La Dee-vina Comedia

Perhaps I've read this excellent piece differently, but I don't think WJ is suggesting Smith would be gifted to Melbourne to add to our list. Rather WJ is thinking outside the square and suggesting that the AFL Commission may give Melbourne some assistance by allowing (in fact, requiring) us to "sell" the rights to an underage player to the best bidder as GWS did last year with Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin. In that way, Melbourne has an opportunity to get a player (or draft pick) surplus to requirements at a club willing to part with that player (or draft pick) in turn for the rights to the underage player. It's a very clever way for the AFL to give Melbourne some assistance without tampering with this year's draft. So instead of discussing whether Smith would fit in with our team, we should be discussing which player (or draft pick) would another team be prepared to put on the table in return for us providing them with the rights to an underage player. And if I've completely misunderstood WJ's piece and that's not what he said, I'll claim copyright over this idea and send it on to the AFL as an idea to help Melbourne.

Probably when Jeff White was in his prime...and rucking on his own.

I suspect Grimes would be better suited to the running back role once we get a half-decent midfield. Both he and Howe are being used in the midfield when both, to me, look better suited to other positions. I don't blame the coaches for playing Grimes and Howe on ball - that's just our current reality. And I think Kent looks like a natural on baller with his driving left foot. He just needs the chance to get fit.

I think the inconsistency argument can be found in a number of threads. I suspect there are just as many who claim former 'spuds' have become 'elite' as there are those who bemoan any rule changes and then call for an immediate redrafting of some rule or other.

I had automatically assumed Frawley would be replaced by Pedersen or Sellar. I much prefer the idea of playing Davis. I've seen what Pedersen and Seller bring and it's nothing special (I"m being overly complimentary there). And while Nicholson's disposal was poor against the Swans, I'd still keep him in the side to run with Selwood.

For those who didn't see it, on Footy Classified last night, there was brief reference to Gawn/Fitzy and comparing their output in the last 2 games to Jamar's using statistics (disposals, goals, etc) as a measure. It was very brief, but the conclusion was obvious. Gawn and Fitzy are not just the future but possibly the here and now.

One of the interesting dilemmas for the competition is whether it should be OK for people involved officially (such as coaches, players, etc) to criticise the umpires. On the one hand, the AFL correctly is concerned that too much criticism will undermine recruitment campaigns to get umpires involved at all levels of the competition. On the other, the best way to get improvement at the top level is to have criticism to which the umpiring department should respond. I'm in favour of a compromise - some form of official channel to complain but with transparency of the process. Perhaps clubs could be given the opportunity to put their complaints in writing to the umpires department and for those complaints and the umpiring department's response to be published on the AFL website. By making it a written process, it takes the emotive component away but by making it transparent, it would make the clubs and the umpiring department think about what they wish to say and how they wish to state it.

My concern is that the ball was in the Swans forward half a gazillion times and he only had 17 possessions. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

Well, now I have no idea! I'm sort of like the man with two watches telling different times and not knowing which to choose.

Would have thought that if he were to leave Collingwood he'd want to re-join Malthouse at Carlton. I could see a Warnock/Hampson swap for Harry O being acceptable to both parties, perhaps with Carlton also throwing in a set of steak knives.

Actually, I think the gold medal this week should go to that Schmitt decision in the Geelong v Hawthorn game when Kelly's kick was adjudged to have been deliberately kicked out. Truly a Schmitt decision.

Or was it because the rules say the player returning the ball to play after a behind must kick it in? He hand balled it instead. Which makes me wonder what would have happened if he'd just stepped back over the line without hand passing or kicking. I can recall another game this year where a player who I vaguely recall might have been Jason Blake at St Kilda forgot to kick the ball and handpassed it to a player instead. If I recall correctly, that resulted in a free kick to whoever the opponent was that day.

A few games under Neil Craig and one thing has become obvious to me which wasn't before. Our players are actually quite good at following coach's instructions. How else to explain the dramatic change in playing style over the last few weeks. The question is - were they that good at following instructions pre-Neeld or is this a longer-term benefit from Neeld's tenure?

It was just nice to go to the football and believe we actually belong in this competition. Pre-Craig we were an embarrassment. Now we are bunch of strugglers with some potential trying hard - and it's much better to watch because of it.

I'll need to look at it again. I thought at the time he'd bounced the ball, it had come back to him and he'd disposed of it before he was tackled. Edit: Just had a look at the replay (last free kick paid to Sydney if anyone else is interested. He was tackled after he bounced the ball but the ball came back to him and as soon as it came back to him he hand passed it).

Why don't you ask him - you're a regular at training? I'd love to know the answer.

Seems to me Neil Craig has issued Tom with an instruction. "Don't kick it...ever. Always look for the handpass option". Maybe it's time he said the same think to Nicholson (actually, just joking. Nicholson's pace means his combination of run and kick makes him a 60-70m player. Just, at the moment, not an accurate 60-70m player. Craig needs to get Nicho working on his kicking).

I think Joeboy was pretty close to the money. But I need to ask Joeboy, why "Dunn - good but flawed"? I get the "flawed" bit but struggle to find the "good". Every week Dunn and Terlich play in the backline and Terlich gets about 10 more possessions per week. I don't see Dunn as contributing much. And as I've written before, I think his kicking is over-rated as his big hoofs go too high leaving it relatively easy for the opposition to spoil. What do you see?

6. Garland 5. Fitzpatrick 4. Terlich (started poorly but improved) 3. M Jones 2. Frawley (would have got 6 votes if votes were cast just before he left the ground) 1. Dawes Neil Craig needs to show Jack Watts some video of Chris Dawes's desperation. His chasing through the middle of the ground was exemplary and a part of the game Jack needs to improve. I'm actually surprised Watts has been given votes. I didn't think he played particularly well - not badly, but not well enough to get my nod for votes.

Actually, overhead a discussion at the ground yesterday where one guy said GWS was after Jamar. I've not heard that before (apologies if it's already been posted elsewhere). If so, I'd be quite happy to trade out Jamar at this time. He's been a good servant and deserves our thanks, but I'd rather develop the younger talent on the list.

i thought the umpiring was the worst I've seen. But I didn't think it necessarily overly favoured the Swans. But can anyone explain what happened when Jack Watts was penalised in the forward pocket, city end? He had the ball, danced back and forth around a couple of Swans, took an eternity but bounced the ball and then (I think) hand passed it. Umpire paid a free against him for incorrect disposal. Did the ump think he bounced the ball when he was tackled? Clearly he bounced the ball before being tackled.

Four, if you include Nick McKenzie whose name appears at the bottom of the article. Mind you, Baker and McKenzie (the journos, not the law firm) are a bit like Lennon and McCartney. Both are credited with writing what perhaps only one really produced. (And, for trivia freaks, it's 50 years this week since The Beatles recorded "She Loves You")

Presumably Essendon is using a PR firm and that firm suggested it. And probably wrote, or at least vetted, the script. The better question might be, why does the PR firm think it is in Essendon's best interests for the President to speak publicly now? The timing hints at the possibility Essendon was aware of The Age front page story today and wanted to get some positive spin out there in advance.

Perhaps I was sub-consciously thinking too negatively hoping that wet weather might reduce the losing margin.

It's quite possible Neeld seemed like the "good cop" at Collingwood because he worked under "bad cop" Mick Malthouse.