Read somewhere on this thread that: "we get beaten by sides better than us and win against sides that are worse than us".

Well if that is how it is, no doubt Port Adelaide are ok, as they just lose to sides better than them.

It makes me so angry to listen to arguments like we are young, we are playing away from home, injuries. Its BS. All of it. You come and you play at 100%. Simple. Wherever, whoever.

Sometimes you can win and be a loser, sometimes you can lose and be a winner. I want to "win" every game. By that I mean I want to fight out hard against sides that may beat us - I want to win by learning from each game.

We get carried away beating Richmond who are in a hole, essendon who were struggling massively, brisbane (just), Gold coast, freo at the g undermanned.....come on....

I will say the games we do win, we win by being switched on and being hard at it. There are no easy games in the AFL. Its tough to beat anyone, but the fundamental is getting effort there from the start and influencing the result in every possible way.

Culture of the club is poor - there are reasons and excuses no doubt - but it is poor. So address it. Make it known that it is not acceptable. Pick some people who would give their right one for a crack at senior footy. Those who dont should play casey.

As for the coach, he gets till the end of the year. So he should. Will take one hell of an effort to get an extension from here. I just think that turning this group around having preceeded over a losing culture for 4 years is going to be extremely difficult.

Vent over.

...

Clueless vent.

You know why there's a saying that half of football is 80% mental?

Because it isn't 100% mental.

There are a lot of other influencing factors, whether you care to acknowledge them or not.

Unfortunately Gysberts is the weak link when we get thrashed

This gets to the nub of the issue. Many on here don't understand that we can't play the brand of football that will combat the more highly developed teams. If you look at Gysberts up close, you will see a boy doing a man's job. He has talent to burn, but is two or three pre-seasons away from being an A-Grade midfielder, particularly against physically developed teams. McKenzie is more physically developed, but still has a fair way to go. Skully and Trengove have a long way to go. Nicholson, Evans, Straus, Blease and many others will not be fully physcally developed for two or three years.

We beat the sides who cannot present a midfield replete with seasoned footballers; we don't just beat them, we thrash them. We cannot compete against the more physically developed sides, yet; they don't just beat us, they thrash us.

We need to remember with Gysberts and McKenzie, they basically had little pre season this year, one coming back from I think Stress fractures and the other managing OP.

On the coaching issue, we can not keep going the way we are. Last year even in most games we lost we were competitive, there may have been a couple but nothing like this year. The lose of Wellman is hurting us at the moment. Assistant coaches can make or break a head coach, I don't think Dean Bailey has the right people in the coaches box supporting him. Over the 4 years or forward structure has been bad, our clearance work is bad and our transition from back to forward is bad.

If we extend Bailey's contract we need to put good people around him.

We need to remember with Gysberts and McKenzie, they basically had little pre season this year, one coming back from I think Stress fractures and the other managing OP.

On the coaching issue, we can not keep going the way we are. Last year even in most games we lost we were competitive, there may have been a couple but nothing like this year. The lose of Wellman is hurting us at the moment. Assistant coaches can make or break a head coach, I don't think Dean Bailey has the right people in the coaches box supporting him. Over the 4 years or forward structure has been bad, our clearance work is bad and our transition from back to forward is bad.

If we extend Bailey's contract we need to put good people around him.

I don't disagree with putting the best people in the FD but I disagree with the highlighted.

We were rubbish at times last year.

We have had awful games this year against Haw, WCE, NM, Coll, Carl and WB. But we were awful in 2010 against Haw, NM, StK, Geel, Adel, PA, Carl, and WCE.

I am not trying to minimise how bad we have been this season, but not let the revisionist history set in. We were a bad side in 2010.

As for our forward structure, clearance work, and transition, I believe the latter two to be quite good but our press requires full effort from all players and we don't get that.

Against the Tigers we showed that Bailey and Co. have taught the players a good press - the players have shown in the losses this year that they pick and choose the days they put in the effort to do the press.

This gets to the nub of the issue. Many on here don't understand that we can't play the brand of football that will combat the more highly developed teams. If you look at Gysberts up close, you will see a boy doing a man's job. He has talent to burn, but is two or three pre-seasons away from being an A-Grade midfielder, particularly against physically developed teams. McKenzie is more physically developed, but still has a fair way to go. Skully and Trengove have a long way to go. Nicholson, Evans, Straus, Blease and many others will not be fully physcally developed for two or three years.

We beat the sides who cannot present a midfield replete with seasoned footballers; we don't just beat them, we thrash them. We cannot compete against the more physically developed sides, yet; they don't just beat us, they thrash us.

A ray of common sense amongst all the emotive opinions. Combine with the fact that we still don't have a true key forward(not even 1 let alone 2)

Good post John Dee, i've had numerous conversations with people recently about how the age of the players we have in the midfield is hurting against the older, stronger, and more experienced midfields.

Look at the teams we have beaten and the teams we've lost to. There's a consistent pattern. Against those teams who have a younger midfield group, like ours, we generally win or go close (e.g. Richmond, Essendon, Port, Adelaide, GC, Nth Melb, Bris). Against those teams with more experienced mid field groups we get belted (Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Dogs).

The other wins come against interstate teams that struggle with travel (e.g. freo, port).

I truely believe that this team is two years of development physically, skill wise and maturity away from being a consistent finals presence and top 4 threat. By that stage some of the key youngsters like Scully, Trengove, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Cook etc will be 22 and have bodies of men rather than boys. Then we will see an improvement in the consistency in effort because physically their bodies will be better conditioned for it.

I actually think Bailey has done enough with this list and this year to earn at least another year or two. Why??? Because the players have clearly developed, although it has been at different rates. The team continues to show improvement from year to year in the W-L column. The team is still a genuine chance for finals this year and should reach 10 wins, with the 4 additional wins to come against Port (twice), GC, and Richmond. 10 1/2 wins is a good result, and next year I reckon 12 wins would be right.

Bailey has done everything expected of him, and I think we've seen that the game plan can be effective, particularly now that the team is improving its forward pressure. With Davey, Aussie, Bail, Joel Mac, and Tapscott to come back in, the team can only get better and should have a better blend of youth and experience as the year plays out. Things continue to improve and Bailey has been a big part of that.

...

Not that I disagree with you, but we've certainly been less consistently competitive this year.

Last year we had 8 wins (3 by over 40, 5 by under 40)

This year we've had 6 wins (3 by over 40, 3 by under 40)

Last year we had 13 losses (4 by over 40, 9 by under 40)

This year we've had 7 losses (6 over 40, 1 under 40)

In last year's 13 losses we won 13 quarters and drew 3.

This year's 7 losses have seen us win 4 quarters and lose 24.

In our last 3 losses, we haven't won a single quarter.

...

Good post.

I posted this in another thread, but feel it's relevant here too.

Last Friday night's game:

Players with 18 or more touches:

Melbourne had 11. Average games 51

The Dogs had 9. Average games 154

Multiple goal scoreres.

Melbourne had 3. Average games 27

The Dogs had 6. Average games 126

The Bulldogs experienced, hard body mids influnced the game, whilst our young up-and-comers were the ones influencing it from our side. Top teams have experienced players who influence the games regularly with a smattering of youth, our youth is the core of our side, and our best players too.

I would say the biggest issues with the FD & playing group are:

-under resourced FD in comparison to competition

-physically under developed midfield & playing group overall

-lack of mature contested style CHF/FF

I'm unsure about Bailey but I am backing the board to make the right call in regards to his future.

It may be a good idea to get the players in the gym early this year & get as close to 2 pre seasons in to them over one summer as they can. It's going to be hard to attain a full forward or CHF that we require. So good luck to the recruiting staff with that one! I would say getting size on our players is the easiest issue to resolve & something the FD should look to fast track. Whilst we are a chance to play finals this year I'd rather the FD get the group ready for footy next year & start bulking them up now.

Good post John Dee, i've had numerous conversations with people recently about how the age of the players we have in the midfield is hurting against the older, stronger, and more experienced midfields.

Look at the teams we have beaten and the teams we've lost to. There's a consistent pattern. Against those teams who have a younger midfield group, like ours, we generally win or go close (e.g. Richmond, Essendon, Port, Adelaide, GC, Nth Melb, Bris). Against those teams with more experienced mid field groups we get belted (Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Dogs).

The other wins come against interstate teams that struggle with travel (e.g. freo, port).

I truely believe that this team is two years of development physically, skill wise and maturity away from being a consistent finals presence and top 4 threat. By that stage some of the key youngsters like Scully, Trengove, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Cook etc will be 22 and have bodies of men rather than boys. Then we will see an improvement in the consistency in effort because physically their bodies will be better conditioned for it.

I actually think Bailey has done enough with this list and this year to earn at least another year or two. Why??? Because the players have clearly developed, although it has been at different rates. The team continues to show improvement from year to year in the W-L column. The team is still a genuine chance for finals this year and should reach 10 wins, with the 4 additional wins to come against Port (twice), GC, and Richmond. 10 1/2 wins is a good result, and next year I reckon 12 wins would be right.

Bailey has done everything expected of him, and I think we've seen that the game plan can be effective, particularly now that the team is improving its forward pressure. With Davey, Aussie, Bail, Joel Mac, and Tapscott to come back in, the team can only get better and should have a better blend of youth and experience as the year plays out. Things continue to improve and Bailey has been a big part of that.

Good summation PM, i agree with most of that...Our Midfield clearly needs another pre season, no doubt.

Whether we need more resources in the FD and better coaching staff to extract more from the playing group..i will back the President & Board on that one.

We are right at the cross roads of the rebuild at the moment...The Board must make the correct decisions.

Clear as day, Leading Teams is an absolute crock, nothing but a popularity contest.

We have the most inept leadership group in the League.

The leadership group act as a conduit between coach and players...Bailey's ability to implement his gameplan, methodology etc is severely hamstrung by our [censored] poor leaders.

When you have Watts and Trengove giving instructions to older players on where to position themselves it really is quite damning.

Watch Collingwood play, the leaders in that team, particularly Maxwell and Shaw are constantly pointing out and telling teammates where to position themselves.

Our leaders focus on their game to the detriment of the team, they are unable to step out of that to provide guidance or support to the youngsters.

Perfect case in point, Green, Moloney, Sylvia didn't even consider roughing up Picken who was working over Scully.

Great teams funnily enough play as a collective unit, we have a lot of players who cannot play collectively, hence why Tom Harley says we rely on individual brillance.

Clear as day, Leading Teams is an absolute crock, nothing but a popularity contest.

We have the most inept leadership group in the League.

The leadership group act as a conduit between coach and players...Bailey's ability to implement his gameplan, methodology etc is severely hamstrung by our [censored] poor leaders.

When you have Watts and Trengove giving instructions to older players on where to position themselves it really is quite damning.

Watch Collingwood play, the leaders in that team, particularly Maxwell and Shaw are constantly pointing out and telling teammates where to position themselves.

Our leaders focus on their game to the detriment of the team, they are unable to step out of that to provide guidance or support to the youngsters.

Perfect case in point, Green, Moloney, Sylvia didn't even consider roughing up Picken who was working over Scully.

Great teams funnily enough play as a collective unit, we have a lot of players who cannot play collectively, hence why Tom Harley says we rely on individual brillance.

Completely disagree on your first point.

I think Leading Teams methods are very good for finding real leadership within the playing group.

Our problem is that we've had none to find.

Those that have had the best leadership qualities have been too young to be put out the front, but soon they'll be ready.

I'm an advocate for what rpfc has been proposing for some time now, and I think that rather soon the Leading Teams model will see it come to fruition sooner than most think.

We could see a bloke like Grimes voted captain as soon as next year.

leading teams is about long term culture, not short term "being a hero"

Shock! Horror!

Young inexperienced team is wildly inconsistent!

Never saw that coming.

Anyway, if anyone is watching Footy Classified, they've just been discussing Bailey's tenure, and Hutchy can smell blood in the water.

He's trying to create a story by whipping the supporters into a frenzy again.

He thinks we should either re-sign Bailey now or send him on his way.

I can't wait to see how many idiots out there come tripping over each other to agree with him...

Shock! Horror!

Young inexperienced team is wildly inconsistent!

Never saw that coming.

Anyway, if anyone is watching Footy Classified, they've just been discussing Bailey's tenure, and Hutchy can smell blood in the water.

He's trying to create a story by whipping the supporters into a frenzy again.

He thinks we should either re-sign Bailey now or send him on his way.

I can't wait to see how many idiots out there come tripping over each other to agree with him...

Its probably realistic to suggest there would be inconsistencies from this team ( on paper) but the wild YO-Yo effect is pretty much beyond reasonable expectations. If a horse acted this way it would be swabbed !!

Any team down on form must currently savour the chance to play us...just to play themselves back into form.

You cant keep rolling out the old chestnut..."oh theyre kids" ..Strangely so are many other teams, so why are WE the competitions leading basketcase when it comes to inconsistancy ?

Bailey's boys HAVE done some good things in recent weeks and some shockers. Surely the team doesnt suffer from mass short term memory loss. Do they forget how to play footy overnight ? Or are tehy being inconsitently instructed ?

I was starting to think Dean mightactually have been onto something but I can se this is just the abberation from the norm..i.e all over the place.

Still not convinced about this bloke but happy with efforts of 'some 'players despite it all.

Lucky it's a footy team and not a horse.

Stupid analogy that isn't even worth making.

MFC plays every team back into form? Like Essendon and Richmond?

Funnily enough, you CAN keep rolling out the "well, they're kids" while they are in fact still kids.

Other teams full of kids are consistently rubbish - we should be pilloried for showing exceptional ability at times?

And we're the only team that does it?

How about Essendon losing to us, then beating Geelong?

We are actually quite consistent, when you look at who our wins and losses are AGAINST and where those teams are on the ladder.

The inconsistency is really with the expectations of the media and supporters.

Haha inconsistent coaching - that's a new one.

I'm glad you're not the one Bailey has to convince - your understanding of the game is severely lacking.

Don't let the truth get in the way of peddling your crap...

Keep Bailey, get rid of Williams, Royal and O'Donnell.

Mahoney, West and Viney keep their spots too.

We need a decent backline coach (Wellman is sorely missed).

Keep Bailey, get rid of Williams, Royal and O'Donnell.

Mahoney, West and Viney keep their spots too.

We need a decent backline coach (Wellman is sorely missed).

And what justification do you have for these absurdly stupid moves..?

New coach not required. Melbourne development happening within the scope of established timings set by current leading teams including Collingwood and Geelong. In fact we're probably progressing a bit faster. Still need more games in the team. Easy to get emotional but must stay rational. At the present stage of the team's development there is more risk in jettisoning Bailey than there is in keeping him. Must allow maturation to take place and it can't be rushed.

Good post.

Lucky it's a footy team and not a horse.

Stupid analogy that isn't even worth making.

MFC plays every team back into form? Like Essendon and Richmond?

Funnily enough, you CAN keep rolling out the "well, they're kids" while they are in fact still kids.

Other teams full of kids are consistently rubbish - we should be pilloried for showing exceptional ability at times?

And we're the only team that does it?

How about Essendon losing to us, then beating Geelong?

We are actually quite consistent, when you look at who our wins and losses are AGAINST and where those teams are on the ladder.

The inconsistency is really with the expectations of the media and supporters.

Haha inconsistent coaching - that's a new one.

I'm glad you're not the one Bailey has to convince - your understanding of the game is severely lacking.

Don't let the truth get in the way of peddling your crap...

oh youre a tiresome fool. Are you Baileys lovechild perhaps. Nothing hes done is wrong by you. Youre incapable of seeing forrests for trees Artie..or whomever

What has Ess v Geelong got to do with us. WeOnly just beat Richmond and they were thumped this weekend. We Beat a Freo who notoriously dont travel to Melbourne well and were missiing Sandilands.

The Bully Boys were all over teh padddock until they found us, same too for st kilda, Nth were vacilating , again til us. It was a good win against Essendon wtiihout a doubt.

Go to the top of the strawman class

But hey all things Bailey are shiny shiny arent they.

I like seeing yuo trot out your rubbish.. makes for enjoyment in an otherwise bleak Melbourne Season

really glad YOU have nothing to do with Melb appointments mate.. about as convincing as youre namesake. He was a wet rag too

We are actually quite consistent, when you look at who our wins and losses are AGAINST and where those teams are on the ladder.

The inconsistency is really with the expectations of the media and supporters.

I think we were the higher team on the ladder when we played North, St Kilda and the Bulldogs.

All i want to see is us beating the teams below us on the ladder and being competitive against the teams above us. I think that is a fair expectation.

And what justification do you have for these absurdly stupid moves..?

Does frustration count? Um, justification.... Mark Williams lacks the ability to convey his thoughts to the players in words (heard this from a few current players). Choco is not a backline coach, and as such should not be working as one. Kelly O... No reason really....

What has Ess v Geelong got to do with us. WeOnly just beat Richmond and they were thumped this weekend. We Beat a Freo who notoriously dont travel to Melbourne well and were missiing Sandilands.

The Bully Boys were all over teh padddock until they found us, same too for st kilda, Nth were vacilating , again til us. It was a good win against Essendon wtiihout a doubt.

At the risk of wading into a sh!tfight that I'm not invoved in, I think you need to re-read what you're posting.

Essendon v Geelong has a great deal to do with the argument, it's a classic example of another young team being inconsistent - losing to Melbourne one week, then a few weeks later defeating an unbeaten team in Geelong. Could well be described as a yo-yo result in fact, sound familiar?

We fairly comfortably beat Richmond, and the team that thumped them was the same team that gave us a belting not four weeks earlier. We beat Richmond by 27 points. Carlton beat us by 47 points. Carlton beat Richmond by 103 points. See a pattern here? Carlton > Melbourne > Richmond.

The Bulldogs have now won 4 in a row and a win and a half outside the 8. How exactly did we play them into form? No doubt it was a bad loss but you're clutching at straws to claim they were out of form when they played us. They're just a better side than us.

There's also a consistent thread with both the Dogs loss, the Saints loss and North loss - all at Etihad. No idea why but clearly we struggle adjusting our gameplan there. Maybe the players don't like the away changing rooms or the wind blowing off the bay at Docklands messes up their hair? Who knows, but it's definitely a pattern.