Stynes Steps In

[beelzebub 23,364]

.....

The club needs teachers, but not as the head coach.

That was far too logical a post....dont do it again...you'll confuse them all

[Bonkers 994]

This is all a bit odd to me. If Stynes has been in the role since the start of March, why hasn't this information been made available to the members? Why hasn't the club made a statement via the MFC website or other forms of media?

Also I distinctly remember hearing Jim Stynes state on Triple M radio pre game before our first home game of the year that he had no direct involvement with the football department. This change of role may be nothing for us to really worry about & the club may feel it is not noteworthy to communicate. But the fact that Stynes role has changed so dramatically without any information or explanation until now to me is a bit bemusing.

[Akum 2,660]

...

In our FD we have Bailey, Connolly, Viney, Williams, O'Donnell, Royal, Wellman, Harrington, West, and a footy CEO in Schwab who's been around forever, but despite all these experienced 'footy heads', we have a President that now sees the need to become a hands on footy person that is going to sit in the box and is in the process of selecting a subcommittee to review the senior coach. This happens amidst non competitive performances and the backdrop of football experts - and anyone who actually watches the game with their eyes open - stating that we don't forward press against the opposition, we can't handle frontal pressure against us, and instead rely on winning the footy off half back and using 'run and spread' to mount forward thrusts. And of course this high risk / high reward strategy is suspect under pressure due to the high numbers of players from the opposition (18 man zones) that need to be penetrated. Our players run forward of the play expecting that their teammates will win a contested ball, but if they don't, or there's a turnover, they're completely exposed on the rebound. This is one of the reasons that we never have as many numbers as the opposition around the footy - they've peeled off, or we've lost any semblance of structure. Unfortunately a new and more defensive gameplan can't be successfully implemented overnight.

Three quarters of the competition could see the way footy was heading, but in the words of Todd Viney, "we didn't concentrate that much on gameplan, or strategy, but more individual player development". Great call Dean. I mean, you're only in your second year as coach, aren't you ?

But the apologists get all upset - they say "The torch bearers are on the warpath", or "I'm sick of supporters being unfair to Dean", "we have the youngest list outside the Gold Coast", and of course all of these platitudes are said in a whiny voice similar to that of well known talk back caller 'Chris from Camberwell'. They say they'd like to deal in facts. The fact is our coach, who definitely has good coaching qualities, isn't the best person to manage this football side through to a premiership. Gameplan and structure has increased in importance, yet we've given it a backseat. Forward 50 pressure has never been more important, yet we can't get the ball in our forward 50 and when we do we lay the least tackles in the comp despite it being of such critical importance.

Bailey will see the year out and rightly so, but he won't have the time to catch up to most of the competition with regards to our gameplan. You can't change it overnight. And despite his best intentions, despite the players "loving Dean" and despite his terrific contribution to the club he won't deserve a contract extension. Dean has tried his all and he's been good for Melbourne, but he just doesn't quite cut the mustard. He came here as a "teaching coach", which I fear is partly his downfall. Teaching is an important part of coaching young players, but it's been at the expense of structure and gameplan. Not many teachers have a hard edge. How can a teacher ask his pupil to run through a brick wall for them ? The club needs teachers, but not as the head coach.

Totally agree. This is not just a form slump, or a lack of endeavour on behalf of the players.

It's a problem that's fundamental - a lack of any sort of structure or organisation. And it seems to be this way because DB considers it to be less important than "player development".

If so, the next few weeks are going to get really ugly. Of course, the players might muster a superhuman collective effort and win, but they won't be able to sustain it in the absence of structure & organisation.

By far the majority of teams that improve, do so because of improved structure & organisation - think in the past few seasons of Hawks 2008, Collingwood & St Kilda & Freo past couple of years, Essendon & West Coast & Richmond this year. We've deliberately chosen to neglect the usual way to improved team performance.

And by "structure and organisation", I mean at centre bounces & ball-ups, at kick-ins ours & theirs, organisation & structure in defence (which we had last year & don't have this year) and forwards; it's not just the "game plan", it's all these things as well. If we start to see some structure & organisation anywhere under Dean, then maybe he'll hold on. But without it, as I say, things are going to get very ugly very soon.

[Tricky 341]

want to buy a bridge ??

That is pure spin and damage control.To beleiee otherwise is foolhardy and youre welcome to do so.

I wont argue at what point the actual appointment was made. Though that in itself to me make me even more curious that had it been made the other day. Someone had an inkling that all was not right. My impression is that with the pending release of the Andrews report maybe they didnt want to upset anyone too early. Maybe they second guessed the take that the media would have of it and thought to go slowly slowly. That was...until Bad Thursday and Fallout Friday !! Then their hand was forced.

There is , to me, obviously a lot more going on about all this than we're ever likely to know for some time. A wheel has fallen of the footy depts wagon. Quite possibly the Board thought all things being equal they could push the new role into place with all parties' cogs meshing into place without to much jarring. Then it all threw a hissy fit. Something gave.

The Andrews report , by all accounts, and this hasnt been refuted anywhere to my knowledge , identifies the football dept as the only real unknown. It was this notion that prompted the board to re-establish the football directorship ( and why this was allowed to go fallow is anyones') and use this conduit to better understand the current state of machinations within the boiler -room.

Timelines are interesting and forensics use them to establish the bonefide of events as opposed to their appearance.

Why was the GO button only pushed AFTER the most recent board meeting.. why werent Stynes/Mclardy installed into operational mode prior to this... what bus were they waiting for ? ( the same one Baileys looks to be awaiting by all accounts !! )

Looks like , sounds like, walks like .......

I wonder if the bus was JS' health. This was one factor in the timeline that was out of anyones control...

I find it hard to believe this as reactionary as it may appear - naive maybe

[beelzebub 23,364]

I wonder if the bus was JS' health. This was one factor in the timeline that was out of anyones control...

I find it hard to believe this as reactionary as it may appear - naive maybe

A valid question... but McLardy is co-appointee here so if health was the worry he (DMcL) would surely have stepped in to start proceedings ?

Im not particulalry fussed about any argument as to when it was all instigated . Im sure that probably it was thought of and pre-armed some time ago. I think, as I said before , that the club probably had the idea it could all startup and mesh in a gentlemanly manner and paced time-frame.

And then they realised it couldnt...and hit the button, and hit the button hard.

[Tricky 341]

A valid question... but McLardy is co-appointee here so if health was the worry he (DMcL) would surely have stepped in to start proceedings ?

The club states that DMcL's role in the co-app. is "administrative" - whatever that means...

[beelzebub 23,364]

The club states that DMcL's role in the co-app. is "administrative" - whatever that means...

smoke...mirrors

D McL is generally acepted to be JS's understudy for many roles. Im sure if that had wanted to press on earlier then Don would have done so until Jims health improved , if that had been the issue.

Theres an old adage...judge not by what a person says...but by what they do.

What the clubs done is purely a "reaction" to various preceptors.

You might load the gun at any time...but is when you shoot and what you aim for that have the greatest impact.

[diesel 420]

Ill keep it going in this thread..as its really only a different take on it..

Stynes Role old news according HUN

Until yesterday no one really knew any of this outside of the club. And now we do..Caro broke the story ..you lot were sitting on your @rses.

It was simply a case of Caro nosing around looking for a story on a club which is under the pump (got that bit right). Where it really blew up and where The Age f'd up (and apolgised) was for the "Demons in Crisis" headline which was removed from their web site later in the day after the club clarified the situation with a press release.

The issue of Jims' overseeing of the FD dates back to last December with Leoncelli resigning from the board and is also tied to the Andrews report which recommended the club look at it's FD to see what is missing or needed to seize the opportunity presented with all the other building blocks now in place.

Edited May 6, 2011 by diesel

[beelzebub 23,364]

Im a member I dont recall anything about the Directorship being mentioned other than the relinquishing of that post by Leoncelli due to other commitments.

The club isnt often coy these days about routine appointments and yet all this has seemingly happening by stealth.

I just have this nagging sense of rewritten history..

Theres a lot of smoke around and people are putting out fires ..... but embers will be embers !!

[Dinosaur Rover 197]

Given MFC have:

1. A coach in his final year of contract with question marks about his future and the Board not having a Board director reporting on football operations.

2. A CEO that would seem to have some questions about aspects of the FD.

3. A comprehensive external study of the Club and its football needs that highlights the need for a Football Director.

Why has the Board been so slow to have replaced Andrew Leoncelli who had resigned from this critical role presumably prior to his announcement at the AGM? This announcment while welcome is a knee jerk reaction by Board that has seemingly been asleep at the wheel.

Its organisationally a very curious move. It blurs the boundaries between the governed (the executive) and the governors (the board). It will surely be very difficult for employees to get on with their job with board members so closely involved in day to day decisions.

[diesel 420]

Its organisationally a very curious move. It blurs the boundaries between the governed (the executive) and the governors (the board). It will surely be very difficult for employees to get on with their job with board members so closely involved in day to day decisions.

I cannot recall anywhere in this arrangement that it is said that Jim wil be involved in day to day decisions. Board members are allowed to visit the shop floor you know.

[Hannabal 4]

Very well written post and surprisingly balanced from you, yet how do we know of the strengths and weaknesses of Dean Bailey without actually being a player or personnel within the football department? We hear rumblings that the players have not been following their structures, is this Bailey's fault??? Basic skill errors, kicking out of bounds on the full whilst under no pressure, is this Bailey's fault??? Lacking intensity in first quarters is this Bailey's fault???

The easiest person to pot whilst the chips are down is the coach

My low level computer skills don't allow me to multi quote, but I'll try to respond as best I can.

1. I always try to be balanced. Even if I'm theatrical the point I'm making is usually balanced. Unless of course I'm insulting someone.

2. The ways to look at strengths and weaknesses in a coach tend to be the obvious ones. Is there improvement from year to year ? Is the side well drilled and structured ? Are players improving ? Is the improvement in line with maturation levels or quantum ? You can be the judge of these however I'd suggest that some glaring issues that have been diabolical for some time still are. How are our first quarters when the players should be really switched on ? Are we winning more quarters of footy year to year ? Are we getting more inside 50's, which has been a massive problem for 3 years ? How are our kick ins from defence ? There are standard kpi's that coaches use.

The better teams are really pressing well on their opposition, which means that it is extremely difficult to get the ball out of their forward 50. Are we implementing this strategy as well as countering it ?

Why does the President feel the need to be so hands on with the FD if he had faith that the FD was performing ?

In reality we don't know what's going on within the FD, but gameday reveals much. You be the judge.

3. The players and culture ? The senior players set the culture of the group as well as the FD. I recognise that our senior players are comprised of B and C graders. They simply aren't that good. Our talent rests with our youth and until they are in a position to stamp their authority on the club we'll have mixed performances. Plenty of the senior group are also relatively young. But I don't think that the players escape the blowtorch. Certainly not on Demonland.

I don't expect Dean to perform miracles, but I do expect the side to be well structured, organised and have the required levels of intensity. Look at the change to Essendon's gameplan and field organisation over summer. Into Bailey's fourth year it's evident that the same issues are yet to be resolved. Or even looking likely to. I accept however that it's highly unlikely that it's just Bailey's fault from within the coaching ranks.

You mention that it's the senior coach that's always the first one to cop it in the neck. Well, that goes with the territory and they know it. I'm sure they're happy to bask in the glory when things are going really well, so it's a two-way street. That said, when the senior coach hangs onto his job by his thumb nails at year's end you should see the cleanout of assistants. Assistant coaches have less JS than senior coaches.

[rpfc 28,407]

maybe not so small.......and certainly quite vocal

Please list.

[Hobbits's 17]

Did anyone at all read the last two sentences of the Melbourne FC press release?

"Melbourne’s football director represents the football department and communicates to the board on football matters. It is not a management role."

Just wondering.

i am wondering too.

Isn't the President position a management role on the board ? However this position isn't.

So Jimmy is communicating to himself and the board.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Maybe most of you are reading far too much in to the whole story. The Club is at a stage in the set timeline where in 2012, it is expected that we make the finals. Things were going fine last year - the Coach was doing his job, the players were playing some impressive footy in patches (as much as could be expected in their development phase), the debt was gone, every thing was travelling to the letter of the script.

Season 2011 was/is always going to be one of the biggest years in our history, as it will show us how we are progressing according to our premiership model. The Coach will be out of contract at the end of the year. If he can achieve/succeed the goals set, he, like I believe Lyon siad this week, can set himself up as the MFC coach for the next few years.

I think that Stynes' decision to be involved in this capacity is a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one. He started it late last year, and I have no doubt it was to be some kind of insurance should this season not go to plan. So, as we currently see, it hasn't, and Jim is there NOW, rather than waiting until half the year has gone and there's no coming back.

We still have plenty of time to get this season on track, and Bailey has plenty of time to secure his future as the next Melbourne premership coach. At present, it aint gunna happen, but I can assure you one thing, if this ship gets moving forward again (I don't think it has turned around, may have just stalled slightly), and if Stynes' closer interaction with the footy department reveals that it's more player attitude/execution of the game plan, rather than Bailey's issues, this would lead to another contract extension.

The next 6 weeks will be up there as the most important month and a half in this Club's proud history. Everyone at the Club has the opportunity to stand up and take us to that level most were expecting at the start of the year. A handful of players, I'm talking about Grimes, Watts, Trengove, Frawley and even Jurrah, they have the opportunity to stand up and say "we're not going to accept this anymore, we want leaders at our club, well, we are it". Those players MUST have the attitude of "come with us, or bugger off". Scully and McKenzie would have been in that list if they weren't injured. If I were Bailey, I'd be going to them first and foremost. If he has them 110% committed to the cause, the entire football public will think that the kids are playing inspired footy, and that's regardless of how many we win or lose in the next 6 weeks. And for those blokes, there's no better time than while every area of the Club in being put under the mircoscope by the media, AND the president.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Good on ya Jimmy...once again.

[mauriesy 7,287]

Isn't the President position a management role on the board? However this position isn't.

So Jimmy is communicating to himself and the board.

It's common for board or committee members of any organisation to have some liaison or communication responsibility for one of the organisation's divisions. It could be HR, marketing, finance etc. It can also be part of the "sub-committee" or "divisional" structures and provides some protocol for board communication and effective operation.

So the previous football "director" was Leoncelli, who would have met with the football department in formal meetings, and probably many times informally. He'd report to the board in relation to the football department, the go-between if you like. Now Stynes has taken that role.

I just think that Caroline Wilson has either naively, or deliberately, inflamed this into something it isn't and supporters have been sucked into speculation given the current mediocre on-field performance. Stynes' acceptance of the role vis-a-vis the coach's and the team's current performance has conveniently coincided for a sporting journalist looking for an angle.

There are two problems however. Firstly, the timing is in fact totally out of synch with the current FD issues ... Stynes "appointment" was in March, not last week. Secondly, no one has focused on the actual role itself (which the press release from the club this week was supposed to clarify). The club implies that the role Jim has taken is no different to what Leoncelli did previously. Those looking for a story to link it to the team's performance and performance of the coach have centred on the new, supposed 'hands-on' role (that Wilson reported), when it doesn't seem to be anything of the sort. However, never let a few facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

I also think that labelling people "apologists" is totally unhelpful to the issue, in fact it diverts the whole debate. It's a sloppy way of arguing because it just uses easy-to-apply labels at any time to avoid real issues and to win the argument. It's as illogical and useless as dividing the climate debate into "warmists" and "deniers".

When Stynes comes out and "supports" the football department, some claim that means it's the "end" of Bailey. But what's he supposed to say? It's akin to the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" conundrum.

[rpfc 28,407]

I also think that labelling people "apologists" is totally unhelpful to the issue, in fact it diverts the whole debate. It's a sloppy way of arguing because it just uses easy-to-apply labels at any time to avoid real issues and to win the argument. It's as illogical and useless as dividing the climate debate into "warmists" and "deniers".

When Stynes comes out and "supports" the football department, some claim that means it's the "end" of Bailey. But what's he supposed to say? It's akin to the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" conundrum.

Well said.

[Hannabal 4]

I think that Stynes' decision to be involved in this capacity is a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one.

Could not agree less. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Nasher 33,615]

Could not agree less. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

I gather you give no weight to the suggestion put forward by both the Herald Sun and the MFC that Stynes has been in this role since March?

[Hannabal 4]

I gather you give no weight to the suggestion put forward by both the Herald Sun and the MFC that Stynes has been in this role since March?

Not a lot. It may have been discussed, but he clearly hasn't been hands on in the FD, but it now appears he will. If he sits in the situation room on Sunday I'll certainly put little weight in what may have been discussed in March. I don't believe in coincidences when a club has had a week of crisis.

Let's see what happens Sunday.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Is this all out of sync with current FD Issues ? I think upon inspection they mirror quite well.

At seasons end the link between FD and Board lost.

Preseason 2011 and into Nab a style is perpetuated from 2010 that strikes many as at odds with not only the current game but our list.

NAB finishes.. Were looking a bit dodgy despite good injury situation.

Board looking(apparently) to instill Stynes/McLardy as Board/ FD liaison.

Andrews report leaves questions regarding FD

Season 2011starts with a fit and spurt for Demons

Team continues with a little success but a game style resembling a train wreck

Cometh Bad Thursday and Fallout Friday, eyebrows and temperatures rise in unison appalled at insipid efforts

This week Stynes out of the shadows and into the coaches den.

Hmm I'd say it all marries somewhat

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Jimmy as it was you who got this club rolling again, with the help of many others.

I am more than happy for you to take a hands on Roll in the Football Department, if you feel it will be a positive.

For all those sitting on the fence on this one, it is fair enough, but do remember how many games our Jimmy did play for this very club including the '91 Charlie.

I think Jimma would know what a footy dept needs to run smoothly.

i do not care what other clubs do or say about the MFC, if we do things a little differently but get the results we all crave, well then good.

Because whatever we as a club have done over the last 5 decades, it has always come up short.

So Jimma, do what ya gotta do, and do it well as i am sure you will.

Mike Sheahan, your piece today in the HUN today was oh so predictable......I just wonder what you will say on Stynesy's behalf if this move is a roaring success???

Can't wait to read that....Your writing is so dull Mike, similiar to the coaching of Alan Joyce!!

[mauriesy 7,287]

Hmm I'd say it all marries somewhat

In your mind.

[diesel 420]

It is apparent as I've read this thread over the last couple of days that people are failing to grasp what is going on in regard to Jim's involvment in the FD.

Jim's presence around the football dept is not designed to directly lead to on field changes. If on field changes occur this weekend it will be attributable to one or all of four things:

1. Lift in effort by players

2. Understanding of and application by players of what they are supposed to do re:game plan/style

2. Change of game plan/style

4. Lack of effort or failings by opposition