La Dee-vina Comedia

So, what has Brad Miller been doing throughout 2013? Has he been an assistant coach anywhere (not just AFL)? Or has he been doing the coaching diploma course?

Is this a statement of fact or a rumour that's on Demonland so people just choose to believe it? I'm pleased to see the suggestion that Watts will play midfield. He has deficiencies in his game which would be apparent wherever he's played, but all those weaknesses are rectifiable. If he gets it right, he could be one of the most damaging midfielders in the game.

Maybe we've all got it back to front. Perhaps Caro tells the AFL what to do and right now the AFL is waiting on her decision.

If lost money from gate receipts and TV rights is the AFL's main driver, we must be a shoo-in to get a Priority Pick. Our performance has been a drag on those particular metrics for years. On a slightly different tack, who was the genius that scrapped the previous formula for awarding priority picks and replaced it with "at the Commission's discretion"? Such a dumb idea that dooms the AFL to this type of politicking. And so easily avoided.

It's now gone international http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/single-dad_n_3944395.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

What bemuses me is why Demetriou believes he has to make comments in the media all the time, particularly on matters about which the AFL as a peak body should remain neutral. Nevertheless, I think he's been an excellent CEO (although I don't agree with everything that's been said and done), but I just wonder whether it's time for the AFL HQ to be refreshed.

If first year players can be nominated then in my view Toumpas was clearly the biggest improver over the year. But, if excluding first year players my order would be Watts, Garland, Fitzpatrick with an honourable mention to Spencer.

Have just caught up separately with two very keen Richmond supporters. Both would be happy for Martin to leave Richmond. While neither is connected to the club in any capacity, it still worries me that supporters are that keen to see the back of him. Rings my alarm bells.

So, who's left from the Neeld era? Just Rawlings?

There was a lot not to like about the Mark Neeld era. But he did change one thing for the better. Quality players - ie, Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes - decided to come to Melbourne. Prior to them coming, the last name player who had a choice and chose to come to Melbourne was...who? Kelvin Templeton?

Perhaps there's been some confusion and the 17 other clubs have agreed we can take Dustin Martin as a priority pr1ck.

That's a good question.

Where do these numbers come from? And how do they compare with a genuine midfielder, such as N Jones? Also, do you know how much is sprinting and how much is jogging to position?

My concern about Martin is the amount of internal resources used up to keep him on the straight and narrow. That would diminish development of other players. And how would the other players feel if they saw the mount of effort being put into him while they are (relatively) ignored? He's a great on-field talent but I question whether the amount of ongoing effort which seems likely to be consumed would be worth it, particularly as he's not the only player who could be recruited.

Richmond needs another ruckman; we have a surfeit of ruckmen (although of questionable merit). I don't think we should recruit Martin, but I'd be quite happy to participate in a three way trade of Spencer to Richmond, Martin to team X, such as GWS, and decent player from team X (who wants to leave GWS?) to us.

Better than what Dusty's father has on his http://twicsy.com/i/QDY9Sb Interesting genes

Chuckle: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/martin-to-stay-with-tigers-20130823-2she5.html

Agree.

Isn't there a rumour somewhere suggesting Martin wanted to move to NSW?

Might not be leaving for money. He may be unhappy for other reasons such as how he's been managed. He's clearly a player with talent but high risk. The question to ask is whether that risk is worth it.

In absolute terms, disagree. However, Jack F came with much lower expectations and exceeded them; Jack W comes with higher expectations and is yet to reach them. And every player has demands. Sometimes they're called hopes or wishes, but the rules state all players must have player managers and the managers and the club negotiate contracts. Each contract is where the player manager's demands and the clubs expectations meet.

Thanks. Immemorable bunch, although Barassi significantly improves it.

The Father-son story in today's paper suggested Melbourne has had poor returns from this form of drafting. The topic was briefly touched on in http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/35040-bringing-the-game-into-disrepute/ According to the story (can someone please post the link, I can't find it online) Melbourne has had 5 father-son selections who between them have played only 62 games. Whether Ron Barassi should be included in the list has been debated briefly in the above-mentioned thread. But clearly he's not one of the five. So who are they? Chris Johnson and Jack Viney presumably are two. But the others?

So, why does the rookie list exist? The only reasons I can see are that (1) players rookie listed get shorter initial contracts with clubs able to contract for 1 year whereas drafted players must be offered two years (2) it allows some number balancing with veterans which I don't really understand. What else?

Surely the best solution is for Cameron Schwab to go back to his roots and become CEO of Richmond.