The Taciturn Demon

Just a wild idea. What then? Give Shane McAdam three more and hope for the best?

Me too. He's 35 games in and clearly my favourite player. I'd ask Max if he could do one more season and then think Turner, if he wanrrs it, is perfect. Twenty-four years old, 50 games under his belt. Do it.

It's almost impossible to believe it happens so regularly. Glad I'm not the only one thinking he's far too limited to be considered the first-picked player he seemed to be under Goodwin.

Is that hat energetics is?

I agree. Kade Chandler refracts light in the wrong way, rendering our chromotherapy regime ineffective.

I think it was definitely time for Goodwin to leave, but on Sunday I shook my head when we chipped it around the half forward line at the Punt Road end and then, after what seemed like a all-too-slow build up that would inevitably end with a high kick to the hot spot, we found van Rooyen on the lead with a 23 to 30 metre bullet. As far as I understand it, that's exactly what Goodwin was aiming for as he "transitioned" to a new game style (and when the fast break wasn't on). But it happened all too infrequently.

When he started in the goalsquare at times in the second half... so exciting.

This may be true, but did he find a way of turning this personal philsophy into a practical coaching method? Theory into practice? His results at Collingwood, apart from 2018 and 2019 were... kind of the definition of mediocre.

Kentfield was kind of at the heart of the question. Him and Petty, really. I think the Petty hate on here is a bit much. But I now understand, even after that very good game yesterday and a couple of glimpses here and there, that he's not a forward. I want him back as soon as possible to bed down a combination - realistically, a post-May and -Lever combination. To me, Turner and Petty is a really solid starting point for a tall defensive trio. It's tricky this year because McDonald is in such good form and leaving May out is probably still unthinkable. I also wonder if Kentfield can play at the level and as a genuine number one, whether Jefferson becomes more viable as a third tall.

Let's say we get Wade Derksen during the trade period, but can't attract another key position player. Let's also say Tom McDonald retires at the end of the year. What's the combination of tall forwards and tall backs you'd go with not necessarily to win games in Rounds 1 to 5 2026, but that are most likely to work in the longer term?

And also not just one monolithic thing. Everyone talked about Langford's speed in the draft discussion. I think lots of people are still talking about it now - I've worried at times during the year. But his top speed is fast. He just takes a while to get going. If he was a FIFA player he'd have a speed rating of 85 and an acceleration rating of 50.

Is part of the appeal with Buckley that he still has the aura of a champion/huge name around him and so will help us attract players? I get that he'd be on our list. I'm not sure I quite get the idea (I know it's just rumour at the moment) that we've put the blinkers on and he's the one.

Definitely. Gets to those contests and puts himself in a great position to kill it. Only two games, but a winger who contests hard at both ends... I'm liking him a lot.

Did O'Hehir play as a tall defender in the Crows game?

I think they became obsessed with filling the Alex Neal-Bullen role. Fair enough - but they haven't found a replacement yet.

Not sure if I think he can get back to his best, but I'm seeing a glimmer where before there was only depressing ploddery. But the above point is a good one.

Very astute, very charismatic and often funny. That's extremely rare.

This is really compelling.

Yes.

How am I going? Fine - thanks for asking (that's not supposed to be snarky - I mean it). One thing I've noticed mentioned a lot is that "this is a business", the implication being that in business cold, commercial decisions are made and if you're an adult you accept them. I've always thought of this as a strange assertion, whether you take it as a kind of metaphor (AFL clubs are akin to businesses) or as a literal statement (AFL clubs are now, in many ways, exactly the same as corporations). Businesses certainly make ruthless decisions. They also don't. Businesses want you to believe they are the ultimate meritocracies, their every decision based on perfect analysis of perfect data. They're not. Modern businesses aim to maximise profit, sometimes to an absurd, pathological extent. Football clubs don't. I'm fine, but not because I accept football is a business. It's because I accept football - the football we're talking about here - is elite level sport. It has a far, far greater claim to true meritocracy than business. And it has something the vast majority of businesses don't have: very large numbers of people emotionally invested in its success. I don't see sacking Goodwin as a rational business decision. I say it as the natural conclusion to several years of viscerally disappointing performances. As Goodwin said for much of the year, the AFL is about "outcomes". And as he said for several years, when describing poor games, we weren't "at the level". That level is the very top. Everyone there has been tested over and over and over again and deserve enormous admiration for making it that far. But those tests continue every day. And eventually, everyone is found wanting, whether through age, a lack of new ideas, a drop in enthusiasm or numerous other things. Goodwin deserves the most generous applause for not just getting to the rarified position of AFL coach but reaching the absolute pinnacle of elite sport success. But what he achieved didn't entitle him to a job in perpetuity. I feel I owe him gratitude but not vicarous resentment or outrage. I'm fine.

He sounded like a child who knows they might be a year too old to still be excited about Christmas being excited about Christmas.

And, sorry to seem obtuse, but all of these things were on Petracca's mind last year?

It was incredibly disappointing. I'd go further and say that making three finals series in a row is certainly good by Melbourne standards. By other teams' standards it's thoroughly mediocre (and that's being very generous). Sydney - rarely out of finals. Eight finals appearances in a row between 2010 and 2018. Geelong - rarely out of final. Eight in a row during the glory years. Six in a row under Scott. Collingwood - eight from 2006 til 2013. Brisbane - seven over the last seven seasons. Hawthorn - seven in a row during the glory era. West Coast - six in a row under Simpson. Numerous other teams have played in four consecutive finals series in the last 20 years. And several teams have put together much longer finals runs with small dips out of the finals in between. The last time we put together four finals appearances in a row was under John Northey.

Do these problems remain - at all, mostly or in full?

I think the vast, vast majority of supporters who take a close look at the game (as opposed to saying they barrack for Melbourne and glancing at scores every now and then) don't think this. They understand very well that premierships are extremely hard to win. But they do crave multiple solid performances in finals in consecutive years. It's not a guarantee of a flag, but it gives you a much better chance than hoping everything goes right in a single season.