La Dee-vina Comedia

Firstly, I hope Goodwin recovers quickly and isn't too unwell during his period of infection. I also hope that he discovered it early and didn't spread Covid within the team. As a matter of interest, with Goodwin sidelined, does the win/loss result against Hawthorn added to Goodwin's coaching record? Or Yze's? I could see arguments both ways, given that coaching is not just a 3 hour job once a week, but what's the standard that's being used?

In today's The Age https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-lot-ten-and-paramount-afl-broadcast-bid-will-be-for-everything-20220426-p5ag88.html Mind you, if I owned channel 10 or 9, I'd be putting in a serious bid if for no other reason than to make 7 pay overs.

It seems to me that Channel 7's owner might be in a difficult position. Both 9 and 10 are owned by companies that also own a subscription streaming service (9's parent owns Stan; 10's parent owns Paramount+). However, 7's parent, as far as I know doesn't own a subscription streaming service. Seven could still do a deal with Foxtel, but the natural synergy of 9/Stan and 10/Paramount+ seem like options that can make the AFL a better offer.

I thought Dunstan was OK, but nothing more. It will be interesting to see if he remains in the side for the Hawthorn game. Goodwin and the Match Committee have regularly given new players two games to show what they've got before sending them back to Casey. Circumstances are a bit different now because of the Covid rules, so perhaps Dunstan won't get that second game if we assume Viney is good to go next week. (Although it has been suggested in another thread that Dunstan may have suffered a concussion which makes the decision both easy and automatic.)

70,000 on Sunday night was a marvellous turnout but surely about 10,000 short of what should have been there. The more I think about it, the more I believe people's technology habits are affecting crowds. The arrival of TV streaming services have people more readily paying for what they used to get for free. Whereas Foxtel struggled for customers, the uptake of Netflix, Stan and others has nomalised subscription services. As such, I wonder whether Kayo has large numbers of subscribers, and, if so, whether many people who used to attend games now prefer to stay home and watch it via that service?

Now 13 games without a loss.

Perversely, though, every dollar Geelong generates at Kardinia Park helps us. The more that Geelong is self-sufficient, the more money the AFL has available to subsidise those that don't have advantages such as their own home ground. You can dress it up any way you like - whether it's an equalisation payment or improved stadium deals - it's all money that the AFL can give to the poorer clubs that it doesn't have to give the Cats.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be 201cm at the age of 17. I wonder if he's still growing?

I'm not sure about differentiating between Langdon's role and the "defensive wing" role being played by Brayshaw last year and Jordon this year. If we truly differentiated them that way, I would expect our kick outs from the oppositions' behinds to always go to either the "offensive" or the "defensive" wing. In reality, 90% (or more) of the kickouts are to the left, even though Langdon remains on the same side of the ground for the whole game. As such, half the time, the kick outs are to the "offensive" (Langdon) wing and half to the "defensive" (Brayshaw/Jordon) side.

Purely business. Foxtel needs to get some benefits for paying for rights. By giving Foxtel some exclusive vision, it encourages people to consider paying Foxtel so they can see it. If the AFL gave it away for nothing to everyone who wanted it, Foxtel has less it can offer to encourage people to sign up. I have no problem with this business decision.

Might need to keep Sparrow away from Gosch's until the seeds get going.

Dale Lewis is a good example, thanks. However, I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to the "common knowledge" you refer to.

Makes for nice hyperbole. But, seriously, are there any examples of this having happened?

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?