La Dee-vina Comedia

I thought G Lyon was direct and clear on FC last night that he did speak to Clarkson. And I wouldn't expect him to criticise Neeld given his involvement in the appointment process. Not at all strange. If he had said anything else that would have been the lead story in the media, not Gerard Healy's comments.

It's all very well to say the Board should resign. But someone has to replace them for that to occur. The appropriate process is for others to nominate for positions on the Board, either as individuals or as a new ticket. Then members can decide who they would wish to elect to do the job. So, if you're not a club member (i) stop complaining until (ii) you become a paid up member so you can have your say whenever the next elections are held. And Peter Jackson is accountable to the Board, not the other way around. Some posters on here seem to think it's his job to fix the Board. Sure, he can make recommendations to the Board as to how it should operate, but it's not his role to change the personnel on the Board. That's the members' role.

While it seems crazy, it's not. It helps prevent the AFL from facing a restraint of trade action. Players have very little say in which team they play for (none, really, until they are free agents). Which means a top quality player may end up at a dud club. If teams at the bottom of the ladder pay less than those higher up, players will be earning less even though they have no capability of moving to where they can earn more. That's unfair.

I like the idea of replacing the Veteran's list category with a sliding scale for salary weighting so that for every two years a player stays at a club, there is a 10% reduction in that player's salary with respect to calculation of the salary cap up to a maximum of 50%. In other words, for years 1 and 2, 100% of salary is counted; for years 3 and 4, 90% of salary is counted, etc. It would help clubs retain players. Players Association won't like it, but all it really does is call their bluff when they say players don't move for the money.

I love working with dodgy stats and false logic. Using the same idea, I reckon Bailey was judged harshly given most of the time he was coach we were playing teams above us on the ladder. (Include here spurious claim that the AFL is against us, too, for constructing the draw in a way that we always seem to be playing teams above us on the ladder). And, similarly, if the Hawks lose, Clarkson's a dud because Hawthorn will be losing to a team below them on the ladder. (But if it's going to happen, please make it this week).

We have a huge list of coaches, assistant coaches, support staff, etc. But do we have a team psychologist? Seems like we need one.

Lyon inherited a fine team, though. This is the only reason I would move Neeld on right now and only if the damage is irreparable...and even if the fault is with some prima donna players. Other than for that reason I can't see how moving him on now benefits the team irrespective of the pain we may have to go through for the next 10 weeks. At about round 18 I'd wield the axe unless the remarkable happens and we turn things around. However, if I was on the Board I would be looking now at my options for a permanent replacement. But it would have to be done very circumspectly. My starting point would be to list every potential coach and start looking at reasons why they might and might not be suitable candidates.

Actually, I'd rather do it the other way round.

So, why can Melbourne-listed players at Casey play so well and why does Casey play well (most weeks) and Melbourne not? Why do we have plenty of VFL stars who don't seem to be able to play at the next level? For all but approx three hours a week all the Melbourne-listed players have the same coaching and fitness regimes. From what I've read on here, I believe Casey is playing the same game plan as Melbourne (please correct me if I'm wrong). It gives me hope for the future that our 2nds aren't also basket-cases.

Really? I'm a member and don't remember being involved in any decision or even being told we've been put into administration. I think we need to be very careful making assumptions about corporate responsibility. As far as I'm concerned, the corporate governance scheme currently in place is that Peter Jackson reports first, foremost and only to the Board. The Board, as part of its licence (franchise) agreement is accountable to the AFL. I have no doubt the AFL is taking a keen interest and that Peter Jackson's appointment not only has the support of the AFL but may well have been encouraged by the AFL, but whether we like it or the AFL likes it, Jackson is still accountable to the Board and us as members. Conversely, and what follows from the above, is that as members, we need to take responsibility for appointments to the Board. So, rather than just blaming the Board, we should be actively considering how to improve it. I hope the next round of elections will be a very interesting time.

Disagree with the opening post. Don't forget a few weeks ago Demetriou publicly suggested James Hird should be thinking about whether he should stand down. For what it's worth, I think Demetriou has been the best CEO the AFL has had in my memory (I remember back to the 1960s). He's not perfect, but I don't see any bias for or against any individual team in the competition.

Just thinking about those injuries Davey referred to, I wonder whether his B&F year came at a huge cost? I don't believe he has ever had the body to be a permanent on-baller in what is a brutal, physically demanding game. Flashes (deliberate pun) here and there are fine, but in his B&F year he played most of the time on or behind the ball getting regularly crunched. It may be that his best performing year cruelled his subsequent years at the club. And I join the chorus is stating that he was a beacon in the game against Richmond showing foot skills that we can only dream about in everyone else at the moment.

More importantly, I hope we have Peter Jackson tightly contracted for the remainder of his initial 6 month term. Hate to lose him now to Essendon.

I'm not in the "Terlich is a good ball user" camp. At least, not yet. Hopefully he'll become better but right now he tries to do too much (a bit like N Jones in his early years) and as a consequence too often disposes poorly because he's under pressure. But there is definitely something to work with there. At least he knows how to get the ball.

I'm not sure that we should assume running an AFL club is any harder than an NRL club. Different code and some different issues, but many things will be the same. The football component of both jobs will be offset by many similar responsibilities on the commercial and compliance side.

There may be substance to the story, but it's also published on a Wednesday which is the day the media haul out the dross given last weekend's matches are old news and there's nothing really to write about yet for the coming round. I note Jay Clark has helpfully noted that Frawley has played in 30 wins out of 109 games. That's a strike rate of 27.5% which I'd venture to suggest is better than his journal's prediction of player movements over the same period.

A forward line of Clark Kent and phonebooth would be awesome.

I agree with that point (I assume you mean Davis, not Davey).

Except that four of the above-named either haven't played a game or are not regulars in the starting 22.

For most of the year our small forwards have played alongside undersized or inappropriate choices for KPFs. With Dawes and eventually Clark, small forwards should have better opportunities. That being said, Byrnes is an OK player and not a star. We've been using him in the midfield because at least he can kick with precision, but he's not got the strength to play that role regularly. Byrnes and Davey in the same side, however, might balance both the forward line and on-ball brigade. In answer to the opening post, yes, he was definitely missed because he could spend a few minutes on ball, like Davey, and add goal kicking presence at the foot of Dawes the rest of the time. But it wouldn't have been enough for us to win the game.

So, who's rucking for Freo at the moment?

Sellar can only be played when we need a gorilla defender. He's otherwise too slow. Love his effort, but he's severely limited by his lack of pace. Would rather we persist with Tom McDonald.

Matthew Knights built Essendon's spine so that they've subsequently improved quickly with the addition and development of quality mids. This strikes me as the correct way to go given the slower pace of development of key position players. It's why Hawthorn and Geelong have been so good and (in a prediction which I hope won't come back to bite me) Carlton and Richmond are not going to make it to the top. Both the Blues and Tigers have excellent midfields, but by the time they get their key position players sorted out, the midfielders may be past their prime.

As a side issue, was that the right option for Davey in the first place? I would have thought he had more time and space than he realised, could have run in closer to goal and had the shot himself. (Note: I'm not criticising him for the decision, just asking whether others saw it that way.)

And he started in the centre for one post-goal ball up. I'd like to see him in the centre like that once or twice a quarter. I appreciate that he can only do that if his fitness levels allow.