Illogical ? why is it Illogical ??

The number of games won under Bailey are woeful

We have all been told we have to understand we are rebuilding

Question is how much rebuilding do we need?

Using the Logic of a rebuild then surely it is time to continue the rebuild with a new coach

I find people who are appologists for Bailey the most illogical people of all.

Pls dont fall into that trap weigh up the facts, they no longer support Bailey, hes had his chance and his blown it,

As seen by his comments at half time when he said there is still 60minutes of football left and he infered it didnt matter what had happened up till then.

Bailey's immediate role at half time was to improve the performance of our players in the second half. Of course that's what he should be focusing on. We were only 26 points down at that stage too, so we were still in a position where we could win.

We still are developing players. Otherwise we'd have players like McDonald and Bate in the side. Or we would have traded a draft pick last year to pick up a more mature player. I'm happy for Bailey to continue developing players in priority to winning games.

It may be frustrating (and performances like last night truly are) but I don't want a result like that to cause kneejerk reaction which makes him feel like he has to put player development on hold while he brings in the big bodies (who will not play in an MFC premiership) and coaches for his job.

Yeah, but why are we kicking to a 2 on 1 with Dean Cox then? Why is that the ONLY option? You spread so you have 6-8 options within kicking range instead of one which is a 2-on-1 with the opposing ruckman.

It was West Coast who intentionally kicked to their own static men. Thatt's one way to move through the zone.

It was West Coast who intentionally kicked to their own static men. Thatt's one way to move through the zone.

Yes, which says a lot about how good our zoning is that they can do the same thing and get away with it.

Yes But Not The General. i don't like it.

Plenty of other sides do it without playing poor footy so there's nothing inherently bad in having the head Coach on the boundary.

Thus, I reckon it's a bit opportunistic to use the shellacking to attack the sideline coaching.

I didn't realise we had a game plan...

and I didn't realise we had any coaches, either on the boundary or up in the stands

One thing which has become clearly evident this year is Bailey's lack of a plan B!! Sorry, he has got a Plan B it's Called B.O.H.I.C.A = Bend Over Here It Comes Again!!! Like others have said, we don't know how to slow down and kick to a leading target and stiffle West Coasts pressure. We Over used the corridor to the point that our boys can't kick to a target on the boundry. I saw this too many times last year, and we will continue to get undone by not adapting to any given situation or pressure. It's time for Bailey to get off the pot, he's doing more harm than good now. Our list will no longer develop but probably go backwards! We need a coach that has a proven record in developing young talent.

Does any one else think Roo's comments on our list and game plan is indicative of his interest in the Job or just his own general opinion?

Dean Bailey is where the buck stops. He must stand up and say "these fellas are under my direction nad playing poorly". I have been a fan of his since his appointment but even I am now questioning his longevity as our coach. Our game plan (transition from half-back) is being picked off by all opposing teams, even the poor old lions. Under his watch our team has been robbed of intensity and ticker.

Skills can be blamed on young men and injuries.

Tackling and "press" can be explained by young men trying to get used to the rigours of modern defensive footy.

Leadership not leading is because we have only a couple of genuine leaders.

But Dean Bailey MUST be accountable for:

Our game plan, and especially our kick-ins from the opposition behinds are an absolute weakness, and by that I mean our plan here has no strengths. None.

Our absence of grit, grunt and ticker.

.

bailey needs a rocket under him to get goin

sick of excuses of goin back to basics or hawks were great - stand up man its been 3 years

Yes, which says a lot about how good our zoning is that they can do the same thing and get away with it.

It's a tactic to beat the zone. Obviously the zone only has one man guarding a bit of space, otherwise it would be a soft zone. Perhaps we need to change our zone to include another player down the line. But do we have enough players of size who can run to cover that tactic when the play is switched to the opposite wing?

No, because Jamar is the only player of size we have. We need to wait until we get the likes of Cook and Howe into the side, and let Watts progress.

They have Cox, Kennedy, Darling and, last night, Ebert who were all strong enough to block and mark that kick last night. We had Jamar ......

I agree i am sick of Baileys cop outs. He says all that Bull$hit every single time we get flogged or put in an insipid performances and its not like he hasnt had enough time or opportunities to rectify that over the last 3 years. Our starts continue to be appaling. I am sooo angry today, i am dreading going to work soon and bailey just gets on my nerves.

Week after week Bailey comes up with the same old rubbish. By now I think us members and supporters are just over this, where are the results??

Petition from the facebook page

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sack-dean-bailey.html

DS, not having a go or anything, but did you watch the game last night?

Alot of people are calling for Bailey to stand down or for the MFC to sack him. While I sit on the fence regarding this, I see where he is coming from with the "back to basics" call.

Last night the skills of the players left alot to be answered.

These are BASIC football skills:

Kicking - Not only could we not hit a target from 15m away, we could not even keep the ball inside the boundry. Some of the out on the fulls went 5 rows back into the crowd. Our kicking out needs a full overhaul. Jamming the ball on the boot out of back and straight to WC players. Bombing the ball long to packs, without even trying to set up a play.

Tackling - WC had a field day with casually strolling through and around Melb players. How many times did a WC player break through or around 2 Melb players.

Manning up - At stages through the game it looked like WC had double the players on the ground. They found to much space to run around in. It made us look completely silly.

Handballing - Same as kicking except easier. We couldn't even hit a target 5 metre's away, and when we did, the recieving player was under to much pressure.

Running - SYLVIA, it's left, then right and then left again.

Supporters are talking about gameplans, and while I agree, The players need to show me the basic set of skills to play a game of football at AFL level.

All players have basic skills - otherwise they wouldn't have been recruited in the first place. The poor errors result from a lack of plan, nobody knows what the other players are doing. The only basics that Bailey should be concentrating on are coaching basics.

Dean Bailey is where the buck stops. He must stand up and say "these fellas are under my direction nad playing poorly". I have been a fan of his since his appointment but even I am now questioning his longevity as our coach. Our game plan (transition from half-back) is being picked off by all opposing teams, even the poor old lions. Under his watch our team has been robbed of intensity and ticker.

Skills can be blamed on young men and injuries.

Tackling and "press" can be explained by young men trying to get used to the rigours of modern defensive footy.

Leadership not leading is because we have only a couple of genuine leaders.

But Dean Bailey MUST be accountable for:

Our game plan, and especially our kick-ins from the opposition behinds are an absolute weakness, and by that I mean our plan here has no strengths. None.

Our absence of grit, grunt and ticker.

.

Finally, after all this over-emotive garb, a balanced view.

Petition from the facebook page

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sack-dean-bailey.html

No thanks, I think there may be some better qualified people to decide Dean's fate.

What he has done is achieve a coaching record of 17-52.

Rebuild or not, that is pathetic.

And for some reason the club and supporters have been lulled into believing that a rebuild makes losses and floggings acceptable!

They aren't!

Bailey has flown under the rebuild radar for far too long.

A change is needed.

Priority 1 - Malthouse

Priority 2 - Roos

The club administration has moved mountains over the past few years to right the ship and has allowed for a stable environment for the FD in which to operate and do their job.

The numbers don't lie.

Bingo!

We were fooled into thinking that draft picks would equal success but i knew it wasnt the case. The honeymoon is absolutely over Bailey and co.

Dean Bailey is where the buck stops. He must stand up and say "these fellas are under my direction nad playing poorly". I have been a fan of his since his appointment but even I am now questioning his longevity as our coach. Our game plan (transition from half-back) is being picked off by all opposing teams, even the poor old lions. Under his watch our team has been robbed of intensity and ticker.

Skills can be blamed on young men and injuries.

Tackling and "press" can be explained by young men trying to get used to the rigours of modern defensive footy.

Leadership not leading is because we have only a couple of genuine leaders.

But Dean Bailey MUST be accountable for:

Our game plan, and especially our kick-ins from the opposition behinds are an absolute weakness, and by that I mean our plan here has no strengths. None.

Our absence of grit, grunt and ticker.

.

Well said - we are rudderless - and why the endless focus on transitioning from halfback - why can't we win first use and set up from midfield ! Wow ! we might even see a game where we weren't 5 goals behind at quarter time !

Well said - we are rudderless - and why the endless focus on transitioning from halfback - why can't we win first use and set up from midfield ! Wow ! we might even see a game where we weren't 5 goals behind at quarter time !

Good points Weedster.

I have never understood why Mclean left so suddenly after he looked like he would die for the Dees.

Perhaps he worked out DB's game plan and bolted in horror.

People who think things are bad now have some respect for the good that he has done, if not for Bailey Simon Godfrey would still be running around... He had the balls to make some calls on many Melbourne players, to date I think he has done a great job in getting together a list that might have some potential... Is he the man for the job going forward, im not so confident. He can set all the game plans he like when your senior players are not prepared to work and run hard your not going to win that doesnt matter what level or team you play for!

It's a tactic to beat the zone. Obviously the zone only has one man guarding a bit of space, otherwise it would be a soft zone. Perhaps we need to change our zone to include another player down the line. But do we have enough players of size who can run to cover that tactic when the play is switched to the opposite wing?

No, because Jamar is the only player of size we have. We need to wait until we get the likes of Cook and Howe into the side, and let Watts progress.

They have Cox, Kennedy, Darling and, last night, Ebert who were all strong enough to block and mark that kick last night. We had Jamar ......

Poor argument.

Cox Kennedy, Darling and Ebert vs Jamar, Martin, Watts and Sylvia seems to be a close match up? (Could of also put Jurrah, Grren, Tregove as the Ebert equivilent)

The Ebert part isn't the difference. The difference is in the Kennedy, Darling part. Martin is not great overhead, Watts doesn't have the body size, nor does Jurrah. Martin didn't play that role, either (and if you add him the you add Naitanui).

I also don't think the comparison is fair between those groups because we only had one genuine mature bodied tall. They had 3.

I don't think we used that tactic well yesterday, but rather we gave it to Jamar one out. It could well be a tactical thing that we didn't do very well or perhaps we were trying to do something else. It's very hard to tell when you are watching it on TV.

The Ebert part isn't the difference. The difference is in the Kennedy, Darling part. Martin is not great overhead, Watts doesn't have the body size, nor does Jurrah. Martin didn't play that role, either (and if you add him the you add Naitanui).

I also don't think the comparison is fair between those groups because we only had one genuine mature bodied tall. They had 3.

I don't think we used that tactic well yesterday, but rather we gave it to Jamar one out. It could well be a tactical thing that we didn't do very well or perhaps we were trying to do something else. It's very hard to tell when you are watching it on TV.

You were the one that included Ebert? And we have several players bigger than him.

You are struggling with this. Watts now as a third year player is as physically developed as Darling, and he played like it last night. Martin is physically bigger than Kennedy.

So the argument that you put forward is incorrect.

Roos: if you want to be taken seriously stop calling for the recruitment of Roos - he's always made it clear that one stint at coaching the swans was it for him. HE WILL NOT COACH!

Now Malthouse - that's another matter! I believe Malthouse has heard about the odd tactic of picking up opposition players, so maybe he may have more of an idea.

I was actually a fan of the Bailey plan until last night showed all the faults clearly.

The Ebert bit was the comparison with Sylvia. Sylvia and Ebert is a reasonable comparison, although they were used differently. Darling is more powerfully built that Watts, but this isn't really the point.

The point is that we bombed to Jamar, who was double teamed and shepherded out of the contest. To the contrary, WC kicked to a double team on a member of our zone.

They did it better, but I also think they had the cattle to do it better. I asked if we needed to change things to counter this.

The Ebert bit was the comparison with Sylvia. Sylvia and Ebert is a reasonable comparison, although they were used differently. Darling is more powerfully built that Watts, but this isn't really the point.

The point is that we bombed to Jamar, who was double teamed and shepherded out of the contest. To the contrary, WC kicked to a double team on a member of our zone.

They did it better, but I also think they had the cattle to do it better. I asked if we needed to change things to counter this.

I seemed to me that your point was, they had the big bodied players that allowed them to employ that tactic, and Melbourne did not have the same sort of players, so were not able to employ the same tactic, so it is not the coaches fault. You gave the names of the four players that allowed them to do this, I gave examples of four similar Melbourne players that could of been used for the same tactic. You then changed your argument a few times.