We're certainly "mediocre", but I don't believe we're as bad as our recent on field performances suggest. And please don't tell me we've been more "competitive". There is an intangible on the field and sometimes you can almost smell it and touch it. I've not seen that at all.

Except for the last match against the Pies, I would have to disagree with you.

R6 (Geel) - didnt get blown away or smashed like many footy people expected against the best side, R7 (WCE) Almost won against opposition who are pretty hard to beat on their own dunghill, R8 (WB) Pushed the side who many say are third in line for winning the flag all the way - only just losing, R9 (Haw) Fought back hard against last years premiers who jumped us early - never gave up & dropped heads, R10 (St.K) - Pushed second in line for the flag for the 1st half before been swallowed by their defence.

Yes, R11 (Coll) was one out of the books (and not in a good way!!). Maybe the break came one week too late for the boys - who knows??.

We will see how they go against the Bombers, but I believe imo that we are heading in the right direction are we are on the way.

Fact - Last season percentage of 64%. Current season 70%. Win/Loss record 4/29.

Fact - Regardless of win/loss record, we play ugly defense oriented football.

How do you say that??

Our game plan is based on run out of defense, through the midfield using quick foot and hand skills (like most other sides). The difference between us and other sides is the skills and the decision making of the players. If you actually watch closely how we play on game day - you will see it isnt ugly or defensive orintated football (when played right & properly).

So tell me, do you want to sack the coach at a time when the club is at the bottom of a rebuilding cycle?

There are many good things happening at Melbourne, not least being the reformation of the club under Stynes and the healing of deep rifts in the club. For the first time in a number of years the off field support is starting to be effective.

I think it would be the very worst time to be sacking coaches. What does Hardwick have to offer?

So tell me, do you want to sack the coach at a time when the club is at the bottom of a rebuilding cycle?

There are many good things happening at Melbourne, not least being the reformation of the club under Stynes and the healing of deep rifts in the club. For the first time in a number of years the off field support is starting to be effective.

I think it would be the very worst time to be sacking coaches. What does Hardwick have to offer?

Correct again....

Has anyone seen the author of this thread? Still waiting to find out what it is that Damian Hardwick "has" that "we need".

This thread has not legitimacy and is simply turning into a vehicle for people who can't put up with a few years of list re-alignment and development pain.

awful english

What makes you think Kallioota is English?

On a more serious note, Mo, I know you hate the game plan, understandable because we aren't winning.

Consider this though. It may be that we aren't seeing the full game plan yet. Not out of any surreptitious intent by Dean Bailey, but because the necessary players (many who are already developing within the list) are not yet ready. Already this year there have been some quarters (not as many as we would all like) where the passing to the forwards has been crisp and we have looked fairly sharp.

The players we need to make this fast moving, accurate by foot, game plan work are players like Blease and Strauss, hitting targets like Watts and Jurrah. Add in the development of other youngsters like Morton, Maric, Grimes etc and I think then, and only then, will the football department be able to properly implement the game plan they desire.

Once the above mentioned players can be deemed to be "regulars" we can then start to judge the effectiveness of the game plan accordingly.

What makes you think Kallioota is English?

On a more serious note, Mo, I know you hate the game plan, understandable because we aren't winning.

Consider this though. It may be that we aren't seeing the full game plan yet. Not out of any surreptitious intent by Dean Bailey, but because the necessary players (many who are already developing within the list) are not yet ready. Already this year there have been some quarters (not as many as we would all like) where the passing to the forwards has been crisp and we have looked fairly sharp.

The players we need to make this fast moving, accurate by foot, game plan work are players like Blease and Strauss, hitting targets like Watts and Jurrah. Add in the development of other youngsters like Morton, Maric, Grimes etc and I think then, and only then, will the football department be able to properly implement the game plan they desire.

Once the above mentioned players can be deemed to be "regulars" we can then start to judge the effectiveness of the game plan accordingly.

Ah yes, but this plays into the irrational argument that Bailey should choose a gameplan that suits the players he has, not the players he wishes to have...

Far too many threads have degenerated into a steaming pile through this argument.

Ah yes, but this plays into the irrational argument that Bailey should choose a gameplan that suits the players he has, not the players he wishes to have...

Far too many threads have degenerated into a steaming pile through this argument.

Point taken Enforcer 25...by the way is your pen name in reference to Kyle Cheney "the baker boy from the Beal"?

The club admin & footy departments seem fairly united in attitude, build for a premiership, from the ground up, selecting and developing the players they think they need to achieve that.

The new players selected thus far by the football department have mostly been "kicking" players, and yet many people who slate the current game play say "too much handball".

Any posters who can come up with a brilliant game plan as an interim measure should immediately provide the club with a detailed step-by-step manual. Although I'd suggest that any individual possessing such genius should perhaps focus their talents upon bringing about global peace and putting an end to world hunger.

Ah yes, but this plays into the irrational argument that Bailey should choose a gameplan that suits the players he has, not the players he wishes to have...

Far too many threads have degenerated into a steaming pile through this argument.

Ok, for all you football knowalls, do you realise that some clubs don't maintain the same gameplan for a whole season?

In response to a discussion of our own forward spy Sneaky Dave Dunbar, Robert Shaw revealed that forward spies have become more prevalent in football because clubs can change their gameplan every 8 weeks. Get that, every 8 weeks. And that's understandable given that clubs have already started to dismantle Hawthorn's rolling zone.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

Ok, for all you football knowalls, do you realise that some clubs don't maintain the same gameplan for a whole season?

In response to a discussion of our own forward spy Sneaky Dave Dunbar, Robert Shaw revealed that forward spies have become more prevalent in football because clubs can change their gameplan every 8 weeks. Get that, every 8 weeks. And that's understandable given that clubs have already started to dismantle Hawthorn's rolling zone.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

Hey i just want a couple of Key Forwards who can mark & Kick Goals, its quite simple. At the moment we don't have them. This year we must lose in order to win. Stop trying to over complicate yourself. Its not worth it.

The club admin & footy departments seem fairly united in attitude, build for a premiership, from the ground up, selecting and developing the players they think they need to achieve that.

The new players selected thus far by the football department have mostly been "kicking" players, and yet many people who slate the current game play say "too much handball".

Any posters who can come up with a brilliant game plan as an interim measure should immediately provide the club with a detailed step-by-step manual. Although I'd suggest that any individual possessing such genius should perhaps focus their talents upon bringing about global peace and putting an end to world hunger.

Imho too much handball is a result of succumbing to pressure from the opposition, not a desired effect of the gameplan, but a direct result of mistakes & indecision.

With experience and improvement in skill & decision making we will change this into handball due to desire, rather than necessity.

Bailey is making the players persevere with this gameplan so that they are forced to cope with these difficult situations and with time will learn to keep a cool head and identify the correct option.

Something akin to Phil Jackson refusing to call a timeout for his Lakers during difficult game situations, instead forcing his players to play through adversity and in turn learn to cope with the pressure & understand how to tackle the situation confidently & correctly.

Already a select few have been shown to do this (Garland in my mind is a prime example).

Point taken Enforcer 25...by the way is your pen name in reference to Kyle Cheney "the baker boy from the Beal"?

No, but he has quickly become one of my favourites.

25 cos its the number I have always worn and Enforcer cos going for the hard ball and crashing into bodies and making people feel it is all I've ever been really good at in football.

Any other aspect of the game and I'm average at best.

So I concentrate on trying to be one of those players that your teammates are glad is on their side. I have had this label thrust upon me.

Ok, for all you football knowalls, do you realise that some clubs don't maintain the same gameplan for a whole season?

In response to a discussion of our own forward spy Sneaky Dave Dunbar, Robert Shaw revealed that forward spies have become more prevalent in football because clubs can change their gameplan every 8 weeks. Get that, every 8 weeks. And that's understandable given that clubs have already started to dismantle Hawthorn's rolling zone.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

There are both long-term and short-term tactics, game-plans, strategies.

I think a coach can frequently alter his gameplan, but the essence of his 'football philosophy' remains, even if it does evolve.

say what you want this is who l wanted not Dean. sick of all this stuff we are playing and yes Collingwood just showed what a younger team could to with us.

great game plan great effort and great coaching. maybe after finally getting the off field stuff looking good and casey maybe we should now look to see who could help us move forward

l never said sack Dean just get Hardwick here to help out before he is gone

So the original poster has not given us much to go on but from his only 2 post in this topic it seems he or she wants Hardwick @ the club in some role.

But for some reason it's now become a DB debate. I just love how these forums go off on their little jaunts into the ether, it makes for hilarious reading.

Anyhow, I actually like DB, fwiw I think he is going along fine, some would say I am happy with mediocrity, but I am just taking the patience option (it comes from having small children) now I don't know what his plan is, but IMO he seems to be building the team up from the backline thru to the forwards, or maybe it's just panned out that way with injuries etc. Our backline ATM is our most dominant part of our team and has been better then last year.So yes we are playing this ugly defensive football and until our midfield and forward lines become as strong as our defence that just the way it goes.

With a midfield that's making good decisions and hitting their targets by hand and foot and targets up forward who can convert their opportunites into goals we will once again start making oppositions fear the red and blue. I reckon we will start winning games when our defence becomes like a brick wall that can shut down oppositions forwards and can pressure them into coughing up the ball. Geelong is a team that does that now. IMO when Geelong were developing to get to where they are now they started with their Backline and got their defence right because yes you can win by kicking more goals then the opposition but you demolish sides when you also stop them from scoring as well and I want to see a MFC that not only wins but dominates and demolishes.

The question of whether players are playing for the current coach is an interesting one. Well actually, no, I lied its very uninteresting in fact it's a bit of a long bow to draw as there are a myriad of things that motivate footballers to play well and to put all the blame on to one aspect of that motivation IMO is not really an arguable point.

I never questioned Bailey's appointment, but as soon as he outlined his gameplan, I knew we were in trouble.

Fact - Last season percentage of 64%. Current season 70%. Win/Loss record 4/29.

Fact - Regardless of win/loss record, we play ugly defense oriented football.

I'm not anti Bailey as you suggest. I'm just sick of reading all the b#llshit on this site about what a great coach he is because he's turned over our list. And how no other coach could do any better because our list is so bad.

I'm one of the few who is actually judging Bailey based on what's happening on the ground. There is no evidence to suggest that he is a good tactician or motivator.

Ok, for all you football knowalls, do you realise that some clubs don't maintain the same gameplan for a whole season?

In response to a discussion of our own forward spy Sneaky Dave Dunbar, Robert Shaw revealed that forward spies have become more prevalent in football because clubs can change their gameplan every 8 weeks. Get that, every 8 weeks. And that's understandable given that clubs have already started to dismantle Hawthorn's rolling zone.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

So does that also mean that your concerns regarding this statement "but as soon as he outlined his gameplan, I knew we were in trouble" is now lessened somewhat by the possibility that the original game plan he had outlined may have now changed.

Still waiting to find out what it is that Damian Hardwick "has" that "we need". This thread has not legitimacy and is simply turning into a vehicle for people who can't put up with a few years of list re-alignment and development pain.

Indeed.

Hey i just want a couple of Key Forwards who can mark & Kick Goals

Yes. I would also like an A grade mid

Ok, for all you football knowalls, do you realise that some clubs don't maintain the same gameplan for a whole season?

In response to a discussion of our own forward spy Sneaky Dave Dunbar, Robert Shaw revealed that forward spies have become more prevalent in football because clubs can change their gameplan every 8 weeks. Get that, every 8 weeks. And that's understandable given that clubs have already started to dismantle Hawthorn's rolling zone.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

Pacy players who can accurately hit targets by hand or foot are unlikely to ever become redundant whatever game plan is implemented.

I never questioned Bailey's appointment, but as soon as he outlined his gameplan, I knew we were in trouble.

I'm not saying you questioned Bailey's appointment, it's the way you come accross in some of your posts. When Bailey took over it was plain to see our list was shot. We've been through it many-a-times in many threads. It was an ageing list and our old blue chips I call them were at their end. ND had got the best out of them and they were finished. The writing was on the wall for a rebuild to take place.

I'm one of the few who is actually judging Bailey based on what's happening on the ground. There is no evidence to suggest that he is a good tactician or motivator.

There is no evidence to suggest that he isn't a good tactician or motivator either. But from what I've seen this year in regards to improved efforts out on the field and 'competitiveness' - sometimes differences in quarter to quarter performance it may suggest that he might just be good tactician and motivator with such a young developing list.

Mo, Take note of what It's a Nightmare has posted: - (Of which I totally agree)

Consider this though. It may be that we aren't seeing the full game plan yet. Not out of any surreptitious intent by Dean Bailey, but because the necessary players (many who are already developing within the list) are not yet ready. Already this year there have been some quarters (not as many as we would all like) where the passing to the forwards has been crisp and we have looked fairly sharp.

The club admin & footy departments seem fairly united in attitude, build for a premiership, from the ground up, selecting and developing the players they think they need to achieve that.

I agree, and this takes time & patience.

So you nuffies who believe that we should build a list based on a gameplan that will become redundant in 12 months, are clueless.

You're better than that Mo. How do you know if at all it will become redundant? For all we know Bailey & Co. may be developing their own unique gameplan around forwards in Watts & Jurrah etc, that we aren't privvy to. With Key posts still to be filled and recruits yet to be even drafted and developed all this gameplan not working talk is absolute hogwash, for it probably hasn't even come to fruition IMO, although we are seeing signs of it when the ball comes out of the backline (when there is no turnovers).

Pacy players who can accurately hit targets by hand or foot are unlikely to ever become redundant whatever game plan is implemented.

Correct.

There are both long-term and short-term tactics, game-plans, strategies.

I think a coach can frequently alter his gameplan, but the essence of his 'football philosophy' remains, even if it does evolve.

I agree with all of that. A coach can implement a basic football philosophy that's appropriate to whatever gameplan or player type on his list.

I'm purely talking about a gameplan, which means ball movement and player structure (both offensive and defensive). IMO, a coach should implement a gameplan that's appropriate to his list, without compromising on basic football philosophies. As his player list changes, so does his gameplan.

I agree with all of that. A coach can implement a basic football philosophy that's appropriate to whatever gameplan or player type on his list.

I'm purely talking about a gameplan, which means ball movement and player structure (both offensive and defensive). IMO, a coach should implement a gameplan that's appropriate to his list, without compromising on basic football philosophies. As his player list changes, so does his gameplan.

I think you've got me there.

But I fail to see what gameplan could possibly be success with this list... (hence I'm not an AFL coach)

I think you've got me there.

But I fail to see what gameplan could possibly be success with this list... (hence I'm not an AFL coach)

Exactly.

We are the worst team in the AFL and will be beaten by a majority of teams with any gameplan we play so why not play the style that Bailey wants us to play in 2010 and onwards.

I'm sure he will change as he sees fit, being a second year coach he is still learning on the job.

Right now, his gameplan revolves around handball through the corridor and moving the ball past the CHF position into the middle of the fifty.

The MFC, at the end of 2007, couldn't handball the effing football. And right now, and into the foreseeable future, handballing is a necessity for an aspiring midfield to learn.

In 2009, the MFC has become significantly better at that basic skill.

To me, that's value for the future. Even if the future holds a different game style.

But I fail to see what gameplan could possibly be success with this list...

That's it.

I agree with all of that. A coach can implement a basic football philosophy that's appropriate to whatever gameplan or player type on his list.

I'm purely talking about a gameplan, which means ball movement and player structure (both offensive and defensive). IMO, a coach should implement a gameplan that's appropriate to his list, without compromising on basic football philosophies. As his player list changes, so does his gameplan.

If we went this way our ongoing development would suffer becasue we would have to pick blokes only in positions they were good at. Surely this is a basic "footy philosiphies" and how you develop a list?