Are you satisfied with Bailey at the moment?

[mo64 5,853]

Whether White was picked up in the ND or PSD does not change the fact of the Coaches involvement in the recruiting proces.

It's no point arguing with you about football when you come out with this b#llshit statement. Daniher had everything to do with getting White, given that he was an assistant coach at Freo. Are you saying that a coach doesn't has the final say when it comes to giving up pick 2 in the ND?

You are a dead-set clown when it comes to actual football matters.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's no point arguing with you about football when you come out with this b#llshit statement. Daniher had everything to do with getting White, given that he was an assistant coach at Freo. Are you saying that a coach doesn't has the final say when it comes to giving up pick 2 in the ND?

Are that big word again? My you are a tough boy! :D

So the fact that Bailey did not extract a Port player from his old job his fault? And also should we have traded the Morton draft choice for a big name player? MFC did not have a 1st round choice PP to trade when Bailey joined? So your comparison between ND and DB is simplistic to suit your purposes (whatever they are??) and is critically flawed.

Still waiting on the game plan/ coach for our list Mo? And the players we had this year to rival Lyon, Tingay Ox and co? Ready when you are?

[demon3165 2,715]

Geeeee, Must have missed something here, when did they appoint ND again? talk about living in the past....move on.

[e25 5]

Shaft, when did you start following the club, because you obviously weren't around in 1998 when we had aging stars, who all retired within a year or 2, in addition to some young inexperienced players, and we made the preliminary final.

So like Rhino, don't let the facts get in the way of your emotive rants.

started supporting the dees in 83.

We had aging stars but they were not past the point of being competitive. Yze, White, Neitz, Holland.. they just were beyond being able to put up a decent fight over the last 2 seasons.

I really don't see many similarities between then & now.

And i get frustrated with supporters that expect immediate results based on the fanciful idea that a 'messiah' can come into a club and spontaneously turn water into wine.

This coming season & the next are when we should judge bailey, and in the meantime fractious supporters do more harm than good.

& god knows why... so that when he's finally sacked one day, you can say 'I told you so'? cos no one will listen

[mo64 5,853]

And i get frustrated with supporters that expect immediate results based on the fanciful idea that a 'messiah' can come into a club and spontaneously turn water into wine.

I wasn't expecting miracles, but when I first heard Bailey say that we'd adopt a "run and carry" game plan, I cringed because I knew we didn't have the sort of players that could make it work.

My belief is that a coach can only work with what he has. You don't adopt a game style based on the sort of players you ideally want, but don't currently have. There is no guarantee that Bailey will ever get players capable of playing run and carry. A player like Nathan Jones will never be suited to Bailey's game plan. So what becomes of him?

After 2000, after being out-muscled by the Bombers, we made a concerted effort to draft hard bodied players, hence Thompson, Bell, McLean, Sylvia, Moloney (via trade), Jones were all recruited. Three years down the track, and these type of players were superceded by hard running, line-breaking mids. The Johnsons and Solomon types, who we feared in 2000, became redundant a few years later.

The point I'm making is that you can't afford to give a coach 3 years to build a list around a game style, because that game style may be redundant in 3 years time. A coach's job is to build a list with the most talented players available, and refine his game plan according to their strengths.

[deanox 9,902]

mo, have you ever considered that the game plan of the best team is the best game plan?

what that means is that you get the best players together, get them playing smart, skilled footy, get them playing for the team, and get them working hard all around the field, and all of a sudden they will be playing the best gameplan because they are the best?

the game plan will evolve around players, as we get them, and as they reveal their strengths. hard bodies winning football are still important in any team - judd and cousins could hit packs when the wanted, neither were soft outside runners, yet WC played 'run and carry'. essendon played hard aggressive footy yet james hird loved to be outside and run with it.

the 'run and carry' differs from the 'kick it long to 5 opposition players' and the 'short kick to hit a loose target' game plans we have tried over the last few years, neither of which would win us a flag.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

My belief is that a coach can only work with what he has. You don't adopt a game style based on the sort of players you ideally want, but don't currently have. There is no guarantee that Bailey will ever get players capable of playing run and carry. A player like Nathan Jones will never be suited to Bailey's game plan. So what becomes of him?

Brilliant Mo. So if your list is crud made up of leaderless lazy senior players who have passed their use by date and is dominated by younger player what do you? What game plan would have suited MFC with the chronic lack of skill, talent and experience? You adopt a game style that you believe will bring you ultimately a premiership. If the players cannot compete with that style you go out and find players that can. The lack of guarantee of getting the players you want should not deter you from trying to improve the list.

The issues that bugged Nathan Jones under Bailey also bugged him under ND. His disposal and thinking under pressure is flawed. Its the modern game of football. I'll cut Jones some slack. In McLean's absence Jones had to be No 1 centreman. A ridiculous ask at any other Club for a 20 yo. But it might have something to do with the list. Hmmmm.

After 2000, after being out-muscled by the Bombers, we made a concerted effort to draft hard bodied players, hence Thompson, Bell, McLean, Sylvia, Moloney (via trade), Jones were all recruited. Three years down the track, and these type of players were superceded by hard running, line-breaking mids. The Johnsons and Solomon types, who we feared in 2000, became redundant a few years later.

Careful Mo, your giving a very good summation as to why the Daniher years post 2000 were flawed. And its because of those decisions we have a surplus of one paced footballers with limited skills of hand and foot that could barely break a clothes line.

Coupled with a number of senior players who were selfish, lazy and unaccountable its no wonder we treaded water then we went nowhere after that.

The point I'm making is that you can't afford to give a coach 3 years to build a list around a game style, because that game style may be redundant in 3 years time.

So the Hawks should never have appointed Clarkson? Or the Blues ...Ratten?

A coach's job is to build a list with the most talented players available, and refine his game plan according to their strengths.

Wrong.

A coach's job is to win a premiership by building the best possible team from within and from outside by playing a style and brand of football that he believes will bring you success. If your list is poor then you need to supplement substantially and this takes time. In the case of Bailey what were MFC's strengths that you could build a list around? What was this magical game plan that we should we have adopted that would have brought success with the 2008 list?

[H_T 3,043]

I wasn't expecting miracles, but when I first heard Bailey say that we'd adopt a "run and carry" game plan, I cringed because I knew we didn't have the sort of players that could make it work.

So, Mo, did you cringe when ND tried to adopt the "run & carry" game plan towards the end of his tenure too? We didn't quite have the sort of players that could make it work under ND either.

I cringed, when Daniher announced this. I knew our players were unaccustomed to the game style also. As season 2008 has also shown with the inexperienced and youthful side we have, it will take getting used to and much tweaking is still to be done with personnel in the team by Bailey & Co..

[mo64 5,853]

mo, have you ever considered that the game plan of the best team is the best game plan?

what that means is that you get the best players together, get them playing smart, skilled footy, get them playing for the team, and get them working hard all around the field, and all of a sudden they will be playing the best gameplan because they are the best?

I understand what you're saying, but it's not always the case. Sydney were far from the best team, but Roos was able to devise his own gameplan with the sole intention of beating the opposition. It was ugly to watch, but effective.

"Run and carry" worked for West Coast and Port Adelaide because they had the players who could make it work, ie; Judd, Cousins, Kerr and the Burgoynes and Cornes. So why did Bailey adopt it, when there is no guarantee that we'll ever get players of this quality. And if you hadn't noticed, we intend to draft a key forward with our no. 1 pick, so it doesn't look like we'll be addressing it in the short term.

Daniher's gameplan may have failed to win us a premiership, but maybe that was because we never had any genuine superstars.

So you still haven't explained why Bailey would adopt "run and carry" this season.

[mo64 5,853]

So, Mo, did you cringe when ND tried to adopt the "run & carry" game plan towards the end of his tenure too?

When I first saw us play like that in a NAB Cup game against Hawthorn, Yes.

[Roost It 1,434]

I've been saying since our practice matches that Bailey's game plan was wrong for our list. I was proven right. And don't give me this b#llshit that our list is so bad,

The only game plan right for our 2008 list is the "kick It in a hurry" no plan plan. Which is why Wheatley faired well in the weekly best lists. You really need to give Bailey time to get the players he needs to develop his plan. And Mo it's not [censored], you would be on an island of thought all on your own if you think our list wasn't so bad when Bailey arrived.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

When I first saw us play like that in a NAB Cup game against Hawthorn, Yes.

*Cough* We first played like that against Adelaide in late 2006 as Daniher finally admitted his game plan would not get him past the middle rungs of the ladder. He then realised that how outdated the game plan was you believe he modelled around his list and thus not good enough. What then does it say about the list ND had created for his last roll of the dice? Ill equipped at best.

So you still haven't explained why Bailey would adopt "run and carry" this season.

Its ironic you pulling up people for not explaining when you have ducked, weaved and disappeared when required to put up. Nice try.

[mo64 5,853]

So the Hawks should never have appointed Clarkson? Or the Blues ...Ratten?

Wrong.

A coach's job is to win a premiership by building the best possible team from within and from outside by playing a style and brand of football that he believes will bring you success. If your list is poor then you need to supplement substantially and this takes time. In the case of Bailey what were MFC's strengths that you could build a list around? What was this magical game plan that we should we have adopted that would have brought success with the 2008 list?

Neither Clarkson nor Ratten have pigeon-holed themselves with a set gameplan, so what's your point? They've both done excatly what I said a coach should do, and that is acquire the best available talent, and refine your gameplan accordingly. Do Hawthorn play the same way now with Franklin and Roughead as key forwards as opposed to when Mark Williams was full-forward? The answer is "NO".

Defining a gameplan, and recruiting accordingly is fraught with danger.

[mo64 5,853]

*Cough* We first played like that against Adelaide in late 2006 as Daniher finally admitted his game plan would not get him past the middle rungs of the ladder. He then realised that how outdated the game plan was you believe he modelled around his list and thus not good enough. What then does it say about the list ND had created for his last roll of the dice? Ill equipped at best.

Its ironic you pulling up people for not explaining when you have ducked, weaved and disappeared when required to put up. Nice try.

Is that the same list that you said was capable of winning the 2007 premiership?

And don't deny it, because it was reposted recently, and I'll repost it again.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Neither Clarkson nor Ratten have pigeon-holed themselves with a set gameplan, so what's your point? They've both done excatly what I said a coach should do, and that is acquire the best available talent, and refine your gameplan accordingly. Do Hawthorn play the same way now with Franklin and Roughead as key forwards as opposed to when Mark Williams was full-forward? The answer is "NO".

Defining a gameplan, and recruiting accordingly is fraught with danger.

Sadly it is the same game plan structure.It has been in your own words refined not changed...refined. It only looks better with the players together to play it. MFC is going about getting the best possible talent it can. Mind you the quality of the MFC list left nothing to reasonable trade unlike Clarkson's good fortune.

[e25 5]

A coach's job is to win a premiership by building the best possible team from within and from outside by playing a style and brand of football that he believes will bring you success. If your list is poor then you need to supplement substantially and this takes time. In the case of Bailey what were MFC's strengths that you could build a list around? What was this magical game plan that we should we have adopted that would have brought success with the 2008 list?

Surely there is a gameplan that revolves around poor skills, missing targets and running to the wrong spots? No?

Is there a gameplan that is best employed by inexperienced players?

Maybe one that best uses soft players with weak character?

... ???

*crickets*

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Is that the same list that you said was capable of winning the 2007 premiership?

And don't deny it, because it was reposted recently, and I'll repost it again.

Dont bother.

I said it was in the mix for greater success IF AND ONLY IF 4 key and critical ingredients occurred. They didn't and none of those ingredients were achjieved. In fact in each case it went the opposite direction. At least I can identify those events unlike some who are caught in a time warp.

Does not 2007 and 2006 show how things can quickly change Mo? MFC in 2007, Freo and WCE in 2008. And is that why you cant give a Coach 3 years to rebuild a list? Because things change quickly?

[mo64 5,853]

Surely there is a gameplan that revolves around poor skills, missing targets and running to the wrong spots? No?

Is there a gameplan that is best employed by inexperienced players?

Maybe one that best uses soft players with weak character?

... ???

*crickets*

It was predominantly the same list that got us into the finals 3 years running from 2004-2006 without any superstars. So do players' skill levels and decision making evaporate with age?

When Bailey took over, he said that the as an assistant at Port, he found Melbourne to be a skillful team. So either he was lying, or we've regressed under his coaching.

In fairness to Bailey, I've never heard him come up with any of the lame excuses that his apologists use.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It was predominantly the same list that got us into the finals 3 years running from 2004-2006 without any superstars. So do players' skill levels and decision making evaporate with age?

When Bailey took over, he said that the as an assistant at Port, he found Melbourne to be a skillful team. So either he was lying, or we've regressed under his coaching.

Yes. Neitz, Holland, Yze, White and Junior are all testimony to that. In fact all footballers are testimony to the fact.

Bailey was not lying he was handling the matter with a diplomatic palm off in an interview. What did you honestly expect him to say? A list of shortcomings of players in public? That would endear him to the new playing group wouldn't it. Its takes the pits of naivety to think after a team has been comprehensively beaten in 2007 that you could misuse a such comments in an interview to formulate such silly conclusions.

[Rogue 585]

It was predominantly the same list that got us into the finals 3 years running from 2004-2006 without any superstars. So do players' skill levels and decision making evaporate with age?

Yes.

It was clear that we were in for some tough times post-2006.

Do you blame DB for 2007 as well?

[dee-luded 2,959]

You are kidding yourself. You really believe that this club can financially afford to be in the doldrums for 2 more years, whilst Bailey develops his wunderkids.

And what evidence is there that Bailey can mould talented footballers into a premiership team, based on this season? Kids like Jones and Bate who finished in the top 3 of the 2007 B&F, actually regressed under Bailey, with his whiz bang game plan.

And you have the gall to bag Daniher for building a competitive side from day one (1998). What a joke.

I did not suggest two more years at the bottom. What I suggested was that its likely & even desirable for next year ('09) to finish near the bottom.

In 2010 I'd expect & hope for a rally from our maturing group of players & start climbing the ladder up towards around 9th/10th posi. (further adding to our growing list of talent)

From there we will springboard into the 8.

[Roost It 1,434]

It was predominantly the same list that got us into the finals 3 years running from 2004-2006 without any superstars. So do players' skill levels and decision making evaporate with age?

When Bailey took over, he said that the as an assistant at Port, he found Melbourne to be a skillful team. So either he was lying, or we've regressed under his coaching.

In fairness to Bailey, I've never heard him come up with any of the lame excuses that his apologists use.

Hey Mo you forgot 2007!

We're all on the same team here, stop flogging a horse that died in late 2006 and start supporting Bailey. Your ttrally unfounded criticisms of him have become the rantings of a bitter and twisted mind. You need to smile more, things are going to be just fine.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not always the case. Sydney were far from the best team, but Roos was able to devise his own gameplan with the sole intention of beating the opposition. It was ugly to watch, but effective.

"Run and carry" worked for West Coast and Port Adelaide because they had the players who could make it work, ie; Judd, Cousins, Kerr and the Burgoynes and Cornes. So why did Bailey adopt it, when there is no guarantee that we'll ever get players of this quality. And if you hadn't noticed, we intend to draft a key forward with our no. 1 pick, so it doesn't look like we'll be addressing it in the short term.

Daniher's gameplan may have failed to win us a premiership, but maybe that was because we never had any genuine superstars.

So you still haven't explained why Bailey would adopt "run and carry" this season.

You don't modify your gameplan down to your skill level, thats a silly notion. You build your skill level to the level required to play the game plan that will win a premiership.

Modifying a gameplan might minimise damage in the short term and may get you a few more wins and or reduce the shellaquings but wont win you a premiership.

Far too early to call on Bailey but he appears to be following the modern prototype of building a team from the ground up ala hawthorn/geelong.

[Hannabal 4]

I see no reason at all why Bailey's performance shouldn't be questioned or debated. I've cut him slack, but it's hard to commend much of what I've witnessed in 08. We were the worst performed team since Fitzroy in 1996 and yet some on here think that it's sacriligious to query Bailey's performance.

How anyone could think that the jury isn't 'still out' is beyond me. Even his wildest supporters couldn't have much to hang their hat on. He might become a marvellous coach, but how would anyone presently know ? Basically he did what anyone would do with the MFC list and what every supporter wanted (or should have). He played kids and shelved older players well past their best. I don't think he's done anything earth shattering. Like all others I'm hoping to see genuine improvement next year and he'll have my support until there's concrete evidence that he's unable to implement, or communicate a quality gameplan executed by dedicated players. He probably has a valid argument for a cast iron 3 year contract, but I'll want to see incremental improvement next year to be sure we've got the right bloke. He talks the talk ok, but I'll want to see some yards gained.

One thing is for certain. Come 09 the honeymoon period will be well and truly over. And rightfully so.

[mo64 5,853]

You down modify your gameplan down to your skill level, thats a silly notion. You build your skill level to the level required to play the game plan that will win a premiership.

Modifying a gameplan might minimise damage in the short term and may get you a few more wins and or reduce the shellaquings but wont win you a premiership.

Far too early to call on Bailey but he appears to be following the modern prototype of building a team from the ground up ala hawthorn/geelong.

I'm not disputing that Bailey is trying to build a team from the ground up. What I am suggesting is that by the time Bailey has a list capable of playing "run and carry", his gameplan will be outdated, and will not win us a premiership.

And I pose this question, do under 18's teams play a "run and carry" gameplan? I'm of the understanding that tagging and flooding is frowned upon, and players pretty much play conventional footy. So surely it's harder to develop kids playing a gameplan that's foreign to them?

I'll go on record now and say that Bailey won't be coach in 2010. Given our financial position, the board won't tolerate another season like 2008.