La Dee-vina Comedia

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?

Old Dee, surely you know that there are many Demonlanders who don't like revelling in the glory days. We have to talk about the future not dwell on our successful past.

Based on the above, there seems to be a view (although not unanimous) that with hard work and better decision making, players can improve their kicking. So why do so many posters say Nicholson should never play again? Surely if he can fix up his kicking he would become an excellent player given he has the other attributes we seek. And a point about Tom McDonald. in the first couple of weeks after Neil Craig took over it seemed to me that Tom was handpassing at every opportunity whereas under Neeld he seemed to kick more often.

Wow. Delist or trade Gawn, Trengove and Watts! I think not.

It seems to me as supporters we are very quick to dismiss players with poor skills. Sure, turnovers kill us and Nicholson, McDonald and Grimes are some of the worst turnover kings. The question is: can kicking be improved in AFL players? By the time a player is drafted, if he isn't a good kick, can he ever become one? (For the purpose of this thread, a good kick is someone who reliably hits a target.) If you believe kicking can be improved, can you please provide some examples. I can't think of anyone who's been converted from a poor kick into a reliable one.

Yes, if we had one A-grader any time in the last 10 years it would add weight to the argument that we'd been able to develop him so the others we recruited must have been intrinsically poorer to begin with or they, too, would have developed into A-grade performers. Or to look at it another way, Travis Johnstone, Jeff White and Jack Watts were all pick number 1 - did any of them consistently deliver A-grade performances? They've all shown talent and that they had (or have) sublime skills...but none of them truly dominated their position. I know I'm being a bit harsh on Jeff White, but he didn't consistently deliver A-grade performances. And neither have any of our other earlier picks, such as Sylvia, Trengove, etc. .

It's hard to tell on TV but did Howe spend most of the game at full forward against GWS? I wonder whether he's suffering from being expected to be the second main forward, after Watts. I don't like playing Howe up the ground, but he's always going to struggle if we expect him to be a key position forward. We had the same problem many times when we expected Russell Robertson to play full forward. I agree Howe hasn't contributed much lately, but if Dawes comes back, I'd like to see Howe playing as the third key forward and leave out Gawn (or Fitzpatrick if he's injured or "needs a rest"). I think Nicholson should come in for Davey to tag Ablett. I doubt McKenzie could keep up with him. And while I don't think Byrnes was our worst, I'd rather play Blease than him because I doubt Byrnes will be playing next year.

This has been discussed in D'land many times, so I won't go on about it other than to say I believe it's statistically unlikely that we haven't recruited at least one A-grade player in the last 10 years. Ergo, I believe the problem is primarily with player development.

I should have qualified my claim that the midfield is 'the easiest part of a list to put together' by pointing out that my statement assumes competent recruitment and competent player development. I'm convinced our failure to have a decent midfield is partly about poor recruitment but primarily due to appalling player development.

Joeboy - has given up?