La Dee-vina Comedia

As a matter of interest, who are the selectors?

I agree. But be prepared for an outpouring of anger if a Melbourne-listed player gets a serious injury while playing finals for Casey. To pre-empt that I'll just say that injuries happen in pre-season training, too.

Maybe St Kilda might have the highest number. A foundation club with a worse record than even the MFC has had in the last few years. You'd assume they must have turned over a lot of players in their time.

I agree with you. My point, though, is that I'm not sure anyone knows whether the stuff the players took actually does anything at all.

Robert Flower certainly made watching a poor football team watchable.

Not sure about that. I have no doubt they intended to boost their player development but I'm not yet convinced that anything taken (legal or not) has actually been proven to improve performance or player development.

As is this

Actually, I think there's more hope for us now than throughout the 70s. It's got nothing to do with how we play today - which is as bad as it's ever been - but everything to do with the structural changes made to the AFL (then called VFL) in the mid-1980s. The salary cap, draft and trading rules give no hoper clubs a chance to fix themselves if they have competent administration and coaching. Back in the 70s and early 80s, teams like Carlton, Richmond and Collingwood bought success by plucking the cream out of WA, SA, Tasmania and struggling Victorian clubs.

Greg Hutcheson, perhaps? And I'm not even sure I spelled his surname correctly.

Mind you in the second half of the 60s and through the 70s we were consistently bad which meant we rarely made it onto TV. Those were the days when there were 6 games on a Saturday afternoon with no live TV broadcasts.Football Replay was must viewing on Saturday night but Melbourne rarely appeared. In short, if you didn't go to the game you barely noticed Melbourne's existence. There is an argument that it was less depressing because there was less bad football to watch. But throughout that time Melbourne was a virtually invisible team.

Tuddenham playing for Frankston. There's a name that brings back memories.

Just our luck. I'm sure we would have won the 23rd.

We're probably thinking of the same season - I thought it was 1981.

Didn't we win only one game (and only just) in Barassi's first year as coach (1981, I think)?

Pleased to see Davis get a game but I wonder whether he'll play back or forward? And, if back, who of Pedersen, McDonald, Garland or Dunn goes forward? Personally, I'd try Davis forward as none of the others inspire me as forwards. I note MFC is pointing out that Davis is MFC's 1300th player. Given the age of the MFC, I wonder whether he's the first player of any club to be number 1,300. Anyone know?

If Jack Watts wants to leave and another club is prepared to take him, what does that other club think it can do with him that Melbourne hasn't been able to do? I'd rather keep Watts and sack our development coaches.

I agree. I think the $1.12 is great value.

I understand your position. I suspect smarter Essendon supporters (and club administrators) would be hoping that if points are to be deducted it's for this year not next. Surely they realise that they're not good enough to win the flag in 2013.

bb59, I think you're conflicted. If Essendon lose points this year before the final series, Carlton may end up in the eight by default. How will you cope with that? Edit: typo

So it seems the players will be safe because (according to media reports) ASADA can't tell who took what, the players have provided no positive test results and the consent forms signed were insufficient in that they didn't differentiate between approved and non-approved supplements. While the knee jerk reaction might be to suggest that this is a bad result, I actually think it's a good one as long as significant penalties are handed out to the club. I've always believed the players were innocent pawns (irrespective of the WADA directive that players are responsible for what they take). Whether the AFL-supporting community is satisfied will depend on what penalties the AFL now imposes. It's somewhat similar to the tanking matter in that there is no proof that Melbourne tanked and, apparently, no proof that Essendon players took non-approved supplements. However, I think Essendon's culpability is greater as it took the game into a greater area of disrepute than did (allegedly) Melbourne. I'm not convinced that there will be points taken away or draft restrictions, but I think a number of the employees of the Essendon Football Club will be suspended or forced to stand down. If Dean Bailey can be suspended for 16 weeks (is that the right amount? correct me if I'm wrong) then I think James Hird will be suspended for 12 months. And I don't think he'll be the only one.

I think that's a problem for Dean Kent. Good, booming left foot in the mold of Luke Hodge but because he doesn't use his right the opposition will know and work out how to restrict his output.

No, I wouldn't trade our first pick except for a few selected players who are proven performers at the highest level (but not available) such as Ablett, Hannebery or Dangerfield . We should recruit the best available midfielder and develop him properly. It's the last three words in that previous sentence that matter most. If we can't do that, any player we trade for will go backwards anyway.

With respect to recruitment, I would have thought it doesn't matter whether we finish last or second last. If GWS is last, Tom Boyd goes to GWS or whoever they trade Pick 1 to. We would then choose the best midfielder available. If we finish last, we still choose the best midfielder available because there is no point in picking another key position player with our first pick, irrespective of how good he is.

I think you're confusing him with the famous sign outside a Hawthorn church in the 1970s: "What would you do if Jesus Christ came to Hawthorn" to which some wag added "Move Peter Hudson to Centre Half Forward".

So, would you play Nicholson?