Food for Thought

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

And the winner for "making excuses" award goes to RR!!

Any which way you cast it that was a deploable effort from the club. That's Coaches down, pathetic for all but a couple . That same team has played much much better.

No, let's set the tone for acceptance of mediocrity again in 2011.

I understand Rhino that which you're trying to explain however a simpler and far more accurate appraisal was they played like sh!t. They all need to own that game as Farr as responsibility goes and do something about it... One might even suggest take a leaf out of the victors book and DO , not TRY !! Or we're in for a very trying year .

Geez, even for you Bub its a pretty low brow response. Multiple exclamations marks and all. You're in for a frustrated year and when you huff and you puff about it dont get singed by your torch swinging. Its clear you mean business.

[The Chazz 4,077]

How do you know.

Martin could never be a big body forward because he cannot find the middle of the sticks. We might as well as stick big max gawn down their, at least his height might worry the oppositon defense.

How do I know about Jnr? Hamstring injury that takes 7 weeks to get over instead of 3. Would have been 35(?) this year, and was already slowing down last year. Honestley, I'm happy that Jnr isn't out there this year. Don't get me wrong, I admired the guy, but his time was up, just like Bruce was correctly offered a 1 year contract (apart from that 1 goal yesterday, he was quite insipid).

Hawthorn seemed to do well yesterday with Franklin and Roughead being their big forwards and not finding the middle of the sticks every time. I do agree about big Max. I went to the GC/Carl game Saturday night, they have no option but to play their big kids, and I tell you what, a couple of them are going to be rippers (number 2 and 23 I think). It was only their experience that stopped them from getting more goals than what they did (I'm talking about the 2 boys I mentioned).

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Another great post. Agree totally with RR's opening post, and I'd like to comment on your other points:

1. What game plan we have is aimed at zone-busting, and for that, we do as well as anybody, as shown in the second quarter. In the second quarter, we totally disrupted their whole structure, which is no mean feat. We have an attacking game plan which is a beauty; we have no defensive game plan. But it totally and absolutely depends on our weakest link ...

2. ...THE MIDFIELD. When we were breaking even or winning the midfield, we had them on the run. I'll say it again, when we won the midfield, we were able to totally disrupt the structure of a team that lives & dies on its structure. But no defensive game plan can stand up against getting so comprehensively smashed in clearances, both centre bounces or around the ground. Can't understand people bagging the defence, they were under sustained pressure because in the 3rd quarter we hardly won a clearance. And until the FD realises that the centre bounce combination of Moloney + Jones + a tagger is not our best but our WORST combination, we will continue to get smashed in clearances. What bothers me is that if we ARE getting smashed in the clearances, we seem to be powerless to do anything about it. We didn't seem to fire a shot (Grimes or Dunn onto the ball anyone?) to try to stop it. When we win the midfield, our attacking game-plan can be devastating. When we lose the midfield, we can still attack enough to make it competitive. But no game plan will stand up to getting absolutely smashed in the midfield like we were after half time.

3. For a kick-out, if you can't hit someone on their own, the tactic is to pick a spot to force a stoppage in a place that's going to hurt you the least. A lot of the "implied pressure" from kick-ins was that forcing a stoppage meant that we would turn it over anyway. It's the midfield that is supposed to transition from defence to attack (one reason why they're called the MIDfield) and they went totally missing so we had no transition. We lose structure too easily, but only because we get beaten too easily with our 2008 midfield - we never lose our structure when we're winning the midfield!

4. When they subbed Lewis for Renouf (a midfielder for a ruck), from then on they were able to smash us in the midfield, no matter how many taps Jamar won. Unfair to blame Maric (replacing Jetta - like for like) for not having had a similar effect.

It stands or falls on the midfield. We could have comparatively the most efficient & effective defence & forward line in the comp, but if we don't improve our worst-in-comp midfield, we're going nowhere.

I agree Maric was on a hiding to nothing. Not blaming him for his relative lack of impact but think it was a tactical error to have him as sub. Agree on all your other points - midfield is where it is won or lost. Forwards and Backs are almost powerless when the midfield is so comprehensively slaughtered. I can't remeber ever seeing such one-way traffic at stoppages before.

I als can't understand how anyone can draw conclusions on Bailey's ability to coach a game plan when the team couldn't get hands on the ball. I re-iterate that when we one first use in the first half, our game plan looked good. It all comes crumbling down when the mids can't lay hands on it.

[norwood_demon 196]

Absolutely agree Rhino. Your post should be pinned to the top of this board and read after every disappointing loss in 2011 (and there will be quite a few).

Your statistic encapsulates our predicament:

Hawks (25yrs 161d, 2380 games, 108 games, 15 players)

MFC (23 yrs, 179d, 1379 games, 62 games, 5 players)

We have 1 aging (Green) & 4 other average AFL-hardened players. The rest are kids...very talented kids! We need to get 50 more games into all of them; we also need to get 2 more pre-seasons into all of them (I am increasingly seeing the importance of pre-seasons building bodies as being almost as important as AFL-game experience). Yesterday, we were beaten by a mature battle-hardened side that won a premiership 3 years ago, has topped-up to have another tilt, & is a serious contender. This is not "propaganda"; it is just the facts that overly-optimistic supporters do not want to hear.

FWIW, Dean Bailey has my total support & gratitude. He has sacrificed his coaching record to mentor a developing side. I just love Bailey's calm boundary-line demeanor (which is in sharp contrast to my uncontrollable rage when the umpire gave Hawthorn the gift goal in Q3). Imagine that you are being thumped by a team with 1001-more-games-played than you, & you come-off to a ranting coach "firing rockets". You may as well leave to the GWS (which is what will happen there next year). Instead, Bailey quietly teaches & inculcates.

I am also very grateful to the recruiting department. Have they made a mistake in the last 3 years? That 2009 draft has the nucleus of our premiership. Tapscott is a beauty at pick 18. It is the ability to select these "gems" in the lower draft picks that builds premiership sides. I will not go through each position but I can see that the MFC has up to 3 players being groomed/being possibilities at each position. But one! The small crumbing forward position worries me. Maric isn't it, Jetta isn't it, & I don't think Wonna is either (I've seen him for a year longer being a Norwood supporter in Adelaide). Maybe we'll trade in 1-2 years time?

In summary, 2011 is not about being middle-rung with Bruce; it is about being premiers in 2014-2015 with Tapscott! We just have to hang-in there everyone. Enjoy the highs; they'll come more often; and endure the lows.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Wallpaper over the cracks.

This is not a balanced post, it's almost propaganda, TBH.

Now we have pushed our "window" to 2014/15. Wow.

And if we are taking Davey, Sylvia (and I think you forgot Green and Rivers) out of the side to contend in 2014/15, we are going to have one whole group of basically the same aged kids, with new kids coming through. There is no good list as imbalanced as that. Especially if we think that one of Moloney and Jones can't be in our best midfield.

I agree that, with how terrible we have been the past few years, we cannot help but improve given the talent we have. And I am not in the 8 or bust group (although I think Bailey will find it very hard to keep his job if we don't make the 8). But there are some seriously concerning signs in the coaching panel and club decision making.

Its always been out at 2014/2015 if you had listened to the Clubs message about getting experience into players. It was only shorter in minds of supporters that think that scrawny and inexperienced 20 years can run rings around big bodies experienced footballers in their mid 20s.

As another poster pointed out this was well demonstrated by GC and Carlton.

As for our target area.... Rivers is limited as a footballer and is not essential to a flag push. Green will be 34 and no certainty to be part of the action. And you are right, I think our midfield is limited if its based on having Moloney and Jones in the guts.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

To be honest I have no idea if he is a good coach

I think it's accepted wisdom that DB's a very good "teaching coach" and our talented young players are benefitting and developing greatly from this aspect of Bailey's coaching.

Whether DB also has the strategic abilities and leadership to instil the passion to win a flag is unknown. Coaches like players need to learn & develop. I'm hoping the FD have this part of DB's development in hand. I'm not sure but maybe Chris Connolly is there to help in this regard.

For the moment in my mind, DB's the right person for the job at hand. Actually, more than that. In my opinion he's doing an excellent job developing elite young talents to play amazingly exciting footy.

But while that's in progress, we won't win every game and sometimes we'll get gut-wrenchingly smashed by teams like the present Hawthorn. The Hawks won't stay where they are now for ever, and our day will come when we smash them. And that will be incredibly sweet, especially because the future is ours!

[The Chazz 4,077]

Absolutely agree Rhino. Your post should be pinned to the top of this board and read after every disappointing loss in 2011 (and there will be quite a few).

Your statistic encapsulates our predicament:

Hawks (25yrs 161d, 2380 games, 108 games, 15 players)

MFC (23 yrs, 179d, 1379 games, 62 games, 5 players)

We have 1 aging (Green) & 4 other average AFL-hardened players. The rest are kids...very talented kids! We need to get 50 more games into all of them; we also need to get 2 more pre-seasons into all of them (I am increasingly seeing the importance of pre-seasons building bodies as being almost as important as AFL-game experience). Yesterday, we were beaten by a mature battle-hardened side that won a premiership 3 years ago, has topped-up to have another tilt, & is a serious contender. This is not "propaganda"; it is just the facts that overly-optimistic supporters do not want to hear.

FWIW, Dean Bailey has my total support & gratitude. He has sacrificed his coaching record to mentor a developing side. I just love Bailey's calm boundary-line demeanor (which is in sharp contrast to my uncontrollable rage when the umpire gave Hawthorn the gift goal in Q3). Imagine that you are being thumped by a team with 1001-more-games-played than you, & you come-off to a ranting coach "firing rockets". You may as well leave to the GWS (which is what will happen there next year). Instead, Bailey quietly teaches & inculcates.

I am also very grateful to the recruiting department. Have they made a mistake in the last 3 years? That 2009 draft has the nucleus of our premiership. Tapscott is a beauty at pick 18. It is the ability to select these "gems" in the lower draft picks that builds premiership sides. I will not go through each position but I can see that the MFC has up to 3 players being groomed/being possibilities at each position. But one! The small crumbing forward position worries me. Maric isn't it, Jetta isn't it, & I don't think Wonna is either (I've seen him for a year longer being a Norwood supporter in Adelaide). Maybe we'll trade in 1-2 years time?

In summary, 2011 is not about being middle-rung with Bruce; it is about being premiers in 2014-2015 with Tapscott! We just have to hang-in there everyone. Enjoy the highs; they'll come more often; and endure the lows.

That should be put on the Demonland banner up the top of this page. A brilliantly worded comment, that ended a well worded post. Credit to you Norwood.

[Choko 493]

Its always been out at 2014/2015 if you had listened to the Clubs message about getting experience into players. It was only shorter in minds of supporters that think that scrawny and inexperienced 20 years can run rings around big bodies experienced footballers in their mid 20s.

As another poster pointed out this was well demonstrated by GC and Carlton.

As for our target area.... Rivers is limited as a footballer and is not essential to a flag push. Green will be 34 and no certainty to be part of the action. And you are right, I think our midfield is limited if its based on having Moloney and Jones in the guts.

RR - I have listened to the club messages, from fairly close. And I think you have too. You therefore know like I do that they (particularly Bailey) are actually unwilling to goal set or commit to any time frame. So yes, they have been selling the "grow with us/journey" message, but they are not willing to be judged against expectations at any point.

The big issue to me is that we will have a whole lot of young players all growing up all at the same stage. That's not good list planning. It would be one thing if we thought 2012/2013 were the years, because we would still have Davey, Green, Sylvia, Moloney running around. But the big concern is that we will not be able to keep the list entirely together, there is a piecemeal forward line, we do not have a modern game plan (when do we ever lock the ball inside our forward 50) and the club continues to make poor decisions.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Reasoned argument in any debate – that is if we are to have a debate onyesterday’s performance – is always desirable. Many have indicated that they concur with RR’s views onyesterday’s performance.

However, of our 32K+ members, there will be a significant cohort whowill not agree and will be downright filthy about it. Like most of us, they will stew on the embarrassment wefelt, regarding the second half performance, move on and turn up at the nextgame as passionate as ever. And that’s one of the main points, even the most intelligent among us,can lose all sense of logic and clarity of thought, when it comes to barrackingfor our footy team and that’s one of the reasons I love footy. It’s a release and an expression ofpassion.

Each year, understandably, all footy clubs try to come up with variousmarketing strategies, which will optimise their membership drives, butinvariably, the recurring themes are those of loyalty, passion and resolve –“Let your Demon out”, directly aimed at the supporter base and beyond. Sure footy is a business, but even inthe sterile board rooms of footy clubs, they recognise the need to appeal tothe emotions of their supporters.

From my perspective, theremust be some reciprocity here. Sure, supporters aren’t out their copping the thumps, the niggle, therepetitive training regimes, the public scrutiny and lack of privacy, butsupporters are and always will be the difference between viability andoblivion. However, I am prettytired of the “youth and inexperience” rationale for poor and unacceptableperformances -– and I know some on here will say we have come off a much lowerbase, following the Daniher years. It is as if we are somehow unique and no other Victorian AFL club hashad to contend with the same circumstances and turnover their lists like wehave. Statistics may support onepoint of view, which differs to mine, but what statistics cannot measure arethe intangibles of resolve, focus and passion for the contest. Other “youthful” clubs’ lists have, inmy opinion, coped with these intangibles, but nonetheless necessary traits, farbetter than we have.

In reading the game day thread for yesterday, I noted one poster’scomments and I am paraphrasing, but the comment was to the effect that Al willgive them a serious bake at half time and we needed to be up to the challengeof a fired up Hawthorn during the “premiership” quarter. This was an observation that whileobvious, went to the heart of the matter. Clearly, we did not rise to that challenge and were dismal in defeat. In fact, the score line flattered us toa large extent.

Jimmy, Schwabby, the Board and the administration have worked hard topull us out of the financial mire. The supporters have played their part in that endeavour to a very largeextent. It’s time the Footydepartment honoured its reciprocal obligations in that regard.

I think we all can accept turnovers, where a bloke is having a read hotgo, and only for a matter of millimetres could have been a hero himself. We can accept an errant pass, where aplayer is trying to negotiate his way through heavy traffic, or someone losinga one on one contest simply because they don’t have the body strength to matchtheir older and more experienced opponent. However, what none of us should be expected to accept is the lack of a discerniblegame plan, intensity at the contest, a steely resolve that once beaten in onecontest, you will win the next one.

It is 2 rounds in. Far tooearly to start potting the Coach. I will be there again next week and will be as passionate as ever, but Iexpect to see a far better commitment. Surely, I have a right to expect that? Like I said, I will be there next week and when I can, the ensuingweeks, but can we guarantee there will not be a significant drop off of support from others currently among ournumbers, if yesterday’s performance is in anyway repeated.

We need to stop looking for excuses. As Ronald Dale often says, “if it is to be, it’s up to me”.

Come on Dees, we’re better than that!!!!!!

[Sir Why You Little 36,668]

Lets not forget Hawthorn were 3.13 at halfime.

They should have had us at the Funeral parlour by then, but we at least kicked straight!!

Our Midfield got carved up by a very good team. 19 scoring shots in the 3rd Q!!!!

It is how the Team and club Rebound i am more interested in now.

Hawthorn showed the MFC how far we still have to climb from base camp.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

However there are parts of our game which aren't developing & which don't appear to have been addressed. Bailey has been coach for 3 years & serious questions need to be asked why these aspects aren't improving. I'll list the most obvious deficiencies in our game.

1. Kickouts & navigating through a zone.

2. Forward pressure from kickouts & setting up an adequate zone.

3. We are ranked last for forward 50 entries.

4. Clearance work is poor despite having an All Australian Ruckman.

5. Intensity, work rate & winning mentality which should be not negotiable is not in place.

To me the points I raised are all parts of our game which should be rectifiable, however in 3 years they don't appear to have been addressed. I applaud the club in the direction they are taking with youth, but a portion of blame needs to be pointed at the FD for not rectifying deficiencies that have been pretty obvious even to supporters for a significant amount of time. Some of the simple tactics of modern footy don't seem to be being taught. If they are being taught, we are seeing little result. I'm fully supportive of the direction the club is taking, but not everything that goes wrong can be put down to a developing list or a group of older players that aren't good enough.

Bonkers,

This response is not to exonerate Bailey at all. And he and the FD need to be held accountable and responsible but preferrably not by the lynch mob mentality that tends to dominate and devalue this site after loss.

Three years ago, Bailey took over a list which had been valiant and serviceable but had completely burn out and lack leadership. Neitz, White, Yze, Robbo and others who had been front liners for years were finished. We also had players that had plateaued, sucked club resources or were just not good enough.

There has been a whole clean out of the list that commenced in 2008 with over 50% of the list having gone as the ageing warhorses retired, NQRs traded or delisted. In that time our performances and ladder finishes (and some great trades) have given us a bunch of talented yet inexperienced and underdeveloped kids. So when we hear that there have been all these faults for 3 years we need to remember such faults or similar have been with different personnel. There has been an evoluation of talent which is still going through the development.

From this talent we hope to uncover the stars and the players we need to make a serious push at the top. This is a hard process to undertake given the chronic lack of leadership in the side from senior players (sans Junior and Green) and that our senior player few and of limited quality to allow these young players to learn and develop further.

In putting the list there are somethings that rectify themselves earlier than others. Areas that need to be improved as you pointed out are kick outs and movement of the ball in defence. MFC have recruited Strauss, Bail, Tapscott, Blease to be those players who can get and use the ball well. We remain exposed up back when we have Rivers, Bartram and Grimes (add Warnock) with the ball in their hands.

Clearances, inside 50s and intensity wont improve until our midfield evolves to a mature band of Scully, Jordie, Trengove, Gysberts, Grimes, Tapscott, Davey and Viney jnt from keen but limited efforts of Moloney and Jones.

I think supporters would find that if they spent a day in the AFL FD at any club just how little they actually know as compared to the "brains" trust in the box or in the dug out. Some of the problems seem bovious from the grandstand may sometimes be the outcome not the cause and the resolution of the issue is not at the click of the fingers. Some of the matters take time. Whether Bailey is granted that time we will know in the future.

[beelzebub 23,200]

Well put IWS

[nutbean 8,838]

I posted this over at 'ology

We talk about age and want to keep dismissing it but I think the interesting thing is not only age of our list but the age of where our real talent is and where are great hope lies .

We keep talking about average age of the list which is such a misleading figure. I love all the boys but am honest enough to know that all the excitement lies in our youth. The older players who we expect to lead the way are good but not good enough.

Here's a good comparison from last night - over 25 years old - Burgoyne, Hodge, Mitchell, Bateman, Osbourne, Lewis, Gibson, Sewell, Birchall.

Now compare our over 25 players and you can see our problem.

Add Franklin and Roughhead at 24 and it amplifies the problem.

And we talk about our desperation to get Scully, McKenzie and Morton back who are still kids.

The most bizarre aspect of all of this, is most of us know where our talent lies and are desperately looking for wins - the natural order of things is the mid to older players 24-30 is where you talent is - these guys won the Hawks the game last night - with their youth ably assisting. We are looking to our most talented players - mostly under 23, our youth, to get us wins, with our leaders assisting. It ain't the way of the world.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR - I have listened to the club messages, from fairly close. And I think you have too. You therefore know like I do that they (particularly Bailey) are actually unwilling to goal set or commit to any time frame. So yes, they have been selling the "grow with us/journey" message, but they are not willing to be judged against expectations at any point.

Where are they to be judged Choko? At a contrived and cynical post game press conference or on this site? And if you were to judge any coach against the expectations of supporters then Bailey is running about 3 years behind schedule by the sounds of some posts!!

The big issue to me is that we will have a whole lot of young players all growing up all at the same stage. That's not good list planning. It would be one thing if we thought 2012/2013 were the years, because we would still have Davey, Green, Sylvia, Moloney running around. But the big concern is that we will not be able to keep the list entirely together, there is a piecemeal forward line, we do not have a modern game plan (when do we ever lock the ball inside our forward 50) and the club continues to make poor decisions.

Some of the list issues were inherited when Bailey took over and had to do a big clean sweep of Neitz, Yze, White, Whelan and co. Trade away dead setters like Brock, TJ. Delist Miller and other players who werent going to make it Get rid of culture sores like Carroll.

We needed to inject quality talent into the list and to bring it to fruition together to have best shot of success. This talent was youg and needs time and development. If they are ultimately to seriously challenge then I think only Davey and Sylvia may be critical to that target I advised. If we are going to be successful then it rests on developing at 5 to 6 "stars" out Scully, Trengove, Gyberts, Watts, Jurrah, Frawley, Grimes and Viney junior.

FWIW, I am not sure where 2012/13 cam from but its a target that is optimistic and given where our list is even more so. I would be happy to have us leap frog that but time will tell. And if we dont retain Scully it would be more problematic.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Some great quotes in this thread:

In summary, 2011 is not about being middle-rung with Bruce; it is about being premiers in 2014-2015 with Tapscott! We just have to hang-in there everyone. Enjoy the highs; they'll come more often; and endure the lows.

Hawthorn showed the MFC how far we still have to climb from base camp.

Keep em coming!

[Choko 493]

Where are they to be judged Choko? At a contrived and cynical post game press conference or on this site? And if you were to judge any coach against the expectations of supporters then Bailey is running about 3 years behind schedule by the sounds of some posts!!

Some of the list issues were inherited when Bailey took over and had to do a big clean sweep of Neitz, Yze, White, Whelan and co. Trade away dead setters like Brock, TJ. Delist Miller and other players who werent going to make it Get rid of culture sores like Carroll.

We needed to inject quality talent into the list and to bring it to fruition together to have best shot of success. This talent was youg and needs time and development. If they are ultimately to seriously challenge then I think only Davey and Sylvia may be critical to that target I advised. If we are going to be successful then it rests on developing at 5 to 6 "stars" out Scully, Trengove, Gyberts, Watts, Jurrah, Frawley, Grimes and Viney junior.

FWIW, I am not sure where 2012/13 cam from but its a target that is optimistic and given where our list is even more so. I would be happy to have us leap frog that but time will tell. And if we dont retain Scully it would be more problematic.

RR - of course there are hysterical supporters after a loss like that. And Bailey's calm demeanour, to those people, only makes it worse. Of course some supporters think that because we match up well on Collingwood, we should be belting most teams most weeks. But I am not talking about the hysteria. I am talking about the club itself setting and communicating goals. There seems to be an enormous reluctance to do so, and I think it stems from self-preservation. The good clubs do not accept mediocrity. Essendon broke every rule in its quest to be better. It may not succeed, but they will die trying. Worsfold has staked his reputation and coaching career on significant improvement, as has Craig. Carlton has put the acid on Ratten. If we don't improve on last year, then the club has left itself with the wriggle room to say "We lost a lot of experience over the off season. Our young players need more time playing together. Then we will win more quarters and be competitive for longer." Whilst that is all true, we clearly should be improving (and we might yet do so!).

[dee-luded 2,959]

All of What you say makes good sense RR.

Our rositer is now 75% DB's selections, if he gets a longer term he will live or die by the current players.

To be honest I have no idea if he is a good coach

however if he is only average and his selection of players is not first rate then God helps us.

We have gone with him 100% if it is wrong the future is as dark as a black dog's guts!

He doesn't select the players the list management does, with the input of those around the footy dept who have watched those players. Bailey is but one of those making decisions.

[dee-luded 2,959]

RR - of course there are hysterical supporters after a loss like that. And Bailey's calm demeanour, to those people, only makes it worse. Of course some supporters think that because we match up well on Collingwood, we should be belting most teams most weeks. But I am not talking about the hysteria. I am talking about the club itself setting and communicating goals. There seems to be an enormous reluctance to do so, and I think it stems from self-preservation. The good clubs do not accept mediocrity. Essendon broke every rule in its quest to be better. It may not succeed, but they will die trying. Worsfold has staked his reputation and coaching career on significant improvement, as has Craig. Carlton has put the acid on Ratten. If we don't improve on last year, then the club has left itself with the wriggle room to say "We lost a lot of experience over the off season. Our young players need more time playing together. Then we will win more quarters and be competitive for longer." Whilst that is all true, we clearly should be improving (and we might yet do so!).

I agree 'choko', I thought the consensus was that we won't play that 'Young Card', this year. It doesn't matter that its true. We won't use it as an excuse.

The Answer is to make those kids accountable at the selection table.

[nutbean 8,838]

He doesn't select the players the list management does, with the input of those around the footy dept who have watched those players. Bailey is but one of those making decisions.

I think I disagree with this. I think that Bailey would make it clear exactly what he thinks we need and then the recruiters go out and get them.

I think it was Danners call to go and get hard bodies in the draft ( Sylvia/McLean) and I think it was Baileys decision after a draft of mids last year to go tall this year. It is then the recruiters job to present to DB the best options to fill that plan.

I think that BP would have said to DB that Cook was the best KPP available at our pick but I think that DB would have made the call that we want a KPP (forward) at first pick.

[Rogue 585]

Every single fan forum explodes after a bad loss and is far too exuberant after a good win.

No thread will change that.

(Of course, it doesn't mean you're wrong to try).

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

They'll figure it out on their own because they're superior players to their senior colleagues. This idea that young players need to be "taught" by senior players how to handle pressure is pure nonsense. The reason Scully, Trengove et al were so highly rated is because they've got balls in addition to their skills.

just had a flashback to about 5 years ago. The likes of White, Yze and Bruce were our senior group of regular underperformers in big games. The consolation posts read 'don't worry, we have a soft b-grade group right now, but the NEXT group, lead by Sylvia and McLean will be harder and play with more heart. So now we look to Scully and Trengove do we?

[The Chazz 4,077]

I posted this over at 'ology

We talk about age and want to keep dismissing it but I think the interesting thing is not only age of our list but the age of where our real talent is and where are great hope lies .

We keep talking about average age of the list which is such a misleading figure. I love all the boys but am honest enough to know that all the excitement lies in our youth. The older players who we expect to lead the way are good but not good enough.

Here's a good comparison from last night - over 25 years old - Burgoyne, Hodge, Mitchell, Bateman, Osbourne, Lewis, Gibson, Sewell, Birchall.

Now compare our over 25 players and you can see our problem.

Add Franklin and Roughhead at 24 and it amplifies the problem.

And we talk about our desperation to get Scully, McKenzie and Morton back who are still kids.

The most bizarre aspect of all of this, is most of us know where our talent lies and are desperately looking for wins - the natural order of things is the mid to older players 24-30 is where you talent is - these guys won the Hawks the game last night - with their youth ably assisting. We are looking to our most talented players - mostly under 23, our youth, to get us wins, with our leaders assisting. It ain't the way of the world.

Interesting post.

When Hawthorn won their flag, how old were those over 25's that you named? Add the other guys that were over 25 in that team too (ie Croad, Crawford). If we pick our best half dozen players or so, and when I say that, I mean players that could replace the ones listed above in the Hawks over 25's, how old are tehy and how long until they make an over 25's list?

We have a few guys currently in that early 20's group that come 2014, will be over 25. They are Bail, Bartram, Petterd, Dunn, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Jurrah, Martin, Sylvia, Aussie - not much midfield depth in this group compared to Hawthorn's. Out of this group, we we really need to have 3 or 4 that can step up and become an A-grader (not A+). So far, Grimes, Bail, Sylvia, Frawley and Jurrah may be them. At that stage, Scully, Trengove, Morton, Tapscott, Blease, Gysberts, Watts, they all have the potential to join that A-grade club (Scully will be A+), and will be around the 22-24 years old group. We need guys like Bennell, Jetta, and even Strauss to become very good players. I don't expect them to become A-graders, but if they can be consistently B+, that'll be fine.

In 2014, Davey will be 31, Green 33, Jamar 31, Moloney 30 and Rivers 30.

Based on that, we should be looking through that slightly opened window in 2014, but what an era it could be in the years after that.

The one big thing I would change between now and then - bring in a 2nd ruckman ASAP (damn the stupid interchange rule changing this year). I know Martin is doing well, but I'd still rather see him at FF (or FB to keep some happy in here!). My point - Jamar will be there in 2014, but if it takes a couple more years to get there, he wont be a premiership ruckman. We saw how long it took him to develop, and in that time he played a fair bit of senior footy. I don't think Martin will ever be our Number 1 ruck, so I think it's sooner rather than later that we invest some game time in to our "Premiership Ruckman".

Can we risk putting Gawn/Spencer at Full Forward to get games in to them now? Doing it now will mean by 2014 they will have 80-odd games of experience under their belt. keeping in mind, Jamar has played 90-something games to this year with injuries playing a part in his time. Look at Carlton, they played Kreuzer virtually in his first year, plus they have Hampson and Warnock both in their team now. Their window must be close to open.

Thoughts...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR - of course there are hysterical supporters after a loss like that. And Bailey's calm demeanour, to those people, only makes it worse.

Those people need to have a good lie down and bex or grow up or both.

Of course some supporters think that because we match up well on Collingwood, we should be belting most teams most weeks. But I am not talking about the hysteria. I am talking about the club itself setting and communicating goals. There seems to be an enormous reluctance to do so, and I think it stems from self-preservation.

Again this is just for the hysterical supporter. Every football coach knows how upnpredictable the future is. All the goals are set and worked on behind the scenes. The Club has been putting clear and repeated messages out on expectations. Whether people or hear them or not.

The good clubs do not accept mediocrity. Essendon broke every rule in its quest to be better. It may not succeed, but they will die trying. Worsfold has staked his reputation and coaching career on significant improvement, as has Craig. Carlton has put the acid on Ratten. If we don't improve on last year, then the club has left itself with the wriggle room to say "We lost a lot of experience over the off season. Our young players need more time playing together. Then we will win more quarters and be competitive for longer." Whilst that is all true, we clearly should be improving (and we might yet do so!).

Its great to know good clubs dont accept mediocrity. I just did not know Carlton, Essendon and WCE are good clubs. I would have thought they have both displayed sufficient dollops of mediocrity both on and off the field to shame the "not so good clubs".

And when you made the reference about Essendon's actions where do you think blatant tanking fits in that level of effort. Do you realise what the Club has sought to manufacture at MFC? You're under the assumption that our progress will upwards linear where that may not be the case. It certainly wasnt for Geelong. And as for Ratten, he has a list thats 2 years older than MFCs, taken a gilt edged star in Judd, purchased a big man in Warnock then taken the deicision to court then sack Fevola. Of course the acid is on them. Top 4 or else he has gone. Judd wont be there for ever.

And its great Worsfold has committed to "significant improvement". They were wooden spooners last year with a mature underperforming list. How low could they go??? And they have set the season off on a burner beating 2 combatants for the wooden spoon Port Adelaide and Brisbane. WoW!

Last year I heard all the Round 2 experts eulogising about what Brad Scott has done to North Melb and MFC should take a leaf out of their book. I am not sure now those same people are audible or they wont any leaves out of their book.

[Bonkers 988]

Bonkers,

This response is not to exonerate Bailey at all. And he and the FD need to be held accountable and responsible but preferrably not by the lynch mob mentality that tends to dominate and devalue this site after loss.

Three years ago, Bailey took over a list which had been valiant and serviceable but had completely burn out and lack leadership. Neitz, White, Yze, Robbo and others who had been front liners for years were finished. We also had players that had plateaued, sucked club resources or were just not good enough.

There has been a whole clean out of the list that commenced in 2008 with over 50% of the list having gone as the ageing warhorses retired, NQRs traded or delisted. In that time our performances and ladder finishes (and some great trades) have given us a bunch of talented yet inexperienced and underdeveloped kids. So when we hear that there have been all these faults for 3 years we need to remember such faults or similar have been with different personnel. There has been an evoluation of talent which is still going through the development.

From this talent we hope to uncover the stars and the players we need to make a serious push at the top. This is a hard process to undertake given the chronic lack of leadership in the side from senior players (sans Junior and Green) and that our senior player few and of limited quality to allow these young players to learn and develop further.

In putting the list there are somethings that rectify themselves earlier than others. Areas that need to be improved as you pointed out are kick outs and movement of the ball in defence. MFC have recruited Strauss, Bail, Tapscott, Blease to be those players who can get and use the ball well. We remain exposed up back when we have Rivers, Bartram and Grimes (add Warnock) with the ball in their hands.

Clearances, inside 50s and intensity wont improve until our midfield evolves to a mature band of Scully, Jordie, Trengove, Gysberts, Grimes, Tapscott, Davey and Viney jnt from keen but limited efforts of Moloney and Jones.

I think supporters would find that if they spent a day in the AFL FD at any club just how little they actually know as compared to the "brains" trust in the box or in the dug out. Some of the problems seem bovious from the grandstand may sometimes be the outcome not the cause and the resolution of the issue is not at the click of the fingers. Some of the matters take time. Whether Bailey is granted that time we will know in the future.

I agree with what you have stated in regards to the young players coming through. It's quite obvious that we are a developing side, there will be ups & downs in performance & I accept that is the case. Yesterday was a failure no matter how you look at it though, which is disappointing. Intense pressure was applied by the Hawks & the MFC players young & old completely folded. It was a stern test & the playing group as a whole failed pretty miserably. We laid down & didn't respond. Some of the teams failure has to be put down to not being prepared well enough to deal with certain match day scenarios & tactics. Whether they have been taught them I'm not aware its purely speculation, but being young isn't an excuse not to set up a zone for example. Setting up a zone from a kickout requires discipline & understanding your role in the team. Something that even the least talented footballer is still capable of doing. A lot of the things the team are getting shown up in aren't to do with talent, it's to do with being well drilled & disciplined.

There is a trend that we are not doing enough in between the two 50m arcs to win games. I'm not criticizing the playing group or FD just to be an angry member or to be part of the mob as you call it, I'm being critical because I know they are capable of so much more than what they served up yesterday. To be a strong club, we have to build a stronger culture. I believe 'strong culture' or similar words was one of the phrases used on the banner yesterday as the players ran out on to the ground, if the club are going to talk the talk they are going to have to start showing it through actions. As supporters & members of the club we shouldn't have to accept the level of performance that we saw yesterday(the second half more specifically), regardless of how good Hawthorn played.

If a Sydney Swans side coached by Paul Roos played the way we did yesterday serious questions would be asked internally & it wouldn't be tolerated. That is the level we have to aspire to as a footy club.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I agree with what you have stated in regards to the young players coming through. It's quite obvious that we are a developing side, there will be ups & downs in performance & I accept that is the case. Yesterday was a failure no matter how you look at it though, which is disappointing. Intense pressure was applied by the Hawks & the MFC players young & old completely folded. It was a stern test & the playing group as a whole failed pretty miserably. We laid down & didn't respond. Some of the teams failure has to be put down to not being prepared well enough to deal with certain match day scenarios & tactics. Whether they have been taught them I'm not aware its purely speculation, but being young isn't an excuse not to set up a zone for example. Setting up a zone from a kickout requires discipline & understanding your role in the team. Something that even the least talented footballer is still capable of doing. A lot of the things the team are getting shown up in aren't to do with talent, it's to do with being well drilled & disciplined.

There is a trend that we are not doing enough in between the two 50m arcs to win games. I'm not criticizing the playing group or FD just to be an angry member or to be part of the mob as you call it, I'm being critical because I know they are capable of so much more than what they served up yesterday. To be a strong club, we have to build a stronger culture. I believe 'strong culture' or similar words was one of the phrases used on the banner yesterday as the players ran out on to the ground, if the club are going to talk the talk they are going to have to start showing it through actions. As supporters & members of the club we shouldn't have to accept the level of performance that we saw yesterday(the second half more specifically), regardless of how good Hawthorn played.

If a Sydney Swans side coached by Paul Roos played the way we did yesterday serious questions would be asked internally & it wouldn't be tolerated. That is the level we have to aspire to as a footy club.

Do we know that it's not happening at our Club? Just because we don't publish it in the papers means that it's not happening? Do most of our supporters think that our entire Club accepts performances like that?

What's the options, drop 8 players for being pathetic, or make required changes and give the remainder a chance to redeem themselves? The former would be making a statement for the community to see, or is not dropping players stopping the community from seeing what statements have been made behind the scenes?