Dean Bailey, I hope you're watching

[Scoop Junior 2,963]

Axis I have to disagree on 'ball use' being the problem.

Our bombing inside 50 to 1v2 contests was a 'decision making' error, not a 'ball use' error. The kicks were intended to be long bombs and that is what they were and therefore they weren't the result of skill errors.

So why did our players repeatedly make the decision to kick long inside 50m? As I said I don't know the reason. I would've thought that given we planned to use a loose man in defence our players would have been given the instruction not to bomb away inside 50 as we would be out-numbered. To then repeatedly make this error at the start of the game shows that: 1) either the instruction was not given pre-match or 2) the players failed to execute the instruction.

For what it's worth, Bailey had no chance Friday night. Against a quality opposition, 10 of our best 22 missing, we were never going to win this game. We did well to limit the damage early and the players' endeavour was there throughout the game.

I just don't understand the above aspect of our game and no, it can't simply be blamed on poor ball use or the forwards pushing up too far up the ground (if they do push too far up, simply instruct them not to). It was all decision making.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

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.

A great post WJ.

[old55 21,339]

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.

Are you sure Sylvia was instructed to play a negative role or was Bailey just going head-to-head with Judd with our best player?

[einstein251 59]

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.

I can imagine the response on here if we'd played man on man and been smashed. Carlton have been terrific in first quarters and we have been terrible. People would have said "why didn't he slow the game down when it was at it's hottest, why didn't we put someone behind the ball and make it a slog" and on the abuse would have gone. 

With a team cruelled by injury and it's personnel clearly significantly less capable than the opposition I think playing man on man would have consigned us to defeat with no chance. None. Carlton are better than us at the best of times but where we are at the moment a 100 point loss was staring us in the face. So I think it was a very smart tactic to try and close the game down, make it a scrap, limit scoring at both ends and hope that the wet conditions meant we were still with a chance deep into the game rather than trailing by 40 points at quarter time. Because in my view that's what would have happened if we'd played man on man. We'd have been smashed.

Before the game you highlighted the games disparity of the teams. You recognised the difference in the skill level. Surely you can see that giving a team in that superior position a free go early just gives them an opportunity to build confidence and go from there. You posted here because of GCS great first quarter against the Cats. They tried the same thing against Carlton in the first game and were embarrassed. I want a coach that gives us the best chance of winning, regardless of spectacle. Bailey did that. 

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.

People like WJ might have been please that we'd done "the courageous thing" like the Suns on Saturday but I'd have been disgusted that we'd been so limited and rigid in our thinking we'd have gone out and given ourselves no chance at all.

Surely that's a straw man argument if there ever was one?

I'm right because had it been done the other way we would have been "smashed with not a single chance of victory."

I just checked the record book and discovered that by playing it the way you approve of, we were smashed with not a single chance of victory (the opposition more than doubled our score) anyway so you've proven nothing but the fact that playing an extra man in defence was a massive fail.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Good question.

Sylvia is one of our more damaging mids - it could easily have been an attempt to make Judd play more defensive, limiting how much he could damage us.

Also to exploit an injured Judd, if that foot was worse than they were letting on.

He could easily have been playing as a decoy, so that we'd let Murphy & Gibbs roam free.

In the end, Judd proved to be more than effective on the day.

[beelzebub 22,225]

The whoile problem with fridays game was that it was undertaken in a negative mode. It began with the notion we were to be smashed and how to minimise it. The game was lost before the bounce. I was always under the impression you should at least go in with the attitute that any game might be won if given effort and attitude, fate may well stooge you , but if Baileys going to start the minimising game...then he can go now.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

See, I don't see it as a minimising tactic in this case.

I see it more as Bailey recognising that, because of the absence of Tapscott, Garland and Grimes, we didn't have enough players in the defensive 50 capable of quality disposal.

Watts was sent down there to rectify this, but we also wanted to be able to utilise him as a mobile target by not putting him in a lockdown role.

I think it was purely a compromise to ensure we could hit a target upfield, if it managed to present itself.

Bailey's gameplan relies on quality kicking from the backline, and we had less of them than normal

It's more than just injuries - it's who has suffered them.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Humour me here..

He recognises he is limited in defence...and moves to shore it up... How is this not minimising ? Its exactly what it is.

A compromise it may be, but it was a tactic to minimise the onslaught he thought coming. In doing this he scuttled any endeavour of the side to win.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

How do you not understand the difference?

Watts was not down there to be defensive, he was there to be offensive.

He was there to facilitate movement of the ball out of the backline when we had it, not to stymie Carlton when they had it.

A distinct difference.

[beelzebub 22,225]

How do you not understand the difference?

Watts was not down there to be defensive, he was there to be offensive.

He was there to facilitate movement of the ball out of the backline when we had it, not to stymie Carlton when they had it.

A distinct difference.

How do you not understand theyre the same ???

Try as you may describing a Donkey with balck and white stripes...its a Zebra !!

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

See, I don't see it as a minimising tactic in this case.

I see it more as Bailey recognising that, because of the absence of Tapscott, Garland and Grimes, we didn't have enough players in the defensive 50 capable of quality disposal.

Watts was sent down there to rectify this, but we also wanted to be able to utilise him as a mobile target by not putting him in a lockdown role.

I think it was purely a compromise to ensure we could hit a target upfield, if it managed to present itself.

Bailey's gameplan relies on quality kicking from the backline, and we had less of them than normal

It's more than just injuries - it's who has suffered them.

The White Flag was held up to Carlton before the first bounce on Friday...You can look at it any way you like Artie.

I felt cheated, that was our one Friday night home game for the year....We rolled over legs in the air.

Saturday moring on SEN the Carlton full back was asked "When did you feel you had the game won?"

"During the Warm Up" was his answer.....It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Edited May 30, 2011 by why you little

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

How do you not understand the difference?

Watts was not down there to be defensive, he was there to be offensive.

He was there to facilitate movement of the ball out of the backline when we had it, not to stymie Carlton when they had it.

A distinct difference.

What's the point of attacking when not one player is within sight of our 50 metre arc???

[John Dee 437]

I wish I had something better to do ...

A defensive tactic is just that. It is designed to limit the opposition team's offense. It must be accepted that this must limit your own offense. It does not mean that you have conceded the game; it means that you have decided to play a low scoring game. This is a time-worn tactic that can mean that a clearly lower rated team can, with luck, beat a far more highly rated team. Footscray against Essendon circa 2000 ring any bells; I am sure there have been other examples.

Most people in this thread have approached the matter with an already formed opinion and clutched at anything they perceive supports it.

Where are the people who have bemoaned Bailey's lack of any Plan B? They are probably the same people who are now bemoaning the evidence of one.

[Rogue 585]

The White Flag was held up to Carlton before the first bounce on Friday...You can look at it any way you like Artie.

I felt cheated, that was our one Friday night home game for the year....We rolled over legs in the air.

Saturday moring on SEN the Carlton full back was asked "When did you feel you had the game won?"

"During the Warm Up" was his answer.....It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

If he thought they had it won during the warm-up then it had nothing to do with DB's tactics.

(If I was Carlton I would have thought I had it won when I looked at the injury list on the Tuesday).

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

I wish I had something better to do ...

A defensive tactic is just that. It is designed to limit the opposition team's offense. It must be accepted that this must limit your own offense. It does not mean that you have conceded the game; it means that you have decided to play a low scoring game. This is a time-worn tactic that can mean that a clearly lower rated team can, with luck, beat a far more highly rated team. Footscray against Essendon circa 2000 ring any bells; I am sure there have been other examples.

Most people in this thread have approached the matter with an already formed opinion and clutched at anything they perceive supports it.

Where are the people who have bemoaned Bailey's lack of any Plan B? They are probably the same people who are now bemoaning the evidence of one.

Friday nights "Gameplan" was not a Plan B. It was nothing more than a chaotic shambles.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

My god...

It's like talking to someone in Chinese, who thinks they can speak the language... but they can't.

[ICU2 Jerry Jerry 257]

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.

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.

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

If he thought they had it won during the warm-up then it had nothing to do with DB's tactics.

If I was Carlton I would have thought I had it won when I looked at the injury list on the Tuesday.

Quite possibly, but we didn't try to do anything about it. I would always prefer the side to get beaten trying to score goals, not play european soccer.

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

My god...

It's like talking to someone in Chinese, who thinks they can speak the language... but they can't.

You will still be coming up with excuses in 2015 Artie. "Just keep being patient boys, we will get there....." Meanwhile Gold Coast Suns have won their second flag.

[beelzebub 22,225]

My god...

It's like talking to someone in Chinese, who thinks they can speak the language... but they can't.

Go shove it mate... you make like you know it all...and we can all plainly see you dont..

Many come here to debate but few assume the know it all status you aspire to.

Go back to your Chinese Id suggest.

In English however.. Bailey played a losing hand perfectly... i.e he had not thebest cards and he sought to lose as little as he could.

Many would sugest thats not what we ought to be about. You dont like it...fine.. Beijing awaits !!

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You will still be coming up with excuses in 2015 Artie. "Just keep being patient boys, we will get there....." Meanwhile Gold Coast Suns have won their second flag.

I've never said anything of the sort.

I can just see the reasoning for making such a move.

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

I'm not at all positive we'll even win 1 premiership in the next decade.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Go shove it mate... you make like you know it all...and we can all plainly see you dont..

Many come here to debate but few assume the know it all status you aspire to.

Go back to your Chinese Id suggest.

In English however.. Bailey played a losing hand perfectly... i.e he had not thebest cards and he sought to lose as little as he could.

Many would sugest thats not what we ought to be about. You dont like it...fine.. Beijing awaits !!

You just don't understand it.

Shame.

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

I've never said anything of the sort.

I can just see the reasoning for making such a move.

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

I'm not at all positive we'll even win 1 premiership in the next decade.

I am not dismissing your arguement at all Artie (a.k.a. KS)You are actually the one calling people foolish for not having the same bizarre ideas as yourself. Starting a game with a defensive mindset & nobody in the forward 50 i will never agree to.

Would rather spend hard earned cash at the movies than watch rubbish like that.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough, you don't agree with the tactic and see it as purely negative, but tell me what tactic you would've used to solve the problem of not enough quality disposal out of the backline...

I'd like to hear it.

[Sir Why You Little 34,470]

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough, you don't agree with the tactic and see it as purely negative, but tell me what tactic you would've used to solve the problem of not enough quality disposal out of the backline...

I'd like to hear it.

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.