Dunn Newton and Bate were all seen as good prospects a few years ago, and they have gone backwards under Bailey,

Disagree. Dunn had his best year to date in 2010....under Bailey.

Bate is pretty much the same player as he was, I don't think he has gone backwards, I think our group since 2008 has simply improved and he has been surpassed by a few players, particularly new players in Jurrah, even Dunn himself from 2010 form. His pace has remained on a par IMO. If anything he is probably stronger, more top heavy than the younger version of Bate.

Newton is still Newton. No need to add anything else here.

As you say, a few years ago they were good prospects...prospects...

Bailey has had 4 fours with the mid twenties group, surely he has to take responsibility for the lack of ability? Dunn Newton and Bate were all seen as good prospects a few years ago, and they have gone backwards under Bailey, in general most of the senior list have not improved to the level initially expected of them (Jamar, Frawley and Garland the exceptions, too early to tell on the last three years recruits)

Serious question - you signed up to Demonland at the time the heat started on the coach, and most of your posts are blindly defending him. Are you in anyway associated with the club or the coach?

I don't think that should be seen as the case at all.

Is he to blame for Weetra being rubbish?

Dunn, Bate and Newton all still possess the exact same qualities that lead to them being seen as good prospects when they are young.

It's just that over time their limitations have become more apparent.

I also think the game has changed and left them behind a bit - there was a time when their running power (Bate & Dunn) was a serious weapon against an opponent - now every player is expected to be capable of that.

Newton always had a poor attitude and it is still what holds him back.

A coach can only do so much.

Serious question - not in the slightest.

The closest I've ever come to speaking to Bailey has been to listen to him address some of the players in the break at the intra-club practice match this year.

I'm merely a champion of truth, justice and common sense!

I try to educate others.

I know how arrogant that sounds and I don't really care.

Bailey has had 4 fours with the mid twenties group, surely he has to take responsibility for the lack of ability? Dunn Newton and Bate were all seen as good prospects a few years ago, and they have gone backwards under Bailey, in general most of the senior list have not improved to the level initially expected of them (Jamar, Frawley and Garland the exceptions, too early to tell on the last three years recruits)

Serious question - you signed up to Demonland at the time the heat started on the coach, and most of your posts are blindly defending him. Are you in anyway associated with the club or the coach?

Pretty [censored] big exceptions...

It's always funny to see someone with a particular idea attempt to elaborate and give the old 'exceptions in brackets but I hope no-one notices them' writing tool.

Two AA's and a bloody good CHB/HBF/whatever.

Oh come on.

Nahas was looking like a one trick pony before Hardwick demanded improvement and for him to get more strings to his bow.

White, Graham, Derrickx, Morton, Thursfield and McGuane wouldn't get a game at 12-14 clubs.

They picked up Miller.

I wouldn't be swapping with Richmond, but the notion that they are advanced of us is simply revisionist carp.

Not at all.

They may not be BETTER than us, but they are more advanced, physically and mentally.

2 different concepts.

It's pretty simple...

Yet for some reason people like yourself continually confuse the 2.

Pretty [censored] big exceptions...

It's always funny to see someone with a particular idea attempt to elaborate and give the old 'exceptions in brackets but I hope no-one notices them' writing tool.

Two AA's and a bloody good CHB/HBF/whatever.

I think you'll find he's the best wingman in the league...

Two AA's and a bloody good CHB/HBF/whatever.

I think "wingman" is what JCB31 would be looking for. No one else.

edit: thanks Artie

I think "wingman" is what JCB31 would be looking for. No one else.

edit: thanks Artie

{KS?}

Of course he is KS. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

We're even going to do 89 to further demonstrate the spread

>Players born in 89

MFC (2) - Jack Grimes, Jake Spencer

RFC (5) - Mitch Farmer, David Gourdis, Jayden Post, Ben Nason, Alex Rance

>Players born in 90

MFC (7) - Jamie Bennell, Cale Morton, Neville Jetta, Adam Maric, Jordie McKenzie, James Strauss, Jeremy Howe*

RFC (3) - Trent Cotchin, Andrew Browne, Tyrone Vickery

Again, another wave of youth, again, a year before ours.

After that, we are getting too young for them to make much of a difference on either side.

Born in 91

MFC - 8

RFC - 6

Born in 92

MFC - 3

RFC - 4

Not at all.

They may not be BETTER than us, but they are more advanced, physically and mentally.

2 different concepts.

It's pretty simple...

Yet for some reason people like yourself continually confuse the 2.

I'm more developed, physically and mentally. So what? Spider Burton was a bigger ruckman than Jeff White. So what?

Tapscott is more physically developed than Chris Judd.... So what?

And it's interesteing that you have changed from use of the word "accomplished" to physically and mentally advanced. Back up the bulltish truck mate.

I'm more developed, physically and mentally. So what? Spider Burton was a bigger ruckman than Jeff White. So what?

Tapscott is more physically developed than Chris Judd.... So what?

And it's interesteing that you have changed from use of the word "accomplished" to physically and mentally advanced. Back up the bulltish truck mate.

Are you competing against AFL players?

At that level, physical maturity and experience make a big difference.

Tapscott looks bigger than Judd.

I'm pretty sure he isn't as fast and his engine isn't as big.

He also falls very short in the experience stakes.

"Accomplished", "advanced", whatever.

Virtually means the same thing... unless you'd like to explain the difference.

I think you're just desperately grasping to find something wrong with what I said.

It's really very very simple.

If you don't get it by now, you never will.

Believe what you want.

Are you competing against AFL players?

At that level, physical maturity and experience make a big difference.

Tapscott looks bigger than Judd.

I'm pretty sure he isn't as fast and his engine isn't as big.

He also falls very short in the experience stakes.

"Accomplished", "advanced", whatever.

Virtually means the same thing... unless you'd like to explain the difference.

I think you're just desperately grasping to find something wrong with what I said.

It's really very very simple.

If you don't get it by now, you never will.

Believe what you want.

Yes.

Richmond is meant to be better than us.

Accomplished means the same as physically and mentally advanced.

There.

I get it now.

Does the poster that sits closer to the coaches box have a better view? Or is the third tier a better view? I usually sit behind the benches so it is difficult to see across to the SS wing, does that affect my ability to judge the coaches responsibility?

I mean, lol, DC. It's a bit lazy to go for the 'tyranny of distance' put down, even if you did misinterpret what I said. I went to fair few games in 2008 and 2009, and have to carefully pick the games I do see know to coincide with my own football fixture. I doubt many fans would spend the money I do to get down to Melbourne as regularly as I do.

And, lastly, being at the game doesn't mean you know what you are looking at...

Some of those who are based in Melbourne actually thought Melbourne would win 12-14 games this year...

lol, and I know one os based 'lander who predicted a top 4 finish this year

I didn't seek this year as a development year originally, more a tightening up year. Now I see the rest of the year as very much a development year. Blood some more of the youngsters (Howe, Nicholson, Blease, Strauss, Gawn, maybe Cook and some others). Bate, Newton and maybe some others to stay in the VFL no matter how they perform for Casey.

BTW if you want to save some coin on your sojourns don't forget jcb's offer to pick you up at the airport

Yes.

Richmond is meant to be better than us.

Accomplished means the same as physically and mentally advanced.

There.

I get it now.

No. Not better.

Maybe more equipped to compete now, by virtue of being further physically and mentally advanced... but not better.

No. Not better.

Maybe more equipped to compete now, by virtue of being further physically and mentally advanced... but not better.

Very frustrating mate.

Medhurst was more physically and mentally prepared than Blair.

O'Bree was more physically and mentally prepared than Beams

Presti was more physcially and mentally prepared than Goldsack.

You're measuring nothing.

Pretty [censored] big exceptions...

It's always funny to see someone with a particular idea attempt to elaborate and give the old 'exceptions in brackets but I hope no-one notices them' writing tool.

Two AA's and a bloody good CHB/HBF/whatever.

My point was, out of all the players that have been at Melbourne under Bailey, I can only think of three that have exceeded expectations. Taking out the last three drafts due to being too early to call. How is that funny?? Can you name any more than the three listed that have exceeded expectations from the end of 2007?

Disagree. Dunn had his best year to date in 2010....under Bailey.

Bate is pretty much the same player as he was, I don't think he has gone backwards, I think our group since 2008 has simply improved and he has been surpassed by a few players, particularly new players in Jurrah, even Dunn himself from 2010 form. His pace has remained on a par IMO. If anything he is probably stronger, more top heavy than the younger version of Bate.

Newton is still Newton. No need to add anything else here.

As you say, a few years ago they were good prospects...prospects...

Maybe not backwards, but for three players that have been highly regarded at some stage to show limited improvement under Bailey is not good, nobody can argue that these three should be playing much better football than they are. As I have previously said I think as a general rule the playing group has not developed as hoped under him. I often hear that he is a teaching coach, but I have seen little evidence of this.

My point was, out of all the players that have been at Melbourne under Bailey, I can only think of three that have exceeded expectations. Taking out the last three drafts due to being too early to call. How is that funny?? Can you name any more than the three listed that have exceeded expectations from the end of 2007?

Players that have made significant improvement:

Frawley, Sylvia, McKenzie, Dunn, Garland, Jurrah, Martin, Jamar, Bail

You could add Bartram and Rivers who've regained their best form after troubles

But there's also a number of players who haven't developed too

Very frustrating mate.

Medhurst was more physically and mentally prepared than Blair.

O'Bree was more physically and mentally prepared than Beams

Presti was more physcially and mentally prepared than Goldsack.

You're measuring nothing.

You do understand that players reach a used-by date, don't you?

In regards to Medhurst and Blair, luckily I listened to an interview with Malthouse on SEN where he discussed the 2 players, and why Blair was the better option over Medhurst.

Simply put, they were both asked to perform a specific role in the team and Blair could do it better than Medhurst.

That wasn't to say Medhurst couldn't do it well, and he could do many other things Blair hasn't yet show, but Blair could do the specific things Malthouse was looking for better than Medhurst.

Mick wouldn't go into the specifics of that role, but I assume it was related to the ability to apply pressure in a small space and stick to the structure.

Makes the decision pretty easy.

Now, one or 2 younger players aren't an issue, especially if they are physically developed for their role and have experience.

You must also understand that there is a cumulative effect, that the more young players and less experienced physically-mature players in the team, the harder it is to compensate.

Anyway, you don't want to get it, you just want to argue.

It's a simple concept.

Very frustrating mate.

Medhurst was more physically and mentally prepared than Blair.

O'Bree was more physically and mentally prepared than Beams

Presti was more physcially and mentally prepared than Goldsack.

You're measuring nothing.

All of these may be true, but in a physically and mentally developed team, it is easier for isolated examples like these to provide the exception. Melbourne don't have Swan, Pendlebury, Maxwell, Shaw, Didak, Tarrant, O'Brien, Cloke, Dawes, Davis, Ball, Jolly etc. which is the point.

Almost all of our genuine talent is young and not physically developed. When they are, we will be a good side. Probably not before.

From Choko, on 23 May 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

Mate, useful to get your facts right!

Newton isn't more youth. Bate isn't more youth. MacDonald isn't more youth. Rivers isn't more youth. Neither is Warnock. We probably had our oldest side out there that we have had for a very long time.

We weren't held back on the weekend by our youth. We were held back by injuries, lack of depth, poor leadership and some senior blokes who have been retained but cannot deliver and are not part of our future.

And yet were, on avg, 2 yrs younger, and 40 games less experienced than St Kilda. They ARE the facts

Both points have some validity.

Yes, we did introduce more experience from the previous week overall (obviously Evans the exception here individually). We were more experienced on average across the team by 15 games versus the team we fielded the previous week against North.

Round 8 Roos v Demons (Ave games - per player by team)

Roos - 67

Demons - 50

Round 9 Saints v Demons

Saints - 108

Demons - 65

But yes we also had less experience as a differential versus the Saints, when compared to the differential against the Roos. 43 versus 17 to be precise.

Given this differential, one could argue that we improved our result on the previous week (i can hear some of you saying "so we should!!" lol) as we halved the losing margin against a much more experienced team and with a significant increased (negative) differential in experience, on the same ground.

The other stats i thought worth looking at....

Against the Roos: 13 players with less than 49 games under their belt (rookies? for want of a better term) with average games played per rookie of 26. The Roos had 10 rookies with an average of 21 games per rookie. Reasonably close stats here, albeit 3 extra rookies for the Demons this day.

Against the Saints: 12 rookies, each with an average of 21 games. The Saints had 5 rookies, each with an average of 11 games. Almost double the number of games on average for our rookies but we had more than double the number of rookies than the Saints.

As for experienced players (using 100+ games played for this comparison). The Saints had us on both counts. Demons: 143 games per experienced player. Saints: 163. Demons: 5 experienced players, Saints 12.

The comment that I was responding to was that we brought more youth in to play St Kilda. In fact we didn't - we brought more dead wood experience in for the game, plus Evans.

Our deadwood experience is only 23-24, its still young against most of the top 4 teams.

We brought in too many forwards that can't/won't defend. We also totally mucked up the sub.

So whats the solution to the forwards? Cook is still struggling to get on top at AFL level. The sub is a strawman issue because Tapscott did his hamstring in the first quarter. And its a worry when a touch player like Bate still cant get a touch in 3 qtrs.

The youth discussion is overplayed anyway. Collingwood improved dramatically when it gave up on a whole lot of experience and replaced it with youth. Medhurst, O'Bree, etc... out for Blair, etc...

The only time the youth discussion is oveplayed is when its misunderstood. Collingwood pensioned off 28 to 31 yos that had become peripheral to their needs over the past year. Medhurst, Presti, Lockyer were bit players and had become redundant. The strength of Collingwood is dependent on the experience and talent of Swan, Pendlebury, Thomas, Didak, Cloke, Jolly, Ball, Shaw and O'Brien. All have talent, experience and over 100 games of AFL each. With a core of talent and experience like that how easy would it be for players like Blair, Wellingham etc to come in a play minor roles to these stars and look good in cameos. If they were playing at MFC they'd be thrown in the guts and made to play front line and get no real support from senior players. Collingwood improved dramatically because their core improved substantially and then was assisted by the ability to offload aging warhorses and replace them with fresh legs supported by an experienced army.

And as for injuries, Freo have performed far better under adversity this year than we have, even in relative terms. So you can see it both ways.

I dont think Freo is a good comparison to MFC at present. While they have alot of injuries, up to nowe they have still had two front line A grade superstars playing in Pavlich and Sandilands. They have McPharlin who is nearly A grade as a defender. Which senior MFC players compare with that?

How will they go without S'lands??? Howe would they perform without S'lands, Pav and McPharlin in addition to one or two other injured players who would be in their top 5-6?? Because thats the situation MFC is in now.

Once again they have an older, more experienced and a better more balanced list than ours with a couple of true stars,some capable expereienced capable A to B graders and they have recruited well in recent years.

If they had a full list, Freo would be a serious top 4 contender and have a far more mature list than MFC.

Players that have made significant improvement:

Frawley, Sylvia, McKenzie, Dunn, Garland, Jurrah, Martin, Jamar, Bail

You could add Bartram and Rivers who've regained their best form after troubles

But there's also a number of players who haven't developed too

Good list.

You could also add Watts, Trengove, Grimes during that time with Bailey.

A number of players that havent developed have also shown their frailties in front of 3 coaches now (eg Bate, Newton and Dunn). Hmmm just might be the players arent that good.

His contention is clear: Bailey will not be coaching us next year if we do not improve our football. Injuries are no excuse.

But it is written poorly.

His contention is clear: Bailey will not be coaching us next year if we do not improve our football. Injuries are no excuse.

But it is written poorly.

It is pretty clear, but I'm not sure it's correct.

We've introduced more youth and inexperience to the 22, and while they have more talent, it will lead to inconsistency and some putrid results in the short-term.

Therefore, should Bailey be judged solely on wins this year?

As much as I want Malthouse or Roos to coach us next year neither of them would have much chance with the players available, aspcially with the disappearance of Davey and Green.