I don’t see the need to re-sign Bailey before the season starts. We are yet to see any real evidence that he has what it takes to deliver us a premiership and he is not going to get another senior job.

If we get off to a bad start to the year, the club should show some spine and not to let the media influence our decision.

spot on .. and if we see tangible signs of improvement, he has nothing to be worried about :angry:

jcb - all I was doing was following Deeman's logic through to its conclusion. I wasn't stating my own position.

My point was that all new coaches get at least two years to prove they can coach. Bailey's two years starts in 2010 - everything else to date should be discounted. If we didn't extend his contract, we'd be giving him one year to prove himself at the most. Anyone who wants to defer it until mid 2010 is only giving him 6 months to prove he can coach, as they intend to make a final decision by that point. That in my mind is completely unreasonable.

No you were not following my "logic through to its conclusion." You were commenting on your interpretation of my logic which was incorrect and your comments were therefore flawed. Bailey has been coach of the club since late 2007. He has worked in a difficult environment but discerning observers should already know a great deal about how he prepares his teams. He is under no constraints in 2010. The team doesn't have to lose games to get priority draft picks. He has to coach the team for the NAB Cup and pre season games plus 22 rounds and (we should be so lucky) in finals. Those who know something about coaching would have a pretty good idea as to whether he can coach long before the end of that period.

You say at the start "I see a much larger upside in keeping Bailey" and then finish with ".........his bell lap starts now".

So which is it?

My position is coloured by the fact I believe the best player before each match should be picked in the 1sts.

I have been squeezed out of sides before "for the greater good". Minor footy but so unkind.

I am still a bit Derek Kickett about that particular match committee 20 years on.

If Brad Miller will win us a match against West Coast I want him to be picked at Full Forward to kick 2-3 goals as opposed to 1-2 goals from Jack Watts. Children really annoy me.

So while I want both Watts and Bailey to succeed, I would rather the acid be kept on.

I believe Dean Bailey will be good enough to get further extensions and by early/mid 2011 we will know.

If Brad Miller will win us a match against West Coast I want him to be picked at Full Forward to kick 2-3 goals as opposed to 1-2 goals from Jack Watts. Children really annoy me.

So while I want both Watts and Bailey to succeed, I would rather the acid be kept on.

There is no guarantee Miller will kick 2-3 goals at Full Forward. He has played over 120-130 games. We know what we're going to get from him. That is some missed shots. He may once in a blue moon kick 4.

With Jack Watts we have plenty of upside. He has played 3 games and is encountering or undertaking his first pre-season at 18 yo. He has been drafted at No.1 because he is a brilliant kick for goal and can take grabs, where Miller struggles everywhere but on a lead 5m in front of his opponent.

I'd rather watch and develop a young up & comer. The acid will still be on.

I don’t see the need to re-sign Bailey before the season starts. We are yet to see any real evidence that he has what it takes to deliver us a premiership and he is not going to get another senior job.

The main reason that the club should give Bailey an extension before this season is to ensure stability and consistency within all aspects of the club. I listened to Sean Wellman last night in a long interview on SEN and he was very upbeat and highly supportive of Bailey. I know that as an Assistant Coach he was always going to say the sort of things that he said, but one thing he stessed is that Bailey is very much a developer of players and his message to the playing group has not wavered from the first day; they all know what is required. They might not be fully up to speed yet, but they know where there are going. Bailey has had the backing of the board in the goings on of the last two years and now we are the best placed of any of the existing clubs to ride out the introduction of GC and GWS. We must assume that Bailey has also got the board's backing in the next stage of the plan, so an extension is just sound business practice. For me, I would give him a two year extension through to 2012.

Did he? Or did he realise, or was made to realise, that not only would he never captain the side, he would be battling for a spot in a midfield that "might be the best midfield in the competition by a long way"* in a few years. Since his biggest asset was supposed to be winning the hard ball out of the packs - and he can contribute very little else - when you see Jones and Moloney already doing that with Sculgove coming in too, coupled with his terrible history of injury, the odds just weren't great of him being an important player in our future. There is some speculation also that his paypacket might have reflected that the club is of this opinion. We also don't know with what regard he is held by those around the club, Bailey already showed with a couple of others that poor character is not welcome in his side. When you look at it objectively, pick 11 was very good for him. In most other recent cases, when a player has walked out, the team he walks from has tended to be short-changed in the deal, makes me wonder how and why we got such a great deal and even more curious was how quickly and quietly the deal was done, an in-principle, in-advance deal, quite a rare thing. Also, the reasons cited - that he was disillusioned with the club's attitude towards playing finals, and that he felt he was being played out of position - just don't ring true to me.

* quote from Emma Quayle after the 09 draft

While I'm not a big fan of Brock (for walking), I can't see how this comment can be taken seriously, given our state of play at the moment. Brock is leaving an at-best, average midfield, with a couple of kids coming in that may make it one of the best in years to come, but then again, they may not. If it does go to plan, and that these kids turn out to be stars, well, yes, Brock MIGHT struggle. On the flip side, and this is where I can't agree with that comment at all, Brock has gone to Carlon, who has by far a better midfield group than us currently, and they too will continue to get better as their kids (Gibbs and Murphy) get older. I would be thinking it harder for Brock to get a game for Carlton in the short term (2010-2012) than he would at Melbourne in that period, but that didn't stop him from going to the dark side.

Reality is that I rate Gibbs and Murphy equal to, if not better than any of our current midfielders (Judd is obviously in a league of his own). I'm not getting ahead of myself with Sylvia and Beamer, I want them to back it up again this year and maintain that form for seasons on end, not just games. If they can, and if Trengove, Scully, Gysberts & Tapscott can reach the potential they have shown, that's when I will sit back and say that Brock POSSIBLY wouldn't get a game for us. Until that happens, if it happens, Brock would be a walk up start for a gig in our top 18.

I think, injuries aside, Brock had been a far more consistent performer over the years compared to Sylvia and Moloney. While both those boys played some of their best footy in '09, as I said above, I will wait until they do it for seasons on end before I rate them as stars.

That said, I'm all for cheap shots at pricks that leave our Club for "greener" pastures, and hope that he finds it hard to get a game in Carlton's current midfield, which will happen if C&B's thoughts are correct.

I don’t see the need to re-sign Bailey before the season starts. We are yet to see any real evidence that he has what it takes to deliver us a premiership and he is not going to get another senior job.

If we get off to a bad start to the year, the club should show some spine and not to let the media influence our decision.

I concur. Well summarised

I concur. Well summarised

My question for those that didn't see the need for an extension YET is this..."Will we be able to see if Bailey is a premiership coach this year?""

He will still be developing players, has a bloody young list, will still be experimenting to some degree (not to the same degree as 2009 though). We all want improvement, but what will you be satisfied with that would warrant an extension?

Chances are we will lose our first 3 games. Will you still think the extension was premature? Most probably. I wont. While we have got the potential, it would be unfair to judge Bailey's coaching ability on the 2010 season. If we won 5 games, got a lot of games in to our kids, and we didn't lose ANY game by more than 20 points, I would give Bails a "pass". If we come out and win 7 or 8 games, cop a couple of floggings from top 4 sides, again, Bails would get a "pass".

What will I think if we have a poor season where none of the above applies? I'd be still more than happy to give Bailey a chance in 2011. At the end of 2011, DB will be able to make his own mind up, knowing that Watts, Grimes, Morton, Jurrah have played over 50 games, and Scully, Trengove, Tapscott and Gysberts, Blease and Strauss have played close to 50 games, and that significant improvement has been made. If it hasn't, it answers everyones question.

Not sure if I have contradicted myself at all in that, but my point that I'm trying to get at is that we wont know if Bails is a premiership coach until at least the end of 2011. I can give you a tip - in 2006, the Geelong faithful didn't think Thompson was a premiership coach. (Mid) 2006 was to be his last season should the team not improve, look what happened.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by billy2803

While I'm not a big fan of Brock (for walking), I can't see how this comment can be taken seriously, given our state of play at the moment. Brock is leaving an at-best, average midfield, with a couple of kids coming in that may make it one of the best in years to come, but then again, they may not.

In the 2009 best and fairest, McLean finished behind Davey, Moloney, Jones, Sylvia, McDonald and Morton. That puts him currently as our 7th best midfielder, and you best believe if he was still on our list and round 1 is tomorrow I would be picking all of those players before him. Then you realise we have SIX midfielders all taken in the top19 of the draft who haven't even played. I don't know how anyone could imagine a future where McLean would have been a player of any importance... as has been noted, he can't do anything else but play in the guts. There is room in the side for 3 or 4 of his kind, Jones, Sylvia and Moloney all have him covered easily at this stage and you would have to give Sculgove a huge chance. I just don't see where you are coming from.

The difference with Carlton is that they have a vacancy for his type where we have a surplus of 5 others that trump him

I believe Dean Bailey will be good enough to get further extensions and by early/mid 2011 we will know.

Name your top six players and then tell me if they're capable to win games for us.

I bet you struggle.

I have

Davey

Green

??

??

??

??

Not alot to hang your hat on.

This has nothing to do with Bailey and noone other than Spunjy on this thread realises it.

In terms of risk management, the decision to give DB a 12-month extension to his contract is an obvious one for the Board.

Look at it this way. To move up the ladder, we'll be relying on big improvements in individual performance from many players old and young, but most of all for the team to click together and play much more effectively together as a unit.

Now, this improvement may come in the early rounds of 2010. But it's more likely that the team won't really click into gear until later in 2010, or even until the early part of 2011. The Board is showing by the 12-month extension that they appreciate this, but also that if there's no improvement by mid-2011, their next course of action will be obvious.

BUT, if there's no contract extension and by mid-2010 there's not much improvement in team performance, the pressure will mount week by week on the Board to take decisive action, while the team and the club is destabilised more and more. Very few poorly-performing clubs have been able to stand up to this level of media-driven destabilisation.

My point is that, as the Board realises the likelihood that major improvement in team performance may not come until after mid-2010, the 12-month extension manages that totally avoidable and unnecessary risk right out of existence. It removes the pressure on the Board to take decisive action on DB's future until the time of their choosing - the latter half of 2011 season, by which time the correct course of action will be obvious.

And an extension of more than 12 months makes no sense. If we're on the rise by mid-2011, DB will want to negotiate a new contract with higher rewards, and if we're in the doldrums, he'll want to leave. Either way, he won't want to hang around for another 12 months.

The 12 month extension is simply a very good governance decision, albeit an obvious one, on the part of the Board for the good of the club.

And an extension of more than 12 months makes no sense. If we're on the rise by mid-2011, DB will want to negotiate a new contract with higher rewards, and if we're in the doldrums, he'll want to leave. Either way, he won't want to hang around for another 12 months.

Can't agree with that logic.

He has been building a list from scratch - you think if it doesn't work after next year he'll just wash his hands of it and scarper?

I doubt it.

Maybe the club would lose patience with him, but I doubt it would be his decision.

Can't agree with that logic.

He has been building a list from scratch - you think if it doesn't work after next year he'll just wash his hands of it and scarper?

I doubt it.

Maybe the club would lose patience with him, but I doubt it would be his decision.

The only escape could be if Sheedy offers him a job with GWS. He won't take it as MFC will be in the eight by 2012 with Bails as coach.

The only escape could be if Sheedy offers him a job with GWS. He won't take it as MFC will be in the eight by 2012 with Bails as coach.

So that Bailey can throw away all the hard work he has put in at the club and start again somewhere else?

He will be OUR Sheedy.

Hi All,

Just taking a break from demonology where same thread is getting a run.

It seems the Demonologists are not quite as supportive of DB as you guys.

I think it is smart to give DB the extra year so that he concerns himself with developing the group, rather than worrying about his job. In any event, he's had nothing to caoch in the last 2 years but the remnants of the side left by Daniher. As others have alread said, 2010 is really his first year as a genuine coach.

Can't agree with that logic.

He has been building a list from scratch - you think if it doesn't work after next year he'll just wash his hands of it and scarper?

I doubt it.

Maybe the club would lose patience with him, but I doubt it would be his decision.

Yeh, maybe. I'd want to leave after 4 years hard work with absolutely no result. But I suppose that it's the belief of every sacked coach that improvement is just around the corner that stops them from walking before they're sacked. My point though is that by mid-2011 the appropriate course of action for the Board in relation to DB's future will be obvious to all; the 12-month extension is just responsible governance.

Seems the thing to pick up on one minor phrase and ignore the main points.

DB deserves it, one or two years more is what he needs to prove himself, he's been under scrutiny after 2 disappointing seasons, but I think he has developed many players to make them better on the field and now it's time to use our talent and now it's time for Bailey to lead us to the finals and hopefully a premiership in the next few years

In the 2009 best and fairest, McLean finished behind Davey, Moloney, Jones, Sylvia, McDonald and Morton. That puts him currently as our 7th best midfielder, and you best believe if he was still on our list and round 1 is tomorrow I would be picking all of those players before him. Then you realise we have SIX midfielders all taken in the top19 of the draft who haven't even played. I don't know how anyone could imagine a future where McLean would have been a player of any importance... as has been noted, he can't do anything else but play in the guts. There is room in the side for 3 or 4 of his kind, Jones, Sylvia and Moloney all have him covered easily at this stage and you would have to give Sculgove a huge chance. I just don't see where you are coming from.

The difference with Carlton is that they have a vacancy for his type where we have a surplus of 5 others that trump him

Fair call in regards to McLean's 09 season, however, the previous year he was runner up in the B&F playing some 14 games. Last I looked, Davey, Moloney, Jones and Sylvia were on our list in 2008, none of them finished in the top 5 of that year.

As I did say in my post, I especially want Moloney and Sylvia to back it up again in 2010, and for the few seasons after that. That's when we can say that there would be no room for McLean in our side. I hope for Sylvia and Moloney's sake that they do have a great year, otherwise you may start a campaign at the end of 2010 to trade them both. From all (media) reports, McLean is training the house down at the moment. Again, while I hope he struggles to get a game for "them", I still think you're a bit premature in your claims about him in regards to not getting a game for us.

While like every Demon supporter, I have high hopes for "Scullgove", but, until they make it in the big time, I will not have them in the "superstar status" that you seem to have them in already. I'm not saying they wont be, I'm just going to wait and watch this beautiful thing play out.

Sorry to everyone else for this conversation getting off the original thread.

Coaching can be broken down into three components:

winning games;

developing players; and

managing teams.

So far Bailey has only had a chance to tackle the first two, because of the poor player list he inherited in 2008 and the injury and list management problems of 2009. I'd also argue that he is only half way through the job of developing players. We have 19 footballers who have played 20 games or less. I'd like to see them play 40-60 games together under a consistent game plan, so it makes sense to extend his contract to the end of 2011.

IMO he's done a fair job managing the team. A good example of bad management is the Chris Newman-Jake King saga at Richmond last year.

Bailey made an interesting comment at the draft night in November last year. He pleaded for patience with the new recruits, saying they would all take time to develop. Perhaps he was also talking about himself.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by DirtyDees DDC

Seems the thing to pick up on one minor phrase and ignore the main points.

Well... it was the bit I disagreed with.

You can't expect people to ignore flaws in your argument.

I strongly support Dean Bailey getting a contract extension until the end of 2011. He has single-mindedly followed a youth policy to the detriment of his personal coaching record. He is obviously a great teacher and MFC's list management in his tenure has been logical. His tactics on game day were strangely tested in 2009 and he showed some flair and tact in maintaining our priority pick opportunities. As another contributor noted, we have 19 players with < 20 games experience. We need to get 50 games into Watts, Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, Blease, Jurrah..... Then we'll know where we are. As he said on Draft night, MFC is not planning a small premiership window but building a window the size of a double-door garage. That's exactly what Dean is doing and he should be given the opportunity "to enter the double doors".

Fair call in regards to McLean's 09 season, however, the previous year he was runner up in the B&F playing some 14 games. Last I looked, Davey, Moloney, Jones and Sylvia were on our list in 2008, none of them finished in the top 5 of that year.

As I did say in my post, I especially want Moloney and Sylvia to back it up again in 2010, and for the few seasons after that. That's when we can say that there would be no room for McLean in our side. I hope for Sylvia and Moloney's sake that they do have a great year, otherwise you may start a campaign at the end of 2010 to trade them both. From all (media) reports, McLean is training the house down at the moment. Again, while I hope he struggles to get a game for "them", I still think you're a bit premature in your claims about him in regards to not getting a game for us.

While like every Demon supporter, I have high hopes for "Scullgove", but, until they make it in the big time, I will not have them in the "superstar status" that you seem to have them in already. I'm not saying they wont be, I'm just going to wait and watch this beautiful thing play out.

Sorry to everyone else for this conversation getting off the original thread.

Think back to his 08 season, it was a shocker for the club, I don't remember many ringing endorsements of what a great year McLean was having, perhaps that's the point, when you have a year where McLean is 2nd best then a lot of others must have been pretty bad, or been injured, or just better players earlier in their development. Davey, Moloney , Jones and Sylvia have all improved vastly since 2008, Col and Beamer were hardly even on the park, and Cale Morton has entered the picture very strongly while McLean has gone backwards... he is about half the player Sylvia is, they started the same time and colin missed the first 2-3 years because of injury (although I do admit you can make a case for McLean also being subject to an interrupted development, just not to the same extent)... the fact McLean had a better year than that group 2 years ago is not particularly relevant when you are talking about 2010 onwards. The heirachy/pecking order has shifted around now and he's on the bottom.

Anyway, like you say, fingers crossed we don't live to regret it, of course its all speculation until we see how he goes, but remember even if he does well at Carlton it doesn't mean he was going to here.. it all also depends on how this wonderful midfield hand we're holding actually plays out on the table and whether we will look and back and say we created a gap in our midfield that was never plugged. I doubt it.

and just to swing it back the original topic's way, if Dean played some deliberate role in the trade happening I think it was a good move. Certainly Johnstone-Grimes was, an absolute monster of a move

and just to swing it back the original topic's way, if Dean played some deliberate role in the trade happening I think it was a good move. Certainly Johnstone-Grimes was, an absolute monster of a move

And Gysberts, like Grimes, was highly rated by us compared to the general consensus (apparently we rated Gys the 4th best midfielder).

I remember CAC saying we would've taken Grimes at 4 if Morton and Cotchin were both gone.

Fingers crossed.

....

and just to swing it back the original topic's way, if Dean played some deliberate role in the trade happening I think it was a good move. Certainly Johnstone-Grimes was, an absolute monster of a move

One would think DB would have a big say. I'm sure the likes of TH, CC would collectively had some input with respect to list management as well and they would have come to the same conclusion after weighing everything up. I think it's also a good move. Hopefully we see the benefits in the not too distant future. B)

My question for those that didn't see the need for an extension YET is this..."Will we be able to see if Bailey is a premiership coach this year?""

...

Chances are we will lose our first 3 games. Will you still think the extension was premature? Most probably. I wont. While we have got the potential, it would be unfair to judge Bailey's coaching ability on the 2010 season.

...

Good for you Billy, your football knowledge clearly far outweighs us all.

I couldn't care less about results this year (and haven't cared about them for the last 2). I know that we have/had a rubbish/young playing list in Bailey's time in charge. But in the games that I have seen live (sitting centre-wing in an elevated position) I haven't yet seen anything in the way that Bailey is instructing the players to play the game, both with ball in hand and when defending, that gives me confidence that with a good list we would be successful. Under 2 years of Bailey's instructions, there can be no excuses that the players are not yet familiar with his game plan, and from my vantage it seems awfully similar to that employed by ND in 2007 as well so it is nearly 3 years that these players have had of 'run-and-carry' (circular handball), negative tactics (loose man back 90% of the time), crowded midfield and an open (non-existent) forward line. For me these are the hallmarks of Bailey's game plan and I don't see how this current list (even with games under the belt) will achieve any success playing football this way.

So for mine he should not have his contract extended until at least a good portion of this season has passed, IF he shows that his game plan has the potential to achieve the ultimate success WHEN we have a strong list. Of course this is an entirely subjective criteria, however that is the very nature of coaching.

Edited January 19, 201016 yr by CarnTheDees