La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

We have to fix endemic off-field problems associated with poor player development processes. To my mind, of the first choice players only Sylvia and N Jones (and maybe Howe and Bail) have AFL-ready bodies. Everyone else appears to be too thin/light (eg, Watts, Frawley) or insufficiently fit (eg, Blease, Strauss) or both for the roles they are expected to play. I suspect Rodan, Sellar, Pedersen and Gillies were introduced to bring the bigger, fitter bodies into the club while the under-developed talent is made fitter and stronger. Unfortunately, I don't think Rodan or Sellar are good enough (I haven't seen enough of Pedersen and have seen none of Gillies, to form a view about their capabilities). So, I'm of the view we should focus more on the development and worry less about the specific talent on the list. And to this end, I'm pleased we have Misson and Craig.

If Demonland existed during World War II I suspect there would be calls to sack Winston Churchill 14 months in; and, perhaps more recenetly and relevantly, in 1988 there would have been calls to delist Jim Stynes. Give the bloke a chance. I hate losing; I hate uncompetitive performances; but a culture of shafting a coach after less than 2 years is not going to encourage any quality candidates to apply. Let's just get behind Neeld, his coaching team and the players.

Wow. He must have had a blinder in the 4th quarter. That was the one I didn't see. In the first three quarters I was wondering what he was doing out there. And more troubling, that's what he seemed to be thinking. I respect your opinion, but Strauss can't play McDonald's position. One's a KPF and the other a small defender.

Fair comment

When we actually had opportunities in the forward line yesterday there was no true forward to kick to until Watts went forward. If Clark and Dawes don't play, I'd play Watts in the forward line and drop Pederson. I'd then bring Dunn in to take up Watts position in the backline. Based on reports on recent Casey games, I'd also bring in Strauss and move Grimes back to the midfield and drop Rodan, I can't see what he's offering. Finally, Davey should either play a full game (my preference) or go back to Casey. Two games as the sub is enough for any player. Blease, if he stays in the side, could be the sub.

With all due respect, he's better than Danny Hughes. There are plenty of posts about the lack of bulk in our more recent draftees such as Gysberts, Morton and Watts. But Frawley is also undersized for the job he's given. I am now convinced that the Bailey years have set us back enormously because so many of our players are still physically under-developed and still unfit. And Frawley played pretty well yesterday.

How can anyone work out what's going on when watching games on Channel 7? You don't see enough of the ground to know how we set up. But when at the MCG this year it appeared to me we played a man-on-man style in the first half of the WCE game and appeared to be zoning in the third quarter. But it might just have been we couldn't keep up with West Coast players so it looked like man-on-man was replaced by players guarding space, or perhaps just pretending to. And just by the way. I take no notice of what Mark Neeld (or any coach) says in a press conference. It's all being said for the players' consumption. So I hope they're the ones taking notice.

Not sure I agree with the last line. A confident and capable CEO, or, rather, a person who thinks he/she is, should prefer a role with massive upside rather than one where the only way is down. For example, how would you like to take on the job of CEO at Geelong if Brian Cook were to quit now? Sure, there are no apparent problems, but how does the replacement CEO stand to benefit from the possibility or even likelihood that things will go backwards, even just a little?

Tapscott has improved his physical shape - he's slimmed down, particularly around the shoulders and neck. Hopefully that gives him better mobility. But I remain concerned that his kicking is not as penetrative or accurate as we were told it would be when we drafted him. Mind you, he's not alone there. Maric and Strauss are also meant to be super kicks and Maric didn't show it and Strauss is yet to.