La Dee-vina Comedia

I don't recall the two instances you are referring to, but there's no doubt it's difficult for the umpires. They have to make a decision as to whether the ball hit the fist or foot before it hits the ground. Often they are not in a position which enables them to see which leaves them guessing. I don't know what the instructions are in such a situation - should they be giving the benefit of the doubt to the player with the ball or the player who makes the tackle?

I was thinking a bit more broadly than the data from just one club... ...and Nutbeam has adequately addressed MFC, anyway.

For once you've posted something worth thinking about. But I think the evidence doesn't back up the argument. Since free agency came in how many players who were able to leave actually did so? If there was mass movement of players under free agency, I think your point has some validity. Perhaps that will happen in the future, but right now with most players choosing to remain with their club, I think your concern is unfounded.

So we should go for hard nuts in the first round like we did with Sylvia and McLean at picks 3 and 5? How well did that work out? And one game does not a champion make. Luke Tapscott was just about BOG in his first game playing off HBF while Jobe Watson and Gary Ablett Jr took years to develop, with the former nearly delisted by Essendon. Can we just agree on one thing? Every player is different.

Don't tell anyone at the Herald Sun. If they find out, lead story tomorrow will be "Rod Grinter comes out of the closet". Not that there's anything wrong with that

That's what I like to see. Equal mix of loyalty, bias and paranoia. What would footy be without it?

Next year we could have the 10 year reunion of the last Melbourne team to win a Round 1 game.

If you saw the game on TV, you'd see he was limping early in the match. I suspect he then had a painkilling injection and struggled because of that and because he was our only real forward and therefore relatively easy for St Kilda to contain. But here's what we should like...as far as I know, neither Howe nor the club has blamed injury for his poor performance. I'm confident he'll never play a worse game.

Gilbert handpassed when he was caught. Hence, he wasn't holding the ball. It was a poor handpass, but the fist connected with the ball - just - so the umpire called it correctly.

I agree with the first bit, but not the second. I believe the theory is that players are to be discouraged from pulling the ball under them because to do so causes ugly packs. Ergo, umpires are effectively penalising the player for causing a stoppage. I'm not sure I agree with the idea and I know I'm frustrated when players who make the play get penalised. But perhaps not to do so might make the game even more unsightly. (I wouldn't mind a trial game where players are not allowed to grab the ball at all if their knees are on the ground. It would be interesting to see how that works).

27 at 96% means just one disposal was ineffective. From memory, that might have been a hand pass out of a pack on his knees. But any on baller getting 96% efficiency with more than 20 possessions is extraordinary and extraordinarily valuable. I realise he won't always get 96% but as much as we love it, just imagine how much more Nathan Jones does! For two years (or more) he's been waiting for the cavalry to arrive and finally it's here.

Perhaps we've all forgotten how bad we were over the last two years. But at least Saturday night was (a) watchable and (b) we looked like we belonged in the AFL competition (albeit a poor quality team). Last year we were an embarrassment for the code.

Question: Would Bernie Vince have attempted those long-range shots for goal in Q1 if he'd had confidence that a big bloke in the square could take a mark, or at least make a contest? I don't know his game well enough to answer. But each was a stretch and perhaps a lower percentage option than the alternative would have been if a proper KPF was playing. Hence a contribution to the inaccuracy.

M Jones has always been one of those players who is very unobtrusive. Gathers possessions without notice - a bit like Daniel Cross (thinking more about Cross's games in previous years). Perhaps it's just me, but apart from the last quarter I had no impression that M Jones was exerting any influence.

Actually it was. But I know what you mean.

The primary reason we lost the game was a resource issue almost entirely due to injuries. Not only were we missing our big forwards before the game but Fitzpatrick, McDonald and Howe were all injured - McDonald and Howe early. I am confident we would have won that game without those injuries. Of the remaining players, JKH didn't do much, Pederson was poor and Cross and Michie didn't live up to expectations. However, a knee-jerk reaction of wholesale changes won't help. I suspect Howe will be OK next week but Fitzpatrick and McDonald must be considered doubtful. If Fitz and McD don't play, Pederson is going to have to get another game, although he doesn't deserve it unless by some miracle two of Hogan, Dawes, Jamar or Garland play. If fit, Viney should play as should Gawn. So, depending on injury, Out: McDonald, Fitzpatrick, JKH In: Gawn, Viney and McKenzie (if fit and if one of the miracles listed above doesn't happen). It's not like for like - but there are no other fit big men to come in.

I was there but too young to remember much. The only bit of play I remember was Ron Barassi and one other Melbourne player streaming forward to the city end in front of the old Members Stand with a give and get handball from Barassi to whoever and back to Barassi. (So when people say Barassi invented handball in the 1970 Grand Final...tell them they're dreaming.)

Late, but neverthless: 6 - N Jones 5 - Watts 4 - Dunn (and it's time I apologised to him. He now looks like he belongs) 3 - Tyson 2 - Trengove 1 - Bail (would have been just after the top three if he could convert his great link-up play with better disposal) Maybe it's just me, but I'm surprised at the number of people putting M Jones in the votes. I thought he was terrific in the last quarter but barely noticed in the first three.

Isn't the Demon represented on the emblem by the trident (why else is it there)? Having said that, I'm ambivalent about the emblem and couldn't care less if it stayed as it is or was changed...which I guess means it hasn't really grabbed me the way perhaps it should.

BBO, you must love Skywhale

Stuie, thankyou for not using the "chew gum and walk at the same time" cliche

No pressure

Except Stuie

Is there a rule that says the sub must come from the four named on the bench? With respect to choosing a sub, I'm not a fan of anyone being a sub who can't or won't be asked to play on ball. With the limited rotations and pressure that on ballers face, why would a side pick as a sub someone who's just going to sit in the forward pocket? Too often I've seen teams play a sub who comes on for the last quarter and then barely gets involved because he's out of the play. Seems like a poor tactical decision. In my view, from the list of players selected, the best choice for sub would be M Jones, Michie, Terlich or Bail (or any one of the emergencies if they play).

I think you meant to say "when we play Hawthorn I imagine them getting 18 crucial injuries early and a couple of our players playing blinders." Otherwise it's not a realistic option.