Yes, Melbourne were "rebuilding" and there was some "list management" over the past two years, but it doesn't mean we can't assess Bailey's coaching performance so far.

Any judgment on his performance wouldn't solely come down to the start of next season, poor list or not what he has been able to do with the list he had should be judged.

Yes, Melbourne were "rebuilding" and there was some "list management" over the past two years, but it doesn't mean we can't assess Bailey's coaching performance so far.

So what's your assessment?

This is a critical point.

From our stockpiling of early draft picks we have the following:

regular players: Morton, Grimes

fringe: Maric, Watts

yet to debut: Blease, Strauss, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott

There seems to be an expectation that all of the above players are going to be ready to win matches for us in 2010.

There's absolutely no guarantees that any player in the bottom two categories will make it in AFL.

I think its going to be a horrible year on this board and Bailey is going to cop it even more so if his contract is extended and regardless of whether he can coach or not.

What do you think fatty? Would you give him 2 years?one?

A "cheap win" is a win that, while giving everyone a nice fuzzy feeling inside, actually does nothing to bring us closer to a premiership.

I we win 6 games by playing Scully, Trengove, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bennell, Tapscott and Gysberts then we are developing our side into a premiership contender far better than if we get an extra couple of "cheap wins" and win 8 games by playing Dunn, Bell, Bartram, Johnson and Cheney every week.

If Bailey thinks that the best way to develop Jack Watts is to play him as a key forward in the AFL then I don't want Bailey to play a small forward line instead because he thinks that we are more likely to win games that way. If Bailey thinks that Grimes will learn more by playing as a run with player this year then I don't want him to play Grimes at half back because he thinks that's the best way to win the game. Bartram will help us win games of footy this year, but if he's not part of a future premiership team then I would rather Bailey play a young kid.

I don't want Bailey to venture away from the plan of developing a premiership side simply because he needs to chase some meaningless wins in 2010. We're not going to win the flag this year, so the difference between winning 6 games and winning 8 games is not a whole lot. It may help a few supporters feel better about themselves, but it's not helping us win a premiership.

BTW, an "expensive loss" would be like the Bulldgogs against St Kilda in the prelim and St Kilda had an expensive loss against Geelong in the Grand Final. Losing to make your record 6-16 rather than 7-15 is not an expensive loss. Good on you for not enjoying losses, but the war is still ongoing and we have many, many battles till to fight - none of the battles in 2010 will cost us the war.

Last May, Chris Connolly addressed a meeting of Demon fans at the Crowne Plaza Surfers Paradise on the eve of the St. Kilda v Melbourne game at Carrara. He made it very clear that 2010 was going to be the first year that we could get an insight into how good Dean Bailey really is as a coach. Most of us understood clearly what he meant; that Bailey had spent his first year and a half and would spend the rest of his second year in preparing himself for his real coaching stint. Given all that has happened in that time, I think it's only appropriate that he be given an extra year's extension. His was a job that could never be done in three years (and probably not in six either) but be that as it may, he deserved a fourth season to prove that he can coach and if the club gives him the extra time, then so be it. The decision would have been better made immediately after the end of last season but the cynics would of course be claiming that we were rewarding him for two years of mediocrity (and in a perverse way that might even be true). I hope we get on with it, announce that a new deal's done and we move forward to a new era.

I am bemused however, by this concept of "cheap wins" and the suggestion that there can be some tradeoff between winning games and developing youngsters. In my view, aiming for excellence and winning at the elite level should in reality be part and parcel of every player's development, whether they are first and second year players, 50 to 100 gamers or veterans. I believe in picking your teams on merit and on stressing to players that a place in the team must be earned. This business of arbitrarily giving games to young players when they're not ready or they don't deserve them only works in some circumstances for junior footy. At the elite level, it just doesn't impress me.

We have a unique opportunity with a number of good early draft selections making up our list. They need to learn the skills of winning and how to play under pressure but there's no pressure when you don't even have to earn your place in the team and winning is secondary to some other agenda.

In other words, it's the quality of the development we can put into our youth that's going to determine whether we can win premierships somewhere down the track. That’s always been the case and the situation does not now call for changing methods that are known to work for methods that do not work.

I'm bouyed by what I saw at training last Friday. It's clear that a number of third and fourth year players are already either fixtures in our best side or challenging strongly. The likes of Watts, Scully and Trengove etc. will IMO benefit more from 12 games in a competitive environment where they must compete to earn places in the best team the club can put together, than from 20 games in a controlled environment where winning is irrelevant and players are selected on criteria other than excellence. Others of our younger players will also earn their places, most will get games this year but some will probably have to wait until next year. Why push them into the team too early at the expense of players whose form is superior?

Bob. Your example would be pertinent if the players mentioned (Dunn, Bell, Bartram, Johnson and Cheney) were in our best 22. How many people around here think they are? Do you? Would you drop Sylvia, Davey, Bate, Jamar and Grimes if they were in form just to give some of the younger blokes a go even if they were struggling down at Casey?

I frankly don't know how many games the club will be aiming for in 2010. It's a long season, injuries and suspensions happen and you never know what's waiting for you around the corner. However, I'm an optimist. I also figure that 2009 was a season when for many reasons - injuries, difficult draw, er ... list management etc. all worked together to give us a minimal four wins. In different circumstances we could possibly have won seven or eight. That should be our absolute minimum benchmark and who knows, Bailey might turn out a better coach than some think and a few players might stand up and show a faster rate of development than expected. The stars might align and the team might gel and win two, three or even more games than the benchmark putting them just one or two dirt cheap wins away from what I consider ATM a very unlikely finals place. Unlikely, but its a Winter Olympics year and who could forget Steven Bradbury winning Gold just two years after breaking his neck?

PS: Seriously, I'm not suggesting we'll win AFL's equivalent of a gold medal this year or that we will even make the finals. The circumstances still call for patience but I do believe we should be striving for the best possible outcome to the season which would be to win more games than we did in 2008 & 2009 and to get plenty of games into the legs of our young players. I believe both can be achieved.

In that case, why do clubs not just appoint rookie coaches for 6 months? After all, you'll know whether they can coach or not by round 11.

Pardon me but was Dean Bailey appointed for 6 months?

He made it very clear that 2010 was going to be the first year that we could get an insight into how good Dean Bailey really is as a coach. Most of us understood clearly what he meant; that Bailey had spent his first year and a half and would spend the rest of his second year in preparing himself for his real coaching stint.

This is how I have personally viewed our last couple of years and how I have looked at Bailey. In this context, over the years, I've seen Dees supporters argue non-stop about how Bailey should have coached from day 1 with the players we have/had without any understanding of what it takes to create and develop a top team in modern AFL, it isn't like the good old days. Bailey quite simply didn't kid himself and I think in some ways is perhaps partially responsible for the solidarity in direction we see at the club.

IMO Bailey has been meticulous, calculating and so far successful in going about the infancy phase of his tenior. What I actually appreciate is not just a coach who levelled with the club and knew what it would take but a coach who committed to a process where he not only had to wear losses but also is bringing on a mammoth task in developing so much youth. It will be a test for coach and club but at least you know that Bailey will do it (by his standards) properly or not at all. I've been a MFC supporter/member for 22 years and whilst I am not under any illusions that success will be mandatory with our squad, it is fantastic to witness such a process being implemented at the club from the ground up.

I am bemused however, by this concept of "cheap wins" and the suggestion that there can be some tradeoff between winning games and developing youngsters. In my view, aiming for excellence and winning at the elite level should in reality be part and parcel of every player's development, whether they are first and second year players, 50 to 100 gamers or veterans. I believe in picking your teams on merit and on stressing to players that a place in the team must be earned. This business of arbitrarily giving games to young players when they're not ready or they don't deserve them only works in some circumstances for junior footy. At the elite level, it just doesn't impress me.

I agree WJ from now on there is no such thing as a "cheap win" We have a list of 40 odd players and those who are Performing Best deserve a spot. We must strive to win as many games as possible, the media will be watching us real close now after the last 2 drafts.

Winning against Top or bottom sides still awards 4 points.

After the last 3 years we are in no position to judge a game as "hard or cheap" for us they will all be hard.

Respect must be earnt.

FWIW, i don't think a club should go into a season with the coach's contract finishing at the end of that season. Much too unsettling - plenty of examples.

So I take it that every coach that doesn't have his contract renewed should be paid out with time remaining?

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by Oliver Hill

So I take it that every coach that doesn't have his contract renewed should be paid out with time remaining?

Yes, of course. <sigh>

Think: Daniher, Balme, Eade, Wallace, Connolly, ...........

Most coaches finish up before the end of their contracts. A settlement is always negotiated.

<sigh>

Yes, of course. <sigh>

Think: Daniher, Balme, Eade, Wallace, Connolly, ...........

Most coaches finish up before the end of their contracts. A settlement is always negotiated.

<sigh>

Those coaches were terminated during the final year of their contract, which is quite different to what you're advocating.

You wrote "i don't think a club should go into a season with the coach's contract finishing at the end of that season". Perhaps you can explain to me how coaches would ever be sacked without a year, or more, running on their contracts under your scenario. In essence, you're advocating that coaches never come out of contract, which is quite different to the poor examples you provided above.

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by Oliver Hill

What do you think fatty? Would you give him 2 years?one?

If the club has 100% faith in his abilty, then they should stand behind that and give him two.

Anything else is "contingency planning".

What do you think?

A "cheap win" is a win that, while giving everyone a nice fuzzy feeling inside, actually does nothing to bring us closer to a premiership.

I we win 6 games by playing Scully, Trengove, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bennell, Tapscott and Gysberts then we are developing our side into a premiership contender far better than if we get an extra couple of "cheap wins" and win 8 games by playing Dunn, Bell, Bartram, Johnson and Cheney every week.

If Bailey thinks that the best way to develop Jack Watts is to play him as a key forward in the AFL then I don't want Bailey to play a small forward line instead because he thinks that we are more likely to win games that way. If Bailey thinks that Grimes will learn more by playing as a run with player this year then I don't want him to play Grimes at half back because he thinks that's the best way to win the game. Bartram will help us win games of footy this year, but if he's not part of a future premiership team then I would rather Bailey play a young kid.

I don't want Bailey to venture away from the plan of developing a premiership side simply because he needs to chase some meaningless wins in 2010. We're not going to win the flag this year, so the difference between winning 6 games and winning 8 games is not a whole lot. It may help a few supporters feel better about themselves, but it's not helping us win a premiership.

BTW, an "expensive loss" would be like the Bulldgogs against St Kilda in the prelim and St Kilda had an expensive loss against Geelong in the Grand Final. Losing to make your record 6-16 rather than 7-15 is not an expensive loss. Good on you for not enjoying losses, but the war is still ongoing and we have many, many battles till to fight - none of the battles in 2010 will cost us the war.

Bob, you've just hit that for 6 and a fat bloke in the crowd caught it

obviously McLean walked

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

So what's your assessment?

In terms of player development you have to give him an A, but for a game plan or tactics seen so far, a C-.

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.

I think Brock was being played out of position by Bailey. To test his versatility.

It became blatantly clear that Brock was useless in any other position than the middle and that won't cut it in this team going forward.

He was exposed as a result and consequently made to feel like he'd been exposed and it didn't sit well with him, I'm sure.

He wanted to go, but I think at the same time Bailey was glad he made the decision for him and that he was able to get over-the-odds compensation.

Pardon me but was Dean Bailey appointed for 6 months?

Well done on missing my point completely.

Well done on missing my point completely.

Nasher- I didn't miss your point. But are you saying that a club can judge a coaches appointment within six months, then Bailey should have been sacked 18 months ago. Please be real, it has taken the club 3 years do wean out the weaknesses and recruit to develop a top class team. However, he should be able to show his true & full value as senior coach at MFC within a full year.

In terms of player development you have to give him an A, but for a game plan or tactics seen so far, a C-.

really ?? Id give him an A+ for game day...It took a whole lot of shrewd and cunning to maintain than win/loss

Nasher- I didn't miss your point. But are you saying that a club can judge a coaches appointment within six months, then Bailey should have been sacked 18 months ago. Please be real, it has taken the club 3 years do wean out the weaknesses and recruit to develop a top class team. However, he should be able to show his true & full value as senior coach at MFC within a full year.

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.

If the club has 100% faith in his abilty, then they should stand behind that and give him two.

Anything else is "contingency planning".

What do you think?

I see a larger upside in keeping Bailey.

He has not had much to work with and I think he may now have a decent list.

I watched a Hawks/Dons game from last year and the coaches both had a win or die attitude that ended up in a great football match.

There were many injuries but both Clarkson and Knights are terrific coaches in my view.

I would like Bailey to have a little of Northey or Hafey's fire and brimstone. If Garry Lyon was talking himself up he would say how much better a match day coach he is than Bailey. he could be right but that is only part of it.

Having been approached by Bailey a couple of times at training to have my views aired, I really like him.

I think he should play at all costs for wins this year to the detriment of getting games into youngsters. They have to earn their spots.

In my opinion his bell lap starts now. One year.

but for a game plan or tactics seen so far, a C-.

What's your criteria of assessment there?

It's pretty clear that in 2008 our list was not suited to a high possession, hard running game, because our midfield was full of plodders (Moloney, Jones, McLean[, Valenti]) and players with poor skills. When assessing the game plan, IMO the assessment should be heavily weighted in the later half of the implementation, i.e. after the players have had a reasonable chance to adapt, and the coach has had a chance to shape his list accordingly.

I'll be interested to see what your assessment on game plan and tactics are at the end of 2011.

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.

Got your point - however I do feel that the club would know if he can coach by now- Connolly & Schwab have been around long enough- however I feel a 1 year extension is acceptable but definately no more.

I see a larger upside in keeping Bailey.

.

.

.

.

In my opinion his bell lap starts now. One year.

This is what I don't really understand.

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? The post above is the same. The club knows he can coach but we're only giving him a one year extension because we want to see results.

Most people recognise that the rebuild is a long and drawn out process. But at the same time, they're expecting wins this year, and if not then Bailey is in trouble.

The club must have an idea of whether he can coach or not. Its the development of the players that is the issue. I think its unfair to expect rookie players to win matches for us in 2010 but that doesn't mean I think he shouldn't push for them.

Bailey himself would fight for a two year extension and I reckon he has a valid argument to get one through to the end of 2012.

If the club has confidence in him then they should grant it.

It's pretty clear that in 2008 our list was not suited to a high possession, hard running game, because our midfield was full of plodders (Moloney, Jones, McLean[, Valenti]) and players with poor skills.

When you put it like that it's hard to think of any game plan that these types could possibly be suited to

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.