La Dee-vina Comedia

The irony about the weekend work discussion and traditional football starting times is that football games didn't always start at 2.10pm on a Saturday. Up until the 1960s it was common for those who worked Monday to Friday to also work on Saturday morning. Because of this, Saturday games used to start at 2.30pm. They only shifted to 2.10pm when Saturday morning work for full-time Monday to Friday workers stopped. My recollection is that this was probably some time in the mid 1960s. It must have meant that some games in mid-winter would have finished in near darkness, given that there were no lights at most VFL grounds, including the MCG.

It's getting off-topic, but I think the bounce will be gone soon, too. That's because there appears to be a belief that the requirement to bounce the ball is stopping some otherwise capable people of becoming umpires. A shortage of quality umpires is a bigger problem than whether the bounce should be retained or not.

Mind you, I suspect that it will only be twilight for a year or two with the game eventually being played at night. I see twilight as a transitional step to soften the blow for traditionalists.

They've never done that before, so why start now? Indirectly, though, this is giving the fans what they want. Fans want the best possible game on Grand Final day, whenever it's played. That only comes about if there's enough money to pay the players what they deserve. And that, as we know, fundamentally means that the game needs TV money to be as high as possible.

I don't think we were unlucky, I think Watts, Scully and Trengove were. They were forced, via the draft, to join a dysfunctional club which didn't provide an environment for them to thrive within. Compare that with players drafted today who join aware that the club knows what it's doing.

Believe it or not, there are still some believers. (I vaguely recall the first conference was initially called the first "global meeting" until the organisers realised the ridiculousness of using such an expression.)

Thankfully our players' parents didn't 20-30 years ago.

If we're being pedantic, surely it's spelled Giontee?

In theory, the game would be in best shape if players who get the ball are more likely than not to receive a free kick (for a push in the back, high tackle, etc) than those who are second and do the tackling. However, because of the incorrect disposal/holding the ball rule, I'm not sure that that logic stacks up. If it did, though, good teams would be more likely to be rewarded.

I don't remember 12" singles. Were they common? Also, played at 45 or 33 rpm?

Thought you were going to say, "Doesn’t feel like that long ago that a trip to Perth meant producing some false documents and travelling via Darwin."

I think the AFL does try to equalise the fixture, but not by each team playing every other team the same number of times. It's done more by ladder position. That is if you finish in the top third you play most, but not all, of your double up games against teams that also fished in the top third. Same for mid-third and bottom third. What the AFL can't do is design a fixture based on where they think teams will be during the year ahead. In short, there are always anomalies and always clubs with seemingly easier games. However, in all my years of watching football, I don't think there has ever been a Premier who didn't deserve to win the Grand Final, so I'm not sure it matters.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Australian Federal Police and Border Force knock on your door and ask about the marijuana they may think that you've been importing and distributing.

Or stricken by hubris and complacency. No sign of that yet from the team. Supporters, on the other hand...

I would have thought Weideman would be picked ahead of Majak, should Gawn not play.

Robbo's plan could equally be called play "man-on-man" instead of zone defence. It won't work because our 22 men, overall, will be better than any opponent's best 22.

hmmm...you are right to be bemused. I should have said that there are three people ahead of him which makes him equal 4th.

Now 15. He's also now the holder of the record for current players of wins before his first loss, having overtaken Ben McEvoy who started with 14 wins before a loss. Just a reminder that the overall record of wins before first loss is 19 held by Albert Lauder of Collingwood. There are no players with 18; two with 17 (Kelvn Moore of Hawthorn and and Alby Ingleman of Carlton), none on 16 and three others with him on 15. So, he's equal third on that list at the moment.

Would they? Is time passed considered to be relevant? (This is a serious question if any legally trained person could respond).

Mightn't be either of them. Depends on whether Brayshaw remains in the back seven. If the decision is to play Salem in his old role and keep Brayshaw as a defender, then I think Rivers might be in trouble. If Brayshaw returns to the wing, though, Jordon might find himself back as the sub. I should add that I think Hunt is safe because I believe he's taken over Jetta's job as the "stopper" on the most damaging small forward. He's made Shai Bolton and Jack Higgins virtually disappear from view.

I'm delighted to have been so wrong. A 35,000+ crowd is a fine effort for this particular day and timeslot. I couldn't attend the game because of family commitments but when I did have the chance to watch it on delay via Kayo the first thing I noticed was the relatively healthy crowd numbers.

6. Brayshaw 5. Langdon 4. May 3.Oliver 2. Petracca 1. Hunt (a somewhat presumed vote. I have assumed Hunt played on Higgins and did his job by ensuring Higgins didn't do his.)

Predicting the final line-up is pretty much guesswork. Players may still miss because they haven't fully recovered from Covid and new players, who haven't previously had Covid, may enter H&S protocols between now and Sunday. In addition, the club may not wish to bring into the side 5 players who have just had Covid in the same week, even if they test negative.

I'm also surprised* that there has been little discussion about players returning from Covid and how they play in their first match afterwards. For example, last week Viney looked fine but Lever looked out of sorts. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we don't return all the five who missed last week in one go. *I'm not really surprised. We're talking about footy journalists, after all.

And he plays for Collingwood. Betting odds also reflect the bookmakers' liability. Hence, because Daicos is a Collingwood player, the bookies will be holding a lot of money from Collingwood supporters, because there are just so many of them.