If I had to nominate what made the Daniher sides pretty consistently competitive, and often capable of going deep into final series, I would nominate:

1) A visionery coach promoting a relentless running gameplan based on long kicking and possession football

2) A first class, mobile ruckman (Geoff White)

3) A tough-as-nails full forward and captain, as well a providing a talented high marking target up forward, and well as a classy second tall in Robbo

4) An A-grader mid-fielder in Travis Johnstone, together with Brad Green and Cameron Bruce

5) A first class crumbing forward in Jeff Farmer (at least in the early days)

6) A very hard tackling and hard chasing Backline

What of these features is missing in the new look side. Clearly the biggest hole in my view is the classy mobile ruckman. We have no better than adequate ruckman on our list - certainly nothing of the White class, though ironically we may have been able to get one if we had have been prepared to trade for Jolly. The second major gap is the high marking forward, although the combination of Jarrah and Watts may prove ultimately to be even more leathal.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the so called Bailey gameplan based around short passing possession and low balls into the forward line is neither anything like as spectacular nor in my view as effective as the Daniher long game. It will be interesting to see if this un-ambitious approach changes when we have our full forward set-up in place.

The Daniher sides between 2004-2006 were good enough to only be between 5th-8th best team in the competition.

Not once in any of those years were we ever genuine premiership contenders.

If we are going to model our sides on anything, we should model them so that they are moulded against premiership teams like Geelong.

The only reason to try to emulate the Daniher era would be to try to become a finals team that never has a chance at a premiership. This new crop of players deserve better that than. Hell us supporters deserve better than that

in my eyes what made the Daniher coached teams finals contenders was their willingness to take the game on, with long kicking, and they were able to do that by having a reliable, pack breaking full forward, who would always make a contest. That situation was ideal for Robbo and the Wiz.

The roller-coaster of 2001,02,03, and the subsequent surge and drops within the 2004,05,06 seasons, tell a story of multiple teams sliding in and out, not one team. In any given year some players came through well, some were ordinary and some fell away. Woewodin, Johnstone, Yze, Vardy, Pickett, Rigoni, Bruce, Neitz, Robertson, White, Rivers, Yze, Davey, Mclean, Whelan, Wheatley, Moloney, all these guys and more were up and down from injury or form over this period (2001-2006). We never managed consecutive seasons without major disruption to the list.

Godfrey and Heffernen were regulars in the midfield and our tall defence was held together by Alistair Nicholson almost alone. We never really had a Centre-half-forward, either. With all these deficiencies, Daniher did a fine job to keep us competitive on a regular basis. And there were flashes, runs of wins where we looked like the real thing, but they always cracked and faltered, and we were always staggering by the time finals came around.

On talent and positional balance, the team we have assmebled (or will have finished assembling in about three weeks) has much more going for it than the Daniher era teams. Already when you look at the team sheet for round 1 next year, you find yourself wondering which highly talented young players will miss out, not 'how do we cover this and that'. combine that with the determination to give the kids time to play games together, not just accumulate games but play them as a stable team, and we have ourselves the magic beans.

While we were never blessed with a multitude of superstars, our competitiveness in my opinion came from a real desire from the players to play for their coach. Rarely did we have players who played below their par, in fact most weeks players went out and played out of their skins giving 110% and committing to the "All or nothing" attacking brand of footy. Worked great every now and again, but we lacked the cattle to pull it off on a consistent basis.

We were never good enough to challenge. If Neitz, Robertson or someone like that were off their game, we'd always loose. And during 2006, we lost to the wooden-spooners twice.

The Collingwood team of today remind me a lot of the team we had under Daniher. Competitive during the season, only to [censored] themselves when they got deep into September.

Daniher and competitive finals sides?

Sounds like the starting line of a joke.

Daniher and competitive finals sides?

Sounds like the starting line of a joke.

1998, 2000 and 2002 weren't funny. Given the lack of facilities, finance, salary cap penalties, poor drafting and at times Board stability Danihers efforts were creditable in his final 5 years (sans 2007). Not brilliant but creditable.

Wallet and competitive finals sides?

Now that's funny

I think its good to remember that teams that have come out with a new game plan, instead of moulding a previously tryed plan have done well lately. Think of Geelong with their extreme handballing and running game, hawks and their defensive zone for instance.

I think its good to remember that teams that have come out with a new game plan, instead of moulding a previously tryed plan have done well lately. Think of Geelong with their extreme handballing and running game, hawks and their defensive zone for instance.

Geelongs game plan and list took 7 years to come together. Hawthorn took 5 years. Both sides had lean years in the lead up to flag success.

And nearly all "new" game plans are just remoulded previously tried game plans to exploit some of aspect of the play. Unless there are significant changes in player fitness and/or the games rules, most game plans are an evolutionary path of what you do when you have the ball, when you dont have the ball and when the ball is in neutral control situations.

Geelongs game plan and list took 7 years to come together. Hawthorn took 5 years. Both sides had lean years in the lead up to flag success.

And nearly all "new" game plans are just remoulded previously tried game plans to exploit some of aspect of the play. Unless there are significant changes in player fitness and/or the games rules, most game plans are an evolutionary path of what you do when you have the ball, when you dont have the ball and when the ball is in neutral control situations.

The issue is that after Sydney won the flag Melbourne brought in "Tempo Football".

After West Coast won the flag, Melbourne tried to bring in "Run and Carry".

After Hawthorn won the flag most teams (not just Melbourne) looked to bring in a "Rolling Zone".

The only reason those teams were successful with those tactics was because the players they had suited them. Thus, the tactics fit the team, not the other way around. If for example Hawthorn of 2008 tried to implement the "Tempo Football" tactics of Sydney in I don't think they would have been so successful.

West Coast's "Run and Carry" suited them because they had an A+ midfield, but a C- forward line. An A+ midfield will obviously be good in any team, however their "Run and Carry" tactics addressed their weaknesses whilst playing to their strengths.

Edited November 5, 200915 yr by Clint Bizkit

we have a new plan......

kick it to Jurrah!!

if he doesnt get it...someone will :)

I wen to the NM game in 98 knowing we couldn't win, I went to the GF in 00 knowing we couldn't win, I went to the Semi against Adelaide in 02 knowing we couldn't win (changed at 3qtr time but the rest is painful history), I missed the awful loss to Ess in 04 after a pathetic fall from 1st after Rd 18, I went to the Elim against Geel in 05 knowing we couldn't win, and I watched the semi against Freo in 06 knowing we couldn't win.

So 2004 was the year that I was expecting to do something and I was disappointed to learn it wouldn't happen in August of that year.

Other than that we have never been close to the only thing I give a sh!t about - a flag.

Daniher did well with the resources he had but he never had the ruthlessness that Bailey has shown.

It's a ruthlessness I didn't see coming, but was pleasantly surprised by.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, FI2014. Suffice it to say, Bailey's gameplan is not what you described.

Suffice it to say, Bailey's gameplan is not what you described.

How would you describe it?

How would you describe it?

Had a go at describing it in a thread a few months ago.

Can't be stuffed at the minute, but if someone wants to find that thread it would save me from caring.

The only reason those teams were successful with those tactics was because the players they had suited them. Thus, the tactics fit the team, not the other way around. If for example Hawthorn of 2008 tried to implement the "Tempo Football" tactics of Sydney in I don't think they would have been so successful.

This issue has been done to death and you still ply that ignorant crap.

The game goes through evolutions of coaching which are aided not just by coaching theory but impacted by rule changes and other aspect such as player fitness.

The reason Hawthorn did not implement Sydney's game style is that the game had moved on with rule changes and strategies to combat the continual lock downs on play Sydney implemented as a cornerstone of that plan. Calrkson came into the role in 2004 with view of how he wished to play football and filled out his list with additional players to implement it. Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn and WCE all took years to develop the lists to implement the game plan.

BTW, Sydney dont play tempo football. Tempo football is a mode of play where you slow the tempo of the game during the game to slow down or negate the momentum of the opposition. its not a game tactic not a game plan unless you are confusing it with something else. And MFC used the tactic generally well when they implemented it. All teams utilise tempo tactics. At no time did MFC seek to implement Sydney's game plan.

All coaches come into their roles and seek to implement a philosophy of how to win. They also do a complete audit of the talent at their disposal and identify the gaps in that list to implement the strategy.

The whole tactics fit the team falls ideolgues readily fall over when they considered what game plan would have suited the crocked sub standard deficit MFC list at the end of 2007/start of 2008. There has never been a plausible or sensible response provided.

How would you describe it?

I looked through and bumped the thread I was refering to - it's on the Footy board.

This is a good thread. I think about this often.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the so called Bailey gameplan based around short passing possession and low balls into the forward line is neither anything like as spectacular nor in my view as effective as the Daniher long game. It will be interesting to see if this un-ambitious approach changes when we have our full forward set-up in place.

Disagree with this. The gameplan is fine. Watching us in the last 6 rounds or so when the penny FINALY dropped, we really took a number of sides by surprise. Including the Saints who are a dominant team. We also play ok against the Cats. If we weren't playing for the PP, we would have shocked the footy world by showing we actually ARE very competitive. The gameplan will work more effectively, for longer periods than ND's bomb it long approach. Fun as it was to watch, and admirable though the attempt was, it failed. I doubt anyone saw the running game evolving the way it did, and in many ways the answer to tempo footy IS to bomb it long. But as many have said it was ND's lack of plan B that meant we were always 5-8th.

The Collingwood team of today remind me a lot of the team we had under Daniher. Competitive during the season, only to [censored] themselves when they got deep into September.

Nail. Head. I DO love watching the pies at the moment. The only reason they're 4th instead of 5-8th is money and the draw. Nothing else. They're going through what we went through in the early to mid 2000s, and I couldn't be more pleased. They are, in point of fact, a LOT further from a flag than we are. Juicy.

Danihers efforts were creditable in his final 5 years (sans 2007). Not brilliant but creditable.

A point of contention we finally find some middle ground on. The way Daniher was baked, seared and deep fried on here was an emabarrassment. Give him the list Bailey will have in a couple of years and he would be a HUGE threat. Unfortunately he was too loyal and stubborn to be ruthless, hence his lack of premiership medallions. A very good coach. Not a great one, but a very good one.

We were never good enough to challenge. If Neitz, Robertson or someone like that were off their game, we'd always loose.

I used to be really proud that Melbourne got by with basically a mix of battlers - some skilled but underrated, others just gutsy - and a few flawed genius types.

But we just got by.

What we need (and what we are building) is a core group of elite players with a relatively skilled and physical supporting cast (but probably still underrated by outsiders).

Agree Dan. I was never a fan of the way we played. There were certain players I loved watching like Neitz but we were never going to win a flag with how Daniher had us playing with a foward set up based around Neitz.

Maybe another couple of quality talls at either end and maybe we could've progressed further.

As I understand it, the primary Bailey 'gameplan' is a chain of handballs running out of defence (or from a contest) designed to keep the ball moving forward at the same time as eventually getting a player enough space to deliver a -good- long kick into the forward line. Obviously there are shifts and variations but that's the main path to goal.

Right now, the hard ball isn't won often enough, the handballs don't connect quite enough, the players aren't working free quite enough, the understanding of how to support eachother and give options isn't quite enough, and the forward targets aren't quite potent enough. Between all these things, it quickly looks like a shambles.

It takes years for a team working on this style together to get it right, but when it works it's a winner. And fun to watch.

Just so long as they never forget to run hard defensively as well.

What made the Daniher finals sides competitive?

I dare say you are erroneous in this statement and the assumptions its based upon.

We werent competitive.. just a wee bit lucky and that didnt last very long and better teams with superior methods ultimately made us look a little sheepish

I dare say you are erroneous in this statement and the assumptions its based upon.

We werent competitive.. just a wee bit lucky and that didnt last very long and better teams with superior methods ultimately made us look a little sheepish

It is matter of fact that ND took teams into the finals and into the top 4. It is therefore a matter of that we were extremely competitive.

Unfortunately our game plan based on run out of defence and high risk attacks straight through the midfield became too predictable. We stood still - while other clubs improved - and we poured few if any resources into player development.

Football has changed completely since. We showed enough late last year - with injury-riddled teams - to suggest that DB is on the right track.

Edited November 6, 200915 yr by hoopla

I'd have bigger issue with the use of "consistently"

It is matter of fact that ND took teams into the finals and into the top 4. It is therefore a matter of that we were extremely competitive.

Unfortunately our game plan based on run out of defence and high risk attacks straight through the midfield became too predictable. We stood still - while other clubs improved - and we poured few if any resources into player development.

Football has changed completely since. We showed enough late last year - with injury-riddled teams - to suggest that DB is on the right track.

What made the Daniher finals sides competitive?

I take this to mean that the sides playing in the finals were competitive..... they werent particularly.

2000 possibly the better effort... all to no avail... other years tripping over ourself to fall into finals...only to stumble further without any real solidity.

As alluded by another... consistency was lacking

lets not get too carried away in purporting we were really that good !!