La Dee-vina Comedia

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).

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.