La Dee-vina Comedia

Tom McDonald's foot, Salem's groin, Jordon's foot (but, to be fair, he's definitely not going to be an injured player taken into finals)

Apologies if you've opened this thread for a training report. This thread is purely etymological. The term "Captain's Run" has become quite commonplace, but I'm sure it didn't exist just 10 years ago. So, I'd like to know: What, exactly, does it mean? Where did the expression come from? (American sport, perhaps?) When did it first become a term used with respect to AFL? If you're looking for a training report for today, try here. Or here.

Keep in mind that AFL clubs all lie about selection prospects, injuries, etc. Nevertheless, allowing speculation around selections can be a strategy to distract the opposition. It could also be a tactic to see how the player in question copes.

And reported in yesterday's The Age...Aaron vandenBerg is injured again. He was apparently playing for Old Xavs and suffered what The Age called "a serious arm injury". Poor bloke still can't take a trick. Not sure if it's paywalled, but it's buried a fair way down this story.

I suspect the big winner out of this is the Nine network. The 10/Paramount super-bid of $600M per annum has forced Seven to pay more (of course) but probably significantly more than it had intended. Nine was a bidder, too, but I seriously doubt Nine wanted to get the rights given they are locked in already to the NRL. All Nine would have wanted was for its commercial arch-enemy, Seven, to be forced to over-pay thereby restricting Seven's ability to bid strongly for other product, sporting or non-sporting. The downside for consumers is that by being forced to spend so much for the rights, Seven may choose to spend minimally on anything else, so there will continue to be little AFL programming other than the games themselves. So, not much in the way of analysis type programming and probably not much in production value-adding. I guess that's not much different to now.

Possibly more money than anticipated...meaning more available to be spent on players...meaning higher salary cap...meaning Luke Jackson can be accommodated within the MFC budget. Of course, the flaw in the argument is that the salary cap goes up for everyone, so Luke Jackson's contract could probably be accommodated within any club's budget, although any other club would have to offer more than he's likely to get from the MFC.

Saw some footage of training on the nightly news. I think it was on Nine. Amusingly, the reporter breathlessly told us that Spargo was still unable to talk due to his larynx injury...while the footage showed him walking laps with Fritsch AND TALKING.

What does this mean, with respect to this thread? That we're better to play Petracca than not? (Also, I'm not sure I agree with the literal meaning, anyway.)

Don't forget the glass is re-fillable. For Jackson to get to Freo (or anywhere else, for that matter) we'll get something juicy in return. For example, it may be a couple of early draft picks from which we might end up with a player or two who help win a future flag or flags.

It's more about roles than players. Assuming Petracca is out of the midfield, I expect Brayshaw to play his role leaving Harmes to take up the tagging role on Neale. That leaves a spot on the wing available, but with no Jordon, we have to find someone. I'd expect Bedford to get that role. If Petracca plays permanent forward, it depends on the fitness of Melksham and Fritsch as to who goes out. If Fritsch is OK, then Melksham has to go . If Spargo isn't fit, I expect Chandler to take his place, not Petracca. So, I expect Bedford in for Melksham (unless Fritsch is not fit). And Chandler for Spargo, if Spargo doesn't come up. Of course, if Petracca doesn't play, I expect Melksham to keep his spot in the side.

I think Harmes is very lucky. I'm confident it was inadvertent, but his arm was raised at the last minute, although perhaps as much in self-defence as anything else.

Cry. Of course, it's the same answer if we don't.

Over-reaction much? I stopped reading this thread after the first page. I must have been watching a different game last night and a different team all year compared with everyone else. For example, I thought Harmes was good last night (but expect he'll be suspended). I also thought ANB, while not at his best wasn't as bad as others have said. The question to be asked, though, is whether the team can be improved by a change of personnel? I wouldn't have thought so. Melksham had been good the previous few weeks...but is that enough? After all, he wasn't much worse than Brown or Pickett with respect to impact. However, perhaps they have more runs on the board overall. Anyway, if Harmes is suspended, Petracca's hairline fracture keeps him out, Spargo's throat is problematic and Tom McDonald isn't ready, we may be limited on what we can choose to do, anyway.

6. Oliver 5. May 4. Petty 3. Langdon 2. Harmes 1. Hunt For what it's worth, as much as we missed the contributions of many of our players, we were up against a sensational opponent. I don't think I've seen another team this year (including ours) play with such sustained pressure as the Swans brought to the MCG last night.

There's also a difference between the ABC refusing to be paid to promote a product, such as Colgate, and someone else being paid, such as the owners of the stadiums now called Marvel and Optus. If an organisation has decided to officially change the name of a stadium or an event (such as the BMW Cox Plate - or whatever name it now has), I think there's an argument that the ABC's intransigence in not using that name is wrong...and Petty. (See what I did there to keep this thread on topic?)

Slightly off-topic, but I do note the irony of the ABC which is holier-than-thou when broadcasting games so it won't give a stadium the name that has been paid for by a commercial interest (such as Marvel or Optus Stadium) yet makes sure its own brand is highly visible on a satellite dish.

Special congratulations to Jayden Hunt who is the current Melbourne player (excluding Luke Dunstan) who has played the most games without ever playing in a final (112). Well deserved.

I find it interesting that I can see no-one in the crowd wearing club gear. That's certainly been a huge commercial opportunity grabbed by the AFL clubs (and all professional sports generally) in the last 27 years.

If Hibberd is withdrawn because of gastro, I wonder whether Smith or Bowey will be promoted? I can see arguments for both.

It's a great read. I was laughing out loud at Clarry's description of Petracca communicating with his family in Italy.

We're all winners, but some are more winningest than others.

Me too. I assume the prize cupboard is still bare.

Ahh...all is right with the world. We're still training (and playing) in September, crowds have turned up for our training session, and if I look closely at the fifth of these photos, I think I see Satyr wearing a jaunty, white beret to match his beard.

This would be so much easier if I wasn't colour-blind. Well done, Demonstone. Again.

(Apologies if this is embedded in a thread elsewhere. Mods feel free to merge if necessary). Rohan Connolly has published his view of the merits of the pre-finals bye. While I agree with his conclusion, I think using a statistical analysis on such a small sample size is flawed. In essence, he doesn't like the bye because it appears to take from the top four the advantage of the week off for winning a qualifying final. He also refers to its momentum killing effects. I couldn't agree more with this last point.