La Dee-vina Comedia

Touche, good pick up and I'm suitably embarrassed. (And I know there should be an accent on the e in 'touche'. I just don't know how to do it.)

You need a new keyboard. You're 'shift' key isn't working most of the time. Which is my way of saying I believe posters should take the time to write properly. But then, maybe I'm just old fashioned...or just old.

Neeld. Let me repeat what I've written elsewhere. For the first time that I can remember (and I've been going to the footy for over 40 years) we appear to have an holistic approach to fixing the problems rather than the cut and paste approach. The latter approach is not entirely the fault of the former coaches as they weren't provided with adequate resources to do the job properly. As much as I hate the current on-field performance I'm more than happy to see a plan being developed and acted upon which should produce long term benefits.

Bail might have butchered the ball a bit. But the reason we were in the game at half time was because of him. 6. McKenzie 5. Bail 4. Rivers 3. McDonald 2. Jones 1. Frawley And -5 to the docs/physios if they really believe Trengove is fully fit. (Though he did play much better in the third quarter.)

Because for the first three quarters we played the best we have all year, I'd make minimal changes as follows: If injured, Green goes out along with Sellar. If fit, Martin and Bartram come in. If these two are not fit, bring in Spencer for Sellar and Morton/Bate for Green. Although I wouldn't be disappointed if Dunn was left out. Bennell gets another week and should play the full game next week. We're going to need his pace against Essendon. But he does need to do more.

Collingwood may not use him. But they can stop us using him with a non-compete clause.

Really hard to see how the team will line up. Three forwards and a mid dropped and the ins include two defenders (MacDonald and Davis) plus Nicholson and Tappscott who could play there. Maybe Grimes goes to the midfield where he is better placed to be a leader. I'm not convinced Bail can play the small or defensive forward role, so maybe Bail goes to the midfield too. Personally, I'd like Davis to the backline for Grimes to midfield. And I'd like to see Bail running around rather than being locked inside the forward line. I think Sellar has to play so Clark can stay forward. And Tapscott should play. In summary, the ins should end up being Sellar, Bail, Davis and Tapscott (sub).

So, this means Nicholson has been upgraded from the rookie list. Who for?

Moloney: "What! I still have to play in the seniors? Why can't I go to Casey and taste some success?"

If he's suspended can we replace him with a fat lady singing? Or is it more like a red card and we have to play one short?

"Pretty ordinary" should still be enough to beat woeful.

Or Dante's 'La Divina Comedia'. Right now the MFC is in that chapter about the inferno otherwise known as hell. And I blame Jack Watts for that, too.

Nicely said.

The defence, particularly Rivers, has done pretty well given the amount of pressure it's been under.

So perhaps we've been poor at player development for the last 15 years, not just the last four.

Definitely the wrong call...by Mark Neeld. he would have been happier if he'd stayed at Collingwood. Seriously, none of us nor Caroline Wilson were involved in Neeld's selection and therefore have no idea what the club was looking for and how it went about it. We do know that Neeld had strong, public support from Mick Malthouse and I would have thought that endorsement would count for something. I firmly believe that the problems haven't arisen in the last 8 months. Rather they are the result of poor player development over the last 4 years so that when attempting to go from downhill skiers without a defensive mindset (aka the Bailey game plan) to a style of play where defence becomes the key, the playing list is not made up of players of the appropriate physical type (strength, fitness) or psychological makeup (maintaining structure, preparedness to gut run) to deliver. Neeld should have the club's and supporters' complete, rock solid, 100% support.

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.