Jimmy puts the acid on ...

[rpfc 27,692]

A few things:

Well coached teams don't have 19 scores kicked against them in a quarter and nor do they have 63 points kicked in succession.

Senior players have been lambasted for their performance.

If it's reasonable to suggest that a coach is lauded for his team's good performances then it goes without saying that he partly carries the can for inept ones. Do ya follow ?

I don't know what has happened to you recently, but you have become unreadable at times...

Bailey cops all the flak, I want to know where Brad and Aaron and Jared and Colin and Nathan and Brent are when we go into our shells and get bullied into playing 'safe' football - I will tell you where they are - they are the ones going into their shells! Or letting their opposite number distract them.

And, if you think that Bailey is lauded for anything other than his input into list management then you are being disingenuous.

[demon3165 2,347]

Personally I can see both sides of the fence, Dean I think frustrates the media and supporters to certain extent by giving them nothing to run stories with, and Jimma coming out defuses the match that lights up the media.

I think a lot of supporters would like Dean to show some emotion either on the bench in the box or in the media but they have an agenda to which they will not deviate from come hell or high water and in the end the FD will be judged by it, so I guess we will just have to go along for the ride.

[Daemn 2]

completely agree with Mike Sheahan - while stating the obvious - nobody loses as badly or as meakly as we do - Sunday's second half ws pathetic - and yes - DB carries ultimate responsibility - no mid field structure, no ability to break the zone from defence, just kick & hope - too much mollycoddling, not enough expectation. Off the field the ship has been righted - it's up to DB to deliver.

I second that. And the old rah, rah let's try harder trick not going to cut it. I think the guys were trying Sunday, just game plan, just game plan a miss.

[Red Sox 2]

Rhino and Snoopy have both posted excellent views and analysis over the last day or so and much of what they say succinctly explains why our expectations should be tempered. Their statistical facts are compelling. But I don't lose sight of the fact that footy isn't played on a whiteboard with a calculator in hand.

I'm sick of aplogising for soft and lazy performances from senior players. I'm sick of watching players that don't like getting their hands dirty. I'm sick of a coach that incessantly talks of "winning more quarters". I'm sick of the fact that we have more inside 50's against us than any other team and have less forward 50 entries than any other team. I'm sick of a coach that has no strategy that is capable of stopping momentum. I'm sick of a team that loses its structure so badly in the face of a 'run on' that the tactics employed help keep the ball in the opposition's forward 50.

I appreciate that games of footy are won in the midfield, always have been and always will, and that we have no midfield stars, but I don't appreciate players that have no appetite for the contest. The reality is that our team looks like one of the worst drilled teams in the AFL. It's one thing to focus more on player development than gameday strategy, as per Todd Viney's recent article, because we're mindful of our youthful list, but what sort of player development is gained from humiliating team performances ? With the advent of zones, presses, run and spread, and the guarding of space it seems to have escaped Bailey that the best teams still value 'man on man' footy. The defensive aspect of our play is pitiful.

The reality is that until Scully, Trengove, McKenzie, and Gysbert have 60-80 games under their belt we're going to have days where we really struggle against the better teams. No ground breaking news there. But there's struggling and there's being inept/uncompetitive. I can accept the former, but not the latter.

It's Bailey's 4th year and there's still no irrefutable evidence that he can counter the opposition's gameplan. Gerard Healy raised valid concerns about Bailey's coaching in a recent article.

Well said.

[Hannabal 4]

However i would go as far to say H that Bailey is hardly ever praised for any of the teams good performances (by Demonlanders or the press), but is one of the first to be blamed for a bad one. Do ya follow?

He's been praised for clearing plenty of dead wood over the last 3 years. In fact, I recall saying that off field he has hardly put a foot wrong.

However on field he has virtually no runs on the board. He'll get praise when it's deserved. Right now his team is disorganised and poorly drilled. For that he takes the credit.

[jayceebee31 692]

That's reasonable to suggest H. But it doesn't excuse the capitulation that took place on field in 20 mins of play. That's when player(s) or leaders can have an influence and halt a roll on. Or make a statement. Or fight. A coach could bark the instructions to the runner to flood or change positions, but it's the leaders who should lead by example in that situation to alter the play; be creative. All shoulders dropped, no one stepped up and gave a yelp.

Please HT - watch what you are saying- RR will get you and warn you forblaming the coaches.However you are accurate imo.

[Hannabal 4]

I don't know what has happened to you recently, but you have become unreadable at times...

Bailey cops all the flak, I want to know where Brad and Aaron and Jared and Colin and Nathan and Brent are when we go into our shells and get bullied into playing 'safe' football - I will tell you where they are - they are the ones going into their shells! Or letting their opposite number distract them.

And, if you think that Bailey is lauded for anything other than his input into list management then you are being disingenuous.

It's not the first time you've plagiarised me. And you speak of disingenuity ?

As far as under-performing players go, I've spent more time on here decrying the efforts of players than most - well before your time. No-one has mentioned our lack of stars more than me and no-one has graded our players more harshly than me, so save your breath for those that need it. Where were you when I lambasted the footy dept five years ago for rewarding Davey with a third in the B&F when he didn't put his body on the line and wouldn't front on tackle ? As I said, save your breath. Daniher set a terrible example for the rest of the playing group with those rewards.

Even a dullard knows that Bailey doesn't deserve praise for our on-field exploit. Noticeably, yet understandably, you don't answer any of my points. Coaches receive the accolades when their teams perform, so it's only reasonable that the reverse applies in the midst of a disorganised and poorly drilled rabble.

Well drilled and coached teams don't concede 19 effective scoring shots in one quarter and 75 inside 50's to 35 - amidst a continued deplorable trend in that regard. When will you consider that this side is tactically inept ?

[beelzebub 22,762]

All in all you sometimes wonder if the team showed as much passion and verve, as much disregard for the other man and as much grit in owning the pill as we do any subject of thread then we'd have the greatest team of all !!!

[Range Rover 1,935]

All in all you sometimes wonder if the team showed as much passion and verve, as much disregard for the other man and as much grit in owning the pill as we do any subject of thread then we'd have the greatest team of all !!!

Was going to say the exact same thing Bezelbub.

It's actually quite heartening to know that there are a lot of passionate Demons out there who take these matters to heart, whatever their opinions might be.

[Sir Why You Little 35,357]

Was going to say the exact same thing Bezelbub.

It's actually quite heartening to know that there are a lot of passionate Demons out there who take these matters to heart, whatever their opinions might be.

Bloody Oath...We all love this club, and we all want it to succeed-Not just survive.

[rpfc 27,692]

Noticeably, yet understandably, you don't answer any of my points.

I'm sorry. I thought you were being dismissive and rhetorical and would prefer I didn't. I'll address all your points from here on.

It's not the first time you've plagiarised me. And you speak of disingenuity ?

Oh, I'd love to hear of what else I have stolen off you...

And I was trying to be satirically ironic; only the most egotistical would claim plagiarism.

As far as under-performing players go, I've spent more time on here decrying the efforts of players than most - well before your time. No-one has mentioned our lack of stars more than me and no-one has graded our players more harshly than me, so save your breath for those that need it. Where were you when I lambasted the footy dept five years ago for rewarding Davey with a third in the B&F when he didn't put his body on the line and wouldn't front on tackle ? As I said, save your breath. Daniher set a terrible example for the rest of the playing group with those rewards.

Yes, yes, you have been anal about the performances of Aaron Davey.

Check.

And we all remember the rants about Daniher.

Check.

Moving into the modern day...

Even a dullard knows that Bailey doesn't deserve praise for our on-field exploit.

Coaches receive the accolades when their teams perform, so it's only reasonable that the reverse applies in the midst of a disorganised and poorly drilled rabble.

Of course, but for patches in 08 and 09 and for a great deal of 2010 I saw a very bold, exciting gameplan that was well executed. In the midst of that were some pathetic performances. All involved are responsible but, as you intimated you agree with, Melbourne supporters are too forgiving of the players that shirk contests, don't run hard enough, and collapse into a shell of their own shattered confidence.

I am not letting Bailey off the hook, but I think you know that...

Well drilled and coached teams don't concede 19 effective scoring shots in one quarter and 75 inside 50's to 35 - amidst a continued deplorable trend in that regard. When will you consider that this side is tactically inept ?

I want to see some evidence of the "continued deplorable trend" of doom that you can divine...

Our progress has been slow but evident.

We are in trouble in the midfield - I know it, you know it, Scotty West presumably should know it...

Such a pathetic display in a quarter has plenty of blame to share around - the players don't get enough.

And our mid-age range players are soft, lazy, or plain not good enough, which you have posted for years. So we wait for real leaders to emerge.

And hopefully, we can divine whether Bailey is a decent coach when he has a decent set of players running around for him, and don't go to water against good teams so easily.

[Sir Why You Little 35,357]

I'm sorry. I thought you were being dismissive and rhetorical and would prefer I didn't. I'll address all your points from here on...

I think that is 15-Love with an ACE rpfc.

awaiting H's return....

Edited April 5, 2011 by Nasher
Removed mammoth quote

[beelzebub 22,762]

Actually I'd disagree about seeing the true colours or ability of a coach when he has that "decent" set of players to contest with. Like the situation with the Aussie test team of some years back. Full of talent, disgustingly so the team all but played by itself. It hardly needed a captain . Then the team lost it's gloss and needed true leadership and direction and fell in a heap. The test is when you DONT have that ideal set Of players but instead have to be savvy and clever with what you DO have. When our talent blooms it will gel naturally and you'll have a team like the Lions did, like West Coast Did have etc . It will play great footy because they simply have it in them. The coach will all but go along for the ride.

The true litmus is when you don't have that perfect set, or a set not quite mature enough but you still have to play the play. That's when game-mouse comes out, thats when a team is truly 'coached'

We're waiting !

[rpfc 27,692]

Actually I'd disagree about seeing the true colours or ability of a coach when he has that "decent" set of players to contest with. Like the situation with the Aussie test team of some years back. Full of talent, disgustingly so the team all but played by itself. It hardly needed a captain . Then the team lost it's gloss and needed true leadership and direction and fell in a heap. The test is when you DONT have that ideal set Of players but instead have to be savvy and clever with what you DO have. When our talent blooms it will gel naturally and you'll have a team like the Lions did, like West Coast Did have etc . It will play great footy because they simply have it in them. The coach will all but go along for the ride.

The true litmus is when you don't have that perfect set, or a set not quite mature enough but you still have to play the play. That's when game-mouse comes out, thats when a team is truly 'coached'

We're waiting !

I say flag winning sides are moulded by coaches/FDs over a long period of time.

Collingwood had a decade of Malthouse before he got them there.

I was about to say Ross Lyon... Still applies.

Thompson is well known case.

I would say that, sure, good coaches can improve adequate sides, but flag winning coaches mould a list to play the way they want them to.

Personnel to suit the plan not a plan to suit the personnel.

[Ned 156]

Sorry Rhino, it's complete dross to say that Stynes is engaging in 'media management'.

Just gave a straight answer to a straight question about what he saw on the weekend.

Probably what the coach should have done as well.

Exactly right. The newspapers got stuck into the Demons this morning and every media outlet was then on the phone to Melbourne for a reaction. Hence the Stynes press conference. And he was either going to reject what was written or accept it had validity. Media 101.

[e25 5]

Media management for certain.

I amazed at how ignorant some people can be on this...