Dappa Dan

I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but if it was, it's the aspect of coach recruitment that I can't wrap my head around. Did you mean that the reason each coach didn't enjoy the same success at later clubs as they did in earlier ones was that the clubs (pies and blues) are inherently sicker than the earlier ones (WC and roos of 90s)? Applying that to our current situation, we have an ok coach who hasn't won flags, but has gotten us to 6 finals series out of 9, and a GF. Is this the best any "ok" coach could do at MFC? We're in a better position now in the league, thanks at least in part to Neale and the squad. So what do we do if we only make the finals again this year? If we get rid of Neale, what if we end up with another Balme situation? Does Neale's role in building this team mean he deserves a crack at 2008? If he went on to Essendon where he has huge sums of cash and what will, by then, be a good young team coming through, what if does some damage to us? The mind boggles. IMO, I want to see Neita's last 2 big years (assuming of course that he retires at the end of 2008) coached by Neale. He deserves the chance to bring these older guys to the end of their careers with their best chance at glory, I reckon. He's not been a brilliant coach (yet) but he's been a good one.

HA!

First of all, Jaded, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. This post was intended in an ironic sense, but also, if you're that way inclined, as a bit of fun prophecy. In other words, as far as football opinion goes, first come the fans, then come the media. But since you replied Toad... Our supposedly foremost football critic in Caroline Wilson (along with some others), has said time and time again that the financial powerhouses of Victorian football are the Pies, Blues, Dons and Tigers. Believe me, it pisses me off no end but I can't blame her for thinking this, at least in 3 cases. If you think we're anywhere near being as strong as Collingwood or Essendon, then you need to go to the footy more. The Tigers have done absolutely nothing to keep their fans happy in the last two-and-a-half decades, and yet are still believed to be a strong club by many, and are NOT on the CBF. As far as the Blues go, you'd suggest they're gone from the top 4, but since they're in such bad shape there is certainly no reason to elevate someone into the top 4 just for the sake of it. Financially and success wise, there are really only a top 2. The Dees do a great job with the resources we have, but it's a statement of fact when I say we are weaker than the Dons and Pies. If you don't agree, then you haven't been following our club as closely as you may think. Ask Neale, he'd say the same thing. Some points you raise. Dappa you seem to have a MAJOR image problem, I find it extremely annoying that your perception of OUR club is less than it SHOULD be. :angry: I think I'll decide what MY perception of "OUR" club will be. Ask around, you'll find that I'm not alone. Don't mistake pessimism on my account for a lack of belief in MFC. I reckon, from what little I know about the inner sanctum, that we're on the right track. But we have a VERY long way to go. It's easy to be all high and mighty when your club is building to something while already making and winning finals 3 years in a row. Let's say we win 3 in the next 10 years, what then? Look at the Blues. Look how quickly they went backwards. What I want to see is financial security so that I can see the MELBOURNE football club (in red and blue) running around when my kids are 50. Why shouldn't we be considered a powerhouse of the competition? Because we're not! We have one of the worst records of any club in the last 40 years!!! We MAY be considered finals material, but we're bottom half of the eight. We're behind WC and Sydney right now on the field, and probably behind Adelaide and Freo depending on your point of view. I'm not saying we can't get to the top 4, or even 2, but 2007 hasn't started yet, and even if we win the first 11 rounds, we could very easily (given our draw) go badly after that. Off field, we have the smallest amount of assets out of any club in the AFL by a long way. It's probably a subconscious thing but I noticed that when relaying Joffa's statement you mentioned the other three clubs before US when we were the FIRST team that came from Joffa's lips. Yes, it's subconscious. I mentioned us last for a little bit of dramatic effect. It's not a surprise to hear a footy traditionalist reel off the other three clubs. It is to hear our name, however. It's time that you and other Melbourne people with the same inferiority complex did your own pre-season and TRAINED yourself to believe we are every bit at worthy. BECAUSE WE ARE!! Oh, it's time is it? DO NOT make the mistake of telling me how to follow my club, sunshine. YOU made the mistake of reading too much into a post that was intended to make you smile. I have NO inferiority complex when it comes to the demons, and I realise we have as rich a history as anyone. There was a time when there was no "top 4." There was only a "Top 1." MFC was, in living memory, considered the most powerful football club this country had ever seen. And this wasn't the MFC supporters that thought this. EVERYONE believed it. Times have changed Toad. If we win 5 flags in six years again, if we're feared by other clubs, If we begin to dominate footy at the MCG AND the Dome for MANY years, not just one, then maybe people will start talking about us in a better light. You're kidding yourself if you think we're feared as a club. We're on the way, yes, with Brock, Bate, Jones, Bartram and others, but we're not there yet. We're hardly in the middle of a dynasty like the Lions of 2001-03, WC and Swans of 2005-06, Roos of the 90s. We could be at the beginning of one, sure, but until I see some food on my plate, I'll believe what I see, and I've seen only the embryonic stages of sustained success. Go Dees - MFC - My Football Club No mate. It's not your football club actually. Look, I can't say I don't admire your love for MFC. But I think you'll find, if you ask those who know me here and in real life, that I take MFC very seriously too. You'll also find that I haven't told you to calm down and take a serious look at where the club is, with the rose-tinted glasses off, have I? Like I said, you're free to follow the club in whatever way you see fit, and I'll follow it in mine. For what it's worth, I reckon there have been a few hiccups along the way in our history that have come about because of the naivity of MFC followers and members. If we really were as strong as you say we are, why aren't we making GFs? Why haven't we won one in 40 years? Why did we miss finals for decades? If you'd just asked, I would have told you that I reckon there's no reason why we CAN'T be strong again, but we have to find a number of ways that we CAN be. And for what it's worth, I reckon the clubs need your breed of supporter as much as it needs mine. However, don't mistake my tone for lack of passion. I moved down from Sydney this year PURELY to be here for 2007. What's that supposed to mean? Am I less of a member if I haven't put in my $200 yet? You give me a good reason why I should tell you whether or not I've purchased it yet and I'll tell you.

Have a close look at the article where he describes who are the 4 "powerhouses" in the competition. Dons, Pies, Blues and us. I don't know if I should be honoured or embarassed that this guy puts us in such lofty company. Probably embarassed, since he's the only one. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...561-661,00.html

Will the Victory be this dominant forever? The world cup only finished a little while ago. To have them behind the Pies and Bombers is correct, but only for one year thus far. Give it a couple more then I'll be convinced. Also, just going on what occo said, is it even possible to build a soccer stadium that can seat 80K? Some of them wouldn't be able to see much.

Wow. Richmond and St. Kilda you say RR? Yeah I can see that. St. Kilda, albeit successful now, are not the financial powerhouse everyone seems to think they are. Richmond I'm not sure about. They seem to be thought of as one of 4 powerhouse clubs in Victoria (whether or not you agree, along with Dons, Pies and "Carlton"), and have maintained this reputation through some of the leanest years of any club (besides the basket cases like the Saints and dogs). If they can survive like that, then you know what it's going to be like if/when they start to win finals.

This stuff makes me nervous. You know pretty soon people are going to be saying "Melbourne Blues" or something, since the jumpers would look something like the current one we have now with the CFC symbol over the top in white. I hate all this crap, just because we are financially weak NOW we have to cop it. We also share colours with the dogs, as well as one colour with the roos. I've heard people say that the fanbases of the Roos and Dees wouldnt be compatible, but the fanbases of the dees and blues would fit ok. The whole lot of this is garbage. I don't want to see a merger, even if we are still the Melbourne "somethings." If it's anything but the red and blue that the boys are running around in I just can't see myself getting excited about the game anymore. That said, I know of one Demonlander who is an ex Fitzroy fan who has only last year gotten excited about his newly adopted club. I'm fascinated by this, and still don't understand how he can handle it. This comp will likely lose 2 Victorian based teams soon, and maybe 4 in the long haul. Being one of the 3 poorest clubs is bad enough, but being poor NOW is just the worst timing. We may be in for a fight in the next decade or two, and while I'm not looking forward to it, I'm prepared.

I don't know about that. It's a problem, just not quite so MUCH of a problem. Neita kicked 5 goals in one match from outside fifty this year while playing as a FF. Besides that I don't hate the idea, but I'm certainly not all for it. Like everyone else I'm worried about what'll happen in a couple of years when Neita retires/declines. It may be early days, but I've always thought Dunn suited the role pretty well. He's got a huge and very straight kick, and he's tall, strong and awesome on the lead and in packs. The ONLY position I've ever seen Miller even look like a player in is as a CHF that leads up the ground handing off to rebounding mids/wingmen/defenders. He's played games there and dominated, but when he's gone deeper forward or in defence he's looked completely lost (except at the SCG). When you boil it down, what I want is a forward that's strong on the lead and in contested situations, quick in a straight line and can kick around 66% or better. If he's good below his knees, is heavy, is great at defensive forward pressure, or can hurt opponents physically then that's all well and good, but I those things are all bonuses. For example, being slightly short has never hurt Robbo too much as a forward. Miller's fitness, endurance and hardness, coupled with an average kick make him perfect for the more aerobically demanding CHF-midfield role he does already. When Neita retires we're going to have Robbo (for a little while) and we can give a whole host of players time in the square, like Newton, Dunn, Garland, Frawley, or even someone outside the box like Rivers. Also, we could potentially recruit a good future KP forward in the remaining 2 years Neita is going to be relied upon. We're not DESPERATE to play Miller there, but it maight be worth the experiment in the NAB cup or something. As soon as his kicking costs us 3 points, I'll be saying get rid of him though.

I don't know heaps about the A-League, but from my limited knowledge I can see that there's only one team in Victoria. If the A-League expands and adds, say, 8 more clubs to its comp, at least 2-3 of them could/would be located in Melbourne. If there were that many clubs then surely getting 50k to a game would be difficult. Given another 10-20 years can we assume that with one or two more clubs that any of them will have that many fans? This is a hugely wild assumption by the powers that be that the sport will uphold its form. Will it have this huge attendence in bad years? Will it expand, or diminish after the stadium is completed? I'm all for having a world-class soccer stadium, but surely they've gotta have PROOF that this place will be used. When the AFL built the dome, it was absolutely CERTAIN that it was needed. I'm no expert on any of these issues, but the fact that these people are going back on deals that can potentially do very real harm to two existing clubs is inexcusable. How is it that THEY are the ones that suddenly have all the power in this situation? This whole construction thing has made me nervous from the beginning.

I was wondering when you'd pop up Freak. For the record, while I don't ENTIRELY agree with you, I totally respect your thoughts on Miller. In order for the dees to win a flag, the hard decisions have to be made, and while Miller has certainly earned his spot despite a crap year, I'm certain he'll be up for trade if he doesn't improve the fundamentals of his game. I can't dismiss what you have to say about getting rid of him as soon as possible, as it's a good general philosophy to get rid of average players instead of keeping guys who are ok every so often, but that you have to carry when the going gets rough. I don't quite share your pessimism yet, but the more I think about it, the closer I get.

And me too...

While he more than likely won't be a star, who is in the demons line-up? Bell will be a very good player. His awareness problems and decision making are somthing that can be deveoloped and learned both through training and experience. Did you watch his last few weeks in red & blue? He was sensational. One of our best at the death of the season. He's got blistering pace, even through the pain of OP, he has incredible delivery into the forward fifty, even when under pressure (Saints final), and he rarey misses a target by miles, if at all. While he's no Trav in this department (who is?) He'd be right up there for kicking efficiency and accuracy at the club. I look forward to this kid proving you wrong. Again. Oh, and on the Dunn/Miller tiff, I have no idea where to go with this one. I'm dead-set 50-50 on it. As far as I'm concerned, whoever has a blistering NAB cup will have more time on the ground come the real stuff. Miller is the "sensible" option as he's more mature and has put together a longer and more substantial career than Dunn, but Lynden clearly has the framework to become a better player. Do we have time to experiment in 2007? Time will tell. For now I'm staying on the fence. Who needs another Miller/Dunn debate anyway? 4-KPP forward line? Please. We all know how stifled Robbo gets when Neita's playing. I imagine he'd disappear completely if he was one of 4 leading marking forwards. If he could get the loose ball with a bit more regularity and create more damage, then maybe. At this stage, it aint broke. Don't fix it.

Well done guys. Keep 'em coming.

I reckon you've got a point there Chelly. Furthermore, you'll find most posters, indeed among the top 6 you'll hardly find an optimistic word in ANY of their posts. Rhino, Hannabal, Jaded.... posters like these guys (and girl), who's posts number in the thousands, make up the fabric of this site. They take their debates fairly seriously and "educate" some of the younger, perhaps less learned posters just by passing informed comment. In certain cases they've even been known to fight the good fight over at the sespool that is "Bigfooty." You don't have to look too hard to find a post on demonland that is both informative AND realistic. If you think people are overusing the words "champion" and "star," you must have read only a couple of posts. I reckon the unfortunate thing with both sites is that the majority of the major posters "get it." They know not to overindulge, clutter up the message board, or insult/degrade posters or players. It's just not on. Sadly though, in both cases the flavour of the sites is coloured by themes that some people find reflects their views less accurately. One man's over-moderation (demonland) may be considered productive, while another man's under-moderation ('ology) may be considered freedom. I don't post on, or even visit demonology all that much because it seems to me that there are a few (certainly not all) posters who whinge and moan about one thing or another to a)make themselves feel better, b ) make themselves SEEM more intelligent and c)cause an arguement. It wouldn't kill them to be a BIT more positive. They can still have the same opinions too, just expand on the positive points as much as the negative ones. On the flipside of course, if you want to learn about footy, and see some real 20-30 year supporters (poor bastards, no wonder they're cranky), then 'ology is the place to be. Whatever I might be able to say about them, they sure as hell know their footy. For the most part. Likewise at demonland, which is I believe, a younger site, we have our problems. For the most part it has a wealth of interesting discussions, coupled with a few posters who will, at the drop of a hat, get into a heated debate with you while respecting the "code". Unfortunately we still have to put up with some very sugarcoated points of view. What's worse than that though, are the teenagers who get on here and make wildly ridiculous statements that make little sense, and are backed up with absolutely no hard facts. Just an example is a certain dill who got on here the other day ONLY to say that Neita is his most hated player. With clowns like him, it's little wonder many of the 'ology regulars don't make the trip to demonland... errr.... land... I've said it before and I'll say it again. If there's criticism and infighting between the sites, then I'm outta here. Sadly, what Elwood has pointed out, is that I've never read of anyone on 'land poking fun at 'ologists. It always seems to be the other way around. That's a shame. Maybe I'll start another thread if anyone wishes to expand.

I had an argument about 5 years ago with a guy I play cricket with on this subject. At the time DN had just won a Coleman, and I'd suggested at the time that Neitz was the better player. He found it hard to mount a case at the time to claim that Richo was a "better player" than Neita, but insisted that there was no way Neitz was a better forward, or Full Forward to be more specific. I argued at the time, perhaps with some futility that he was indeed the better guy to have playing out of the square. 5 years on and our arguement has continued. Just today I was looking at Bigfooty and saw a thread that was something along the lines of "Top 10 Power Forwards for 2007." Predictably most people had Fevola, Brown, Pavlich, Tredrea, Reiwoldt, Hall, Lloyd, and Gehrig up there. Some clowns tried to suggest that Lucas, Thompson, Rocca and Lynch are in the top 10, but aside from them the lists seemed to be a pretty good indicator. Anyway, along these lines eventually a demons fan got online and claimed that no-one had backed in Neita as they should have. The Toigs fans did much the same for Richo, and once again I decided to ponder this comparison. The two are less than 2 months apart in age, with Neitz the older (marginally). In terms of the most important stat for a power forward (goals kicked), Richo is ahead by a bit. Neitz has played 286 games for 602 goals. Richo has played only 234 for 690. Right off the bat you know you're going to hear Richmond fans claim that Richo's average and goals total are far superior having played two and a bit seasons' less footy than Neitz. My position in the argument was that Neitz played up until 2000 as a defender. Richo has been a Full Forward from day one, and only kicked 88 more goals than Neita, who has won a Coleman and kicked almost as many goals in half the time playing as a stay-at-home forward. I would suggest there are other parallels, such as the fact that both have suffered major injuries, and both play the position in a similar way, sometimes roaming out to a wing, or playing further up the ground in a limited capacity when the match demands it. It would appear that both are likely to last only up until the end of 2008, unless one decides to do a Lynch and just keep going, perhaps in a pocket. First, here's some other stats - Clearly Richo is a better contested mark, and probably a better uncontested mark too (DN has trampoline chest). He is taller by 4cm, and is extremely heavy, even for a player of his size. Richo's 2006 match-stats and averages were clearly ahead of Neitz's. He had far more marks, handballs, kicks, long kicks, inside fifties, blah blah blah. But he also had a far greater behind and error average. Neitz was ahead of Richo in 1%ers, Frees against, tackles and, lo and behold, goals. In the end of the day we can only compare the way they play the game, and their effect on their team's success, how they lift team-mates, intimidate opponents, and win games off their own boots, and how consistently they do all these things - While they're a similar pace, I'm fairly certain Neitz is quicker on the lead. Richo is probably a bit more agile, and can turn on a ten-cent piece at full pace. Neitz is, in my opinion, a far better kick, even when shooting from outside fifty. He's certainly a better kick under pressure. One of the things that makes him the better player is his ability to maim an opponent, or opponents without hurting himself or giving away frees. He is, as far as I can see, a breater presence physically. Although Richo is no slouch himself in this area. Along with this is his obvious ability to lead and lift team-mates, and do it with a fair degree of consistency. He is a strong captain, as evidenced by his long tenure in the role. Richo, while able to lead by default, has a bad habit of whingeing and dropping his head if his delivery isn't perfect. Neitz has NEVER ONCE done this in my time following him as a player. Neitz has led his team to a GF, as well as a number of finals series. Neitz is, at least statictically, the less injury prone player. He's been playing a similar amount of time, but has played 50 more games. I'd like to see some of the more sagely posters offer some opinions and evidence in this area, as I'm aware I may have some more to learn, particularly about the specifics of Richo's history as a player. I'd also like to see some opinions from people regarding their careers from 1992-93 up until 2000, where both guys started playing as gorilla FFs. Over to you...

Too much time? Unemployment will do that to you cobber. If only I could do THIS for a living. 1. If what we are both recalling was in fact the same episode of WLF with the same questions asked, then I am afraid I wholly disagree with you there. My recollection is that he was asked, answered the question flatly, and when Grybas (assuming it was him, but whoever the host was on that day) pursued it with a serious tone as to get a real answer, ND further stressed the point. Had he been joking, he would have brushed the comment aside, but like I say, my recollection of the episode is that he cuoldn't stress the point enough that Davey WAS overlooked simply on the basis of Davis's Grand Final. For the record, I don't know if I necessarily agree with that assertion. You're right that it seems ridiculous on the surface, but I'm a firm believer that recruitment can be efected by the form of single players, or a group of a certain "type" of player. Or what's "in vogue" if you like. What with all the rule changes, recruiters must be taking it year by year to decide what KIND of players most suit their side when rebuilding. 2. Correct. As EVERY player is selected. My point is that had it not been for Aaron playing as well as he has from relative obscurity, Alwyn may well have found himself in the same position Aaron was in, only a few years later. Also, I reckon you're being very absolute (as you are wont to do) in this area. I wonder, have you seen him play either in person or on footage? If not, I hope you belileve me when I say it's downright spooky how similar they are. If it weren't for the Panthers uniform, I could have sworn I was watching Aaron go about his business. And I'm not just talking about his gait or kicking style. I found it really difficult to figure out what was different about watching either guy play. Now don't get me wrong, I'm like you in that I won't believe a player has got what it takes until I've seen him do it in the flesh. But in that sense, even the Gibbs type players still have a lot to prove to me. EVERY recruitment is speculative if you want to think about it. What makes this case different is that there's a clone of Aaron Davey running around. Let me stress that. CLONE. Any reservations a recruiter would have about his size or suitability to AFL footy can be at least partly assuaged by looking at how a player of EXACTLY the same type goes about it, and most importantly how unique, even in the AFL, that player is. Like you say, it's still no proof that he'll take the next step, but it's as good a proof as you get from most recruits. You could argue better than most. 3. Mate, no-one's saying they KNOW what's going on in the don's recruiters' heads. I said "perhaps." It's a possible scenario to ponder, not an iron-clad assertion. 4. On this we agree. For all my postulating about how similar they are, I'm certain it'll be different for him when/if he finally gets to play. 5. Gushing? Yes he's not played AFl footy, but he's played in senior finals, and regardless of the opposition, he looked alright on his own with the pill. All I'm saying RR is that he HAS impressed me enough as a prospect only. Fair enough isn't it? I won't pass judgement on Hayes until I see him with a footy in his hands in a match, be it VFL or ressies, and even then I'll apply the same criteria for rating as I do ANYONE. I "gush" about Alwyn, Hughes and Neaves because I've had a taste. If I see Hayes have a blinder the first time he plays, then I'll more than likely gush about him too. BTW, I'm sorry about that, I never meant to compare Neaves and Hughes to Hayes. I only meant to raise the point that both are rookies who've shown a bit. Oh, and would you say Hayes would at least compete with Hughes as a pocket? Yes they're different, (Hughes has played well as a rebounding defender) but personally I've kind of had Hughes in the FP role in a few years (assuming he's up to it). I suppose it's fair enough to suggest there's room for both. But I dunno, Pickett is right for 2007 and likely 2008 (assuming nothing goes horribly wrong). Hayes has 1, maybe 2 years to impress, and if he doesn't, what have we lost? Another rookie? Many fall by the wayside. Not saying it can't happen, or that it's likely not to, but I don't reckon it's too hard to suggest Pickett and Davey will be in the 22 at least until the end of 2008. Having said that, I'll concede the point as we have few full time FPs following them (Motlop in late 2006?). 6. Not only that, but it was 3 goals in an ESSENDON intra-club. Fair enough point there. But what that performance will do is most likely give us a chance to see him in action come round one of the NAB (assuming it's televised). And hey, with a bit of luck they might win, we might get over the Hawks and then we may REALLY see some sort of comparison, albeit in a pre-season nothing comp. Having said that we all remember the indelible effect Aaron had on us after just a few NAB cup games, or Wizard games, or whatever... Sorry for the long post (again). I suspect that, as per usual, I've changed nothing about your thoughts on the subject, and vice versa. I'm happy to leave it there if you are. I'm sure everyone's twice as bored with this as we are.

I remember ND was interviewed on WLF (RIP) about Davey after his first or second year. They asked why everyone (including the demons) overlooked him in the Draft right up until the end of the rookie draft, and he said flatly "because Leon Davis had a bad Grand Final." It's widely regarded that at the time, tiny aboriginal goal-sneaks were a risk as they weren't strong enough physically to handle the rough stuff in the bigger games and finals. So far, as you point out, that assumption has been proven largely correct (however his recruitment and promotion can hardly be called a mistake. As you say, he COULD have an effect on finals, just hasn't yet). Oh, and for the record, I've only ever claimed Aaron is a star of MFC so far. I think he's on the way to being an AFL star, but is a ways off it just yet. If it weren't for the extraordinarily exciting form of Aaron (having come from nowhere), would Alwyn, or any other tiny quick players have been recruited for such a high price? My assertion that Alwyn was recruited as a direct result of Aaron's form suggested more that the league has stood up and taken notice of the brilliance of smaller players (particularly the Davey family). I think it's fair enough to suggest that there are 16 AFL teams that Aaron would walk into (maybe 14 if we're being pedantic). Any coach would love to have another Davey clone in their side, and from what I saw of how he played in the SANFL, there is little difference on the surface between the two in the way they play the game. Perhaps the dons' recruiters felt that the next Davey IS the next Davey. Of course. No-one said this Davey vs Hayes vs Davey thing was of any HUGE improtance. What I love is that, assuming that Alwyn plays some games this year, Essendon and demons fans are going to have a sensational rivalry going regarding who is the better Davey. From what I've heard, the dons have played an intra-club and Alwyn kicked 3 goals. He's also been recruited later than your usual 18-year-olds having played some senior footy, which makes him more likely to play games immediately, and his side is in desperate need of quality, quick players. It's as likely as not that he'll play 22. For the record, I'm entirely sceptical about a player who has a reputation as having attitude problems and is so small. Not only this, but he's a rookie, which means to play he needs someone else to get injured, and worst of all, he's competing with Davey and Byron for a role in the side. I'm not sure if he's going to be on the list for a mandatory one year or two, as I don't know if he's an interstater. But like you say RR, all the above is only ASSUMING that all 3 play games. You'd suggest being taken at pick 36 means Alwyn will be given every opportunity, especially in such a slow/average side. But who knows? I don't hold any HUGE hopes for Hayes, certainly not ahead of guys like Hughes and Neaves, who's bandwagons I'm RIGHT on. It's still fun to compare. Especially if you've got lots of spare time like me...

If you care to purchase a DVD, have a look at "Red & Blue: The History of the Melbourne Football Club 1939-2005." It's only a couple of hours long and it covers most of the highlights of the club in living memory, from the golden era in the 50s right up until the Daniher era, including the dark years in the 70s. All the good stuff is there like the 5 flags in 6 years, interviews with all the club greats like Percy Beams, Ron Barassi and Robbie Flower, and some of the bad stuff is there too, like the sacking of Norm Smith, the shift of Ron Barassi and the infamous Jim Stynes 15 metre penalty. All good stuff, and a brilliant eye opener for the uninitiated dees fan. Available online at www.melbournefc.com.au

On a similar subject, since I saw the other A. Davey tear it up in the SANFL finals last year, I always held out hope that we'd pick him up (despite the fact that with THE A. Davey in the side, it was questionable whether or not we had room for another). I'm certain that with the benefit of hindsight, the Aaron we all know now would have been picked up in the REAL draft in his year (or before) and would have gone as high as top 10. As a direct result of his effect on the AFL and his reputation as it is, his brother has now been taken almost in the second round of a superdraft. So now I'm fascinated by this scenario involving 3 players, and their recruitment history. First of all, how will Davey be regarded in the all-important years between 25-30? How will Alwyn's first 3 years compare to that of Aaron? Will Alwyn create a similar effect for the bombers, becoming an overnight cult figure? Who, out of the these two players will be regarded as the best, and as a result will MFC be criticised for not picking him up as a rookie when we had the chance? And the most important questions as far as I'm concerned... Will taking Hayes as a rookie make a difference to the senior list at MFC? If and when he plays, will he be as effective, or more effective than Alwyn? If he is, will CAC get the credit for promoting the choice of the better player over the brother of an MFC star? Like I said, I loved the idea of having the Davey brothers in a team, but I would have been worried about any demons side with 2 tiny players like that in the forward line who are so hopelessly outmatched in contested marking situations. Recruiting a similar player, who is slightly taller and apparently can mark, but giving him time on the rookie list is the best of both worlds. It freed us up to recruit Petterd who is likely to play games this year, and we still get the opportunity to promote another lightning quick left footed goal-sneak. If he turns out to be the next Farmer, or even half as good, it'll be another feather in CAC's cap.

God knows we need help in this area...

That's a great idea. I'm gonna try and get that organised with one of my mates.

Oh no, not again. It seems Foxtel have re-entered the tele deal AGAIN with a bid to televise 4 games a week. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

I'll say it before one of the resident demonland teenagers does. Maybe Gaddy might plan a move from the media into coaching after 2007 should Eddie want his post back at the footy show. From all accounts there'll be plenty of coaching jobs available at the end of 2007, and if the Saints coach-hunt was any indicator, he is in high demand for his services. But in all seriousness, perhaps it's enough to want him to think about assisting someone for a year or two should he find himself suddenly out of a job. Then at least we would see him taking the idea of coaching seriously, and the fantasies of so many demons fans would look like coming to fruition.

Godders is a sparky. Cam Bruce has completed (I think) a degree in marketing, or accounting, or something boring sounding like that. Robbo takes his music career pretty seriously from all accounts.

I like it. Makes a nice change from the usual "top 8 at rd 22" lists everyone has. With the amount of lists approaching or still in their prime (Freo, WC, Dogs, Saints, Swans, Demons, Crows), Whoever comes from outside the 8 to make it will be hard pressed to squeeze one team out. This year may well be the year that proves the exception to old's rule. As far as I can see only Adelaide and the Swans look like they're due to begin declining, and both of those teams could easily still make the top 4 again. Still, assuming 1 team WILL jump that far up... Geelong have been there before in the last 3 years, and in 2006 they underachieved. Of the teams outside the top 8 they're the most likely I'd say. Their forward line, once again, will be the deciding factor. I love their defence and their midfield is still pretty strong, but I worry about their depth. In all honesty I can see them going better than last year, but top 4? Richmond are due to make big inroads. If Wallet's 5 year plan is supposed to come to fruition, then this is the first year they should be scheduled to make the finals. Will they? I'll believe it when I see it. Hawthorn have the talent to do great things, and it'll either be this year or next that they'll start coming into their own. My money's on next year, but you never know. Essendon are a joke, but if they can keep that spine intact for 22 rounds they'll give finals a shake. Top 4? I'd be hugely surprised but it's not outside the realms of possibility that they could be in competition for it in the last few rounds, particularly considering their draw. I reckon people give the Roos a hard time. Looking at their list compared to those of other clubs, I have them in the bottom four. But I can't dismiss the fact that they were in many peoples' top 8 before the start of 2006. We of all clubs know how it is to be ignored in the media after 1 average season, only to come out and make the finals the following season. We did it year after year for a while there. Brisbane, Carlton, Port and Collingwood I give no chance of making the 4 for various reasons, but I can't ignore the Roos. Except for last year they always seem to make so much out of so little, and while EVERYONE has condemned them to a miserable 2007, I'm not ready to write them off just yet. But in all seriousness out of all the bottom 8 in 2006, only Geelong are any tangible threat to the top 4 in my mind. After that it's daylight...