I dare Dean Bailey to play six (6) players (preferably forwards) in the forward line (where goals are kicked), whereby a minimum of four (4) players must always be within the forward 50 at all times, two (2) of which within five (5) metres of the goal line for a whole quarter of football.

What a joke it was to see Aaron Davey stream out of defence, take a bounce and look up to see no players in front of him.

yes what a joke and to kick it to no one thats smart he had players in front but chose to bomb it to ??????? space

As i said in another thread, DB reminds me of daniher (boring and no game plan) and i think that DB is just a fill in coach to take us through the crap years. When we are ready to strike we should get a fresh coach without the bad memories ala carlton with Ratten

not saying our set up was great or anything, but you need your players to go into defense to be accountable for their men aswell.

You can't be serious re: demeanour and way he presents doesn't raise some concerns...look at the other 15 coaches...all have a niche and some personality.

Not about liking the guy...its about RESPECTING the guy...

Re: Skit...you sure you're right minded?

Neil Craig has personality? Ross Lyon?

You mentioned in an earlier post that "at least CC would bring some humour and semblance of life," and a 'skit' is theatrical attempt at comedy - something you apparently want to see at press conferences that coaches do after the game.

I'm sure it'll bring a lot of RESPECT...

And you have no time for Bailey, therefore every thing you see is through that lens. You are not alone, but you have to get past that bias and see the reality that we have the worst list in the league right now.

He is going to get time whether you like it or not so you may aswell forget these small arguments and argue personnel problems or structure rather than his performances at press conferences.

If you do not see the tremendous connection between structure and players, I officially give up.

Broad structure, such as ensuring that there are enough players in the forward line (particularly at centre bounces) has nothing to do with the quality of player. In terms of some specific structures (i.e. the mix of tall and small forwards, where they lead etc.) then the players matter, but as I have written all along I simply want to see Melbourne have options up forward (I don't care who so much) so that players down back and and the middle have targets to hit.

Broad structure, such as ensuring that there are enough players in the forward line (particularly at centre bounces) has nothing to do with the quality of player. In terms of some specific structures (i.e. the mix of tall and small forwards, where they lead etc.) then the players matter, but as I have written all along I simply want to see Melbourne have options up forward (I don't care who so much) so that players down back and and the middle have targets to hit.

So in another words, you'd rather see us lose by 100 pts every week than the 30-50 pts we have been? You do understand the connection with putting players behind the ball when we've shot our bolt and are no longer in the game? What you want to see is completely irrelevant to what needs to happen to teach this side how to play footy.

Bailey will get things movin, bit by bit. He has sweet FA to work with, but he is rectifying that. You must remember he was left with a crap list thanks to Daniher and his cronies. And before you say well Daniher took us to a Prelim Final in his 1st year, well he also had the likes of Lyon, Stynes, Tingay, Febey, Yze, Farmer etc...

I have to agree with this. But I would also like to see Bailey try what clint bizkit has posted

err did I miss something... minor premierships don't count for squat.

I shouldn't get surprised at the expectations of footy supporters (but I do). Bailey has had 12 mths to work with a fractured list.

How long did it take Thompson or Clarkson. .

Good point grazman.

Even with a solid list it took Thompson a few years to get it right and under Clarkson the Hawks looked more like the "headless chooks" for 2 years.

And as the game is becoming increasingly fast and unforgiving, a small gap in skills, decision making and confidence can mean the difference between a win and a 10 goal flogging.

Bailey and co are trying to build a premiership list, piece by piece, its going to take time.

This thread had nothing to do with the players. It's about structure.

We had a 100-post discussion on THIS VERY POINT last week!

It has nothing to do with structure and EVERYTHING to do with our ability to win clearances! There's no point in having a stacked forward line brimming with options when the midfield is getting smashed and there's one-way traffic to the opposition forward 50.

WHEN we get a competitive midfield, THEN and ONLY THEN will you see what the team's forward structure is. Think Q1 against Collingwood, for a start.

And as Jaded said, if you can't realise that it's impossible to discuss the lack of players in the forward line without discussing the ability of players elsewhere on the ground, you're better off saying nothing than to prove yourself a fool.

You forgot to include forwards, Brad Miller in paticular, must always lead in infront of his opponent.

YES, I think it was in the 1st quarter. Brad Green had the ball 55 out directly in front of goal and Brad Miller was one on one in the pocket Brad Miller stayed at the back and his opponent was at the front and took the mark. Green was expecting Miller to be in front, but Miller went at the back of the contest which would of worked if Green knew But Green had already kicked it, but Miller probably wouldn`t of beaten his Man anyway 1 on 1, dont know why, he was bigger and stronger than Carlile, but Carlile was smarter. Miller really needs to work on his overhead mark. Hes good on the lead and on the chest but in a contested situation he doesnt take the over head mark. Havent seen him or don`t remember him taking a over head mark in a contest this year. He did it last year against Brisbane to win the game but I`m not sure if that was contested or not, but he still took an over head mark.

Miller really needs to work on his overhead mark. Hes good on the lead and on the chest but in a contested situation he doesnt take the over head mark. Havent seen him or don`t remember him taking a over head mark in a contest this year. He did it last year against Brisbane to win the game but I`m not sure if that was contested or not, but he still took an over head mark.

He took a good one against Port on Sunday. Third quarter, I think. Timed his leap better than everyone else.

It has nothing to do with structure and EVERYTHING to do with our ability to win clearances!

Clearances:

Port Adelaide = 32

Melbourne = 38

Stats

Without the right structure and the right foundations everything else falls apart.

Clearances:

Port Adelaide = 32

Melbourne = 38

Stats

Without the right structure and the right foundations everything else falls apart.

This will be my last post in this thread, as I've outlined my views elsewhere, but those stats cannot be taken at face value in this context.

We don't know know many of those 38 clearances were won BECAUSE we had players pushed up from the forward line.

How many clearances did we win when we were going head to head with the Power at the stoppages? I suspect it was less than our fair share. How many did we win after more players pushed up into midfield? I suspect it was the majority of our final total.

Now, without the detailed quarter-by-quarter stats, it's hard to prove either case. But it's impossible to use the final clearance totals as evidence that the forward structure was to blame for the loss.

Rather, I contend that it was the inability of our forwards to convert their opportunities in the early part of the second quarter that was more costly. And there was no doubt we had a functioning forward structure at that stage.

OP Bailey did exactly what you are asking for at the start of the first quarter in round one. He backed the boys in.

Five minutes later when the roos were all over us and had shot away he was forced to put men behind the ball again.

I too would like to see six players in our forward line, but it's just not a viable tactic until they regain some confidence.

Now, without the detailed quarter-by-quarter stats, it's hard to prove either case. But it's impossible to use the final clearance totals as evidence that the forward structure was to blame for the loss.

Where did I say that?