Frustrating Coaching (not calling for Bailey's head)

[Redleg 37,828]

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 thought his two best were the hand ball to a North player, when there were 3 Dees close by and the best by a mile was after a mark he kicked to Maric, who had Goldstein, Pratt and another Roo next to him for an uncontested Goldstein mark. That's not dumb, its moronic.

[Redleg 37,828]

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.

Buckley is going ok for the premiers.

[Guest Thomo]

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?

Your right, got nothing, and in hidsight seem to be easy decisions, but at the time White, Yze and Robbo where big calls. I still think that Mclean and Bruce were MFC decisions, because they gave them the option of a downgraded contract. Time will tell if we should have moved others on.

I'd move Davey on now. Soft front runner who is not prepared to work hard, but may have currency with another club.

[Demonic Ascent 0]

Your right, got nothing, and in hidsight seem to be easy decisions, but at the time White, Yze and Robbo where big calls. I still think that Mclean and Bruce were MFC decisions, because they gave them the option of a downgraded contract. Time will tell if we should have moved others on.

I'd move Davey on now. Soft front runner who is not prepared to work hard, but may have currency with another club.

Problem is we'd be paying out an exorbitant contract that he held the club to the wall for for the next 2-3 years. I think he signed a 5 year contract at the end of 2009 to become the highest paid player at the club.

Guys like Bate and Dunn porbably won't have any currency by the end of the year but we should at least be shopping them around to get an idea of what we might get for them. Guys like Morton & Bennell have 3 more months to show what they've got otherwise he is another I would be shopping around. Not to say we should give them away for nothing but it would be negligent if we didn't see what we could get for them.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Demonic Ascent

[Guest Thomo]

Problem is we'd be paying out an exorbitant contract that he held the club to the wall for for the next 2-3 years. I think he signed a 5 year contract at the end of 2009 to become the highest paid player at the club.

Guys like Bate and Dunn porbably won't have any currency by the end of the year but we should at least be shopping them around to get an idea of what we might get for them. Guys like Morton & Bennell have 3 more months to show what they've got otherwise he is another I would be shopping around. Not to say we should give them away for nothing but it would be negligent if we didn't see what we could get for them.

Hopefully Voss has not learnt his lesson, send him north on one million per year, or maybe Sheedy is cray enough.

[Demonic Ascent 0]

To add on to what I wrote above; if Bailey knew Bate was going to be languishing in the VFL this year struggling to get a game, why bother to keep him on? Why not shop him around at the end of 2010 when some clubs may have been sniffing around and seen enough in him as a lead up forward who can kick a few goals in a game to think there was something worth taking a punt on. But no, we hold onto him for another year, let him rot in the VFL and then even if we do try to trade him at the end of 2011 his currency will have degraded to the point where all we will be able to get for him, if anything, is a pick in the 40's-60's.

[Mono 454]

........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.................

Hardwick did apply for the job. MFC chose Bailey. Not a decision I agreed with, as I have said on this board a few times.

[Demonic Ascent 0]

Hardwick did apply for the job. MFC chose Bailey. Not a decision I agreed with, as I have said on this board a few times.

Well I'll defer to your better judgment then

[Geddy Lee 582]

One thing I noticed was that Watts was looking dangerous early and Bailey went and plonked him in the backline.

Truly baffling.

[whelan45 202]

I wasn't happy that we didn't man Norths loose man in defence up. Instead we put our own loose man in defense. This occurred after quarter time, clearly didnt work, contributed to the game being played on Norths terms, yet wasnt addressed. Why play Watts in an unfamiliar role as loose man in defense instead of using him up forward to make Norths loose man accountable?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Interesting to hear Dermie on the Sunday Footy Show today, talking about how he thinks we just don't work hard enough.

He seemed to have some good points.

Not sure if he just got it based on watching yesterday's game alone or if he has been watching us for a while.

I didn't see the game as I was playing myself.

[Miracle 89]

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.

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.

Obviously no one noticed the new game plan when Kangas were kicking in after a Melb point.

Everytime the melb defenders would move up to middle of ground for a forward press.

The kangas left two players alone in their forward line.

If Kangas retained possession in the midfield after kick in they had players everywhere. So for those watching on TV thats why they had free players in forward line when they moved the ball quickly from kick in

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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?

Having Dunn in the centre bounce on Goldstein is equivalent to giving North the ball and saying here you have the clearance.

And leaving Newton up forward was neither here nor there as we were starting to get crushed in the midfield.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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.

They arent.

None of your list are players that have much as footballers as some have come to MFC with key flaws in their games. Many of the players Bailey inherited from recruiting forays in the early 2000s under Cameron. And with the exception of Davey and possibly Sylvia none of your list were key parts of the blue print for the future. Most of them are C graders or NQRs under Danjher. They are still the same now. They wont get much better than they are now. They are bit players until our younger stars mature.

Our list is dependent on too few senior players who look brilliant when the party is on but melt and disappear under pressure. the Club needs to assess the FD/playing list to see where it needs to cull. But your sample size is skewing your outlook.

[rpfc 27,545]

Bailey isn't wrapping himself in glory so far this season but I have to pick on our 'senior' players once again.

7 goals to two first quarter.

12 goal turnaround.

Injuries aside and personnel issues, those two sentences grate...

Green and Co. are far too happy with themselves after one decent effort.

I just want to move on from our 25+ year old players.

So much talent and leadership and confidence and arrogance with the 22 and unders...

[dee-luded 2,958]

One thing I noticed was that Watts was looking dangerous early and Bailey went and plonked him in the backline.

Truly baffling.

The writing was on the wall @ the 15 Minute mark of the 1st Qtr. We jumped them, then they gathered their composure, pressed through the mid zone, pressured us more and more a until finally controlling the ball, in the 1st Qtr. Our midfield was smashed, and then our senior players, most, sat back, hands on head. Weren't prepared tp keep working at (the lost cause).

This is the real problem @ our club. It's the players who,,, "come and go", when It suits them.

When Blighty went tpo Adelaide all those years ago, he took a broom to the old dead wood that signs of rot in them. We took the wrong one last year. Green has pulled the wool over all our eyes with some intermittent courage over the previous 2 seasons. The ones who are trying to lift are Beamer, Sylvia, Davey, Jamar... Warnock, Rivers, and Mcdonald are honest but just not there.

GREEN, extract the digit, stop being politically correct and get out of your shell, and Lead.

[titan_uranus 22,538]

I wasn't happy that we didn't man Norths loose man in defence up. Instead we put our own loose man in defense. This occurred after quarter time, clearly didnt work, contributed to the game being played on Norths terms, yet wasnt addressed. Why play Watts in an unfamiliar role as loose man in defense instead of using him up forward to make Norths loose man accountable?

Agreed. The loose man in defence has never worked for us. Funnily enough, we didn't use it once against Adelaide. I am sick of Bailey resorting to it when the opposition kicks a couple of goals in a row.

Having Dunn in the centre bounce on Goldstein is equivalent to giving North the ball and saying here you have the clearance.

And leaving Newton up forward was neither here nor there as we were starting to get crushed in the midfield.

Rubbish. Having Newton is the centre bounce is the same as Dunn. Newton might be taller, but that does not make him any better, and he proved it yesterday. We were giving Goldstein first go at it whether it was Newton or Dunn. At least last week, Dunn was trying to get his body in the way of McKernan/Jacobs/Tippett (i.e. trying to use a strategy to overcome the height deficiency).

Leaving Newton forward would have given us one legitimate target. The way he was marking the ball, he should not have been moved.

[robbiefrom13 877]

Part of coaching is vision. The players do their stuff, but in a way they are limited by their necessary focus on the specifics. It must be for the coach to bring the wider perspective and to see what everyone hasn't seen yet. Have that big vision, and get it to happen. Hird has certainly done this at Essendon.

But the community of Melbourne appears to major on the sensible negatives - "don't expect too much", excusesexcuses, handwringing and downer after downer...

I remember Robbie Flower's first game - I was there upstairs on the fence in Bay 13 and watched him right below me. He ran out looking ridiculously skinny, with his elbows tucked in tightly. Robbie was only 17 and he just didn't look anything like a footballer. There were Bay 13 Melbourne supporters who saw that he was too skinny, he had a surname that in the hippie world of 1973 was made for mocking, and for the first quarter and a half I sat among Melbourne supporters some of whom were shouting out their opinion that he should be taken off and Alves put back onto his wing. Fortunately the Match Committee had seen what others didn't - that was vision - and ignoring all the visible negatives, they gave him a go. Robbie was like any young kid given a chance, he only wanted to play, and he went for it regardless of his limitations. As the game went on it became apparent that no matter what he looked like the Geelong players couldn't get the ball off him, and by the second half the fans in Bay 13 were laughing out loud - with delight and amazement - every time he went for it. It hadn't been just the supporters, either - Robbie tells the story of having to pay at the turnstile before his first game because the fellow on the players' gate didn't believe him; he says that when he was introduced around the team before his first game Greg Wells looked him up and down and said "you've got to be joking!" But somebody took none of that into account.

So who are the heroes of our club who made the call on Robbie? That is what we have to create again - not another Robbie Flower (if only!), but a can-do approach. A trust-the-players'-talent approach. Why insist they can't be expected to beat everyone yet? What good does that do? Will they be more crushed by defeat if they actually thought they were expected to have won the game?

I'm not just talking about people getting games either, but about honouring the skills of our players, letting them do what they were doing that got them recruited; the coaches looking for and being entirely focused on facilitating them doing their thing. Giving up the pre-planned unimaginative expectations and formulas that are modelled on the average. I can remember Jakovich kicking bag after bag in the reserves and still not getting picked because somebody reckoned he wasn't quite right. He was more than right, if they only could have seen it. What a waste - a lack of vision - to have left him in the Reserves while the seniors were losing games. Where do we get having Moloney thrown out of leadership, when he's clearly on-field leadership?

What I want to know is, do our coaching staff have faith in our players? We have recruited people who are supposedly the best that could be had. Do the coaching staff see these players as the recruiting staff saw them, not as we suppose they are today but as what they have got in them? Do the coaches talk and coach the future into being here now? If not, why not?

Is the club and the coaching staff intent on inspiring our young players with a sense of how talented and valued they are? It doesn't sound or look like it, because all we hear is about "developing", "more pre-seasons", "not-our-window-yet", etc, and when it starts to go wrong on the field the players appear to accept this must be, and they give up, as though they aren't really schooled to expect to win every week and in any case they aren't in charge of it, they need somebody else as the experts to tell them how to play the game ... We have thank goodness dropped the defeatist mantra of "competitive", but still it seems that the message is "not yet". Are we waiting for our future to be ready, waiting God-help-us for the players to emerge out of the no-expectation-yet, and imagining that this will open up our "window"?

Does Bailey talk our players up like Scott did his, or demand and make real in everyone's minds what everyone wants, like Hird apparently has?

Do our players get told how good they are, how classy Jack Watts is ("so kick it to him!"), or are they like us fed the limp drivel of waiting till we have got rid of another 30, 50, etc more games, or so many more pre-seasons, etc, before we can expect it to happen? We calculate the average number of games before we'll be ready, we discount the more accelerated rises like Hawthorn's - and all this creates a mentality of impossible yet, of being average-only, of being too sensible to dream... And so, with the "don't expect too much", "ups and downs", blah blah blah, we just get more crap performances.

Tell us the one about the fire again, or the "emblem"... Did someone somewhere have a vision of that being real, now? Or was all that just window-dressing that nobody actually believed in? Small wonder other clubs are climbing straight past us...

Crawl off in a corner somewhere, is what I say, and think out some belief - or get out of the way for someone who can. You will inevitably coach exactly according to what you believe; so, if you can't really see it, and you can't really believe it, you should get out. If you do believe it, stop giving us the fire-hose every time you speak. The supporters want the fire.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Agreed. The loose man in defence has never worked for us. Funnily enough, we didn't use it once against Adelaide. I am sick of Bailey resorting to it when the opposition kicks a couple of goals in a row.

Rubbish. Having Newton is the centre bounce is the same as Dunn. Newton might be taller, but that does not make him any better, and he proved it yesterday. We were giving Goldstein first go at it whether it was Newton or Dunn. At least last week, Dunn was trying to get his body in the way of McKernan/Jacobs/Tippett (i.e. trying to use a strategy to overcome the height deficiency).

Leaving Newton forward would have given us one legitimate target. The way he was marking the ball, he should not have been moved.

Newton was a better option to have made a centre bounce contest than Dunn. Dunn was put in the centre when the game was won and Dunn's inability in the centre was not going to hurt us. But the real issue is that when the ball hit the ground we got mauled. And its no good having targets if you are getting smoked out of the centre. It was the midfield where games are won and lost. And the fate of the game was settled there.

[Jaded No More 58,392]

Does anyone here actually understand the problem with throwing just any random player into the ruck?

Firstly, you give away lots of free kicks, which absolutely kill you. Secondly, you risk serious injury if you don't know what you are doing in there.

And finally, Dunn had to go down back to cover for the loss of Garland (and yes he did a shite job and let's never talk about it again), so for those who wanted Dunn to ruck, are you suggesting we should have put Newton down back? Because given the injuries we had, especially once Martin slowed down with his knee, we had no choice but to throw someone in there who could at least compete for size or something. Remember the game wasn't actually gone until about halfway through the last quarter. We were only a few goals down at 3/4 time.

And it makes no difference if Newton was at FF or goddamn Wayne Carey, if we were uncompetitive through the middle the ball was never going to make it into the forwardline anyway, giving Newton no chance at all.

[demons27 1]

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.

You are not calling for Bailey's head, but I am. He is not up to AFL level. We need a premiership coach like Malthouse/Roos. My money is on one of these already being locked in for next season; perhaps with Connolly as the interim.

[titan_uranus 22,538]

Does anyone here actually understand the problem with throwing just any random player into the ruck?

Firstly, you give away lots of free kicks, which absolutely kill you. Secondly, you risk serious injury if you don't know what you are doing in there.

Correct. Newton gave away multiple free kicks for holding Goldstein. And risked injury.

And finally, Dunn had to go down back to cover for the loss of Garland (and yes he did a shite job and let's never talk about it again), so for those who wanted Dunn to ruck, are you suggesting we should have put Newton down back? Because given the injuries we had, especially once Martin slowed down with his knee, we had no choice but to throw someone in there who could at least compete for size or something. Remember the game wasn't actually gone until about halfway through the last quarter. We were only a few goals down at 3/4 time.

And it makes no difference if Newton was at FF or goddamn Wayne Carey, if we were uncompetitive through the middle the ball was never going to make it into the forwardline anyway, giving Newton no chance at all.

You could argue that. But Newton was rucked before Garland was injured.

My point remains. Bailey chose to ruck Newton instead of Dunn, after Newton had kicked two goals and looked promising (note I'm not saying he would have gone on to play a good game) and Dunn had been reported. What happened after that is irrelevant to that decision. I didn't like it, and I still don't.

[Jaded No More 58,392]

Correct. Newton gave away multiple free kicks for holding Goldstein. And risked injury.

And that's despite training as a secondary ruck in the pre-season and playing there occasionally for Casey.

Imagine how much worse the situation would have been with Dunn!

You could argue that. But Newton was rucked before Garland was injured.

My point remains. Bailey chose to ruck Newton instead of Dunn, after Newton had kicked two goals and looked promising (note I'm not saying he would have gone on to play a good game) and Dunn had been reported. What happened after that is irrelevant to that decision. I didn't like it, and I still don't.

Newton did not ruck before Garland got injured for more than about 2 minutes at a time while Martin was having a breather (hardly a game changer, and hardly an excuse for Newton to be put off his game at FF).

And besides, if Newton is EVER going to make it, and let's be honest, he is odds on to fail, he has to be able to compete in ruck contests because with the current sub rule you cannot afford to have too many one dimensional talls in your side, especially up forward.

Let's not all get excited by one good quarter by Juice. I thought he work off the ball was excellent and his pressure important, but he makes horrible decisions and is generally not a very smart footballer. He will get another chance this week, and it will be interesting to see how he goes.