La Dee-vina Comedia

I think what's wrong is less the option but more the execution. I appreciate your argument, but with our (1) foot skills being so poor and (2) our spread so poor, I think the inboard kick is still a high risk option. That being said, if that's what the future holds, I guess we have to be patient while the team leans to execute it successfully.

Actually, couldn't disagree more. I couldn't see anything in the Bailey years that looked like a plan whereas Neeld has shown a much more professional approach. While the Bailey years were more successful to date on field, I still think he was putting in some pretty decor while the foundations were rotting. Neeld has started with the structure and (if he gets the chance) should pretty it up once the foundations are firm.

As a group (ie, we Demonlanders) we bemoan coaches who don't try different things. More precisely, we bag our own coach for allegedly not trying things. Yesterday we tried the huddle approach for kick ins. I didn't think it worked, but at least Neeld was trying something. What I'm really struggling to understand, though, is the kick inboard from the half back flank boundary. Not the switch, but the kick from the 40m out HBF basically toward centre half back. We did that a lot. Especially Terlich (but I'm not blaming him. He did it most because he got the ball most). Why?

Just one more point to add. Bailey seemed to believe he could create a big, solid forward from scratch drafting Watts and Cook for the purpose. Neeld recognised he couldn't wait that long and went out and got Clark and Dawes. Hogan's just a bonus who now has time to develop with other large bodies forwards around him. Neeld now has to get the midfield organised...and quickly.

It was just great to have a big, solid forward target who can lead, mark and kick. No disrepect to Clark, but he's not the "solid" (in body shape) target that we've missed since David Neitz retired.

Clearly we all see different things. For the life of me, apart from his two goals, I didn't see anything encouraging in Dunn's game. I saw plenty of poor disposals and ineffective kick ins from behinds and not much else.

6. Davey (it's nice to see good foot skills again) 5. Garland 4. Terlich 3. Jamar 2. M Jones 1. N Jones Toss up between Magner and the Jones boys for the last two spots.

Dunn's "kicking to advantage"? Really? Apart from his two goals (which were both excellent kicks), I thought his kicking was quite poor.

At least we'd be less likely to give away frees for head high tackles.

So was I. It was not intended to be a slight on Magner. I'm pleased he's been picked.

Surely Sellar has to play on Vickery. None of the other available defenders is tall enough.

He's not even the slowest on our list. Surely Sellar has that title.

I'm not a Sellar fan and am surprised he's still on our list, let alone getting a game. But, with Tom McDonald out, who else would you pick to play on Vickery? It seems to me Richmond have identified height in our backline as a potential area to exploit (why else play Stephenson...so Vickery can play forward), so I suspect Sellar is picked to counter that. Of course, if Vickery doesn't play, Sellar becomes a huge liability as there is no other obvious match up for him.

I think Melbourne beating Essendon last year might be ahead of it, if only just.

As much as I don't like the article, it's only because it hurts to read how poor we've become. Imagine if the names "Richmond" and "Melbourne" were swapped in that article and how much we'd all relish reading the story. Richmond supporters will be loving what they read. Connolly has just done his job - and he's done it better than our team has recently. As always, the best response is to beat the Tigers on the weekend. Not only will a win make us feel better, it will make Richmond (and its supporters and the media) question their performance level. The longer Richmond stays out of finals the better, if only because (as I'm sure I've read somewhere else on Demonland) they're the only team without a finals appearance for a longer period than us.

Our previous experience with No 1 draft picks does not augur well for her development.

Well argued, pm24. You've even made me re-think my pessimism about the Coach. I've been patiently behind Neeld since he started, but following the Gold Coast game I started questioning my support for him. You've got me back on board. Note: My only quibble with your article is where you say we've been in a poor state for over a decade. It's a lot longer than that.

Not if we can't get the ball out of the middle in the first place.

You're not Mark Latham, are you?

Dear gentle readers, please don't assume I wrote something inappropriate in my previous post. My [censored] word above started with 'i', ended with 't' and had 'dio' in the middle. That auto-censor tool is a powerful thing!

And I hope he's looking at value for money. Any idiot can spend more money than the next bloke.

It's from this 2008 article.

A CEO of any organisation should have no more than 6 people reporting to him/her. I would have thought at an AFL club only one of those should be football related; the others should include things such as membership, marketing, administration, commercial and operational (although some of these could be consolidated). I'd like to see a structure with a Head of Football reporting to the CEO. That Head of Football should not be the coach but someone to whom the coach as well as the list manager and head of sports performance reports. Apart from anything else, under this model the Head of Football would put space between the coach and the CEO...which keeps the CEO out of the coach's hair.

You left out other previous winners, including Jack Watts, Tom Scully, Jack Trengove, Cale Morton and Brock McLean (for his financial donation, not his appearance on TV)

BUMP Is it time to revisit this article? I appreciate Whispering Jack and others have identified a number of factual flaws (see WJ's post #55 above), but is there a possibility that the cronyism suggested has been detrimental to the club? I appreciate Jim Stynes is no longer with us, but others named in the article (Greg Healy, Todd Viney, Chris Connolly, Russell Robertson and, until recently, Cameron Schwab, are, although I'm not sure about any role Garry Lyon might have).