Dean Bailey, I hope you're watching

[beelzebub 23,242]

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.

who job is this ??

who supposed to be moulding the team ?

what can I say...its the usual suspect

He cant possibly do everything I realise, buit he's charged with overseeing those who do.

[DemonOX 8,733]

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.

If this is true what the hell are we in for this friday against the Dons???

Edited May 29, 2011 by DemonOX

[spiritof76 0]

First time poster- have no credentials what so ever in the eyes of the Demonland community nor am I seeking any.

Clearly the club share your appraisal; they have already conducted informal talks with another coach in the AFL - a week or so before the Carltank game - only issue is- Bailey is not aware of this - so since they have been less than honest with the current coach- bollocks if I should be in revealing this!

The upshot is the club are exploring options at present - Dean Bailey is a dead man walking and he does not even know it yet.

I'm not sold on Bailey's game plan-I also think he has been too cautious in his player selection and game day tactics but I do expect the man who took the fall for the club to obtain a wealth of picks to be given some dignity.

The only dignity he'll get is to be allowed to coach out the season.

The coach who has been spoken to is a current coach and this was sourced from a family member of that coach.

Why have I raised this? Because half the stuff on here is rhetorical malaise clutching at assumptions and straws and I'm in a "devil may care " attitude, so it may assist people on this forum by cutting down a hundred posts on the "are they/ should they"- debate. the fact is they are!

People should also realise we cannot attract star players anymore and the same applies for star coaches. The last homegrown star players were Flower and Lyon, the last star coach was Barassi and his presence brought a longline of journeymen and two potential star players in Templeton and Moore - without either- the other(s) are hard to convince.

This should make you understand that we have an uphill battle to bring a proven-star- coach to our club. The alternative to DB is not what I would have thought is a coup- rather a compromise.

BTW: Garry also let it slip by what he said on FC - taking us to be morons and not reading between the lines.

Welcome to Hell- for we are only in purgatory.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,622]

Spirit, don't you think that Bailey already knows that his time will be up at the end of the season unless there is a massive turn around. He deserves to be "advised" that the Club are looking at other possible coaches but at the same time the Club would be remiss not to start looking at alternative coaches. Just like any good recruiting officer will be looking at what players are out of contract next year. I would however hate for the Club to do a Hird on him. Bailey has started the process. Our next coach will complete it.

My problem is that there are certain things that should not be made public if you have the best interests of the Club. To say that you are heroically saving us all from making inane posts dont worry about it. It's entertainment. There are a few on this site who probably have more information than what they are revealing but don't because it is not in the best interests of the Club.

We know that the Club take an interest in the site so it will be interesting if they come out on the front foot and confirm that they are talking to various aspirants. It will also be interesting if it comes out in the media.

[Guest oldman emubitter]

i'm certainly not wasting any more breath on this aurgument because it's pointless. bailey will not be our coach next year; simple.

after friday nights experience he should contact soccer australia for the socceroos job

[DemonOX 8,733]

The upshot is the club are exploring options at present - Dean Bailey is a dead man walking and he does not even know it yet.

The coach who has been spoken to is a current coach and this was sourced from a family member of that coach.

This should make you understand that we have an uphill battle to bring a proven-star- coach to our club. The alternative to DB is not what I would have thought is a coup- rather a compromise.

Welcome on board.

If this is correct do you mean a current head coach or assistant? When you say its a compromise rather than a coup is it a good coach that we will be happy with and while your at it name the coach (or give intials)

[Striker475 696]

If this is true what the hell are we in for this friday against the Dons???

This Friday *should* be different - Trenners, possibly Scull, possibly Dunn all back and hopefully Juice banished forever.

[daisycutter 29,429]

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.

C'mon RPFC anyone can pick out the obvious apologists (there's half a dozen fairly regulars).........even you if you try

P.S. I'm not suggesting you are one ok?

[Hannabal 4]

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

You couldn't understand it the first time ?

But you're right. I have no real interest in others views on here as I don't rate most of them. I skim and occasionally read a few lines. My post could have randomly gone in a few, but I chose this thread. I should have chosen the "sack Bailey" thread. That said, let me say that he should coach for the rest of the year.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Hannabal

[Guest Artie Bucco]

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.

A really good post, I think.

But do you think it's fair to say that inexperience can add to this confusion?

Inexperience of what to do in certain game situations, even when you know your role and the gameplan you are trying to implement?

What to do when the gameplan breaks down, which is more likely with the more inexperienced players in the side, and also the more lower-quality players in the side?

I believe it has a cumulative effect.

And then you get the players who do know what's going on & can perform their role, but they are frustrated and confused by the gameplan continually breaking down?

I'm not sure what Bailey can do about inexperience other than play those players in more games, and I don't know what he can do about the presence of lower-quality players in the side, other than wait for our better players to recover from injury.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Ps. What are thoughts on Ross Lyon?

I have no real interest in Rodney Eade.

The leadership at the dogs is not something we should aspire to.

[Jaded No More 68,600]

You couldn't understand it the first time ?

But you're right. I have no real interest in others views on here as I don't rate most of them. I skim and occasionally read a few lines. My post could have randomly gone in a few, but I chose this thread. I should have chosen the "sack Bailey" thread. That said, let me say that he should coach for the rest of the year.

I love that you post here mainly because you enjoy reading aloud your own thoughts once you have typed them out on the screen B)

Very few poster here would be shocked/upset if Bailey wasn't with the club next year. But many also recognise, as you have, that a premature departure will do nothing but damage to the club. And at the same time, there is also a recognition that our leadership is shizen and we have been hit very hard by injuries. Malthouse couldn't win games with 8-10 of his best players missing either.

Having said that, I think Bailey lacks a great tactical mind and I don't know if he can extract the best out of his players, and for those reasons I hope we change coaches at the end of the season.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,885]

I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what the tactics were. I could see one part, I could see a bloke behind the ball, but this does not represent the entire range of the "tactics" so I'm unable to judge it in isolation.

It is not arrogance to have an opinion on what you observe. I do not need to be in the inner sanctum to know what the tactics are they were there for all to see. You have taken one point in isolation which you have a clear view on based on your observation. Yet have blindly ignored the other points onthe basis that you could not know what the tactics were. Could you not make your own observations on these as well?

In summation you believe the tactic of a player behind the ball gave us the best chance of winning.I believe it gave us no chance and was persevered with even when it was proving to do nothing. It' a difference of opinion and one which I don't think deserves any further discussion.

[rpfc 28,073]

C'mon RPFC anyone can pick out the obvious apologists (there's half a dozen fairly regulars).........even you if you try

P.S. I'm not suggesting you are one ok?

'Apologists' DC?

There are few holding onto the "we'll be better when we get our injured back" and there are few "the senior players are sickening me" (that's me) and AB is playing semantical games, but I don't see enough apologists to raise such ire.

And if there are half a dozen regular apologists - who gives a F?

Why spew arrogance and dismissiveness all over Demonland for '6 fairly regular posters?'

And PS - not suggesting you are spewing.

Edited May 29, 2011 by rpfc

[Guest Thomo]

I'm glad we had a coach who was flexible in his thinking and worked out a way, if everything went our way, that we could win because there is nothing surer than if we'd gone man on man on Friday we'd have been smashed with not a single chance of victory.

What did you think about the tactic of assigning our best attacking onballer to a negating tagging role? To me that was much worse than having a player behind the ball. For Bailey to take Sylvia out of the game was one of the worst moves I have seen by a coach, it looked like we were tanking.

[daisycutter 29,429]

'Apologists' DC?

There are few holding onto the "we'll be better when we get our injured back" and there are few "the senior players are sickening me" (that's me) and AB is playing semantical games, but I don't see enough apologists to raise such ire.

And if there are half a dozen regular apologists - who gives a F?

Why spew arrogance and dismissiveness all over Demonland for '6 fairly regular posters?'

And PS - not suggesting you are spewing.

I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to agree with me.

Someone uses the apologist word and you talk of arrogance and dismissiveness spewing everywhere

It just makes you seem a little precious, which I'm sure you're not really

Anyway demonland is getting too repetitive so I'm going to bed (and Webber has dropped places in another bad start - 1st Q jitters?)

[Scoop Junior 3,411]

There has been a lot of discussion on whether the tactic of employing a loose man behind the ball from the start of the game was a good or bad tactic.

Whether the tactic was right or wrong doesn't really bother me.

What did frustrate me on the night though was our inside 50 entries in the first quarter, especially early in the game.

So we've prepared for this game with the loose man behind the ball tactic. This means that should Carlton not man this loose player up, they will also have a loose man behind the ball. So both sides will have an extra man in defence. This should radically change the way you structure your forward 50 entries. You can't bomb long to a pack because you'll be outnumbered and they'll take the ball away most times. What you have to do is spot up leading targets. If there are no leading targets, then you need to slow your ball movement when going inside 50 and look laterally through the midfield for loose players and kick it to them.

The worst thing to do when employing a loose man tactic is just to bomb it long inside 50 to a 1v2 option. The key is to hit up leading targets, but even if you can't then just maintain possession through the midfield until a better option presents up forward. Even though this slows the game down, it will mean that the opposition have the ball in their hands less and will score less, which is ultimately the purpose of the loose man tactic (i.e. a defensive tactic to keep the opposition's scoring down).

So hopefully this explains my shock and horror at the way we just blindly and stupidly bombed the ball inside our forward 50 in the first quarter. Surely if you have planned and prepared for the loose man tactic pre-game you would also have expressed the critical aspect of not bombing in to a 1v2 contest in our forward 50. I don't know the cause for our failure to avoid doing this - was it drummed in pre-match, did the players fail to heed instructions, did they just panic under Carlton's pressure? Whatever it was, it was extremely frustrating.

In the future I would hope that if we decide to play with a man behind the ball we will adjust our attacking tactics accordingly to match the defensive style we are adopting.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Scoop Junior

[Axis of Bob 11,285]

We didn't use the ball well going forward, Scoop. Bailey mentioned after the game that the forwards pushed too far up the ground and weren't prepared to work hard enough back into defence. When your forwards aren't working hard enough and you use th ball badly going forward then you are going to be in a lot of trouble!!

It was the same sort of players doing it too. Petterd, Jurrah, Bate .... all of the mobile taller players.

We have recruited a lot of hard running taller players, like Howe, Cook, McDonald etc. No doubt they have been recruited to play the role that Bate etc have proven they cannot play. These guys need to be able to push up the ground and then push really hard back towards goal, but they were unable to do that on Friday at all.

Hannabal: If you don't care what anyone thinks, then why are you here? I don't believe that you don't care what others think, because you clearly crave recognition more than anything else in the world. It's about 50% funny.

[ICU2 Jerry Jerry 257]

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.

This post needs more love. I haver never seen a more obvious waving of the white flag since last year at Kardinia park (when we rested Scully and Trengove instead of letting them learn the most important lesson of all by playing the best away from home). Both were Bailey decisions and both were terrible. Not playing Watts in the the starting 21 against Gold coast (when it was the ultimate chance to gain some serious confidence) really? Bate as a sub? these are indefensible and dumb football decisions that send a [censored] poor message to the football fraternity.

Furthermore Bailey playing rookies these last 2 weeks is a welcomed and great option for him, and to the untrained eye it may even appear bold, but I give you this . . . A loss with rookies takes a lot of heat off a struggling coach, especially a coach who has now orchestrated a ready-made excuse (one he knows and hopes the media will adopt) to hide the fact that we are devoid of any form of structure, message or game-plan which is the sole job of a head coach!

The party line that seems to exist ("developing players") does not seem to relate to developing a "champion side".

We can develop individuals all we like but it's not until we start developing a side and a "team" structure that we will see any rewards.

Premierships are won by champion teams and Bailey seems so caught up in "player development" that he has forgotten that it's 22 TEAM MATES that win a flag.

Where is the team set-up/structure/Gameplan/unity required of a champion team? we don't have it and the buck stops at the architect.

Bailey . . . I said it last year and I say it again. . . . you don't have it.

To our board (and with praise for all the great work you have done in finance etc.) you need to make the hard call and make it immediately. This poison is killing our soul. At least popping Viney in as a caretaker lets the door be opened to start negotiations (and beat other clubs to the punch) and also rekindle some much needed positive feel back at the club.

[Axis of Bob 11,285]

In the dossier that Prendergast did on Jack Watts mentioned that Watts had to learn how to use his pace in a match because he may have been losing some of his pace due to his work rate. Against Gold Coast they played him as a sub and then managed to take some contested marks and use his pace really well in the last quarter when he came on.

Since then he has played with a whole lot more confidence which, could reasonably be argued, came from that time playing as a sub against the Suns. By having the fresh legs against less experienced players he was able to have a really good quarter and has used that as a platform for some really good form.

Everything is not always as simple as it appears ... or as you want it to be.

PS- Who are the senior players that Bailey could have played last week?

[ICU2 Jerry Jerry 257]

In the dossier that Prendergast did on Jack Watts mentioned that Watts had to learn how to use his pace in a match because he may have been losing some of his pace due to his work rate. Against Gold Coast they played him as a sub and then managed to take some contested marks and use his pace really well in the last quarter when he came on.

Since then he has played with a whole lot more confidence which, could reasonably be argued, came from that time playing as a sub against the Suns. By having the fresh legs against less experienced players he was able to have a really good quarter and has used that as a platform for some really good form.

Everything is not always as simple as it appears ... or as you want it to be.

PS- Who are the senior players that Bailey could have played last week?

mate it gets hard reading your posts day in day out. Watching you grabbing at straws in desperate defence of what is obviously broken. Feel free to search for the silver lining in the storm system, but at some stage get a grip and be able to look one of your mates in the eye when he says "you club sucks" and tell him you agree and stop making excuses for it. Only when every supporter stops making excuses and accepting rubbish can we as a club move forward. Your breed of supporter pretends to be the "level headed type" who sees all angles when in reality you are the "accepting of mediocrity type" who make excuses for under-performance. In a hefty dose of irony your supporter type is the equivalent of a player not putting his body on the line when the time comes to make a stand and are what you would consider a "soft" player on the field.

Time to grow a set mate and break the "Melbourne supporter stereotype" and show some ticker. Make some noise like the big clubs supporters do when they aren't getting the results they want. We can't aspire to be a "big" club unless we believe we are entitled to be one.

Making excuses for poor decisions and accepting poor performance is something bad/unsuccessful clubs do. Granted you support one now, but don't you think it's time you didn't? Don't you think you deserve better? The change (believe it or not) starts with people like you.

Harden up and demand of yourself what you would like to demand of the club.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Clay Sampson

[Axis of Bob 11,285]

I have posted 15 times in the past month. 6 of these have been in the thread I created about contested possessions. I have posted 5 times tonight.

Those 9 posts must have really struck a nerve with you. If you find them so hard to read then maybe you should stop re-reading them, since that's the only way you could find them "day in and day out"!! :D

I'm sorry that you aren't man enough to stand up to your mates. I'm sorry that you are ashamed of being a Melbourne supporter. I'm sorry that you see my "type of supporter" as being the equivalent of not putting my body on the line. I'm sorry that you don't understand what irony is.

I'm not sorry to be holding an opposing view to yours.

PS- Again ..... who were those senior players that Bailey could have brought in last week?

Edited May 29, 2011 by Axis of Bob

[timD 994]

Akum, I disagree in part. You can fight when there is no plan, when you have noting but the will to just get in, get the pill or bury the man with it. You can look disorganised without a plan, and that can then impact on the opportunities to fight. BUT we had a man behind the ball. We had numbers and we failed to use them. Players failed to run - to work hard enough. Not all of them...but enough of them. Footy is now, more than ever, a team game. THe whole damn team needs to be moving all at once to create the play. Having the ball is just a bonus feature of a game plan. WE had players able to put in who chose not to. Game plans are not that complex and players have practiced them for years.

[old55 22,992]

It's hard to tell whether Bailey is leading us in the right direction, but as I've posted before that right direction isn't following the herd. I'm very wary of knee jerk reactions - in this thread we've had experienced posters saying that we're not defensive enough and others saying that we're too defensve - some bemoaning that we're too similar to Matthew Knights, others lamenting that we're not enough like him. I guess North were just unlucky to get the dumb Scott brother while Geelong got the smart one, or maybe there's another explanation ...

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Like