On 02/05/2011 at 23:43, Artie Bucco said:

- The Eagles match last year.

- our record against bigger bodied teams that have strong hard-ball winners (hawks, eagles)

- our physically undeveloped players

- we'd be flat, not just coming off a bye, but having played substandard opposition in the 2 previous games (Bris, GC)

- our poor record traveling (tough to change considering all the other factors)

- Guys like Morton, Wonaeamirri & Frawley underdone

- no McKenzie

- Davey & Green in poor form

What I've been saying all week is that none of that excuses a lack of effort.

The senior players aren't standing up (Jamar and Moloney aside). The younger players aren't standing up either. Sure, you can say that the senior players ought to lead the way, but it doesn't matter how old you are, you need to put in effort.

Last night Hutchy commented on Adelaide's poor contested ball and tackling stats. Grant Thomas said they were terrible. Hutchy then said 'They've got 9 players under the age of 20'. Grant laughed and said 'Oh, sorry, they've got 9 players under 20, that means they don't have to tackle, chase or get the contested ball'. This applies to us, no matter how underdone our leaders are, no matter who we played the previous week, no matter where we're playing.

We need to accept the fact that our 22 players are not playing hard enough, and that's been the case all year, not just against West Coast. It's not a case of senior vs junior, it's not a case of inexperience, it's not a case of inconsistency, it's a case of not being hard enough.

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:32, titan_uranus said:

What I've been saying all week is that none of that excuses a lack of effort.

The senior players aren't standing up (Jamar and Moloney aside). The younger players aren't standing up either. Sure, you can say that the senior players ought to lead the way, but it doesn't matter how old you are, you need to put in effort.

Last night Hutchy commented on Adelaide's poor contested ball and tackling stats. Grant Thomas said they were terrible. Hutchy then said 'They've got 9 players under the age of 20'. Grant laughed and said 'Oh, sorry, they've got 9 players under 20, that means they don't have to tackle, chase or get the contested ball'. This applies to us, no matter how underdone our leaders are, no matter who we played the previous week, no matter where we're playing.

We need to accept the fact that our 22 players are not playing hard enough, and that's been the case all year, not just against West Coast. It's not a case of senior vs junior, it's not a case of inexperience, it's not a case of inconsistency, it's a case of not being hard enough.

As the Fonz would say ... Exactamundo.

Noticed how few Melbourne players have gotten hurt this year so far through collisions and knocks in contests? Could it be that our amazingly low injury count has less to do with our fitness programs and training load and more to do with a lack of hard hits to the bodies of our contest-averse players? Food for thought.

There are no excuses for not having a crack.

I think it's conceivable that we came out flat due to the bye and lacklustre competition in the 2 preceding matches.

Also, that once the opposition got a run on, it had a snowball effect.

To me, inconsistency means that some days you are very good, some days you are very bad, and some days you are in between.

Kids are inconsistent and this was the very bad.

As far as the older players go, they've never really been up to it anyway.

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:32, titan_uranus said:

What I've been saying all week is that none of that excuses a lack of effort.

The senior players aren't standing up (Jamar and Moloney aside). The younger players aren't standing up either. Sure, you can say that the senior players ought to lead the way, but it doesn't matter how old you are, you need to put in effort.

Last night Hutchy commented on Adelaide's poor contested ball and tackling stats. Grant Thomas said they were terrible. Hutchy then said 'They've got 9 players under the age of 20'. Grant laughed and said 'Oh, sorry, they've got 9 players under 20, that means they don't have to tackle, chase or get the contested ball'. This applies to us, no matter how underdone our leaders are, no matter who we played the previous week, no matter where we're playing.

We need to accept the fact that our 22 players are not playing hard enough, and that's been the case all year, not just against West Coast. It's not a case of senior vs junior, it's not a case of inexperience, it's not a case of inconsistency, it's a case of not being hard enough.

Absolutely right...the age/game excuse is wearing thin now....sorry but it is a reality, other teams who play intense Footy also have young kiddies. i heard Grant Thomas answer that comment. He is dead right. We have to get better rather than make excuses. That's life after 4 years in the shadows. I want to see Dean Bailey do it.

As for coming between 15th and 17th in all of those important statistical categories, is it possible that we are maybe the 15th-17th physically developed team in the league?

Those are the exact statistical categories where a physically mature body will help the most.

I'm not trying to find excuses - I'm trying to find the reason behind it.

Because I simply don't believe it is lack of effort or desire.

That's rubbish peddled by those who don't know any better.

It doesn't mean they DON'T tackle or try to win the contested ball.

It means they are less physically developed and less experienced, therefore a lot less likely to make those tackles stick, or win that contested ball.

I don't think it's very complicated.

Theres been many instances in recent games where Demons have stood flat footed, instances where an initial inclination to run down turned to shadowing their opponent ( accomplishes a lot that does). You can see a lot of body language displaying a lack of real enthusiasm for the extra efforts.

Atm Melbourne just dont really impose themselves. Frustrating to watch.

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:47, Artie Bucco said:

As for coming between 15th and 17th in all of those important statistical categories, is it possible that we are maybe the 15th-17th physically developed team in the league?

Those are the exact statistical categories where a physically mature body will help the most.

I'm not trying to find excuses - I'm trying to find the reason behind it.

Because I simply don't believe it is lack of effort or desire.

That's rubbish peddled by those who don't know any better.

If those stats are correct Artie (and i do not doubt you, you come here prepared) then our training methods need to be looked at badly, to be rock bottom on all those indicators is just terrible. Cam Bruce & J Mac wouldn't make that much difference!!

Where is Jordie Mckenzie, at least he is like a crazed Jack Russell!!

Perhaps RR's last effort explains to me why I feel so uneasy with blaming the coach - it seems that if you do that the underperforming players are too easily let off the hook.

Was it several seasons ago that we ran Collingwood close?

How did we do that?

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:57, Crompton said:

Perhaps RR's last effort explains to me why I feel so uneasy with blaming the coach - it seems that if you do that the underperforming players are too easily let off the hook.

Was it several seasons ago that we ran Collingwood close?

How did we do that?

Twice we did, last year. I'd say through guts, determination and a never-say-die attitude in those games.

Who knows why they flick that switch off (more often) and on so frequently. One poster wrote that it seems to be an entrenched part of the MFC's culture that we only come to play once our backs are against the wall.

Bailey hasn't in four years been able to change that and that stinks.

I've got no doubt that we'll come out on Sunday and beat Adelaide in a spirited performance.

But the problems and mental fragility will remain. It's culturally embedded.

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:57, Crompton said:

Perhaps RR's last effort explains to me why I feel so uneasy with blaming the coach - it seems that if you do that the underperforming players are too easily let off the hook.

Was it several seasons ago that we ran Collingwood close?

How did we do that?

Its been infered often, and by those external to this club who're observing, that the QB game is our GF.. We lift for that game and 'spend' ourselves. Its like instead of really focussing on consistent efforts resulting in sufficient wins to play real finals footy we seem to hope that a good effort against Collingwood is suffcient.

Of course it isnt

  On 03/05/2011 at 14:11, Range Rover said:

Twice we did, last year. I'd say through guts, determination and a never-say-die attitude in those games.

Who knows why they flick that switch off (more often) and on so frequently. One poster wrote that it seems to be an entrenched part of the MFC's culture that we only come to play once our backs are against the wall.

But the problems and mental fragility will remain. It's culturally embedded.

I think this year could be the last of that Fragility....Dean Bailey has got 6-8 weeks to address that problem, which is in fact the Deep root of our problem, always has been since Norm was dumped.

If Dean cannot do it (and i hope he can) then we will have a Top Line Coach next year. It is why we need a complete outsider as a coach. Now is not the time for Viney, the Ox or Lyon...we must think wider

I hope Dean can too.

I really mean that.

But if the situation does arise where the club seeks Mr. Malthouse's services I can only see one way he would see his way clear to come to the club.

And that is if Garry Lyon says on Footy Classified that he seriously doubts that even the great Mick Malthouse is talented enough to prove himself the greatest coach of all time by finishing his career by coaching his third AFL club to a premiership that breaks a 50 year ( 48,49?) drought for the oldest team in the comp, thus establishing a record for himself that likely would never be broken.

(Could be the best bait. Shhhhhhh )

Mike Sheehan in the H/Sun wrote another useless article re the "Kruezer Cup" and suggesting that people should take a stick to the MFC because they were underachieving compared to Carlton.What a ridiculous comparison! Vey lazy journalism.

Carlton is at least 2 or 3 season ahead in development of the Dees with the plethora of early draft picks that had in the seasons prior to when we picked up Watts,Scully and Trengove and in fact had Gibbs,Murphy,Betts and other early draft picks playing in the "Kruezer Cup".

The other useless pice of journalism they threw up was the fact Melbourne had no tackles in the forward 50 in the 1st quarter v's the WCE. Can someone please explain to me how you can tackle in your forward 50 if you have no players in there??? It's probably a little difficult.

  On 03/05/2011 at 23:09, FairBump PlayOn said:

Mike Sheehan in the H/Sun wrote another useless article re the "Kruezer Cup" and suggesting that people should take a stick to the MFC because they were underachieving compared to Carlton.What a ridiculous comparison! Vey lazy journalism.

Carlton is at least 2 or 3 season ahead in development of the Dees with the plethora of early draft picks that had in the seasons prior to when we picked up Watts,Scully and Trengove and in fact had Gibbs,Murphy,Betts and other early draft picks playing in the "Kruezer Cup".

They also recruited (or Visy did) a genuine superstar and leader called Chris Judd. Gld plated A grader. We have nothing in our senior ranks that gets anywhere near that.

  On 03/05/2011 at 10:44, Rogue said:

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).

Chris stated when he took on his current position he would not coach. This means he will not discuss any aspect of coaching at this time or get involved in this area.. I think we need MFC people for our next stage of development. Former players that sweated for the Red & the Blue. One's that are totally determined to take this young list to greater heights. There ain't many qualified coaches available (one's that I feel are suitable re experienced practical now) -(or totally at the end of 2011).Malthouse will stay and honour his commitment,Matthews will stay in media, Roos will stay in the media,so whom is suitable. We need an experienced sidekick loyal to our club similar to Thompson's return to Essendon such as Connolly. We need a specialist backline coach ,not Royal, whom can realistically show our backline how to play.We need a competent forward coach,we need a skilled coach for our ruck prodigees, David Loats is not up to it IMO. I have stated many times on this site that we need a kicking coach.This surely is qualified by the woeful kicking this year and last from players like Grimes, Garland etc..we cannot get the ball out of our backline- lack of strategy,gameplan. We need IMO, players to come back and assist this young team.We need a culture like Hawthorn- whom ex players will come back when asked and love to help out.

The more I think of this-a previous suggestion of Laidley ,with his stategic background along with defensive skills may be suitable as a candidate.But, this move is critical to our success long term. I think, we all, expect too much too soon. We will become a power from say, 2114/6 onwards/ This is when we need a Malthouse type. One that knows how to win a premiership, initially, we need a progressive type to take us to our next step IMO.

Another factor,I go and watch training on a regular basis at several clubs including Essendon, North, Collingwood etc.. At the Mfc,virtually we do not have tackling practice until this week - others tackle on an ongoing basisas part of their weekly training.. At Carlton last year they worked with the Storm to assist them.They are next door to us, you would think we would involve them and their skill base. When Daniher coached he got in Rugby coaches to assist.Daniher also had one year Frawley to come in as a part time coach to assist.He had other part time coaches for other roles. We need help right now as we are just stagnating or going backwards.Help is certainly needed NOW.

  On 03/05/2011 at 13:23, Jordie_tackles said:

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

I understand your point, but I disagree.

The Saints bottom 6 last year wouldn't have been better than Melbourne's bottom 6 yet they drew a GF and arguably should have won it. Their stars in Goddard, Riewoldt, and Hayes enabled their team to compete on the last Saturday of the year.

Until we unearth bona fide A graders, and a number of them, we'll be treading water. Stars win premierships not ordinary footballers. But yes, it goes without saying that every player on the list is being developed as best a club can. You want to have 26-28 players that can take the field without the side being overly compromised.

I do believe however that gameplan and well drilled tactics/discipline has never been more important. Far more so than 2-3 years ago. And right now we're bottom 3 in that regard.

Given recent rumblings at Filthland I cant see how you can possibly make the call that Malthouse will stay. He might..he might not..thats about the length and breadth of it. He still has a very acute and active mind.. I cant see him enjoying twiddling his thumbs next year.

How do you know Roos will not consider any offers toc oach. We all say things in life... and most of it goes out the window when 'something ; came along to change lay of the land.

The only thing certain in footy is that nothing is certain. If teams take it one week at a time..... most others do similar but one year at a time.

Nothing's in concrete

  On 03/05/2011 at 14:21, why you little said:

I think this year could be the last of that Fragility....Dean Bailey has got 6-8 weeks to address that problem, which is in fact the Deep root of our problem, always has been since Norm was dumped.

If Dean cannot do it (and i hope he can) then we will have a Top Line Coach next year. It is why we need a complete outsider as a coach. Now is not the time for Viney, the Ox or Lyon...we must think wider

Dean's had four years to address this problem WYL. And hasn't. 15th to 17th in every key indicator of success at AFL level has sealed his fate. Barring a miracle turnaround, we will have a new coach entering season 2012 and like you I hope to God it's an outsider with a ruthless, uncompromising approach to achieving success.

I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that the appointment of this new coach will be the most important decision in the history of the club.

They simply cannot afford to get it wrong this time.

  On 04/05/2011 at 00:34, Range Rover said:

Dean's had four years to address this problem WYL. And hasn't. 15th to 17th in every key indicator of success at AFL level has sealed his fate. Barring a miracle turnaround, we will have a new coach entering season 2012 and like you I hope to God it's an outsider with a ruthless, uncompromising approach to achieving success.

I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that the appointment of this new coach will be the most important decision in the history of the club.

They simply cannot afford to get it wrong this time.

Which is why I would prefer Roos over Malthouse. I'm of the opinion that Paul Roos actually offers more as coach. While we can judge him for his gameplan, I agree with the idea that he did in fact develop a gameplan based on the list that he had rather than come in and adapt the list to his gameplan. Malthouse will drill the squad harder than anyone, but Roos is almost as good in my opinion.

  On 04/05/2011 at 01:03, Striker475 said:

Which is why I would prefer Roos over Malthouse. I'm of the opinion that Paul Roos actually offers more as coach. While we can judge him for his gameplan, I agree with the idea that he did in fact develop a gameplan based on the list that he had rather than come in and adapt the list to his gameplan. Malthouse will drill the squad harder than anyone, but Roos is almost as good in my opinion.

I agree. Malthouse tops my list but may be unattainable.

Paul Roos would also be a brilliant appointment.

The Sydney players loved him and bled for him. He's smart, tough and successful at the highest level. Perfect credentials.

  On 04/05/2011 at 00:34, Range Rover said:

Dean's had four years to address this problem WYL. And hasn't. 15th to 17th in every key indicator of success at AFL level has sealed his fate. Barring a miracle turnaround, we will have a new coach entering season 2012 and like you I hope to God it's an outsider with a ruthless, uncompromising approach to achieving success.

I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that the appointment of this new coach will be the most important decision in the history of the club.

They simply cannot afford to get it wrong this time.

Firstly, we are 6 rounds into his 4th year, so he has had 3 and a bit years.

And secondly, he has had 3 and a bit years to work with players that were drafted in late 2009?

The kids need time to develop and adjust to the AFL game - where has he squeezed in the time for that?

The Bailey witch hunt is tiresome with all these fake facts being thrown out by the torch bearers.

  On 04/05/2011 at 01:16, Artie Bucco said:

The Bailey witch hunt is tiresome with all these fake facts being thrown out by the torch bearers.

You can say that again ! Tiresome indeed.

  On 04/05/2011 at 01:16, Artie Bucco said:

Firstly, we are 6 rounds into his 4th year, so he has had 3 and a bit years.

And secondly, he has had 3 and a bit years to work with players that were drafted in late 2009?

The kids need time to develop and adjust to the AFL game - where has he squeezed in the time for that?

The Bailey witch hunt is tiresome with all these fake facts being thrown out by the torch bearers.

I agree. And it's amazing how people can use statistics to make a point at any given time. We are currently performing poorly in tackles and hard-ball gets so Bailey should be sacked. Maybe he should have been given a three year extension this time last year when we were flying in those categories.

The fact that I have seen the current team do the basics well for extended periods in 2009 suggests this issue is not Bailey's coaching. We are 2.5 wins from 5 and in the eight despite playing terribly in basically every game. There is time for Bailey and the players to turn this around.

  On 04/05/2011 at 01:09, Range Rover said:

I agree. Malthouse tops my list but may be unattainable.

Paul Roos would also be a brilliant appointment.

The Sydney players loved him and bled for him. He's smart, tough and successful at the highest level. Perfect credentials.

Roos didn't so much develop players, as bring in physically mature players who already knew the game, and gave them a second chance.

His true talent was in finding them a role in his system, and getting them to fully buy into performing that role.

As many were on their last chance, of course he was loved.

Also, if you read his recent articles, especially that which concerns beating the current press en vogue, his solution is to do pretty much what Bailey has us doing.

Go on, take the time and read it.

Understand what it is that you're supporting. Because it doesn't seem like much would change under Roos.

I'm not sure Roos would even know what to do with an exceptionally young team that is still learning.