Well I certainly am smelling some sh!t.

Lack of a gameplan...

As I said in an earlier post - BACK IT UP!

Don't just insult me and tell me there is no gameplan, explain why you think that. All you have mentioned is that Bailey has a stale "hard working" meme, that he doesn't engender passion, and that Davey is too predictable as the bloke "quarterbacking" us off half back.

No need for abusive language rpfc, clearly your passion is giving you some brain fade.

Anyway, thanks for the coaching lesson. Are you sure you don't work for Bailey? In typical Bailey style you have over complicated what is commonly known as "pass and move" and is prevelant in most team sports. Typically, the teams that perform this best win games. The teams that perform this best are coached to know where players will be in any given situation and what their role is in the team. This breads confidence and allows players fractions of extra time to execute efficiently. At the moment MFC are full of indecission because they do not know Bailey's game plan (or it is over complicated). It is this indecission that causes turn overs and soft goals, not skill errors. At this level these guys don't need to be coached everyday on how to hand ball or kick. They need a solid game plan that they all understand and have confidence in. Bailey is not providing this, hence my "lack of game plan" quote.

How many times do you have to stick your finger in a plug socket to realise you are getting an electric shock??? Bailey has had enough games to realise there is something wrong with his game plan, so it's time to move on.

I believe this to be similar to how Geelong move the football and requries a demanding skill-set that many are having trouble with, although some are improving remarkably (Moloney's handballing would be an example). Many say that you have to play the gamestyle that suits your players, but why? They should adjust to the coach, if he thinks that is the best chance of a flag, you change your style, work hard and be damn grateful for the opportunity to play for this great club.

Disagree. I think the game plan should suit the players, not vice versa. We should be playing to our strengths. Making players adapt to a game plan takes out their intuition and, as we're seeing at the moment, it isn't working.

The way I see it, our game plan involves getting numbers behind the ball and bringing it out through the corridor. The problem is that, when a player gets free and looks up, he sees nothing. There is no forward line to kick to, mainly because the forwards are coming far too far up the ground. So the ball carrier looks sideways/backwards, we flip it around as we wait for the forwards to make position, and we turn it over because our skills are poor. So the game plan falls apart.

Even though I seem to have instigated this crap, why don't you take your 'generalisations' to the "General Board".

And Fats stuck his head up. How unusual. But here's the deal, Fat, 2010 is Bailey's third year and it certainly won't be too early to judge his performance. No-one I know will be expecting Finals, but there will be tangible determinators that can be measured for improvement.

Now, back in that hole with Warren.

My point is this, Hanny.

I believe Bailey will be extended early next year but improvement will be marginal.

On what criteria are you planning to judge him? If its games won, then you should be prepared to be disappointed.

This is why I'm dreading next year. I think it will be carnage on these boards. There's already a sniff of it in the air right now.

We both agree its way too early. This time next year will be also.

Have a nice day.

Disagree. I think the game plan should suit the players, not vice versa. We should be playing to our strengths. Making players adapt to a game plan takes out their intuition and, as we're seeing at the moment, it isn't working.

I would agree that you have to change your style in line with your players strengths IF you have a settled experienced group that could challenge for the top 4.

Bailey came in when we were in the bottom 4 with 1000's of games worth of experience retiring or nearing retirement.

Given this relatively 'clean slate' he should stick to rebuilding the list emphasising on the gameplan that he believes will win a flag.

Finally, I would argue that the talent is raw and young but it suits Bailey's vision: the defense and midfield looks quick and attacking with good vision and skills (Frawley, Cheney, Grimes, Morton, Maric, Bennell, Strauss, Petterd, Garland, and, from all reports, Blease).

The way I see it, our game plan involves getting numbers behind the ball and bringing it out through the corridor. The problem is that, when a player gets free and looks up, he sees nothing. There is no forward line to kick to, mainly because the forwards are coming far too far up the ground. So the ball carrier looks sideways/backwards, we flip it around as we wait for the forwards to make position, and we turn it over because our skills are poor. So the game plan falls apart.

I certainly agree that skill errors (especially from senior players: Green, Bruce, McLean, Moloney, and McDonald) are costing us, and there is no doubt that our forwards are kick chasing on a wing too often.

No need for abusive language rpfc, clearly your passion is giving you some brain fade.

Anyway, thanks for the coaching lesson. Are you sure you don't work for Bailey? In typical Bailey style you have over complicated what is commonly known as "pass and move" and is prevelant in most team sports. Typically, the teams that perform this best win games. The teams that perform this best are coached to know where players will be in any given situation and what their role is in the team. This breads confidence and allows players fractions of extra time to execute efficiently. At the moment MFC are full of indecission because they do not know Bailey's game plan (or it is over complicated). It is this indecission that causes turn overs and soft goals, not skill errors. At this level these guys don't need to be coached everyday on how to hand ball or kick. They need a solid game plan that they all understand and have confidence in. Bailey is not providing this, hence my "lack of game plan" quote.

How many times do you have to stick your finger in a plug socket to realise you are getting an electric shock??? Bailey has had enough games to realise there is something wrong with his game plan, so it's time to move on.

It's 'over-complicated,' it's breeding 'indecision,' the players don't know it, and Bailey should 'realise there is something wrong with his gameplan.'

You have written a lot and said nothing.

What is wrong with the gameplan other than its 'complexity'?

What gameplan should Bailey employ?

My personal view on this is our midfield cannot kick straight, and doesn't run hard enough. And we average a three goal loss of the third quarter because the entire team seizes up and doesn't want to be the one to eff up and so we just get blown away.

The gameplan becomes moot when players can't execute basic skills and seizes their run when tested.

Have you only watched one match this year?

Not only was Davey still alright last night, but his move to half-back has seen him reach form that has some talking of an All-Australian berth. He is getting a lot more of the ball than he did last year in the forward line, and we're making the most of his wonderful kicking ability.

Scoreboard pressure starts with being able to kick goals. What do you think teams would prefer...Davey chip kicking off half-back or Davey roaming our forward line. To me it is the latter.

He hasn't backed the 'wrong donkeys', he's backed the only players he's got. He's given players like Bell, Newton, Dunn etc. plenty of matches to prove themselves, and they haven't, so we've got a heck of a lot of youth in at the moment.

Bailey sold himself on knowing our list when he interviewed for the role of senior coach. He felt they could improve under his tutorlidge. He knew what he was coming into. Bailey CHOSE to inherit this list. But I guess we can't shoot the messenger. The question needs to be asked what the hell Gardner and Co. were thinking employing him!!

Bailey's true test will come next year. If we can't get 8-10 wins next year his chances of coaching in 2011 will be shot.

We will not win more than 5 games next year. Look at it rationally...were is our improvement going to come from??

Bailey sold himself on knowing our list when he interviewed for the role of senior coach. He felt they could improve under his tutorlidge. He knew what he was coming into. Bailey CHOSE to inherit this list. But I guess we can't shoot the messenger. The question needs to be asked what the hell Gardner and Co. were thinking employing him!!

Knowing the list, and thinking the list is good, are two different issues.

I can name 5 players that have improved under Bailey just off the top of my head (Frawley, Garland, Warnock, Davey, Jones), but there are plenty more.

He is still in the process of turning our list over, and doesn't have the luxury of leveraging the talent of his senior players. Have a look at other new coaches, and you'll note that they inherited a list containing at least 3 or 4 elite senior players (to be fair Harvey inherited just one, and that shows) that they can build a young team around.

Much easier to build a young list, when you have Lloyd, Fletcher, McPhee, Hill etc... there in key position roles. Not to mention Judd, Stevens and Fevola.

Our senior players are poor, have no leadership skills, and to top that off don't occupy key positions on the ground.

Bailey has built us a backline in two years, when Daniher couldn't build us one in 10. He has lost his best senior player and FF, and our senior ruckman, and now has to rebuild both the forwardline and midfield.

To expect miracles after two seasons is ignorant and unrealistic, when our list in 2007 was 50% [censored], 30% mediocre and 20% unknown.

The easiest job in football is to coach a great team to success, the hardest job is to build a great team.

I can not believe this website. I have lost a lot of respect for this forum. Has anyone been reading what the Connolly and co have been saying we are still a long way off. Everyone needs to chill.

yeah true - but you also have to worry about next year too - we can put up with it for this year but we do need to improve next year - and fingers crossed we will....

It's 'over-complicated,' it's breeding 'indecision,' the players don't know it, and Bailey should 'realise there is something wrong with his gameplan.'

You have written a lot and said nothing.

What is wrong with the gameplan other than its 'complexity'?

What gameplan should Bailey employ?

My personal view on this is our midfield cannot kick straight, and doesn't run hard enough. And we average a three goal loss of the third quarter because the entire team seizes up and doesn't want to be the one to eff up and so we just get blown away.

The gameplan becomes moot when players can't execute basic skills and seizes their run when tested.

"What is wrong with the game plan other than it's complexity?????" Hmmmm...... it don't work!!!

" What game plan should Bailey employ?" Something the players understand and can perform for 4 qtrs

If our midfield can't kick straight or run hard then what are they doing playing AFL??? It's the lack of confidence in the game plan and the lack of motivation from the coach which causes most of the skill errors. The buck stops with the coach in these areas. You only have to watch the lads in the pre-game warm up to see that they can kick and handball to each other. Bailey just can't bring the individuals together to make them play as a team and I doubt he ever will do.

And by the way, if you think it is the players that are letting MFC down then we may as well pack it all in now.

Scoreboard pressure starts with being able to kick goals. What do you think teams would prefer...Davey chip kicking off half-back or Davey roaming our forward line. To me it is the latter.

Davey's worth in the backline is 2-3 goals more than playing him forward. Have you noticed that he's having his best season playing there?

Bailey sold himself on knowing our list when he interviewed for the role of senior coach. He felt they could improve under his tutorlidge. He knew what he was coming into. Bailey CHOSE to inherit this list. But I guess we can't shoot the messenger. The question needs to be asked what the hell Gardner and Co. were thinking employing him!!

No Bailey was employed to fix the list, train the new players and then win finals. The list he took over was finished as Robertson, JMac, Whelan, Wheatley and co prove to us on a weekly basis.

We will not win more than 5 games next year. Look at it rationally...were is our improvement going to come from??

We will win between 8 and 12 depending on injuries. I'm not going to explain where the improvement will come from because you won't understand.

"What is wrong with the game plan other than it's complexity?????" Hmmmm...... it don't work!!!

Insightful.

Explain to us why.

" What game plan should Bailey employ?" Something the players understand and can perform for 4 qtrs

If our midfield can't kick straight or run hard then what are they doing playing AFL??? It's the lack of confidence in the game plan and the lack of motivation from the coach which causes most of the skill errors. The buck stops with the coach in these areas. You only have to watch the lads in the pre-game warm up to see that they can kick and handball to each other. Bailey just can't bring the individuals together to make them play as a team and I doubt he ever will do.

And by the way, if you think it is the players that are letting MFC down then we may as well pack it all in now.

So Brock, Brent, Brad, Cam, and Nathan cannot hit a forward target because of a crisis of confidence?!, and because they are unmotivated to kick properly by Bailey?!

You are searching (if one can call it that) for simple answers and blaming the coach is the simplest answer there is.

And I don't think the players are letting the MFC down - I think a lack of run at crucial times, an inability to hit simple targets, and poor delivery into the forward 50 is letting the MFC down.

Davey's worth in the backline is 2-3 goals more than playing him forward. Have you noticed that he's having his best season playing there?

No Bailey was employed to fix the list, train the new players and then win finals. The list he took over was finished as Robertson, JMac, Whelan, Wheatley and co prove to us on a weekly basis.

We will win between 8 and 12 depending on injuries. I'm not going to explain where the improvement will come from because you won't understand.

Reading some of the latest threads and posts makes me think we need to have prospective posters pass some kind of basic intelligence test before they can sign up. Some of the dribble I read these days makes this site less and less enjoyable.

Roost It, are you in bed with RPFC? You both must be wearing rose tinted glasses. We will be lucky to win 2 games this year (worse than last year) and if we win 8 - 12 next year I will walk from Flinders to the G with my pants round my ankles! I know we are a team in transition but can you honestly say we are improving under Bailey? I'll follow the Dee's forever but I'm not expecting anything while Bailey is leading the troops. You say Robertson et al are all finished but lets face it, not many of the team have been consistant performers under Bailey.

If you don't like the forum, don't post. The idea is people voice their opinions, even if you don't agree with them!!

Gee some ppl need to chill n be paitent i thought winning wasnt an option for us this year?

A bit of short immediate term pain maybe worth it, since Gold Coast next year will rape n pillage the draft, this year is our big opportunity to nab 2 potential future guns of the comp!

Some ppl need to lay off Brock the guy has missed alot of footy and hasnt done a pre season in a long time so of course he is going to look a bit lost and slow. he was already well and truly behind the 8 ball before the season even started. Think back to 2006 when he was touted as a champion of the game. Be paitent ppl

We lost 7 games last year by 60+.

2008 was an awful season of adjustment and bloodletting.

I refuse to concede there has been no improvement in 2009.

The team has more promise, the style of play has more fluidity, and the skills are better.

They are still poor on many occasions in all these areas, but that is because we are coming from so far back.

Rather than the past two games, think of the games against NM, Richmond, WB, WCE, St K (1st half) and Haw (2nd half).

Look at it rationally...were is our improvement going to come from??

Wtf?

Re-visit the games of this season, have a look at the youth that entered the club in the last two years via the drafts, have a look at the already improved backline, have a look at the second quarter on Friday night. Then get back to us.

PS. And it is 'where'...

I would agree that you have to change your style in line with your players strengths IF you have a settled experienced group that could challenge for the top 4.

I guess this is where we disagree rpfc. I don't think the experience of the group should matter: if a group of players has obvious strengths, the team should be playing to them. If a group of players can't do certain things as well as others, then they shouldn't be trying them in matches.

Scoreboard pressure starts with being able to kick goals. What do you think teams would prefer...Davey chip kicking off half-back or Davey roaming our forward line. To me it is the latter.

Insightful stuff.

What do you think teams would prefer: Davey providing precision kicks off half back, or being wasted in a forward line where the ball doesn't come in often enough. To me it is the former.

Don't forget that we haven't had Wonaeamirri all year, and he showed last year that he has no problem with finding the goals.

We will not win more than 5 games next year. Look at it rationally...were is our improvement going to come from??

You're just proving to everyone here that you haven't seen more than 1 or 2 game this year. Stop basing comments on the past 2 weeks and go and have a watch of the first 10. In particular, look at the West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Richmond and Geelong matches. You will see in whose games the reasons why we should be able to climb up the ladder next year.

I can name 5 players that have improved under Bailey just off the top of my head (Frawley, Garland, Warnock, Davey, Jones), but there are plenty more.

Jones is somewhat questionable. He's had some good games this year (West Coast for example), but there isn't much consistency.

Spot on with the other 4 though. And I reckon you can add Green to that list (in that his football of 2008-2009 is at least as good, if not better, than it was prior to 2008).

He is still in the process of turning our list over, and doesn't have the luxury of leveraging the talent of his senior players. Have a look at other new coaches, and you'll note that they inherited a list containing at least 3 or 4 elite senior players (to be fair Harvey inherited just one, and that shows) that they can build a young team around.

This is a big reason why we have sucked so much over the past two seasons. To boast a senior list of Bruce, McDonald, Robertson, Whelan, Wheatley, White, Yze and Holland shows just how bad our senior players are/were in comparison to other teams.

... You only have to watch the lads in the pre-game warm up to see that they can kick and handball to each other ...

And for a brief second there I thought you were going to offer something to RPFC's debate.

I guess this is where we disagree rpfc. I don't think the experience of the group should matter: if a group of players has obvious strengths, the team should be playing to them. If a group of players can't do certain things as well as others, then they shouldn't be trying them in matches.

I will give you than inexperience isn't a unbreakable ceiling.

But you have to agree that Bailey came to this club with a list that was dominated by players older than 28 and younger than 24.

Without no-one in their peak (25-28) he had to look young and redevelop the list.

And if he is redeveloping, he may aswell mould the list to play the style he wants.

And if Morton, Grimes, Maric, Cheney, McNamara, Martin, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Bail, and Jurrah were brought in to play a certain style then the rest should coalesce or play for Casey. I would say by 2011, 10 of those players would be first 22 for the MFC.

......And if he is redeveloping, he may aswell mould the list to play the style he wants.

And can someone tell me what "style" that may be.

And can someone tell me what "style" that may be.

A style that requires players proficient in handballing, and can pin-point short kicks, and players that have good vision, decent speed, and a large aerobic capacity.

I explained what I believe to be our gameplan a few posts ago.

And if you were being facetious, I don't see how it is constructive...

A style that requires players proficient in handballing, and can pin-point short kicks, and players that have good vision, decent speed, and a large aerobic capacity.

I explained what I believe to be our gameplan a few posts ago.

And if you were being facetious, I don't see how it is constructive...

Not at all RPFC.

I simply mean I don't see a "game plan" at present. Accepting the points you make about the "style", I don't see a game plan that fits that criteria.

This is how I see it. Didn't get to see it much on Friday. Saw plenty of it against NM, Rich, WB, St K, and Haw.

THE GAMEPLAN

The gameplan, as I see it, is based around quick movement through the corridor with a set up kick to half back as several mids and HBF's stream forward with sharing (and risky) handballs through the defensive corridor and deliver, preferably, a short kick to approx. 60-70 and then have lead-up forwards meet the ball. In the event of a crowded HF line the mids should continue their run and provide a handball option for the player with the ball 70 out and deliver to the top of the square over the top of the flood.

This gameplan requires a willingness to run a marathon every week if you are a mid, and have good-to-exceptional handballing skills for all players streaming off HB. Forwards need to be able to double-lead, or triple-lead, as they may lead for a kick that might be a lateral handball instead and they must be able to adjust.

I believe this to be similar to how Geelong move the football and requries a demanding skill-set that many are having trouble with, although some are improving remarkably (Moloney's handballing would be an example). Many say that you have to play the gamestyle that suits your players, but why? They should adjust to the coach, if he thinks that is the best chance of a flag, you change your style, work hard and be damn grateful for the opportunity to play for this great club.

That is my read on what the MFC has tried to do throughout the last two years, if anyone disagrees, please discuss. If anyone wants to criticise, please point out what would be a better way.

And for a brief second there I thought you were going to offer something to RPFC's debate.

Old 55, it's called sarcasm )

My point is that the players at this level don't need to be coached how to kick a football week in week out. They need a solid game plan that they trust and can execute efficiently. Even the best players in the comp will look less than ordinary with a game plan that don't work for the team. I have never stated that I know better, unlike some people on this forum (RE: RPFC's lame attempt at deciphering Bailey's game plan). However, I have enough knowledge of the game to know that what Bailey is coaching is not working or is not getting through to the team (results speak louder than words). If I did know better, I certainly would not be wasting my time in a 9 til 5 job!!

How many games is enough before too much damage is caused to a young fragile playing group?

May be MFC should appoint RPFC, he seems to be keen on forcing his game plan........ he would probably have more charisma and passion than Bailey.

How many games is enough before too much damage is caused to a young fragile playing group?

exactly 7 more losses this year

Old 55, it's called sarcasm )

My point is that the players at this level don't need to be coached how to kick a football week in week out. They need a solid game plan that they trust and can execute efficiently. Even the best players in the comp will look less than ordinary with a game plan that don't work for the team. I have never stated that I know better, unlike some people on this forum (RE: RPFC's lame attempt at deciphering Bailey's game plan). However, I have enough knowledge of the game to know that what Bailey is coaching is not working or is not getting through to the team (results speak louder than words). If I did know better, I certainly would not be wasting my time in a 9 til 5 job!!

How many games is enough before too much damage is caused to a young fragile playing group?

May be MFC should appoint RPFC, he seems to be keen on forcing his game plan........ he would probably have more charisma and passion than Bailey.

Now that's sarcasm...

I really don't believe my attempt was 'lame,' but I had a disclaimer at the bottom that said if anyone disagreed with my interpretation they should contribute. I also asked if anyone knew a better gameplan to suit the most undeveloped list in the AFL, and if they could point out its virtues as opposed to the one Bailey is using.

I wager that any gameplan would be undone by lack of run at crucial times, inability to hit simple targets, and poor delivery into the forward fifty.

And finally, if the players didn't do skill work (kicking and hanballing) they would be even worse than they have been. 'Week in, week out' kicking at training is one tradition that won't be leaving us any time soon.