Well, that's partially true. But we haven't seen any desperation, change of tactics to account for the lost players, etc... The improvements haven't been as great as they might have been.

Excluding Davey and Newton, I thought the team was extremely desperate (and undermanned) against the Saints. Certainly at 3/4 time we were significantly ahead of all key vital stats against the Saints except the scoreboard. Watts aside, we had a side out there that lacked class in spades but not endeavour.

And the improvements are going to come from having our class players, fit, getting game time together and developing. We have stalled with their absence and the collapse in contribution from a number of senior players. A number of the players who played on Saturday are not the ones who are going to be ones that break the games open.

I'd be surprised if Bailey's cards are marked.

Given that we are 9th and have a horrendous injury list with many of our most important players on the sidelines .... I don't see it.

I do see a lot of impatient supporters, though.

*cue 'blah blah blah 40 years since a flag' narrow minded 'woe is me' irrelevence*

Yes, but whether or not Bailey contributed to our failures since '65 he is in charge of this footy club, so in a way, in a very stupid way, he is responsible.

Excluding Davey and Newton, I thought the team was extremely desperate (and undermanned) against the Saints. Certainly at 3/4 time we were significantly ahead of all key vital stats against the Saints except the scoreboard. Watts aside, we had a side out there that lacked class in spades but not endeavour.

And the improvements are going to come from having our class players, fit, getting game time together and developing. We have stalled with their absence and the collapse in contribution from a number of senior players. A number of the players who played on Saturday are not the ones who are going to be ones that break the games open.

I wasn't disappointed with the endeavour in the Saints game, but let me tell you, we should be ahead on metrics, they are woeful and passionless ATM.

I thought that the elevation and selection of Newton, not just his performance, was disgraceful. Look at the elevation of Evans - there has to be another rookie out there that is better than a known failure. Also, Jurrah, Petterd and Bate have not really worked on their defensive side, and have not been asked to in the sense that Jurrah in particular gets away with it and gets selected week on week. You can't get away with that in the 18 man press any more.

I also thought the selection of Bate as sub was plain lunacy and was rightly roundly criticised pre-game by many. How do you beat the saints? Run and spread. Speed. If we were going to play Bate, who is a touch player, surely the plan should have been that we should have started him on and subbed off one of our tall forwards at some stage for a runner.

Positives were the continued improvement of Martin, Gysberts' game and McKenzie getting a run.

Well, that's partially true. But we haven't seen any desperation, change of tactics to account for the lost players, etc... The improvements haven't been as great as they might have been.

So in a sense, Bailey may well be unlucky, but you do make your own luck in this game.

Which bit?

I think we have shown desperation. Like RR said, on Saturday we showed it, except for a select few.

I'm not sure we need to see a change in tactics to account for lost players.

We seemed to cover ok, and were not convincingly beaten on Saturday.

Bailey coached well, restricting what the Saints were able to do, but at the end of the day, the bounce of the ball and the polish of their senior players pushed them ahead.

Conversely our inexperience and the presence of our 27th and 28th best players meant we made some poor decisions and skill execution errors - tactics were not the problem.

You do make your own luck, but only to a certain extent.

Bailey can't be held accountable for injuries, or supporters' short memories and impatience, leading them to ignore the fact we are still developing a list of very young players that have played very few games.

I'm not sure why anyone would expect improvement when more youth is being pushed into an already young team.

Other than ignorance.

I have to say, I thought it was a fair article.

It said that 75 games in as coach, we still don't know if Bailey can coach, and in Ralph's view, Bailey had better prove it or he will likely be gone.

I think that's all correct.

I thought the article was OK. Nothing groundbreaking, but a reasonable summary of the current situation.

The Board has a decision to make at the end of the season to select a coach who can take us from where we are now (and, it could be said, where we were this time last season) to top-4 and hopefully flag. That coach will need to have demonstrated qualities that Bailey has yet to demonstrate in 75 games. He has another 15 games to demonstrate them to the Board's satisfaction, and the injuries give him a great opportunity.

Rodney Eade is the Dead Man Walking...He has come to the end of the Road.

Dean is under some pressure, but i thought he coached really well on Saturday. Once Tappy did his Hammy i thought we would have been smashed in that game. We weren't.

Our attitude as a team was great..Evans was fantastic.

Dean can only do so much. At this stage, it looks like he is doing it.

Newton & Davey should be dropped. Make a statement-I don't care who is injured.

Good game from our Captain to..Took some strong grabs...

I think we have shown desperation. Like RR said, on Saturday we showed it, except for a select few.

I'm not sure we need to see a change in tactics to account for lost players.

We seemed to cover ok, and were not convincingly beaten on Saturday.

Bailey coached well, restricting what the Saints were able to do, but at the end of the day, the bounce of the ball and the polish of their senior players pushed them ahead.

Conversely our inexperience and the presence of our 27th and 28th best players meant we made some poor decisions and skill execution errors - tactics were not the problem.

You do make your own luck, but only to a certain extent.

Bailey can't be held accountable for injuries, or supporters' short memories and impatience, leading them to ignore the fact we are still developing a list of very young players that have played very few games.

I'm not sure why anyone would expect improvement when more youth is being pushed into an already young team.

Other than ignorance.

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.

I don't blame Bailey for the injuries.

I don't entirely hold him to blame for the other factors, partly because he inherited a lot of them. But the fact of the matter is, we should expect more than a 50 point loss to North and 20 point loss to St Kilda. They are both no good.

Not convincingly beaten is hardly an endorsement... other than for the ignorant.

I wasn't disappointed with the endeavour in the Saints game, but let me tell you, we should be ahead on metrics, they are woeful and passionless ATM.

I thought that the elevation and selection of Newton, not just his performance, was disgraceful. Look at the elevation of Evans - there has to be another rookie out there that is better than a known failure. Also, Jurrah, Petterd and Bate have not really worked on their defensive side, and have not been asked to in the sense that Jurrah in particular gets away with it and gets selected week on week. You can't get away with that in the 18 man press any more.

I also thought the selection of Bate as sub was plain lunacy and was rightly roundly criticised pre-game by many. How do you beat the saints? Run and spread. Speed. If we were going to play Bate, who is a touch player, surely the plan should have been that we should have started him on and subbed off one of our tall forwards at some stage for a runner.

Positives were the continued improvement of Martin, Gysberts' game and McKenzie getting a run.

I dont think metrics measure passion. But clearly Saturday was not an issue. But there have clearly been games where our passion could be questioned. While this is ultimately referrable to the coach, questions will have to be asked out senior players.

Newton has not delivered but was selected as a consequence of a terrible spate of injuries that has inflicted our rucks. Both Jamar and Spencer went down in the same week. Campbell is just coming back from injury. Gawn has had one senior VFL game after a 12 month lay off. Newton is our fifth option as the back up ruck. His efforts against North in the first qtr justified his selection this week. So which rookie would have been able to pinch hit the ruck and play forward?

You are right to point out our fwds poor defensive skills. Both Bate and Petterd are poor defensively. And Bate a touch player??. He was played on the ground against Adelaide and when its party time, he does not touch much. Both Jurrah and Petterd give us more offensively. And if we are talking about speed then Bate does not have any.

With Bate and Newton, in essence you are arguing the 21st and 22nd player in the team which is not going to make the difference. But what you do highlight is the limitations we have list wise and I think its fair to say that the continuation of Bate and Newton in MFC colours is unlikely.

I'm no Bailey apologist, and if his time is up come seasons end then so be it, but this article is crud of the highest order!

Tell the football world something it doesn't know! Bailey along with a heap of other coaches are going to be under the pump to keep their jobs this year if their teams don't fire.

You are an absolute amateur John Ralph!

Can someone please explain to me why were all having a go at Jon Ralph??He is one of the very few footy journalists out there that actually does make some sense. If you all just calmed down and took the time to read his article again you will notice it is well constructed and there is nothing 'sensationalist' about it at all.He talks about the fact that Bailey has had 3.5 years to prove he can coach and time is running out which we all know.He mentions that even though weve been decimated by injuries that thats irrelevant and Bailey has to show inspiration and tactical innovation to keep his job. He then goes on to talk about how Bailey has been totally outcoached this year especially by teams implementing the forward presses. He then goes on to question whether weve actually improved at all this year and gives the only examples i can think of of players that actually have shown progression (excluding perhaps Jack Watts and Stefan Martin). Theres then a mention of our lack of leadership which is blatantly obvious and some comparisons drawn with a team that failed to improve from a promising 2009 in Essendon and their coach lost the supporters and ultimately his job which is an eerily similar scenario to what were potentially facing. I think its a very good article and it sums up exactly where were at!!Ease ofF Jon Ralph boys

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.

I don't blame Bailey for the injuries.

I don't entirely hold him to blame for the other factors, partly because he inherited a lot of them. But the fact of the matter is, we should expect more than a 50 point loss to North and 20 point loss to St Kilda. They are both no good.

Not convincingly beaten is hardly an endorsement... other than for the ignorant.

The facts were right.

Evans? That is more youth.

Sorry, should I have made it more clear by saying "youth + old players that are good at VFL level, but substandard at AFL level"?

Rivers is usually a best 22 player, MacDonald is on the verge.

The rest I mentioned as our "27th & 28th best players" - and that is being kind to them.

In any case, at the bottom where I mentioned adding more youth, I also thought it was pretty clear in that paragraph I was talking about season as a whole.

Tapscott, Gysberts, Evans, Watts is now a regular - youth.

Sorry, I though it was blatantly obvious for all to see.

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

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 had the 2nd most inexpereienced team by games played on the weekend like we have had every week.

St Kilda had a total games experience of 2405. We had total games experience of 1446. Its been around that mark all year. Average age St Kilda 25.5, MFC 23.5 years. And if we could be playing Scully, Grimes, Trengove, Tapscott then the age and games drops further.

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.

We are held back by our youth because we cant get the development into them soon enough for them to take over and cast aside the NQRs you mention. Supporters will need patience, more than what has been shown on D'land this year. And injuries only make it harder. The collapse of the contribution by senior players only makes the desire for the transition to the younger talent greater.

We may never actually have that true answer about Bailey proving it when 5 of the best players (and 7 of the best 22) in the MFC team are out injured and your highest paid player, leader and B& F winner putting in shockers.

Unless he is a miracle worker, Bailey's cards are marked.

I think you have it covered fairly well RR.

When you don't have the required player talent

Everything else looks poor,

lack of endevour, more mistakes, bad decision making, poor kicking that results in turnovers etc.

all stem from having players with talent levels lower than their opponents.

You cannot replace 7 -8 players ( especially in the GWS era ) but you can replace a coach.

Unless he has talents that we in the outer don't see I think he is for the high jump.

Unless a mircale happens there will need to be a sacrificial lamb by year end.

That will be DB wether he deserves it or not.

I am making no judgement one way or the other, but I would be genuinely interested to read how everyone thinks Bailey is consistently out-coached, out-smarted or out-foxed. It appears to be a given that the opposing coaches out-coach Bailey - but how?

He mentions that even though weve been decimated by injuries that thats irrelevant

This sentence is not congruent.

Let's turn it into an equation.

Let's call normal run with injuries X, bad run with injuries Y, Z can be expression for 'irrelevance', and W can be consistently good performances.

G15 has intimated that Y affects W negatively, and that Y equals Z. Let's have a look.

X or Y have to equal Z as they are mutually exclusive.

X allows W. And Y will therefore equal Z.

Our current predicamanet (as alluded to by G15) is that Y affects W negatively. And X will therefore equal Z.

Y cannot therefore equal Z.

A bad run of injuries cannot be irrelevant.

Done.

This sentence is not congruent.

Let's turn it into an equation.

Let's call normal run with injuries X, bad run with injuries Y, Z can be expression for 'irrelevance', and W can be consistently good performances.

G15 has intimated that Y affects W negatively, and that Y equals Z. Let's have a look.

X or Y have to equal Z as they are mutually exclusive.

X allows W. And Y will therefore equal Z.

Our current predicamanet (as alluded to by G15) is that Y affects W negatively. And X will therefore equal Z.

Y cannot therefore equal Z.

A bad run of injuries cannot be irrelevant.

Done.

yeah thats just what i was about to say

Having just re-read the article, it goes from reasonable analysis in the first few sentences to pure bullocks starting from the "coaching high noon" bit and needing to produce "results", by which he seems to mean wins.

The injury list is relevant to results & win-loss, but it is not relevant to the decision the Board has to make about his re-appointment; if anything, it makes his win-loss record over the next 15 games less of a factor than it would have been otherwise. They're not going to reappoint him (or not) just on sympathy because of the injury list, but how he responds as a coach to the depletion of his playing stocks will be vitally important.

Ralph is right; we simply don't know yet whether Bailey possesses the qualities the Board needs to see from the coach who will take us to a flag. He mentions being "capable of inspiration, of tactical innovation, and of the ability to fast-track the wondrous talent on the Demons' list". That's not a bad starting list.

Bailey needs to show that, as a coach, he is capable of making a definite impact upon the course of a game. I love DB for what he's done up to the end of last season, and I really want to see him do this too, but I have to say I haven't seen it so far.

It's not enough to just rely on the natural improvement of a young list, or upon individual efforts of this or that player or even of a group of players. He has to "value-add" something over the course of a game that can only be done by the coach that makes an impact on performance as a team - as the "whole that is greater than the sum of the parts". If the Board appoints a coach who can't demonstrate this capability, all the efforts of the last few years will be wasted. I really hope Bails can show it before the end of this season; he's got a golden opportunity.

I am making no judgement one way or the other, but I would be genuinely interested to read how everyone thinks Bailey is consistently out-coached, out-smarted or out-foxed. It appears to be a given that the opposing coaches out-coach Bailey - but how?

Well, isn't it obvious?? We lost, so Bailey MUST have been outcoached!

Montagna played better than Evans, so Ross Lyon did a better coaching job.

...

I think Bailey has shown he can coach.

Young teams are up and down, but how many teams have had a 96 point win against a team in a comparable position?

There was also the Sydney and Gold Coast wins.

I haven't seen a team like North or Richmond come close to doing that to anyone.

The thing I find surprising is that supporters are up in arms over losses as if they didn't expect a young team to be putrid in patches!

It has been this way since the game's inception.

Take Jolly, Pendlebury, Swan and Heath Shaw out of Collingwood's team and they'd be struggling most weeks as well.

I can't understand the vitriol being directed at Dean Bailey at the moment, given that he simply does not have anywhere near a decent list to work with. It's worth remembering that last year the media and others were writing off Woosha at the Eagles, after they won the wooden spoon. My how quickly things can change. Let's judge Bails on how the team goes, when he's got a good list to work with.

Yes, but whether or not Bailey contributed to our failures since '65 he is in charge of this footy club, so in a way, in a very stupid way, he is responsible.

Why "in a very stupid way" is he responsible?

How can you possibly deduce this from the remote outpost of Canberra?

I'm holding off my final judgement for now though it doesn't look good. Bailey has been given a fairly free rein to rebuild the side and to say that (possibly) holding Bailey (in some way) reponsible is stupid, is just as stupid.

We don't want an average or just reasonable coach, we want someone who can take us to a flag. If Bailey can't do that then get someone who can.

How can you possibly deduce this from the remote outpost of Canberra?

Is Canberra really of that much significance to rpfc's post ?

I think Bailey has shown he can coach.

Young teams are up and down, but how many teams have had a 96 point win against a team in a comparable position?

There was also the Sydney and Gold Coast wins.

I haven't seen a team like North or Richmond come close to doing that to anyone.

The thing I find surprising is that supporters are up in arms over losses as if they didn't expect a young team to be putrid in patches!

It has been this way since the game's inception.

Not sure you're seeing the whole picture Artie. It's not simply being putrid in patches.

Why has Dean and the coaching staff been so slow to react to the zoning/forward pressure/turnovers = goals scenario. Surely slick ball movement and recruiting skillful players is one thing, but that probably only accounts for 25% of goals. The 75% would result in pressure turnovers, something we have fallen way behind in.

The big improvers in this area are Bombers, Eagles and to a lesser degree Tigers.

*sigh*

I'm not sure what to say to you.

Should we really be a consistent follower?

We are BUILDING a list to win tomorrow.

Our list is significantly behind the likes of the Bombers, Eagles and Tigers, in terms of development both physical and mental, in spite of what you may believe.

We are implementing a game plan that works against the press, but only when executed by cool heads.

One day that will be our kids - but not today.

Is Canberra really of that much significance to rpfc's post ?

I'd remove that effing emoticon.

Yes, DC, what the frack has Canberra got to do with my assertion that pre-2008 failure cannot be attributed to the Demons circa 2011 and those involved at the club - ie. Bailey?