La Dee-vina Comedia

Misleading statistic, I think. I don't know how efficiency is calculated but defenders at all clubs appear to have greater efficiency according to the stats provided than forwards and defenders. Perhaps forwards are marked tougher with any shot at goal which does not score a goal being marked as a fail.

Thanks Billy. So Neeld is at last showing that he, too, has seen the need for change. All we heard pre-season was that Blease would play forward and Watts wing or forward.

I started this thread and it's only fair that I admit that I got it horribly wrong. I'm glad I recommended people not bet on my optimism. 101 apologies to all.

I haven't seen Saturday's game, but was the game plan any different to the first seven rounds? Obviously the result was no better but statistically it was completely different with (comparatively) massive possessions. Up until Round 8 our best disposal gatherers were getting around 22-24 disposals a game. Yet this week Watts had 34 and Blease 27. So, what was different? Note: For all those who are tempted to hit the keyboard to state the obvious about the result, the effort (apparently - as I said I haven't seen it), etc, don't bother. I think we all know that. What I really want to know was what might have changed in game style.

I keep reading and hearing about the 'modern game'. When did the 'modern game' begin? I suspect it might depend on a person's age. For me, I started going to the football in the mid-1960s. And I believe the term 'modern game' refers to that period onwards. But what does it mean to you? It will help in forum discussions if we know what posters are referring to when they refer to 'the modern game'. Reason for edit: added last sentence

But they have to get the ball first. And that's the problem.

Of course he'll play against us unless he's genuinely injured (or suspended). Why wouldn't GWS play their best possible team in a game they'll actually have a chance of winning? On Scully, we should keep in mind he had no choice when he came to Melbourne; he had a choice when he went to GWS. I suspect every other player in the same circumstances would have done what he has done. The only difference would be how they handled it. Tom handled it poorly; Phil Davis handled it well. But Scully was picked by Melbourne and subsequently GWS by what he does on the field not what he says off it. And I'm not sure there are many 19-20 year olds who could have handled the pressure in 2011 any better. Frankly, I don't care what he did. He's gone. But on the issue of expansion, I'm a huge supporter of the concept. In 1986 the then VFL faced similar criticisms when it decided to expand nationally. If that decision hadn't been made there may be no professional AFL in Australia with the dominant code being soccer. The AFL must continue to expand into NSW and Qld - to not do so diminishes the earnings capacity of the game because half the potential audience is in those two states. Audiences mean sponsorship dollars which means revenue for clubs which means development of the best game in the world. The only mistake the AFL has made is not putting a second team into NSW earlier.

If I'd known that, I may have been more circumspect in my predictions! My OP might be outrageous, but there's no point coming on here next week if we win saying, "I knew we were going to win". Of course, if we lose, there may be no point me saying anything ever again. Reason for edit: spelling corrections

I have been heartily disappointed with our performances to date and other than and because of Round 1, have picked us to lose each week since. But I believe we'll beat Sydney because: Our poor relative fitness level won't be as problematic on the smaller SCG Sydney will be without Goodes who has proven over the years to be unstoppable when we play them Jamar will dominate (and that's whether Mumford plays or not. I admit I don't know why Mumford is out and whether he'll be back, but I don't think it will make a difference) it's not obvious but bit by bit players are starting to understand what is needed and those that don't won't be picked this week (ie, Sylvia) it's not obvious but bit by bit the coaches are starting to understand which players should be playing where. For example, Davey had no gametime on the ball in the first few weeks. He's gradually getting more time there and in so doing getting into the play more. He is still, though, our only reliable disposer by foot of the ball, unfortunately while Ted Richards is an honest trier, he doesn't have the combination of size and mobility to play on Clark McKenzie will tag Josh Kennedy and limit his ability to influence the game. Now, I might be a delusional optimist but early in the week is the right time to make these predictions. It gives everyone an opportunity to start thinking positively. However, as this is Responsible Gambling Awareness Week it is incumbent upon me to recommend that you don't place a bet on Melbourne to win based on my optimism.

Err, what? Please explain.

Actually, there is an alternative. Develop the players we have. Logic tells me that we can't have got all our draft picks wrong. Which means our development (skills, fitness, gameplan, character, leadership) has been poor.

Slowest player I've ever seen. When running he looks like he's wading through Port Phillip Bay with seaweed caught around his legs. Being slow in itself, while not desirable, would be OK if he compensated with deft tap work or strong contested marks. But he doesn't seem to have those skills, either.

6. Clark 5. Bartram 4. Frawley 3. Garland 2. McKenzie 1. Magner And a question for Demonland admin. How do you calculate Demondland's player of the year when some posters don't put in complete lists and the odd poster (both meanings intended) appear to be subversive (see Roost It at post #10)

Agree. And the few minutes he plays on ball adds movement and most importantly, precise kicking, both of which are lacking at the moment. I don't think Davey should play permanent forward like his brother or Eddie Betts. I'd rather see his game time spent 2/3rds forward and 1/3rd on ball. I note that Neeld virtually forbade him any on ball role in the first few weeks, but as the season has progressed he's getting his chance and, when on ball, doing a better job than many others.

If each poster were to describe our gameplan, how many differences would appear in the descriptions? Coaches all say that the game is always evolving. Neeld knows that his current team doesn't have the resources to be successful now. So he would also know that the gameplan he needs them to play will be the one that's successful in about 2014, not 2012. In my view, when Neeld talks about establishing foundations (or whatever he said) he was telling supporters, the media and the players that there is no point even looking at the game being played now and assume it will look like the finished product. Yes, I'm disappointed we're not winning games, but as I said elsewhere I feel much more satisfied that there is a strong base being established which should produce success in the longterm.

Listening to Mark Neeld on radio yesterday I think Sylvia might not be playing next week. Neeld, in response to a question, said something like Sylvia has to understand that talent alone is not enough. (He also said the best thing about Mitch Clark is that he has shown the rest of the team what the expected training effort should look like. In other words, all those on the list last year were not training hard enough - surely more of an indictment on the coaches than the players). Having watched Friday's game on TV I would make the following changes: Outs: Sylvia, Fitzpatrick, Petterd In: Watts, Martin, Jurrah (Jurrah to be the sub) Bail and Bennell could also face the axe if players at Casey are knocking on the door. Pity, though, that it's like a swinging bar door and not that hard to open. Edit: And I'm convinced Trengrove is carrying a groin or leg problem. Have previously mentioned that he can't run, jump or kick. He's still struggling. Maybe he should also go out for someone like Blease.

I struggle with the blokey culture of MMM's football commentary and therefore don't listen to it. But I have no problem with the mindlessness of The Footy Show. It's not trying to be a serious product and it's not actually covering football in detail. Never tries to and therefore never disappoints in this regard. In short, if it's an actual game, I want it covered seriously; if it's an attempt at analysis, I want it covered seriously; if it's a humorous attempt to provide enjoyment and isn't serious, I don't care how it's covered. So, Before The Game, The Footy Show and Footy Classified all get a tick from me; Channel 7's Gameday, Channel 9's Sunday Footy Show and MMM's football commentary don't.

Or Petterd, Bate or Bennell. I would have thought McDonald will be necessary in the backline assuming Hawthorn plays all of Buddy, Roughhead and Hale. I'd expect him to pick up Hale. For mine, I suspect Petterd will be the sub. For two reasons. Firstly, he's shown before tremendous attitude - let's call it fury - when he finally gets the chance to come on. And secondly, Neeld seems to have a strategy of using forwards as the sub and bringing them on and placing them in the forward line. It's a strategy I don't understand.

As I posted somewhere else, this is the first time in decades that I believe there is a coherent plan which will develop the team. Previously there may have been a lack of resources but I had no sense that there was a coordinated approach which would combine gameplan, fitness and personnel. Now I can see (metaphorically) the development occurring. Changing the gameplan, fitness and personnel takes time, but I feel much happier with what looks to me to be a plan for the future being implemented now.

I'm not sure if there are stats to back this up, but my eyes have suggested that he's been a key driver of the ball forward in movements that have resulted in goals. Not often enough, granted, but more than most. If there are stats out there that prove me wrong, so be it. I remain unconvinced that he is playing in the right position. I believe his best position would be as an outside mid providing that run (sorry, should use the vernacular de jour, "the spread") we so lack. PS and off topic. But is "spread" the worst piece of football vernacular at the moment?

And out of me, too. But if he plays, which I suspect he will, he should take Birchall (on the basis that Hodge either won't play or won't be that damaging if he does because of his injury from last week combined with lack of match fitness).

Storm in a teacup. At the moment clubs make choices in the draft based not only on the player's merits but also on what they think other clubs after them might do. Haven't we been told that Gysberts (or maybe someone else) went earlier than expected because Melbourne believed a club with a pick after ours would otherwise claim him? The only difference here is that clubs know for certain we want Viney. And that's a fair trade off for us having the guarantee that no-one else has that we can select him. It's a much fairer system than the third round draft pick option which saw Geelong get Scarlett, Blake and at least one Ablett, Collingwood a couple of Shaws and Clokes, and presumably Essendon got Watson and maybe Fletcher (although he's been around so long he might have been recruited under an even older scheme).

While I was despondent with the team's effort in the first few weeks I have been pleased with the effort, but of course, not the result in the last couple. But for the first time EVER (and I've been going since 1964) I can see that there is a development plan. I'm not sure of the details, but I can see that Neeld actually has a plan. And you can see from posters here that many others believe there is a plan, too. The amount of discussion about contested/uncontested football, being 'sucked into contests' and aspects of individual performance changes shows the willingness of Demonlanders to go along for the ride. In short, while I might not like the current results, I'm more than happy to see proper foundations being laid for a solid brick home to be built rather than the veneer we've put up with in the past.

I'd keep him at CHB. We have an undersized backline in that we don't have anyone else above about 193cm. Sellar may have been recruited to play on the monster forwards but has been playing relief ruck and forward. I doubt he (Sellar) will succeed in any position (although I admire his effort). With Clark and eventually Watts forward, I don't think we need him (McDonald) there. Also, the forward line isn't really a problem at the moment. It does quite well when the ball actually gets down there. Reason for edit: clarifying who the pronoun's are for

Actually, I think many supporters are yelling 'don't leave your man!' It's been one of my ongoing concerns for quite some time. Then there is Lynden Dunn who seems to do neither. He seems to be caught between the action and his man half the time. But if waving arms around was a sport he'd win gold for Australia at the Olympics. Edit: I should add that my comments about Dunn may be in ignorance. Quite possibly he's following the coach's instructions. If he is, I'd love to know what those instructions are.