La Dee-vina Comedia

6. May 5. Lever 4. McVee 3. Gawn 2. Petty 1. McDonald Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to sneak all seven defenders into the votes, nor Langdon, all of whom were worthy.

Well, there's a thread idea. Max Gawn as Chewbacca, Simon Goodwin as Yoda, etc

Didn't Carlton own 20% of North Melbourne at that time?

Things I like about this photo (apart from it being a Melbourne FC team): black boots long socks wool jumpers no sponsorship logos no mullets or other silly hairstyles no visible tattoos

For Carlton. I wouldn't be upset if North made a Grand Final soon.

I've PM'd a correct answer. Whether it's the answer Demonstone is looking for is another matter.

I guess they're all better than doing a Tom Bugg.

No player should be selected as the sub unless they can play a full game. You never know how early in a game the sub role is going to be activated to replace an injured player.

Not so crazy when Hawkins takes the rucking duties for boundary throw-ins in the forward line. Hawkins will be far too strong for van Rooyen. (I realise that van Rooyen will be rucking when Gawn is off the ground, of course, so we won't actually have a choice).

It's normal for teams that Channel 7 wants to broadcast in prime time.

You should probably change your name to "Démon fanatique" to fit in properly. Bon voyage.

Saturday night football used to be the second most important timeslot for AFL games. It's arguably now been pushed to third by the AFL, presumably to satisfy the free-to-air broadcaster's wish for Thursday and Friday night games to take precedence. I know that my own interest in Saturday night football has waned because there have already been two night games and usually two earlier games on Saturday before it.

I really wish O. Henry played for us. Just so Demonland could call him by his real name of William Sydney Porter.

That's an explosion in a fact factory!

"layers" (as in AFL, VFL and equivalent, AFLW, suburban, Auskick, etc) or "players"?

Do you mean size by area or population? I have always assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that Carlton had a significantly bigger population than North Melbourne.

The difference between Richmond and St Kilda on the one hand and North on the other is that both Richmond and St Kilda (and probably every other team in the competition) can survive some periods at or around the bottom of the ladder because of large and/or wealthy support bases. North does not have the same cushion to fall back on having always been a club with a relatively small number of supporters who are not generally considered to be wealthy. The AFL can only support a club like North Melbourne for as long as the other clubs want it to. And that's Eddie's point...will there come a time when the remaining clubs decide enough is enough? While North remains at the bottom of the ladder, it acts as a handbrake on the health of the competition and puts itself at risk of irrelevance and eventually demise.

Perfect expression that everyone can agree with. It can be read positively, meaning that GWS and GCS are certain to remain, or it can be read negatively, meaning GWS and GCS are hopeless and not making any headway.

You want to play Petracca on Cameron? Has Petracca ever played in defence before? Wow...that really is rolling the dice.

Do we know that to be fact or just an assumption?

Is this the earliest in a season that this equivalent thread has been started? If so, I guess it's a sign of the times.

While we have some very experienced players, we also had five in the team against Richmond who had each played fewer than 10 games (Howes, Windsor, Laurie, Turner, Woewodin).

I take it you haven't seen much of Joe Daniher.

Against Richmond, we had Langdon and ANB swapped a few times at centre bounces with Langdon starting at the nominal CHF position and ANB on the wing. I don't think I've seen that before, and, frankly, I'm not sure why we did it.

Isn't this the title of a John Grisham book about a small-town, ambulance-chasing law firm?