On 23/05/2011 at 03:11, daisycutter said:

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.

Removed the BS.

I was referring to the ability for many of the older members of this forum to tacitly attribute the past-failures of the Dees to those currently working there.

And from my high horse high in Canberra I can, apparently, see a frackload more than many of the members on here living in Melbourne where apparently proper opinions on the Demons are transferred via touch or close contact osmosis, possibly ESP...

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:21, High Tower said:

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

probably a bit unkind, but not to be taken too literally

more making the point of being remote generally limits ones ability to judge certain things

Our club we forever be indepted to Dean Bailey!

He is a man that has sacrificed his own personal coaching record for the benefit and long term on field prosperity of our great club.

If bailey does not get a contract extension then i am very grateful for the hard decisions he has made.

However, i would be happy to keep him and get rid of our poor assistant coaches and put around him assistant coaches who know what to do i.e. mark neeld, scott waters, brendan mccartney, leigh tudor, stephen silvagni etc.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:30, Artie Bucco said:

*sigh*

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.

I know what to say to you, RUBBISH! Maybe the eagles list... No way tigers or bombers. We started our build 2 years before Richmond, and Wallace left that list in a sorry state. Remove Fletcher and their list is very similar to ours as far as age & experience.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:38, rpfc said:

I'd remove that effing emoticon.

I could remove it. But then I'd be taking away my manners. Apologies for my degree of UN characteristics in fair play. At least I've addressed the Canberra aspect. No thanks to me. (I'd remove this, but then I'd be removing the 'aptness'). {looking for a better term}

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:42, rpfc said:

Removed the BS.

I was referring to the ability for many of the older members of this forum to tacitly attribute the past-failures of the Dees to those currently working there.

And from my high horse high in Canberra I can, apparently, see a frackload more than many of the members on here living in Melbourne where apparently proper opinions on the Demons are transferred via touch or close contact osmosis, possibly ESP...

Ah, Thats not how I read your post. If you were referring to Bailey being responsible for actions pre2008 as stupid, then fair enough and I withdraw my comment/question

re being remote example. Judging the team plan/tactics is much different being live at the game than watching on TV because you can see whats going on/not going on outside the TV frames. Whether the players are following the coaches game plan of course is another question but you can at least judge it for yourself better at the game. So the remote issue was in context of judging the coaches responsibility on game day.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:56, daisycutter said:

re being remote example. Judging the team plan/tactics is much different being live at the game than watching on TV because you can see whats going on/not going on outside the TV frames. Whether the players are following the coaches game plan of course is another question but you can at least judge it for yourself better at the game. So the remote issue was in context of judging the coaches responsibility on game day.

IIRC rpfc does attend the occassional game...so he's not that remote and can judge accordingly.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:42, rpfc said:

Removed the BS.

I was referring to the ability for many of the older members of this forum to tacitly attribute the past-failures of the Dees to those currently working there.

And from my high horse high in Canberra I can, apparently, see a frackload more than many of the members on here living in Melbourne where apparently proper opinions on the Demons are transferred via touch or close contact osmosis, possibly ESP...

Ouch, age discrimination.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:50, Deeflated said:

I know what to say to you, RUBBISH! Maybe the eagles list... No way tigers or bombers. We started our build 2 years before Richmond, and Wallace left that list in a sorry state.

No we didn't.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:50, Deeflated said:

I know what to say to you, RUBBISH! Maybe the eagles list... No way tigers or bombers. We started our build 2 years before Richmond, and Wallace left that list in a sorry state. Remove Fletcher and their list is very similar to ours as far as age & experience.

You clown - look at the mature bodies they have playing!

Our middle-age mature bodied players, selected before Bailey arrived, are proving to be not up to it.

We have no one left on our list born in 86.

Newton, Dunn, Bate - look at the tigers from the same age - Jackson, Deledio, Grigg, Matt White, Thursfield, Morton.

Bombers - Dempsey, Hocking, Hooker, Lonergan, Prismall, Slattery, Stanton, Monfries.

We have a serious short-fall in that middle-age, physically mature range of players.

Having a look at the standard deviation should give you an idea of the spread of ages.

Looking at the quality of those players should tell the same story again.

The game is won in the midfield, and that is where most of our kids have been recruited for - because we are so bloody deficient in that area.

Funnily enough, we are struggling now, but it will only take a bit of time, patience and understanding.

I suspect given what has happened at Essendon (i.e. Thompson supporting Hird), that Bailey has been told to put together a revised coaching team and strategy proposal for 2012+. Hence, the meetings he and Schwab had with Lethal? The idea of an experienced Premiership coach joining as a "Snr Assistant Coach" role would be a huge boost for Bailey.

The Coach review just past would have included a SWOT of the current coaching setup and Bailey has to lead in responding to it.

The game has moved on from knee jerk "sack the coach" when things go wrong, to conducting a thorough analysis, internally and externally, to determine whats ACTUALLY wrong and then how to best fix it... and improve faster than the competition...

  On 23/05/2011 at 04:06, Artie Bucco said:

You clown - look at the mature bodies they have playing!

Our middle-age mature bodied players, selected before Bailey arrived, are proving to be not up to it.

We have no one left on our list born in 86.

Newton, Dunn, Bate - look at the tigers from the same age - Jackson, Deledio, Grigg, Matt White, Thursfield, Morton.

Pffttt. Mate you have NFI...

Who was actually born in 86 at tigerland? Jackson, Thursfield and Morton. Compared to Bate, Sylvia and Dunn??? Yep they should be way ahead of us..

Pull your head out of your clacker, Deledio & Grigg are born the same year as Frawley, Garland & Jones to name a few.

Someone summed it up perfectly in a different thread. We seem so focused on individual player development, that we look as though we have lost focus on team development. Even with injuries, it is vital that you come together as a unit. The boys spend that much time with each other each week, that they really have no excuse in this.

I'm a bit like Ralphy, I have no idea if Bailey can coach. I'd like to think he can - he has got our team to put in some mighty impressive performances over the past 12 months (Sydney last year, Gold Coast in a way, Adelaide), but obviosuly it's the consistency that is crippling us at the moment.

I'm also not sure what to make of this game plan. We are obviously different to everyone else, but when we have executed it to perfection, we all know the results (see above-mentioned wins). I don't care who our opposition would be, they would struggle to contain the MFC when we are "on". This thing about following the leader doesn't sit well with me, might give immediate relief, but long term can really set us back, so playing our own brand may just be the way to go, providing our team/supporters/media can appreicate there will be more downs than ups until we can execute it to the centimetre.

Watching other teams play is quite a reality check. Using Geelong as an example, they are such a tight group of players, who don't accept passengers. They generally don't have to highlight this becuase it is the expectation of all players to be of that mindset. They also have such a well built team, with a number of players having such a physical presence on the field. Regardless of who is coaching us, it wont be for another 2 or 3 years until we look like that. We've seen how big Watts is getting, give him another 2 preseasons and he will be a big man. Richmond are a bigger team than us, and so they should be. The comment about us being ahead in our development is rubbish. They have been down for so many years, that they have their fair share of high draft picks, and a number of players in that 23-26 age range. I can't wait to see what our guys look like when we have 4 or 5 at that age - Grimes, Frawley, Watts, Gysberts, Scully, Trengove, but, we're talking 3 to 4 years away. Surely when that happens, that core of blokes will be well up there in the top echelon of the AFL, something that Richmond wont have.

It is a big rollercoaster at the moment, not only week by week, but minute by minute. Our young guys need to look up to our old guys for belief. The belief that even though we are 4 goals down, we're still in the game. The belief that the game does not finish until that final siren. While they aren't getting this, we will continue to struggle. Even though he is a 2nd year player, the loss of Scully YTD has had a massive impact on our team. He is a true leader, has the never say die attitude, one of which I think even Moloney, Jones and Sylvia feed off. We are a better team with him in.

Lastly, if Bailey is to be given his marching orders at the end of the season, there will be a coach that takes over a very good list, and will look like a hero in a couple of years time. It'll be unfair on DB to see this happen, but that's life unfortunately.

  On 23/05/2011 at 04:48, billy2803 said:

Richmond are a bigger team than us, and so they should be. The comment about us being ahead in our development is rubbish.

I'm fairly certain this is only Hardwick's 2nd year?

And I'm also certain it's Bailey's 4th.

And please don't tell me Hardwick inherited a better list, Wallace certainly wasn't trying to rebuild in his 4 year stint.

  On 23/05/2011 at 05:27, Deeflated said:

I'm fairly certain this is only Hardwick's 2nd year?

And I'm also certain it's Bailey's 4th.

And please don't tell me Hardwick inherited a better list, Wallace certainly wasn't trying to rebuild in his 4 year stint.

Doesn't matter a stuff how long the Coach has been there, it's the players on the list.

Wallace and his recuitment staff helped Hardwick in some regards. They had very low draft picks and couldn't not take certain players (ie Delidio, Cotchin, etc). While I totally agree that TW stuffed that list, it was a majority that he stuffed - some of it they got right.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:30, Artie Bucco said:

*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.

I love the rationality that you, Snoopy, RPFC and a few others bring to this forum. If only this concept could be more universally understood we would be a lot happier group.

No matter how hard you try, or how much you might want to, you just can't speed up time. Patience, as they say, is a virtue.

  On 23/05/2011 at 05:36, Deemolition said:

I love the rationality that you, Snoopy, RPFC and a few others bring to this forum. If only this concept could be more universally understood we would be a lot happier group.

No matter how hard you try, or how much you might want to, you just can't speed up time. Patience, as they say, is a virtue.

Which is why Bailey might get another contract...I thought he coached really well on saturday.

If Davey had pulled his weight we had a solid chance of winning that game.

Dean should not always take the heat for Lazy players.

  On 23/05/2011 at 03:56, daisycutter said:

Ah, Thats not how I read your post. If you were referring to Bailey being responsible for actions pre2008 as stupid, then fair enough and I withdraw my comment/question

re being remote example. Judging the team plan/tactics is much different being live at the game than watching on TV because you can see whats going on/not going on outside the TV frames. Whether the players are following the coaches game plan of course is another question but you can at least judge it for yourself better at the game. So the remote issue was in context of judging the coaches responsibility on game day.

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...

  On 23/05/2011 at 04:30, Deeflated said:

Pffttt. Mate you have NFI...

Who was actually born in 86 at tigerland? Jackson, Thursfield and Morton. Compared to Bate, Sylvia and Dunn??? Yep they should be way ahead of us..

Pull your head out of your clacker, Deledio & Grigg are born the same year as Frawley, Garland & Jones to name a few.

Nope, as I said, you have NFI.

Richmond also have a hole around this age bracket, but not half as bad as us.

They also went through a period of terrible drafting that just extended their earlier bottoming out period, which they are now experiencing the upswing from.

An asterisk denotes players drafted after normal draft-age, some due to being late-comers to the game, some doing the equivalent of an apprenticeship in the VFL.

>Players born in 85

MFC - (1) Colin Sylvia.

RFC - (1) Nathan Foley.

>Players born in 86

MFC (1) - Stef Martin*

RFC (2) - Daniel Jackson, Will Thursfield.

>Players born in 87

MFC (3) - Matthew Bate, Michael Newton, Lynden Dunn.

RFC (7) - Brett Deledio, Luke McGuane, Mitch Morton, Matthew White, Robin Nahas*, Angus Graham*, Tom Derrickx*

We'll even include 88 to give you more of an idea.

This where the spread of our players comes in - much younger than RFC.

>Players born in 88

MFC (8) - Clint Bartram, James Frawley, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Ricky Petterd, Liam Jurrah*, Rohan Bail*, Austin Wonaeamirri*

RFC (6) - Daniel Connors, Shane Edwards, Shaun Grigg, Bachar Houli, Jack Riewoldt, Jeromey Webberley*

We could have done what Richmond did, and recruit more mature bodies like Houli or Grigg, but that was done by them out of desperation.

Trust me, they may be experiencing an upswing now, but they wish they had the high draft picks to take the longer path like we did.

I'd much prefer to persevere with our young kids during a tough period like now, to experience greater success later, rather than plateau like they will as an also-ran.

  On 23/05/2011 at 05:27, Deeflated said:

I'm fairly certain this is only Hardwick's 2nd year?

And I'm also certain it's Bailey's 4th.

And please don't tell me Hardwick inherited a better list, Wallace certainly wasn't trying to rebuild in his 4 year stint.

What does that matter??

A change of coaches is meaningless in regards to where the list is.

Fact is, they are more advanced in list maturity.

  On 23/05/2011 at 01:18, Rhino Richards said:

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 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.

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.

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

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...

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.

Also look at the quality of those players around 86-87.

Martin is starting to show some aptitude as a BACKUP RUCKMAN.

Bate, Newton and Dunn are... Bate, Newton and Dunn.

They aren't all world beaters, but in comparison Richmond looks considerably more accomplished across that age bracket.

Deledio, White, Jackson, Thursfield, Morton, McGuane, Nahas, Graham, Derrickx.

4 vs 9.

Considerably more quality.

Is it now becoming clear..?

  On 23/05/2011 at 04:06, Artie Bucco said:

You clown - look at the mature bodies they have playing!

Our middle-age mature bodied players, selected before Bailey arrived, are proving to be not up to it.

We have no one left on our list born in 86.

Newton, Dunn, Bate - look at the tigers from the same age - Jackson, Deledio, Grigg, Matt White, Thursfield, Morton.

Bombers - Dempsey, Hocking, Hooker, Lonergan, Prismall, Slattery, Stanton, Monfries.

We have a serious short-fall in that middle-age, physically mature range of players.

Having a look at the standard deviation should give you an idea of the spread of ages.

Looking at the quality of those players should tell the same story again.

The game is won in the midfield, and that is where most of our kids have been recruited for - because we are so bloody deficient in that area.

Funnily enough, we are struggling now, but it will only take a bit of time, patience and understanding.

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?

  On 23/05/2011 at 06:03, Choko said:

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.

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

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...

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.

As I said, I was discussing youth at the bottom in regards to the season as a whole.

At the top of that post where I addressed Saturday's game, I specifically said youth (Evans) and our 27th, 28th best players (deadwood).

Attention to detail would've avoided your quibble.

The youth discussion is actually underplayed.

You need to look at lists more carefully than just a games / age average.

It's about the spread of talent across those ages, and the ability to introduce youth more carefully, so the experienced players can help them adjust to that level.

Collingwood in particular didn't replace experienced players with first gamers.

Blair was the least experienced player to benefit from the aging players moving on, but who else?

The pies also have the considerable benefit of their own VFL team, which has been well-documented.

  On 23/05/2011 at 06:08, Thomo said:

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?

Been wondering the same question for weeks now myself...what is the connection??

  On 23/05/2011 at 06:07, Artie Bucco said:

Also look at the quality of those players around 86-87.

Martin is starting to show some aptitude as a BACKUP RUCKMAN.

Bate, Newton and Dunn are... Bate, Newton and Dunn.

They aren't all world beaters, but in comparison Richmond looks considerably more accomplished across that age bracket.

Deledio, White, Jackson, Thursfield, Morton, McGuane, Nahas, Graham, Derrickx.

4 vs 9.

Considerably more quality.

Is it now becoming clear..?

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.