Like many others, I have been seriously questioning the Bailey gameplan and his failure to get the players 'switched on'. Although I did enjoy seeing Bailey talking with players from boundary line halfway through last year, I think he chose the right time to get back in the box and focus more on gameday strategy rather than chatting to players constantly.

While Bailey has played the media with a dead bat, or the odd piece of dry humour, he displayed a degree of aggro towards the media at his post match conference on Sunday. He acknowledged that the Dees deserved criticism after their inept display against the Eagles, however he openly suggested that the media preferred to write about off field dramas instead of the players and the game. Last week there were howls of displeasure from fans at Bailey's statement that the players would have to work harder on the track, for it was felt he wasn't taking enough responsibility for the loss. While I was annoyed with his staements at the time, I think that his strategy of putting the pressure on the players worked. It is possible that we are seeing a new side of Dean Bailey, no longer a friendly father figure, but someone who should be feared yet respected.

I'm liking seeing a little more emotion from Dean and I hope he stays on the front foot.

Other observations include the forward defensive press that has been missing from the Dees gameplan. Bailey has been quoted saying that it's important not to overwhelm an inexperienced playing group with too much strategy, however, in a clear response to the Eagles game, the Dees pushed further up the ground during kick-ins on Sunday. For the first time I can remember, Melbourne were successfully locking the ball in their forward half of the ground, and the stats showed in the third quarter that the ball was in Melbourne's half 66% of the time. There were a few occasions when the Crows penetrated the zone and went coast to coast for easy scores, and it is possible that Bailey has not implemeneted the press before as he was not confident the Dees would get it right. Either way, the coaching department have answered the call for change and they should be congratulated.

For large parts of the game the corridor of the MCG was left tantalisingly open by the Crows, yet the Dees chose to kick wider than they have in the past, moreso in the style of Collingwood and Essendon than the usual 'up the guts' approach patented by the Cats. Even without looking to go through the corridor at every opportunity, the Dees still slammed on 16 goals in the second half.

Bailey certainly had the players 'switched on', and he improved the gameplan, all in one week. I am suddenly far more confident that we can beat the Roos now that we don't have such an attacking gameplan, but rather are focussing on defensive pressure and attacking via the wings where turnovers are far less costly. It does't mean we can't go through the middle, but that we are no longer as predictable.

The Roos are the perfect team for the Dees to play this week, as they beat us twice last year and have a similarly experienced playing list. It should give us a better measurement for evaluation, however if I learny anything on the weekend, it's that all teams have bad games and we should track progress over 6-12 week periods.

Lastly, while there has been widespread disgust at the decision to suspend Trengove for 3 weeks (2 with an early plea), it needs to be understood that the AFL is specifically focussed on removing those type of incidents from the game. I live with a bloke who has done research for the AFL on injuries and unfortunately head injuries are a major concern. The recommendation from the research group was that players should all wear helmets, however the AFL has chosen to take a different approach and heavily penalise any actions that might result in head injuries. Even though it was a good tackle, looked at objectively, Dangerfield had his arm held and his head was driven into the ground without any way of protecting himself. This is not a matter of comparing with other decisions such as striking, it is about actions that result in potentially serious head injuries. That Dangerfield left the ground for the rest of the game is evidence that despite a 'perfect' tackle, players must learn not to slam players into the ground, and all AFL players will be heavily punished until that aspect of the game is wiped out. It seems unjust because he was penalised for something that was previously considered good hard football.

I can't wait for the weekend. Go Dees!

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Bhima

For large parts of the game the corridor of the MCG was left tantalisingly open by the Crows, yet the Dees chose to kick wider than they have in the past, moreso in the style of Collingwood and Essendon than the usual 'up the guts' approach patented by the Cats. Even without looking to go through the corridor at every opportunity, the Dees still slammed on 16 goals in the second half.

All season we've been going wider than we did previously, but in this game I thought we used the corridor far more than we have in some other games this year.

Like many others, I have been seriously questioning the Bailey gameplan and his failure to get the players 'switched on'. Although I did enjoy seeing Bailey talking with players from boundary line halfway through last year, I think he chose the right time to get back in the box and focus more on gameday strategy rather than chatting to players constantly.

While Bailey has played the media with a dead bat, or the odd piece of dry humour, he displayed a degree of aggro towards the media at his post match conference on Sunday. He acknowledged that the Dees deserved criticism after their inept display against the Eagles, however he openly suggested that the media preferred to write about off field dramas instead of the players and the game. Last week there were howls of displeasure from fans at Bailey's statement that the players would have to work harder on the track, for it was felt he wasn't taking enough responsibility for the loss. While I was annoyed with his staements at the time, I think that his strategy of putting the pressure on the players worked. It is possible that we are seeing a new side of Dean Bailey, no longer a friendly father figure, but someone who should be feared yet respected.

I'm liking seeing a little more emotion from Dean and I hope he stays on the front foot.

I agree that he was placing of pressure on the players. The way I read his comments was that he was saying the 96 point thrashing was due to the players' attitude, as was the 54 point thrashing the week before.

But I really think we should attempt to disconnect the demeanour we see at press conferences from the one we assume he has at training, in reviews, and one-on-one chats with the players.

He was a friendly father figure?

Now he is someone who should be feared and respected?

It is possible that you are seeing that, and it is also possible that you don't know his demeanour inside AAMI.

From chats I have had with people at the club - it seems that Bailey can give some harsh truths and a decent spray.

Other observations include the forward defensive press that has been missing from the Dees gameplan. Bailey has been quoted saying that it's important not to overwhelm an inexperienced playing group with too much strategy, however, in a clear response to the Eagles game, the Dees pushed further up the ground during kick-ins on Sunday. For the first time I can remember, Melbourne were successfully locking the ball in their forward half of the ground, and the stats showed in the third quarter that the ball was in Melbourne's half 66% of the time. There were a few occasions when the Crows penetrated the zone and went coast to coast for easy scores, and it is possible that Bailey has not implemeneted the press before as he was not confident the Dees would get it right. Either way, the coaching department have answered the call for change and they should be congratulated.

Viney mentioned the desire not to overload inexperienced minds, not Bailey. I think he should clarify that statement, especially on the events of Sunday.

Answered the call for change?

I don't know about that. It is very difficult to change a gameplan and implement a press (and a bloody good one at that) in one week...

I believe the more sound explanation is that they have worked on it for weeks (if not months) and the players haven't learned, or the personnel wasn't showing enough application to perform the press properly. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

For large parts of the game the corridor of the MCG was left tantalisingly open by the Crows, yet the Dees chose to kick wider than they have in the past, moreso in the style of Collingwood and Essendon than the usual 'up the guts' approach patented by the Cats. Even without looking to go through the corridor at every opportunity, the Dees still slammed on 16 goals in the second half.

Bailey certainly had the players 'switched on', and he improved the gameplan, all in one week.

I don't believe those are separate notions - I think the players were 'switched on' and that in itself improved the gameplan.

I am suddenly far more confident that we can beat the Roos now that we don't have such an attacking gameplan, but rather are focussing on defensive pressure and attacking via the wings where turnovers are far less costly. It does't mean we can't go through the middle, but that we are no longer as predictable.

The Roos are the perfect team for the Dees to play this week, as they beat us twice last year and have a similarly experienced playing list. It should give us a better measurement for evaluation, however if I learny anything on the weekend, it's that all teams have bad games and we should track progress over 6-12 week periods.

I think we are going where there is space, as opposed to boundary line dominant or corridor dominant. Paul Roos harps on it whenever I listen to a Fox game he is commentating.

I agree completely about this week being a good time to see progress - even if it is purely consistency of application.

Lastly, while there has been widespread disgust at the decision to suspend Trengove for 3 weeks (2 with an early plea), it needs to be understood that the AFL is specifically focussed on removing those type of incidents from the game. I live with a bloke who has done research for the AFL on injuries and unfortunately head injuries are a major concern. The recommendation from the research group was that players should all wear helmets, however the AFL has chosen to take a different approach and heavily penalise any actions that might result in head injuries. Even though it was a good tackle, looked at objectively, Dangerfield had his arm held and his head was driven into the ground without any way of protecting himself. This is not a matter of comparing with other decisions such as striking, it is about actions that result in potentially serious head injuries. That Dangerfield left the ground for the rest of the game is evidence that despite a 'perfect' tackle, players must learn not to slam players into the ground, and all AFL players will be heavily punished until that aspect of the game is wiped out. It seems unjust because he was penalised for something that was previously considered good hard football.

I can't wait for the weekend. Go Dees!

It's incidental contact with the ground that caused the damage. Dangerfield had an arm free but because he is too brave for his own good, he was more concerned about getting the ball forward than his own safety.

Jack should be playing against North. I believe he will.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by rpfc

I've played footy for a few different coaches. Some of them can get you so pumped up before a game, you're willing to run through a brick wall. But then, for some reason the first siren sounds, and it's all forgotten. It has a lot to do with a players attiude, and sadly, Dean can't control this. This may be the reason that he spends so much time on the ground, gives him a chance to get to the players as soon as they come off rather than having to wait until the breaks to relay a message. He can also monitor how a player reacts in certain situations.

However, maybe on Sunday he decided that a lot of the responisbility needs to fall back on to the players. He pumped them up all week at training, and he may have in the minutes leading up to running out. Might have given him a good opportunity to sit back and watch the attitude of every player on the ground right from the start.

Unless you are in the inner sanctum, you will never know what goes on.

Billy, that's rubbish! I've seen Bailey THREE TIMES on telly and I can tell you that he isn't hard enough. Don't give me this "you'll never knowm mhemhemhemhemm" soppy garbage. He's soft, the gameplan is crap, the players are playing with themselves rather than for themselves and NOTHING will be better until the club calls and personally apologises to me!

Now, where did I put my dummy - oh there it is next to my nappies!

mummmmummmummmumm

I am grateful to have my post so thoroughly dissected, and perhaps a response is required.

Firstly perhaps I should clarify that the public persona of Bailey to me shifted in two ways over the weekend: 1- A change in demeanor with the press and 2) the move back to the coaches box. I have suggested that this is a different side to what we have seen publicly over the past year. I have watched Bailey closely at training and he is very intense, often very quiet, but when he needs to he can quickly get the players full attention. When Bailey is on the sidelines he seems to be encouraging, explaining, guiding the players - hence the 'fatherly figure'. I enjoyed seeing him back in the box, taking a more authoritative position with the media. What he is like inside the club I have no idea and readily concede that.

I have mistaken Viney with Bailey in regards to players being overloaded with gameplan information, glad to clarify that.

Having watched the Dees train over the preseason perhaps 6-8 times, and having posted on this previously, I saw the Dees only beginning to practice a forward press at training just prior to the NAB cup. The press that they were working on was not as congested as other teams such as Collingwood (who I also saw practicing their press 50 metres away). From round 1-6 teams have cleared the ball easily from kick-outs. While I agree that the gameplan works when the players have the right attitude, immediately from the start of the game on Sunday it was clear that the Dees were pushing further up than usual, and moreso than I had seen at training in the preseason. We have had expended periods of play against other teams this season when the team has played with the right attitude, yet the press was clearly evident only on Sunday. In sum, I think the attitude improved the gameplan, but the press was a separate tactical change. Of course, that is just my opinion. Moving Bailey back to the box was also a change in coaching approach. It is based on these observations that I have claimed that the club made changes this week in response to the poor showing against the Eagles.

As for Trengove, I can only hope you are right, but reiterate the point - The AFL wants to get rid of actions that result in head injuries (and to a lesser extent shoulder injuries). I don't think JT deserves three weeks, even 1 week, but the AFL will get its way and I think they are trying to send a message. If we can put a good enough case then he may get off, but similar tackles that result in head injuries and shoulder injuries (ie Cam Bruce) will be similarly punished. I would be very surprised if the Dees don't challenge it, but I will not be surprised if the charge is upheld.

Cheers

Billy, that's rubbish! I've seen Bailey THREE TIMES on telly and I can tell you that he isn't hard enough. Don't give me this "you'll never knowm mhemhemhemhemm" soppy garbage. He's soft, the gameplan is crap, the players are playing with themselves rather than for themselves and NOTHING will be better until the club calls and personally apologises to me!

Now, where did I put my dummy - oh there it is next to my nappies!

mummmmummmummmumm

You've seen him 3 times on telly, hats off to you. So would you rather during those 3 times that he is ripping shreds off players during the game??? And at what stage did you move away from your telly and find yourself in the post-match address, the one where the coach talks and the players listen? And the review meetings they have, I would love to see the minutes you took of those as you have obviously been in them many times to know how soft Bailey is.

I refuse to believe ANY coach in the AFL isn't giving their players a spray when required. It's just that some need to do it more than others. I'm of the opinion from what I, like you, have witnessed on the telly, that Bailey would be very direct and honest in his assessments.

Maybe we need to get RDB back and start punching a few blokes in the guts at the 3/4 time huddle, just to satisfy some of our supporters.

You've seen him 3 times on telly, hats off to you. So would you rather during those 3 times that he is ripping shreds off players during the game??? And at what stage did you move away from your telly and find yourself in the post-match address, the one where the coach talks and the players listen? And the review meetings they have, I would love to see the minutes you took of those as you have obviously been in them many times to know how soft Bailey is.

Wow. I thought that post was very clearly sarcastic, but apparently not for everyone!

Did you not notice the following?

Now, where did I put my dummy - oh there it is next to my nappies!

mummmmummmummmumm

Wow. I thought that post was very clearly sarcastic, but apparently not for everyone!

Did you not notice the following?

Billy, dude - I really hoped that the nappy reference would seal the deal. The other one was the reference to seeing Bailey 3 times (that was a joke...right?). It is concerning that typing an infantile tantrum in order to highlight the sense you were making got interpreted as having a go at you.

Maybe I need to mis-spell things more?

Billy, dude - I really hoped that the nappy reference would seal the deal. The other one was the reference to seeing Bailey 3 times (that was a joke...right?). It is concerning that typing an infantile tantrum in order to highlight the sense you were making got interpreted as having a go at you.

Maybe I need to mis-spell things more?

Sorry mate! Normally my sarcasim alarm is very accurate!

Si, no problemo.

please remember to join the keep bailey group on fbook.