La Dee-vina Comedia

At the moment our team is still developing. Any amount of practice at training is not the same as match conditions. That means the coach has to give players the opportunity to develop particular skills or roles during games. My view of the drop off against Geelong was that it occurred when players such as Maynard and Hannan were the centre midfielders. That's not to say it was wrong to have them there, but with their lack of experience in that role, it was always going to increase the risk of a poorer team performance while they were there. I haven't looked closely enough at the Brisbane game to see if the run of goals against us coincided with any particular set-up. But I'm reasonably confident Salem was playing a different role (inside mid, if not run with player) all night as part of his education.

To answer the question posed, Oliver's first couple of years re not as good as Judd's. But I can't think of any other player in the last 50 years who had a better start than Judd. On the other hand, it's been a better start than Ablett Jr, Martin and Dangerfield, so I'm happy with that.

I wonder whether Salem was being asked to play as an inside mid. He seemed to have that role which robs us of one of his strengths (disposal execution) but perhaps is intended as part of his education to improve his overall game. I thought he didn't do enough, but what he did was executed very well. Goodwin (and Roos before him) usually seems to want to give players two games, rather than one, to prove themselves so although Bugg did not seem to offer much, I expect him to be given another game. I expect Frost to be picked, not just to "free Lever up" but because North's best forwards are Waite and Brown. A third tall defender is necessary to provide backup and Wagner and Hibberd who it can be argued "play tall" can't play tall enough. For Frost to come in, one of the smaller defenders has to be demoted or move up the ground. If it's a demotion, that would be Wagner; alternatively, Vince could move up the ground to replace a less effective onballer, such as Harmes who has only played in flashes and not really delivered much. I also can't understand why Brayshaw isn't in the side - perhaps he comes in for Harmes. So, assuming no forced changes: In: Frost, Brayshaw Out: Wagner, Harmes , both of whom could consider themselves unlucky.

Harmes? Really? I must have been watching a different game. When I get to the thread on changes for the North game, he's high on my list for consideration for demotion. 6. Hogan 5. Garlett 4. Oliver 3. Jones 2. Hibberd 1. Melksham (thought he provided the forwards with excellent delivery from outside 50. Something that's been too often lacking in the last few years, if not decades.)

I suspect you're right. If they had wanted him to play they could have picked him in the final 22 and withdrawn him if he wasn't right on Sunday.

I would have thought Brayshaw may have been left out last week because he'd only just had his wisdom teeth removed. Not only might that have left him with a sore mouth but he might have been on a limited diet, too, which may have weakened him enough not to be considered fit to play. Of course, if he's not picked this week, that won't have been the reason.

You seem to have a love-hate relationship with punctuation.

Do you wish to clarify what you mean with Brayshaw? Were you perhaps bringing him in to replace someone else?

Not necessarily. Other options include brans, trans, grass, grads, grams, grays, arabs and crabs. A couple might have WADA implications, though.

Nasty cold you have there, Binman. Get well soon.

I'm not averse to Frost playing, but I can't see him playing as a forward. That's been trialled and didn't work before, so I see it as unlikely to happen again. However, he could come in for Wagner who could be described as the "third tall" given the roles that he and the other defenders (ie, Hunt, Jetta, Hibberd and Vince) play. My preference is still to bring in Brayshaw and Tyson before him, though.

Troubling. Everyone knows that 110% is the minimum acceptable number for any football player.

By far the best coach to listen to. Nathan Buckley and Clarkson are also interesting, but Chris Scott is the best. All three are intelligent, forthright, seemingly honest and avoid cliches. Forget the rest if you're looking for valuable insights.

Good plan. We'll have 23 players to Brisbane's 22.

By the way, too much "blaming" going on. A game is about 120 minutes with thousands of individual decisions and physical actions. Every player, coach and umpire tries their best. No blame needs to be apportioned to anyone.

So, the f word is acceptable on Twitter and basically in the repertoire of every stand-up comedian but not on Demonland or on the football field. Good to know. In the context of how it was said, that is, Lewis wasn't standing right in front of the umpire or intimidating him physically, I'm surprised that use of this language today is considered to be abuse.

So, just the same as if we win.

It depends a lot on what "disposal efficiency" measures. For example, does it include a disposal which hits a target who is under immediate pressure and so we subsequently lose possession?

I have liked him in the past. There were a couple of games last year where he looked extremely slow which suggested he was playing injured. But he seemed to have his pace back this year. I just think there are two players who should come into the side in Brayshaw and Tyson both of whom are better than any of Wagner, Hannan, Fritsch and Maynard (and perhaps a couple of others). Wagner seems more dispensable for mine because either Brayshaw or preferably Lewis can play HBF better than him.

Maybe we shouldn't give credence to what "disposal efficiency" measures.

I agree with your first point but not sure about your second. If we expect Gawn to win more tapouts than he loses, we should also expect to win more centre clearances. The one or two forwards running off the back of the square might increase the chances of winning the clearance, but to what end? The forwards are outnumbered so we make it so much harder for Hogan and co. I had thought the forward(s) running off the backline was a good idea, and perhaps it is when Gawn isn't rucking. But I now think when Gawn is rucking, we should have more confidence in winning the ball without needing the forwards to run off the back of the square. We should keep them forward to stop the opposition having one or two spare men in defence.

1. Made many disposal errors 2. Was regularly outplayed by Menzel 3. His 1st half 4. The most important reason - the team will be improved with addition of those who replace him.

Could I trouble you to explain again how the Demonland voting system works?

sigh (I mean if we lose to Brisbane. It's not a comment about this thread.)

I'm of the completely opposite view. I thought Lewis was much better as a defender when moved there from the wing. We only lost by three points, or one poor kick for goal, against a team that was in the final eight last year, so I think the wrist slashing on here is a bit over the top. Nevertheless, if changes will improve the side they should be made. I think one of Hannan and Fritsch might be dropped as they appear to play a similar role and neither impacted in games for long enough. I'd be inclined to keep Hannan even though I thought Fritsch was overall a better player, purely because I expect Hannan with an extra year's experience will recover more quickly. And it is easy to be hoodwinked by stats - Wagner was completely outplayed when it mattered. So, I'd bring in Brayshaw and Tyson. Harmes to play more forward instead of Fritsch (or Hannan) and Brayshaw for Wagner, but with Lewis taking Wagner's spot in the backline and Brayshaw to the wing.