La Dee-vina Comedia

I know I'm late, but here goes: 6. Sylvia 5. Rivers 4. Watts(but he makes frustrating mistakes) 3. Frawley 2. MacDonald (but he makes really frustrating mistakes) 1. Jones (but he makes should-no-better mistakes) And a quick word about Bate. Didn't star, didn't even play well. But did show some grunt that's been missing from his game and the forward line most of the year.

Completely agree re Morton tagging Judd. I can't see anyone else doing it. Bennell could play defensive forward on Yarran to try to limit his effectiveness. But with Tapscott, Grimes, Davey, Bail and Bartram all out injured, we really are short of running defenders (and Garland could probably be included in this group, too). So Bennell to the backline is not the worst idea going around. It's where he started, after all.

I'm sorry. I don't think language like this should be allowed on Demonland. Surely you mean "He's sen-[insert present participle of choice 4-letter word]-sational"

1. J Brown 2. D Fletcher 3. J Bartel Based on who I most enjoy watching.

I would expect Carlton to play two ruckmen, even if Warnock doesn't play. So Martin is going to need help. As much as I find Newton to be a continuing disappointment, unless he's replaced with someone who can support Martin, he has to stay one more week. I can't see Davey being dropped - but he could be out injured. I think Bate, while never having been a star has shown in the past that he can play. So I'd give him another chance; ditto Petterd, although he has also been disappointing. But enough about the forwards - I don't think they're the problem. With Tapscott, Garland, Grimes, Bail and possibly Davey out we have a backline with holes, lacking pace and generally poor foot skills. With Carlton primarily relying on small forwards, it's time for some new or transfused blood back there. So, I would make the following changes: OUT: Newton for Gawn Tapscott for Bennell/Strauss (to play on one of the small forwards) Davey (but only if injured) for Bennell/Strauss If Newton stays in, I'd be tempted to drop MacDonald and play Howe moving Petterd back - although, once again, his foot skills worry me. It's 50:50 for me whether Bennell or Strauss come in.

6. Jones (even though he still wrongly thinks he's Superman and can run through anything) 5. Gysberts 4. Watts 3. Martin 2. Moloney 1. Green

Has there ever been a game in the history of AFL where no genuine ruckman has been picked for either team? (With apologies to Martin - but I think he's not yet a genuine ruckman, although a very good prospect). This could be a game where Newton rucking might actually be successful. Mind you, McEvoy might still come in.

I admit I don't really fully understand the "press" but "stick like glue to your opponent" apparently isn't the modern game. Heath Shaw admitted on the weekend (or on Friday night?) that Malthouse criticised him on Friday for staying with a player instead of being in the right position on the ground. I don't think "footy is pretty simple really" at all.

Just some observations: Wonna was unlucky on the weekend in that he ended up being the one to whom the inside 50 kick was too often sent when instead he should have been crumbing the pass sent to someone else (eg, Dunn, Newton, Jurrah). I was watching on TV so couldn't see why it was Wonna that the passes were sent to. Newton was dominating forward. So why did he go into the ruck when Dunn was the expendable one - particularly after he'd been reported? Jetta often looked like he was labouring when chasing. Perhaps he had exhausted himself but he doesn't look either fully fit or fast enough for an on ball role. Will he make it? Well, I had thought Maric wouldn't and (hopefully) he's proving me wrong, so maybe Jetta will get there. So, for my changes I would suggest: Outs: Garland, Bail, Dunn (whether suspended or not) Ins: McKenzie, Rivers (or Joel Mac if Rivers not ready) and Gawn. Sub to be Jetta. I'd generally prefer Bate to Newton, too, but believe Newton should be given another chance to play forward for the whole game before the axe falls. And if he takes the chance, perhaps the axe won't fall. I'm not sold on Bennell but Bate can't replace him and Bennell's speed is attractive against St Kilda.

Thanks mate for your explanation. My apologies for not replying sooner, but this is the first chance I've had to check. I guess I should have concentrated more when I studied anatomy and physiology (obviously badly).

I know I'm late, but here goes anyway: 6. Frawley 5. Martin (even though his opponent was possibly BOG) 4. Sylvia 3. Gysberts 2. Davey 1. Watts It's interesting reading the divergent views on this thread and the Ins and Outs threads, particularly with Jetta and Gysberts. Not much divergence on views about Dunn, though. Should have a line put through his name for the rest of the year.

Dastardly clever cryptanalysis skills. How many of us could have seen the 'c' and the 'o' in MacDonald and the 'o' and 'k' in Stockdale and worked out Casey's real plan is to play Cook in the backline.

I'm not too proud or embarrassed to ask...what does "proprioceptive input" mean?

I'm not sure if it was deliberate, but I can't help but think you're having a go at Nick Reiwoldt's goal-kicking (or, rather, behind-kicking).

Best post on this site. While we think the penalty seems inappropriate the whole point of the MRP process is take away from the decision-makers the subjective assessments which subsequently lead to inconsistencies (at best) and accusations of bias (at worst). But the MRP has a grading system which , to me, needs further refinement. It's not the MRP's fault - it's the ranking criteria they have to use. If nothing else, I would hope the Trengove and Brown cases cause a review of the parameters under which the MRP operates. The logic of the MRP/appeal process is sound, but the gradings given are out of whack. In my view an off the ball incident should be penalised more than something which occurs in play. (Of course, under such a weighting Tappy might have been suspended rather than reprimanded for his off the ball bump a week or two ago.)

Funny how people see things differently. Some people have given Warnock votes and I thought he struggled, but did improve as the game went on. Nevertheless, the best thing about this week's voting is the breadth of players getting votes. 6. Moloney 5. Frawley 4. Trengove 3. Bartram 2. Bail 1. Sylvia I couldn't find room for Petterd (imagine what he would have done if he'd been cleaner in he first half) or Maric (clearly his best game) or Jamar or Garland or Tapscott or...

And it's now on the MFC website. As stated above, the bench is Gysberts, Dunn, Bail and Wonna. Emrgencies are MacDonald, Newton and Jetta. I guess one of Wonna or Gysberts to be the sub. Given our propensity to name forwards as subs, I'll predict Wonna to be sub. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of a forward being the sub, though.

So are we thinking Gold Coast followed by a bye is like having two consecutive 'soft' weeks? And therefore we went into the WCE game unprepared for a tougher contest? I think there is some merit in the thinking...but if it is true it's a sad indictment on the ability of the team (coaches and/or players) to prepare properly.

Jamar will need help, so presumably one of Dunn or Newton plays. Pity - I'd prefer Martin to either of those two for that role. I can't see how Bail could be dropped - although perhaps he's got an injury. If everyone on the bench is truly available, I'd play Dunn, Bail, MacDonald and Wonna. Adds strength compared with last week, but loses speed and finesse.

Really? I vote for John Barnes (no, not Jimmy Barnes).

How does anything I've said relate to whether I've watched us play or whether I understand the game?

Not quite. Barassi left at the end of 1964 to go to Carlton. I suspect money might have been involved.

All this doom and gloom - yet we are in the eight at the moment and nine teams aint. Granted, we're not playing as well as we'd like, but if we're in the same position at the end of round 22 will we require a new coach? There are aspects about the way we play I don't like (I'd like us to keep at least one forward forward at all times, for example) but I'm prepared to accept that Bailey is in the best position right now to know what needs to be done to fix the malaise. If towards the end of the year we've underperformed against reasonable expectations, then I'd expect Bailey's position to be questioned. But not now. I seem to recall Geelong had a horror start to a year before they climbed up off the canvas, and 2.5 wins out of 5 is not a horror start.

Same players; same comment about Jamar (gee, he busted a gut out there, even though he was well beaten and ditto for Bail); slightly different order: 6 - Garland 5 - Trengove 4 - Jamar 3 - Jones 2 - Bail 1 - Watts I'm actually tempted to rate Jamar first and Bail second because they did not give up trying, even though their opponents were probably best and second best on the ground.

On 3AW Rumour File today it was 'reported' that Le Cras has returned more quickly than expected because he had not torn his groin muscle off the bone - as was reported at the time - but had instead suffered from a twisted [censored]. Makes my eyes water just writing this. Have to believe he's going to play. What would be the point of naming him and then saying he's not quite ready? Either he was or he wasn't ready yesterday when they named the team.