La Dee-vina Comedia

Careful. Getting rid of the QB holiday opens a new can of worms for the MFC. Having said that, I would have thought is just a question of time before the QB holiday disappears. It's important that the Melbourne FC develop a new blockbuster opportunity to be ready to replace the QB game. Personally, I would have thought something that links our Field of Women concept with our Women's team might be the way to go.

The 4 millionth Jack Watts story is in today's Age newspaper. The paradox which is JW is clear in that he knows what he has to do, he appears to want to do it but somehow hasn't yet been able to get there. I want Jack Watts to stay for three reasons. First, he's undoubtedly talented and skillful, but flawed. Eliminate, or at least reduce, the flaws and we have icing to go on the top. Secondly, he seems to have the right character to make the club a better team. And thirdly, and selfishly, I cannot bear the thought of him becoming a successful, star player at another club.

Age journo Richard Willingham is a Melbourne supporter, but I'm not sure what to do with this sort of holiday... Richard Willingham ‏@rwillingham 5m There should be two pubic holidays if the Dees ever make the Grand Final... #springst #qt

Here's a link to what Brett Anderson allegedly said. He may turn out to be correct...but really, he's just spitballing. Nonsense journalism (that last word used loosely).

Apart from Moloney, all the players you have mentioned were (or are) all physically under-developed. You can add to the list Watts and Grimes. Just compare them with the physical shapes of players like Vince, Cross and Lumumba. Given some of those who did have strong bodies (Sylvia, Moloney, Tapscott) didn't set the world on fire either, it wasn't just physical under-development that's been an endemic problem. But it sure hasn't helped.

One of us isn't understanding the other. The numbers I was referring to were the ratings given to him by the coaches, not his stats or any other statistical metric. If he had played his role satisfactorily to the expectations of the coaches, I would have expected him to get more votes in the B&F. That he didn't score that many votes, I can only assume he wasn't performing his role adequately enough often enough. Hence my query as to why he played so many games of quality which clearly must have disappointed the coaches.

Good thing list decisions are made by professionals and not by social medal voting as happens with reality TV shows, then. On topic, I'm confused by the B&F voting. How does any player score so relatively poorly yet play so often? I would have thought a player with those sort of scores would have been in and out of the team a lot more.

I can...and soon. I think what we've seen this year has been the renaissance of a style of football which will see key forwards kicking big bags of goals. The way the Bulldogs, West Coast and Adelaide play (and Hawthorn) is quick movement through the centre which gives KPFs lots of chances. The slow, careful and precise ball movement of Fremantle, Sydney and Richmond is, I think, "so last year".

Well said. And one extra point can be added. The choice is, in effect, between Jack Trengove and Melbourne's final pick in the draft. A risk analysis would show that the chance of Trengove making a contribution as a player in the future must be considered to be greater than that of a very late draft pick. Seems like a logical decision to me.

There's always a chance the coaches waited to see who Demonland voted for before they cast their own votes.

It seems somewhat odd that we have a B&F Award voted by the Coaches and then a separate award called the Coaches Award. However, it does provide an opportunity to reward a player who may not get enough votes to win the main prize because of injury. So, does anyone know whether the Coaches Award is a subjective award or whether it is formally calculated by taking the B&F totals and dividing by the number of games played? Either way, Viney is a worthy winner, but I'm just curious about the mechanism.

I'm not sure what you mean, but football was not fully professional is those days so players often moved between States for better opportunities. Sometimes the opportunity was nothing more than a real job or a small business (such as running a newsagency) which the football club could organise for the player. It happened with all clubs. Where Melbourne fell behind was that it didn't even go this far to appreciate that matters external to the football career itself were an important criteria when players decided where they might play.

I wouldn't let the Federal government anywhere near the AFL. (Note: Not just this particular Government. Any Federal Government).

Beg to differ. I think Nathan Jones was probably better in each of 2012, 2013 and 2014.

So, reading between the lines, I suspect you might be of the view that Cross and Jamar are announced prior to the B&F night to give the room an opportunity to praise them while anyone else who will not get a new contract can still attend without feeling shamed. If so, that's a professional approach by the club.

Mods, please merge with the other Jamar thread.

Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 10m10 minutes ago NEWS: After 155 AFL games, Mark Jamar’s fine career with Melbourne has come to a close. Story: http://mfcde.es/1Lnh5Zp

#AFLFinals ‏@AFL 10m10 minutes ago Nathan Jones will miss a chunk of pre-season as he undergoes neck surgery. http://afl.to/1OgZtDC Full marks to whoever wrote this tweet for the AFL.

Agreed. Can you imagine Gary Ablett Senior as a coach?

Carlton and Brisbane would be derelict in their duty if they don't apply. But if the MFC couldn't get a priority pick after our 2013 season, I can't see how anyone else can. If nothing else, the AFL should recognise that having a discretion to award a priority pick should be abolished. There are better ways to assist clubs who perform woefully, such as helping them recruit a decent CEO and coach.

We had some champion players play for us...but many were (well) past their prime. I suspect we could put a mighty team together of A-grade players who actually played for us but didn't actually do much. Such as, Phil Carman, Brent Crosswell and Kelvin Templeton. All superstars...but not with us.

Earl, you've got me thinking. I seem to recall that back in the 60s and perhaps the 70s, the Brownlow voting system didn't allow for votes to be identified publicly for specific games, so you wouldn't know who got votes for which games. Does anyone have a similar recall? If that's correct, when did the system change so we knew which votes were assigned to which games?

To go further, in my opinion much of Carlton's problem has been caused by that club's inability to understand how to function in the era of salary caps, drafting and modern corporate governance expectations. I wonder whether Paul Little's version of Essendon is somewhat similar. Having said that, there is no doubt that Essendon didn't break any rules in speaking to Worsfold. Also, even if the "anti-tampering" rules were formally in place, given the particular circumstances which see Worsfold at Adelaide, it may be less than clear what rules might apply in this particular situation. Nevertheless, the very reason for that confusion should have seen Essendon take a conservative approach and speak with Adelaide first. Essendon will not progress until a new Chairman with an understanding of modern corporate governance expectations and requirements is installed. I remain gobsmacked that he hasn't yet been overthrown by a Board challenge.

Conversely, he's very demonstrative when players don't kick the ball to him properly in a manner which may alienate some players. He needs to stop doing so or else feel the wrath returned.

Clearly my mind has moved early into the silly season. It took me so long to work out who 'hb' might be that I'd thought of a pencil before I finally realised you meant Harley Bennell...didn't you?