Sack Bailey

[Tatu 416]

If a few players are lacking motivation and discipline I blame them, if 22 players are lacking motivation and discipline, I blame the coach.

The motivation & intencity was their in friday nights match, it's the class & skill that was missing. With the best 22 & the intencity from friday nights match, it would have been a completely different result.

[H_T 2,941]

If a few players are lacking motivation and discipline I blame them' date=' [b']if 22 players are lacking motivation and discipline, I blame the coach.

Clearly not all 22 players are lacking motivation and discipline. Yet, you blame the coach.

[Guest Thomo]

Clearly not all 22 players are lacking motivation and discipline. Yet, you blame the coach.

Answered the same question a couple of posts back.

[QueenC 74]

Clearly not all 22 players are lacking motivation and discipline. Yet, you blame the coach.

but doesn't the coach always get the blame?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Bailey repeatedly states that the team didn't play to the game plan, to me that says the players are lacking motivation and discipline. Or is it that they are playing his game plan which is poor, but he won't say it publicly? Either way it proves he can't coach.

1. Bailey doesn't repeatedly state that. He has on occasions in reference to some particular matches. In reference to SOME players, not all 22.

2. Some of the players are very young & inexperienced. They are trying to learn to play the game at AFL level at the same time as trying to learn the gameplan. It is conceivable they could end up not implementing the gameplan as intended. All it takes is one link in the chain to be broken at the opportune moment, and the whole gameplan can fall apart

3. Not implementing the gameplan correctly is not absolutely linked to motivation. In fact, it's a stretch to say the 2 are linked.

4. Same with discipline. Not doing something correctly is not necessarily anything at all to do with discipline. A skill error, for example is not a discipline issue, but can lean to the gameplan breaking down.

5. As discussed above, a gameplan can not work for a variety of reasons, that do not necessarily reflect on the quality of the gameplan.

6. If Bailey thought his gameplan was poor, he'd change it. No one would maintain a gameplan that they themselves thought was poor, but not say it publicly. That notion defies logic.

7. There are also players Bailey is being forced to play out of necessity, that are not up to standard and effect the ability of the team as a whole to effectively carry out the gameplan. Even if you think they ate up to AFL, their extended presence at VFL level often requires an adjustment period as they get used to the speed of the game again.

8. Players that were previously capable at AFL level face a further adjustment, with the advent of the press being applied by most teams - Jordie McKenzie in particular has commented on this.

9. Nothing you have said has proven inconclusively that Bailey "cannot coach".

If it did, I'd happily concede and begin calling for his head, but there are just too many holes in hour argument.

[H_T 2,941]

but doesn't the coach always get the blame?

Apparently QueenC. That's where the buck stops. Never mind the lack of quality or accountability of players.

[QueenC 74]

Apparently QueenC. That's where the buck stops. Never mind the lack of quality or accountability of players.

Yeah but it all goes hand in hand HT.....

But rightly or wrongly the buck stops with the man in charge.

[Guest Thomo]

1. Bailey doesn't repeatedly state that. He has on occasions in reference to some particular matches. In reference to SOME players, not all 22.

2. Some of the players are very young & inexperienced. They are trying to learn to play the game at AFL level at the same time as trying to learn the gameplan. It is conceivable they could end up not implementing the gameplan as intended. All it takes is one link in the chain to be broken at the opportune moment, and the whole gameplan can fall apart

3. Not implementing the gameplan correctly is not absolutely linked to motivation. In fact, it's a stretch to say the 2 are linked.

4. Same with discipline. Not doing something correctly is not necessarily anything at all to do with discipline. A skill error, for example is not a discipline issue, but can lean to the gameplan breaking down.

5. As discussed above, a gameplan can not work for a variety of reasons, that do not necessarily reflect on the quality of the gameplan.

6. If Bailey thought his gameplan was poor, he'd change it. No one would maintain a gameplan that they themselves thought was poor, but not say it publicly. That notion defies logic.

7. There are also players Bailey is being forced to play out of necessity, that are not up to standard and effect the ability of the team as a whole to effectively carry out the gameplan. Even if you think they ate up to AFL, their extended presence at VFL level often requires an adjustment period as they get used to the speed of the game again.

8. Players that were previously capable at AFL level face a further adjustment, with the advent of the press being applied by most teams - Jordie McKenzie in particular has commented on this.

9. Nothing you have said has proven inconclusively that Bailey "cannot coach".

If it did, I'd happily concede and begin calling for his head, but there are just too many holes in hour argument.

.1. After every lose he does, which is often, he says that the team did not play to the game plan

2. Bailey has said that he does not want the game to be played by defending off half back, but wants forward pressure, this is not happening. It's not hard to stay in position in the forward half instead of jogging back to the back half, and it's not one link, it's the whole team.

3.If it's not motivation to chase hard in the forward 50 and give options out of defence, what is it? I don't think these things are dependent on age and experience.

4.Again, I am talking about Bailey saying that he wants to players to apply forward pressure and they are not. If it is not motivation, what is it? It doesn't take skill to run hard, it takes motivation and discipline, so your argument makes no sense.

5. Again, skill and size are not the problem with implementing the things he has talked about, so why is it not working?

6. Bailey probably does not realise his game plan is poor, that's the point of most of the threads at the moment

7. Covered this earlier, the problem has been going on for more than last Friday. Two weeks ago you were spruiking different reasons for poor performances, at least keep it consistent.

8. 16 others teams have adjusted, so that argument is rubbish

9. Poor Win lose ratio, poor player development, players either not playing to plan, or poor plan. Take your pick, but nothing show that he can coach

[H_T 2,941]

Yeah but it all goes hand in hand HT.....

But rightly or wrongly the buck stops with the man in charge.

True. And DB has stated as much.

It will be interesting to see the remainder of the season around here. I'm pondering what might happen when and if players of the ilk of Scully, Trengove, Garland, Davey, Tapscott, Jamar filter back in. Pondering a lift in consistency and performance as well as a bit more mongrel within the midfield and team as a whole. Pondering the change in tune of some if our team happens to chalk a few wins together on the back of visible 'motivation' and 'discipline'....afterall it takes 22 players (21+1).

[QueenC 74]

True. And DB has stated as much.

It will be interesting to see the remainder of the season around here. I'm pondering what might happen when and if players of the ilk of Scully, Trengove, Garland, Davey, Tapscott, Jamar filter back in. Pondering a lift in consistency and performance as well as a bit more mongrel within the midfield and team as a whole. Pondering the change in tune of some if our team happens to chalk a few wins together on the back of visible 'motivation' and 'discipline'....afterall it takes 22 players (21+1).

He'd want to a hell of a lot more than simply "filter back in".....

But you are right the real test will now be how the team is handled when at or actually near full strength.

[H_T 2,941]

He'd want to a hell of a lot more than simply "filter back in".....

But you are right the real test will now be how the team is handled when at or actually near full strength.

All the meanwhile we may see introductions of players such as Howe, Cook, Blease, Gawn and re-introduction of Strauss.

Afterall, it is a development year.

[QueenC 74]

All the meanwhile we may see introductions of players such as Howe, Cook, Blease, Gawn and re-introduction of Strauss.

Afterall, it is a development year.

Looking forward to seeing all of them at some point....

And it's always a development year, you just have to, you know, actually develop !!!

[furious d 447]

I've been a fan of Bails but I concede it looks increasingly like this will be his final season. I doubt he would have had a line drawn through his name just yet, but when injured players return he'll need to get them up and about very quickly. Only a stellar finish to the year could save him imo.

Right now we have the "out" of injuries with regard to media pressure calling for Bailey's head. This pressure can sometimes make a coaches position untenable but we are a long long way from that point. Bailey should be retained until then at the very least.

To get the best coach we can for next year the board needs to control the process. Appointing a caretaker now would remove some of that control. If Viney were to take over tomorrow and get the lift for a week or two that often accompanies the appointment of a caretaker, then players return from injury and we naturally improve, it may be impossible to not give him the job.

If Bailey is sacked tomorrow it makes it harder to have discreet discussions with the management of experienced senior coaches of other clubs. If results force the board to make up it's mind on Bailey by the time of our next bye, we still have plenty of time to identify some people we'd like to target and go after them, hard.

I hope we don't end up interviewing 3 untried applicants. I'd much prefer a proven experienced senior coach. Getting a Malthouse or a Roos would be a major coup for us.

I don't believe in the theory that retaining Bailey will "damage" players. Essendon players are showing no signs of the damage of finishing last season under Knights. West coast didn't even need to change coaches to turn it around. Geelongs stunning run of the last few years came of the back of its lowest ebb. My point is that things can turn pretty quickly at a footy club, the hard times are forgotten pretty quickly with a few wins and some belief

[agent_orange 0]

Yeah but it all goes hand in hand HT.....

But rightly or wrongly the buck stops with the man in charge.

Too right. Bailey is the captain of the ship. If people aren't performing, he needs to put rockets up their backside. You cannot help but think the problems are of his making. You have to put in place certain procedures and steps. I think Malthoue would be great because he is experienced and the changes he'd put in place would professionalise the club.

I think Bailey just lacks experience - hense instead of working on the building blocks, our football department spends more time in meetings discussing what they are going to do.

The club needs both a defensive coach and a forward coach.

[Choko 493]

Too right. Bailey is the captain of the ship. If people aren't performing, he needs to put rockets up their backside. You cannot help but think the problems are of his making. You have to put in place certain procedures and steps. I think Malthoue would be great because he is experienced and the changes he'd put in place would professionalise the club.

I think Bailey just lacks experience - hense instead of working on the building blocks, our football department spends more time in meetings discussing what they are going to do.

The club needs both a defensive coach and a forward coach.

Do you know that the FD spends a disproportionate amount of time in meetings, or are you just guessing/speculating?

[agent_orange 0]

Do you know that the FD spends a disproportionate amount of time in meetings, or are you just guessing/speculating?

Source is one former Demon assistant coach. No guess work.

[Choko 493]

Source is one former Demon assistant coach. No guess work.

Interesting.

There has now been a full review of the FD, so if that is a problem, I would hope it has been picked up.

I think it's unfair how people are putting it all on Bailey. It seems to me that we would have the worst assistant coaches in the league. We lost Wellman, who was our best. I've heard average things about West, and Royal isn't a forward coach.

[reynolds46 808]

I sat at the punt road end. I realized that our forward structure was useless. The team looked like its coach was a dead man walking. If he needs advice from lethal, why don't we just get lethal to coach us. Tonights game was crap. Boring footy. I could coach better.

maybe the weekly chats are part of the handover for 2012, one can only hope

[Guest Thomo]

Read this quote on the Melbourne Website,

"At times, Melbourne went ultra-defensive, pushing back Jack Watts as a loose man in defence, but Bailey said the plan had to been to create more drive out of the defensive half.

The plan had not worked because of the team's volume of turnovers, he said"

Normally after a loss he comes out with "the players didn't play to the game plan".

How do you think the players feel reading this? Each week they are forced to play to a flawed game plan, and the coach continues to blame them without taking responsibility. If I was a player I would be starting to get sick of this. I can't see them putting up with it much longer, I think the push could come from within.

[Demon16 69]

They can find that passion within themselves, or they can [censored] off.

Because you're no use to us if you can't fire up when you are wearing that emblem...

you're spot on, they should be able to fire up themselves. for whatever reason though, most footy teams can't and the coach needs to motivate to some extent. sad but true.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Source is one former Demon assistant coach. No guess work.

Sir Humphrey would be most pleased !!

[Striker475 696]

Been specifically avoiding commenting, but now I think I will.

- Many of you recall I was calling for Bailey's head after the West Coast game. Last night was still better than that pile of dross. Yes, it was still poor football. Yes, it left a lot to be desired. But, and here's the thing, you can't deny that injury/suspension list. Injuries can be an excuse after a point. Yes, everyone comes out and says 'hurr everyone has injuries durr' but let's take the Blues - remove from that lineup (along with their already-removed rucks and Curnow) Gibbs, Murphy, Yarran, Waite, Betts, Walker and Carrazzo, plus a number of their backups (such as Hampson). No side can cop that sort of injury/suspension list and not struggle. We are actually at a point where it is an excuse unfortunately. In 3-4 weeks time it won't be, but right now it is.

- Injuries also have their toll on the rest of the side. For example, Moloney functions much better with Trengove, Scully et al around him because the opposition is forced to worry about them. There's only an absolute elite few who can have astounding games at the centre of a terrible midfield, and Beamer isn't one of them. He's copping their best tags for the length of the game and while he's still certainly giving it a crack it's a hell of a task he's been facing.

- That said, there were a lot of passengers Friday night. In particular, Morton, Newton, Petterd and Bate all should be looked at being dropped. While I'm aware Juice will probably stay (and possibly Bate too), Morton needs a long spell at Casey and Petterd just didn't offer a thing.

- The games Bailey will be judged on will be the Collingwood, Fremantle and Richmond games. If we go into the bye having won two of those, he'll see the season out. If we don't have another win I'll be shocked if we come back from the bye with him as coach.

[tonatopia 278]

maybe the weekly chats are part of the handover for 2012, one can only hope

Yes it would

[Akum 2,660]

Been specifically avoiding commenting, but now I think I will.

- Many of you recall I was calling for Bailey's head after the West Coast game. Last night was still better than that pile of dross. Yes, it was still poor football. Yes, it left a lot to be desired. But, and here's the thing, you can't deny that injury/suspension list. Injuries can be an excuse after a point. Yes, everyone comes out and says 'hurr everyone has injuries durr' but let's take the Blues - remove from that lineup (along with their already-removed rucks and Curnow) Gibbs, Murphy, Yarran, Waite, Betts, Walker and Carrazzo, plus a number of their backups (such as Hampson). No side can cop that sort of injury/suspension list and not struggle. We are actually at a point where it is an excuse unfortunately. In 3-4 weeks time it won't be, but right now it is.

- Injuries also have their toll on the rest of the side. For example, Moloney functions much better with Trengove, Scully et al around him because the opposition is forced to worry about them. There's only an absolute elite few who can have astounding games at the centre of a terrible midfield, and Beamer isn't one of them. He's copping their best tags for the length of the game and while he's still certainly giving it a crack it's a hell of a task he's been facing.

- That said, there were a lot of passengers Friday night. In particular, Morton, Newton, Petterd and Bate all should be looked at being dropped. While I'm aware Juice will probably stay (and possibly Bate too), Morton needs a long spell at Casey and Petterd just didn't offer a thing.

- The games Bailey will be judged on will be the Collingwood, Fremantle and Richmond games. If we go into the bye having won two of those, he'll see the season out. If we don't have another win I'll be shocked if we come back from the bye with him as coach.

I'm in the same place as you in reluctance to comment, and yours is a good post.

Agree about the injuries to a point, especially as Frawley & Jurrah also seemed to struggle with fitness. Yes, with that number and quality of players out injured, we were always going to struggle. I don't think anybody expected that we wouldn't struggle.

But there's a difference between "struggle" and "couldn't fire a shot". Yes, it's an excuse for performing badly, but is it an excuse for performing that badly?

And about your last sentence, I see it as the other way round. Strong wins (plural) against good teams between now and the end of the year will probably get him over the line for 2012. But if those wins don't come, it'll be a matter of whether those who make the decision see in his coaching the qualities that we need to take us higher. So rather than "no wins and he's gone", I think it's "some good wins and he's safe". But I agree that the heat will really be on if we go into the bye without another win, especially if we've got most of our good players back by then.

And I'm still waiting to see those qualities, though he's done well to take us to here from where he started.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Akum

[beelzebub 22,225]

Been specifically avoiding commenting, but now I think I will.

- Many of you recall I was calling for Bailey's head after the West Coast game. Last night was still better than that pile of dross. Yes, it was still poor football. Yes, it left a lot to be desired. But, and here's the thing, you can't deny that injury/suspension list. Injuries can be an excuse after a point. Yes, everyone comes out and says 'hurr everyone has injuries durr' but let's take the Blues - remove from that lineup (along with their already-removed rucks and Curnow) Gibbs, Murphy, Yarran, Waite, Betts, Walker and Carrazzo, plus a number of their backups (such as Hampson). No side can cop that sort of injury/suspension list and not struggle. We are actually at a point where it is an excuse unfortunately. In 3-4 weeks time it won't be, but right now it is.

- Injuries also have their toll on the rest of the side. For example, Moloney functions much better with Trengove, Scully et al around him because the opposition is forced to worry about them. There's only an absolute elite few who can have astounding games at the centre of a terrible midfield, and Beamer isn't one of them. He's copping their best tags for the length of the game and while he's still certainly giving it a crack it's a hell of a task he's been facing.

- That said, there were a lot of passengers Friday night. In particular, Morton, Newton, Petterd and Bate all should be looked at being dropped. While I'm aware Juice will probably stay (and possibly Bate too), Morton needs a long spell at Casey and Petterd just didn't offer a thing.

- The games Bailey will be judged on will be the Collingwood, Fremantle and Richmond games. If we go into the bye having won two of those, he'll see the season out. If we don't have another win I'll be shocked if we come back from the bye with him as coach.

Have a good read of this :

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26185-dean-bailey-i-hope-youre-watching/page__view__findpost__p__437009

tell me if you still think the same

( not having a dig...amgenuinely curious)