La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

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.