Exactly, a pretender, I sort of feel a love hate thing about Robbo. and thats why i feel uncomfotable about him, I reckon he tries to paly the supporters like Yo-Yo's. That, to me makes it a cheap trick, and just plain Cheap...

Sorry Robbo but you look guilt laden every time I see you on 7 sunday mornings. Not for too much longer I think...

Maybe he should be called Bin Laden?.

Very disappointed to hear Bailey dodge the question on why the forwards push so far up the ground (prompted by my message to SEN thirty seconds earlier requesting they ask the very question). Basically he blamed the fact that we didn't have a "Gorilla" forward, or words to that effect. He also blamed out lack of inside fifties. However, as I have argued for many years now, not having any forwards in the forward line (Gorilla or not) is a major contributing factor to a lack of inside fifties.

As we have seen countless times this year, when a player has the ball in the middle of the ground even the half back and they look up to only opposition players in front of them they are forced to chip sideways, handball and hold up play until an option ahead presents itself. If there was forward options ahead of the ball in the forward line, leading towards to player with the ball then there would be no need to stuff around with the ball. The result, being more inside fifties because the players then have a reason to put the ball in the forward fifty.

On top of this, very few kicks to forwards are done with the ball already in the forward fifty, again reiterating the point that blaming the lack of inside fifties on not having any forward targets (not playing forwards in the forward line) is just plain stupid.

Very disappointed to hear Bailey dodge the question on why the forwards push so far up the ground (prompted by my message to SEN thirty seconds earlier requesting they ask the very question). Basically he blamed the fact that we didn't have a "Gorilla" forward, or words to that effect. He also blamed out lack of inside fifties. However, as I have argued for many years now, not having any forwards in the forward line (Gorilla or not) is a major contributing factor to a lack of inside fifties.

As we have seen countless times this year, when a player has the ball in the middle of the ground even the half back and they look up to only opposition players in front of them they are forced to chip sideways, handball and hold up play until an option ahead presents itself. If there was forward options ahead of the ball in the forward line, leading towards to player with the ball then there would be no need to stuff around with the ball. The result, being more inside fifties because the players then have a reason to put the ball in the forward fifty.

On top of this, very few kicks to forwards are done with the ball already in the forward fifty, again reiterating the point that blaming the lack of inside fifties on not having any forward targets (not playing forwards in the forward line) is just plain stupid.

CB if it is possible to have 200% agreement then you have my 200%.

I have been complaining about the same thing for most of last year and all of this year.

Th perfect example was Green on Monday.

He is clear has the ball just forward of the centre, there was no one forward of him, his only option is to go side ways at the last minute.

Unfortunately the kick is not perfect and it goes to a Pies player who kicks forward to a Gorilla and they goal.

The really sad part is I know I will see this repeated on a weekly basis for the remainder on the season.

I listened to the interview on the pod, but I must have missed the bit where Curley gave Round Robbo a slap. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

There was one point in which Leach intimated that Colin Garland's career was at the crossroads...

It was a major WTF moment from which Dean never recovered and he must have thought to himself - what am I doing here?

My opinion is that we don't need to wait until the end of the year. We have four years of observation and we won't see anything significantly different between now and the end of the year which will alter ones opinion. Dean is what Dean is. What you see is what you get. People with have different opinions. In fact I think by sitting on his win loss record over the next 8 weeks is a poor basis for making a desision. It's got to be deeper than that. The Board will be making up their mind now as they should be doing, nothing is black and white, its a judgement call, there will be discussion and perhaps a show of hands and the dice will fall one way or the other. Some will say the decision is right others wrong. The rest of us will have to live with it.

That is not the basis of wanting to wait until the end of the season.

I can't comment for other posters but I want to wait because there is still an eighth of his contracted reign left, and a quarter of his 'actually geared to win' contracted reign.

There is no downside to waiting.

Malthouse won't be available if we want the best, Roos will be there, Viney too, whoever.

There was one point in which Leach intimated that Colin Garland's career was at the crossroads...

It was a major WTF moment from which Dean never recovered and he must have thought to himself - what am I doing here?

Give him a break rpfc the guy has followed the saints forever.

They are almost as sad a story as the dees over the last 40 years I know how he feels

probably a little mis guided like a few of us in the Dees camp.

Give him a break rpfc the guy has followed the saints forever.

They are almost as sad a story as the dees over the last 40 years I know how he feels

probably a little mis guided like a few of us in the Dees camp.

He doesn't have to be correct on every aspect of the Dees, but he hung his own rope with the specificity of his stupid question.

Robbo seriously I have never seen a "reporter" who makes such bold statements then when someone questions him or pulls him up on facts back tracks so fast. I find him to be a horrible "reporter" in so many ways.

Exactly, a pretender, I sort of feel a love hate thing about Robbo. and thats why i feel uncomfotable about him, I reckon he tries to paly the supporters like Yo-Yo's. That, to me makes it a cheap trick, and just plain Cheap...

Sorry Robbo but you look guilt laden every time I see you on 7 sunday mornings. Not for too much longer I think...

I don't think he sets out to "play the supporters".

I think it's that he can't keep any thought in his tiny mind for more than 3 seconds.

Listen to him speak, he can't finish a sentence without changing topics. He can't get out one coherent thought before dropping it and going on about something else, because his concentration span is like a goldfish's.

As for the guilty expression, that's just the hangover.

To give credit to Baily, he interviews very well, after listening to him in every interview he does he comes across as someone with a very good football brain, very confident, and doesn't dodge questions. I actually think that he would make a very good football operations manager, or list manager, I just don't think that he can coach at this level. His matchups are often wrong, such as Rivers to Cloke, Sylvia to Judd, and bad kickout structure, and he can't seem to motivate the players.

I would of loved him to say "in hindsight we got the Rivers matchup wrong, but he was good the week before so we thought we'd give him first crack, and he'll bounce back next week". Instead he tried to say that Rivers did a good job on Cloke, which was clearly untrue because he was switched after the first half.

WHenever Bailey has made bold moves on matchday everyone says we are tanking!

He doesn't have to be correct on every aspect of the Dees, but he hung his own rope with the specificity of his stupid question.

You are right I was just trying to be a little flipant.

My poor attempt at humour perhaps.

WHenever Bailey has made bold moves on matchday everyone says we are tanking!

Nice one

As ive said before, Bailey is good at identifying the problems, but has no idea how to rectify them. For example he talks about how good Collingwood's spread is, but hasnt been able to teach our players such a simple part of the game. I refuse to believe we are the only team with a bunch of lazy footballers. I was fuming when he used the excuse about not having a gorilla forward as a reason for our pathetic forward setups and entry.

Hes a good salesman, thats all. I can see why he won over the coaching selection panel with his confidence.

As ive said before, Bailey is good at identifying the problems, but has no idea how to rectify them. For example he talks about how good Collingwood's spread is, but hasnt been able to teach our players such a simple part of the game. I refuse to believe we are the only team with a bunch of lazy footballers. I was fuming when he used the excuse about not having a gorilla forward as a reason for our pathetic forward setups and entry.

Hes a good salesman, thats all. I can see why he won over the coaching selection panel with his confidence.

You would do well not to take this one interview in isolation.

Give the guy some credit.

Just because you want him to be replaced at the end of the season does not mean that he is nothing but a 'good salesman.'

I know we like working with extremes on here, but you will quickly learn that not many people will take you seriously when you talk in extremes.

Very disappointed to hear Bailey dodge the question on why the forwards push so far up the ground (prompted by my message to SEN thirty seconds earlier requesting they ask the very question). Basically he blamed the fact that we didn't have a "Gorilla" forward, or words to that effect. He also blamed out lack of inside fifties. However, as I have argued for many years now, not having any forwards in the forward line (Gorilla or not) is a major contributing factor to a lack of inside fifties.

As we have seen countless times this year, when a player has the ball in the middle of the ground even the half back and they look up to only opposition players in front of them they are forced to chip sideways, handball and hold up play until an option ahead presents itself. If there was forward options ahead of the ball in the forward line, leading towards to player with the ball then there would be no need to stuff around with the ball. The result, being more inside fifties because the players then have a reason to put the ball in the forward fifty.

On top of this, very few kicks to forwards are done with the ball already in the forward fifty, again reiterating the point that blaming the lack of inside fifties on not having any forward targets (not playing forwards in the forward line) is just plain stupid.

I thought he was fairly clear.

There was a bit of connecting the dots there, but it's a short radio interview - he's not there to explain to you how a forward line works.

Our forwards strengths at the moment are speed and leading, not tall stay-at-home marking targets.

We weren't even getting the ball inside 50 and the forwards were getting sucked up the ground into the play, in an effort to win the ball to bring it forward.

It doesn't work effectively bringing it into a wide open forward line because we don't have a big gorilla - the type that WILL stay at home and you can bomb the ball long to because at the very least they will create a contest and bring the ball the ground, bringing the other forwards into play as they rush back to crumb.

Exactly as Collingwood were able to do, again and again.

They could afford to have the majority of their forwards push up the ground, because they have a complete rounded team, something we don't have.

It's a deficiency of ours - Collingwood realised that and exploited it.

It will be until some of our taller targets develop.

Hence we tried to trade in Hale. Hence some supporters are so keen for a bloke like Jesse White.

It means we can allow our half forwards to go up the ground to get numbers at a contest.

That was basically our choice - get more numbers to the contests to win the footy and at least get an inside 50 with a low chance of success...

Or keep our forwards in the F50, watching on as our currently inadequate midfield struggles to even create an inside 50.

I should add, bombing it forward to a gorilla does not then become the sole chosen tactic.

It just adds another element to the forward line.

There's a trade off.

It's another thing the defense needs to be aware of and needs to take measures to prevent against.

Or else it can get exploited.

Like Collingwood did to us with Cloke.

They were winning too much of the footy for us to play loose on any of their forwards, so they spread to give him room one-on-one.

It was smart play.

But when you have that option, it opens other things up.

If Bartram were to come across as a 3rd man to help, he's leaving Didak alone.

Frawley zoning off to help would have given Dawes too much room for the same thing.

And if their forwards go up the ground un-accompanied, they're just being given an extra man at contests.

I thought he was fairly clear.

There was a bit of connecting the dots there, but it's a short radio interview - he's not there to explain to you how a forward line works.

Our forwards strengths at the moment are speed and leading, not tall stay-at-home marking targets.

We weren't even getting the ball inside 50 and the forwards were getting sucked up the ground into the play, in an effort to win the ball to bring it forward.

It doesn't work effectively bringing it into a wide open forward line because we don't have a big gorilla - the type that WILL stay at home and you can bomb the ball long to because at the very least they will create a contest and bring the ball the ground, bringing the other forwards into play as they rush back to crumb.

Exactly as Collingwood were able to do, again and again.

They could afford to have the majority of their forwards push up the ground, because they have a complete rounded team, something we don't have.

It's a deficiency of ours - Collingwood realised that and exploited it.

It will be until some of our taller targets develop.

Hence we tried to trade in Hale. Hence some supporters are so keen for a bloke like Jesse White.

It means we can allow our half forwards to go up the ground to get numbers at a contest.

That was basically our choice - get more numbers to the contests to win the footy and at least get an inside 50 with a low chance of success...

Or keep our forwards in the F50, watching on as our currently inadequate midfield struggles to even create an inside 50.

Re-read the post you replied to, it was actually quite good, counters everthing that you just wrote.

You would do well not to take this one interview in isolation.

Give the guy some credit.

Just because you want him to be replaced at the end of the season does not mean that he is nothing but a 'good salesman.'

I know we like working with extremes on here, but you will quickly learn that not many people will take you seriously when you talk in extremes.

Yes I want him gone at year end but im hardly being extreme. I actually think its a good euphemism for someone who promises much but doesn't deliver. Being extreme would be to say he is not a "coaches a hole".

Im not taking this interview in isolation. Im basing it on the many times I've heard him "preach" and more so on the evidence I see out on the field.

Yes I want him gone at year end but im hardly being extreme. I actually think its a good euphemism for someone who promises much but doesn't deliver. Being extreme would be to say he is not a "coaches a hole".

Im not taking this interview in isolation. Im basing it on the many times I've heard him "preach" and more so on the evidence I see out on the field.

Saying that a coach is a "good salesman, that's it" is a pretty extreme view of his coaching...

Bailey has been good in areas and poor in other areas, and it will be difficult for him to get an extension, but he is more than just a 'salesman'...

Re-read the post you replied to, it was actually quite good, counters everthing that you just wrote.

No it doesn't. Not at all.

The problem is not winning the ball in the midfield in the first place.

Bailey wouldn't expect to have to explain how one position on the field affects another...

Forwards are getting sucked into contests because of that.

You can also add inexperience in there too, but some are foolish enough to just brand that as an 'excuse'.

You could also bring up blokes like Bate or Dunn, but they've never been able to do it very well and just aren't up to it (mentally, in my opinion).

Saying that a coach is a "good salesman, that's it" is a pretty extreme view of his coaching...

Bailey has been good in areas and poor in other areas, and it will be difficult for him to get an extension, but he is more than just a 'salesman'...

You're talking about 'absolutes' but I don't think stranga is on the same page.

Fwiw I agree with you.

Usually M.Robinson is there when the teams are read out on Thursday nights. Ox might just say "hi".

I listened to it. And I thought the topic of "Dead Man Walking" by Robbo might be addressed. And yes, the Ox virtually just said "hi" with Leach doing most if not all the interviewing. That Garland question was bewildering, but not at all surprised coming from the host.

CB if it is possible to have 200% agreement then you have my 200%.

I have been complaining about the same thing for most of last year and all of this year.

Th perfect example was Green on Monday.

He is clear has the ball just forward of the centre, there was no one forward of him, his only option is to go side ways at the last minute.

Unfortunately the kick is not perfect and it goes to a Pies player who kicks forward to a Gorilla and they goal.

The really sad part is I know I will see this repeated on a weekly basis for the remainder on the season.

Spot on, and for the life of me, why hasn't this been addressed. Nothing changes which in itself speaks volumes.