La Dee-vina Comedia

As I've posted previously, I don't favour appointing someone too young as captain. So, I've thought some more about who it ought to be, recognising I don't see all their off field capabilities. I've concluded it's out of two.

One has been AA, has for the last couple of years performed exceptionally well and when he's spoken in the media seems quite capable. That's Mark Jamar.

The other struggles in the media but until this year showed great courage and capability - that's Brad Green. What I'd really like to know is why his form has dropped off. I don't believe it's the captaincy...unless the off field issues are far worse than we know and he's been involved at his own personal distress. If we can find out why Green's performance has dropped off and can fix it, maybe he is still the best person to be captain.

I now expect to be strongly criticised on this forum...

I can't believe what I'm reading. How will a 20 year old command respect from anyone who is 21 to 30? How many 20 year olds do you know who lead others that much older than themselves? I suspect Trengove will be an outstanding captain - but not yet.

Let's look at the essential question - what do we want a leader to be able to do? It's got to be more than playing well and leading from the front on the field. The captain has to perform well in the media (so Frawley is out of contention - it's just not his thing) and not misbehave in public (while a couple have had some minor indiscretions, I don't think we have anyone who should be excluded on this ground). A captain has to satisfy the role of glad-handling sponsors and corporate types (I have no idea who'd be good at this). We may not have any obvious candidates that tick all the boxes but I'm certain that it's not yet Trengove, Watts or anyone else under the age of 23.

Well said.

And one thing you didn't say, when we played well it was the players who got the credit; when we played badly it was the coach who got the blame.

And James Hird didn't want to coach Essendon...Julia Gillard didn't want to be PM...and Neville Chamberlain wanted peace with Hitler.

Does anyone here really think it can work at Collingwood having Malthouse looking over Buckley's shoulder? I know I don't. So, in my opinion we'd being doing Collingwood a favour if we engaged Malthouse. BUT, I don't think he's the right person for us. It took him a long, long time to get success at Collingwood with the best resources at his disposal. Don't forget, he was nearly dumped by Collingwood two (three?) years ago.

I'm not sure who I'd like to see as coach. I'd rather see a list of key selection criteria developed and then try to match he best person against that list. My list would have on it, in order (1) character/integrity, (2) tactical nous, (3) management skill, (4) educational skill, (5) drive, (6) successful career to date in whatever capacity this person has been involved in, (7) AFL success, meaning premiership, as coach, assistant coach or player, (8) senior coaching experience.

Certainly Malthouse has a number of these characteristics, but I have no idea, for example, whether he has tactical nous or whether Collingwood's gameplan and gameday management is primarily from one or more of the assistants.

Viney should NOT be appointed Melbourne's permanent coach. That statement has nothing to do with his tactical skills, his determination, his Melbourne FC loyalty or his experience.

It would be inappropriate for him to be coach at the same time as his son joins the playing list. It would form a conflict of interest (and emotions) that neither father or son should be expected to have to cope with. That conflict will eventually become a media issue which will destabilise the club. Nothing surer.

I'm one of the lucky ones who didn't see (or hear) the game. So no votes from me this week.

But it makes me wonder - is there a weighting for Demonland votes? For example, does the top vote getter today get the same number of points/votes as the top vote getter in a game which Melbourne won? And the same question applies for the Bluey Truscott B&F award. Does anyone know?

On Twitter, AFL says Stynes, McLardy and Bailey to speak. If true, Bailey attending says volumes about his character. It would be so easy to just walk away and leave MFC to speak to media on its own.

Hopefully, most Melbourne supporters will recognise the quality of Bailey's character even if he may have been flawed as a coach.

It's difficult to be surprised, when we're all so in touch with whats going on re the list newbies, but also with what we need and what the players shortcomings are....

But we have been surprised, I guess some by Martins rise, and for me Tapscotts immediate arrival, plus Bails game & Nicholson & Evans...

I look forward to Gysberts putting on some much needed upper body strength.

And hopefully Bennell showing some real aggression at the contest, and standing his ground when challenged.

In the next 6 weeks? Now that IS wishful thinking!

In our favour:

An extra week since the Darwin game; what appears in this rollercoaster year to be a positive response to a thrashing the previous week; Geelong looking a little (and only a little) more fragile than a few weeks ago; no J-Pod; team stability at selection.

Not in our favour:

It's not at the MCG; it's not an interstate team; it's against a high quality team; missing Davey, Grimes, Scully, Bail.

Result: It should be a 60+ point loss based on talent available, but because I expect a "response" to last week's game, I'll predict a 45 point loss.

I couldn't believe my luck when i saw about 22 MFC players all at once at the MCG. Was a special day for sure!!!

LOL. Although I couldn't find 22 there myself last Sunday

Is this a coincidence? Or does someone at the AFL monitor Demonland Forums?

Not long after querying in this thread the 'G%' which according to the AFL website was measuring 'Goal Accuracy %', but wasn't, the AFL stats have now been fixed so it has the correct reference to time on ground.

[You can't see me, but assume I've got a self-satisfied smirk happening. And, yes, I'm easily satisfied.]

On Sunday I discovered two things about Maric. The first is that he is really fast. I recall him getting the ball in the middle of the ground and sprinting towards goal at the Punt Road end at extraordinary speed.

The second thing I learnt is that he only runs fast when he has the ball. And unless he learns to sprint defensively, he's going nowhere.

That's crap. Essendon had no press under Knights and had a very good one during the NAB cup six months later. Saying that it takes years is clearly not true.

The fact is Melbourne defend to far back. Every other person in football can see this, but nothing changes. It's either that Bailey cannot get the players to play the way he wants them to or he has a flawed game plan. I think that he came up with a game plan a few years ago and is trying to stick with it, however since then a better plan has come in and he has been left behind. Either he is too stubborn to change this, or not smart enough to see what is obvious to everyone else. Either way he is not the right man for the job.

I have not seen one thing that shows me that Bailey is the right man for the job. Poor game plan, poor motivation of players, poor player skills in general and poor tactically.

You might be right about the game plan, motivation and tactics. But the team is far more accomplished with the skills of the game now than when Bailey took over. Just compare the playing list now with then.

We are never going to win premierships if Bate and Dunn are a core part of our attacking zone.

Harsh, but true.

We have to stop falling into these traps, the sames one that left us with the most horrible. aging, useless list in 2007 (and from which we are still trying to recover).

Bate doesn't really cut it at the top level, he tries hard but has glaring deficiencies that will not change. Time to move him on. I'll be disappointed if we don't seek a trade for him at season's end. Same goes for Dunn and Warnock.

Agree.

That's obvious isn't it?

Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn, with either WC or Carlton rounding it out. Whoever makes that top 4, I think, will be miles ahead of whoever finishes 5th. I already think WC is ahead of Carlton.

So obvious, there's five?

I thought the umpiring was ok. The Martin 50 was odd but not necessarily wrong.

The Sewell one was correct to the letter of the law. He had no prior so he's then obliged to simply make an attempt. One arm was pinned but he's even allowed to drop the ball without infringing (due to no prior). He made no attempt and was rightfully pinged.

Really?

Adds more weight to my view that the sling tackle is a product of poor rules management (I'm unsure whether it's poor umpiring or the rule itself which is the problem). I'm convinced the sling tackle has evolved due to umpires paying a push in the back when a player is tackled from behind and 'sprawls'. Now I wonder whether a player being tackled being able to just drop the ball encourages more vigorous tackles to force a "throw" as the ball is released.

I'll repeat what i've said elsewhere. The sling tackle must be banned irrespective of whether a player is injured or not. Full stop. And the best way to do so is to stop forcing players into it as an option by (1) paying a free kick and (2) rewarding tackles from behind

6. Martin

5. Tapscott

4. McKenzie (thrashed, but never gave up)

3. Rivers

2. Howe

1. Watts (but only just and only for his second half)

I've struggled so much to find who to give votes to that I'm gobsmacked we lost by "only" 50-something points.

Need to play our second most consistent player in position - Watts!

but it's all about team balance - Dunn, Bate came in for diff posse players...meant things that were working needed to be shifted around.

Don't know why Bate played, could have gone with Dunn, Green, Howe, Watts, Petterd all in the forward line

Watts was completely out of it in the first half. The move to the wing brought him into the game. Tick to Bailey for that one. But there are too many crosses. Why, for example, do we play two ruckman at a throw in or ball up? Why does Gysberts regularly go third man up in a ruck contest which leaves us one short at ground level?

For me, outs are Maric, Bennell, Nicholson and Gysberts (only because he looks exhausted)

Ins: Davey, Bartram and Jurrah and one of Dunn or Bate (probably Dunn)

He plays a different style of game but he's the same height (or close to it) of Bate and Dunn. I suspect if Morton had the body of Dunn and the footy brain of Bate, he's be a very good player. As it happens, I think he's got the footy brain. But will he ever develop the body? If not, I can't see him being successful. If so, he could be a seriously good player. I'd keep him - I think it's easier to build a player's body than his brain.

In fact, I think too many of the pre-Bailey era recruitment decisions picked body over brain (meaning footy brain) so we had athletes who couldn't really play the game.

And for what it's worth, while I would have dropped him anyway, I think he's out this weekend because his body is not big enough to play a team like Hawthorn (or West Coast, for that matter).

reason for edit: Added last sentence.

Might be the only Power going down in value when a carbon tax is introduced.

My link

This is a very moving article which links into two different issues raised on Demonland this year - Daniel Bell and sling tackles.

I'm convinced that the rules regarding tackling need to be made clearer and that the result of a tackle (ie, whether it causes injury or not) should not be relevant to whether a player is suspended. Rather, it's the type of tackle which should be the cause of any penalty. Apart from anything else, it's possible that the damage to a player's health may not be noticed in the short term (ie, by the time the MRP considers the matter) but could be significant for the player's health in the longer term.

Take the time to read the article.

Is my memory playing tricks with me? Didn't Bail get injured in the same game as Jamar? and wasn't it reported to be the same type of injury?

Irrespective of the answers to the above, it's a worry that he's still on the injury list after all this time.

Re point 1: quite simply, taking possession of the ball (i.e. a possession) does not always result in a disposal. The two terms have different meanings.

I don't disagree. But it hasn't answered the converse. How can Frawley have had more disposals than possessions? Another poster has suggested a kick off the ground. Perhaps that's the answer.

And they need someone to sop their player welfare budget after Cousins retired.

LOL...well, almost.

It seems to me under Bailey MFC has sought players who have both skill and character. Fev had (maybe still has) the former, but fails the latter.

Interesting posts throughout this thread, but one option that seems to be missed is the possibility of playing Stef Martin as KPF with Jamar and Gawn filling the ruck roles. I'm not sure it's the best idea, but I'm pretty sure it's better than recruiting Fev, Jesse White or any other unwanted player at another club.