La Dee-vina Comedia

Haven't beaten Freo since Round 1, 2021. If we lose again, might have to dig out the Embarrassing Records thread. (Seriously, isn't it great that we're not talking about a losing streak of 8+ games, or whatever?) Go Dees!

To be honest, I'd be satisfied if he just gets through the game unscathed with or without any goals. If anyone on our list deserves some luck go his way, it's him.

I think Brayshaw is one of very few players that is preparing himself in a way to give him flexibility for his working life after he retires. I suspect he will want to stay within the AFL industry in some capacity and is yet to decide whether he wants to do so on the football side (coaching, for example), the business side (player management or club admin, for example) or in the media. It's a route followed by Luke Ball, Nick Maxwell and Jimmy Bartel but few others.

I've always said and still firmly believe that the umpires do not cheat. I also believe it's time the AFL did a wholesale review of the complete set of rules to rewrite them to remove as much ambiguity as possible. It is fundamentally a game that has become too hard to umpire. In my view, the rewrite is a 5 year job, not a tinkering between seasons. I avoid the gameday thread for two reasons. Firstly, I'm too busy watching the game and don't need the distraction. And, secondly, it's the gameday thread! It's too emotional and a dangerous place. It's like QAnon meets the collected works of Mark Robinson.

I assume they replace the damaged turf with a fresh square. I would have thought those squares are so big and heavy and fitted so tightly that there should be no problems. But what would I know? Just as Webber is our go-to for medical matters, do we have a turfologist out there who can provide a professional opinion? (And, no, not Dr Turf. He might be a Melbourne supporter but his credentials do not include turfology.)

I'm prepared to argue that Brayshaw is a better kick than Salem or Bowey because he has penetration and relative accuracy with both feet. I can't remember ever seeing Salem or Bowey using their non-preferred. I assume they do but the fact that I can't recall seeing them doing so suggests it's not a weapon like Brayshaw's. I should add that my interpretation of a person's kicking skill includes the benefit to the team from the player being able to turn either way so that the opponent finds that player so much harder to play on. By my assessment, Brayshaw is the best kick in the team.

That aged well. Not.

I assume you mean Weidermann, because Macdonald is still injured and Browns not playing.

As I've made clear above, I don't think playing for frees is cheating. On the other hand, subbing players out of the game because of injury and then having that player available to play the following week surely and sorely tests the sub rule. I see Adam Treloar was subbed out last week and is apparently going to play this week. That's an abuse of the rule as it gave the Bulldogs fresh legs in Q4. The AFL should either get rid of the sub altogether or make it a hard and fast rule that a player subbed out must not play again for the next 12 days.

I'd prefer it the other way around.

I'm still waiting for the Demonland administrators to advise that they will pin this thread momentarily.

Its more than having to pretend. Under a legislative scheme in Victoria, the AFL has to satisfy the gambling regulator that it has integrity measures in place and that they are properly enforced. Once the regulator is satisfied, all betting companies trading in Victoria have to come to an agreement with the AFL before they can take bets on any AFL activity. Of course, the AFL charges those betting companies for such agreements. I assume, as a minimum, the money the AFL gets from the betting companies covers the costs of the AFL managing its integrity processes.

I think the penalty was appropriate. Players of a sport betting on their own sport open the door for corruption. I have no doubt that Heath Shaw was stupid rather than corrupt, but the integrity of the competition has to be the priority here. Where I think we differ (and I'm happy for you to correct me if you disagree) is that you believe playing the game in a way that uses the rules to your team's advantage is cheating. I just see it as playing the game as it is designed. Whether we like the design is a separate question.

It is often claimed that the MFC and Sheffield United are two of the oldest football clubs in the world. This is a fascinating article about the origins of soccer (or football, if you prefer). Read it and in your mind replace "Sheffield" with "Melbourne".

Do you think any of these examples are cheating? 1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick. 2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick. 3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pays a free kick to the pusher's team.

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

Excellent work. But what happened to the tautomer? Did he walk into the bar for a drink to quench his thirst?

This thread should definately be pinned.

Not necessarily. If he wants to leave and we don't want to keep him, a trade can be organised. However, I suspect the two year deal suit us better than him. We're desperately short of ruckmen and if Jackson leaves, Weideman is our only real option to support Gawn unless we recruit an experienced ruckman during the off season.

Is it? The strike rate for pick #1 being better than picks #2 or #3 is hardly that impressive. Accordingly, it probably doesn't really matter whether a team has picks 1, 2 or 3.

Thanks Kev and others who are providing training reports. I fully expect some outrage somewhere that we're not tackling at training, though!

I agree. If he shared it, we might run into trouble with WADA. More seriously, Melksham's retention suggests he did his job last week better than Bedford did his. DeeSpencer has previously said that Melksham's role last week was to keep Aliir out of the way, which he did successfully. Accordingly, I don't think we should be judging Melksham just on his stats from last week.

I think this is an important distinction between then and now. There is a lot less to gain now than there was.

Do you think Hardwick, Scott and Beveridge are perpetual whingers for no specific reason, or are they calculated comments to generate a response, whether that is from the umpires, the AFL or their own players? For example, in Hardwick's case, I think he's speaking to his own players trying to develop an "us versus them" mentality. With Beveridge, I think it's a way of telling his players that he has their backs. Scott, on the other hand, is, I think, addressing the AFL hierarchy. In other words, I think all three use "whinging" as a deliberate tactic.

There is a difference, though. We didn't telegraph in advance that we might play players in unusual positions. Having stated in advance that they are willing or intending to do so, WCE has "informed the market" (including the betting market) of the possibility. Let me stress, though, that there are two different definitions of "tanking". One is when a team doesn't try its hardest on the day to win (or, worse, deliberately tries to lose). The other is when the team tries its hardest on the day to win, but it isn't the strongest team that could have been played from the available squad. Using that latter definition, we and the WCE are quite similar.