La Dee-vina Comedia

I think it's the other way round. 90% of our players aren't fit enough for the game plan.

And here's a link to one of Charles Happell's writings referred to earlier. I'll believe the Cronk story - and every other piece of unattributed, unproven and unsubstantiated gossip - as much as I choose to believe this one.

Adolf Hitler believed that if a lie was big enough and told often enough people would believe it. Let's not fall into the trap of believing everything everybody else says or writes. While this story may or may not be true, it has also been written (by journalist Charles Happell, I think) that Melbourne players were telling the coaches and administration what to do in the 1980s. And those players, he alleges, were Jim Stynes, Chris Connolly, Garry Lyon and Todd Viney. I have no idea if this is true, either. Just to clarify...where there is smoke there often isn't fire. Just ask Lindy Chamberlain (and there are plenty more urban myths out there).

I find it troubling that after a lifetime of classifying Collingwood as the team to despise most I find that Carlton has now taken that mantle. Is this, perhaps, Eddie's biggest success? On topic, if Malthouse becomes coach of Carlton as the pundits are predicting and we probably all expect, does that make Mark Neeld's job harder in that Malthouse's reach into Collingwood might restrict Neeld's access? Or has Neeld already extracted everything he wants (such as Leigh Brown)?

I think Leigh Matthews has him covered. And Gary Ablett Sr.

In fact, Neeld moved him from on ball to HFF. Was successful in that role in the Essendon victory, but appeared to struggle more and more with the role as time went by. I suspect Beamer is a victim of a gameplan that requires hard running both ways which he doesn't appear physically to be suited to.

Beautifully put although it's the same for all AFL players at this time. (I know what you meant, but your use of "2013" and "non existent" in the same sentence was just too good to ignore.) On topic, if he wants to leave he should do so; if he wants to stay, I'd keep him only if he has bought into the Neeld plan.

And, apart from our game, look at those scores. No flooding and basically no defensive pressure resulted in lots of high scoring games.

Should have gone with Jets and Sharks and put it to music. Oh, wait, that's already been done.

But...it would be nice to see a tanking story about something other than (1) Melbourne and (2) draft picks.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That he should or he shouldn't take a long term view?

I think the "no record, good or bad" means the player hasn't got a five year history.

I'm surprised with Dunn getting votes. I thought he looked good in the first quarter but really struggled when the pressure was on (and in defense of the backmen, it was really on big time after half way through the second quarter). He seemed lost and unaccountable to me and had some poor disposals. I admit I've never been a Dunn fan but while he was not the worst yesterday, I didn't think he was in the top 15.

A few others have been mentioned, but I want to add Rohan Bail to the list. Massive heart and provides run all day long. Like to see him eliminate some clangers (generally in two categories - clumsy tackling and poor disposal after a long run). And I'll add my support to Mark Neeld. I see a positive future after many years of darkness because of his holistic approach.

I agree. And it's not just the two and a bit hours of game time each week. The real measure is how determined and competitive they are the rest of the week. Talent will only take you so far.

6. Sylvia 5. Jones 4. Bail 3. Sellar 2. McKenzie 1. Tapscott And I feel really sorry for the defenders. The midfield and half- forward line were absolutely smashed so the backline was under siege all day/night.

I saw a team which has strength, size, speed and skill. Adelaide is what Melbourne should be aspiring to. Even Adelaide's quickest players, such as Dangerfield, have legs like tree trunks. No wonder Watts, Frawley and Tregove were smashed. Comparatively, they've got legs like matchsticks. And now I think I understand why Mark Neeld brought Neil Craig to Melbourne. Only three Melbourne players were physically the size of the Adelaide players - Sylvia, Sellar and MacDonald. None of them had their primary development years under Dean Bailey and his fitness team. And I thought Sylvia and Sellar could hold their heads up high. Sellar is not the most skilled player but he at least matched his opponents for physical strength and won many contested marks because of it. Two more years of pain while we build up the strength and size of our players should put us in a much better position.

Maybe not. Looks like Jamar is in the Casey 2s and Moloney in the Casey 1s.

So, can we put him on a weekly contract that expires every Monday? Seriously, I'm stunned that there is 80% yay and 20% nay in this poll. I was a nay, but Demonlanders have clearly spoken.

To me, Dunn has engine, long kick and...not much more. He seems to me to be more of an athlete than a footballer. In my view he doesn't have a natural football brain so doesn't really know where to run to or how to defend. And if he's at that stage of his development after 8 years, I see no value in keeping him. His colleague, Matthew Bate, on the other hand, does appear to have a football brain but not enough skill to go with it. So, I'd move them both on. And if "waving arms around" does become an Olympic sport, Dunn's got the gold medal sewn up already.

I think there is one other reason why we may have not chosen Darling. He's about the same height as Dunn and Bate which means he's not really big enough to be a KPF. If we were looking for a third tall to complement two monster KPFs already in the team, he may have been ideal. But I don't think he's the right size to be the first or second KPF.

Why?

I'm paraphrasing, but it seems plenty of posters have determined that because none of the players drafted by Melbourne in the last decade have become stars, its a statistical certainty that the fault must lie in recruitment. Why isn't the same credence given to the argument that all those players have been developed and coached at Melbourne and therefore it's a statistical certainty that the flaw is in development and coaching? For what it's worth, in a system which has been designed to level the playing field in recruitment (draft, salary cap) but not in coaching and development, I believe most kids drafted have similar amounts of ability when drafted but some clubs just develop them better (Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney) than others (Melbourne, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, Richmond).

Was that a clash strip or a skill problem? Unfortunately, I suspect it was the latter more often than not.

Watching on TV I had no problem at all picking up who was who. But maybe it was different live at the ground. I suspect if we had worn our traditional jumper, there may have been a hint of difficulty looking from the back (both dark colours). I don't really see a need for clash jumpers, but more importantly, I don't think this is a big issue, either. Of course, I'm old enough to have watched football replay in black and white when Collingwood and North Melbourne basically looked the same except for the colour of the shorts. And the clash between Melbourne and Fitzroy was worse. And I didn't have a problem working out who was who then, either. Repeat after me...this is not a big issue. Either way.