Chook

Also disagree. He would be in the first 22 at every club, provided he had been there his entire career. His playing ability is not the only factor in his being selected every week. I see his situation as being comparable to that of Robert Harvey, Shannon Grant, Warren Tredrea, and so on. It's too simplistic to just drop senior players on the rationale that, if arbitrarily transplanted into another team, they wouldn't get a spot based on their playing ability. It's clear that statistics aren't the only factors influencing whether or not many veterans play each week.

I'm gonna make a bold prediction. I reckon, the Demons' next captain's name will start with "B"

Yeah, I reckon I'm driving the Miller-for-Captain bandwagon. He's consistent, passionate, charismatic and obviously well-liked around the club. Miller 4 Captain '09!!!

Nice. Who've you played on? And how'd you go?

No, Nathan "I have no leg" Brown of Richmond. I can't stand him either.

That's absolutely ridiculous! First of all, I'd like to see you "tear up" plastic. I'm pretty sure it's hard to do. Secondly, I'd much prefer Brad Green or Miller than Cameron Bruce. Totally disagree. I reckon that Paul Wheatley would be one of the few on our list that would push a contenting side to Premiership status. His unaccountable, attacking style would be highly sought after in a defensive side that views one of its weaknesses as lack of attacking ability on the rebound. But you're right. Wheaters won't play in a Premiership - unless he's traded. But that's not because he's not good enough - a view which I think is bull anyway (so many crap players have played in Premierships. Rather, it's because the players currently around him aren't good enough to compensate for his weaknesses. Paul Wheatley brings enormous benefits to his team, with obvious drawbacks that a good defensive side would be able to cover for. I also think that Paul Wheatley, Cameron Bruce and Brad Green are all highly rated outside the Demons - and that they would all fetch great prices at the right clubs. In my opinion, Wheatley at Adelaide, Bruce at Geelong, and Green at Sydney would all become All-Australians because of the way they'd play within the teams.

Totally agree with everything said. Except for one thing. We've got to give Buckley the ball at every kick-in, on the condition that he only ever plays on.

What the heck is a pashmina anyway? It sounds like something you'd eat, not something you'd wear.

It's amazing. In the space of about two days, Boomer Harvey has gone from being in my top 5 most loved non-MFC players, to just about rock bottom, in the company of Lloyd, Fevola, Hall, Franklin and Goodes. What a tool. Play the game, buddy.

Very succinct. I for one thought he wouldn't make it, but have been proven wrong in the last few weeks. I'm happy to say I'm on the Valenti bandwagon.

Yeah, that was a bit of a farce, eh? Lucky for me I was facing the other way.

The forward line. Anyone with two arms can mark a ball put to advantage. It takes skill to tap a ball to advantage. It takes skill to read where the ball is going to to be tapped to. GET RICH OR DIE TRYING!

He played on Shannon Grant for a while when he was forward, I know that much.

And the week after that . . . God forbid, a night match! And there isn't anything exiting in the world going on that night, so we'll probably scratch around 90 000 at the game, right?

Thanks for that. I like Paul Johnson though, by the way. I was on him even before the Sydney game in '06.

Am I the only one who thinks PJ looks a little like Johnny Depp? Maybe I'm crazy.

Totally agree going on the way he looks. I thought it was only me who thought they looked similar. I really rate Boomer, so I'd be rapt if he got to be anywhere near as good.

http://afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=64199 If worst comes to worst and we have a choice between relocating to Tasmania or folding all together, what would you do? I personally would only keep caring about the game if we kept our jumper and played every Melbourne team at the MCG every year. If this didn't happen, sure I might watch an occasional game, but without having the Red and Blue to care about, I'm sure I'd slowly lose interest.

Certainly seems that way. But the Roos have a habit of lapsing when expected to win. Don't count us out tomorrow.

Totally agree. In fact, I think it's better than On the Couch or, for that matter, any other footy show that actually talks about football.

This harks back to the opinion that I've had for a while - that Melbourne supporters are the only ones who see Brucie as he really is. Everybody else; players, coaches, even the media, really rate him highly. So, given this, I'm not surprised that the coaches voted for him.

What does this mean? Usually anything with the word "audit" in it is bad, right?

First of all, thanks for replying so in-depth. Second, I absolutely agree with your statement that we should specialize in one particular area of the field - as that is, in my opinion the easiest way to a Premiership, since, if you are the best in the league at one aspect of footy, you have a good chance of winning a lot of games via that strength. But it seems we're saying similar things. We just differ in our number one priority. I believe it's better to develop a very strong midfield than anything else because of the way the game's played these days. No forward will profit if the opposing team's midfield constantly wins the ball in the center and runs back into holes when without the ball. Likewise, it's every forward's dream to run onto a lace-out ball delivered with pin-point accuracy from the midfield. Finally, as you mentioned, the impact of the Cox/Judd/Cousins/Kerr/Embley midfield on an otherwise ordinary team was immense. The dramatic fall of the West Coast Eagles with the loss of just two of this group is testament to this. This near two-time Premiership-winning, top-four monty team was reduced, in the space of a little over one year, to a genuine wooden-spoon contender. Compare this to Richmond and Carlton, who for many years had no midfield but did have power forwards who regularly kicked bags of 6 goals, invariably finished at or very near the bottom of the ladder. Only now, with the arrival of Chris Judd (yes, the same one that nearly participated in the back-to-back Premierships of an otherwise wooden-spooner) at Carlton, accompanied by the maturity of the Kreuzer/Murphy/Gibbs midfield, are they beginning to win games, despite the fact that their spearhead and contender for Biggest [censored] In the Universe, Brendan Fevola, is kicking no more goals than he used to. Likewise with Richmond. Perhaps even moreso, as even though Richo is kicking fewer goals, the good form of the Simmonds/Cotchin/Deledio combo is giving great supply to the likes of Mitch (?) Morton and Jack Riewold. So, in conclusion, Obama for President! Er . . . that is to say, I believe that the Warnock (Naitanui)/McLean/Jones/Rich (Prismall)/et al. midfield is the best way to improve both our defensive and offensive pressure and, consequently, give us the best chance of a flag after the dominance of Geelong, Hawthorn and the Western Bulldogs. By the way, it's no coincidence that I think that the next wave of Premiership contenders will include Carlton, Richmond and Melbourne (no bias there!). God that's a lot of words.

I agree with you Dappa, in that we should pick a player who helps shore up a weakness. But it seems to me that our greatest two weaknesses are Clearances and Inside 50s, both of which can be helped by a strong midfield - or at the very least a good ruck division. When we get the ball inside 50, we score fairly regularly, so we don't - in my opinion, need to bolster our forward line as much as the midfield. For those reasons - and the fact that, more than ever, the game is won in the midfield - I'd pick Rich, with Warnock with our third round pick/#1PSD and Prismall with whichever one's free. If we happen to finish above the Eagles and they take Rich (as seems likely), I'd consider picking Watts if we could still get Warnock for cheap.

Thanks, Dappa. By the way, how [censored] off did Glenn Archer look at at that guy Nixon? I reckon if he wasn't on TV, he would've absolutely slugged him one.