La Dee-vina Comedia

I've tried replacing "instant coffee" and "beverage" with "AFLX" and "game" and you're right. Quality matters.

Still has Oliver's skin tone.

Please explain. Does Ed Langdon (surely you don't mean Eddie McGuire) have a business which involves coffee?

I think Richmond, and to a lesser extent Sydney, are bigger stories. I would expect winning teams to get more frees paid to them because they're generally first to the ball. Hence, Richmond's and Sydney's numbers seem more unexpected than the Bulldogs.

Busy week for Match Committee this week. There's a real chance we might see one or two new faces against Sydney, depending on who's ready to return. Imagine, for example, if none of McDonald, Langdon, Harmes, Salem, Petty and May are fit to play? We shouldn't really be playing Melksham or Weideman but might need to. I could also see players such as Laurie or Rosman getting a chance, if they've been playing well enough for Casey. My best guess is that May and Melksham will go out for McDonald and Langdon (and Dunstan as medi-sub). If this happens, one of Weideman or McDonald will have to play in defence. Edit: Just saw the post that said that Goodwin on radio said all of Salem, Harmes, Langdon and McDonald will be good to go. If Salem plays, does Brayshaw go back to the wing, in which case Rivers stays? Or does Rivers have a rest and we keep Jordon on the wing? I'd suggest keep Bryahsaw in defence given that Jordon has consistently been one of our best in the last few weeks.

Not sure about this one. My suspicion is that he ended up being asked to play as one of our "tall" defenders to compensate for May's absence and Petty's injury. At times, he appeared to be on Darcy, for example. Normally he would be accountable for the opposition's most potent small forward and even though Shultz kicked 4 goals, was Hunt nominally his opponent at the time? The real issue here is that we were hopelessly undermanned right across the ground once May went off, Petty was injured and with Petracca ill.

Didn't happen. Nevertheless, Bowey sits equal second with number of wins before a loss. Equal with Kelvin Moore (Haw, played 1970-84) and Alby Ingleman (Carlton, 1905-08). The loss must have hit Ingelman hard. He only played 3 more games after his loss. Mind you, they were all wins, so he finished his career with 21 games in total - 20 of which were wins. We'll get another opportunity every time we have a first-gamer to see if that player can knock off Bowey and at the same time claim the V/AFL record.

I haven't received an such email. For those who got it, did it say all members were being asked or a random group of which you happened to be chosen?

Turned 32 on Anzac day.

I imagine there are connections with other clubs, too. For example, Walker and Dangerfield were teammates for a long time. Dare I say, Walker also fits Geelong's age profile, too. Nevertheless, if the story has any basis in truth at all, I could see Sydney needing a replacement for Buddy.

Another reason to win tomorrow: If we do, Jake Bowey will equal the record of 18 wins to start a career in the V/AFL.

I wonder if there was much discussion in those days about the problem of having an odd number of teams and whether there was a big enough talent pool to allow a tenth team into the competition? Keep in mind that this is two years after WW1, so many men of prime footballing age would either have died on the battlefield or returned with serious injuries, including what we now know as PTSD.

I doubt Melksham would be playing if it wasn't his 200th game. However, as we did with Jones, the club has shown respect to our senior citizens and assisted them to reach significant milestones. With Hames, Langdon and Salem all due to return soon, Melksham might not get another chance to get to his milestone match. So, it's a smart selection at this time. It's not like he's keeping out an obvious choice instead.

I refuse to accept that an abbreviation can be called a nickname. It's just unimaginative. Just as unimaginative as many of our players, such as Maysy, Gawny, Vines and Salo. Should be a law against it. Nicknames should be genuinely imaginative, even if sometimes a little obvious, such as Chomp and Dogga. (Still not sure, though, whether Bowser qualifies as a proper nickname.)

Toby Greene. And more than once.

I'm sticking with my assessment. After all, Get Smart was a spoof of the James Bond genre and as such I'll claim that Mel Brooks as the show's creator deliberately called a smaller stature actor "Max" as part of the whole spoof theme. Just like Australians call oversize people "Tiny" and shorter people "Lofty".

You don't think the name Very North (of) Melbourne will work?

Cricket, rugby, soccer, basketball all started somewhere before being exported successfully.

I'd be astounded if any coach ever said this. It effectively provides six players with an "excuse". It's also sheer hubris to say "we can't lose the game" in any context.

I've never seen an episode of Ted Lasso. Didn't realise that Jake Lever and Max Gawn were part of it.

Terrible news for a struggling club. I'd suggest that there will be more fallout than just these three. Not because I know anything, but it seems most unlikely that three people leaving like this will resolve whatever the underlying problems are.

I suspect Melksham and Hibberd left, at least in part, because of the supplements issue. I was trying to point out that others leaving suggests that there might also be other factors in play leading to players - including possibly Ryder, Melksham and Hibberd - leaving Essendon. Or, to put it another way, assuming Ryder, Melksham and Hibberd left solely because of the supplements issue might leave other problems at Essendon buried from view.

I'm convinced that one day Langdon will be in the injury report with "self-bitten tongue"

I have always said that the results of pre-season games are meaningful only if you win.

While I like your thinking, I just wonder whether such an approach would make umpiring more complicated and controversial. Your approach makes adjudicating highly subjective. What one umpire (or viewer) thinks is innocuous or incidental another might think is worthy of penalising. One of the problems with umpiring now is the degree of subjective assessment required, most obviously seen with the "insufficient intent" rule. If we add more subjectivity into the process, I think matters will get worse, not better.