[quote name='demons27' date='28 March 2010 - 02:12 PM'

What was Melbourne thinking to offer Bailey another year on his coaching contract.

His performances to date have been very uninspiring....

---------------------------------------------------

I'll happily go on record to say I wasnt in favour when Bailey got the job. If we had made the finals since he got the nod, I would still say it, (inbetween eating humble pie).

My man coached a team to 3 successive premierships, and I was hoping, praying just as much as I did, we would get scully and trengove, but it didnt happen, I was most disappointed.

In fairness,its not all Baileys fault. he has a few more years to prove himself as the right person.

I could name 8 players that shouldnt be there.They are just making up the numbers. He doesnt have a lot of options.

Norm Smith might struggle with this lot. He was a genius.

So like the new guys,time will tell.

I wasnt expecting too much this year, its next year thats vital. Head hunting the coach right now wouldnt help anything.

After watching yesterday's match, I have another proposition:

Put the Melbourne team on the field in their positions as selected, at 2pm, without any opposition. Give the ball to the full-back and instruct the team to get the ball through the goalposts (by foot!) at the other end by hand-passing and kicking alternately, with no more than 5 paces including one bounce to be taken by any player with the ball before disposing of it. Every player must have one possession. Any missed or dropped marks, fluffed kicks, out of bounds or simply the ball hitting the grass except when legitimately bounced results in the team having to start again.

What are the odds against a successful scoring of a goal between 2pm and 4.30pm?

I know this sounds like a simple training exercise, but for whom? I sincerely doubt the team on the field yesterday could do this. For a start, at least one mark or hand-ball receive would be dropped and one player at least would fall over. The last player to get the ball after a successful passage of the ball - if such were to occur - to within 15 metres of the goal at a slight angle would surely miss with his kick.

And so on.

I don't hold with those who say they could coach as well as Bailey, nor do I hold with those who think he should have been given another year before showing his worth this season.

But, after 6 months of training, having started before anyone else yet again, a fortnight after the grand final, there is NO SIGN of anything different.

Forget the 'game plan', if such a thing exists. I think the concept is pretty pretentious anyway - you've got flooding, zoning, man-on-man, run and carry and a couple of other ideas floating around, but I doubt if footballers run around during a match thinking of all this shite. What they do think about, the well drilled ones is this:

1. If you are around or near the player with the ball you support him and protect him, talk to him, fill him with the confidence that he can handpass and know a team-mate will be actually running past, towards the goals, to collect it, not standing still like a rabbit in the spotlight.

2. If you are ahead of the ball/the play, you run hard and fast to make position in a space; you make sure you do this ahead of your opponent.

3. If you have the ball, you deliver it with some penetration to the space that you have been drilled to know your team-mate will be running into.

These things would be a wondrous sight in a Melbourne team; they are commonplace in our opponents, who always look good no matter their position on the ladder.

To me, there are 5 players who look capable of doing these things:

Grimes, Trengove, Scully, Davey, Green.

Maybe Frawley. Maybe Moloney on occasion.

Some players who can't/won't/don't or whatever, and these are the most conspicuous:

Bruce, Junior, Bate, Dunn, Jones, Miller.

Competent leadership by the experienced players is missing.

After 6 months, the coach still seems to have a lot of homework to do. The side does not look as though it is 'coached'.

A classic post- WELL DONE & STATED.

you make good points that i agree with, but that does not excuse the tactics and game plan yesterday.

That pattern of play will kill the spirit of even the greatest draft picks.

The problem yesterday I felt was not that the original game plan was tried and found desperately wanting, but that Bailey didn't ring the changes sooner (it's arguable how much change he initiated, and how much just happened out of exasperation by default).

I was watching Bailey in the box, he was hugely frustrated... but he didn't change anything visibly out on the ground at that point!

Try something different, tell them to go to Plan B for a qtr, which could simply be man-on-man, less handball, longer more direct kicks, see if we can beat them one on one. We can go back to Plan A later. If Barassi had never changed Carlton's game plan at half time in 1970, the Pies would have one more flag.

We are too one-dimensional which would be fine if we had a team of experienced champions. For where we're at, Bailey needs to mix it up some more.

You are just a galah- no idea and look whom could not make to the game-- YOU.No wonder Magic Yze does not enter this site very often when he has posters like you to attend with.

Is that supposed to be an insult?

Pathetic.

I had a commitment that I could not get out of.

Some things in life are just more important than a game of football.

What has YM got to do with any of this? Did you mean "contend"?

Epic fail.

Epic fail.

People who write 'epic fail' fail epically. Same with people who write 'owned' and other youtube cliches.

I reckon Bailey has played his purpose. His purpose is PURELY to remake our list, delist the junk, and draft as many youngsters as possible.

I don't think he can take us to the next level. The fact that we aren't more competitive in game and haven't shown any clear signs of improvements is proof enough of this.

I think we should look to Malthouse as our next coach. He always seems to get the best out of his players and is a clever tactician. He has taken him WCE teams to premierships and Collingwood to several grandfinals and prelims. He's clearly a good caoch. He should target him for when Buckly takes over.

Really?

You think Bailey has served his purpose and that was solely to draft talented kids and rebuild the list in spite of the fact Barry Prendergast, Tim Harrington and Kelly O'Donnell were employed to do these very things?

And you know Malthouse is still contracted for another 4 years after this one..?

3 of those are as Director of Coaching at Collingwood.

People who write 'epic fail' fail epically. Same with people who write 'owned' and other youtube cliches.

Is that so? I think it quite succintly conveys my feelings towards his post.

I'm not going to argue semantics.

The problem yesterday I felt was not that the original game plan was tried and found desperately wanting, but that Bailey didn't ring the changes sooner (it's arguable how much change he initiated, and how much just happened out of exasperation by default).

I was watching Bailey in the box, he was hugely frustrated... but he didn't change anything visibly out on the ground at that point!

Try something different, tell them to go to Plan B for a qtr, which could simply be man-on-man, less handball, longer more direct kicks, see if we can beat them one on one. We can go back to Plan A later. If Barassi had never changed Carlton's game plan at half time in 1970, the Pies would have one more flag.

We are too one-dimensional which would be fine if we had a team of experienced champions. For where we're at, Bailey needs to mix it up some more.

It wouldn't matter what the game plan is or plan B, our skills are not up to implementing a tunnel ball race let alone hitting a target by hand or foot on a footy field.

The lack of skills shown has to fall onto the coaches no question but the older players we have are basically no good besides the like of Green, Davey and glimpses from Sylvia. The rest need 40-50 games in them to start a winning run. 40 games = 2.3 years away... we have a long long long long way to go before we see a long progresion of winning footy but I'd like to see improvement. It certainly seems like it won't come from some of the senior guys which makes things tough for us.

Hopefully next year they look at some of these older rookies that seem to be floating around especially after seeing the likes of Barlow at Freo. Some older harder bodies and we can get rid of some of the older deadwood we do have.

It wouldn't matter what the game plan is or plan B, our skills are not up to implementing a tunnel ball race let alone hitting a target by hand or foot on a footy field.

The lack of skills shown has to fall onto the coaches no question but the older players we have are basically no good besides the like of Green, Davey and glimpses from Sylvia. The rest need 40-50 games in them to start a winning run. 40 games = 2.3 years away... we have a long long long long way to go before we see a long progresion of winning footy but I'd like to see improvement. It certainly seems like it won't come from some of the senior guys which makes things tough for us.

Hopefully next year they look at some of these older rookies that seem to be floating around especially after seeing the likes of Barlow at Freo. Some older harder bodies and we can get rid of some of the older deadwood we do have.

The way I see it, the list of players that have now been in the system long enough for me to conclude they are just not up to it and should be axed reads:

Miller, P.Johnson, Bell, Meesen, Martin, Hughes, Newton, Dunn, Bartram

It is interesting to note only 2 of these blokes got a run yesterday and if it wasn't for the injuries perhaps neither would have been there. That indicates that these players are not the ones who are losing us games, and their removal from the list will not really accomplish anything. Furthermore, we can't axe them all, and even if we could, we would just be replacing them with some very average teenage draft picks which will do us no favours at all.

Could be waiting a while E25, and with the 2 new teams coming in i wonder how much time we have.

Were you at the game yesterday or did you view it on Foxtel?

I'm not yet worried about GC17 or GWS. They will take time justlike we will, and they'll be years behind us like we are years behind a hawthorn or west coast.

Didn't make it to the game, had to settle for foxtel. An inferior viewpoint, but not an uninformed one.

Can all those who have coached at the AFL level please put your hand up.

I've said it before and I will say it again

"I don't think anyone knows what Bailey gameday tactics are, apart from him and his coaching team.

I am not going to second guess him or try to attempt to analyse it as I am in no way qualified to do so and I am guessing that there are quite a few people on these boards who are also in the same boat.

Fact is it's the first game of the year, Bailey has his extension and people should get behind the team and stop whining."

This thread is opinion based yes, but it seems also to be based on a low pressure system inside a porcelain drinking container.

First Round of 2010 after coming in last for 2008 & 2009 and we lose to the 2008 Premiers.

My question is:

Are our expectations too high?

We lost by 56, which flattered us, were not competitive for much of the game. I don't think anyone was expecting a win but i think it's fair for us to expect alot more!!

I have seen the game plan.

It was like seeing the messiah.

If you watch closely it showed signs in the last qtr.

more clues?

Looks good when it works (at training)

Maybe they can do it under pressure.

But its flawed .. at the last hurdle.

Scully and Trengove did exactly this on the weekend and they were among our best players. All players, especially our senior players should take a leaf out of their book. Strauss and even Grimes would benefit in watching what Scully and trengove did - especially in the 2nd half.

Agreed, but I do think Grimes played pretty well, considering the mostly second rate no-hopers around him.

The irony of the situation, the irony that knocks all that 'give the kids time to get 50 or 60 games under their belts' stuff, is that the best players yesterday WERE the kids. Grimes, Scully, Trengove, and at times Bennell and Mckenzie. Strauss not disgraced at all in his first. Our best players, and they haven't got 60 games BETWEEN THEM! It's not the kids who are the problem - it's the lack of a leadership group who can direct play with some real authority and flair, and a shameful lack of a sense of purpose in the team generally - they just don't look like they've been 'coached'.

I have seen the game plan.

It was like seeing the messiah.

If you watch closely it showed signs in the last qtr.

more clues?

Looks good when it works (at training)

Maybe they can do it under pressure.

But its flawed .. at the last hurdle.

OK, what is it? WTF IS IT?

You are having a lend of us, surely.

All I saw was Hawthorn taking it easy and the ball getting kicked over their half-back line's heads a couple of times. Is this the second coming?

The point is if you have a look at the players that are playing week in week out, you cant really use the inexperience excuse. Moloney, Joel Mac, James Mc, Jamar, Jones, Moloney, Rivers, Davey, Miller, Bate, Petterd, Green, Bruce and Lynden all had the game time and experience and are essentially the core of the team that played on Sat. You cannot use the youth excuse when 14 or more of your starting 22 are as experienced as those. Also add Frawley, Warnock to that mix and you have 16 players that are big bodied and experienced enough to play decent footy. Something is typically wrong if those guys cant hit a target by foot or hand on a consistent basis.

Also something is wrong when in the third quarter, you prey Scully gets the ball so that he can dodge traffic and hit a target 50 metres up the field unlike 14 said teamates.

Something is also wrong when Grimes, Scully and Trengove have played around 10 games in total between them and they are three of your best players, along with an ageing captain. The club is going backwards.

However on a positive note: Jurrah, Wonna, Watts, Garland, Frawley, Grimes, Scully, Morton, Trengove, Bennell, Strauss. That looks nice on paper. And when we finally get our [censored] together, it'd be nice to have those guys making up half our starting team. Add Davey, Sylvia, Green etc to that and on paper, you could wll possibly have a strong team.

Chin up folks. Future looks bright.

Lost Highway' date='28 March 2010 - 11:16 PM'

OK, what is it? WTF IS IT?

You are having a lend of us, surely.

All I saw was Hawthorn taking it easy and the ball getting kicked over their half-back line's heads a couple of times.

You are on the right track

Is this the second coming?

I almost did for my first time when I seen it

I'm not yet worried about GC17 or GWS. They will take time justlike we will, and they'll be years behind us like we are years behind a hawthorn or west coast.

Didn't make it to the game, had to settle for foxtel. An inferior viewpoint, but not an uninformed one.

Fair point but it looked worse than bad at the ground. We could have lost more young kids to injury as there was just a lot of chaotic movement.

I just hope Bailey starts playing Man on Man for a while, let the kids learn pressure-having an empty 50m arc serves no purpose in my view.

I want Bailey to succeed but i honestly think he had a shocker yesterday, so i want him to put in a top game next week as well.

Teach the kids to be accountable first, then we learn Flair.

From Rod Nicholson in the HUN:

"Hawthorn set the tone by dominating the opening term to scorch to a 36-point lead in a classic example of utilising an open and effective forward line combined with a mean and cohesive defence.

The statistics were telling - 15-3 effective possessions in the forward 50; 6-1 tackles in the same zones and 6-1 contested possessions in the danger zones.

The statistics didn't point out that the Melbourne forwards refused to play to spread the Hawk defenders, who fed off a pack situation at half forward to rebound with ease."

The bit in bold says it all. School footy, and uncoached school footy at that. Mahoney should have been sacked months/years ago. What's it take?

The bit in bold says it all. School footy, and uncoached school footy at that. Mahoney should have been sacked months/years ago. What's it take?

I'd have said primary school footy, the sort you see in the playground at lunchtime. Notice how every Demon on the park runs directly to where the ball is, paying no attention to positioning or where the ball will go if the opposition win it? In particular our setup for the center bounce appears to be "stacks on" in the middle. In most teams the backs will try to drag their opponents out of the forwards 50 to get them out of position. Melbourne counter this by our forwards trying to drag their defenders into the middle instead. I can see how that will win us some games.

I get so annoyed with Bailey when the other team gets a bit of a run on, i.e three goals he immediatly puts someone loose in the backline, it is akin to raising the white flag. When we don't have any big targets up forward I would have thought the worse situation would be to have 5 on 6. Further the slow ball movement by overuse of handpasses means by the time we actually get it forward they have flooded. And putting grimes as a tagger on hodge for a bit was just plain stupid, let him be damaging. After saturday I am keen to get rid of bailey, I hope I am proven wrong.