La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

While 0-6 is poor, the best two games have been the last two. Wholesale changes are disruptive rather than beneficial. Outs: Sellar as he adds nothing. In recent games, opponents have struggled when jamar is in the ruck but really enjoyed it when Sellar is there. And he hasn't added anything else around the ground. Tapscott because I think he's injured (ankle? hip?) Ins: Fitzpatrick (to replace Sellar) unless Neeld wants Mitch Clark to relieve Jamar, in which case Watts to come in Bennell for Tapscott. bennell to play HBF with Grimes into the midfield. I can't understand calls for Bennell to play forward given he seems to have 'clicked' at Casey playing in the backline. I'd have Bartram on Rioli and Bennell on Osborne. And Bail and Bate should stay - Bail had a poor game against Geelong but has otherwise been a key player. And Bate has surprised me with his on ball performance coupled with goal scoring. And finally, I keep saying Dunn should be dropped because I don't think he adds much. But I suspect he'll again be picked and again be the sub.

Well explained.

On Footy Classified last night Garry Lyon pointed out the same thing. He showed as an example footage of McKenzie and Sellar leaving their men (Chapman and West, respectively) to go in and help at a contest. Why they decided to do so was baffling given there were already 5 other Melbourne players at the contest. In the end, Geelong got the ball out of the contest and surprise, surprise it was handballed to Chapman who passed it on to West and Geelong was away. This has been going on for years and it will take the coaching staff quite a bit of teaching/re-training to ensure players understand the importance of positioning and structure.

You're quite right. But the point was valid. For the last 4 years I've been watching two Melbourne players tackle one opponent leaving the second opponent free for the hand off. For those who didn't hear Mick Malthouse on the weekend, he said this was a 'trust' issue, meaning that at the moment Melbourne players don't trust their team mates to effect a proper tackle so go in to help. This just allows the opposition a free player. When players start to 'trust' each other, Mick says this won't happen. When Malthouse uses the word 'trust' he's not talking about honesty but effectiveness and I thought he made the point clearly and appropriately. And when Neeld talks about building foundations I now understand better what he means.

6. Clark 5. Jamar (see note below) 4. Frawley 3. Morton 2. Jones 1. Grimes Note: It seems to me when Jamar is being rested we are really struggling. I have no problem with Sellar's effort, but he's just not up to it. How many times did we see Jamar on the ground after the tap getting the ball out? and how many for Sellar?

Thanks

Do VFL penalties, for AFL listed players, apply to AFL games?

Actually, I was trying for alliteration.

Somewhere on this Board I'm sure I've been critical of Mick Malthouse's commentary on radio and TV. After his performance on Channel 7 in the Geelong v Melbourne game, I'm left to eat my words. He was brilliant - clear, concise and to the point. When commentating previously, I felt he was bombastic and esoteric and not really adding value to the commentary. Whether he's changed or perhaps I'm just understanding him better, I'm not sure. Or perhaps Channel 7 has responded to Rohan Connolly's excellent critique in The Age and asked all their commentators to be more focused and less self-indulgent. Certainly the coverage has improved by replays being less intrusive over live play. Whatever the reason, it made for a first class performance from Malthouse last Saturday.