Bailey ,Roos, Malthouse or Clarkson?

[Kento80 83]

I suspect that even if we scrape into the 8, the tide has already turned on Bailey, but may be proven wrong. As to who I think will be coaching next year, I just do not know anymore. The main thing I hope is that the club talks earnestly to Malthouse, Clarko, Sanderson, and anyone else out there who it seems may be the coach we need. I left out Roos as I am certain he does not want to coach at the moment, and I don't like the way the swans played under him ( and yes, I know they won a flag, but I would not like to see this team win a flag playing like those ducks did). As to who I want to see coaching next year, I would be happy with all three of those I mentioned. If they stay with Bailey I can deal with it, as long as it is a 1 yr extension and he must make finals and the bad losses must end.

As far as I am concerned, this decision is one of the most important decisions to be made in our clubs recent history. Get it right and we could be staring down the barrel of a dynasty, and a possibility of putting our club back in its rightful position of one of the competitions powerhouses. Get it wrong and the pain of the last couple years could all be for nothing and we will be coming into free agency as a relative minnow.

[Crompton's the man 659]

Malthouse has to be the most impressively credentialled possible candidate - having presided over the building up of WC and C'wood and leading them to premierships.

He is an enormously impressive person.

That said, I was astounded at the way after having stupidly accused Adam Maric ( I think) of cheating because he " knew " he didn't kick the ball ( I wonder if any WC or Pies player has ever falsely claimed to have touched an opponent's goal kick ) he then went on a couple of days later to compound the situation by writing a further article in the Australian repeating his line re Maric and trying to justify his absurd assertion that would have simply been best left alone and forgotten.

Mick couldn't do that - and I feel less respect for him because of that.

I felt at the time he wouldn't have gone out of his way to try and ruin a young player's reputation if he had even a passing thought of jumping ship.

[rpfc 28,384]

Malthouse would pay for himself if he came.

It's the extra stuff that he would demand that would put us out...

Roos and Clarkson would be understandable if the board went after them.

Apart from that - I don't want to do this dance again with a untried coach. I don't like how the focus goes from the playing group to the coach so easily with an untried coach - let's the players hide behind the 'beleaguered coach.'

It's Bailey, Roos, Clarkson, or Malthouse in 2012 for mine.

[old55 23,548]

The following i doubt will get a head coaching job again

Thompson (doubt he would want it anyway)

Laidley

Williams

Connolly

Mathews

Blight

Daniher

Ayres (wants it but really doubt he will be given a chance)

Pagan

Knights

Wallace

Thomas

Mark Williams will in all likelihood be coaching GWS next year - Sheedy is a figurehead - or they better hope so. I reckon he's a great coach who is still very current.

Edited July 11, 2011 by old55

[Range Rover 1,935]

Malthouse has to be the most impressively credentialled possible candidate - having presided over the building up of WC and C'wood and leading them to premierships.

He is an enormously impressive person.

That said, I was astounded at the way after having stupidly accused Adam Maric ( I think) of cheating because he " knew " he didn't kick the ball ( I wonder if any WC or Pies player has ever falsely claimed to have touched an opponent's goal kick ) he then went on a couple of days later to compound the situation by writing a further article in the Australian repeating his line re Maric and trying to justify his absurd assertion that would have simply been best left alone and forgotten.

Mick couldn't do that - and I feel less respect for him because of that.

I felt at the time he wouldn't have gone out of his way to try and ruin a young player's reputation if he had even a passing thought of jumping ship.

No doubt, he can be cantankerous, mean, nasty and stubborn. I suspect he also has a side that is quite likeable to those who know him.

I think we need to shelve this idea that a coach has to be a 'nice guy' all the time.

That seems to have been our creed at Melbourne for far too long.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Range Rover

[Real Demon 232]

I'd like Malthouse as first option.

Clarkson 2nd

Roos 3rd

Next best 4th

Bailey.........love the guy, just not sold on him as a coach.

[Striker475 696]

Okay. I'd suggest that the objective for the season was improvement on 2010. Not necessarily finals, but certainly a couple more wins.

So, probably ten wins is a reasonable objective.

Right now, we need to win four remaining games to make that mark. We play Port twice, Richmond and Gold Coast. The toughest of these, undoubtedly, is Port at AAMI. I'd suggest if we win all four of those DB will be reappointed, hopefully only on a 1year extension.

Furthermore, if we manage to grab a 5th win from one of the Hawks, Blues, Cats or Eagles then I'd suggest that he is absolutely going to get reappointed.

That's simply the cold reality of it. I've warmed to DB amazingly this year, didn't rate him until this year but I think he does have tactical nous - and the comparisons to Geelong circa 2004 seem to be pretty apt.

If he does not, as above I'd love Roos, but any of those listed in the poll, plus Sanderson and Richardson, would all be doable. TV I'm not sure would go for it because of JV.

Finally, the other interesting one is Neil Craig. If possible, I'd bring him in as director of the FD with a mentoring role for a coach.

[old dee 23,787]

I'd like Malthouse as first option.

Clarkson 2nd

Roos 3rd

Next best 4th

Bailey.........love the guy, just not sold on him as a coach.

I read the question differently to most I think!

does it not say "who will be the coach in 2012"?

It is not asking who you want.

I want Malthouse however I seriosly doubt we can afford him even if he wanted to come.

Roos won't be coaching

Clarkson will be at Hawthorn.

So that leaves us with Bailey or someone untried.

On that Basis the Board will probably say "better with the devil we know".

Bailey is a good chance to be the coach in 2012.

Edited July 11, 2011 by old dee

[dees189227 12,388]

You know who I think would be a great fit for melbourne but it will never happen because he is in the wrong code. Craig Bellamy. He can turn an average player into a superstar. If he was coach he would not put up with our inconsistent wins/losses, he would make Brad Green a better captain and he wouldnt put up with any crap or players that didnt chase hard or performed badly in a game.

He would sort them out pretty quickly.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

You know who I think would be a great fit for melbourne but it will never happen because he is in the wrong code. Craig Bellamy. He can turn an average player into a superstar. If he was coach he would not put up with our inconsistent wins/losses, he would make Brad Green a better captain and he wouldnt put up with any crap or players that didnt chase hard or performed badly in a game.

He would sort them out pretty quickly.

Too Right...Look at what happened last year...Many clubs would disappear...The Storm not only hung in there, they have got stronger without Ingliss.

Bellamy is a genius...He could coach the MFC without even knowing all the AFL rules.

Edited July 11, 2011 by why you little

[Hardnut 327]

Much as I agree with the comments on Bellamy, let's get back to reality.

I also agree that the 'name' coaches will probably not be available.

We cannot afford another Bailey year - there is nothing wrong with a so-called untried coach per se, as they all have to start somewhere!

We may need to pick a suitable untried coach - someone mentioned Sanderson as a good example - let's go for it!

[Real Demon 232]

I read the question differently to most I think!

does it not say "who will be the coach in 2012"?

It is not asking who you want.

I want Malthouse however I seriosly doubt we can afford him even if he wanted to come.

Roos won't be coaching

Clarkson will be at Hawthorn.

So that leaves us with Bailey or someone untried.

On that Basis the Board will probably say "better with the devil we know".

Bailey is a good chance to be the coach in 2012.

No I'd say you read the question correctly, and I completely misread it!

So based on my renewed understanding, I'll say Bailey looks to be the most likely option, though my preference would be Malthouse.

[Hardnut 327]

Clearly the question as phrased can only be answered by someone who actually knows who will be coach in 2012. Hence, I doubt anyone can answer it.

Most posts have taken the question as it was presumably intended - a speculative or preferred response is required.

It does however, show why an understanding of the english language is so important - the question could have been better worded, but the intent is clear as is now indicated by the opening of the thread.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

Too Right...Look at what happened last year...Many clubs would disappear...The Storm not only hung in there, they have got stronger without Ingliss.

Bellamy is a genius...He could coach the MFC without even knowing all the AFL rules.

Am i the only one around here that gives a sh!t about the rules?

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

I'd like Bailey to get another year with a succession plan based on a top 5 finish for renewal .

If we chose another coach ,it would be Al Clarkson ,a Demon player ,mate of Todd Viney's and DB's .

Bailey and Clarkson may even work together ,dunno?

[Tatu 416]

Malthouse would pay for himself if he came.

It's the extra stuff that he would demand that would put us out...

Roos and Clarkson would be understandable if the board went after them.

Apart from that - I don't want to do this dance again with a untried coach. I don't like how the focus goes from the playing group to the coach so easily with an untried coach - let's the players hide behind the 'beleaguered coach.'

It's Bailey, Roos, Clarkson, or Malthouse in 2012 for mine.

I'm in favor of keeping Bailey, but can't help but think that it would be a good learning curve for the MFC, if Malthouse came with large demands.

Edited July 11, 2011 by tatu

[Hardnut 327]

Don't know what you're on Captain Jack, but it must be powerful stuff - sure adds to the humour - well done!

My guess is that none of the four names will be our coach next year.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

I dont want Malthouse at our club.

Would rather have Hafey , Tony Jewell , Sheedy or any other old Richmond hack.Had Balme already .

if we hire someone it should be on an incentive based contract .

What about Matthews if you want tough?

Or Blight if you want smart?

Edited July 11, 2011 by Captain Jack Jordan

[Courtney_Fish 183]

As much as I hate this type of subject because I feel it undermines the coach, I'm going to be pragmatic. I reckon MM would be best because 1) I figure his name will bring the biggest crowds and only say 10,000 more tickets would probably pay the difference between him and the next guy. 2) If you were a player being offered big money to go elsewhere, knowing we're coached by someone like MM could sway you to stay. Conversely, if we were after a player to cross to us, say for example Travis Cloke, wouldn't he (or she) be more attracted by MM being our coach than anyone else?

[Hardnut 327]

We're talking about 2012 folks - the times are a changing - give 'the youngsters' a go!

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

Do people pay their money to see a coach? We do not need Collingwood people at Melbourne . For the last 6 or 7 years we have built up a group that want to give everything to the MFC .

If MM ,Buckley ,McGuire and Collingwood have a problem next year why would we want to alleviate it ?

They are the only club standing in our way for long term success .

We should get their fitness/conditioning coach and leave Malthouse to argue with Buckley .

[QueenC 74]

Do people pay their money to see a coach? We do not need Collingwood people at Melbourne . For the last 6 or 7 years we have built up a group that want to give everything to the MFC .

If MM ,Buckley ,McGuire and Collingwood have a problem next year why would we want to alleviate it ?

They are the only club standing in our way for long term success .

We should get their fitness/conditioning coach and leave Malthouse to argue with Buckley .

Because none of this debate has anything to do with Collingwood, just Melbourne.....

Getting him has a lot to do with Collingwood, but if we (as in those that run this club) believe that Malthouse is what they want and is the best choice of coach for us going forward,

then you know what "alleviating" Collingwood's ego-driven issues aren't really going to be playing a part (outside of the fact they may be helpful).

If he is what we want then so be it and they should absolutely go for it.

Edited July 11, 2011 by QueenC

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Nobody seems to mention Dean Laidley in any of these discussions - not rated..?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Do people pay their money to see a coach? We do not need Collingwood people at Melbourne . For the last 6 or 7 years we have built up a group that want to give everything to the MFC .

If MM ,Buckley ,McGuire and Collingwood have a problem next year why would we want to alleviate it ?

They are the only club standing in our way for long term success .

We should get their fitness/conditioning coach and leave Malthouse to argue with Buckley .

Norm Smith was a big Collingwood supporter before playing for the MFC.

[Melbourne_1926 1]

Many are missing the guts of it.

A coach must have a team that suits his style.

Roos is a very defensive coach. Stoppage at all costs.

Malthouse and Clarkson are very attacking coaches. Use the midfield, and have several forward options to use.

Melbourne have a young list that is suited to an attacking style....not a defensive style. So Roos would not fit at MFC.

The great unknown is Sanderson. As a backman, you would guess that he is a defensive style coach, but having worked under Scott and Bomber, he must have an understanding of attacking footy.

The only thing that stuffs up this theory is that a coach is also seen as the principle marketing voice of the club. But I think Premierships do more for marketing than individuals, so I'll stick with my original hypothesis.