Dean Bailey, I hope you're watching

[rpfc 28,084]

Let's get McKenna!!

[Diablo Deemon 220]

At the start of the season which losses this year were obvious wins?

In other words if we have under performed and its cost us in losses which ones were they?

We are up and down in performance absolutely because we lack the maturity especially through midfield rotations to put on sustained pressure.

Our first string midfield players are well developed - Sylvia, Moloney, Jones, Davey, Green

But it's those guys who rotate through the midfield who are slight, who have at most 2-3 preseasons that get smashed in the midfield.

They cant play to the standard and structure consistently across a game due to fatigue and lack of experience

Remove those four above and we have guys rotating through there like:

Gysberts: played 10 games, At least another 3 preseasons and 50-80 games before he shows what he's got.

Bail: 20 games into his career

Maric: 20 games into his career and a plodder in my opinion

Scully: Hasn't played this year yet 20 20 games into career

McKenzie: Played 2 games underdone 25 games into career

Trengove: 25 games into career

Jetta: 25 games into career

Bennell: 40 games into career

Evans: 2 games

The point is if you seriously thought we should be anywhere but where we are in terms of consistency, structure and wins

Give yourself an uppercut because you're psychotic, the absolute lack of footy insight and grandstanding around here is remnant of a

bunch of fools who well and truly got ahead of themselves. You have all been sucked in by the media driven conjecture and hype cause they overrated us too.

Clarkson, Thompson, Williams all premiership coaches whose supporters lost faith in.

Don't know if Bailey has got what it takes but the courage he has had to turn over the list rather than take easy wins is commendable.

He could of offered Bruce all and sundry to stay, he could of kept McDonald who had a calf injury last 6 weeks or Miller who is a plodder

Johnstone, Robertson, Yze and won another 20 games over the last 2-3 seasons but other than make us feel good about ourselves it would achieve nothing.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,918]

At the start of the season which losses this year were obvious wins?

In other words if we have under performed and its cost us in losses which ones were they?

You have just explained the frustration I have though. Even at the start of the year I penned Carlton as a loss. Moreso with a second string side in. So why not take the game on rather than try and minimise the damage? I actually think we played to game plan on Friday that's the issue.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

You have just explained the frustration I have though. Even at the start of the year I penned Carlton as a loss. Moreso with a second string side in. So why not take the game on rather than try and minimise the damage? I actually think we played to game plan on Friday that's the issue.

So you expected a loss and even more of one with a second string side but rather than a thrashing you wanted to see an annihilation in front of a prime time audience.

Bailey would of known and had advice that this was a definite loss just do what you can. Put someone behind the ball so we don't lose by 100 plus against a very inform Carlton.

This tactic WORKED we were still in the game till half time. If we hadn't been defensive instead of 2 goals down we would of been 10. From there lack of

physicality and endurance from our young kids caused us to loose touch this is expected.

The game was the best of a shocking situation.

When you remove all emotion we got the performance from the side which is absolutely expected.

[Geddy Lee 582]

Bailey would of known and had advice that this was a definite loss just do what you can. Put someone behind the ball so we don't lose by 100 plus against a very inform Carlton.

I like your posting and reasoning DD but this sentence is just garbage.

Did Carlton look like a very in-form team? They didn't to my eyes, and the Crows nearly beat them over here. They were great against Geelong, but have an uncanny ability to play well against the Cats.

They have plenty of third rate players and lost one of their best defenders 10 minutes in. What did we do? We bent over. Carlton were turning it over as much as we did in the first half but because of our structure it never resulted in any Melbourne goals.

I understand you (as well as I) may be scarred from that Geelong Friday night game a couple of years ago. But they were a much, much better team than Carlton '11.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

I like your posting and reasoning DD but this sentence is just garbage.Did Carlton look like a very in-form team? They didn't to my eyes, and the Crows nearly beat them over here. They were great against Geelong, but have an uncanny ability to play well against the Cats.They have plenty of third rate players and lost one of their best defenders 10 minutes in. What did we do? We bent over. Carlton were turning it over as much as we did in the first half but because of our structure it never resulted in any Melbourne goals.I understand you (as well as I) may be scarred from that Geelong Friday night game a couple of years ago. But they were a much, much better team than Carlton '11.

Sorry but Carlton is currently top 4 or 5 they have beat Sydney who always seem to find a win. Their loss against Geelong was unlucky and they played well for 3 quarters

against Collingwood. They drew with a rampaging Essendon.

But even more than this they have 2-3 out of there best 22 we have 9-10 out of our best 22 through injury and suspension stem the bleeding would of absolutely been the decree.

With Carlton not looking inform you only play as well as the opposition requires. Our sheer amount of crapness bought them down to our level.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Diablo Deemon

[titan_uranus 24,919]

Haha he can't win!

Without a player behind the ball he'd be criticised for nof having one there as were torn apart by double the margin.

It has been roundly criticised as a poor tactical decision, but did you notice we were only down by 16 points at half time to a far better team?

Utter rubbish.

Putting the man behind the ball was nothing but a defensive tactic, which gave us no chance of winning. I give him no credit whatsoever for having us 16 points down at half time. We lost by 47. It's not like it worked. It is a pathetically weak tactic that does not help us and should never have been deployed.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

Utter rubbish.

Putting the man behind the ball was nothing but a defensive tactic, which gave us no chance of winning. I give him no credit whatsoever for having us 16 points down at half time. We lost by 47. It's not like it worked. It is a pathetically weak tactic that does not help us and should never have been deployed.

Mate wake up we were never gonna win and if you think we were your not living in reality. Degrees of losses are important when in front of a national audience for

sponsors and the team alike.

It was purely self preservation Friday night. We tried to take the game on after half time and didn't have the ability to compete. No other coach out there would of

down anything different under the circumstance.

[loges 6,767]

At the start of the year we were forced to play not quite right players in our key positions ( Frawley the exception ) now with our injuries we are forced to play never will be's in our key positions. You can rattle on about game plans & structures but we will never cut it UNTIL WE DEVELOPE MORE KEY POSITION PLAYERS! Pretty hard to have structure without a spine

[Hannabal 4]

The Bailey apologists are a fascinating case study. What do they actually like about Bailey and his coaching ?

He gets credit for clearing out the dead wood on the list. Big deal. Everyone knew it had to be done.

He's remained remarkably calm and assure in the face of adversity and for that I give him credit. But it doesn't mean he's an astute coach.

He came to the club as a very good development, or teaching coach. It was the right appointment at the time as we were going to build a team based on youth and quality draft picks. But four years on there's no right of passage to continue. There's no doubt that some players have improved during Bailey's tenure, but that's a bare mininum prerequisite, not a flag waving foot stomping unequivocal endorsement.

Preseason Todd Viney admitted that not a lot of time had gone into the 'gameplan', instead more time had been spent on player development. And doesn't it show ? We're behind the competition when it comes to forward pressure and a frontal press. Bailey was caught with his pants down and is now trying to instill a gameplan that takes at least 6 months to grasp. Skinny Lappin is an assistant coach at Collingwood. He'd previously been an assistant at Carlton. He couldn't believe the difference in emphasis on defence at Collingwood when compared to Carlton. At Carlton they focussed 80% on attack and at Collingwood it was the reverse. Flags are built around defence. Lord knows what Lappin would make of the Melbourne gameplan. Dean loves run and spread, but unfortunately it's been at the expense of quality defensive structures.

Yes the team is young and yes there are lots of injuries. But that in itself doesn't excuse insipid half hearted performances and a disorganised gameplan.

The apologists like to rattle off two good games against Collingwood and a mauling of the Swans. In reality that's about all they can cling to. Do you reckon Matty Knights had a few of those type of performances ? Into his 4th year Bailey's players give up without a whimper. They have no mettle when the going gets tough. Too often they don't have a crack. He's had 75 games to stamp his authority on the playing group and yet no-one in the footy world thinks that Melbourne players like to get their hands dirty. What a fantastic legacy Dean.

So I ask you ? Why do the apologists argue so passionately for Dean's retention ? What has he shown them that delivers this unwavering belief ? What motivates them ? They are either so steadfast in towing the company line that it wouldn't matter who was in charge they'd back them to the hilt, or they have a vested/personal interest. I won't out him, but I know that one of the apologists on here works part-time down at the club, so it's sort of understandable, but for the life of me I can't understand the others.

After 4 years and 75 games why does Bailey command a contract extension ? Has he shown that he's the right man to lead this group to finals and that he has the tactical nous to win finals ? There are plenty of questions but no definitive answers. And after 4 years that's enough reason to look elsewhere.

[Choko 493]

My point is that the tactics we played were completely acceptable. They have been used successfully time and time again. Carlton played them too and they won.

I just get sick of people who sit in opposition, make claims that are never able to be tested and claim some intellectual superiority. Fancy an opening post typed in capitals bemoaning legitimate tactics. Pathetic.

I don't disagree that another tactic would have been to play man on man but personally I think that would have just invited trouble. We were 8 to 10 players down on our best team that probably isn't as good as Carlton anyway. Playing man on man would only have accentuated our deficiencies and taken away any chance we had of victory. IMO it would have been dumb.

Agree 100% with this.

[45HG 1,539]

For those interested, we had a whopping 10 games extra experience per player than Gold Coast had.

They also had Gary Ablett dominating through the middle. We were missing 8 of our best 22 (Jamar, Garland, Grimes, Trengove, Scully, Davey, Tapscott, Bail).

It'd be interesting to see how Mckenna would go about it with Zac Smith, Nathan Bock, Harbrow, Mckenzie, Rischitelli and Swallow out of the team - especially considering that their 6 losses have come at an average of 90.3 points.

[timD 994]

Hannabal, I think that the whole issue around Bailey is impossibly difficult to tease our - for me at least. GAry Lyon has written about our lack of mongrol in the contest - which has precisely nothing to do with the adequacy of a game plan...or does it? If the team won't fight, then the game plan won't survive. ON the times where the team fights, no-one worries about the damn plan. Frawley comes out and says that the team knows how to implement a press, but they are bad at it - is that b/c they are poorly taught or they lack the will to implement it? Against adeliade, we did it well...but then under pressure it falls apart.

When you remember who we've lost and from where, it is interesting. We've lost our gorilla forward and a marking forward who have not been adequately replaced. We've lost skilful midfielders who have no been replaced. We've improved our backline in part, but lost nice kicking skills from it. All the replacements have not come on super-quick for one reason or another. I wonder if martin and cotchin had not come on for richmond, what people would think of hardwick's gameplan? I bet no-one even knows it.

I think this emphasis on game plan is wrong - or perhaps misplaced. This to me is all about a willingness to fight and our ability to win the midfield and deliver cleanly off half-back. We do not fight. We are a weak football team - whilst individuals can show great character, as a team we are weak. I think that is generational and it will take longer than four years to change because it is the kids-becoming-leaders who must change it. Why were brisbane good - b/c voss would jam your head into a locker if you didn't go when it was your turn. They carried few passengers in the physicality stakes. Skills they could make up for - hardness they wouldn't.

Kids need time to be big enough to be 'hard'. We need a lot of them. No game plan will look any good until we are hard enough. The question, and only question that I think Bailey should be measured against is: (a) how much can he do about this and (B) how long should it take? If you reckon that another coach can develop kids and induce a toughness into the side, then we should get them asap. My guess is that this process is going about as fast as it can.

[Whispering_Jack 29,369]

My point is that the tactics we played were completely acceptable. They have been used successfully time and time again. Carlton played them too and they won.

I just get sick of people who sit in opposition, make claims that are never able to be tested and claim some intellectual superiority. Fancy an opening post typed in capitals bemoaning legitimate tactics. Pathetic.

I don't disagree that another tactic would have been to play man on man but personally I think that would have just invited trouble. We were 8 to 10 players down on our best team that probably isn't as good as Carlton anyway. Playing man on man would only have accentuated our deficiencies and taken away any chance we had of victory. IMO it would have been dumb.

I think we all accept that Dean Bailey was limited by having half his best side on the injured/suspended list.

My problem however, is not whether the style adopted was legitimate or not - every tactic in the coach's handbook can be properly described as "legitimate". But to go through an entire game without attempting to play attacking footy (which doesn't necessarily mean going man on man) is what IMO was dumb.

"Dumb" because of the message it sends to the playing group. "Dumb" because it's focussed on the outcome of a particular game in terms of damage control. "Dumb", because it bears no regard to teaching the game to a young group which would provide the club with benefits in the future irrespective of the result of this game.

And "dumb" because it demonstrated a lack of flexibility on the part of the coach.

It's very easy to be correct with the benefit of hindsight but if you want to look at it in terms of winning the game then why not do what I suggested to my neighbour at half time i.e go all out attack from the beginning of the third quarter (when we were only 16 points down) with the exception of a heavy tag on Judd. That would also have been a legitimate tactic to employ and if it didn't work then wave the white flag and go back to our primitive defensive style.

In saying the above, I'm trying to adopt a constructive approach to Bailey's current coaching woes.

Despite the fact that GC lost by 11 goals in the end I think every supporter of the club would be proud of the way their team approached the game against the Cats. Sure they were overwhelmed at the end but you would have to go away from that game feeling assured of their future.

[beelzebub 23,254]

Two things of note that will come away from this weekends round of games.

Gold Coast earnt a truckload of respect........and Melbourne further diluted whatever it has.

[Guest Thomo]

Sylvia is Melbourne’s best and most damaging player, he and Moloney would have been the two players that Ratten would have wanted to shut down, so Bailey started him as a tagger and did the job for them. There must have been some serious laughter in the Carlton coaching box. He was never trying to win the game, time to go.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Thomo

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,918]

My point is that the tactics we played were completely acceptable. They have been used successfully time and time again. Carlton played them too and they won.

I just get sick of people who sit in opposition, make claims that are never able to be tested and claim some intellectual superiority. Fancy an opening post typed in capitals bemoaning legitimate tactics. Pathetic.

I don't disagree that another tactic would have been to play man on man but personally I think that would have just invited trouble. We were 8 to 10 players down on our best team that probably isn't as good as Carlton anyway. Playing man on man would only have accentuated our deficiencies and taken away any chance we had of victory. IMO it would have been dumb.

Are you saying that you were happy with the tactics employed on Friday night. That even when we were getting our hands on the ball but kicking to no one, when it was obvious that Carlton were not on their game and were a man down you believe it gave us a legitimate chance to win the game. Or are you saying you were happy that he chose a tactic to minimize the likelihood of a blowout. I am not disputing it is a legitimate tactic when correctly employed at the right time. However to me it was putting the white flag up from the first bounce.

[Blistering 538]

There's a time and a place for everything but I felt that it was wrong to open up with a spare man in defence. We have a lot of players who are introverted and I don't believe it was appropriate to thrust our youngsters into a situation that simply didn't suit their style of play. This is particularly so because they didn't have the benefit of some of their better players around them.

[rpfc 28,084]

Where are these 'Bailey apologists'?!

I have no idea why posters on here are throwing their ire toward such a [censored] minority I don't even know one poster who is an 'apologist.'

And don't call those who point out our injury list an 'apologist' because they are not - they are frustrated that Jamar, Scully, Grimes, Trengove (susp), Garland, Batram, Bail, and Tapscott are not playing at the minute.

And don't call those that don't want to replace him with Viney mid-season 'apologists.' They don't see the point of removing a coach and putting someone form the same system in. They would prefer the decision to find a coach done properly.

Just stop this 'apologist' BS.

Everyone on here wants what is best for the club; even the ones you think are idiots.

[Nasher 33,607]

The Bailey apologists are a fascinating case study. What do they actually like about Bailey and his

After reading this reply several times I'm convinced you haven't read a single word of this topic.

[beelzebub 23,254]

Are you saying that you were happy with the tactics employed on Friday night. That even when we were getting our hands on the ball but kicking to no one, when it was obvious that Carlton were not on their game and were a man down you believe it gave us a legitimate chance to win the game. Or are you saying you were happy that he chose a tactic to minimize the likelihood of a blowout. I am not disputing it is a legitimate tactic when correctly employed at the right time. However to me it was putting the white flag up from the first bounce.

I concur.. any semblance really of ducking behind a smokescreen of legitimacy is completely , either by design or otherwise, simply choosing to diregard the appropriateness of it.

As you suggest BRFE what sort of message , if only subliminary, is being broadcast here.

Another team , much younger and less experienced ( together ) has a red hot go. Only when their young tired legs gave way did they cease to offer genuine competition but then only by weariness, not by design.

I know which style id rather watch , barrack for and support.

Only one thing really worse than being mercilessly thumped and thats surrender by design. Its just not fair dinkum

[Akum 2,660]

Hannabal, I think that the whole issue around Bailey is impossibly difficult to tease our - for me at least. GAry Lyon has written about our lack of mongrol in the contest - which has precisely nothing to do with the adequacy of a game plan...or does it? If the team won't fight, then the game plan won't survive. ON the times where the team fights, no-one worries about the damn plan. Frawley comes out and says that the team knows how to implement a press, but they are bad at it - is that b/c they are poorly taught or they lack the will to implement it? Against adeliade, we did it well...but then under pressure it falls apart.

When you remember who we've lost and from where, it is interesting. We've lost our gorilla forward and a marking forward who have not been adequately replaced. We've lost skilful midfielders who have no been replaced. We've improved our backline in part, but lost nice kicking skills from it. All the replacements have not come on super-quick for one reason or another. I wonder if martin and cotchin had not come on for richmond, what people would think of hardwick's gameplan? I bet no-one even knows it.

I think this emphasis on game plan is wrong - or perhaps misplaced. This to me is all about a willingness to fight and our ability to win the midfield and deliver cleanly off half-back. We do not fight. We are a weak football team - whilst individuals can show great character, as a team we are weak. I think that is generational and it will take longer than four years to change because it is the kids-becoming-leaders who must change it. Why were brisbane good - b/c voss would jam your head into a locker if you didn't go when it was your turn. They carried few passengers in the physicality stakes. Skills they could make up for - hardness they wouldn't.

Kids need time to be big enough to be 'hard'. We need a lot of them. No game plan will look any good until we are hard enough. The question, and only question that I think Bailey should be measured against is: (a) how much can he do about this and (B) how long should it take? If you reckon that another coach can develop kids and induce a toughness into the side, then we should get them asap. My guess is that this process is going about as fast as it can.

Tim, I think the issue about "fight" is this: it's just about impossible to fight with any purpose if you're unsure what you're supposed to be doing and how you're supposed to do it.

To stretch the "fight" analogy further, the ideal is that everybody in the fight should absolutely certain about their side's strategy & tactics and should have absolute belief and confidence that they will prevail. And each should be absolutely certain what they're supposed to do, and how their own effort contributes to their side's overall effort, for the duration of the fight.

And nobody's supposed to fight just to improve their own performance as a fighter - they're supposed to fight as a co-ordinated unit, to prevail over the other co-ordinated unit. If you're thrown into battle, but your only instructions are "just do the best you can", you're going to look uncertain, you're going to be constantly on your guard, not know where your friends and your enemies are, where you're supposed to move to, and how your contribution fits into the overall whole ... then what sort of fight are you going to give?

That's just what the Dees have looked like this season - I agree that they've lacked fight, but I think it's because they don't know how they're supposed to go about it as a team.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Akum

[beelzebub 23,254]

The Bailey apologists are a fascinating case study. What do they actually like about Bailey and his coaching ?

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

, you realise most of this will go through tothe keeper dont you ?? lol

the underlined does present a very simple question I think, as no doubt do you . I dont really se much in the way of answers anywhere; mainly excuses or possibly reasons why our current dillemma and malaise is understandable and to some defendable.

But I look at it in much the way of thinking thats defined by "if we simply accept where we are right now as irrefutable, then what does Dean really bring to bear as amunition to support his support going forward?"

I care not really about his personal life and demeanor, its irrelevant; its how he is and performs in the guise of Melbourne's coach.

Many also need to understand that the clearing of the deadwood was much less Baileys doing as it was those in charge of list management and recruiting.. Bailey is the Coach. He has input but many more do so its arguable almost anyone would have achieved simnilar results to date regarding the list. Its what hes done with them since thats an evidence of his ability. Id probably give him a 'B" here. Nothign brilliant, nothing glaringly wrong...or in simpler terms, nothing to write home about either..

Ive said for quite a while Im not so much concerned by the situation regarding injuries etc as that is to a point unaavoidable its what you do with those left that is our focus.

The style of game we seem determined to play isnt gelling. OUr stategy this last friday was embaraqssing. That the players managed even a fist was to a point commendable but they should never have been asked to play that way.; its demeaning.

So id back the call of your ppost Hannabal, someone, anyone answer. What is it about the way and the results of Baileys Caoching that anyone likes ?

I can tel lyou whats missing.. but im curious too as to what some like .

over to whomever ...........

[jabberwocky 2,301]

To stretch the "fight" analogy further, the ideal is that everybody in the fight should absolutely certain about their side's strategy & tactics and should have absolute belief and confidence that they will prevail. And each should be absolutely certain what they're supposed to do, and how their own effort contributes to their side's overall effort, for the duration of the fight.

And nobody's supposed to fight just to improve their own performance as a fighter - they're supposed to fight as a co-ordinated unit, to prevail over the other co-ordinated unit. If you're thrown into battle, but your only instructions are "just do the best you can", you're going to look uncertain, you're going to be constantly on your guard, not know where your friends and your enemies are, where you're supposed to move to, and how your contribution fits into the overall whole ... then what sort of fight are you going to give?

That's just what the Dees have looked like this season - I agree that they've lacked fight, but I think it's because they don't know how they're supposed to go about it as a team.

Probably the best post I have seen on our 2011 form to date. I reckon you have nailed it very well.

Confusion is the word that comes to mind. A confused outfit is going to give the appearance of an uncommitted outfit.

The buck does stop with the coaching dept on this, there must be a response.

[ex52k2 238]

Two years ago my family said Bailey has to go, but I said give him time. MFC always has enough time, its always next year or the year after. And it still is. All Bailey seems able to do is lose well, he has that down pat, two years ago he lost a year called tanking, I hated that surrender of our footy club and now its called damage control, or not losing by all that much.

How must our young players think when they see their coach wave the white flag from the initial bounce. Boy he really showed confidence in his team and their ability. And if the cry is get games into the young players, why wasnt Gawn selected 2 weeks ago instead of Newton. Max is the ruckman going forward isnt he?

I know that Max proberly isnt really ready yet but comes the time comes the player. Is Newton the future? God I hope not!

From the start of the year except the initial games in Adelaide all our practise games were crap. I know they were only practise games and not for points, but we now play how we practised, so we are consistant if nothing else.

Players are out, good players, but that shouldnt stop us having a go, a really good dip at the opposition. How angry I now am at what the surrender of our club has resulted in, a complete lack of good old fashioned heart and go at the opposition.

Ill stop now as I start to think once again of the lack of morial fibre that tanking was and now its offshoot limited losses.