La Dee-vina Comedia

Classic Demonland logic: A player who joins Melbourne will be inspired to play the game of his life against his old club. Whereas a player who leaves Melbourne won't.

Given the frequency with which our players have played "blinders" over the past few years, perhaps Saty is right - generally speaking, the players don't read Demonland.

I get the feeling Dank has changed strategy and has decided if he's going to go down he's going to take some people with him. If that's the case, there might be a few nervous people around.

When I talk to Hawthorn and Geelong fans, they seem to be able to pinpoint a single time or an event when their teams became powerhouses onfield. I'd like to think in a few years time, we'll universally and unequivocally say the turning point was after the Essendon game in 2016.

It's not just his tapwork. His ball handling, kicking and tackling are all well above average for a ruckman. So is Goldstein's, which is why Goldy is such a formidable presence, just like Gawn is becoming.

Seems that China has reacted to the news that Kochie is visiting by banning the cash cow.

Casey needs to get its story straight. Why would the club be calling for the league to investigate something that its own coach states was a result of Trengove being in the wrong place at the wrong time and which occurred without malice? (OK, Plapp allegedly said without "a hell of a lot of malice", but he may as well have said no malice).

Not sure I've ever seen a second ruckman also playing as a key defender.

I get it that you love Dunn, but given the opposition kicked 136 points last Sunday, this is probably not the best timing for this particular argument.

Fotball commentators could learn something from Richie Benaud. Different sport, but same principles. In particular, number 4 and especially number 5 on this list.

I haven't seen yesterday's game, but the selection issue for me is about a second ruckman. I don't mean a second ruckman specifically for next week's game but backup in case Gawn can't play. With injuries to our nominated replacements (ie, Spencer, King) we need to find someone else who could at least get around the ground and contest all day. I can't see Pedersen being able to do that, or Dawes. But I can see Frost doing so. I think the longer-term needs of the team require Frost to play more game time in the seniors as the second ruck and extra tall up forward. He's only played 5 games for us and is clearly a work in progress, but he needs games in the seniors to build his understanding of how to play that rucking role.

In the now closed Changes v North thread some posters have said that because a player is named in the starting 18, they will definitely be playing. Conversely, the three players who will miss out from the current 25 will all come from those named on the bench. Is that actually a rule? And is it factually correct that the final three omitted always come from those named on the bench?

For those who want a source: Josh Wagner has been elevated from the rookie list and will make his debut this week. More: http://mfcde.es/WagnerDebut

Yes they will. Whether anyone will believe them or not is the more relevant point.

Yes.

KC, is the VFL operating under the same rules as the AFL? For example, will rotations be limited to 90 per game?

So you'd pick him ahead of Nathan Jones, Jesse Hogan, Jack Viney...

Or they've been coached by Dunn and picked up one of his key techniques.

I maintain that it can't be a zone defence and 1 on 1 contests when the 1 on 1 is small against small or tall against tall. (I think I'm accidentally channeling Dr Seuss). However, I can accept an argument that it's a "modified" zone defence which tries to guard space while also trying to keep the smaller defenders on the smaller forwards, etc. And in my view, it is doomed to fail unless the 6 players in the defence are significantly better than the 6 players who make up the opposition's forward line...in which case the one on one would win out anyway.

Of course, there is the minor problem that you have to get the ball into your forward half before this will work. But I still don't get the zone defence argument. If you believe small defenders are picked to play on small forwards and tall defenders are picked to play on tall forwards, then it would seem to me that you can't also argue for a zone defence.

I don't understand the concept of a zone defence when playing a clear mix of tall and small defenders. If every defender was a similar size it might make sense.

His experience wouldn't have been much help. It's his lack of height (compared with Daniher) combined with the ease with which the ball was delivered to the Essendon forward line that would have been the problem. I've never been much of a fan of Dunn, but I accept that he's played his best football for us as a key defender. Unfortunately, he's just not big enough to play on the really tall or really big forwards. He would be better suited to being the "third tall" and playing the role Josh Gibson does for Hawthorn. It's why the development of Oscar McDonald and Sam Frost are critical.

If Brayshaw looked a mile off it, then Kent was 20,000 leagues under the sea. I actually subscribe to the view that many of the players were tired. They looked it from the start of the game. I wonder if the club knows why. Illness? Over-training? Lack of proper preparation at an individual level? Diet?

Optimist

I found myself on Saturday wishing we were still operating with 23 players plus a sub so we could sub Kent out of the game at half-time.