It was a playful understatement...

I know you and Nasher won't believe me but there is something that has run through this club since 1964, it's like it's been passed down from father to son and the common denominator seems to be the MCC. We have developed a club that values more the way the game is played than the end result, "good show boys you nearly showed those blighters today, never mind, as long as you do your best, winning isn't everything you know".

Have a look at the coaches we've had since Northy; all media friendly all good blokes all poor coaches. You have a look at the teams and the players we've had and tell me why we haven't been able to get closer to the prize? Look at how many a grade players we've had in the last 20 or so years; zero. We've had some very good players but none of them have ever achieved A class status because we just can't develop players and we can't instil in to them the killer instinct that other clubs have. Every other club has had their share of a graders except us, why?

You reckon this is just bad luck?

I said it once before we need to get rid of the players that have the MFC attitude before they taint the next batch of kids coming through and get a coach that will instil fire in to their belly.

I remember many years ago i worked with a kid, Les Norton was his name and he was on the MFC Thirds list he said that Melbourne were a [censored] of a club and how far you progressed depended on where you were educated. I understand that this is not the same now but I bet some parts of it are. I spoke to the guy who was Steven Armstrong's sponsor an Steven said the same of Melbourne he hated it there.

I know you and Nasher won't believe me but there is something that has run through this club since 1964, it's like it's been passed down from father to son and the common denominator seems to be the MCC. We have developed a club that values more the way the game is played than the end result, "good show boys you nearly showed those blighters today, never mind, as long as you do your best, winning isn't everything you know".

Have a look at the coaches we've had since Northy; all media friendly all good blokes all poor coaches. You have a look at the teams and the players we've had and tell me why we haven't been able to get closer to the prize? Look at how many a grade players we've had in the last 20 or so years; zero. We've had some very good players but none of them have ever achieved A class status because we just can't develop players and we can't instil in to them the killer instinct that other clubs have. Every other club has had their share of a graders except us, why?

You reckon this is just bad luck?

I said it once before we need to get rid of the players that have the MFC attitude before they taint the next batch of kids coming through and get a coach that will instil fire in to their belly.

I remember many years ago i worked with a kid, Les Norton was his name and he was on the MFC Thirds list he said that Melbourne were a [censored] of a club and how far you progressed depended on where you were educated. I understand that this is not the same now but I bet some parts of it are. I spoke to the guy who was Steven Armstrong's sponsor an Steven said the same of Melbourne he hated it there.

I agree that we have an affliction of being far too easily pleased with, not mediocrity, but a level of performance that is ultimately sub-optimal.

I don't attach the past to the present to the extent you do.

Bailey's reign didn't suffer a continuation of this decades long anemic culture that you are certain has pervaded the club.

He had built his own house on a sandy foundation with his own anemic culture - kids coddled, senior players given leadership roles not deserved or earned, etc.

The mistakes of those at the club are theirs and not the unavoidable happen-stance of a decades long culture issues.

Brad Green's issues are his, and were completely avoidable if proper decisions were made.

As for the current culture affecting the kids - I don't know. Maybe it is best that we had this year, so that those kids can take charge of the culture before it takes charge of them.

Needless, to say it worries me, but if we can keep the impressive yougsters we all talk about - I am confident we can outgrow our contentedness with suboptimal performances and results.

I would at this point like to say that our culture issues are a major reason I would like to keep Tom Scully. I think that players like him are valuable on the field, but invaluable off of it.

I agree that we have an affliction of being far too easily pleased with, not mediocrity, but a level of performance that is ultimately sub-optimal.

I don't attach the past to the present to the extent you do.

Bailey's reign didn't suffer a continuation of this decades long anemic culture that you are certain has pervaded the club.

He had built his own house on a sandy foundation with his own anemic culture - kids coddled, senior players given leadership roles not deserved or earned, etc.

The mistakes of those at the club are theirs and not the unavoidable happen-stance of a decades long culture issues.

Brad Green's issues are his, and were completely avoidable if proper decisions were made.

As for the current culture affecting the kids - I don't know. Maybe it is best that we had this year, so that those kids can take charge of the culture before it takes charge of them.

Needless, to say it worries me, but if we can keep the impressive yougsters we all talk about - I am confident we can outgrow our contentedness with suboptimal performances and results.

I would at this point like to say that our culture issues are a major reason I would like to keep Tom Scully. I think that players like him are valuable on the field, but invaluable off of it.

Bailey, like every previous coach at Melbourne, inherited a group of "under achieving" senior players and treated them exactly the same way every coach before him did, they never had to fight for their position and they knew they's get a game week in week out because that's the Melbourne way. The players that got dumped were the players that were on the fringe like Dunn and Bate and Bartram etc. so when we suffered a loss it was never one of these so called "senior leaders" that got the chop it was the most expendable that would go. We've seen recently that it took a knee injury for Davey to lose his spot in the side, and a new Coach for the same thing to happen to Sylvia. If Green wasn't the captain he would have been dropped but we took the "General Softness", ooops "Soreness" way out.

Bailey got rid of a couple of players like Yze and White etc but the core of the senior players remained, he was lauded for getting rid of Trapper but that was probably the easiest decision of all. The simple fact is we had a lot of senior players but none of them were leaders, we have no leaders, we don't teach our players how to lead. We've been rebuilding for the last God knows how many years, we give the players a way out every time, "this year we want to win more quarters" when we should be saying "this year we want to win more games".

This has been going on for longer than you've been alive and I've seen it over and over again, the same old same old, we've never put the acid on the players and, we give them an out every time and when you do that it affects the senior payers and how they think, they in turn pass that on to the new kids who pass it on to the new kids when they become seniors. That's the thread that's destroying one group after the other at our club. Add to that we get rid of the one player who was a leader, Junior and give the other senior players another thing to hang their sorry hats on give them another excuse to lose. What I would like to see is some wholesale changes to the playing list and for the club to rid itself of the self congratulating senior players that strut around the ground when we smash Gold Coast but disappear in to a hole when we play a side with a bit of grit like North. Leave the jumper tugging for the day we beat Geelong at Skilled.

I can understand that we have in the past had a ready made excuse for the new coach, no facilities, no money, no real good players and of course no expectations. Well the new coach won't have any ready made excuses we have the facilities we have the money and we have, according to plenty on here, a great young list. It will be interesting to see which of our senior players survive

Great Bump. Bump of the year.

Bailey got rid of a couple of players like Yze and White etc but the core of the senior players remained, he was lauded for getting rid of Trapper but that was probably the easiest decision of all. The simple fact is we had a lot of senior players but none of them were leaders, we have no leaders, we don't teach our players how to lead. We've been rebuilding for the last God knows how many years, we give the players a way out every time, "this year we want to win more quarters" when we should be saying "this year we want to win more games".

If you actually check the team list from the start of 2008 to the start of 2011, Bailey chopped out nearly 2/3 of the players including senior players Yse, Neitz, Whelan, Wheatley, Robbo, White, Miller along with other players like McLean and TJ that werent going to make. What he had left in the "senior" list was indeed ordinary and sparse. Everyone knows the future is in the younger players and you wont get that development over night. Its particularly hard at MFC when we have had the absent leadership group that has cowered on many occassions. I think of Fasolo and how easy it is to debut in side with experienced hard bodies and good on field leadership. And if you are going to see that development in those young players its going to be slow and inconsistent. Its a great misnomer that by using the analogy of winning more quarters is in deference to winning games. I thought the thing that win you the quarters are things that win you the games. And as this year has shown we have had difficulty string those games together. Its a symptom of a young side who inepxerience has been compounded by the absence of leaders around them.

If you actually check the team list from the start of 2008 to the start of 2011, Bailey chopped out nearly 2/3 of the players including senior players Yse, Neitz, Whelan, Wheatley, Robbo, White, Miller along with other players like McLean and TJ that werent going to make. What he had left in the "senior" list was indeed ordinary and sparse. Everyone knows the future is in the younger players and you wont get that development over night. Its particularly hard at MFC when we have had the absent leadership group that has cowered on many occassions. I think of Fasolo and how easy it is to debut in side with experienced hard bodies and good on field leadership. And if you are going to see that development in those young players its going to be slow and inconsistent. Its a great misnomer that by using the analogy of winning more quarters is in deference to winning games. I thought the thing that win you the quarters are things that win you the games. And as this year has shown we have had difficulty string those games together. Its a symptom of a young side who inepxerience has been compounded by the absence of leaders around them.

Sensible post

We've been rebuilding for the last God knows how many years, we give the players a way out every time, "this year we want to win more quarters" when we should be saying "this year we want to win more games".

I agree with a great deal of what you say but I have two problems with this notion:

1. We have been 'rebuilding' this list since late 2007, not the decades that you are implying - the MFC of 2011 can own its own failures. I see this as giving the club an out - 'we have been bad for so long, how can I be blamed for being apart of the latest failure.'

2. We argue ad-nauseum about Bailey and his KPIs or 'touchstones' and winning qtrs is simply that, it isn't an out. It was a device to focus the minds of players to play well in all qtrs and not allow the 'blow-out' periods that have marked Bailey's tenure. 8.11 against Hawthorn, 8.1 against Carlton, 7.7 against WCE (although the last two were a week after he left), etc.

I can see where you are coming from and we do value the wrong type of player, although I think that is changing, and I think we have had the wrong players in leadership positions, and I hope that changes...

Just as an aside - it won't take much for me to be pushed to start a 'dissolve the LG, and install a U/24 group' petition...

I agree with a great deal of what you say but I have two problems with this notion:

1. We have been 'rebuilding' this list since late 2007, not the decades that you are implying - the MFC of 2011 can own its own failures. I see this as giving the club an out - 'we have been bad for so long, how can I be blamed for being apart of the latest failure.'

2. We argue ad-nauseum about Bailey and his KPIs or 'touchstones' and winning qtrs is simply that, it isn't an out. It was a device to focus the minds of players to play well in all qtrs and not allow the 'blow-out' periods that have marked Bailey's tenure. 8.11 against Hawthorn, 8.1 against Carlton, 7.7 against WCE (although the last two were a week after he left), etc.

I can see where you are coming from and we do value the wrong type of player, although I think that is changing, and I think we have had the wrong players in leadership positions, and I hope that changes...

Just as an aside - it won't take much for me to be pushed to start a 'dissolve the LG, and install a U/24 group' petition...

We've been building this list since 2007 that's true, but the players need a strong group of senior players and leaders to help them through and all we've got are the remnants of the previous "failed rebuild" to show them the way. These are the same ones who are still putting their hands up in the air when the going gets tough. What sort of message does that send to the younger players?

What I've said consistently through all of this is that the bad habits of one group get passed on to the next during the generational change and the same players that have been giving up for as long as they've been at the club and why's that? They learnt that from the previous group and so on and so on.

As has often been said Football is a simple game complicated by managers and consultants. If you tell the players that you want to win more quarters this year than last then that's what they'll try to do it gives them a comfortable out; "we did all that was asked of us".

This Generation seem to think they have a mortgage on intelligence and that it's all about KPI's and management process, well that hasn't worked; what will work is gut busting running, tackling, good use of the football and never giving up. If you get that right chances are the KPI's will fall in to place not the other way around. Football is instinctive and if you tell a player that he must lift his tackle count by 1 to 2 per game he will probably do that but maybe at the expense of something else. If you tell the group of players you want to win the game I guess the "winning extra quarters bit" will naturally flow.

You have your ways I have mine.

We've been building this list since 2007 that's true, but the players need a strong group of senior players and leaders to help them through and all we've got are the remnants of the previous "failed rebuild" to show them the way. These are the same ones who are still putting their hands up in the air when the going gets tough. What sort of message does that send to the younger players?

The senior players send a terrible message.

But we now have the calibre of player and individual in the U/24 brigade to have them mould the club and the playing group.

What I've said consistently through all of this is that the bad habits of one group get passed on to the next during the generational change and the same players that have been giving up for as long as they've been at the club and why's that? They learnt that from the previous group and so on and so on.

Absolutley.

U/24 LG in 2012.

As has often been said Football is a simple game complicated by managers and consultants. If you tell the players that you want to win more quarters this year than last then that's what they'll try to do it gives them a comfortable out; "we did all that was asked of us".

Well they didn't...

But I get your point, less Leading Teams and more ownership for those that can actually lead teams.

If you are saying that any measurement is bad other than wins, then we get into a debate. I like the KPIs that the club has talked about - some are in my thread - and I am sure they led to the end of the Bailey tenure - they obviously show a lack of progress, even a movement backwards...

This Generation seem to think they have a mortgage on intelligence and that it's all about KPI's and management process, well that hasn't worked; what will work is gut busting running, tackling, good use of the football and never giving up. If you get that right chances are the KPI's will fall in to place not the other way around. Football is instinctive and if you tell a player that he must lift his tackle count by 1 to 2 per game he will probably do that but maybe at the expense of something else. If you tell the group of players you want to win the game I guess the "winning extra quarters bit" will naturally flow.

You have your ways I have mine.

Ok, you are talking about process.

I think we are talking past each other here.

Your process is the same as mine, but I simply want to measure (attempt to at least) the performance of that process.

KPIs are in every sport, and are strong in AFL. I am sure Malthouse has some important KPIs that give the players a measurement of their performance in key areas.

A proper leader wants to improve those, wants to put them up against the best, wants to put in a performance in all of the key areas.

We don't have those in our senior group - as you say - they are happy enough to coast and they are obviously happy enough to smash Adelaide and get smashed by Geelong.

The KPIs are not the problem, the ones that should be pushing improvement from their fellow players are.

They are just measurements, Robbie.

Just as an aside - it won't take much for me to be pushed to start a 'dissolve the LG, and install a U/24 group' petition...

Consider it signed.

Ok, I am bumping this thread because it touches on our lack of talented and reliable senior players.

BUMP.

It's the second bump as it is from the start of 2011 when I said we don't have the senior players to be a decent team. The second bump was after Bailey was given the arse and there is some really good stuff from RobbieF about our pathetic and pervasive culture.

I just wanted to touch on who are the players in their prime now (23 years old with 70 games experience) as those are the players that drive good, solid teams: Garland, Batram, Jones, Clark, Bate, Dunn, Sylvia, Rivers, MacDonald, Moloney, Jamar, Davey, and Green.

Jones, Clark, and Rivers get pass marks (the first two better than that).

But the rest have been a disaster this year:

Injured - Jamar, Batram, Davey

Form - Moloney, Sylvia, Garland, Green

NQR - Bate, Dunn, MacDonald

6 of those players may be gone at the end of the year.

Is it any wonder we are where we are?

Hey Robbie i hear you, and not for a moment do i want to accept mediocaty (last year i was [censored] we didn't make week one of the finals-for a taste)

But i also know when you build a big tall strong building-The foundations and the planning have to be Rock Solid, and that's what i meant when i said the club is new.

3 years ago the Foundations were re layed.We didn't even have a home.

Now look where we are. It's Growing.

what "foundation" has Neeld built or perhaps he is the "foundation".

I think you missed Frawley.

You make a fine point about our core group of aged players in the majority being below standard

I do think your letting the younger talent off the hook.

Swap 4 or 5 of the guys below and tell me we don't become a better side.

Morton - Dangerfield

Maric - Selwood

Blease - Shuey

Strauss - Zaharakis, Hannebery, Beams

Bennell - Robinson

Scully - Martin

Gysberts - Jetta

Tapscott - Fyfe

Ok, I am bumping this thread because it touches on our lack of talented and reliable senior players.

BUMP.

It's the second bump as it is from the start of 2011 when I said we don't have the senior players to be a decent team. The second bump was after Bailey was given the arse and there is some really good stuff from RobbieF about our pathetic and pervasive culture.

I just wanted to touch on who are the players in their prime now (23 years old with 70 games experience) as those are the players that drive good, solid teams: Garland, Batram, Jones, Clark, Bate, Dunn, Sylvia, Rivers, MacDonald, Moloney, Jamar, Davey, and Green.

Jones, Clark, and Rivers get pass marks (the first two better than that).

But the rest have been a disaster this year:

Injured - Jamar, Batram, Davey

Form - Moloney, Sylvia, Garland, Green

NQR - Bate, Dunn, MacDonald

6 of those players may be gone at the end of the year.

Is it any wonder we are where we are?

Sylvia Disaster for form?

Coming off a broken back.

Last 5 games have been more than serviceable in a very poor side.

I think you missed Frawley.

You make a fine point about our core group of aged players in the majority being below standard

I do think your letting the younger talent off the hook.

Swap 4 or 5 of the guys below and tell me we don't become a better side.

Morton - Dangerfield

Maric - Selwood

Blease - Shuey

Strauss - Zaharakis, Hannebery, Beams

Bennell - Robinson

Scully - Martin

Gysberts - Jetta

Tapscott - Fyfe

yes and swap Neeld for Brad Scott please

We've been building this list since 2007 that's true, but the players need a strong group of senior players and leaders to help them through and all we've got are the remnants of the previous "failed rebuild" to show them the way. These are the same ones who are still putting their hands up in the air when the going gets tough. What sort of message does that send to the younger players?

What I've said consistently through all of this is that the bad habits of one group get passed on to the next during the generational change and the same players that have been giving up for as long as they've been at the club and why's that? They learnt that from the previous group and so on and so on.

As has often been said Football is a simple game complicated by managers and consultants. If you tell the players that you want to win more quarters this year than last then that's what they'll try to do it gives them a comfortable out; "we did all that was asked of us".

This Generation seem to think they have a mortgage on intelligence and that it's all about KPI's and management process, well that hasn't worked; what will work is gut busting running, tackling, good use of the football and never giving up. If you get that right chances are the KPI's will fall in to place not the other way around. Football is instinctive and if you tell a player that he must lift his tackle count by 1 to 2 per game he will probably do that but maybe at the expense of something else. If you tell the group of players you want to win the game I guess the "winning extra quarters bit" will naturally flow.

You have your ways I have mine.

Robbie

thats about as good a post as i have read this year!

Its football- instictive ball play-let the kids play football dont overmanage let them have a go MFC is playing like parts of a well broken machine

Sylvia Disaster for form?

Coming off a broken back.

Last 5 games have been more than serviceable in a very poor side.

Then put him in the injured category...

The point is that we have had 3 of our 13 players who are in the prime able to pull their weight this season.

Added to this is the fact that those 13 players wouldn't stack up against even middling teams.

It's little wonder we are where we are.

Ok, I am bumping this thread because it touches on our lack of talented and reliable senior players.

BUMP.

It's the second bump as it is from the start of 2011 when I said we don't have the senior players to be a decent team. The second bump was after Bailey was given the arse and there is some really good stuff from RobbieF about our pathetic and pervasive culture.

I just wanted to touch on who are the players in their prime now (23 years old with 70 games experience) as those are the players that drive good, solid teams: Garland, Batram, Jones, Clark, Bate, Dunn, Sylvia, Rivers, MacDonald, Moloney, Jamar, Davey, and Green.

Jones, Clark, and Rivers get pass marks (the first two better than that).

But the rest have been a disaster this year:

Injured - Jamar, Batram, Davey

Form - Moloney, Sylvia, Garland, Green

NQR - Bate, Dunn, MacDonald

6 of those players may be gone at the end of the year.

Is it any wonder we are where we are?

It could be 7 or 8 of those players if the club is serious; Jamar, Garland and Bartram maybe the only ones left and Bartram because he brings something to the table in terms of determination, Jamar because they have just re signed him and Garland if he can get over his brain fades may be ok in the forward line.

Problem is there isn't much below them in the younger brigade.

It could be 7 or 8 of those players if the club is serious; Jamar, Garland and Bartram maybe the only ones left and Bartram because he brings something to the table in terms of determination, Jamar because they have just re signed him and Garland if he can get over his brain fades may be ok in the forward line.

Problem is there isn't much below them in the younger brigade.

It's just amazing that we have 6-8 players of 13 in their 'prime' that might be moved on. That is simply a horrendous situation for a team to have.

Once again we will get younger unless we can utilise FA and Delisted FA.

It's just amazing that we have 6-8 players of 13 in their 'prime' that might be moved on. That is simply a horrendous situation for a team to have.

Once again we will get younger unless we can utilise FA and Delisted FA.

I agree with that, for all that's been said about GC and GWS they are still kids with no leaders and will ultimately fail.

We were lucky to get Mitch Clark, he is natural leader, hates to fail and loves the club; there have been others that have come for the cash and have shown no real interest in showing the way. The players we have to look at are the hungry for success, younger types that may not be getting a gig where they are because of the strength of that club's playing group, or maybe want to move back to Victoria from interstate.

Personally I hope we don't go for another Byron Pickett type who just wants to spend his remaining days in semi retirement at our expense, if we start looking for a player past his prime than we are going to go nowhere. With all due respect to him, how hungry would a Paul Chapman be for further success; he, like Gablett would be playing for the cash knowing that he's done it all and has nothing to prove.

I agree with that, for all that's been said about GC and GWS they are still kids with no leaders and will ultimately fail.

We were lucky to get Mitch Clark, he is natural leader, hates to fail and loves the club; there have been others that have come for the cash and have shown no real interest in showing the way. The players we have to look at are the hungry for success, younger types that may not be getting a gig where they are because of the strength of that club's playing group, or maybe want to move back to Victoria from interstate.

Personally I hope we don't go for another Byron Pickett type who just wants to spend his remaining days in semi retirement at our expense, if we start looking for a player past his prime than we are going to go nowhere. With all due respect to him, how hungry would a Paul Chapman be for further success; he, like Gablett would be playing for the cash knowing that he's done it all and has nothing to prove.

What also concerns me robbie trying to replace these older players is that GWS will also be looking for some older players as their current 'retired' recycled older players will doubtless 'retire' again this year end.

I wouldn't be surprised if GWS already has a secret offer on the table for Cloke or Boak or whoever may be available.

I'm worried that we will struggle to pick up senior players from FA , UFA, trades, Draft, Rookie Draft, PSD and we will get markedly 'younger'

Oct 8 to Dec 11 is going to be a very long and trying period and we don't want to be forced to replace NQRs with new NQRs