La Dee-vina Comedia

Didn't we beat Port in Darwin at night in 2010?

When was the last time we went through a season with out losing a game by 60+ points?

The family tree approach to judging coaching is well respected. Whether it's the Tom Hafey family (Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse followed by John Worsfold, for example) or the Norm Smith family (Ron Barassi followed by Malcolm Blight) or the John Kennedy family (David Parkin and Leigh Matthews subsequently followed by the Scott twins), etc, there is logic in the idea. Successful coaches teach future successful coaches. Of course, not every descendant in the family can be a success (Hardwick, Hird, Voss...and many more) but the opening post makes sense overall.

I appreciate your point. But I would argue something has changed - the problems you refer to now occur far less frequently overall. It just so happens that they happened a lot yesterday.

He won't be any taller in the forward line, so he's not going to be a KPF, either. What position would he play? I honestly don't know what his best position is any more.

Dunn has the disadvantage of being 'only' 192 cm. That's not really tall enough for a key position defender. If he can't be a key position defender, what's his position going to be? In other words, I don't think he's competing for a position in the backline with either of the McDonald's or Frost. Rather, he's competing with Wagner, Hunt, Lumumba, Garland and White. And if he can't find a spot in the backline, I'm not sure there's anywhere else for him.

A challenge for the rest of the season: When did we last go through a season without losing three games in a row?

And he's also not "cheating". He's playing the game as allowed by the rules. If he was "cheating" he would be penalised. I would prefer the rules to be changed so the tactic he has successfully employed (along with other players) is not rewarded with a free kick. It should just be play on and if the player tackled disposes of the ball incorrectly, or not at all, a free kick should be paid against him.

Don't forget even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Pity you weren't quite correct. It would have been post of the year for mine. (I initially read it the same way as you, too.) If the umpires are continually paying a free kick it's more likely a problem with the rules, not the umpiring. And that can be easily fixed. Frees against don't need to be paid automatically. It should be considered a legitimate tackle. If the player disposes of the ball correctly, play on. If he disposes incorrectly or not at all, a free should be paid against him. Yes, but does your wife know?

OK - thanks for the clarification.

What "record" are we talking about here? Do you mean youngest Melbourne side ever? Youngest AFL/VFL side ever? Youngest Paul Roos coached side ever? I'm not damning your post, just seeking clarification.

Not that I'm getting ahead of myself, but I'm looking forward to having a record of "two losses in a row" as something not broken for many years.

Nice to see a second Melbourne supporter with a healthy ego. (BBO being the other).

I've just found this thread (sorry about the unintended pun) and for some reason, I think it's one of the funniest threads on Demonland.

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

Yes, I do. But I understand others do not. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive or even cautious, but to my way of thinking they've been caught cheating and they've been found on the balance of probabilities to have been injected with TB4, but it wasn't a criminal trial about the taking of illegal drugs and therefore I'm sticking with my view that "convicted drug taker" isn't the right language to use. However, I'm not disagreeing with the CAS finding or the penalty imposed.

No problem with that...or calling them "penalised substance abusers" (thanks, ProDee). I just think we should call it what it is. Language matters.

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were. Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it). I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

dc, I'm making no assumptions at all. The point I was making is that IF there is no other context to make it clear, I'm not sure that I would automatically realise that an "injection" is a "supplement". But I don't know the context.

Depending on the way the question is phrased, I'm not sure if I was player being asked the question that I would have automatically assumed that an "injection" is the same thing as a "supplement". I would have thought supplements come in other forms taken orally, such as powders, tablets and muesli bars. Having said that, I haven't heard any player say that was the case for them.

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grips with what they've done wrong. I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

Caveat emptor. All trades, except Monfries, were made after the potential for suspensions if found guilty were known. While the Monfries trade was prior to the supplements program becoming public knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that Essendon allowed the trade to proceed with the knowledge that he may later be suspended. After all, they have always claimed that they thought they were doing nothing wrong.

Actually, the Lloyd view is complimentary. If Melksham is "depth" we must have a better team than I thought we had. I don't think there would be too many arguments here that he's a lot better as a depth player than Bail, McKenzie, Riley, or even Matt Jones and Terlich.

Thanks Barney.