La Dee-vina Comedia

I actually think we were worse in 2008. And with even less to look forward to then as we still had too many Daniher-era leftovers, some who had been good but past their prime and others who weren't that good and held onto for too long. I therefore think that as bad as we are (and we definitely are) the turnaround should this time be quicker. In 2008 there was no young talent of significant note. Now we have Watts, Trengove, Grimes and others. I suspect we feel worse now because our initial expectations were higher in the lead up to the season. And if we feel this bad, imagine how St KIilda supporters felt in the 1980s and Richmond supporters for most of the last 30 years.

Players who have leg speed need to use it when they don't have the ball, not just when they have. When (if) Blease, Jurrah and Bennell can rectify their deficiencies in this regard, we'll look a lot better. And Moloney, too. In fact, the only players I can think of who consistently chase as hard as they run when they have the ball are Bartram, Nicholson and Frawley. Perhaps there are others and I'm being harsh. (To my mind, Davey does it, but not consistently).

Should take the penalty as he's unlikely to be right for next week anyway because of his concussion. Slightly off topic, but is the MCC as ground manager considering whether they've got the playing surface right? Both Daniel Jackson (Grimes' sling tackle "victim") and Grimes himself (ironically when tackling Jackson) were concussed by landing head first on the artificial turf outside the boundary line. Maybe the MCC should be suspended...

So what do you do after a hard day's work? Do you unwind at all? Does that mean you don't give a f*@k? I don't support players - or anyone - drinking to excess, but I have no problem with players enjoying themselves "away from the office"

I don't value Malthouse's comments at all. Example 1: On Channel 7 GameDay yesterday he was asked a simple question by John Anderson "Fletcher or Scarlett". He answered "Fletcher". Just one hour later on 3AW he said Scarlett was the best full back he'd ever seen. One hour later he said Silvagni was the best full back he'd ever seen. Example 2: On 3AW yesterday he was asked to comment on Collingwood's situation. He said he's not in a position to know because he no longer works there. And he's probably right. So why would he have any credibility about comments he makes about Melbourne?

Before the season started I wished that after Round 3 Melbourne would have one win fewer than Geelong and Collingwood. My wish has come true, but not in the way I wanted.

Rather than worrying about individual players I'm more worried about the structure of the team. Why did we play all of Jamar, Martin, Sellar, McDonald, Clark and Rivers? That's far too top heavy (perhaps it would be acceptable if all are bona fide stars but clearly they're not). We need much more pace and better skills particularly in the midfield. So I would definitely keep Davey, Morton and Bail in the team even though none of them are doing as much as they should. And I'd like to add Blease and Bennell but I'm not convinced either is showing enough desire at the moment. I'm hopeful, based on what I saw in Round 1 that Tynan will make it, but he's not got the requisite aerobic fitness base just yet. I don't think Neeld would do it this way, but I'd drop both Martin and Sellar and use Mitch Clark as backup for Jamar. When Clark rucks, move Watts to full forward; when Clark is at full forward play Watts midfield or on the wing.

The best moment of the weekend was when Aaron Davey apparently spontaneously put his arm around Mark Neeld at the quarter time (or three-quarter time) break. Misreported (I believe) in the Sunday Herald Sun as Davey "comforting" Neeld. Rather, Davey was doing what players close to their coach do. He put his arm around him during the coach's address so as to get in physically close and allow players behind to also get closer. If there was any bad feeling between Neeld and Davey there is not a chance that Davey would have put his arm around Neeld like he did. On that basis alone I'd have Davey playing next week - and unlike others on this forum, I didn't think Davey played too badly on Saturday. Or, rather, there were plenty worse. I'd still like to see Davey used in the midfield for a couple of minutes each quarter to add pace and skill to an otherwise one-paced, slow bunch of sloggers.

Now that he's been picked to play, I'd like to see him spend a couple of minutes each quarter on the ball. It adds speed, variety and skill to what is otherwise a midfield squad which is a bit one dimensional. And it would allow Davey to do more than waiting for a crumb in the forward line. I'm not, however, advocating a role for him on the backline.

Wish he was list manager solely so we could see the headline "Lamb chops Dunn"

Bailey used to put Green back as a "spare man" in defence when the opposition had a run on. Which means he did it often. He was OK in that role, but it didn't mean he was accountable for a specific forward. I think Bailey damaged him by being indecisive as to whether Green was a forward, wingman or occasional defender. Now I suspect his age has slowed him down so that his best and possibly only option is as a forward.

Only one for Davey so far in 2012

There have been many multiple father/son selections in the past including Rhyce and Heath Shaw, three Clokes and Nathan and Gary Ablett.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here (that Tom is not Tiger's biological son?) I'm pretty sure Tom was his biological son but with a different surname because it's either his mother's or his step-father's.

We don't know why Davey didn't play at Casey. Maybe his knee was a bit sore (which wouldn't make him a sensible emergency - unless there was no intention of playing him or anyone else and therefore an injured player was picked as an emergency to ensure fit players got real game time with Casey). Maybe the club decided after his week from hell his mind wasn't right to play with anyone last week (my preferred theory, by the way). Maybe he's over his physical and mental problems and now has his mind and his body right so he's ready to play. At least, I hope so.

To compare him with someone today? I'd suggest he plays like Dale Thomas - not quite as good and not quite as big (but all players are bigger, ie, more muscular, today) but he played in a similar role and style.

On the negative side - that's a very long list. On the plus side - no soft tissue injuries (except maybe Moloney and Cook?)

"A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Abraham Lincoln (and George Costanza). Something for all Demon supporters, and players, to remember.

Just to clarify,"it was only ever about Mifsud breaking a player's confidence and misinterpreting what he had been told. How he misinterpreted it and what exactly he misintepreted we'll never know, and quite frankly, I don't want to know. Let's just get on with playing footy.

While you're technically correct, I wonder whether you are being too complimentary. I'd say ours is the second weakest behind GWS. I think Gold Coast is way ahead of us, not just because of Ablett, though he's a big reason for them being ahead of us. Anyone prepared to nominate a team, other than GWS, which has a midfield worse than ours? By the way, I could live with a poor midfield if it was because the focus had been on developing key position forwards and defenders as I think getting good midfielders is easier to achieve. But I'm afraid that we haven't done that, or at least not successfully (yet). Essendon, on the other hand, has done exactly that and mainly while under the control of the maligned Matthew Knights.

I agree. And you could add St Kilda to your list. When Lyon took over the Saints initially when backwards before going so far forward they were one crooked bounce away from winning a flag. We appear to have gone backwards (I say "appear" because it's a bit early to judge for a variety of reasons) but from a worse starting point than did St Kilda under Lyon.

I think Davey should return this week. I have a view (completely based on supposition without any evidence) that he was left out of the team because he wasn't emotionally ready to play following a variety of stressful incidents including: Jurrah's problems (given the statements regularly made that Davey is a mentor to our other indigenous players) the Neeld/Mifsud brouhaha the passing of Jim Stynes If he'd been dropped for form reasons I think he would have played at Casey. If I'm right, a week without further distractions (although I believe he may have met Mifsud today) may have him ready to perform. In which case I'd bring him in. The others I'd bring in (if fit) are Martin and Moloney plus Morton. My outs would be Sellar (if Martin returns), Dunn, Bennell and Joel MacDonald. I'd play Davey forward most of the game but give him a few minutes each quarter in the centre just to add some pace and variety. I'd swap Morton for Joel Mac. I'd also play Bail in the backline and move Bartram to a run with role on Cotchin. I'm also tempted to bring in Tapscott for McKenzie, but I'm not sure whether Tapscott has enough match fitness yet.

I suspect St Kilda supporters could generate a bigger list than this one without even trying too hard. And Richmond supporters, starting with lack of finals footy. In short, all clubs have dark days. It's how you deal with these things that matter. In my view, MFC has dealt with most of them very well. I'm not ashamed, my heart beats true.

Would be so much better if it were because we'd won a game of football, though.

I was going to write, "And on a lighter note, at least we won't have to see those cringeworthy Jack Watts ads on TV any more". But I'm not so sure. I wonder whether Melbourne FC can stop the former sponsor who must not be named from using that ad now. Any lawyers out there with a view?