Week in week out this year on On The Couch Paul Roos has given some fantstic insights into the way we are playing, as well as the other teams. He's still a fantastic analyser of the way footy is played nowadays with all of the 'presses' etc.

Would be more than happy if he were to join us next year.

And if some people on here were so confident last week, and indeed last year, that we'd be beaten by the Eagles, how is it they finished stone cold motherless last in '10?

Same reason I gave up reading the friday paper a few years ago .

Got sick of our various leaders stating we let ourselves down , gonna redeem themselves , earn back respect Blah , blah , blah .

Then theyed dish up the same tripe on gameday .

We are forever redeeming ourselves and regaining lost respect.

Had it up to Funkcig here with it . We had our arzes handed to us against the Dawks and what did we get ?We'll make amends against Brisbane . Fell over that line .

GC next and the most uninspiring 90pt win I've ever witnessed .

Here we are another game later and we're back to redeeming ourselves , it's a never ending circle of BS .

As Pagan used to say , "Just show me the baby."

Couldn't agree more!

Actions speak far louder than words..................and I'm tired of the standard rhetoric rolled out every time we are embarassed.

It's like being beaten up by the media, and having the weight of the football world on their shoulders is the trigger for the players to turn up and play, and it's as though this has become part of the culture of the playing group!

Week in week out this year on On The Couch Paul Roos has given some fantstic insights into the way we are playing, as well as the other teams. He's still a fantastic analyser of the way footy is played nowadays with all of the 'presses' etc.

Would be more than happy if he were to join us next year.

And if some people on here were so confident last week, and indeed last year, that we'd be beaten by the Eagles, how is it they finished stone cold motherless last in '10?

We all know what has to happen when the going gets tough.

Over the course of this year I have to the dismay of those around me been a critic of Sylvia who i think is not living up to his elite potential.

The clear message over the week has been a number of our players are likewise falling short.

Roos talked about it on the couch last night and its in the HUN this week.

I think the whole Perth trip had a holiday camp feel to it.

Whether Bailey is to blame or not its clear several players have to stand up and play with greater conviction.

Each of them has been a great contributor to the club in one way or other but at the end of the day they need to put it all on the park.

Sylvia: could win a brownlow but is coasting. Yes plenty of touches but could be as good as Swan. More talent than Moloney but less impact at the moment.

Davey: number one challenge is to find a way of losing his tag, make his footy fun and to run more with the ball. Come on Flash we all love the way you can play.

Green: Best leader and kick for goal last year and there is absolutely no reason he cant do it again.

Frawley: Needs to back himself more the way he did last year.

Morton: Playing at about 50% of his potential.

The whole list needs to toughen up and slam the tackles.

I'd like to see everyone putting in the way Trengove, Watts and Tappy did last week.

My take:

Garry Lyon doesn't rate Bailey. He came armed with damning ammunition as to how we're playing by showing embarrassing statistics. He wouldn't endorse the coach when asked, but instead said "we'll know in the next 6-8 weeks". He also said that Bailey is in the "perfect position" (emphasised) in that he can redress the imbalance and ensure his own survival with on-field performances. It smacked to me as someone saying the ball is in your court Dean, hit the winner.

Lyon has also recently queried the game plan calling it "high risk high reward", as opposed to West Coast being "well organised and structured".

Lyon knows that every footy person is keen to hear his views about the club he once captained. My gut feel is that he doesn't overly rate the coach and I'd be surprised if some inside the club don't share those concerns.

Snoopy has made some valid points, but I want to know why we've been caught off guard over the preseason by the forward press and why many players are simply not having a crack. Our defensive game plan is almost non existent.

I made a thread a while back titled "top 6", which explained that a club's fortunes and ladder position is usually mirrored by the quality of their top 6. That thread supports the Snoopster, as our top 6 are playing poorly and are yet to reach consistent A grade status. Top 6 players of last year are for varying reasons playing poorly. Frawley, Green, Davey, Jamar, Sylvia, and Moloney. Frawley has an excuse, Jamar has been OK, but the rest are lamentable. Some will say that Moloney could have 3 BOGS, but I consider him a flat track bully and ordinary against decent opposition.

So yes, there are reasons which partly explain why we're so poor; and it's not all laid at the feet of Bailey, but I'm firmly of the view that Bailey isn't the coach able to bring everything together to take this group forward.

I tend to agree with most things you say. It's about winning premierships, nothing else matters. We have stagnated and you can blame the coach/s, the players, the FD or a combination of all 3. My take on it is that we have not (given the opportunities we have been dealt), recruited as well as we could have.

I know everything is easy in hindsight, however the facts are, some other teams have recruited better than us over the last 10 years. Given early draft selections none of our players are A Graders. From 2001 with Luke Molan, 2002 with Daniel Bell and Nick Smith, 2003 Sylvia and McLean, 2004 Bate and Dunn we have had more misses that hits with our recruiting.

Grimes, Scully, Watts, Trengove, Frawley and Jurrah may well be good selections, and we have yet to see Blease take the field in an AFL game. We had/have high hopes with Strauss, Maric, Bennell Jetta and so forth. The jury is out but the verdict is not looking good for some of these players.

We then have the never-ending development players, Spencer, Martin, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Cook, Tom McDonald and Davis.

I like the look of McDonald and Cook. Don't like Spencer. Chris Connolly loves Fitzpatrick, don't know why. Martin shows something but does not impose himself enough and maybe never will. Gawn has been o/k at Casey but would get monstered at AFL. Needs another couple of years maturity and development.

By the time some of these kids develop thay will be eligible for Free-Agency.

It's all been said before by other posters about our lack of size, maturity and mongrel. If an AFL game is a war zone our team is usually the first to retreat. Maybe we just don't have good enough players. I personally think this to be the case.

We don't have a balanced team with strong KP players. Our light framed players simply cannot impose themselves and go missing for large periods. Too much is left to too few. Morton loves the fat side of the ground so much I wish he would eat it. Anyway enough said, I did't won't this to be a rant.

Pressure will be put on the FD at the end of the year because the only players out of contract (from Bigfooty) are Gawn, Wonaeamirri,Maric, Sylvia, Morton, Fitzpatrick, Martin and Scully. If Scully stays 3 others minimum have to be delisted. I think it's poor list management to have so few players coming out of contract. Maric, Wona and Martin will be in the gun even though they are still developing.

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Theo

I made a thread a while back titled "top 6", which explained that a club's fortunes and ladder position is usually mirrored by the quality of their top 6. That thread supports the Snoopster, as our top 6 are playing poorly and are yet to reach consistent A grade status. Top 6 players of last year are for varying reasons playing poorly. Frawley, Green, Davey, Jamar, Sylvia, and Moloney. Frawley has an excuse, Jamar has been OK, but the rest are lamentable. Some will say that Moloney could have 3 BOGS, but I consider him a flat track bully and ordinary against decent opposition.

Disagree, i think you will find the strongest teams performance is often mirrored to the strength of their bottom 6 players, ie. DEPTH

Collingwood are so often labeled as an EVEN team in that who are their bottom six do they have a "bottom six"? they have a bottom 10-12 who are all good players

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Nasher
If you're going to go to the effort of bolding the bit of the quote you're interested in, why not delete the rest out? (Done it for you)

The major contributors to us being no 1 in tackles this time last year are none other than McKenzie and Junior.

No coincidence that when you take our top two tacklers out of the team that stat MAY fall away.

I say MAY because as a coach you impress this KPI on the team at the start of the season and say "last season we were number one in tackles and we want to be the same season. (then state the obvious) Our best two tacklers arent playing so who is going to step up ?"

Good teams have players to fill the breach. Good teams have players who step up - we aren't good.

Herald suns article today states this plus Scully, out top 4 for tackles last year jordie, mcdonald, moloney and scully, only one has played this season.... effectively costing us 15+ tackles a game, when players like jones and sylvia dont tackle.....

Herald suns article today states this plus Scully, out top 4 for tackles last year jordie, mcdonald, moloney and scully, only one has played this season.... effectively costing us 15+ tackles a game, when players like jones and sylvia dont tackle.....

Interestingly, Sylvia's tackle count was equal highest (7) on Thur night.

According to prowess sports he averages 6.2 and has laid 32 in 2011.

On tackling though, I am constantly frustrated with what can only be referred to as our half-assed tackling.

I keep telling myself that this will improve as our kids gets bigger, but this one-handed, token crap that we see every week needs addressing now.

I suppose that's what DB is referring to with back to basics...

That neither Tackling nor disposals are every qualified butr simply quantified really questions their relevance. However I suppose its better to have more tackles rather than less.

It bemuses me ( in reality ,sickens me ) to understand that without certain players on field others cant fill the breach. These are basic football skills. Even when a lot of the game isnt going your way youre suppose to fall back on these basics; run, tackle, harass etc if anything more so than if youre winning. But we dont.., apparently no one knows how

Artie

I too tipped West Coast and expected them to win on Thursday night.

What I didn't tip and what I didn't expect was that performance. Make no mistake, in the first quarter we had absolutely no idea how to get the ball out of defence. We froze like deer caught in the headlights. We were aimless and structureless. Our intensity and defensive work rate were at disgracefully low levels. I could go on and on and it has all been said in the last few days, but it was without doubt as embarrassing a quarter as you would see at this level (GC excluded). The rest of the game wasn't much better.

How you can justify this performance as simply one which was expected is baffling. Neither the coaches or the players would be so accomodating towards that performance.

Having said that, I'm not in the "sack Bailey" camp. His initial job was to prune the list and inject talented youth into the side. Let's not forget the lengths he went to to help us get the priority pick in 2009 - his toughness in refusing to buckle from reaching that goal was admirable.

In 2010 it became about developing the new list of youngsters and on the whole we achieved that last year. We won 8.5 games, played some really exciting footy, got game time and development into young players and importantly improved in key areas (such as points conceded and other defensive aspects).

2011 for me was always another development year, but given a good run with injury (which we currently have) the expectation was that we should improve on last year's win tally (especially given our easy draw) and show further improvement, further develop the young players and improve further in the key areas. I'm actually less concerned with the win tally than the other aspects (development and individual / team improvement).

It is clear that after 1/4 of the season, we have not had the individual / team improvement that we were expecting. But to go from "we are on par in our development" at the end of 2010 to "sack Bailey" only five games into the new season is just reacting far too quickly in my opinion. The goal was to improve and develop further in 2011 and this should be judged in the context of a season, rather than five games. So while I'm deeply disappointed by what we've shown, it is too soon to react as things can change very quickly in footy (just see Rounds 1 and 2 last year as a perfect example of how the outlook can change so quickly).

Bailey knows he is under pressure and rightly so, our performances so far have been very poor and he and the players will need to improve markedly in the remainder of the season to reach our goal for the year. Tactically and structurally we look all over the place at the moment, but things can change quickly and let's hope they do (in Bailey's case, they need to otherwise he'll be in trouble).

As a side matter (but related), our starts have been clear proof of our structure and ball movement issues at the moment. People have said that our bad starts are due to not bringing the right intensity or Bailey not 'firing up' the players pre game. Yes we have lacked intensity at the start for some reason but I don't think that's the main cause.

In the first 10 minutes of games, the pressure and intensity from the opposition is typically at its greatest. Teams are fresh and hungry to apply fierce defensive pressure. And that's where our game plan falls down. We cannot get the ball out of defence. We don't know whether to handball it through the press or kick over it. When we handball it we turn it over, and when we kick it it goes to a 4 on 1 contest as our forwards have all pushed up the ground. The only way we look capable of getting it forward in such high pressure is through a centre clearance win, but we are ranking low in clearances as well at the moment.

What this shows is that there's currently a flaw in either our plan or our execution of the plan. The Hawthorn game we couldn't get it out of our back 50 in the first 10 minutes. Same for the West Coast game. Even against the Suns, a team whose pressure was not even half the level exerted by the likes of the Hawks and Eagles, we turned the ball over four or five times in the first 10 minutes, struggled to get it out of defence and the Suns were leading the match at that stage.

It is critical for Bailey for us to improve in this area. We need to start well and to get our structures right. He has the time to achieve this and hopefully we see improvement in this area in the coming weeks.

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Scoop Junior

Herald suns article today states this plus Scully, out top 4 for tackles last year jordie, mcdonald, moloney and scully, only one has played this season.... effectively costing us 15+ tackles a game, when players like jones and sylvia dont tackle.....

I must be a mind reader - didnt read that article.

So with our top 3 tacklers out - it means that coaching department would point out "our top 3 tacklers are out - others have got to step up" - it shouldnt cost us 15 tackles a game - it should mean that others pick up the slack ( maybe not to the same extent - but we should have not gone from first to last) thats what happens at good teams - Rocca retires - Dawes steps up.

Disagree, i think you will find the strongest teams performance is often mirrored to the strength of their bottom 6 players, ie. DEPTH

Collingwood are so often labeled as an EVEN team in that who are their bottom six do they have a "bottom six"? they have a bottom 10-12 who are all good players

You're welcome to, but you'd be wrong. It's a club's best players that have always been the barometer of the quality of a side. The stars make the also rans around them seem better than they are, which is why some players that leave a really good club struggle at a poor one. It's much easier to play well in a good side than a poor one. It all gets back to the quality at the top end. I'm not suggesting that you don't want depth, of course you do, but unless you've got a number of A graders all the depth in the world won't make you a good side. We're virtually bereft of A graders.

We haven't had a star of the game since Flower, so it's little wonder you haven't seen a flag in that time. Most stars of the game have played in premierships, not all, but most, and there's a reason for that.

Presently the Saints 'best 6' are playing woeful footy, or in Hayes' case are out injured, so it's little wonder they are where they are after round 6. Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Hayes, and Dal Santo are having terrible years and low and behold the side is sh*t. Hmm

EDIT: add Gilbert and Milne. They're only good player playing well is Fisher.

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Hannabal

You're welcome to, but you'd be wrong. It's a club's best players that have always been the barometer of the quality of a side. The stars make the also rans around them seem better than they are, which is why some players that leave a really good club struggle at a poor one. It'such easier to play well in a good side than a poor one. It all gets back to the quality at the top end. I'm not suggesting that you don't want depth, of course you do, but unless you've got a number of A graders all the depth in the world won't make you a good side. We're virtually bereft of A graders.

We haven't had a star of the game since Flower, so it's little wonder you haven't seen a flag in that time. Most stars of the game have played in premierships, not all, but most, and there's a reason for that.

Presently the Saints 'best 6' are playing woeful footy, or in Hayes' case are out injured, so it's little wonder they are where they are after round 6. Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Hayes, and Dal Santo are having terrible years and low and behold the side is sh*t. Hmm

EDIT: add Gilbert and Milne. They're only good player playing well is Fisher.

I agree with this...The Top 6 players of a list "Pull the rest through & Lead the Way" That is not to say the Bottom 6 do not make a difference as well, But the Top 6 set the tone for the rest to follow.

Imagine if R Flower played in a top side?? Geez he had some offers!!!!

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by why you little

might I dare suggest its sort of both.. The best 6 will indicate how well the teams travelling...the bottom 6 indicate its depth... they are related..but differing points of reference.

might I dare suggest its sort of both.. The best 6 will indicate how well the teams travelling...the bottom 6 indicate its depth... they are related..but differing points of reference.

Yes, as are the middle 30!!!

We all know what has to happen when the going gets tough.

Over the course of this year I have to the dismay of those around me been a critic of Sylvia who i think is not living up to his elite potential.

Can we all agree that we got rid of the right draft pick from his year, ie Brock? Christ what a non-factor he's been - imagine the pasting he'd be copping from this site right now!

That being said - wish we'd got a Kennedy for it...

Surely WCE/ Bombers have too many big men to accommodate them all (and we *desperately* need) and we have youngsters to spare! ie Lynch/ Kennedy/ Darling/ Ryder/ Hille/ Pears, etc - give ya a Morton/ Strauss/ Blease!

The problem with Lyon on that show is he often shoots down any worthwhile conversation they might have on us .

Couple of weeks ago Carro bought up the possibility of Malthouse coming to Melbourne .

"I wouldn't think theyed be looking at changing the coach just now." dismissed Lyon , and quickly onto the next subject .

Tho' he might deny it , he's up to his neck in this club .

Half his best mates are running the joint , asif he doesn't have an imput .

Your post touched a nerve with me- Yes he is extremely close to Stynes. If not closer to Connolly-maybe a new pairing of Lyons/Connolly -joint senior coaches.Schwartz could become forward coach and Viney -Football Manager.What do others think?

Your post touched a nerve with me- Yes he is extremely close to Stynes. If not closer to Connolly-maybe a new pairing of Lyons/Connolly -joint senior coaches.Schwartz could become forward coach and Viney -Football Manager.What do others think?

If the team is struggling, is that all DB and no CC?

Why do we need Melbourne people? (I reckon at least some of the people who want Melbourne people coaching also talk about the loss Wellman was).

Your post touched a nerve with me- Yes he is extremely close to Stynes. If not closer to Connolly-maybe a new pairing of Lyons/Connolly -joint senior coaches.Schwartz could become forward coach and Viney -Football Manager.What do others think?

There is NO WAY Lyon will chuck in his cushy TV/Radio job to put his balls and credibility on the line to coach Melbourne.

The guy is on great coin and only works 7 months of the year .

I'd prefer we get after a big fish with rock solid credentials anyway .

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Fork 'em

its beennoted many many times, here and elsewhere that Lyon hasnt the inclination to coach. Hird always hinted at it. Lyons role is more backroom. He can still do this whilst enjoying his media career. He's influential...lets keep it that way

its beennoted many many times, here and elsewhere that Lyon hasnt the inclination to coach. Hird always hinted at it. Lyons role is more backroom. He can still do this whilst enjoying his media career. He's influential...lets keep it that way

It's also far easier to Talk the Talk than Walk the Walk .

Those stats about te first quarter were certainly shocking, but they were also a case for how you can use statistics for anything. To claim our first quarter was worse than theirs is completely laughable. 94-1 - i.e. The biggest quarter time deficit in the history of the game.

Those stats about te first quarter were certainly shocking, but they were also a case for how you can use statistics for anything. To claim our first quarter was worse than theirs is completely laughable. 94-1 - i.e. The biggest quarter time deficit in the history of the game.

Incredible. Even more incredible was the Gold Coast outscored the Bombers in the second 5 goals to 3. Yet that barely rates a mention in the media compared to our club being the first club to lose a quarter to the GC (by 1pt -away).

PS. I know. Because their win over Port cancels out any significance of lost quarters post-win.

For 2011 we are ranked between 15th and 17th in:

Contested possessions

Tackles

Inside50s

Uncontested possessions

Clearances

Hard ball gets

Loose ball gets

READ THOSE STATS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are ********* LAZY. We don't RUN, we don't CHASE, we don't TACKLE, we don't put pressure on the ball carries. They don't require ELITE SKILLS but COMMITMENT! It's blindingly obvous.

We have NO F****** idea how to play a zone.

WHAT have we been doing for 5 months on the off season?? How can Golden Balls turn around ESS in 4 months??? Don't tell me they have a more talented list than us. I'll puke. That is Bollocks. Our culture stinks and we have NO LEADERS!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm still angry after 5 days. Show some passion you lazy overpaid sods. PULL YOUR COLLECTIVE FINGERS OUT!!!!!!!!

For 2011 we are ranked between 15th and 17th in:

Contested possessions

Tackles

Inside50s

Uncontested possessions

Clearances

Hard ball gets

Loose ball gets

READ THOSE STATS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are ********* LAZY. We don't RUN, we don't CHASE, we don't TACKLE, we don't put pressure on the ball carries. They don't require ELITE SKILLS but COMMITMENT! It's blindingly obvous.

We have NO F****** idea how to play a zone.

WHAT have we been doing for 5 months on the off season?? How can Golden Balls turn around ESS in 4 months??? Don't tell me they have a more talented list than us. I'll puke. That is Bollocks. Our culture stinks and we have NO LEADERS!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm still angry after 5 days. Show some passion you lazy overpaid sods. PULL YOUR COLLECTIVE FINGERS OUT!!!!!!!!

This.

You're welcome to, but you'd be wrong. It's a club's best players that have always been the barometer of the quality of a side. The stars make the also rans around them seem better than they are, which is why some players that leave a really good club struggle at a poor one. It's much easier to play well in a good side than a poor one. It all gets back to the quality at the top end. I'm not suggesting that you don't want depth, of course you do, but unless you've got a number of A graders all the depth in the world won't make you a good side. We're virtually bereft of A graders.

We haven't had a star of the game since Flower, so it's little wonder you haven't seen a flag in that time. Most stars of the game have played in premierships, not all, but most, and there's a reason for that.

Presently the Saints 'best 6' are playing woeful footy, or in Hayes' case are out injured, so it's little wonder they are where they are after round 6. Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Hayes, and Dal Santo are having terrible years and low and behold the side is sh*t. Hmm

EDIT: add Gilbert and Milne. They're only good player playing well is Fisher.

Thast kinda my point but we are seeing different sides to the coin, your saying that in a good side in my opinion a side with depth player A plays well, but in a bad side with less depth player A plays poorly...

So what is he a good player in a good side or a bad player in a bad side? i would have thought that its Collingwoods depth which allows their better players to look good and play well?

thats my point, so the bottom 6 players allow the better 6 to play well

Most teams have 6 good players, not every team has their worst 6 at the same level