I'm not suggesting he should be sacked at the end of this year, but by this time next season the excuses relating to lack of experience will be starting to wear thin. He should be allowed to see out his three year deal, but if we're in this same position next year, losing every week and playing an ugly, disjointed, negative brand of football, then the board should be looking around for a replacement for 2011.

With the forthcoming retirements of McDonald, Whelan, Wheatly and Robbo, there is about 900 AFL games and four players with 10 years experience or more that get taken off our list. None of the four justify their position in an AFL side even a bottom one. We will then have Bruce and Green who will be 30ish. The next eldest will be 27ish. A number of the 25-26 yo ( eg Jamar, Bell, PJ) may not be at the Club next year due to performance.

The side that runs out next year will be even younger. The average age and game experience of the list will be lower than this year. This also highlight the growing issue over leadership of younger players now nad going forward. You need to take a closer look at the list what has happened to it over the past 2 to 3 years.

This is almost a complete rebuild of the list from the ground up. If you think its done with a 2 year period then you are dreaming.

Bailey should be accountable for his perfomance as Coach. However to make judgment of that performance without recognising the systemic list problems inherited and the time taken to resolve them then you may as well flip a coin to decide.

If the Club is serious about been seen as a responsible and smart operator there is no way they will or should wait to the end of the third year to re appoint Bailey. If they had to wait until the end of the 3rd season to re- appoint then they should not do it because clearly they dont have faith in what he is doing. And besides he will be trialled and sentenced within the media that will undermine and make dysfunctional the operations of the Club. Every story and public profile of MFC next year will be when will Bailey go to the gallows.

I would have thought the Club needs to have determined an extension or not for Bailey before the commencement of next season to ensure that development process they have backed for the past two years continues undistracted. If they cant do that then they should be looking to get rid of Bailey now.

Next season is going to be tough for MFC as many of the key players in that development plans will still be finding their way in either first to third season.

And BTW, the so called "Core" you speak are not all going to Core in the years to come. Green and Miller have defiinitely stepped up in the past couple of years and especially in the case of the latter will never rise to be dominant in games. Bruce's talent is flaky and inconsistent as its always and Jones is blue collar at best. And McLean has been injury riddled but I think the game catch up with him. And Bate, Dunn and Bell are questionable first round picks under CAC which is coming home to bite us. Geez its 7 years and people are still holding a candle out for Bell to be something.

Personally, I don't think an extension to the contract should be given this year. A contract is a contract. Three years. End of story. If for some reason next year there is good progress, I think it an extension could be looked at next year in the mid season review. Otherwise Bailey can see out his three years and a decision can be made at the conclusion of season 2010. Prudent decisions need to continue for the Mfc.

You wont get to the mid season review because that will be handled by the media. We take Richmond's place as the laughing stock of the AFL. We will look like impotent fence sitters if we dont move one way or the other.

The basis of whether you would extend Bailey should be judged at this season's end and they should either extend him another year or face trial by jury in the media and create a forestorm of uncertainty and public intrigue over the timing of the noose of the Coach.

The experience of the disruptive influences of the overthrow Board and Club management and the transition of 4 CEO's through the Club in Bailey's first year seem to be have forgotten by some.

Could not have put it any better myself. I wonder if DB's game plan has stopped the core players you mention above (other than green) taking that next step to be really dominent??? I'm with you CarnTheDees, if they don't show any improvement in playing as team by the end of the season DB should be shown the door.

I find the whole notion that DB controls the ability of these 'core players' so much. I'm not sure how the coach can get them to not tackle, hit targets or be accountable...not sure at all. This all starts to smack of powers of control that no coach can. How the hell would you see Leigh Matthews or even better, Woosha? Now there's a bloke with the majority of his grand final wining team on the park and they produce efforts the likes of which are an out-and-out disgrace. According to your logic, Woosha has not only got his core playing well, he's then gutted them, singlehandedly.

I just don't thinkt hat the coach has got that much power. Would you make the same call about clarkson - that last year he got teh core playing well but this year he hasn't?

I'm not suggesting he should be sacked at the end of this year, but by this time next season the excuses relating to lack of experience will be starting to wear thin. He should be allowed to see out his three year deal, but if we're in this same position next year, losing every week and playing an ugly, disjointed, negative brand of football, then the board should be looking around for a replacement for 2011.

Yes, I agree.

But was three years ever enough to turn around the list he was given?

I have already said that finals aren't out of the question next year but also 15 losses isn't out of the question.

This is why I believe another year should be put on his contract at the end of this year.

I just think that, with the best talent being out of the past 2 drafts (Morton, Grimes, Maric, Cheney, Martin, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, and Jurrah) and the next draft (possibly Scully), 2010 shouldn't be a make-or-break year.

As good as this talent looks, they might not begin to impose themselves on games until 2011. That is not to say they won't contribute, but 10+ wins requires this group of players to do more than contribute.

I don't think it matters. If we play a third consecutive year of uncompetitive football and win only 3-6 games next year, that says to me that Bailey isn't the long term answer. If, after 3 years, he cannot get something out of the players then I would begin to get worried.

As it stands, I have faith that we'll win 7+ games next year, which, provided that we give a good showing in some other games and overall look as though we've improved, should be enough for Bailey to be re-signed. But it's no fait accompli that Bailey will be coaching this club in 2011.

...

Some valid points relating to the age/experience of the list, but if you follow my argument through the whole thread you will see that my focus is not on the ability of the cattle at his disposal, but more on what he is actually doing with them and how he is asking them to play. I will tolerate losses, as long as we are "competitive" and playing a brand of footy that will help us towards success when these promising young players start to mature.

Yes I understand the power of the media, and how distracting that can be to a club when the coach's position is being questioned weekly. But based upon all your arguments relating to the age/experience of the current list and what it will be like next year, if you accept that as the whole excuse for poor form on field then we might be waiting another 3 years before we can fully judge Bailey's ability to coach the team.

There is no way that by the end of this season we'll be able to say definitely that we want Bailey to go on for another 2 or 3 years. At the end of 2010 I think that we/the public/the board can be in a position where we've clearly seen what he can do and judge him based on that. Make an announcement at the start of the year that Bailey will be reviewed at season's end 2010 and cop any media flak along the way. It'll be a lot easier for the club to handle than giving an underperforming coach an extra year or two and holding back the development of the team.

RR I honestly thought during the Daniher years that you were ND. Your constant defending of the coach and your "full trust" in the football department never wavered through Daniher's last 2 years of mediocrity, and now you're fully behind Bailey even though he hasn't yet shown anything to suggest that he's a good coach. He's culled some dead wood, told the players to run-and-carry, put numbers behind the ball, continued our ineptitude at point kick-ins and emptied out the forward line. In other words, he's continued exactly where Daniher left us in 07.

I was a fan of the Reverend through 04-05 then my faith wavered from 06 when we changed our game style. I suppose my football beliefs are more in line with Pagan and Matthews than Roos and Worsfold. What I have seen so far has not given me any encouragement that Bailey is the right man to coach us past 2010. I have not yet written him off, I am very willing to see him see out his contract and I desperately want this very promising young team to start playing great footy, but by mid-late 2010 there needs to be some serious improvement in our performance otherwise DB's time could be up.

.....

I think its very hard to assess the disposition of the Coach from where we sit in the crowd particularly when the list is such a train wreck. I think the basis that its take two years to turnover a list and that next year we should be pushing at finals is wishful thinking for the points I made.

I think the rebuild will take us to five to six years to really be a serious Finals contender such is the extent of the rebuild. The issues upon how you assess Bailey should be on whether he continues to fulfill the metrics the Board set for the reconstruction and development of the list when they appointed. I think it would be unprofessional and imprudent of the Board to wait until the end of 3 years to make their minds up. They either buy the process undertaken thus far within the next six months and extend him for an additional year or if they dont, they just pay him out and find someone who meets their requirements.

I am not sure Bailey will be that premiership coach or the coach that will lead us to higher realms of the ladder but what I do know is that he took over a list that had guts finished out of it. No stars, no leaders, no faciliities, lineball competitive senior list and number of potential key players on LT injury. I am prepared to cut Bailey some slack on that. And I agree with the posters who have said that it isn't the Coach that instructs players to fumble, stuff up disposals and run out of position. I really the game time is hard for MFC when we dont have single senior player who leads by example and actually impacts a game. There is so little guidance on this.

I think waiting to the end of 3rd year for assessing Bailey is a cop out and not achievable. Such fence sitting will impale the sitter. The Board should either back him at the end of the year for a further year or they should cut those losses now and find a Coach they believe will do it. Hopefully they will not be sucked in like Richmond and react on supporters impatience.

This is a long hard recovery.

If you do think I am ND ( I am not) then could please tell Mo. He seems to be warped in the view I wish to impale him. Look in all respect with ND he did well relative to the fact that he had no development coaching support and no facilities to train. I think in hindsight that from 2003 onwards that ND was chasing the game and I think some of recruiting reflected that. I have no issue with him changing his game plan but more with the way he did it. He rightly worked out that his old way of playing was being and would be pulled to pieces by top 8 sides. He was right. He rolled the dice for the go in his coaching career but failed like many others due to the fact that his faith in certain senior player was overspent, he never instilled a proper culture and the list was just not good enough.

I share your frustration with the past two years but state that I think you will be disappointed if you expect a rebound next year. I would love that to happen but it requires a number of those younger blokes to lift significantly which is challenge and no injuries for us.

as mentioned in other thread... these first two years arent a fair show of what he's about.. by mid '10 we will have a much clearer indication of where the team is and how well Bailey sis doing at the helm.

You wont get to the mid season review because that will be handled by the media. We take Richmond's place as the laughing stock of the AFL. We will look like impotent fence sitters if we dont move one way or the other.

The basis of whether you would extend Bailey should be judged at this season's end and they should either extend him another year or face trial by jury in the media and create a firestorm of uncertainty and public intrigue over the timing of the noose of the Coach.

The experience of the disruptive influences of the overthrow Board and Club management and the transition of 4 CEO's through the Club in Bailey's first year seem to be have forgotten by some.

Ohh, dear 'Reverend' , I have not forgotten the 4 CEO's.... .

To hell with the media. I understand. Is that the same media that was on West Coast's back just recently getting Worsfold to sign. Was there really such a Hoo-haa in the media re: Worsfold?

Look, I could see why they might sign him up again at the end of this year, to do away with any uncertainty for next year. However, IMO we would want a solid pre-season and I would have thought the club would want to see further improvement throughout the pre-season comp next year and the start to the 2010 season, just to make sure everything is going along nicely in development terms for players and team. Before signing him for 2011 and beyond.

I don't think it matters. If we play a third consecutive year of uncompetitive football and win only 3-6 games next year, that says to me that Bailey isn't the long term answer. If, after 3 years, he cannot get something out of the players then I would begin to get worried.

As it stands, I have faith that we'll win 7+ games next year, which, provided that we give a good showing in some other games and overall look as though we've improved, should be enough for Bailey to be re-signed. But it's no fait accompli that Bailey will be coaching this club in 2011.

I am of the same opinion. Fwiw I think we will re-sign Bailey. It is just a matter of when.

RR I honestly thought during the Daniher years that you were ND.

I think the rebuild will take us to five to six years to really be a serious Finals contender such is the extent of the rebuild. The issues upon how you assess Bailey should be on whether he continues to fulfill the metrics the Board set for the reconstruction and development of the list when they appointed.

Agree.

I think it would be unprofessional and imprudent of the Board to wait until the end of 3 years to make their minds up. They either buy the process undertaken thus far within the next six months and extend him for an additional year or if they dont, they just pay him out and find someone who meets their requirements.

If they signed him just before the start of the 2010 season.....ie. in March 2010...would you be happy with that?

I think waiting to the end of 3rd year for assessing Bailey is a cop out and not achievable. Such fence sitting will impale the sitter.

That would definitely hurt Stynes and Schwab. Signing him early next year - will that impale them?

as mentioned in other thread... these first two years arent a fair show of what he's about.. by mid '10 we will have a much clearer indication of where the team is and how well Bailey is doing at the helm.

Yes.

as mentioned in other thread... these first two years arent a fair show of what he's about.. by mid '10 we will have a much clearer indication of where the team is and how well Bailey sis doing at the helm.

Will we?

What if we got a horror run like this year from Rd 6 to 12?

We've given him 3 years, just give him a year extension at the end of this year.

And I don't post this often: RR is absolutely correct in post #76 in this thread.

Will we?

What if we got a horror run like this year from Rd 6 to 12?

We've given him 3 years, just give him a year extension at the end of this year.

And I don't post this often: RR is absolutely correct in post #76 in this thread.

will we?? well you would something akin to an idiot if some sort of clear indication hadnt evolved by then. There will be no "brakes" on next year. Its for real.

Another horror year ??. ..ffs.. please.. every year has its injuries.. you allow in some regards for them. That in itself offers up opportuniites to observe how in a "real" year he goes about his business

How about we just blindly sign him for another two ..just in case half the team is hit by busses ( or trams) and there are anywhere upwards of half a dozen other extenuating circumstances ?????

NO !! After the NAB and First half of 10 some clearer perspective of the clubs direction will manifest and how much Bailey is to blame or claim for it.

its not really that hard you know !!

...

RR, player development aside (as this is only one aspect of coaching) what do think of the game plan / tactics and structure on the ground. Are you happy with the forward line pushing up the ground and loose players in defence?

I think its very hard to assess the disposition of the Coach from where we sit in the crowd particularly when the list is such a train wreck. I think the basis that its take two years to turnover a list and that next year we should be pushing at finals is wishful thinking for the points I made.

...

I share your frustration with the past two years but state that I think you will be disappointed if you expect a rebound next year. I would love that to happen but it requires a number of those younger blokes to lift significantly which is challenge and no injuries for us.

I have never said I expect a rebound (in terms of on-field results) by next year, only that by the end of next year we will have a better idea of how the team is improving because by that stage Bailey would have had enough time to 'coach' all of the players' Daniher habits out of them and they all should be 100% Bailey footballers. By the end of this season there is no way if we can tell that Bailey is going to be a good coach long-term, due to all of the arguments you mentioned relating to the age/experience of the list he has had for his first 2 years. I am not convinced that 2 years of achieving poor results with a poor list shows enough that we want him for at least another 2, let alone that it warrants us dumping him and paying out six figures.

Give him his third year, still with a very young list but one where the majority of the players have been under him for a couple of years such that they are all playing his brand of football. Then everyone can make a pretty decent judgement about who he is as a coach and whether or not he is the man to lead this club back up off the very bottom.

RR, player development aside (as this is only one aspect of coaching) what do think of the game plan / tactics and structure on the ground. Are you happy with the forward line pushing up the ground and loose players in defence?

I think the game plan suffers from the inexperience of the players to execute. I think many of the onfield imbalances are often caused by inexperienced players not knowing how to react or properly fulfilling their functions. In many cases the players are playing reactionary football when under pressure rather than committing to the disciplines.

I have never said I expect a rebound (in terms of on-field results) by next year, only that by the end of next year we will have a better idea of how the team is improving because by that stage Bailey would have had enough time to 'coach' all of the players' Daniher habits out of them and they all should be 100% Bailey footballers.

Firstly many of the players were not around when ND was there. And not all of ND's habits were bad. The issue is that the real quality and future of our list is 22yo at eldest with a couple of players at around 24. He will not have a mture list and I dont think year 3 provides you with any greater litmus test. You are right we should be showing signs of improvement next year but to imply that Bailey has an unfettered opportunity with such a young list ignores some of the real list issues that are not easily fixed.

By the end of this season there is no way if we can tell that Bailey is going to be a good coach long-term, due to all of the arguments you mentioned relating to the age/experience of the list he has had for his first 2 years. I am not convinced that 2 years of achieving poor results with a poor list shows enough that we want him for at least another 2, let alone that it warrants us dumping him and paying out six figures.

If we were to extend his contract then he would only be granted an extra year in addition to his contract position. If you were a Board member then you would have to make a clear call at seasons end are you happy with the process that Bailey is implementing to get us to the top of the ladder? If you are then you should continue to support and extend his contract. If not then you should be making moves on how you will get rid of him seamlessly in 2010. Unless the Board is 100% behind the Coach then they should be looking for an alternative.

Its quite likely at the end of year 3 that you will be in no better position to tell if Bailey is going to be a good coach in the future. And besides you wont get to end of year 3, the media will publicly skewer you as a vascillating fence sitter.

Give him his third year, still with a very young list but one where the majority of the players have been under him for a couple of years such that they are all playing his brand of football. Then everyone can make a pretty decent judgement about who he is as a coach and whether or not he is the man to lead this club back up off the very bottom.

Any coach should reasonable expect some surety over his future otherwise its going to have a dysfunctional impact on the way he appraches his task. If 2010 is the last year of his contract, his future will be decide in the press. If we are 0-2 and 0-3 regardless of injuries etc, the vultures will be circling. Bailey will coach for each week and not for any long term developmental goals. The whole process that had been put in place for the first two years is off the rails. And the media will tear this Club up at a time when it least needs.

And BTW its not about everyone making a pretty decent judgement. Its about the Board. And the Board needs to make a determination at seasons end. If you are not happy with those decisions then vote the Board off and vote in better replacements.

Careful of the fence palings

I think the game plan suffers from the inexperience of the players to execute. I think many of the onfield imbalances are often caused by inexperienced players not knowing how to react or properly fulfilling their functions. In many cases the players are playing reactionary football when under pressure rather than committing to the disciplines.

This I think is the dilemma. The difference between looking good and crap can be but metres or milliseconds. As skills and abilities are honed the execution becomes tighter, results flow, confidence grows..execution becomes better.... etc etc etc..its self feeding ...or self destroying..often a fine line

This I think is the dilemma. The difference between looking good and crap can be but metres or milliseconds. As skills and abilities are honed the execution becomes tighter, results flow, confidence grows..execution becomes better.... etc etc etc..its self feeding ...or self destroying..often a fine line

There's a chicken and egg situation.

Do players play well (i.e. hit and provide targets) because they are playing a style (game plan / tactics and structure) of football that makes it easier to do, or do the players have good enough skills to to make a game plan work?

I suggest that the former has far more of an impact that most people here realise.

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary results when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign up Bailey. He was an unproven coach when we appointed him and he remains unproven. Collingwood don't bow to media pressure about Malthouse. They determine when they make that decision despite all the speculation regarding Buckley. They're not pandering to anyone elses agenda except their own. I wouldn't be looking at Bailey's contract until at least mid next year.

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary resluts when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign up Bailey. He was an unproven coach when we appointed him and he remains unproven. Collingwood don't bow to media pressure about Malthouse. They determine when they make that decision despite all the speculation regarding Buckley. They're not pandering to anyone elses agenda except their own. I wouldn't be looking at Bailey's contract until at least mid next year.

concur

actually.. Id be looking more towards seasons end. If the signs arent there come mid year of improvement, and real improvement then the Bailey experiment may have run its course. If he starts getting results well thats what its all about.

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary resluts when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

I agree, however we need a coach who can get the best out of those players and play to the strength of the list. Yes, you can turn a list over all the time until you get players to fit a specific plan, but that can only last so long and each team will have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Paul Roos is a great example of such a coach.

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary resluts when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign up Bailey. He was an unproven coach when we appointed him and he remains unproven. Collingwood don't bow to media pressure about Malthouse. They determine when they make that decision despite all the speculation regarding Buckley. They're not pandering to anyone elses agenda except their own. I wouldn't be looking at Bailey's contract until at least mid next year.

Agree. Same with my point earlier regarding West Coast and Worsfold. They determined their decision too, despite what 'little' speculation there was in the media.

Chris Connolly has said that DB should not be judged until next year. I accept that. As far as I'm concerned DB starts with a clean coaching sheet from R1 2010. Regardless of anything else though we must show good signs of improvement next year and not win another spoon. Improvement must be measured in terms of wins, percentage and ladder position.

Any lack of improvement in these three areas will be obvious by round 14 -15 next year and if that is the case he must go.

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary results when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign up Bailey. He was an unproven coach when we appointed him and he remains unproven. Collingwood don't bow to media pressure about Malthouse. They determine when they make that decision despite all the speculation regarding Buckley. They're not pandering to anyone elses agenda except their own. I wouldn't be looking at Bailey's contract until at least mid next year.

And what if we get an artificially tough draw like we have from Rd 6 on (and this is what I was refering to BB59): Geel, WC (Subi), WB, Haw, St K, Coll, Ess (Etihad) and BL (Gabba)?

It would slam pressure onto Bailey because it is 8 losses in a row in a contract year. It would effectively force the issue and he would be gone - improvement or not.

It is only a year extension.

A number of you think next year is make or break for the MFC, I don't believe that at all.

Our talent is out of the last two drafts and this one coming, they will still be developing in 2010.

If we get the draw from hell and have been genuinely competitive without a win then that in itself will speak for him ( Bailey ) Its not so much cut and dried wins..its clear cut improvement.

If were any better it will be obvious..if not...that too... not rocketry here

The great Norm Smith had very ordinary results when he no longer had good players. We need talent more than anything.

That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign up Bailey. He was an unproven coach when we appointed him and he remains unproven. Collingwood don't bow to media pressure about Malthouse. They determine when they make that decision despite all the speculation regarding Buckley. They're not pandering to anyone elses agenda except their own. I wouldn't be looking at Bailey's contract until at least mid next year.

Totally Agree. Is Bailey getting the best out of these players?? Half time worries me, Why are we so Bad in the 3rd Q? There has to be a reason......