La Dee-vina Comedia

I would have thought Bedford gets in before Dunstan, but plays half-forward with Neal-Bullen taking over Viney's role. Melksham a big chance to be medi-sub. He's on 197 games and I suspect the club will try to get him to 200, using the medi-sub role, just like we did with Jones getting to 300.

Because curiosity killed the Cats.

Now that he hasn't got a role at Collingwood Eddie's using his footy knowledge (sic) for the good of the whole competition. It seems that Collingwood's loss is the AFL's gain loss.

Let's not look for any omens here. Footscray came 10th in a 12 team competition in 1966 with 4 wins. (We were 11th with 3 wins...two years after winning the flag in 1964. The rot had truly set in.)

While we notice work rate when it results in goals or directly stopping an opponents goals, it's the seemingly unrewarded work rate which should get a special mention. That's the wingers and half forwards running back to help the defenders. Players like Spargo and Neal-Bullen who end up deep in the back half when they are nominally forwards. Or like Langdon, Jordon and Harmes (when on the wing) who continually run back and forward to create options, even if they're not being used. Effort after effort.

Maybe this year the All Australian selectors will recognise that the wing is a real position and not somewhere to add an extra midfielder. Too many good wingmen in recent years have missed out on selection due to the AA selectors thinking they're competing with Mark Robinson's Top 50 (or, in their case Top 22) rather than actually selecting a team.

Do the rules regarding close contacts differ much between the States? If so, does this compromise the AFL competition? For example, could the WA teams lose more players to "Health and Safety Protocols" than Victoria and NSW?

And Patton and Boyd.

I think what you are saying, in effect, is that the free kick totals have been calculated by adding up each players' frees for and against rather than just taking the simpler option of each team's frees for and against. That would account for the disparity, with frees for the 6-6-6 misdemeanour being a good example of a team free kick rather than one against an individual.

I don't think I've ever seen a match before where the two coaches have been in total agreement.

The above table shows 133 free kicks for and 137 against. When can a free kick be given for a team which is not also against another team? I was wondering about 6-6-6 infringements, for example. Two of those were given in our last game, but they are still two against GWS and two for us as their opponents. Can someone smarter than me advise how the 133 v 137 numbers can be correct? Or is it incorrect?

Surely Covid is still having both a direct and indirect affect. The indirect affect is the impact it has on people's willingness to be near others. This could be because individuals have health concerns they don't want to risk, a job they don't wish to lose should they become ill or because they need to ensure they stay well to enable a future event to proceed (travel, wedding, etc). The direct affect is people with Covid or close contacts who have to isolate. A very rubbery back-of-envelope calculation based on what we are seeing with football clubs shows perhaps one player appears to be unavailable in any given week due to the AFL's "health and safety protocols". On a list of, say, 40 players, that's 1.25% of players. If that number is similar throughout the community, a 1.25% reduction in a 50,000 crowd would be 650 who can't attend for this reason alone. I have no idea if the 1.25% estimate is correct, though. Could it be higher than that?

I prefer a more positive analogy. We're the Faberge egg while everyone else is Humpty Dumpty.

Wow. That's it! I'd forgotten it was written by Jack Dyer (or, at least, is attributed to him). But it's the dark green cover and the title that I remember now that I've seen it again. I must have read it a dozen times.

When I was growing up in the 1960s I had a book I treasured about the tough men of football. I have no idea now of the book's name or author but remember reading about Mopsy Fraser, a Richmond hard man. From that day onwards, I've always feared Richmond and its supporters more than any other club.

Bask in the gloriousness of this article published today in Stats Insider: https://www.statsinsider.com.au/blog/afl/deemonic-presence-why-melbourne-are-set-for-years-of-contention

Is the floating fixture combined with inconsistent starting times a reason for poorer attendances? I'd like to say so, but that could just be confirmation bias on my part. One thing to keep in mind is that hard core footy followers keep a track of what's going on with their team. Similarly, football media, because it's their job, know what's going on. It's the occasional footy goer who might be finding it all a bit too hard at the moment to keep track of when and where their team is playing. As to Andrew Pridham's point, I disagree. The CEO is the CEO until he leaves. He needs to make decisions until the day he's out the door.

Is it safe to point out that if your younger brother is over 160 years old, that makes his older sister, well, older than that.

Wow. The club is over 160 years old. I dare not make any further comment. It might be seen as impolite.

I was at the game and don't recall hearing any booing of Hogan. He showed his trademark body language when the ball wasn't delivered properly...but that was the story of the night. GWS looked more than competent with their disposal between the 50m arcs but their final disposals into the forward line were woeful all evening. Neither Hogan nor Himmelberg (or even Haynes when he went forward) could get the ball because the delivery to them was so poor.

Will we have more or fewer at the St Kilda game than at the GWS game? It's a 1.10pm game at the MCG on Mothers Day. Dreadful timeslot.

I was at the ground and haven't seen the TV replay, but at the time I thought the spoil was perfect. Watching the replay on the scoreboard I thought Petty's arm might have given Hogan an ear massage, although it was not possible to be sure. If a review system similar to cricket was in place, I think it would have been "umpire's call".

You shamer, you

Shout out to cricket which allows illegal bowling actions to be called legal if the player who throws happens to be good at it.

Based on last night's performance, he might have decided to make a run for the Coleman, too.