On 26/04/2010 at 05:05, AdamFarr said:

I sent a comment into the journo who wrote it, pointing out all the errors and told them to ensure proof reading, before publishing. I've now been blocked on the Herald Sun website. Lucky, I suppose.

Do you mean they denied you access to their whole website! Main news as well as sport etc???

Indeed: Copycat.

After getting home from Saturday's game I viewed every article I could find online. I looked at every highlight available & trawled our websites lapping up the enthusiasm of our supporters. Even went to BigFooty & enjoyed the favourable comments from the challenged multitudes over there.

It is so bloody nice to feel good about the footy again after enduring the last few years.

It is so good to feel that Melbourne is getting some respect back. For the last 18 months I've had to rely on Big Jimmy & Martin Flanagan to remind me how great this club is.

Mind you, the last few years have been a walk in the park compared to shite that was the 70's.

The fire has certainly started & while it is still very early days, I'm looking forward to watching the flame get fanned

  On 26/04/2010 at 00:54, Jack7 said:

4 weeks ago we were being compared to Richmond,4 weeks later we're being compared to Geelong!!!

Hmmm,don't believe any of it,footy journo's are so fickle.

Exactly. If we loose next weekend the Kangaroos will get a fluff piece in the paper also.

It can also be said on the same token however, how fickle is the general supporting public? I have to admit, first quarter of the Crows game I felt like giving it all up... a few weeks later and a flag is in sight again! I would also consider myself a rather mild mannered, level headed kind of guy too; but that is what this game can do to us all. Losers one week, heroes literally the next. Fickle sport.

(edit- don't get me wrong, i'm f****ng loving this attention we are getting!! Still chuffed over the "Transition KINGS" call I heard Sat night- that felt just lovely!)

I like this paragraph..

"But consider also who wasn't there: Liam Jurrah, Cale Morton, Austin Wonaeamirri, Jack Watts, Sam Blease, James Strauss, Neville Jetta, Rohan Bail, Jordan Gysberts and Luke Tapscott, another half-team of highly rated draftees."

Yes... I actually live in Sydney's Inner West and assumed that was his inference, but I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt in the hope he may provide some sort of acceptable explanation... if for nothing else than his poor spelling and his obvious lack of knowledge of Sydney demographics.

  On 26/04/2010 at 01:28, Choko said:

  On 26/04/2010 at 00:54, Jack7 said:

4 weeks ago we were being compared to Richmond,4 weeks later we're being compared to Geelong!!!

Hmmm,don't believe any of it,footy journo's are so fickle.

Exactly.

it is not only the Journo's that are fickle, just about half the people on this site are fickle, after round one, all i read on this web site is , we have no game plan, bate's a hack,we should have pick nic nat, sack DB why did they resign him so soon, its going to be a bad year, too many people on this site bag our players, bag bad spelling, too many with nothing to say will attack bad spelling, wrong names, unless these people have a problem with a post they should attack the post , not the errors in the post, talk about fickle this is the most fickle site i have read, and i hope people on this site are not reflective of most dees fans, because if they are the the club have a real problem with it's Fans. So play the ball not the man.

  On 26/04/2010 at 07:53, Hardnut said:

Those who study game plans would find significant changes in the demon plan after R1. Knowledgeable people (I'm not claiming to be one!) could not even identify a demon game plan last year. Personally, I would suggest that the kick and hit up the corridor is one significant change - other people may see it as an evolution.

That's rubbish. The difference is in the execution by the players not the game plan. Game plans are not invited or changed over a week of football. In many cases they have to be learned over a number of years and not a pre season. The "knowledgeable" people you refer to are incredibly silent at the moment after there squawking about Bailey cant coach and there is no game plan. The kick and hit up the corridor is a strategy common to all game plans but it involves ensuring you can the implementation right to facilitate that. This has always been an important part of what Bailey was trying to do. Its what 15 other clubs try to do more or less successfully.

  On 26/04/2010 at 23:06, Rhino Richards said:

Game plans are not invited or changed over a week of football. In many cases they have to be learned over a number of years and not a pre season.

Not true. Adelaide definitely changed their style of play within the space of 1 or 2 weeks last year. Just after we beat them, actually. That was a noticeable change.

  On 27/04/2010 at 00:00, titan_uranus said:

Not true. Adelaide definitely changed their style of play within the space of 1 or 2 weeks last year. Just after we beat them, actually. That was a noticeable change.

They make tweak the edges, players may return from injury/suspension and players may change their commitment to how they play and execute (eg MFC after Rd 1) but teams do not successfully change their game plans in the course of 1 or 2 weeks let alone 1 or 2 months.

  On 26/04/2010 at 01:18, dee-luded said:

It's nice to get some "Good Press" after such a long painful time of struggle, &, pretense.

Enjoyed it too but he overlooked the following unfashionable five who have been a big factor - j-mac, moloney, Jamar, jones & mckenzie

Would it be fair to say that Melbourne are going a lot more man-on-man as opposed to zoning after the Hawthorn game?

  On 26/04/2010 at 23:06, Rhino Richards said:

That's rubbish. The difference is in the execution by the players not the game plan. Game plans are not invited or changed over a week of football. In many cases they have to be learned over a number of years and not a pre season. The "knowledgeable" people you refer to are incredibly silent at the moment after there squawking about Bailey cant coach and there is no game plan. The kick and hit up the corridor is a strategy common to all game plans but it involves ensuring you can the implementation right to facilitate that. This has always been an important part of what Bailey was trying to do. Its what 15 other clubs try to do more or less successfully.

I reckon you could point to lots of differences between our so-called game plan and Geelong's. The over-arching similarity is that it is attacking and skilful.. . in stark contrast to St Kilda's, say.It's clear now that he has been systematically working towards a hard tackling direct running style of play.

Bailey said in the pre-season cup that he wanted us to take more risks - and I seem to recall that his main message after Round 1 was that we had to show initiative and take the game on.

Over the next couple of years we will have some ups and downs - but we are going to see some brilliant footy

All this talk of corridor football is a far cry from Bailey's first 2 years (and Daniher's last one too) when we crawled along the wings and kicked into the pockets, so that's one big change that's happened in the last few weeks.

  On 27/04/2010 at 01:46, hoopla said:

It's clear now that he has been systematically working towards a hard tackling direct running style of play.

Bailey said in the pre-season cup that he wanted us to take more risks - and I seem to recall that his main message after Round 1 was that we had to show initiative and take the game on.

Agree

He was also making similar statements in late last year.

  On 27/04/2010 at 01:46, hoopla said:

Over the next couple of years we will have some ups and downs - but we are going to see some brilliant footy

Hopefully you are right!

  On 27/04/2010 at 01:15, Clint Bizkit said:

Would it be fair to say that Melbourne are going a lot more man-on-man as opposed to zoning after the Hawthorn game?

MFC are certainly more accountable than Round 1 and it reflects the players efforts and execution of the plan rather than the plan itself. Crikey a coach would not have a gameplan based on dont run, dont chase, dont use the ball well, dont be accountable. Last year we saw glimpses of what Bailey was trying to get the team to do. On the weekend we saw how potent it could be if done properly.

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:27, Rhino Richards said:

MFC are certainly more accountable than Round 1 and it reflects the players efforts and execution of the plan rather than the plan itself. Crikey a coach would not have a gameplan based on dont run, dont chase, dont use the ball well, dont be accountable. Last year we saw glimpses of what Bailey was trying to get the team to do. On the weekend we saw how potent it could be if done properly.

Yes, but it has been clear that they are not trying to zone off, rather they are playing man-on-man. This has changed. More options in the forward line has also been noticeable (with the exception of the start of the Richmond game where they kicked out to a lead).

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:16, CarnTheDees said:

All this talk of corridor football is a far cry from Bailey's first 2 years (and Daniher's last one too) when we crawled along the wings and kicked into the pockets, so that's one big change that's happened in the last few weeks.

No it isnt. What he is seeking to do has been what he has sought to go from day 1. He is now having the cattle to do it and they now understand what has to be done. It gets back to execution of the plan and having the players with the skill and confidence to do that. That's what has changed.

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:27, Rhino Richards said:

Crikey a coach would not have a gameplan based on dont run, dont chase, dont use the ball well, dont be accountable.

Wasn't that Daniher's game plan during the latter years of Yze's career?

(Cheap shot I know)

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:36, Nasher said:

(Cheap shot I know)

I still enjoyed it.

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:32, Clint Bizkit said:

Yes, but it has been clear that they are not trying to zone off, rather they are playing man-on-man. This has changed. More options in the forward line has also been noticeable (with the exception of the start of the Richmond game where they kicked out to a lead).

They are being accountable for their man. There 2nd and 3rd efforts are noticeable where in Rd 1 there was none. The fordward line looks similar to me with the exception that the ball carrier is in a better position to use the ball and players like Petterd, Bennell, Green and Sylvia are more confident in their attack on the ball. The forward line still empties out when we are defending but the forwards are far more mobile and able to run to open space in the forward line and get better use of the ball from the ball carrier.

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:36, Nasher said:

Wasn't that Daniher's game plan during the latter years of Yze's career?

(Cheap shot I know)

HA HA!

Some days it seemed like it. B)

The words ‘change’ and ‘gameplan’ are being used in various ways in this discussion (and yes I am also guilty). The bottom line is that from R2-5 MFC have used their kicking skills and the corridor far more efficiently, and they have usually had a player or players ahead of the ball to spot up. I think that’s significant.

Honestly, some of you have issues.

Or maybe you're just very good MFC supporters.

We lose by 50 points and Bailey has no gameplan we cry, we win by 50 points and Bailey just tells them to run, and therefore, we still have no gameplan.

We move into the corridor off half back and share (our handballing improved out of sight) until we hit up a 30 metre target outside 50 or continue to share and go over the top of the opposition zone.

I saw it last year, hell, I could dig up something from 2008, I really want to toot my own horn here...

The point is - if you can't see a gameplan then you were one of the majority/plurality that thought we didn't have one and you're too arrogant to admit you were wrong, are wrong, and are being stubbornly ignorant of facts hitting you in the face.

rpfc, these are the same people who were screaming for us to 'just kick it'!!

Just listen to the press conferences in 2008:

- "need to be more competitive" = high intensity tackling and pressure all over the ground.

- "turned the ball over too much" = we couldn't execute our high possession gameplan well enough.

- "need to take more risks" = players weren't running forward hard enough when we got the ball.

Suddenly we are 'more competitive', don't 'turn the ball over' and 'take risks' and people talk about how we've changed the gameplan. It is, fundamentally, the same plan.

Look at the players we have drafted in the national draft since Bailey arrived:

Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Bail, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

Of those players, only the last two picked (Gawn and Fitzpatrick) and Watts have not been skilled running players. Players who run the footy and hit targets. Players who are capable of playing a high intensity, high risk running game that Bailey has been trying to implement.

People used to joke about Alistair Clarkson's handball heavy gameplan in 2005. Then suddenly he was a genius in 2008 when his team were able to execute it properly.

The media will write what the public wants to hear. And people want their lives and issues in easily digestible chunks. Trying to look closely at a gameplan is too big for them to swallow, especially when it's easier to just claim that there is none.

  On 27/04/2010 at 02:34, Rhino Richards said:

No it isnt. What he is seeking to do has been what he has sought to go from day 1. He is now having the cattle to do it and they now understand what has to be done. It gets back to execution of the plan and having the players with the skill and confidence to do that. That's what has changed.

Rhino is on the money. Some of you are clueless.

The game plan that you saw on Saturday night is the gameplan Dean Bailey presented when he was given the gig.