Why do you say that?

We look very good when we move the ball through the middle of the ground quickly.

Unfortunately turnovers kill us, but that's skill-level - not game plan.

How often does that occur? Do yourself a favour and watch a replay of the game against the Pies. Compare their ball movement to ours (ignoring their much more refined skills, just focus on the intent of the movement of both sides). Their first goal is the perfect example of excellent ball movement, and from the top level of the northern stand I could see it coming as soon as no-one could be bothered manning up on Dane Swan in the back pocket.

For the most part our ball movement is slow and wide, with too much backwards and sideways handball. This is contributed by two factors; players' decision making with the ball in hand, and the movement patterns of the players upfield in providing options. Both of these areas are massively flawed for us at the moment and both of these things are strongly influenced by the coaching staff.

To anyone who wants to have a good look at our tactical approach to games, get yourself a seat up high on centre wing and watch the players down below move around like chess pieces. Melbourne has a very distinctive manner in which they arrange themselves when we are in possession of the ball. Essentially, through the midfield we huddle players 30m directly forward of the ball, clogging up the space for players to lead into from further upfield. It looks too coordinated and happens too regularly to be a fluke.

I am not Bailey bashing for the sake of it nor am I calling for his head. I was a big fan of Daniher through '04, '05 because we played quick and direct to our strength which was our forward line, so we got the ball in there to one-on-one contests with Neitz, Robbo and Yze all strong in those areas. Then in '06 ND got carried away with run and carry and 'tempo' footy because thats what Sydney and West Coast were doing. Extra men back across half-back and pushing the forwards out into the midfield followed and soon we had no avenue to score goals. We fell apart because our midfield were not jets and didn't have sublime skills required to pull it off. And right now, aside from the playing list I cannot see much difference in how we are playing between Daniher '07 and Bailey '09.

The best statistic would be the percentage of your posts that are related to forward line structure

That's because since Round 1, 2007 (when it was first brought up) Melbourne have won 9 of 55 games.

EDIT: Having said all that, I'm happy for Melbourne to get picks 1 and 2 this year with the Gold Coast coming in, but after this year the term "rebuilding" had never be said again as Melbourne will (potentially) have more than enough high draft picks. Where I worry is that the style of play and the structure being used with the current playeres is all wrong.

From next year, all the pressure will be on Bailey to perform match day.

As compared to say Alistair Clarkson who had 14 from his first 44...

14 from 44 at about 30% winning rate is considerably better than Bailey who could potentially be on 4 from 44 at the end of this season.

And Hawthorn went from bottom to top in the space of four years didnt they? Bailey doesnt get another "rebuilding year" in 2010 IMO.

What's your point exactly - you appoint a bloke to do the dirty work, then hatchet him after he delivers the goods (rebuilding through the draft).

Exactly. At the end of the day any [censored] can do the dirty work - all that involves is waiving goodbye to a few players and turning a list over. Implimenting a game plan and a structure is more challenging and the truer test of Bailey's ability and footy brain. If at the end of 2010 we can't see Bailey having any success in that area then it'll be time to say goodbye.

And we're talking about Melbourne, not Richmond. But I bet the Tigers fans demand and expect a lot more quick success than what some mediocre twats like you are content with.

...

Great post DeeBest.

We look very good when we move the ball through the middle of the ground quickly.

Unfortunately turnovers kill us, but that's skill-level - not game plan.

Correct. How some cannot understand this astounds me.

Bailey has accomplished a lot of the boring jobs that had to be done without an immediate reward such as with delisting and recruiting. Apart from today, I think it is fair to say that there has been a noticable improvement in response in how the playing group has gone about it this year. Our football department is still not what it should be and this makes coaching life difficult. I am sure Bailey knows what he wants to do and where our deficiencies are but he can only do so much in a certain time.

We only just blooded the first of our top 3 draft picks from last year this round (11) when other teams have young guns playing in the middle as of round 1.

Our defence has become a unit which will only improve and this is directly due to the way Bailey and Wellman have built and developed it.

Our midfield is a black hole. This completely effects the team dynamic. Only talent will fix this as well as better facilities with respect to conditioning - it will take time but having said that I hope Bailey starts injecting youth in there for the rest of the year on a rotational basis.

Up forward is a similar personnell issue which we will fix over time.

Our senior players are remnants from the Daniher era who only know one way to play. It is hard for the seniors to adapt to playing with kids in 2009 footy and even harder for the kids to adapt to the senior players.

IMO next year will be the year that Bailey is under the pump but this year is important to get right as far as laying the foundations. With better facilities, more games under the belts of our kids and a bigger footy department then IMO Bailey becomes fair game. My only reservation with how Bailey is coaching is that our players don't zone very well and breaking laterally from centre clusters or to position is very bad. This I suspect is inhibited by our lack of run and endurance which we desperately need to work on but I just wonder how much we had to go back to the drawing board last year. I think you have to know where a coach has come from in order to measure how much progress he has made and I think some posters don't appreciate this aspect. We have many areas where we need to improve but all in all I don't see what more Bailey could have done to date if you want a job done properly with no short cuts.

Beautifully written, ' agree totally..

IMO a lot of Post ers are impatient, they want to keep their Cake & eat it @ the same time. Unreasonable.

It's nearly time to give the supporters renewed stimulation & hope by way of 'Blooding' a new recruit or 2.

I've refrained from joining this convo because I thought a couple of days relection was needed. Yes we were very bad on Monday but this is the same team that made Geelong, Hawthorn, StKilda and Footscray earn their possessions. Yes we were very bad on Monday but Collingwood has done the same thing to us both times this year. Yes we were very bad on Monday but the game was horribly over-hyped and I'm sure this is part of everybodies reaction. I could go on but people need to remember that, despite us playing kids and messing around with the team structure to see what will work next year and beyond, we are moving forward. Between our top 3 draft picks last year they have 1 game. We have no forward line. We have (at my count) 4 players from Mondays team that will not be on the list next year. Bailey is doing a damn fine job under very difficult conditions. The people here that want instant success would be better off following Geelong but those that want to see a very good team come 2012 will understand that patience is required.

And Hawthorn went from bottom to top in the space of four years didnt they? Bailey doesnt get another "rebuilding year" in 2010 IMO.

But Hawthorn had a better team to rebuild from than we did too and every one also says they made the GF a few years earlier.

If this thread was done last week before the bad game v the filth then the replies on here from some posters would have been a bit different I think.

It would be interesting to run a poll to see how many posters believe Bailey is a failure on the basis that:

a] He doesn't deliver a winning % ratio comparable to say Ratten or Clarkson after two years

b] He doesn't deliver picks 1 & 2 in this years draft

Dee-luded's cake & eat analogy is accurate.

Personally I think had this loss (our worst in 9 months) not occured in the QB game then we would not see all this hand wringing.

And I am still waiting for the author of this thread to detail somthing credible to back up his/her views?

That's because since Round 1, 2007 (when it was first brought up) Melbourne have won 9 of 55 games.

EDIT: Having said all that, I'm happy for Melbourne to get picks 1 and 2 this year with the Gold Coast coming in, but after this year the term "rebuilding" had never be said again as Melbourne will (potentially) have more than enough high draft picks. Where I worry is that the style of play and the structure being used with the current playeres is all wrong.

From next year, all the pressure will be on Bailey to perform match day.

Spot on..this year is one for "list management" but from there the improvement must be measured in wins..

Spot on..this year is one for "list management" but from there the improvement must be measured in wins..

Correct, if we are 1 or 2 wins and nine at this time next year the pressure will start to build. Write off this year, at the mid point next year we have to be closer to 4 or 5 wins min at half way, i.e., are "competetive" against most sides and the odd upset win early in the year as opposed to generally good efforts thus far without any upset wins.

From this a little momentum can be gained and set up for a 2nd half assult on the 8 ala essendon this year.

But I bet the Tigers fans demand and expect a lot more quick success than what some mediocre twats like you are content with.

Oh please, that's as soft as butter, - I disagree with you ergo I accept mediocrity. You're getting a bit up yourself aren't you.

14 from 44 at about 30% winning rate is considerably better than Bailey who could potentially be on 4 from 44 at the end of this season.

And Hawthorn went from bottom to top in the space of four years didnt they? Bailey doesnt get another "rebuilding year" in 2010 IMO.

Exactly. At the end of the day any [censored] can do the dirty work - all that involves is waiving goodbye to a few players and turning a list over. Implimenting a game plan and a structure is more challenging and the truer test of Bailey's ability and footy brain. If at the end of 2010 we can't see Bailey having any success in that area then it'll be time to say goodbye.

And we're talking about Melbourne, not Richmond. But I bet the Tigers fans demand and expect a lot more quick success than what some mediocre twats like you are content with.

Ha! Obviously whatRichmond Fans demand & what they actually get are two Vastly different things.

The Tigers will fall lower in the next 5 years-The Demons will Rise.

At Present we have no real Forward Line. We must Recruit a Big Forward. But i do agree that from Next year Dean Bailey will be expected to get results.

At the end of this years draft its all Go.

Who would you have appointed?

Kevin Sheedy

QUOTE (Jaded @ Jun 8 2009, 06:10 PM)

Who would you have appointed?

Kevin Sheedy

.......... and Jill, if Sheedy had been appointed, what would be your guesstimate of his current win/loss ratio at Melbourne? .... and where would you (hypothetically speaking) have the Demons on the 'premiership clock'?

Kevin Sheedy

Even though he wasn't really interested and had no new ideas to bring to the table?

Appointing a coach is not about marketability, it is about long term success.

Sheedy would have generated a buzz, but then what?

Every somebody was once a nobody.

Even though he wasn't really interested and had no new ideas to bring to the table?

Appointing a coach is not about marketability, it is about long term success.

Sheedy would have generated a buzz, but then what?

Every somebody was once a nobody.

Jill Sheeds is Flat out Running around the Country doing heaps of things. His Commitments at Richmond are minimal, he is loving life.

If he had been appointed coach art melbourne, i doubt his heart would have been 100% in it. (Blight at St.K)

That is just my opinion but i think Bailey is the Go Long Term.

Kevin Sheedy

We'd be a mess with Sheedy.

2010 will determine Bailey's future. Right now we don't want to win games, but the blowtorch won't be avoided next year.

He's weeded out the right players and that will continue at year's end. Can he coach ? Who would know ?

But there's one thing I do know. A [censored] coach can win a flag with great players but a great coach won't win a flag with [censored] players.

In reality, Bailey as a coach is less important than the issue of our list development. Bailey won't go under the radar forever, but right now he's not the most pressing concern. And in reality one should take care of the other.

Developing stars presently concerns me more than the current coach.

I am with Hannabal, I have no idea whether Bailey can coach.

Our best players are toddlers.

Add to that the fact that our midfield can be selfish (with their run) and stupid (with their delivery) and you have the worst team in the AFL.

I think Bailey can coach and I think the evidence is that there's been substantial improvements in key areas such as clearances and in general workrate (last week aside). He's building a side from the bottom up and he's developing some very raw material at the moment. It takes more than one year to 'rebuild' and it takes more than one year to completely change the coaching philosophy and game plan of a club. If the club is serious about rebuilding then it's already factored in the first two picks in this years draft, and it must also understand that it's completely unfair to judge a coach on only the final year's performance of his contract - particularly when he's delivered on his end of the bargain for the first two... it's why Bailey should be given an extension on his contract this year.

2010 will determine Bailey's future. Right now we don't want to win games, but the blowtorch won't be avoided next year.

He's weeded out the right players and that will continue at year's end. Can he coach ? Who would know ?

But there's one thing I do know. A [censored] coach can win a flag with great players but a great coach won't win a flag with [censored] players.

In reality, Bailey as a coach is less important than the issue of our list development. Bailey won't go under the radar forever, but right now he's not the most pressing concern. And in reality one should take care of the other.

Developing stars presently concerns me more than the current coach.

Very good summation of matters.

And Graz's perspective on time frame and list planning is spot on as well.

it's why Bailey should be given an extension on his contract this year.

Did we learn nothing from the Daniher experience?

And I am still waiting for the author of this thread to detail somthing credible to back up his/her views?

<_< Still waiting.....

Did we learn nothing from the Daniher experience?

What experience was that I ask? What does that have to do with a coaching extension to a contract in Bailey's case?

<_< Still waiting.....

What experience was that I ask? What does that have to do with a coaching extension to a contract in Bailey's case?

Extending the contract of a coach too early that was was not warranted.

I am not saying that Bailey does not warrant an extension, but that decision should be made after his three years which is more than enough time to shape a list (i.e. recruit and cull) and develop sound tactics and a game plan that will win matches.