La Dee-vina Comedia

Agree with everything above plus he has consistently improved his game, year on year.

Can someone explain the voting system? Isn't it something like every player gets a vote out of 6 from the coaches? If that's correct, it can give a different result than necessarily expected with players being rewarded for regularly playing. (So expect Dunn to get a lot of votes). Also, is it correct that last year we didn't have a best first year player but some other concocted award for the best almost a first year player?

It's fair enough to look at the case against. If the Melbourne coaching selection panel doesn't do this, they would be failing in their duty. But I suspect a similar list could be made for every other potential coach. The better question is whether the list of points for outweighs the list of points against.

Best line of the year - and not just on Demonland. Take a bow, Master. I agree, and neither is Jeremy Howe. But when you've got such a poor midfield, occasionally players like Grimes and Howe need to go there. If we can get a proper midfield, I'm convinced Grimes can settle on HBF and Howe on wing or HFF.

Is our win rate statistically worse at Docklands than elsewhere? I thought we were equally poor everywhere.

Just seeking clarification. Did he say "after the Grand Final" or after that team's final game for the year?

So that's her Father's Day duty done.

If nothing else, at least we get to play in September.

if Jesus Christ is appointed head coach, expect this guy to get a game.

Has anyone checked they weren't playing a repeat of AFL 360 from the week before the last home and away round in 2012...or 2011 or...

I hope Taggert plays. Giving new players one or two games at the end of a season seems to be a good strategy*. Grimes, Rivers, Fitzpatrick and T McDonald and probably some others all got their starts this way. *'Strategy' probably overstates Melbourne's selection policies over the years.

I suspect it's all part of the Grand Compromise of 2013 (copyright). The history books will shown Essendon improved three places in 2013 compared with 2012. And i think the earlier suggestion that it avoids some argy-bargy on betting outcomes shouldn't be ignored. Personally, as much as I would always like to finish higher on the ladder than every other team, to have done so this year by virtue of Essendon being placed below us would have been an insult to the competition. How would it look if we, with our pathetic performances were shown in the history books to be the third worst team.

Rules need to be constantly changed because the coaches do not care about how the game looks. Their only motivation is to win, whether it's winning ugly or not. So, coaches will do whatever they can within the rules as they stand to gain an advantage. If that means the game gets uglier, coaches don't care. Which is why the holding the ball rule is what it is. Coaches used to train their players not to let the ball go free, even if they were on the ground, thereby inevitably causing a stoppage which was seen as a better percentage risk (ie, 50/50). So the rule was changed so that if the umpire believes the player dragged the ball in, a free will be paid against that player.

Are you basing that on data (such as possession differentials or GPS data), scores or your own observation?

Strongly disagree. Draft and pre-season provide entertainment without immediate disappointment.

You must have prayed to the God of Dyslexia

So, are you fit enough to slot into our midfield?

Is Misson also responsible for size and strength? Our players, with a few exceptions, look comparatively smaller than their opposition which means they have more difficulty sticking tackles and similarly breaking them. Interestingly, most of the players who appear to have better size have come from other clubs (Sellar, MacDonald, Rodan) although that doesn't necessarily make them better footballers.

I never did understand how those old crystal radios worked. But it was how I listened to the Brownlow Medal before it was a 'televisual feast' (with apologies to John Cleese and Connie Booth)

Shame on you Robbie. Surely you know that AFL rules stipulate that Melbourne players and 'tank' are not allowed to be used in the same sentence. You might have to be suspended.

And I see that the AFL is also investigating the numbers of non-playing personnel on the field (presumably runners, trainers and waterboys and girls). I'm all for a restriction on runners. The number I'd go with is zero.

Nice and optimistic as it at least suggests there is a future

Surely one look at our performance over the last two years should be enough to convince anyone that either we didn't take any performance enhancing drugs or supplements...or if we did, we should get our money back.

Uncontrolled interchange numbers benefits running players. However, it also penalises key position players like Nick Reiwoldt who find that they have to work harder because they can burn off one defender only to see him replaced with another. I don't know if I'm for or against the cap - but I sympathise with the hard running key position players under the current unrestricted system.

Marginally better than "First and worst"