PREDICTION 2009

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

I'll let Clubber Lang talk for me.

thats mint BM well done.

[Trisul 664]

Nice read 1858. mo64, could you spell out what you mean please? What do you think Bailey could/should have gotten out of the team last year?

Edit: To be clear, this was written as at your last post. Just didnt hit submit for a while.

Edit2: 10-16

Edit3: I just noticed that between 18-June and 9-Dec last year (myself and JtR) Demonlands userbase (accounts anyway) DOUBLED.

[beelzebub 23,313]

11-12

I dont think we will be the easy beats..nor the worst of the also rans this year.

With a new deal regarding the MCC we might just start to make real claims as to the ground being OURS !! and making it hell for visitors. So much of footy is between the ears !!

2009..not to be as bad as some

[deeflog 679]

For me this season it won't be about the numbers in the W and L colums, it will be about our efforts on the park for extended periods of time. Too often last season we would 1 or 2 quarters of good high pressure footy and then say, thats our job done for today.

Another area i will be looking for improvement in will be the skills, especially by foot!!

[mo64 5,853]

Nice read 1858. mo64, could you spell out what you mean please? What do you think Bailey could/should have gotten out of the team last year?

Edit: To be clear, this was written as at your last post. Just didnt hit submit for a while.

Edit2: 10-16

Let me start by saying our financial predicament is the underlying reason behind my beliefs on how we should have gone. If we had the financial resources to be able to bottom out for 3 years and accumulate early draft picks, I'm all for it. As a club, our on field performance has a direct correlation with our off field performance. We can't back away from that.

What could have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

We'll never know. A win/loss record of 3/19 didn't faze me that much. But a percentage of 64% or thereabouts was pathetic.

What should have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

From day 1, I didn't agree with Bailey taking us down the same track as Daniher did in 2007, by playing run and carry. In the preceding 4 years, we'd gone about drafting a specific type of midfielder to counter the strength of Essendon and the Brisbane Lions. McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Moloney and Jones were all basically 1st round draft picks, and were all considered strong inside mids. None of these players would be considered the prototype of a run and carry footballer. So basically we have to turnover a generation of 1st round picks for Bailey's plan to succeed. Financially, we haven't got 5 years to get things right.

Having said all that, once Bailey adopted his gameplan, we should have seen some improvement from round 1 to round 22. We didn't, which led me to doubt his ability to motivate the players.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Let me start by saying our financial predicament is the underlying reason behind my beliefs on how we should have gone. If we had the financial resources to be able to bottom out for 3 years and accumulate early draft picks, I'm all for it. As a club, our on field performance has a direct correlation with our off field performance. We can't back away from that.

Agree. For years we have been financially straightened. We have no home base no training facilities. We have crimped on player development in the past and the leading clubs have an administration and operations area twice the size of ours. The impact of this has lmited the opportunities for MFC.

You make bottoming seem like it was an alternative. It wasn't. We rolled the dice on its list in 2004 and 2005 to see if it could bring us success. It didn't and the key players behind that drive White, Neitz and Yze all deteriorated as AFL footballers and we had no footballers that came through to replace them.

If you did not think bottoming out was inevitable. Why and for what reasons? And given the limited opportunities to trade players what should MFC have done to avoid bottoming out given the list inherited at the end of 2007?

What could have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

We'll never know. A win/loss record of 3/19 didn't faze me that much. But a percentage of 64% or thereabouts was pathetic.

Alas we do. So you not unhappy with the W/L record! OK, So you recognise that the Club were evolving its list. No one liked the 100 point blow outs. But we were playing primarily kids in mens roles with a number of revolving injuries to our key players and a circus going on off the the field where we went through 4 CEOs and 2 Boards within the space of 8 months.

How would you have done things differently during the year Mo given the circumstances at hand?

What should have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

From day 1, I didn't agree with Bailey taking us down the same track as Daniher did in 2007, by playing run and carry. In the preceding 4 years, we'd gone about drafting a specific type of midfielder to counter the strength of Essendon and the Brisbane Lions. McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Moloney and Jones were all basically 1st round draft picks, and were all considered strong inside mids. None of these players would be considered the prototype of a run and carry footballer. So basically we have to turnover a generation of 1st round picks for Bailey's plan to succeed. Financially, we haven't got 5 years to get things right.

What game plan should we have been playing to match our list Mo?

With the exception of McLean none of the other players were strong midfield types. Bell, by your own estimation is a limited footballer. Sylvia and Moloney have both been crippled by OP and had not been able to get on the park. And as you rate a rookie ahead of Jones . None of them are strong mid field types.

The only relevance of where they were drafted is if you want to assess the recruiting and development of MFC players. If you are going to do that I reckon you could add Dunn and Bate to that list. Its make or break for a few players. And if we dont end up with good players from a number of that group then CAC's recruiting record does not look so good. At the moment the jury is at best out on all but McLean and he is one paced.

Having said all that, once Bailey adopted his gameplan, we should have seen some improvement from round 1 to round 22. We didn't, which led me to doubt his ability to motivate the players.

Its not an issue of Bailey adopting the gameplan its the players. Its naive to think a new game plan gets picked up in a pre season, particularly one where less than half the list were ready to train and were then on modified programs.

Both Thompson and Clarkson evidence that getting the players to commit and adopt a game plan takes years. Hawthorn were horrible in Clarkson early years. So were the Cats under Thompson.

[Carn dees 108]

11-12

I dont think we will be the easy beats..nor the worst of the also rans this year.

With a new deal regarding the MCC we might just start to make real claims as to the ground being OURS !! and making it hell for visitors. So much of footy is between the ears !!

2009..not to be as bad as some

i dont think we'l be the easy beats either, although i dont see many teams doing wors than us the only one i can think of is west coast.

i recon wel probly finish bottom 4 but aslong as there are heaps of good signs it could be for the better.

[Guest unstable punt]

Bottom four (4-7 wins) with alot of competitive losses due to our defences ability to minimise the scoreboard damage. We lack forward power and midfield polish but as long we keep getting games into the kids we will keep showing improvement.

l'm with that, l think we still have a year of very average performances and will vie for wooden spoon with WC but we need another year of cleansing, there will be another 5-6 gone at the end of the year.

[1858 285]

Let me start by saying our financial predicament is the underlying reason behind my beliefs on how we should have gone. If we had the financial resources to be able to bottom out for 3 years and accumulate early draft picks, I'm all for it. As a club, our on field performance has a direct correlation with our off field performance. We can't back away from that.

So in essence you are prioritising the direction of the gameplan based on the financial situation of the club and suggesting the club should have gone with a gameplan they did not deem part of their future direction. Appease the masses so to speak. The fact that Bailey did the very opposite to that is what has many Melbourne supporters excited about the direction of the team/club. "Building from the ground up" is not just a cliché it is a reality under Bailey. Both Paul Gardner and Jim Stynes gave Bailey an open licence to do this and the reason is because they (unlike yourself) understand what it takes for a club to become succesfull and are looking at the big picture. Throughout the Daniher era we were continually compromised by our off-field situation and had to play a brand of football that didn't develop us long term but kept us competitive with a topped up list, this subsequently landed us in the quagmire that was 2008. Furthermore a game plan is not just a half time chat by the coach it is the complete direction that your team is undertaking throughout it's development, if you are suggesting that it is the sort of thing that you can change at the nearest convenience then that is laughable.

What could have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

We'll never know. A win/loss record of 3/19 didn't faze me that much. But a percentage of 64% or thereabouts was pathetic.

Indeed the blowouts that we suffered last year were very bad there are many factors that contributed to those however. Young players taking on a new game plan was only a part of that. Senior injuries (youngsters thrown in the deep end), players with poor preparation, the increased pace of the game, our fitness, our skills all were factors. Bailey and the team did it the hard way no doubt but it was the only way. One thing is for sure and that is the Bailey gameplan will demand excellence from our players and will make them better players. Unlike yourself, I don't profess to know the complete gameplan as yet as it is still underdeveloped so I am not going to waste time arguing the merits of it. Given that it is the direction the coach is taking, to defer it longer than necessary (simply for short term financial reasons and playing alternative football) is nothing short of suicidal and would hold the club back even further.

What should have Bailey gotten out of the team last year?

From day 1, I didn't agree with Bailey taking us down the same track as Daniher did in 2007, by playing run and carry. In the preceding 4 years, we'd gone about drafting a specific type of midfielder to counter the strength of Essendon and the Brisbane Lions. were all basically 1st round draft picks, and were all considered strong inside mids. None of these players would be considered the prototype of a run and carry footballer. So basically we have to turnover a generation of 1st round picks for Bailey's plan to succeed. Financially, we haven't got 5 years to get things right.

I think you are copping out here, in a round about way you are trying to connect a lack of efficiency of certain players to the possesion game. The reality is that McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Moloney and Jones are not the fatest players in our side let alone the AFL. In the last two years the game has gone up in pace dramatically. Bailey inherited a team which was losing experienced players at the same time the game was going up a notch. The players you mention are not add odds with the Bailey gameplan at all, if there is any question as to their ability it is with respect to the current state (speed) of the game. Again, you do not compromise your game plan because of a certain group of players in the team. By the standards of most clubs in the AFL those players lack pace (maybe apart from Bell) ignoring this fact and doing a patch up job is the last thing we need to do. Your "run and carry" label on the Bailey game plan (as if we were the only ones) is not that uncommon amongst teams in the AFL to a degree. If we have players who can't fit in with this then they are going to struggle regardless. McLean and Jones are inside mids (extractors if you like) and serve a distinct roll but when you see them struggle to chase as well as evade opponents that is not the fault of the gameplan. FWIW I think once our faster mids come to the fore, McLean and Jones will become even more effective players with their support around them.

Having said all that, once Bailey adopted his gameplan, we should have seen some improvement from round 1 to round 22. We didn't, which led me to doubt his ability to motivate the players.

Rhino retorted this quite aptly.

[Neita3000 37]

Our midfield is very one paced.

For us to improve on from 2008 we need Davey to have a massive year

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

I expect nothing less than a premiership cup next year. Why else did i give the club lots of $$ for a membership. The Team has been training since October, while other teams were lying on beaches in Thailand. Our players are supposedly professional. If a coach cannot get his game plan across something is wrong. But I think DB is ok. He will do alright this year, maybe suprise. Big Bad Barry was kept goalless last weekend. That is a good effort.

Our Mid fielders have been around a good few years now-no excuse.

Flag all the way.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

I expect nothing less than a premiership cup next year. Why else did i give the club lots of $$ for a membership. The Team has been training since October, while other teams were lying on beaches in Thailand. Our players are supposedly professional. If a coach cannot get his game plan across something is wrong. But I think DB is ok. He will do alright this year, maybe suprise. Big Bad Barry was kept goalless last weekend. That is a good effort.

Our Mid fielders have been around a good few years now-no excuse.

Flag all the way.

i admire your optimism.

[gOLLy 401]

I expect nothing less than a premiership cup next year. Why else did i give the club lots of $$ for a membership. The Team has been training since October, while other teams were lying on beaches in Thailand. Our players are supposedly professional. If a coach cannot get his game plan across something is wrong. But I think DB is ok. He will do alright this year, maybe suprise. Big Bad Barry was kept goalless last weekend. That is a good effort.

Our Mid fielders have been around a good few years now-no excuse.

Flag all the way.

Yep. Not going to just sit here and accept mediocrity.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

MO, without rehashing all the stuff that has already been discussed I want to make the following 2 points.

1. There is a difference between recruiting to a gameplan and recruiting on a needs basis. I dont believe for a second that our inside midfielders were recruited so that we could change a gameplan. They were recruited because at the time there was a recognition (which was correct) that we did not have enough contested footy winners. We now have a need for pacy, skilled runners and have recruited accordingly.

2. To call a gameplan "run and carry" or whatever you wish to label it is far too simplistic. A team full of run and carry types who wont win an iside footy is doomed to failure. As is a team of good ball winners who cant deliver the footy properly or convert. To simplify a game plan into a three word plan is just nonsense. What I hope and believe that we are trying to create is a well rounded football team. What I want from the vast majority of our players is the ability to win a hard footy and deliver it to a team-mate, this should be a requirement for all players.

Dean Bailey has correctly identified that our ability to take the game on and successfully deliver the footy to a teammate in a better position is deficient. He is therefore attempting to address this isue by both drilling the players that were on our list and by adding players to the list with this ability.

To suggest that Bailey is trying to change our gameplan is simplistic and wrong. He is merely addressing our deficiences which is exactly what he should be doing.

[Jarka 767]

MO, without rehashing all the stuff that has already been discussed I want to make the following 2 points.

1. There is a difference between recruiting to a gameplan and recruiting on a needs basis. I dont believe for a second that our inside midfielders were recruited so that we could change a gameplan. They were recruited because at the time there was a recognition (which was correct) that we did not have enough contested footy winners. We now have a need for pacy, skilled runners and have recruited accordingly.

With early picks you should always go 'best available' regardless of your needs, use the psd & rookie pcks to fill the gaps.

[Carn dees 108]

With early picks you should always go 'best available' regardless of your needs, use the psd & rookie pcks to fill the gaps.

Well what if theres a gun midfeilder up for grabs although our midfeild is choca block and there is a good forward and forwards what we need who do you choose?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

With early picks you should always go 'best available' regardless of your needs, use the psd & rookie pcks to fill the gaps.

That's the company line but are you telling me that we didn't concentrate on skilled, pacy players in the 2008 draft. And that in past drafts we didnt try and grab strong inside mids, the evidence suggests different.

[e25 5]

That's the company line but are you telling me that we didn't concentrate on skilled, pacy players in the 2008 draft. And that in past drafts we didnt try and grab strong inside mids, the evidence suggests different.

Well... best available would mean they have more of the qualities that the recruiters value.

And if we are lacking certain qualities in our players then in the minds of the recruiters, those qualities would seem more rare and.. er.. valuable.

Or not.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Well... best available would mean they have more of the qualities that the recruiters value.

And if we are lacking certain qualities in our players then in the minds of the recruiters, those qualities would seem more rare and.. er.. valuable.

Or not.

exactly

[dee-luded 2,959]

IMO we are alot further in progress from this time last year, obviuosly .

Where do we as supporters think the dees will finish this year?

And what areas need most development? To me we could do with one more dominant key forward, we have the millers johsons bates dunns and even sylvia but none of wich realy scare the opponent.

i think we have enough small forwards in maric davey wona jetta and even sylvia.

Our midfeild has some promising young players and our defence is coming along very nicely.

be interesting to see the younger players getting runs in the NAB cup.

My 2009 Ladder (after R22)

1 ... Hawthorn

2 ... Geelong

3 ... Western Bulldogs

4 ... Collingwood

5 ... St Kilda

6 ... Adelaide

7 ... Richmond

8 ... Carlton

--------------------------

9 ... Nth Melbourne

10 . Sydney

11 . Essendon

12 . Brisbane

13 . Port Adelaide

14 . Fremantle

15 . Melbourne

16 . West Coast

[e25 5]

1 - Geelong

2 - Carlton

3 - Collingwood

4 - Hawthorn

5 - Western Bulldogs

6 - Richmond

7 - Port Adelaide

8 - St Kilda

--------------------------

9 - - Adelaide

10 - Nth Melbourne

11 - Brisbane

12 - Fremantle

13 - West Coast

14 - Melbourne

15 - Sydney

16 - Essendon

[mo64 5,853]

To call a gameplan "run and carry" or whatever you wish to label it is far too simplistic.

dandeeman, our gameplan revolves around trying to avoid a contest once we have possession. We kick or handball short rather than kicking the ball long to a contest. Probably 50% percent of the coaches have tried to adopt this gameplan, with varying degrees of success.

For this gameplan to succeed, you need to have players in your side with the talent to avoid a tackle and break the lines. WCE had it with Judd, Cousins and Kerr and Pt. Adel had it with the Burgoynes. These players don't come round very often.

Your strong inside mids compliment these players, and not all of your players need to have this quality.

Bailey inherited a midfield that was drafted under the latter part of the Daniher regime to play contested football. We already had the mids who ran forward of the contest in Bruce, Green, Yze and Johnstone. So we drafted McLean, Sylvia, Jones etc. to fulfill a need, which was to make Daniher's gameplan of contested football successful.

This season, the drafting of Blease, Bennell, Strauss and Jetta was designed to address our lack of skilled pacy players, who are essential in making a possession gameplan work. So I disagree when you say that we drafted for needs, but not for a gameplan.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

dandeeman, our gameplan revolves around trying to avoid a contest once we have possession. We kick or handball short rather than kicking the ball long to a contest. Probably 50% percent of the coaches have tried to adopt this gameplan, with varying degrees of success.

Our game plan revolves around maintaining possession of the ball and using it effectively. We kick or handball based on the correct decision being made. We will kick long where our players have a greater chance of winning the ball rather than kick it short. All teams are putting numbers back behind the ball, controlling possession and running it forward. This will continue this particularly to address the issue of zoning used by Clarkson. Too often on Satruday both Melbourne and Sydney when they did bomb it long, bombed it to residual opposition defenders. It was a waste of the ball but keeps the bomg it long brigade happy.

For this gameplan to succeed, you need to have players in your side with the talent to avoid a tackle and break the lines. WCE had it with Judd, Cousins and Kerr and Pt. Adel had it with the Burgoynes. These players don't come round very often.

Your strong inside mids compliment these players, and not all of your players need to have this quality.

Which game plan does not require highly talented players to succeed? Every game plan needs talented players too succeed. In the case of WCE, Cousins, Kerr and Judd were all effective inside players. Are you saying they were not?

Bailey inherited a midfield that was drafted under the latter part of the Daniher regime to play contested football. We already had the mids who ran forward of the contest in Bruce, Green, Yze and Johnstone.

Wrong. Bailey inherited a midfield that was slow, largely unaccountable and could not win clearance could not use the ball effectively.

Daniher drafted players to address a deficiency in the list at the time 5 years ago. To date the jury is out on the "quality" of all bar McLean. BTW, Yze and Johnston were finished as footballers in Daniher's final season. Green and Bruce are just good average footballers.

So we drafted McLean, Sylvia, Jones etc. to fulfill a need, which was to make Daniher's gameplan of contested football successful.

The need for McLean and Sylvia was to address a chronic weakness in the centre to allow Daniher to effect a corridor kicking plan and the fact that they were taken as the assessed best available players in the draft at no 3 and 5. BTW, when Jones was recruited, ND had changed his game plan and your continual lumping of Jones in this "contested football" fallacy is a misnomer and incorrect

This season, the drafting of Blease, Bennell, Strauss and Jetta was designed to address our lack of skilled pacy players, who are essential in making a possession gameplan work. So I disagree when you say that we drafted for needs, but not for a gameplan.

So what game plan would have suited the existing unskilled, one paced players we had? Which game plan would be successful in today's football that does not require "skilled pacy players"?

We have definitely drafted for both needs and the game plan.

[sylvinator 96]

my predicted round 1 line up:

Cheney, Warnock, Rivers

Garland, Martin. Grimes

Green, Mclean, Morton

Pettard, Bate, Davey

Wonaemirri, Miller, Sylvia

PJ, McDonald, Bruce

Int: Buckley, Frawley, Jones, Dunn, Moloney, Bartram, Meesan (i know i know but literally no other ruckman on list)

NOTE-

- Wheatley or Whelan would replace Cheney however not sure if either will be ready for round 1

- Bell and Newton the 2 obvious absentees bc they both suck

- Backline is not too tal, because Garland can play on small, fast and agile forwards. So essentially Warnock and Martin to take the big boys, Rivers the floater general Hodgesk player, Grimes and Cheney the running smalls and Garland to take the dangerous smallish forward. Frawley on the bench to act as flexible backup, either as halfback flanker or big defender.

Injury list- Jamar, Wheatley, Whelan, Robertson, Maric--- all of which i hope will get plenty of game time this year.

[montasaurus 0]

Injury list- Jamar--- all of which i hope will get plenty of game time this year.

I would be hoping we see a fair bit of spencer ahead of MJ at this stage if the PS games are anything to go on so far.