ANB were our better players. However, without them doing their thing, others who rely on them couldn't get into the game (ie, Bedford, Spargo, Fritsch, etc).

Given it's a day game at the Alice and assuming it's dry, another tall forward should play. I don't think we can win a premiership with Mitch Brown in the side, so the forward to come in should be either Weideman or van Rooyen. One of Bedford or Spargo should go out. Probably Bedford, unless Spargo is unfit or unwell. (I'm hoping that's the reason why we didn't see Spargo much last night). If Oliver can't play, Dunstan should come in for him. Everyone else in the side deserves to stay, even though a number were poor last night.

6. Viney (even though he kept getting caught with the ball) 5. Brayshaw 4. Lever 3. Petracca 2. Langdon 1. Harmes Also thought about giving Hibberd votes, too.

Just to clarify...are we playing football tonight or is it a dance competition? If it's the latter, we might be in trouble.

I always like your confident selections, but given Melksham, Weideman, Tomlinson and Hunt are the four horsemen of the apocalypse emergencies for the senior team, you'll have to make at least one change. Edit: Silly me. the Casey game is tomorrow. If the sub doesn't play, he'll play for Casey. Well done Werridee.

It's not all bad news if Brown is not getting marks or free kicks because he's being double teamed. It means someone on our side is freed up. And we should be able to exploit that. Perhaps we already are...and that may be why Brown is doing his job even if he's not kicking goals himself.

The emergencies aren't picked because they are the 23rd to 26th next best available players. There's always a mix to cover as best as possible talls, smalls, defenders, forwards and midfielders. I expect Chandler misses out because we've already got three players in the team with similar roles and of a similar size in Bedford, Pickett and Spargo. The others selected as emergencies (Weideman, Tomlinson, Melksham and Hunt) provide far more flexibility. If there are no late changes, I would like Hunt as the sub, unless there is some doubt about the fitness of Gawn or Jackson, in which case Weideman or Tomlinson would be a better option.

I hope our team believes Geelong was rife with illness prior to the Prelim. To think otherwise might be construed as complacency.

There is a special one, just for tonight. If we're losing it's all because we had to play at Geelong's home ground which is a travesty because no other big Victorian team has to play there.

Can anyone fact check this assertion?

If we were still as hopeless as we were in 2013, I'd be worried that we'd end up with Mark Jackson and James Brayshaw.

Am I allowed to be a bit serious and ask that the opposition team be called by its real name or real nickname? The faux naming linking the opposition with a past event or a deliberate misspelling probably seemed amusing when we were 13 years old*, but today... really? *If you are 13 years old, go ahead. You're excused.

I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut as you make it. I agree with Gawn in for Mitch Brown. But if Jackson comes back, it depends on whether the match committee wants a tall forward line, in which case Weideman stays and Bedford goes or whether they like the alternative of a smaller and faster forwards group, in which case Weideman would go and Bedford stay (unless Chandler is preferred). Being a night game with, at this stage, a 95% chance of showers in the evening, I hope it's the smaller, faster option.

The rule has been tweaked, though. It used to say that the MFC had to lose at the Cattery every year.

I seem to recall successful VFA player, Vic Aanensen, might have played (with South Melbourne, maybe?) Is he first? Otherwise, Jake Aarts

It does read like he played a game with the Auskick kids. Would have been fun to watch.

If I were North, I'd be making Angus Brayshaw a Godfather offer. He's got the talent, family connection to the club, leadership, Premiership experience and he's a free agent. If I were Brayshaw, I'd be torn between staying with a very successful club or being set up for life post-football.

They gave us something far better than priority picks. They gave us Peter Jackson and Paul Roos. If they'd just given us priority picks we would probably have wasted them either by making poor selections or not giving them the right environment in which to develop properly. Or both. I suspect North will need something similar.

And 50% more economical with his comments than Joeboy. To clarify, his Twitter profile states that he is an "accredited AFL ump disappointed at the standard at AFL level". That description, though, could mean different things to different people. For example, is he (or she?) a field umpire or a goal umpire? What does "accredited AFL ump" even mean? Nevertheless, his other posts highlight contentious decisions and explains why the umpire got it right or wrong. I find it both entertaining and informative. If you're on Twitter, I recommend following him (or her).

Out of curiosity, went and had a look at the complete list. Ablett Jr won it three times in consecutive years (2007-2009). Interestingly, Simon Goodwin won it in 2006. To state the obvious, it's a list of very good players: https://aflcoaches.com.au/awards/the-aflca-champion-player-of-the-year-award

The scary thing for oppositions is that Petracca might have been best on ground but he was still a fair way from playing at what he's capable of when playing at his very best.

I suspect the distribution of free kicks follows a normal distribution over the longer term. So, in thousands of matches, it won't be unusual to see a 23-9 distribution every now and then. It takes approx 5 years for 1,000 AFL matches.

Surprised the umpires didn't pay a free kick to Brayshaw for a block by Harmes.

I thought the umpiring was poor but in no way do I believe there was any cheating or deliberate bias. Just bad decision making. However, what is worth commenting on is the player's restraint. The crackdown on dissent means there were a lot of opportunities for our players to complain which would have lead to 50m penalties. That we didn't complain and just got on with the game shows great leadership and probably coaching. The other side to that coin, though, is that behind the scenes when the umpiring is as poor as it was, clubs affected by it must have a proper avenue to air their grievances privately to the AFL.

A few people on here have said they thought M Brown played better than Weideman. I disagree with that view. However, I wasn't at the ground and I know from experience that TV viewing does not give the whole picture. I'd be interested in the opinions of anyone who was at the Adelaide Oval. Neither Weideman or M Brown set the world on fire, but the season is about winning the Premiership, not worrying so much about each individual game. I believe Weideman is a better option than M Brown to that end, so if only one loses his spot this week, it should be M Brown. Bedford also seemed to have a shocker, but Chandler has been tried and shown me little to enthuse each time, so I'd keep Bedford in, unless we want to go back to a taller forward line.