La Dee-vina Comedia

ABC online reporting trial set for 3 September. Hopefully it's a quick trial with a quick result both for him and (for selfish reasons which really aren't as important) the club's list managers. reason for edit: spelling

Interesting (and depressing) the number of people who believe that while this year may not be the worst on field it is the one giving them the least hope for the future. I am 180 degrees the other way. As appalling as the on field performance has been this year, I have much more hope for the future than I had at any time in the Bailey years. To me, Bailey's downhill skiier game plan was always going to give us wins against poor opposition but have us blasted out of the park by any team with a strong defensive style. Under that scenario, we may eventually have played finals, but never got any higher than perhaps about 6th. Now I believe we're building a team that can challenge in the future. And I don't mean the very distant future. I don't expect finals in 2013, but 2014 will be a possibility. And for what it's worth, I'm old enough to remember the late 60s and the 70s. I reckon we were much, much worse then. We may have won more games, but the distance between us and the top was much greater. We won more games, because there were other teams down there with us (Fitzroy, South Melbourne, Footscray and North Melbourne until the early 70s). For all you without hope, please do not give up. The tide will turn.

I think this is as it should be. The Board and management have a job to do - but it's not to critique the performance of the team in public.

Mind you, I still miss Michael Williamson with his trademark statements such as "he's fallen for the three card trick" and "he's got him at the psychological moment". Just not sure what either of them meant in the context of the commentary at the time.

Informative, thanks.

You don't think Watts has improved? or that Tom McDonald has started "to come good"?

Although you seem to have ignored the fact that the the best teams all have quality players recruited in the first half of the 2000s, ie, pre-Bailey, whereas Melbourne only has a few who are of questionable quality, some because of their age.

Query for the physiologists/histologists/etc out there. Can you actually change the balance of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibres? Or is the real change to do with aerobic capacity or something else?

What do I win for my efforts?

I disagree. Kicking efficiency would be worse in high heels.

Cutting 6 would be enough for me. The 7th player to be cut would likely be no better than the 7th player recruited as a replacement but will have a better fitness base, body and understanding of the gameplan. Then another 6 can go the next year if there isn't measurable improvement of those remaining on the list. For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to the bad recruiting mantra. Rather, I believe we have had poor development programs in place forever (well, at least since the early 1960s). And I'm serious. It's not just the Bailey era. It goes back to the Daniher era and beyond. And it's not just the senior coaches who are to blame. It's a club with an amateurish approach through a combination of poor management and sub-standard resources. As I've posted elsewhere, for the first time in over 40 years of watching the Demons, I finally believe we have a development strategy in place. And I'm prepared to give the club time. I don't expect miracles to occur overnight.

Why? Why do you trust Todd Viney and no-one else? What has he done that gives you that confidence? I don't know whether he's been good or not.

I'm sure Dan Brown could craft a story around it using Robert Langdon's symbological 'skills' to link various threads together including colours (red, Green, White, Brown) and homophones (Watts, Howe) etc

2012 is the 2013 pre-season. If the players are fit, they should play. It's as much about learning the game plan as anything else. Best way to learn it is to play it so it becomes instinctive.

If we're going to blame our situation on a curse, we need a name like the 'Curse of the Bambino' which was used to describe the Boston Red Sox's failure to win the World Series since they traded out Babe Ruth. The 'Norm Smith curse' just doesn't cut it as a name...but maybe 'The Curse of the Red Fox' does. Let's hope we don't have to wait as long as the Boston Red Sox, though. What was it...80-odd years? (someone out there will know).

You might want to correct the 'Outs'. Was the third out Joel MacDonald, perhaps?

It's still heaps better than a station which has the rights to show the football and has no worthwhile football programs other than the games it shows.

Are these your thoughts or based on some statistical records such as disposal efficiency?

So let's list some positives out of the year. 1. Jack Watts has blossomed 2. Nathan Jones has stepped up another level 3. Garland has shown his versatility by playing well forward and back 4. Mitch Clark 5. Jeremy Howe is more than just a Robbo clone - he doesn't just stay in the forward pocket taking marks (Note: no criticism of Robbo intended) 6. Compensation picks for Tom Scully might be more valuable than the player they replaced 7. Presumably our finances are OK because I see no media speculation about the club's 'financial predicament' 8. I can actually discern a development strategy which appeared non-existent for the previous decade 9. After a slow start, James Sellar is providing a big bodied defender which had otherwise been lacking 10. Tom McDonald has shown enough to suggest he'll be our CHB for many years 11. Sam Blease and Daniel Nicholson have added pace to an otherwise slow side. They now have to improve their fitness and disposal respectively. 12. Jordie McKenzie has shown he's not just a stopper and he can actually kick the ball 13. James Strauss has made it back to the seniors after an horrific injury

And you should add another name: Barassi Loyalty is a two way street. Supporters who think players let down clubs when they depart for greener pastures seem to forget what clubs do to players (eg, J McDonald, Woewodin, etc). I'd love it if every player and every club (or at least my club) saw eye to eye all the time. But that will never happen. On Cameron Bruce, I think he's an underrated player who's 'brand' was damaged before he left for Hawthorn because of a couple of poorer seasons at the end of his time at Melbourne. But we should never discount the possibility that his poorer seasons might actually be the fault of a coaching style or game plan that didn't suit him.

I'd be surprised if Jamar is only out for 3 weeks. Calf injuries always seem to take longer to heal for older players. And he's now done it twice which suggests the need for a very conservative approach.

I had thought Sellar was rubbish until they put him in the backline. Then he seemed to do OK and freed up Garland and/or Rivers to go forward.

Depends a bit on injuries and MRP for the outs (Grimes, Bail) and ins (Watts, Tapscott, Sellar, Magnar - if indeed he was injured). And Petterd, who played poorly, should be given a second and possibly last chance. But nevertheless, I'll take a punt: Out: Jamar, Bennell, Bate In: Spencer, Watts, Sellar. If Watts doesn't get up, Tapscott to come in.

6. Martin 5. J MacDonald 4. Sylvia 3. Bail 2. McKenzie 1. Garland Thought about T McDonald, but I thought he turned it over too often.

That's one helluva left bicep