Dee man

Let's forget the last quarter for a moment. For about three quarters - minus maybe 5 minutes in the 2nd quarter - we were pretty competitive yesterday. We tackled hard and make Carlton earn every possession and we created uncontested play through the centre of the ground. In my eyes this was the best of Neeld and Bailey coming together. Neeld has taught our players to win the hard ball, Bailey taught our players to capitalise on uncontested football through fast handpassing and running through the centre. While we lack the ingredients of a premiership engine room (Moloney, Jones, Magner etc. will never be Swan, Pendlebury, Thomas, etc.) we do have some silky skilled players who thrived under the Bailey era. I think of Daniel Nicholson (I forgot how good this guy was), Sam Blease (as soon as this guy starts putting those running shots on goal on line, he will be a star) and Rohan Bail (just never stops). Bennells not too bad on his day either. In other words, I don't think the Bailey era was time wasted. If Neeld can develop guys like McKenzie, Trengove, Tapscott, Gysberts, Tynan and even Morton into hard-at-it ball-winning midfielders (still a long way off, I know, but I'm assuming this is the long-term plan) I think things will start clicking pretty quickly. With Clark (and Jurrah?) focal points up forward, I think the attacking side of our game will come naturally as soon as we can get all the defensive stuff down pat.

I've been watching some highlights from 2000 recently, as a means of cheering myself up. As I watch the VHS (yes, that's right, a VHS) I can't help but want to return to the good old days when Danners was in charge and we had a exciting and highly talented list. But it seems Danners wasn't the greatest coach going around. In an Age article published today, Darren Jolly has revealed that Danners was an uninspiring coach and was the reason he wanted out at Melbourne. That bit doesn't surprise me, given that Daniher would only ever give Jolly about 3 seconds of game time per match. But the bluntness of Jolly's article is surprising.

Is there any internet stream available?

Great point. My mate and I were following the contested mark tally and the Demons killed the Tigers in this category. I know it doesn't mean much on the scoreboard, but that's definitely one category you'd want to be leading in. Howe, Watts and Clark, in particular, are strong, athletic and can take a contested mark - you can build a team around that.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/jason-mifsud-keeps-job-despite-admissions-on-mark-neeld/story-fnctrk3q-1226318005706 Selection will be interesting this week. Neeld backs Davey 100% off the field... but if Davey deserves the sack for Round 2 for his on-field form will Neeld go through with it?

With Clark to take up FF, where does this leave our two big men on the fringe, Lynden Dunn and Matthew Bate? If I were coach I'd keep both, Dunn because he is contracted and still a pretty decent footballer on his day, Bate because he is versatile and has showed heaps of promise in his early years (top 3 B+F at one point I recall). In saying that, neither of them can fit into a forward line of Clark, Green, Watts, Jurrah, Petterd and Howe (plus Cook, Fitzpatrick and maybe Wonna/Davey) unless one of them gets injured. They can both play midfield roles but need to improve to be in our top 22. What makes it interesting is that Bate wants to leave and is guaranteed a gig at the Bulldogs. The Bulldogs want to give us a mid-range pick for him, which could be very handy given we've just lost our first rounder. Will Clark's inclusion change our policy on Bate?

Bring back Paul Wheatley.

Three ex-Demons will be taking the field for Hawthorn this Saturday. PJ (and Cheney for that matter) have apparently been dominating in the VFL this season. Interesting to see how Hightower goes against a young opposition. He'll be spearheading the forward line in the absence of Franklin, Rioli and Roughead. Most of us were - and probably are still - critical of him. He's always been the type of player that dominates in VFL but can't hold a mark in the AFL (especially over the last 2 years). Nonetheless I've always had a soft spot for him and hope he does well.

The ad

Terrible ad, but given how much money we're making out of it, I couldn't care less. The kid at the start is wingeing coz he can't watch the footy on his big TV. First world problems.

Any live stream?

I know Jon Ralph has his critics, but he's written a great piece in the Herald Sun today about the upside for Melbourne. Ignore the Malthouse speculation and he's actually got some worthwhile insights that reflect 3/4s of yesterdays' game. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-suffer-early-blow-with-late-withdrawal-of-brad-green/story-e6frf9mf-1226114627634

6 - Petterd 5 - Frawley 4 - Howe 3 - Rivers 2 - Blease 1 - MacDonald

Anyone noticed how people within the club are suddenly mentioning the F word now? Jack Watts spoke to the media today of the club's intent to make the finals. I think Todd Viney made a comment about it a week or two ago. Yet during the Bailey era, the F word was a taboo topic. Should one read much into this?

I've noticed that Sports Tonight is finished and Twitter doesn't seem to be in overdrive. Hence what I heard was probably false and I have thus deleted my first comment.

6. Fitzpatrick 5. Newton 4. Jetta 3. Bail 2. Evans 1. Grimes

Just looking at the Best... Davis Bartram Gawn Morton Fevola Davey Apart from Fevola (for obvious reasons), who deserves to be elevated for next week? Or was our best player for the arvo Jack Fitzpatrick... could we get him straight into the 22 from the ressies?

I think this was a crucial factor. As great as it was to see Blease make his debut (the highlight of the game for me was his burst from defence that found Sylvia - pity he missed the goal), we really needed a tall defender to cover McDonald's loss. Hall's dominance in the first half was the difference between the two teams. Had we played Warnock on Hall, Frawley on Gia, and Garland playing the role of McDOnald, things may have panned out a little differently. It'd be interesting to know the club's logic in that selection.

Pretty impressive. In saying that, I can't help but notice that Superfooty isn't listed on that ranking. Surely that would be no.1, if not no.2?

Jurrah seems more like a player you would want to sub off. Let him start the game. He could kick 5 first half goals. Either that, or he'll be fumbling all over the place; if last week was in the balance and Garland didn't go down, I imagine Jurrah would have been subbed off in the 3rd Q. Hopefully the match committee shows faith in him. He had a good final quarter last week, which will be good for the confidence after a lousy start.

Fascinating that we now have an explanation for his departure. I've always wondered why Buckley (who seemed to fit the Bailey game plan so well in terms of play-on at all costs footy) - and Valenti for that matter - were given the chop, given his potential. In hindsight, though, I think it's been a win-win. While Buckley would probably be in our 22 pretty regularly these days, I can't think of anyone I'd want him taking the place of.

Bit harsh on Wonna. Yes, the North game wasn't his best, but as a small forward he has been solid in his other games. He's obviously going through a lot at the moment, but I definitely wouldn't write him off.

I admit the Carlton game was a shocker, but Warnock is a much better player than what we give him credit for. From memory, he was in the Best for 3 of his 4 games at AFL level this year, and has absolutely killed it in the VFL. Just because he dropped that one mark doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to play AFL. Opposition clubs would be foolish not to try grabbing him off us.

As much as you don't want to mess with team balance, Petterd was outstanding last year against Magpies. We need our best side on the park if we're going to challenge the Pies (which we definitely have the capability of doing). That means that Petterd simply has to play. At his best, he is unstoppable. At the same time, you wouldn't want to drop anyone... Nicholson would probably be the only one you could get away with dropping, and even he had a solid (almost debut) game.

Man, Gysberts was amazing. For some reason, it's easy to forget that he's barely played a dozen games. To be averaging something like 20 possessions at this stage in your career is outstanding. Surely he'll get his second nod this week. And probably be in the top few contenders for the grand prize as well... <shameless plug> And on the topic of Rising Star, it's good to see the award debated in the news week. Based on what I've been reading at Demonland and Demonology after all these years, I think I have a solution here. </shameless plug>