La Dee-vina Comedia

Just to broaden the discussion, it will be interesting to see which of our players become coaches. There has been a trend recently for recently retired premiership players to become coaches. I seem to recall some discussion about Tomlinson using his injury break to develop a better understanding of coaching. I also see Lever, Neal-Bullen and Brayshaw as potential coaches. Not sure why - I think it's watching and listening to them. They seem to be the ones that have the innate understanding of the game and the necessary people skills to go with it.

To see how far we've come, Jack Trengove was 20 years and 181 days when appointed captain. Today, Rivers is 20 years and 209 days old. There are clearly many more choices available today than when Trengove was appointed.

What do you mean by "BBB too big"? In a good way, meaning he was too big for North to counter; or in a bad way, meaning he was too immobile or we looked unbalanced in the forward line?

It might be that Tomlinson won't be ready (or, at least won't be risked) for the rigours of a real match until a few weeks into the season.

On this very sad day for Ukraine and the world at large, I decided to refresh my memory of one of the greatest footballers I've ever seen, Alex Jesaulenko. I doubt there is anyone who saw him play who wouldn't have Jezza in the top few players they ever saw. What surprised me, though, is that he's the only Carlton player to score 100 goals in a season. Given the powerful Carlton sides from the mid-60s to the mid-90s, I had just assumed there would be others, such as Peter Bousustow, Stephen Kernahan or Warren Ralph. Puts the embarrassment of Melbourne not having any player kick 100 goals in a season into a better perspective.

Remember when we struggled to find someone suitable to be captain? Now we have options. That may mean Petracca and a whole lot of others worthy of the honour miss out. My view has always been that the best player isn't necessarily the obvious choice for captain. I also strongly believe the role shouldn't be seen purely in game day terms. The captain has to do so much more than just play well, with most of it done behind the scenes. It's therefore impossible for supporters to know who should be captain.

Was there any noticeable difference in the umpiring of the holding the ball rule? Alternatively, were players trying to dispose of the ball more quickly because of the supposed "tightening up" of that rule?

It's getting a bit philosophical, but steadfast adherence to convictions doesn't necessarily have to lead to admiration. To use possibly the worst case but perfect example, Adolf Hitler stuck to his convictions. So does Vladimir Putin. I don't find anything to admire in either of those examples.

Need to factor in that cricket itself is a bit on the nose. For all the faults we might find with AFL HQ, Cricket Australia has them covered for incompetence in every aspect.

I'd be surprised if there's more than 60,000 there. Pleasantly surprised, though. Thursday night is already a terrible night to get a crowd to a football match. Wednesday is going to be significantly worse. Nevertheless, it's not just about the crowd at the ground. I expect Channel 7 will be mighty pleased with the numbers who should tune in to watch.

It won't be just for footy, though. A stadium with a roof becomes much more valuable for other entertainment activities, particularly those with lots of electronics such as sound systems and lighting shows.

I think it's the employees who work in those stadiums who are required to mask up, not the paying customers.

It should be for both the AFL and the broadcasters. This is not a commentary on behaviour. It's purely a commercial matter. Both the broadcasters and the AFL will make more money if they attract more people. Having commentators who are appealing would be a good start.

Daisy identifies patterns in play and strategic positioning rather than do what most older commentators do which is to either repeat what we've just seen or comment on individual player actions. Only a few others do that, and those that do are all in the recently retired bunch. Other examples are Bartel, Jobe Watson and Leppitsch (when he was a recently "retired" coach). Older commentators seem to be oblivious to gameplans and strategies and are therefore in my view of much less value. Being recently retired doesn't automatically make someone a good commentator, though. Luke Hodge comes to mind. And whoever thought Wayne Carey should be a special commentator is completely tone deaf as to what is acceptable behaviour. Yes, he seems to have reformed, but I suspect that's not enough to make him a commentator who appeals to women.

*Bump Not sure of the best place to post this, but I like the idea of us going global...

They should dress the two Statue Eddies with one in Collingwood's home strip and the other in Collingwood's away jumper. People will look and say, why do we have two identical statues of Eddie?

Why would unrealistic marking attempts be a problem for the game?

Hard to know which is better - for them to be consistent in their inconsistency or perhaps to be inconsistent with their consistency.

Announcement by the Victorian government this morning of more lessening of restrictions, including mask wearing. Looking good for Round 1.

I'm sure they would do it if there was an indisputable quantitative measure.

OK, I hadn't realised that. I thought Jackson was a basketballer and had only switched to footy at the last minute. I stick by my second point, though, that Andrew may well have been selected because of the success of Jackson as a quality second ruck with on-ball skills.

This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

Wouldn't Luke Jackson have fitted into this category when selected? Or had he a body of work to fall back on that I've forgotten about? Coincidentally, I suspect that Luke Jackson's success may well be the reason a project player like Andrew got picked as early as he did. Not so much because of the immediacy of Jackson, but the way he has impacted the game.

I'm imagining what the game would be like if we went back right to the beginning where there were no umpires and the captains adjudicated. Imagine Max in that role? It would be most entertaining. Mind you, the whole scheme would come tumbling down when Sydney decide to have 22 co-Captains.

This thread needs to be modified. It's too easy at the moment. It needs to be more challenging as befits our standing as current Premier. I'd like to see people nominate who they'd bring back PLUS whose spot they take in the Premiership 22 (ie, ignore the sub). And try to be objective - that is, imagine you're picking the team before the Grand Final so it's not based on how players performed in the GF. For me Flower is the additional player. (No hesitation there). That would mean one of Brayshaw or Langdon need to be moved. I think Brayshaw takes Sparrow's or Hibberd's spot. Probably Hibberd's, given he's successfully played half-back before.