Dean Bailey, I hope you're watching

[old55 23,687]

You clearly haven't read the post properly. I'm calling you out for the above. I have no trouble standing up in front of anyone and telling them we are rubbish and we have got things wrong. It's you and your apologist type that beat around the bush and make excuses for every wrong decision that are the problem here. Not the type that demand change and action when it's clear it's required.

It's hard to change your attitude from one that has been softened and programmed over time to accept failure, But it must be done. It's time for you to get loud and throw away the excuse book. Demand and expect success. After all how can we expect the players to achieve when we have a supporter group made up largely of people that make excuses for why they can't?

If you change your attitude to one that won't tolerate failure more will follow, and remember the supporters and where their expectations and tolerance levels are at is where the culture actually lies.

[Craig Drinker 179]

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

Yes but will the key forwards actually play forward of the centre???

[Choko 493]

I would coach a team that learnt to spread and always give options every week. As a chess player i can never understand friday's tactics.

Using Friday nights example in a game of chess, one will always get Beaten, it may take 2-3 hours rather than 20 minutes-but the result will not change...Death. What is the point?? Friday proved nothing.

Yes the team gave application, but it was empty.

Liam Jurrah is completely wasted up the ground.

As a chess player, you need to start the game without 6 key pieces.

If you're half worth your mettle, you will start by working out how you think you can protect your king, rather than how to knock the other king off.

If everything goes exactly right in your defense of your king, you may have a chance to counter-attack. If it doesn't, then the inevitable occurs and you lose.

That was friday night.

[beelzebub 23,382]

But maybe that's the point, you just dismiss any argument I have as an excuse, rather than considering it as a valid argument.

this truly beautiful..as im sure you dont see the irony.

Many here understand whats happening . Its not that hard to see the failings at Melbourne. Arguably its harder to pinpoint some causes and trangressors.. But the failure itself is manifest.

Contrary to your view.. I more than get it.. But its my opinion. You want some to take what you say as fact, but others arent buying.

In respect to fridays effort. There are facts..and there are consequesnces of actions and directives.

Fact . We played a lose man in defence ( at the expence of our offensice ability, especially given who we put down back )

You cant play lose man in back without conceding potency up forward, unless and this is the big one, you have a very powerful and dominating forward line which can afford being one-short.

This is not the case at Melbourne as even with 6 positions filled up front no one is sure we really have a forward line of note. Take one man ( playing woth form) away and we can gaurantee we dont..

Bailey offers up the excuse ( i wont even credit him here with reasoning asthe reason fails) that he wanted to maximise the push from Half back. But for what..theres no one up forward who can do much . He's robbed Peter to pay Paul. All of Baileys ideeas come from the notion that the game is powered and determined from Half Back. Great thinking this as youve automatically conceded about 25-30 to the oppsosition. Most teams seem to think the game starts and stops with clearances, esp at teh center bounce. We seem to retreat to this fall back position and wait.., to unleash this Agrona from Hell .

Bailey sought to mitigate any blowout by loading the backline. This cant be refuted for it is , what it is.

The consequence of bolstering your defence is to weaken the forward potency. This Bailey was happy to do.

This was akin to footballs Custer's last Stand.

Whomever the carlton player was , who spoke of knowing theyd w on it in the warm up, well he was obviously correct. That score board went in one direction only really for the rest of the day.

And it was always going to as our structure ensured it.

You dont retreat and form a rear position counter offensive until you have exhausted your attack and all claims at winning.. Oh thats right we had before the first bounce.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

As a chess player, you need to start the game without 6 key pieces.

If you're half worth your mettle, you will start by working out how you think you can protect your king, rather than how to knock the other king off.

If everything goes exactly right in your defense of your king, you may have a chance to counter-attack. If it doesn't, then the inevitable occurs and you lose.

That was friday night.

Yes i do see your point, but playing chess on the back foot has never been successful, unless you are practising a strategy or playing an idiot.

On Friday night we were doing neither, we were infact being watched by the large audience. So i found the tactics truly humililiating...It was plain sad, particularly after the Big Jimma had been up on stage not 30 minutes before having had brain surgery 3 days earlier.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

bb59: There is clearly more than one way to skin a cat. Does Collingwood drop men off the back of a contest to create a loose man in defence? I suggest that you watch the way they play next time you get the opportunity. What about Geelong? They always try to get Scarlett loose in defence because he creates so much drive for them.

Also, Carlton also had a loose man in defence. Did they win? How were they able to win with a loose man in defence?

Clay:

So you have no trouble standing in front of your mates and agreeing with what they say?

Well done, tough guy. That’s very brave. I hear stories about the strong, brave soldiers who were captured and then heroically agreed with whatever their captors said. They were the real heroes.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I think that Bailey went in to the game thinking that if we put an extra man back right from the start, it would achieve 2 things, firstly, it would ensure the Carlton forward line was more crowded which in turn would restrict the openess to score, and secondly, having that spare man would hopefully give us better run out of defence (hence him using Watts who is one of our better users). Some will say this is defensive play, and my initial reaction was just that, while others will see it as an attacking option.

Where it turned out for the worst, for Bailey that is, is that our forwards needed to work a lot harder than what they have been, as they were a man down. Guys like Jurrah and Petterd have righfully been criticised in recent weeks for their work ethic, but the style of play that Bailey brought Friday night meant that they had to improve much more than normal. Sadly, they didn't, and because of this, it didn't compliment Bailey's plan.

This may be a way in the future to be able to beat the forward press - play a loose man right from the start, and create extra drive from half back. But, like any game plan, it will only work if executed perfectly, and we are just not doing that at the moment.

While most wont want to see that style again, I'd be interested to see if it can be successful. In future, I don't want to see Watts do it, maybe this is what Tom McDonald can offer?

In response to the opening post, I was at Metricon Stadium Saturday night. This is the third GC game I have seen live, and they contine to impress me with their attitude. They knew, like everyone at the game, that they were fighting a losing battle right from the start, but the endeavour they showed in the first half was excellent.

I have supported Dean Bailey ever since day 1, and will continue to do so while he is our coach. I'm not saying he is the right man for the job, but I'm not saying he is the wrong man either, I just honestly don't know if he can win us a premiership. A couple of the things tat disappointed me the other night was starting Nicholson as a substitute. A first gamer would've come in with great enthusiasim, and yeah, may have run out of puff, but would have had a red hot crack for the the first half at least. I would've lined him straight up on Judd, and Evans of Murphy. I want to see Watts play Full Forward for the rest of the year (even though I suggested differently above). If he can aim to kick 25 goals for the rest of the year, it will give him great confidence going in to 2012. Howe needs to come in, but I'm not sure if it is at the expense of Bate or Petterd.

I think our number 1 priority is to get this group of guys playing for each other, not for themselves. We aren't that much ahead of the Gold Coast in terms of development, but it's one thing they have already overtaken us on. Our team need to operate as one unit. It's hard when our better players aren't out on the park, but by the end of the year, if I can see that this group would do anything for all his mates in that starting 22, I'd be satisfied. I want to see them enjoy their footy, show a bit of flair and really celebrate each others work. As I am interstate, I want to here our supporters that went to the game say how it was great to see the backline celebrating every goal we kicked, and how good it felt to be a Melbourne supporter. The results will come, and I'm patient - you need to be if you bleed red and blue, but when we have senior players that have bad body language onfield, it does absolutely nothing to inspire the other players, and us supporters. I want the boys to give me those feelings that we all got when Aussie celebrated those goals a couple of years ago, or when Scull kicked his first goal and Trengove was one of the first to get around him, or when LJ kicked his first goals against Essendon. That sh!t gets me going, it gets you going, and most importantly, gets the team going.

You could easily tell on Friday night that a number of the players weren't doing what they were supposed to do. Is this the Coach's fault? Well, you will believe what you like (ie if you don't have confidence in Bailey, of course you will believe that it's his job to get the players up), but one thing is for sure, I think the entire playing list and coaching staff need to really sort their sh!t out and fix this problem.

[Rogue 585]

As a chess player, you need to start the game without 6 key pieces.

If you're half worth your mettle, you will start by working out how you think you can protect your king, rather than how to knock the other king off.

If everything goes exactly right in your defense of your king, you may have a chance to counter-attack. If it doesn't, then the inevitable occurs and you lose.

That was friday night.

Nice analogy.

[daisycutter 29,713]

...., but one thing is for sure, I think the entire playing list and coaching staff need to really sort their sh!t out and fix this problem.

I think you'll get a lot of agreement at least on that statement.

[beelzebub 23,382]

bb59: There is clearly more than one way to skin a cat. Does Collingwood drop men off the back of a contest to create a loose man in defence? I suggest that you watch the way they play next time you get the opportunity. What about Geelong? They always try to get Scarlett loose in defence because he creates so much drive for them.

Also, Carlton also had a loose man in defence. Did they win? How were they able to win with a loose man in defence?

.Being married to a Collingwood supporter... as is pratically her whole family of 4B and 3S wih one staying currently with us...I do actually end up seeing alot of Collingwood play. lol

Thyer pretty good arent they !!

Yes many ways to skin cats the AOB. However we arent them ( filth ). We are running a decimated outfit of late. All comparisons really with a Geelong..or Pies etc are a stretch ( to the point of snapping )

Counter question. Does Geelong, Carlton or Collingwood play a game based off of half back ? ( not the last time I looked.., yesterday as it happened)

Who was Carlton playin loose on Friday ?

o BTW..they won because they have a forward line..and an effecive midfield and apply accountable forward pressure ( and strangley in the forward 50 ) In short they won because they set about winning.. kinda showed too

[The Chazz 4,077]

I think you'll get a lot of agreement at least on that statement.

More than happy for you to disagree with the rest of it DC. I just don't know how anyone can hand-on-heart say that Dean Bailey ISN'T the right man for the job, just like I don't know how anyone can say he IS.

We have absolutely no idea what the players think of him, what he does/says behind closed doors, and if he has a game plan that can win a premiership. It is a very easy cop-out to balme the coach when the team isn't playing to expectations, especially if your expectations are high (and at times we should have high expectations).

As I said, I will support anyone that Coaches the MFC, until I am advised otherwise. But at the moment, I have to sit on the fence until I am shown differently.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

I believe that Carlton used Thornton as their loose man.

Why is it a legitimate tactic for Collingwood and Geelong, but not legitimate for us?

Because Geelong and Collingwood are good teams they are allowed to use it to win, but because we aren't playing well and have half a team in we \re using it purely defensively? Do you see a problem with that reasoning?

It's the sort of reasoning that lends people to believe that your mind was already made up beforehand, and are just using the tactic as an excuse to have a go at Bailey.

A counter question to your counter question - Where did we win the ball back against Adelaide? Half back or half forward? Because that's the style we're trying to play.

[ICU2 Jerry Jerry 257]

bb59: There is clearly more than one way to skin a cat. Does Collingwood drop men off the back of a contest to create a loose man in defence? I suggest that you watch the way they play next time you get the opportunity. What about Geelong? They always try to get Scarlett loose in defence because he creates so much drive for them.

Also, Carlton also had a loose man in defence. Did they win? How were they able to win with a loose man in defence?

Clay:

So you have no trouble standing in front of your mates and agreeing with what they say?

Well done, tough guy. That’s very brave. I hear stories about the strong, brave soldiers who were captured and then heroically agreed with whatever their captors said. They were the real heroes.

Next time you have a go at me at least do the courtesy of reading my posts properly first. That's twice in a row you have misquoted me for your own benefit and not actually addressed the crux of my post. That's 2 cheap shots in a row mate. Grow a set and remove your hands from your pants while your at it.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

No misquoting. I even re-read it to make sure that I hadn't misread it.

You told me that that I should "get a grip and be able to look one of your mates in the eye when he says "you club sucks" (sic) and tell him you agree", with the clear implication being that this is what you do in such a situation. I, through sarcasm, commented that this perhaps showed your own mental frailties in that what your mates think has an unreasonably large impact on your own opinion.

You started off by telling me that I was (accurate and direct quote) "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".

Given this, I don't think that complaining about 'cheap shots' is a good line for you to be pursuing.

Also, one of my pet hates is people who simply agree with other people and don't think for themselves. This, as I'm sure you can understand, is causing some friction between us.

Scoop: I agree that our decision making going forward was the major problem. By saying that we didn't use the ball well going forward I was not talking specifically about skills. I was talking about the same thing that you are.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Axis of Bob

[rpfc 28,738]

Bailey and the FD tried to turn it into a shitfight - the backline went well (kudos MacDonald), the midfield broke even if Chris Judd didn't exist..., and the forwards wouldn't know a shitfight if one tweeted them to inquire their interest in seeing the new Avengers movie.

And Clay - apart from the FD, the club has had a revolution.

Saying 'it's all shite, and my club sucks' isn't helpful, and it isn't true.

Jim will mould the FD as he sees fit in the off-season.

Until then, we are just going to have to deal with an outsider (Bailey) amongst the old Melbourne crew (Connolls, Viney, O'Donnell).

As an aside, some of those pushing for Viney to be caretaker ASAP also bemoan our 'culture' and the need for an outsider. If Viney was put in as coach, we would be entirely made up of ye olde Melbourne footy club that has a 'culture of failure.'

Edited May 30, 2011 by rpfc

[beelzebub 23,382]

I believe that Carlton used Thornton as their loose man.

Why is it a legitimate tactic for Collingwood and Geelong, but not legitimate for us?

Because Geelong and Collingwood are good teams they are allowed to use it to win, but because we aren't playing well and have half a team in we \re using it purely defensively? Do you see a problem with that reasoning?

It's the sort of reasoning that lends people to believe that your mind was already made up beforehand, and are just using the tactic as an excuse to have a go at Bailey.

A counter question to your counter question - Where did we win the ball back against Adelaide? Half back or half forward? Because that's the style we're trying to play.

I thought Thornton was on someone.. fair enough if not.

Again.. Collingwood aet al lplay a very different game.. and have much better ( less injured ) stocks to play with. They also play an attacking game.. we play a sit back , wait and hope variety.

Plainly assigning Watts the extra man role was panickinig.

Adelaide is an awful example to use. they allowed us the ball...if wed tried real hard and pushed furhter afield ( as indeed we did at times ) we wone it here too. The crows sucked that day. Casey cculd have beaten them.

Im siding with the observers who serioussly question the sense in playing how we do , especially with whom we have to play it with .

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

bb59: Don't simply 'side with observers'. Make up your own mind based on your own observations. Just following the crowd is the easy option, especially when they are loud and emotional.

Anyway, I think looking at the style we played against the Crows is perfectly legitimate because that shows the style of game we are trying to play when everything goes well. This is the game plan we are trying to play.

When we play better teams we have been trying to do exactly the same thing (ie, lock the ball inside our forward line) except that we haven't been able to do so because the opposition is better at preventing us doing so. In the same way, Collingwood and Geelong are much better at being able to play the game style they are trying to because their players are more capable.

Jack Watts was playing the same role that Scarlett plays, or Maxwell plays. If Scarlett is not playing on the opposition's best player ... is this also panicing?

I think that you have double standards because you are preoccupied with the result, rather than the cause. You think that because Collingwood/Geelong = win therefor the tactic is OK, but Melbourne = loss therefor the tactic is flawed.

I noted in a separate thread that there is a strong correlation between contested possessions and winning. As you said, Adelaide allowed us the ball (ie, we won more contested possession) and we were able to implement our gameplan properly. Collingwood and Geelong are able to consistently win more contested possession than their opponents, hence they are able to better implement their gameplan. But we don't implement ours properly consistently because we can't get our hands on the footy. See the problem?

[Demon16 69]

Tom Harley mentioned in the telecast on friday night that we are the only club in the competition that doesn't enforce a press. does anyone have concerns about this? or are we happy we are trying something that 16 other clubs are not?

no right or wrong answer btw!

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

We did against Adelaide. So what's different - the theory or the implementation?

[Demon16 69]

We did against Adelaide. So what's different - the theory or the implementation?

i really think if we were trying to implement it as general tactic it would be more evident in every game we play. or are we generally that much worse than the rest of the comp that we struggle to implement it consistently? i'm not saying i necessarily want to play that way btw, i would love it if D.B had something up his sleeve.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

i really think if we were trying to implement it as general tactic it would be more evident in every game we play. or are we generally that much worse than the rest of the comp that we struggle to implement it consistently? i'm not saying i necessarily want to play that way btw, i would love it if D.B had something up his sleeve.

As I said in my previous post, Bailey was trying to implement the same gameplan, but it relies on quality footskills out of the defensive 50.

Because of injuries we didn't have that, so Bailey had to tweak it, getting Watts in there for his kicking.

The plan may have broken down going into our forward 50 because we were caught one short, but without Watts it would have broken down a lot earlier, and wouldn't have got past the centre of the ground, making Watts move up the ground to get the ball and end up in pretty much the same zone.

It wasn't conceding defeat, it was a realisation that what we had wouldn't get the job done & trying to make the necessary adjustment to compensate.

Watts' role was as an attacking player, so I don't why so many insist it was a defensive role.

This was all about our ball movement with the ball in hand.

[Hannabal 4]

We did against Adelaide. So what's different - the theory or the implementation?

I didn't go to the Adelaide game and nor have I seen the replay, but I was told that we didn't really press. Moloney had a day out with 19 clearances, we had over 80 tackles and the ball was in our 50 more than any game in the last few years. You say they pressed, but having not seen it first hand in any other match I struggle with the concept that they did it well in one game when they haven't looked like doing it in any other. And when Todd Viney says preseason that they haven't spent a whole lot of time on gameplan I'm inclined to disbelieve you and your assertion that we successfully implemented a press. Jamar and Moloney's effectiveness together with a good day all round may have confused you a little.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

We scored 14 goals from Adelaide turnovers compared with their 1. We had 85 tackles to their 65.

Just in case you can't bring yourself to watch the Adelaide replay.

[daisycutter 29,713]

More than happy for you to disagree with the rest of it DC. I just don't know how anyone can hand-on-heart say that Dean Bailey ISN'T the right man for the job, just like I don't know how anyone can say he IS.

We have absolutely no idea what the players think of him, what he does/says behind closed doors, and if he has a game plan that can win a premiership. It is a very easy cop-out to balme the coach when the team isn't playing to expectations, especially if your expectations are high (and at times we should have high expectations).

As I said, I will support anyone that Coaches the MFC, until I am advised otherwise. But at the moment, I have to sit on the fence until I am shown differently.

Didn't make any comment on the rest of it billy, it wasn't too controversial.

I've never been a supporter or opponent of Bailey for the first 3 years. I would say though that I personally couldn't see what a lot of his supporters were claiming about him, but as I didn't have any good inside or up-close info I just went with the flow but kept my doubts in the background. This year my doubts are more in the foreground. I'm not convinced Bailey is a "good teacher" nor a good game-day tactician nor a good motivator. I expect he will get till the end of the year to get some runs on the board but that he is on very thin ice. As it stands now I can't see him as a premiership coach. Might sound brutal, but winning premierships is a brutal business. So, if he goes I won't be surprised. As to who would replace him, that is obviously the $64K question, but just because one can't say, is no reason in itself to stick with the incumbent.

Anyway they are just my thoughts......

P.S. I'm not impressed with what I hear/see of the assistant coaches either

[old dee 23,870]

Didn't make any comment on the rest of it billy, it wasn't too controversial.

I've never been a supporter or opponent of Bailey for the first 3 years. I would say though that I personally couldn't see what a lot of his supporters were claiming about him, but as I didn't have any good inside or up-close info I just went with the flow but kept my doubts in the background. This year my doubts are more in the foreground. I'm not convinced Bailey is a "good teacher" nor a good game-day tactician nor a good motivator. I expect he will get till the end of the year to get some runs on the board but that he is on very thin ice. As it stands now I can't see him as a premiership coach. Might sound brutal, but winning premierships is a brutal business. So, if he goes I won't be surprised. As to who would replace him, that is obviously the $64K question, but just because one can't say, is no reason in itself to stick with the incumbent.

Anyway they are just my thoughts......

P.S. I'm not impressed with what I hear/see of the assistant coaches either

DC you have just saved me writing 9 lines, covered it beautifully.

I am smiling "$64K question"