La Dee-vina Comedia

Or he might be playing with injury. (Is OP known to recur after a few year's absence? I hope not.)

I didn't get to see or hear any part of the game against Richmond. Did Dunn play CHB? I thought he had done OK as a HBF the previous 2-3 weeks and might have found his niche...after about 8 years. But CHB? I wouldn't have thought he was physically strong enough for a key position.

Actually, I think we were worse during the Bailey years. During that time I couldn't discern a plan (I don't mean a game plan, I mean development strategy). Most of the young players, that is players who have been on the list 5 years or fewer should be kept to see what they can do once Misson gets them properly fit. I'm sure skills diminish with tiredness, not just during a game but over a season. Players who have been around for 5+ years should be closely scrutinised to see what value they add, For example, Davey may be essential for mentoring our indigenous brigade. And I'd be interested in the possibility of Green taking on a James McDonald/Luke Power/Chad Cornes role of assistant coaching while playing one more season. Even if he retires, I'd still be interested in retaining him as a kicking coach. So, players such as Bate, Moloney, Dunn, MacDonald, Bartram, Petterd, Jamar, Sylvia, Green, Davey should all be looked at and decisions made. Of those, I'd keep Green (unless he wants to retire), Davey, Jamar, Sylvia and probably Bartram unless for any of them an 'over-the-odds' trade option opens up. And given we've already had two of those in recent years (Johnstone and McLean) I'd be surprised if we got that lucky again. And we were certainly worse in the second half of the 1960s and the 1970s when the MFC didn't understand that the competition was becoming professional.

Of course, there is another option - that St Kilda's list management guys were just lousy negotiators

Unfortunately, the most likely scenario if there is to be a late change has to be Jones missing out because he hasn't fully recovered. I hope that's not the case. But if it is, I'd rather bring in Cook and have at least one key position forward, even though it's not a like-for-like change.

Good to see Jetta's name. I'm not convinced he'll make it in the long run, but at least he has a few rounds left to show what he's got and whether he should remain on the list. let's hope he can play the rest of the year without further injury.

Now I'm feeling foolish. But my central tenet still stands. People shouldn't go backwards with their careers.

I had thought Bailey had been appointed Football Manager at Adelaide FC. I now realise he's "Strategy and Innovation Coach" which I agree means he's an Assistant Coach.

TS;DU* (*Too short; didn't understand. But now that I know, I must say I like it.)

I have no idea what "TL;DR." means. But I'm fascinated that with only four letters and two punctuation marks you still needed to edit what you wrote!

How many senior coaches move on, or backwards, to being assistant coaches? I accept Mark Williams is doing that now at GWS but in my mind that's a special set of circumstances which may already include an agreement that he steps into the main role in a year or two. Dean Laidley had a part-time coaching role with Port Adelaide, but it was very part time with him allegedly coaching via Skype because PA couldn't afford to fly him to Adelaide. To me that seems more like a mentoring role. There may be others...but I can't think of any. Most ex-coaches move to different roles (media, football manager, etc). If I were Ratten's adviser, I would be telling him not to take an assistant's role and definitely not at Melbourne. (That's free advice for everyone...never go back to an old job). But that's not what the question was which was asked. Would I want him back? No. And it's got nothing to do with his abilities. It would be disruptive to our Senior Coach with continuing murmuring whenever we lose a few games that Neeld could be replaced with Ratten who would be seen as a potential coach in waiting. By the way, our Prime Minister made this same mistake having K Rudd in Cabinet for a while. And look how that worked out.

Those arguing that Sellar and/or Dunn should have shared the ruck duties with Martin are forgetting that they, too, are looking to find a spot in the side. I've been no fan of Dunn for years, but have been more impressed with him playing off HBF for the last two weeks than any of the other myriad of positions he's been played in previously. To take him from there to pinch hit in the ruck would once again stall any possible development left in him. I think he should stay at HBF until his form doesn't warrant. If he manages to secure his place there we've gained a defender and freed up Garland or Rivers to play forward. Similarly, when Sellar played ruck earlier in the year he looked like a fish out of water. But in the last few weeks playing as a defender, he's looked OK. So I wouldn't want him moved back to the ruck, either. Which means someone else needed to help Martin out. One thing I've noticed about Neeld is that he's not that keen to move a player around during game day but quite prepared to do so before a game begins. I like that during this development phase. Players are learning to play a role for the whole game. And Neeld is learning what they're capable of.

I think you needed to add a reference to Phil Scully and massive amounts of food to make it clear it was a joke. Or maybe add Bate into the mix. A player and a draft pick is always a more entertaining discussion.

If I recall correctly, I believe his father passed away when Travis was a teenager. Perhaps it's not so much Travis needing the comfort but perhaps he feels a need to support his mother by being closer to her.

A calf strain for an older bloke (Jamar) is not usually just a one week injury. Of course, his might not be a strain. It could be...er, what else could it be if it's his calf? I suppose it could be a corked calf, although it's not an injury I can recall ever being talked about before.

If only we had Peter Hudson at CHF. (Note: This probably only makes sense to people aged 50 or more and who can remember the graffiti famously posted outside the church in Hawthorn.)

So, we are about to become involved in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" father-son business. What would be worse, paying a high price for a father-son who subsequently doesn't make it or not being prepared to do so and missing out on a gem? Other teams have faced this dilemma with mixed results. St Kilda appears to have got it right by not taking Sam Sheldon while (arguably) Collingwood might have got it wrong by not selecting Liam Picken. On the other side of the coin, Collingwood selected Brayden Shaw and we selected Chris Johnson, neither of which produced much value. On balance, I'd go with what I think is the riskier strategy of paying the high price and keeping Viney. If it has to be pick 3, so be it.

I think both teams have improved since Round 1, but I don't think we've improved enough to close the gap. Nevertheless, I expect a better contest this week with Melbourne showing it's capable of playing adult standard football. Round 1 (and for many weeks after) we played under-12's standard. You know the type, where the kids all hover around the ball leaving no-one outside to receive the kick or handball.

I would have guessed Rupertswood, not RIngwood. Seems to me more likely that rpfc would somehow be connected to the aristocracy associated with Sir Rupert Clarke than the might folk of Ringwood.

When considering whether Watts should go forward we should keep in mind that one of the problems he had when he was there was that the ball didn't come down to the forwards that often and when it did it was in a rather haphazard manner. If Watts could play forward and have someone like him delivering the ball to him, that might work. But I believe our forwards are playing better not just because Garland, Rivers and Moloney (and on Sunday, Sylvia) are there but because Watts is providing the drive that gets the ball down there in the first place. So if he goes there now, I think we lose the drive that gets the ball into the forward line...so he won't have the opportunities that Garland, Rivers and others have had...so he'll be portrayed once again as a failure. So leave him where he is.

Matthew Lloyd said at least 6 weeks ago that Travis Cloke and his management were making a mistake not coming to terms with Collingwood sooner rather than later because by the time he signs there won't be enough room under the cap to give him what he wants. Which means with Dayne Beam's rapid improvement there will be pressure not only on Collingwood's list management team but also on all the unsigned players. Will this lead to a breakdown in the club's otherwise solid 'side by side' mentality? If so, it will be interesting to watch all clubs, not just ours, acting like vultures.

Martin must come in for Clark. Sellar can't be used this week as back up ruck as someone has to play on Merrett and must be physically big enough to do so. (If Merrett and Sellar collide, Brisbane might experience its own 5.3 earthquake.) And someone big and strong has to play on J Brown, too. Will be interesting to see if Tom McDonald gets that job or whether Rivers gets sent back. While I'm a fan of Bail, after his longer than anticipated absence and because of the good performances of most players against GWS, he may be better suited to a full game with Casey. But if the match committee want him in the side, I suspect it will be Sam Blease that goes out. I'm generally no fan of Dunn, but credit where it is due. I thought he did well on Sunday and he looks to me to be best suited to a HBF role and should be given another chance. And Bate was my choice for 2nd BOG (Jones being BOG) so I can't see him being demoted. I'm confident Tapscott has a future but he may have to wait another week until a vacancy arises. So, in short, In: Martin Out: Clark (inj) with Moloney to start as the sub.

There is on significant difference between the two papers. I know from personal experience that both papers might write a story that criticises you, but The Age journos will tell you in advance what they are writing and give you a chance to respond; the Herald Sun journos do not. Both can be inaccurate, but The Age tries to get it right.

According to official AFL stats, Morton had 19 disposals with 68% efficiency. This translates to 13 disposals which were efficient and 6 which weren't. Our co-captains had 17 at 53% efficiency (9 efficient; 8 inefficient) and 25 at 64% (16 efficient; 9 inefficient). So, he had fewer "inefficient" disposals than either Trengove or Grimes. Yes, he's frustrating, but let's keep this in perspective. And to the person who said he'd have poor trade value because of the history of his brothers, surely you jest. So Travis Cloke would have no value because neither of his brothers were much good? Or Gary Ablett Sr because when Geelong took him they should have known Kelvin Ablett was a dud? Or maybe Hawthorn should have delisted Leigh Matthews earlier because his brother wasn't much good. Or Robert Flower and Jim Stynes...

Two good knees would be better.