Is Bailey a good coach?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

As for Bailey's calmness in the box, it's easy to be calm when there's no expectations of winning. And IMO, his apparent calmness doesn't prove anything. It's the coach's game strategies and how the players are performing, that really matter.

Personally, I don't believe that Bailey has coached well to date, but as long as he's prepared to learn and adjust, he should be given the chance with at least 2 years in the job.

What's your game plan Mo? I asked you months ago about what game plan would you put forward in regard to your incessant criticism of Bailey and I am still waiting. Another case of being big on the bravado and low on the substance.

Ready when you are for the big picture.

[mo64 5,881]

What's your game plan Mo? I asked you months ago about what game plan would you put forward in regard to your incessant criticism of Bailey and I am still waiting. Another case of being big on the bravado and low on the substance.

Ready when you are for the big picture.

The problem I've had with Bailey's game plan (run and carry, with a concentration on handball) is that it didn't compliment our list. But if you hadn't noticed over the past month, we've made adjustments, and our kick-to-handball ratio has markedly changed.

We also now use the long kick to the top of the goalsquare as an option. You constantly bemoaned this tactic when I brought it up, and described it as outdated. Well how much more potent has our forward line been since we've use this tactic, and included a permanent crumbing forward?

The other problem I've had with Bailey has been with team selection. It's not so much about the personnel, but the structure of the team. Early in the year, he had 3 tall forwards and no crumbers. Out of good fortune, Neitz and Robertson are no longer there, and our scoring effeciency has improved. And the selection of 3 ruckmen last week was ridiculous. (And no, PJ is not a key forward).

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The problem I've had with Bailey's game plan (run and carry, with a concentration on handball) is that it didn't compliment our list. But if you hadn't noticed over the past month, we've made adjustments, and our kick-to-handball ratio has markedly changed.

We also now use the long kick to the top of the goalsquare as an option. You constantly bemoaned this tactic when I brought it up, and described it as outdated. Well how much more potent has our forward line been since we've use this tactic, and included a permanent crumbing forward?

The other problem I've had with Bailey has been with team selection. It's not so much about the personnel, but the structure of the team. Early in the year, he had 3 tall forwards and no crumbers. Out of good fortune, Neitz and Robertson are no longer there, and our scoring effeciency has improved. And the selection of 3 ruckmen last week was ridiculous. (And no, PJ is not a key forward).

What game plan compliments an underskilled slow list? Bailey does not play run and carry but is teaching younger players to make the correct decisions by hand or foot when under pressure. He wants players to be able to apply defensive pressure both when we have the ball and when we dont.

He has taken over a potholed list with little leadership and senior list that you have pointed has been around too long and under performed. He has inherited a poor team culture where selfish players have been tolerated and rewarded. The talent he to work with has is raw undercoached and lacking experience. He also took over a side which had less than 20 players fit at the start of pre season and faced a draw where we played nearly every top side within the first 8 rounds.

As far as structure is concerned, Bailey has done more this year than Daniher did in longer. He has backed and devloped Garland up back and possibly got some form out of Warnock as the other key back. He has got more out of Miller up forward than we have seen in the past three years. His efforts with the rucks highlight the problems MFC has. White is finished, Jamar is line ball AFL and PJ is capable around the ground but is limited in the centre and above his shoulders. PJ was not bad up forward against Sydney when our midfield gave him half a chance. But given White was on his last chance performance wise, PJ up forward did provide height there and some insurance for the aging bigman.

In regard to MFC, the problems have been definitely personnel and lack of the right mix and quality.

[H_T 3,049]

What game plan compliments an underskilled slow list? Bailey does not play run and carry but is teaching younger players to make the correct decisions by hand or foot when under pressure. He wants players to be able to apply defensive pressure both when we have the ball and when we dont.

He has taken over a potholed list with little leadership and senior list that you have pointed has been around too long and under performed. He has inherited a poor team culture where selfish players have been tolerated and rewarded. The talent he to work with has is raw undercoached and lacking experience. He also took over a side which had less than 20 players fit at the start of pre season and faced a draw where we played nearly every top side within the first 8 rounds.

As far as structure is concerned, Bailey has done more this year than Daniher did in longer. He has backed and devloped Garland up back and possibly got some form out of Warnock as the other key back. He has got more out of Miller up forward than we have seen in the past three years. His efforts with the rucks highlight the problems MFC has. White is finished, Jamar is line ball AFL and PJ is capable around the ground but is limited in the centre and above his shoulders. PJ was not bad up forward against Sydney when our midfield gave him half a chance. But given White was on his last chance performance wise, PJ up forward did provide height there and some insurance for the aging bigman.

In regard to MFC, the problems have been definitely personnel and lack of the right mix and quality.

Here, Here.

Gods speed on fixing the list up Bails, to suit the game plan -the type of plan that can win premierships.

[mo64 5,881]

What game plan compliments an underskilled slow list?

I'll address your 1st point, because the rest of your post is an emotional rant as usual.

When Bailey was appointed coach, he stated that we were a skillful team. And an unskillful list doesn't make the finals 3 out of 4 years. If they do, then that makes Daniher a master coach.

[The Emblem 1]

When Bailey was appointed coach, he stated that we were a skillful team. And an unskillful list doesn't make the finals 3 out of 4 years. If they do, then that makes Daniher a master coach.

There was skill, but a lot of it rested with fading stars, and we had a style of play / list structure that just did not stand up to the intensity of finals football.

[H_T 3,049]

I'll address your 1st point, because the rest of your post is an emotional rant as usual.

When Bailey was appointed coach, he stated that we were a skillful team. And an unskillful list doesn't make the finals 3 out of 4 years. If they do, then that makes Daniher a master coach.

Emotional rant? More like a well structured response to yours.

When did Bailey actually state that we were a skillful team?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

There was skill, but a lot of it rested with fading stars, and we had a style of play / list structure that just did not stand up to the intensity of finals football.

Melbourne's style of play in and leading up to the finals of recent years actually was different to how they played during the year.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'll address your 1st point, because the rest of your post is an emotional rant as usual.

When Bailey was appointed coach, he stated that we were a skillful team. And an unskillful list doesn't make the finals 3 out of 4 years. If they do, then that makes Daniher a master coach.

What would you expect him to say when he walks into a new club? That the list is crap and its no wonder they finished down the bottom in 2007?

A skillful team does not finish 14th in a year when it is "seriously" challenging

We finished 14 last year and were just terrible. We made the finals in 2004-2006 only to bomb out badly each year. We only made up numbers in September and were found short of skill, talent and a game plan that did not stand the scrutiny and pressure of a September finals campaign. Our better players from that period had deteriorated markedly (ie White, Neitz and Yze) and we had not developed the next generation of footballers. We had held onto to senior footballers too long and fringe players like Ferguson, Ward and Brown that were never going to take you beyond the middle of the ladder at best. No magic there. MFC got it wrong. Daniher realised this when he rolled the dice and tried to change course late 2006.

You dont have to be half smart to work out MFC had over assessed their list at the end of 2006 and that 2007 brought home a series of home truths.

Its no wonder you cant address the rest of my post because you lack of knowledge and depth to work out was has and is going on.

Its ironic you label responses "emotional rants" given your penchant to call other posters considered responses "[censored]" and telling them to get stuffed.

Its even more ironic in that you can only state that you would address my first point and then didn't.

Its no wonder you are proud of living for today as you have little grasp of what has happened in the past and not a scintilla of how its impacts the future. Breathtaking.

[mo64 5,881]

Emotional rant? More like a well structured response to yours.

When did Bailey actually state that we were a skillful team?

In an interview I heard when he was appointed, he stated that when he was an assistant with the Power, he found Melbourne to be a skillful side.

And Rhino's post is an emotional rant because the whole premise of his argument is that Daniher, as a coach and list manager, was the devil incarnate. He seems to forget that Daniher took over an ageing underperforming list, and took them to a prelim in his 1st year, and a GF in his 3rd.

Daniher's record suggests that he was a good coach, but not great.

History shows that good coaches can turn ordinary sides around very quickly. Bailey has done nothing to suggest that he is a good coach.

[The Emblem 1]

Melbourne's style of play in and leading up to the finals of recent years actually was different to how they played during the year.

Good point...it usually started to go pear shaped about Round 17

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Melbourne's style of play in and leading up to the finals of recent years actually was different to how they played during the year.

No it didnt.

In 2004, the players that lead the way during that year and a couple in a big way (Neitz White and Thompson) were injured. Same game plan just lacked class cattle.

In 2005, we peaked after we played all the lower clubs that year. We then did the back half of the draw against all the top sides with often poor breaks in between games and a number of interstate matches. Same game plan but just got pulled apart by better opponents.

In 2006, after a solid mid season, we again faltered with injuries to key players who did not return to their previous form. We continued to get picked apart by oppositions that pressured our possession of the ball and punished the turnover. We dangerously flirted with run and carry against Adelaide in R22 as Daniher realised that his existing game plan was not going to deliver on the bigger interstate grounds and would deliver us better than a meek roll over in the first round in the Sept finals.

[H_T 3,049]

In an interview I heard when he was appointed, he stated that when he was an assistant with the Power, he found Melbourne to be a skillful side.

And Rhino's post is an emotional rant because the whole premise of his argument is that Daniher, as a coach and list manager, was the devil incarnate. He seems to forget that Daniher took over an ageing underperforming list, and took them to a prelim in his 1st year, and a GF in his 3rd.

Daniher's record suggests that he was a good coach, but not great.

History shows that good coaches can turn ordinary sides around very quickly. Bailey has done nothing to suggest that he is a good coach.

What about on Sunday, he coached pretty good with the youngest list on record.

What Daniher did was get the best out of what he had at his disposal. And when he left, he knew he was leaving with its list in tatters, with ageing stars and a injury depleted list. Nearly 3/4 of the list didnt have a full pre-season, thats what he inherited. He started the cleanout last year, on top of retirees. He now has the job at hand of turning the list again in another 14 weeks time.

We have witnessed improvement in Brad Miller, Brad Green, and the like as well as youngsters in Warnock, Garland, Wonaemirri, even Sylvia. This is something Daniher couldn't do.

With Daniher, we saw Brad Miller presenting and marking at CHF and then handballing and most times with a lack of vision turning it over much to all our frustration.. I see a definite improvement in his smarts this year, like playing on, taking the ark and kicking himself

[mo64 5,881]

What about on Sunday, he coached pretty good with the youngest list on record.

What Daniher did was get the best out of what he had at his disposal. And when he left, he knew he was leaving with its list in tatters, with ageing stars and a injury depleted list. Nearly 3/4 of the list didnt have a full pre-season, thats what he inherited. He started the cleanout last year, on top of retirees. He now has the job at hand of turning the list again in another 14 weeks time.

We have witnessed improvement in Brad Miller, Brad Green, and the like as well as youngsters in Warnock, Garland, Wonaemirri, even Sylvia. This is something Daniher couldn't do.

With Daniher, we saw Brad Miller presenting and marking at CHF and then handballing and most times with a lack of vision turning it over much to all our frustration.. I see a definite improvement in his smarts this year, like playing on, taking the ark and kicking himself

All a coach can do is get the best out of the list he has at his disposal. At 2-12 with a 64% , no coach would dare say that they'd got the best out of their players.

As for player improvement, Wona is a 1st year player, Garland is making the improvement that you'd expect in a 3rd year player, Green has always been a good player, I'm not sold on Warnock, and Sylvia has had an ok season.

You are spot on with Miller. Daniher frowned on any player who took the arc and kicked. Miller is a better player when he does this.

[mo64 5,881]

In 2006, after a solid mid season, we again faltered with injuries to key players who did not return to their previous form. We continued to get picked apart by oppositions that pressured our possession of the ball and punished the turnover. We dangerously flirted with run and carry against Adelaide in R22 as Daniher realised that his existing game plan was not going to deliver on the bigger interstate grounds and would deliver us better than a meek roll over in the first round in the Sept finals.

Factually incorrect as usual. We beat St.Kilda in the 1st week of the finals.

[The Emblem 1]

Daniher frowned on any player who took the arc and kicked.

As did Noah...but turned a blind eye when in a tight spot against Ararat.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In an interview I heard when he was appointed, he stated that when he was an assistant with the Power, he found Melbourne to be a skillful side.

And Rhino's post is an emotional rant because the whole premise of his argument is that Daniher, as a coach and list manager, was the devil incarnate. He seems to forget that Daniher took over an ageing underperforming list, and took them to a prelim in his 1st year, and a GF in his 3rd.

Daniher's record suggests that he was a good coach, but not great.

History shows that good coaches can turn ordinary sides around very quickly. Bailey has done nothing to suggest that he is a good coach.

Once again, it beggars belief that you would expect a officer of another club to say anything else about another club on a media outlet.

During the interview process, Bailey went from outsider in the ranks to a top candidate because he displayed strong preparation and research on the MFC list. His sharp assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the list and his focussed attention to what was required impressed a recruiting panel that included a number of experienced AFL football minds.

Its no wonder you label my response an "emotional rant". You have completetly misrepresented it and then introduce a completely irrelevant issue into the equation. In fact Mo's biggest argument is to continually imply and misrepresent erroneous points of view on other people's comments that in his mind puts subtance into his wafer thin posts.

Daniher took over a list that was poor. Its best players and its heart and soul (Schwartz, Lyon, Tingay, Neitz, G. Lovett) were either incapacitated or missing great stretches of the season.

In his first year, he got all those players back fit. he also picked up a first ruckman in White to replace Stynes. He aso recruited a couple of ready made footballers in Rigoni and Ingerson. Hell, he got a windfall and the improvment was pronounced. ND did get us to a GF and in 2002 a losing the Adelaide semi final. The biggest joke is that I have supportiver of ND on this site but list management, leadership have been issues that are rightly questioned.

In fact, history has shown that the advent of the draft and salary cap makes it harder for bottom dwelling clubs to rise up the ladder. Hawthorn, St Kilda, Carlton and Richmond are proof of this. The removal of PP for a one year dip has made the transition harder. It is also going to be harder when you are cash strapped and lack facilities.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

All a coach can do is get the best out of the list he has at his disposal. At 2-12 with a 64% , no coach would dare say that they'd got the best out of their players.

That first sentence is your best post this year.

If the list is as poor as MFC's with an interrupted pre season for most of the list and playing most of the top 8 in the first 10 rounds then the position is understandable.

Bailey realises where the list is at and is continuing to communicate the same fundamental message to essentially young inexperienced footballers and to older footballers that have the gumption and sense to listen.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Factually incorrect as usual. We beat St.Kilda in the 1st week of the finals.

Sorry 2nd week against Freo. Nevertheless our finals performances have been poor in those three years. That was the point you missed as usual.

You are spot on with Miller. Daniher frowned on any player who took the arc and kicked. Miller is a better player when he does this.

Daniher frowned so much about he made Miller Vice Captain.

[The Emblem 1]

So...is Bailey a good coach.

On what we've seen thus far I'd say yes, basis:

1/ The steady improvement in our performance over the year, especially given the long-term injury list; Neitz, Robertson, Rivers, Moloney [and now McLean].

2/ The reinvention / resurrection of Miller & Dunn

3/ The development of Garland, Warnock, Moloney [until injured], and Chris Johnson.

4/ The exhibition of mental strength - leading a top four side all day, slip 11 points down, and continue to fight on claw a win.

All good signs.

And don't forget that from next year its DB's list that he's coaching.

[H_T 3,049]

All a coach can do is get the best out of the list he has at his disposal. At 2-12 with a 64% , no coach would dare say that they'd got the best out of their players.

Well then, neither would Daniher in '99, '01, '03, '07.

As for player improvement, Green has always been a good player, I'm not sold on Warnock, and Sylvia has had an ok season.

Incorrect. Green has been a good player now and again over his time at Melbourne, who has given his all this season. I'm not sold on 'always' - neither is the general football community. Don't ask me how I know, I simply haven't got the time to poll everyone. You will just have to take my word on this.

You are spot on with Miller. Daniher frowned on any player who took the arc and kicked. Miller is a better player when he does this.

Yes, correct. Miller is a better player for this, thanks to Bailey.

[mo64 5,881]

Sorry 2nd week against Freo. Nevertheless our finals performances have been poor in those three years. That was the point you missed as usual.

Daniher frowned so much about he made Miller Vice Captain.

I always miss your point because it's usually hidden amongst paragraphs of drivel.

And you obviously struggle with reading. I said that Daniher frowned upon "any" player who ran in an arc and kicked, not Brad Miller specifically, so what's you point on the vice captaincy? I missed it as usual. B)

[the pearl 36]

Yes, correct. Miller is a better player for this, thanks to Bailey.

Maybe Miller is a better player at the moment because he no longer has ole rubberchest as a role model.

[H_T 3,049]

So...is Bailey a good coach.

On what we've seen thus far I'd say yes, basis:

1/ The steady improvement in our performance over the year, especially given the long-term injury list; Neitz, Robertson, Rivers, Moloney [and now McLean].

2/ The reinvention / resurrection of Miller & Dunn

3/ The development of Garland, Warnock, Moloney [until injured], and Chris Johnson.

4/ The exhibition of mental strength - leading a top four side all day, slip 11 points down, and continue to fight on claw a win.

All good signs.

And don't forget that from next year its DB's list that he's coaching.

I agree It's a Nightmare......and if I didn't it would be to early to tell anyway.

One things for sure when you stack up our list against Fremantle's and West Coast's....hell even Port Adelaide (last years Grand Finalists), it puts their coaches in the spotlight! What do you say to that mo64?

[H_T 3,049]

Maybe Miller is a better player at the moment because he no longer has ole rubberchest as a role model.

Can you clarify rubberchest?