Skuit

Well, I personally think they should be drinking more. Petracca said that they 're-set' the scores to 0-0 at the half, as they do in every match. I think this is a mistake (especially as we've been slow starters) and I would rather they focused on their domination and rammed it home with outrageous confidence. Forget about winning halves of football, and concentrate on winning wholes. We're 22.12 v 10.12 for second quarters and 12.10 v 17.7 for third quarters. Something at half-time isn't working.

I bet Max Gawn gets more than a cursory wave of the wand from security.

The thing is, I can't remember a single thing from that particular game. Usually I have a vague outline at least, but I must have finally achieved some form of suppression. That, or I'd taken to serious game-day self-medication by then.

2013. Reading the team-sheet again was the first time I'd felt something like pity for Mark Neeld.

Something is clearly not right. The captaincy issue, the potential impact of our game-plan, and some of Jack's natural limitations and areas for improvement are clouding the issue. I think people are somewhat forgetting his previous contributions. This time last year, he was in the top four in the AFLCA votes - keeping company with Mitchell, Parker, Dangerfield and Robbie Gray (on par this year with Dusty Martin and Ollie Wines). He looked ready to break into that absolute Brownlow-baiting elite category. While his numbers may be down, it's his lack of intensity that is the major concern for me as it seems so fundamentally uncharacteristic. My MFCSS is worried we have another Trengove's foot with regard to Viney's hip. My hopeful side thinks it's just another bone fracture he's not yet aware of.

I'm sick of the damn platitudes! I want them to talk instead about being hungry, not drinking their own bath-water, respecting the jumper . . . LH - you just asked for our fresh new platitudes to be dropped in favour of some of the oldest cliches in football. And then underlined them for emphasis, like they were written on a pre-match whiteboard.

And you didn't even mention the worst aspect of that play. That that single mark and goal are responsible for sparking a dual-ruckmen argument that just won't go away and die.

You're making a political comparison. I was making a marketing comparison. And in this sense, Coopers would have actually been far far worse than Energy Watch. Energy Watch was a failure of due diligence and we immediately cut our ties. To announce Coopers after their bad press - whether you accept it as reasonable or not - would have been to have aligned ourselves with their perceived values.

The AFL Challenger Series. To eliminate: - a) unfair travel biases during the finals and potential manipulation prior b) (dis)advantages according to opposition form-lines c) indistinct incentives for each greater individual ladder position d) the mid-finals bye e) an underwhelming second week of finals f) combinatorial limitations Why not just let the teams nominate their chosen opposition in descending order? The two lowest ranked losers are eliminated each round of the finals with the remaining teams re-ranked from highest previously-ranked winners down to highest-ranked losers. Home advantages according to higher rankings. There might need to be a restriction on teams only nominating from the bottom-half of the rankings, at least for the semis. Also, the potential 3v4 in the round-of-six would have to be played first to avoid a dead rubber (I think this was a small problem with a previous system.) It solves some inequities in our current system - but also, could you imagine the added narrative, the heat of the developing rivalries, and the excitement and media interest of nomination night?

Another stat: Our tallied first quarters are sitting at 9.14 v 16.8 (that inaccuracy again) and I think we're running at about 3-10 for goals kicked after the 29th-minute mark of quarters. Also, we've had a couple third-quarter lapses after the break. Learn to switch on a bit better and we start winning more games.

I'm not into cars but this thing is insane. I would be on the phone asking for a branded donation for local Dodge-Dees cross-promotional purposes. Would look great with a blue yoke as well. They could parlay the exposure into the Dodge Journey (and its corny narrative) - which, ahem, fits well with our supporter demographic. AHG represent Dodge, so maybe they wouldn't mind, or could get behind it?

The last time the Richmond Fountain of Comedy managed to beat us we had the following players on the field: Magner, M. Jones, Pickle Evans, Jordie, Tapscott, Nicholson, Sellar, Strauss, Bail and Toumpas (among others I won't bring up). Doesn't matter who we bring in.

This is true - ditto the expansion teams. But the common factor with Geelong and Hawthorn's sustained success in recent times was pay-cuts - made possible on the back of building a certain culture and a taste of success. They also both got a small break with some absolute champions coming in through father-son and priorities. I'm hoping this all sounds very familiar in a couple years. And I think PJ is very aware of it - why we have the core of the team signed up until 2019 but not beyond. Develop some serious young stars, have an early tilt, and see who wants to stick around below market value. If they leave, we probably get above-market currency in return. Formula for sustained success.

I have no qualms with Hawthorn. They had no leg-up and managed their list exceptionally well. The surprise is the potential misstep in trading away their future first (and second?) at the start of a foreseeable slide. Although, they had the chance to bag O'Mearer and Mitchell, and so took the option to kick-start the rebuild in the hope of avoiding too long at the bottom. Time will be the judge.

I had us at 3.5 wins. I'm disappointed with our percentage as well. But I'm coping.

[censored] just got weird. A split personality baiting itself on the left and right?

I can't help but ball-watch at the centre-bounces and never really notice who is in there. Would love it if there was some way I could access a break-down and refer it back to the clearance stats etc. to get an insight on combinations and the motivation for changes as a reflection of what's happening on-field. I also can't access replays - so if anyone is bored and fancies noting it down during their re-watch . . ?

Hogan for Weid. It's clear Weid needs a spell. Regardless of all else, his energy and intensity has flat-lined. Hannan can play his role. I think Hibberd for Melksham is fair. We can't give unnecessary opportunities to their smalls (but we will have to work out another way to cover them - not Salem). And Pedo in as a utility to hold our structures - covering the ruck, up forward for Hogan or Watts up the ground, or down back if we need a floater or outlet. I guess that means Bugg comes out (although I thought he was decent on Saturday - a Bugg game). Ins: Hogan, Hibberd, Pedersen Outs: Weideman, Melksham, Bugg

This is a good reflection of what we've actually seen. And it's worked at times (sporadically and 3rd qrt vs. Saints), which is pleasing as it demonstrates another string to our bow and the ability to play tempo footy - we just need to get better at knowing when to switch gears and approaches. Our hell-for-leather is unstoppable but probably unsustainable across four quarters - but we need to back it in at times to break things open even if it's not immediately successful e.g. 3rd qtr vs. Freo. When Jones blindly hoofed a ball out of defence I knew we were in serious trouble.

He was skinny and translucent enough that we still should have been able to pick it up from an external examination.

Pedo's win-loss record last season was 6-3. I'm not suggesting it was his direct contribution, but we seem to enjoy whatever he brings to our structure.

Bush Demon. Your letter is probably sitting in an unopened pile with Ethan Tremblay's half-microwaved membership card.

Is this a portmanteau of venereal and vulnerable?

We played suspiciously like we have in the past with Roos at the ground. Let's blame him.

Some more food for thought . . . Melbourne currently ranked 1st across the league per game for: Kicks and Marks, and least Kicks Against. (2nd in disposals differential and marks against). Ranked 2nd for least tackles against. (14th in hit-outs - but Gawn is out and we know this will have an impact our clearance numbers). I must say, I wouldn't have expected these numbers heading into the season - controlling the ball to such a high degree. There are aspects to this that should be pleasing, as it takes some level of decent skills to carry a high possession count and we're not getting tackled much. I think rather than us fiddling with it as a fundamental problem; we are still struggling to work out flooding tactics with a diminished forward line. The numbers as a whole suggest the opposition are allowing us the ball and focusing on hurting us on the transition.