La Dee-vina Comedia

I didn't see the game, but do we have two players called Harmes? There appears to be approximately the same number of people giving Harmes votes as want him dropped for the next game.

I've read this over and over. It's not about your proposed changes but your writing style. It's not iambic pentameter, a limerick or a haiku but you write very poetically.

So, who are the other five? Of course, I'm really just fishing to uncover who you'd leave out in this rather hyperbolic statement.

Nice work here...

Fair point. But it's why I don't usually read his stuff because it doesn't inform me. Out of curiosity I read this one and learned nothing.

Does anyone know whether Wayne Carey writes his own opinion pieces? Or does he have a 'Tom Prior' (Lou Richards' ghost-writer) to help him? It reads to me like a ghost-written article perhaps based on some of Carey's comments. Anyway, I think its the puffiest of puff pieces which asks lots of questions, offers no answers and, in essence, provides no insight.

I don't think our interchange will consist of four forwards. It's usually the seventh defender (small defender) and one small forward and two mids (who sometimes go forward). Having said that, I have no idea who will play this week. As much as I think Harmes is lucky, I suspect he's in because he gives 100% effort 100% of the time. ANB should be in the side. He's much better than he's given credit for as a link man (and also gives 100% effort 100% of the time.) Yes, he can improve his disposal (a lot) but he's an integral part of the style of play. Stretch is somewhat unlucky. He was awful against Richmond, and if it were up to me I would drop him, too. He's unlucky because most players promoted from the VFL are given two games to see if they are any good before they are dropped. I think his future looks grim.

This post is not just in response to you, Jibroni, but more a reminder that we should keep things in perspective. So, a couple of answers to your rhetorical question: Chapeonse Manchester United Let's hope Petracca gets better quickly and when he returns plays better than ever.

And what sort of surgery is needed for an infected finger?

If that's your sole criterion, then neither are (or were) Buddy Franklin, Matthew Richardson and Nick Reiwoldt. FWIW, every team needs an accumulator. He acts as the link man by working hard to get into the right place to get the ball. Needs to improve what he then does with it, though, so that he consistently delivers it correctly. On that last point, a similar statement could be made about many others in the team including Harmes, Hunt, Wagner and Tyson.

Clearly there's an error in the thread title. The word "not" is missing. I avoided this thread for 24 hours as I thought it would be unnecessarily insulting and demeaning. I was right and I'm now sorry I weakened and had a look.

So, let's split the difference and suggest that Hunt should spend time on the wing. I can definitely support that.

Hunt has played forward before and looked completely lost. I'd rather persist with him in the backline. Against Richmond he showed plenty of dash and courage but lacked touch and polish. I think that will follow if he is allowed to stay where we know and he knows he plays best.

Why not? As I stated earlier, if we don't, that allows Hooker to play forward or (which I didn't say earlier) frees Hurley up. I'm not necessarily yet convinced we should play three tall forwards, but I certainly think it's something to consider.

It bears repeating, but if Essendon is wearing black shorts and we're wearing white shorts, why do we even need a clash jumper? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer which is "Because. The AFL says so, even though there isn't a good reason.")

There's a shortage of pigs in Estonia?

Only slightly tangential, as it relates to how best to tackle Martin, but Richmond appear to be the best in the competition at the moment of doing two actions which umpires appear to believe are not breaking any rules. Firstly, they appear to deliberately drop the ball when tackled; secondly they are the best at disguising throws as handpasses. With respect to the first point, it's as if the umpires have decided that each time the ball is dropped it has been knocked out in a tackle. I'm not even sure if that's an exception to the incorrect disposal rule. But if it is, that exception should be removed. Why shouldn't a tackler be rewarded if the ball is knocked free in a tackle? I'm not being flippant, but the best way to stop Martin from being effective is to stop him getting the ball in the first place. I know it's not easy, but once he's got it, whether he uses the fend-off or not, it's even harder to find a way to prevent him from influencing the game.

I'm thinking it might be worth replacing Kent with Pedersen. If we only play two tall forwards (ie, Hogan and Weiderman), that will allow Essendon to play Hooker forward. And then we'll have a problem with Essendon having three marking tall forwards (Daniher, Hooker, Stewart) and us having only two genuine tall defenders. The alternative is to pick Frost to add height to the backline. If Essendon only play two tall forwards, Frost could play on a smaller player (Stringer, perhaps?) but that's always fraught. In short, I actually have no idea, but I'm not advocating picking a side without actually contemplating who we are playing against.

1. Hunt has his speed back (but he needs to be more polished when charging in at players or when he is disposing of the ball. I expect that to follow) 2. We were still in the game early into the last quarter with no meaningful contributions for most of the game from Garlett, Kent (because of injury), Harmes, ANB or Stretch 3. Gawn's tackling (not ignoring the rest of his play, but I thought the big man having 8 tackles, equal most for the team, was worthy of specific recognition.)

It seems to be only Demonland members who are seeing half-empty glasses. A couple of Richmond supporters I know thought we played well and were nervous until halfway through the last quarter. One of the so-called footy experts on radio yesterday (can't remember who) said he thought Melbourne would have between 12 or 13 other teams with the way we played against Richmond. And, conversely, most commentators were saying yesterday that Richmond is by far the best team in the competition at the moment. And I agree with that - in fact, in my view they're better now than they were at any time last year. So, I'll look at my half-full glass and say we can beat anyone bar Richmond, but only if we play the way we have been coached to play and at a consistent level for whole games.

I haven't seen Michael Christian's MRO report for this game, but did you cop a week for this excellent backhanded compliment?

6. Gawn 5. Hogan 4. Jones 3. Oliver 2. O McDonald 1. Lever

Irrespective of who's who, that's a lot of people in the coach's box. I'm not sure if I was senior coach I'd want that many people all trying to advise me. If, however, half or even two-thirds of them are just there to watch and can keep their mouths shut, I could live with that.

Someone will come on here and agree with you if you mean draft selections in 2009.

Bugger. Light rain is forecast apparently due to start around 4 pm. May impact (1) the crowd size, (2) the pre-game ceremony, (3) quality of the game, (4) the result...all negatively (for us). Official forecast: Partly cloudy. Slight (30%) chance of a shower late this afternoon and evening and the chance of a thunderstorm tonight. Winds northerly 20 to 30 km/h becoming light in the late afternoon then tending southwest to southerly tonight.