La Dee-vina Comedia

As a matter of interest, did Peter Jackson ever go through the process of selecting a coach? (ie, was he still at Essendon when Matthew Knights was appointed?). It's not like he's come from a club that has had to deal with much "coach-stress". By the way, I'm not criticising Jackson. I think he's an excellent appointment, albeit temporary. But the very reason he's ideal for our club is because he knows how a successful, stable and passionate club operates...not how a soul-destroying, poorly performing one does.

I haven't seen any of the game, but I note in the stats that three of the first four highest disposal getters were first year players in M Jones, Viney and Terlich. Could it be that the players on the list pre-Neeld were so badly developed that they just don't get it? "It" being level of commitment, fitness and gameplan? That doesn't excuse the coach - it's his job to get the players to do what he wants. But I just wonder how much damage was inherited and how much is being added right now.

The only game I have ever been to specifically to see one player was to see G Ablett Sr. Can't remember who Geelong played, but it was out at Waverley in the mid-1980s. And he was very good that day playing in the midfield.

Neeld has confirmed Trengove is out with calf injury. And that Dawes will play.

Neeld has confirmed in press conference that Dawes is in and Trengove out (calf problem). Obviously there are other changes (ie, Grimes out).

Disagree. But MFC's twitter incorrectly stated "Read on to see why @NeeldMFC has alleviated @nathan2jones to Co-Captain while Grimes is injured".

Mate, you buried the lead...Jack Grimes on to LTI which means a rookie can be elevated.

And -1000 because rain is forecast. So, 12,231

So having heard for the last few years that the "most important" stat is contested possessions, are we of the belief that uncontested possessions are now more important? That doesn't sound right to me.

What could it do to Trengove's confidence to be told we're making Jones co-Captain? I don't think it was the right decision to make him and Grimes co-Captains (I don't support the concept of co-Captains, either). But once done, it shouldn't be undone. Robert Walls was quite a good coach, but understanding how to manage the psyche of his players was never one of his coaching attributes.

We've had plenty of top notch VFL players who haven't made it at the senior level - such as Paul Johnson. Which means we shouldn't assume Magner and Couch would necessarily make it at the top level. However, I thought we saw enough in Magner last year to give him a go and I'm sure his time will come. Couch I'm less sure about. As frustrating as it might be for Magner and us, I see no problem with him getting fitter, better skilled and hungrier in the twos. It's not like he's going to be the difference between us winning the Premiership or coming second this year.

I'm not convinced I can see what others see with respect to game style. But having said that, I thought in the first half against WCE we seemed to be playing man-on-man and in the second half we didn't. If I'm right, I wonder whether the change was a deliberate tactic of Neeld, a tactic of Worsfold or just a consequence of a lack of fitness or capability which brought the team undone. Can anyone advise?

Agree with this. In addition, I wonder how "conditioned" umpires have become to the principles behind relatively recent rules. Most criticism appears to surround umpires' interpretations of high profile rule changes, such as those associated with pushing in marking contests and head high bumps.

Whereas next week has plenty of tantalising games with difficult tipping choices to make, viz: Geelong v Essendon Port v Richmond Hawthorn v Sydney Fremantle v Collingwood Melbourne v Gold Coast (not so tantalising, but difficult for tipsters)

In one aspect, Terlich reminds me of Nathan Jones. When Jones first started, he kept trying to do too much and regularly turned the ball over because of it. I'm seeing the same with Terlich. Hopefully Terlich will adjust when he is more familiar with the pace of the game and be as productive as Nathan Jones has become. reason for edit: typo

I'll assume Watts and Jamar are still unavailable: Bail has been one of our best this year. I thought he was poor yesterday, but one of the papers claimed he did a good job tagging McLean. Even if the paper is wrong and I'm right, he still doesn't deserve to be dropped. And unless Trengove is injured, I can't see Neeld dropping one co-captain when the other is out injured. Finally, Tom McDonald should play. The best place for him to continue to develop is playing seniors footy. And I'm going to stick up for him and say he hasn't been playing as badly as many on this site claim. Out: Grimes, Nicholson In: Jetta, Dawes

Being "pretty pathetic" is our reality.

Just a query about the recruitment strategy. Using Rodan as an example, I believe we recruited him at around pick 80-something. Is there any benefit in picking him because he comes with a one year contract (if that's what he's on) rather than a completely new player who would be highly speculative at that same pick but be required to be offered a two year contract? In other words, is a highly speculative one year contracted player (with no long term future, but the ability to replace after one year) a better choice that a highly speculative two year contracted player (with a possible long term future)? By all means, if my assumptions (Rodan on a one year contract and all new players on mandatory minimum two year contracts) are incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

I must admit I had expected Garland or Frawley play forward this week. But rather than criticise, I'll say that (1) leaving Garland and Frawley in the backline and (2) playing Dunn on Judd - which occurred because Garland and Frawley both played back - were the correct moves. I thought they were the three of our best on the day.

Same players, different order: 6. Garland 5. Frawley 4. N Jones (clearly best in first half) 3. Dunn 2. M Jones 1. Tapscott Reason for edit: fix typo

While I can't support public urination, that line is one of the funniest things I've ever read on Demonland.

Sounds like the bio of the cast from "The Shire".

We should always keep in mind that it takes time to build up culture and very little time to damage it. If we believe in Bailey's time the culture went backwards (which I do), then it will take longer to repair that damage than it took to wreak it.

Gee, I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Demons HQ for the next fortnight. Should be a fascinating time.

It's not just getting hands on the ball first that we need to fix. We're still poor at defending when the opposition has the ball in any part of the ground but particularly through the corridor.