Let me start by re-iterating the title: I AM NOT CALLING FOR BAILEY'S HEAD!

However, I was disappointed with his coaching effort today.

Newton started the first quarter really well. He was leading brilliantly, taking strong marks, chasing and tackling, and generally looking like a FF. So what does Bailey do? Puts him in the ruck, which sapped his confidence and momentum and he was hardly sighted after his second goal. For those who say he had no other option, we had Dunn who has rucked before, who was already reported, and so could have been the 'sacrificial lamb', if you like. There's no way you could argue that Newton gives us any more in the ruck than Dunn does, and Newton proved it by continually holding Goldstein and giving free kicks away. Bailey should have realised that Newton was on song at FF and we should have left him there.

Secondly, when the going got tough, we reverted, once more, to the loose man in defence. This never, ever helps us, and again failed to help us today. When we go a loose man in defence we end up playing the game in the opposition's forward half. Last week we employed a forward press so well that we had the ball in our half most of the game. Today we let North Melbourne get the ball forward of the centre far too much, and we didn't have 6 forwards so it was harder to get the ball out. I hate the tactic. I also hate that we used Watts as the loose man. He didn't do that badly, in fact he looked OK, but we need him to continue to play CHF. That is how he is going to develop best.

Again, this is not a thread for those of you who want to sack Bailey. This is a thread for people who, like me, think we were out-coached today.

Dunn instead of Newton?? Splitting hairs TU.

We went into the game without four quality midfielders missing and Jamar, we were always in trouble with Martin and Newton against Goldstein.

By early in the 3rd qtr, we were down to 19 fit men. And once again the disappearing senior players who just dont give a yelp when it gets tough. I am not sure what wizzbang moves a coach can pull in that situation.

Dunn instead of Newton?? Splitting hairs TU.

That's exactly my point. There's no difference between them as ruckmen (i.e. they both suck), so why play Newton in the ruck when he's working as a forward?

We went into the game without four quality midfielders missing and Jamar, we were always in trouble with Martin and Newton against Goldstein.

By early in the 3rd qtr, we were down to 19 fit men. And once again the disappearing senior players who just dont give a yelp when it gets tough. I am not sure what wizzbang moves a coach can pull in that situation.

North went into the game without three quality midfielders (Bastinac, Cunnington, Greenwood) and they were missing McIntosh. The pre-game injuries didn't give them an advantage, they levelled the field if anything.

The in-game injuries didn't help, obviously, but we had 21 when we were 31 points up, and Garland was still on the ground in the second quarter when they lifted, and we didn't. With the sub rule the injuries didn't affect our rotations as much until Bail went down midway through the third, by which time the damage had been done.

Let me start by re-iterating the title: I AM NOT CALLING FOR BAILEY'S HEAD!

However, I was disappointed with his coaching effort today.

Newton started the first quarter really well. He was leading brilliantly, taking strong marks, chasing and tackling, and generally looking like a FF. So what does Bailey do? Puts him in the ruck, which sapped his confidence and momentum and he was hardly sighted after his second goal. For those who say he had no other option, we had Dunn who has rucked before, who was already reported, and so could have been the 'sacrificial lamb', if you like. There's no way you could argue that Newton gives us any more in the ruck than Dunn does, and Newton proved it by continually holding Goldstein and giving free kicks away. Bailey should have realised that Newton was on song at FF and we should have left him there.

Secondly, when the going got tough, we reverted, once more, to the loose man in defence. This never, ever helps us, and again failed to help us today. When we go a loose man in defence we end up playing the game in the opposition's forward half. Last week we employed a forward press so well that we had the ball in our half most of the game. Today we let North Melbourne get the ball forward of the centre far too much, and we didn't have 6 forwards so it was harder to get the ball out. I hate the tactic. I also hate that we used Watts as the loose man. He didn't do that badly, in fact he looked OK, but we need him to continue to play CHF. That is how he is going to develop best.

Again, this is not a thread for those of you who want to sack Bailey. This is a thread for people who, like me, think we were out-coached today.

All valid points however I think Bailey's hands were tied somewhat by having limited rotations. Martin couldn't keep up with Goldstein and Dunn had to be thrown back as Garland was battling with an ankle.

I was happy with Jack playing as a loose man in defence an extra string to his bow and generally he makes the right decisions.

Also, I think our ability to press and more so spread when we had the ball were also effected by limited rotations. Not wanting to be seen as a Bailey apologist, jury is still out, but very trying circumstances for all today. Bit more ticker on display would have been great tho.

Is Garland injured? If not, I don't understand the logic in replacing a tall backman when we're low on talls with a small VFL player.

Is Garland injured? If not, I don't understand the logic in replacing a tall backman when we're low on talls with a small VFL player.

Hurt himself Q1, played on but couldn't run at all.

Is Garland injured? If not, I don't understand the logic in replacing a tall backman when we're low on talls with a small VFL player.

Left ankle, straight from the horses mouth...Kelli Underwood, went off for about 10 mins in the first quarter for treatment, came back on but was hobbling. Pulled the pin after half time and bought on Bennell.

Dunn instead of Newton?? Splitting hairs TU.

We went into the game without four quality midfielders missing and Jamar, we were always in trouble with Martin and Newton against Goldstein.

By early in the 3rd qtr, we were down to 19 fit men. And once again the disappearing senior players who just dont give a yelp when it gets tough. I am not sure what wizzbang moves a coach can pull in that situation.

Oh, I don't know - Frawley or Warnock or Green to CHF, Maric or Tapscott on the ball. Keep the forwards in position. "Just do something! Don't just stand there ... do something!!" Bailey seemed to give up without a yelp too.

our problem is attitude and the ability to bring it

flogged 2 wks ago, good last week, flogged by 70 points over 3 qtrs today

pss poor and nth had heaps out - no excuses, bailey has to go

I'm not saying Bailey has to go, but to stay he's got to show us something on match day.

That's exactly my point. There's no difference between them as ruckmen (i.e. they both suck), so why play Newton in the ruck when he's working as a forward?

Newton was always going to give Martin a rest by rucking. It made sense.

Then Martin got hurt and was struggling so they took him out of the circle, and rightfully so. A knock to the knee and then another knock could mean very bad things. Better not to risk it when the game was already lost.

our problem is attitude and the ability to bring it

flogged 2 wks ago, good last week, flogged by 70 points over 3 qtrs today

pss poor and nth had heaps out - no excuses, bailey has to go

well you should have called for his head last week.

i feel for the man, there is an absolute dearth of on field leadership at our club

our season will be defined by how good or how poorly Green, Davey, Moloney play.

Newton was always going to give Martin a rest by rucking. It made sense.

Then Martin got hurt and was struggling so they took him out of the circle, and rightfully so. A knock to the knee and then another knock could mean very bad things. Better not to risk it when the game was already lost.

Think about what you've just said.

Why did it 'make sense' for Newton, who had taken two marks, kicked two goals, laid a strong tackle which led to a goal, and is NOT a ruckman, to ruck? Is he that much better than Dunn, who at that point was sacrificial because he is going to be suspended next week anyway?

Can we win only if we have our best 22 (or close to it) on the ground?? If that's the sort of team we are, if we're all OK with that, then what's the point?

I'll put it the other way - this is Bailey's opportunity to demonstrate his coaching ability by snaffling a surprise win when we're undermanned. He needs to come up with something over the next few weeks, not just rely on superhuman efforts by the players. Or do we just lie down and work on polishing up our excuses? Bailey has a golden chance to show everyone whether he adds value as coach on match day ... or whether he doesn't.

Let's leave the whinging to Norf. Please.

Think about what you've just said.

Why did it 'make sense' for Newton, who had taken two marks, kicked two goals, laid a strong tackle which led to a goal, and is NOT a ruckman, to ruck? Is he that much better than Dunn, who at that point was sacrificial because he is going to be suspended next week anyway?

The only reason Newton is even on our list is to play that second backup ruck role.

He is so much better than Dunn in the ruck it's not even funny. If you're gonna play Dunn in the ruck you may as well play Jurrah in there.

Having said that, he is not a ruckman, and even though he started well, he made so many dumb decisions today that it left me with no doubt as to why I can't see any future for him.

The only reason Newton is even on our list is to play that second backup ruck role.

He is so much better than Dunn in the ruck it's not even funny. If you're gonna play Dunn in the ruck you may as well play Jurrah in there.

Having said that, he is not a ruckman, and even though he started well, he made so many dumb decisions today that it left me with no doubt as to why I can't see any future for him.

OP was 100% correct with his original comments re Newton.

Newton up forward in 1st quarter was fantastic and gaining confidence which he desperately needs then moved into the ruck??

Put Dunn in there instead (or Jurrah to mix it up)and he would probably be equally as bad as Newton but at least you've still got someone lively and dare I say it on fire up forward and building confidence at the same time.

God help us if he was only retained as a back up ruckman.

our problem is attitude and the ability to bring it

flogged 2 wks ago, good last week, flogged by 70 points over 3 qtrs today

pss poor and nth had heaps out - no excuses, bailey has to go

Our main problem is Team belief, as we can't get the Main players on to the park together, to form the physical structure to support our young players. It's been a balancing act to get the 'maturity/youth' ratio right. Last week we had a good balance, before injury and suspension, and we dropped one we shoudn't have.

This is having an effect on the whole sides confidence and morale.

The only reason Newton is even on our list is to play that second backup ruck role.

He is so much better than Dunn in the ruck it's not even funny. If you're gonna play Dunn in the ruck you may as well play Jurrah in there.

Having said that, he is not a ruckman, and even though he started well, he made so many dumb decisions today that it left me with no doubt as to why I can't see any future for him.

I don't care what he was retained for. He started today at FF and looked dangerous. Moving him gave us no benefit and cost us a forward target.

And he is not 'so much better than Dunn in the ruck'; that's ridiculous Jaded. He is useless in the ruck, just like Dunn, and we gain nothing from playing Newton instead of Dunn, whilst copping a loss. Stupid coaching.

I actually thought bailey did a better job this week.

We were severely weakened by injury before the game and during it.

He threw players around to try and solve problems, eg. Watts was alternating between forward and back from the first quarter.

I thought that worked.

If only his captain and a few other senior players would give him some help!

First, let's clear up at least one point: Newton was delisted and then placed on the rookie list and then elevated - in short MFC didn't want him. A few minutes of glory in the first quarter doesn't change his rating, as was obvious in the rest of the game.

Question: Was Martin really fit to ruck?

Re coaching: Nothing has changed (literally) - about time the 'review' addressed the real issue. Jimmy has done a great job in getting the club back on its feet financially and with physical facilities. The real issue still remains: the coaching is years out of date, the game has changed - time to move on in this area, and fast!

Just a point to add to my previous post re out of date coaching - has anyone noticed how Geelong's game has changed this year - looks like a lot more kicking rather than handpassing to me!

I'm not saying Bailey has to go, but to stay he's got to show us something on match day.

OK then I'll say it. Bailey has to go. Our team has no structure and he is a reactionary coach who gives nothing on match day. Shades of Daniher.

We need a hard nut who is not scared to make some moves. Hardwick would have been perfect and I envy Richmond for snapping him up when no one else wanted him. Trouble is he obviously saw nothing at MFC as he didn't even bother applying for the job.

Scott brothers are the same; uncompromising players who will not take any guff as coaches either. We need an uncompromising no-nonsense coach who will demand performances week in, week out, and someone who will go into bat for the players and take some of the rap when the team does not perform. His press ocnference last week basically saying he took no credit for the win, and by inference taking no credit for the performance against WCE the week before, was pretty pathetic. If it is all up to the players and the coach has no influence on the game then why even bother having one?

I'm sure the club knows this and are already making moves behind the scenes to try and secure a good coach for next year. We need someone who can get the players to gel for 4 quarters, week in, week out over the next few years, otherwise we risk wasting the talent we have accrued over the last few years.

We also need a shrewd coach who will know when to cut his losses and try and trade off players like Morton while they still have currency instead of hanging onto them for way too long until they play out their careers performing occasionally but underperforming for the most part. We did OK in getting rid of Johnstone and McLean but we didn't make the move quick enough on other players such as Bruce, Yze, White etc when we could have traded them off for something decent.

Dunn instead of Newton?? Splitting hairs TU.

We went into the game without four quality midfielders missing and Jamar, we were always in trouble with Martin and Newton against Goldstein.

By early in the 3rd qtr, we were down to 19 fit men. And once again the disappearing senior players who just dont give a yelp when it gets tough. I am not sure what wizzbang moves a coach can pull in that situation.

Rhino you often argue that the senior players are not up to it, we have to be patient with the young players, but the core mid twenty players (Dunn, Newton, Moloney, Jones, Bate, Warnock, Davey, Sylvia - McLean, PJ, Buckley and Miller when they were around)have all either under preformed or are inconsistent. Frawley, Jamar, Garland, and maybe Moloney have met or exceeded expect actions. When drafted they were as good as any others, but after four years under Bailey the bulk of the senior playing group have under preformed. It is often said that Bailey is a good teaching coach - has there been anything to prove this?

Our players that should be firing are not. There is one common problem - Dean Bailey. I've posted this a few times, I fear I will be posting it about Watts, Scully, Trengoce, Gysbesrts, Maric, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, Cook in another four years.

OK then I'll say it. Bailey has to go. Our team has no structure and he is a reactionary coach who gives nothing on match day. Shades of Daniher.

We need a hard nut who is not scared to make some moves. Hardwick would have been perfect and I envy Richmond for snapping him up when no one else wanted him. Trouble is he obviously saw nothing at MFC as he didn't even bother applying for the job.

Scott brothers are the same; uncompromising players who will not take any guff as coaches either. We need an uncompromising no-nonsense coach who will demand performances week in, week out, and someone who will go into bat for the players and take some of the rap when the team does not perform. His press ocnference last week basically saying he took no credit for the win, and by inference taking no credit for the performance against WCE the week before, was pretty pathetic. If it is all up to the players and the coach has no influence on the game then why even bother having one?

I'm sure the club knows this and are already making moves behind the scenes to try and secure a good coach for next year. We need someone who can get the players to gel for 4 quarters, week in, week out over the next few years, otherwise we risk wasting the talent we have accrued over the last few years.

We also need a shrewd coach who will know when to cut his losses and try and trade off players like Morton while they still have currency instead of hanging onto them for way too long until they play out their careers performing occasionally but underperforming for the most part. We did OK in getting rid of Johnstone and McLean but we didn't make the move quick enough on other players such as Bruce, Yze, White etc when we could have traded them off for something decent.

I agree with most of your poast - Bailey should go. However the one thing I will give him credit for is making the schred decisions on when to move on a player, or not offering a player a contract he does not deserve - Johnstone, Mclean, Miller, Bruce, White, Yze, Buckley, Wheately, Whelen, Jonhnson, Meeson, Robbo, McDonald ect. I don't think there are many that would argue moving on any of these players was the wrong decision.

I agree with most of your poast - Bailey should go. However the one thing I will give him credit for is making the schred decisions on when to move on a player, or not offering a player a contract he does not deserve - Johnstone, Mclean, Miller, Bruce, White, Yze, Buckley, Wheately, Whelen, Jonhnson, Meeson, Robbo, McDonald ect. I don't think there are many that would argue moving on any of these players was the wrong decision.

I agree to an extent and I'm not necessarily saying that Bailey hasn't culled the list. However I would say that of the names you have stated above none of them were really difficult calls to get rid of players in the 22-26 age group. McLean would fall into that category but he left of his own accord, that wasn't a Bailey decision. You could argue getting rid of Bruce & McDonald a year early was "shrewd" but at the end of the day this isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about looking at the stock you've got and moving a player on while he has some currency in the marketplace. Other than Johnstone and McLean what did we get in return for moving on any of the players you have named?