La Dee-vina Comedia

I'd rather we had our own VFL team. But I don't blame Casey for any lack of development. Our players are with them for about 3 hours out of 168 per week. Any lack of development is happening at the MFC or individual player level.

So, for two weeks in a row Melbourne didn't score at all in the last quarter. Thanks goodness Demonland didn't exist in 1964. Can you imagine the angst?

While I like my theory better, it's fair to say yours might actually have some merit.

I like your thinking...and I'm always one to advise that when having to choose between conspiracy and Koch-up assume Koch-up every time. But so far he's been very measured with everything he's said which allows one to wonder whether it was it an aberration or deliberate.

Is it just a coincidence that our form has been down at the same time as Satyr's training reports appeared to have dried up?

It's not what Paul Roos said that interests me but why he said it. If Mick Malthouse had been in a similar situation and made these comments at a media conference the press (and Demonland) would be questioning why Malthouse was using a diversionary tactic. So, was Roos hiding something? If so, what could it be? Here are some suggestions (none of which I have any evidence to support - just putting them out there as unsubstantiated ideas): he knew that the Match Committee had not made the right team selections, either in personnel or on-field match-ups going into the game he knew that the team had been overtrained in recent times and didn't have the energy to compete properly he knew that some players he didn't wish to name had injuries he doesn't wish to disclose he's preparing the ground for some players to be delivered some bad news about their future he wants the players to be scared of what might follow when he speaks to them privately (which could also be coupled with, he wants the players to realise when he eventually speaks to them privately that they needn't fear him like they might have anticipated) he coached badly on the day and doesn't want to publicly admit it he's sending a message to Casey about the standards he expects for MFC seconds players he's sending a message to his own development coaches that they have to improve their output.

Yes and No. I think it's inherently wrong that the system calculates penalties with extras for outcomes. I think it would be much better if the heaviest part of the weighting was for intent. A haymaker that doesn't connect just because of a player's lack of ability to connect would theoretically result in no penalty even though there was an intention to significantly hurt. But given the MRP system as it exists is meant to take into consideration the damage caused, then Merrett shouldn't be playing. A really good recent example of how the system is flawed is Reece Conca's suspension. Because of the intent with which he hit Smith, he should have received a minimum of four weeks, I would have thought. The damage to the recipient shouldn't make a difference - he intended to hit him (in a cowardly manner) and it's just lucky for Smith that greater damage wasn't done.

Thanks Satyr I've been missing your training reports. You didn't mention Grimes. Can we assume he wasn't there and will still be missing?

Of your list, two are injured (Ablett, Watson) and one might be (Franklin) and yet, I still think you're correct that with these changes we would be a better team.

Hasn't the issue of journalists protecting sources already been tested in the courts this year? IIRC Fairfax had a major fight to protect their investigative duo, Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie. I can't recall which matter although I suspect it's most likely to be the Securency matter which we've recently discovered via Wikileaks to be the subject of a secret injunction. It would be somewhat ironic if Mark Robinson's ability to protect his sources is affected by the Baker/McKenzie legal issue, given it was Nick McKenzie who interviewed Stephen Dank and got him to "admit" to providing the Essendon players with Thymosin-B.

My view is that our results have seemed poorer in the last 6 weeks precisely because the team started to try attacking more. Previously we played super-defensively preferring to kick backwards than take a risk going forward. Around about mid-year we seemed to reduce the amount of backward movement and tried to go forward more quickly. While this strategy increases the chances of winning it also increases the chances of any losses being larger because there is less overall emphasis on defence. Until we get the attacking part of the game right we'll continue to struggle. That's just my observation watching the game. There are only two ways one can confirm whether my observation is correct or not - either the coach has to explicitly state that the switch in style was deliberate or stats showing particular game style characteristics need to be assessed. The type of stats I would have thought might back up my proposition might include kicks backward, playing on from a mark and forward 50 entries. Given Paul Roos won't be telling the other 17 coaches the answer, I'm certain the clubs use these detailed stats to try to work out for themselves if their "gut feel" about a change in play style can be proven.

Listening to the game on radio and not having seen any of it or read anything else about it, it's interesting how some players names get called regularly and others barely at all. Suggests to me the ones who's names are called regularly are working harder to get where the ball is although sometimes they make poor decisions and execution errors when (or if) they get the ball. The players who - according to the radio call - seemed to be always in the game (in no particular order) were Jones, Tyson, McDonald, Howe, Vince, Terlich, Frawley, Jetta, Dawes and Bail. More importantly, the ones who's names rarely got called included Tapscott, Blease, McKenzie, Pedersen, Riley and Watts. I would have thought the changes might come from this last group. If there are no injured players needing time out, perhaps Gawn should come in for Pedersen and Cross for McKenzie. I'd rather give Blease and Tapscott another chance than replace them with someone who's card is already marked - one way or the other.

Doesn't this just mean the byes aren't as important as the players seem to claim they are?

You're not a bad supporter. But you may very well be a bad gambler. Not because you might win your bet, but (Warning: moralistic advice follows) gambling should always be dispassionate. Once you allow passion to influence your gambling decisions, you reduce your ability to make sound betting decisions. Which is why betting on Melbourne when it plays Collingwood will always give you better odds than the game deserves as the bookies lay off the Magpies. Pity Collingwood supporters actually don't have real money - then Melbourne's odds would be even longer.

To be committing a crime you need to have a motive. Otherwise it's just happenstance. I can't see any benefit to be gained from "tanking" under the current rules.

So, if you've got him blocked and I quote him, you then get to see what he wrote? My apologies for exposing him to you.

Not convinced. When there was the possibility of a priority pick "tanking" made sense. Now it's just a question of which number draft pick and the chance to go up the order by a couple. Given history has shown that any one of the top 10 players in any draft can end up being the best in that cohort (and, of course sometimes outside the top 10) would there really be sufficient incentive to "tank"?

Presumably, however, Ekaterina failed a drug test. It's much easier and simpler for the authorities to act using methods of detection rather than deduction. In the latter, there's far more room for error in the process.

Of all the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of posts on Demonland about Scully moving to GWS, is this the first time it's been linked to "un-Australian" behaviour? Fine work, dee-luded.

Seriously, does anyone know what the rules are about player selections, emergencies and making replacements with players from outside the announced 25?

Not only was it almost invisible by being played on a Thursday, but it didn't start until 8.10 pm Melbourne time. How many people missed the end because, you know, the next day was a working day and they had to go to bed? As it happens, I saw most of the game including all the final quarter. Terrible standard made watchable by (a) being close and (b) Nate Fyfe's last quarter performance. I didn't see PA v Melbourne but the radio call made it sound similar. Just replace "Nate Fyfe's last" with "Jack Watts' third".

So now we have a new category to amuse Whispering Jack. Not only do we have a Mystery Injury of the Week (Grimes) but we appear to have a Mystery Recovery of the Week in Cross. Still, it makes a mockery of the team selection and announcement process if we announce a team on the Thursday which includes three emergencies and then replace someone on the Friday with a player who wasn't in that initial 25.

PS - I love Demonland. But two weeks of Demonland without any genuine football during the footy season tests us all.

I can't believe it's been only two weeks (minus a day or two) since we last played. It seems more like the off season (without the "excitement" of trading, drafting and training reports which suggest that our players are not just stars but are stars that shine so bright they can be seen on a cloudy night). Please AFL, can we get rid of all byes? But if we must have a bye, please keep it to only one for the season.

Humbugs are basically the same as Collingwood supporters - black and white striped (and no teeth)