Neil Craig

[old55 21,913]

No way - Crows were always flat-track bullies under him.

With the resources and players he had it was a big failure not to win a flag.

Did not even make a GF.

Edited July 27, 2011 by old55

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

No way - Crows were always flat-track bullies under him.

With the resources and players he had it was a big failure not to win a flag.

Did not even make a GF.

In what years?

Personally I always thought Port/West Coast/Sydney were stronger through those 2004-2006 years.

I'd rather have Craig as head of football department than Connolly.

[titan_uranus 23,254]

Melbourne has defeated two, repeat TWO Victorian teams in the four years since since DB took charge.

It is untenable for him to continue.

As the poster a few above me said, 4 years, beating only 2 vic teams is not good enough.

We have a pretty decent spin team at Melbourne. I for one am not sold either way when it comes to Bailey, which is probably the biggest problem.

You two are, sorry to say, idiots.

This is still one of the stupidest and most illogical arguments that has been presented on this site. And that is saying something.

Why the f--k does it matter that we've only beaten two Victorian sides?

For the last f--king time, let's think about the state of the competition since 2008. Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood, Hawthorn and the Western Bulldogs have all been their fair share of dominant. Carlton and Essendon have been better than us almost every year (and we have to play Essendon at Etihad anyway. Plus we've beaten them). We've beaten Richmond plenty of times. That leaves North, the one club who we are reasonably on par with but fail to beat.

Try to understand: the fact we have not beaten Victorian sides is a direct result of Victorian sides being better than us.

[Hardnut 327]

You two are, sorry to say, idiots.

This is still one of the stupidest and most illogical arguments that has been presented on this site. And that is saying something.

Why the f--k does it matter that we've only beaten two Victorian sides?

For the last f--king time, let's think about the state of the competition since 2008. Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood, Hawthorn and the Western Bulldogs have all been their fair share of dominant. Carlton and Essendon have been better than us almost every year (and we have to play Essendon at Etihad anyway. Plus we've beaten them). We've beaten Richmond plenty of times. That leaves North, the one club who we are reasonably on par with but fail to beat.

Try to understand: the fact we have not beaten Victorian sides is a direct result of Victorian sides being better than us.

And why is that Titan? Because we haven't had good enough coaching! How long does it take some people to wake up!

[titan_uranus 23,254]

And why is that Titan? Because we haven't had good enough coaching! How long does it take some people to wake up!

No, the argument being put forward by some people is that Bailey sucks because we haven't beaten many Victorian sides.

This is a different argument to the one you're putting forward, which is that we can't beat sides that are above us on the ladder, or in the top 4/8, or whatever.

There are people out there who can't stand the fact we continue to lose to Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Geelong, the Bulldogs and North Melbourne, irrespective of the fact that, North aside, they're all much better than us.

The fact we can't beat the better sides is something else. It may well come down to poor coaching, but at the same time, we started out in 2008 as undoubtedly the worst side in the comp, and it's not that easy to just pick up a list like we had and start beating top 4 sides.

The majority of losses incurred by the top 4/5 sides are inflicted by the other top 4/5 sides. Even top 8 sides. Not sides like us. (And yes, I did say majority. Yes, Essendon beat Geelong.)

In the end, would it not be fair to say of a coach that he's doing a good job because he's beating the sides that we should be beating? Conversely, wouldn't you be more angry if we were losing to the sides we should be beating, and getting the occasional win against the good sides?

[Hardnut 327]

No, the argument being put forward by some people is that Bailey sucks because we haven't beaten many Victorian sides.

This is a different argument to the one you're putting forward, which is that we can't beat sides that are above us on the ladder, or in the top 4/8, or whatever.

There are people out there who can't stand the fact we continue to lose to Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Geelong, the Bulldogs and North Melbourne, irrespective of the fact that, North aside, they're all much better than us.

The fact we can't beat the better sides is something else. It may well come down to poor coaching, but at the same time, we started out in 2008 as undoubtedly the worst side in the comp, and it's not that easy to just pick up a list like we had and start beating top 4 sides.

The majority of losses incurred by the top 4/5 sides are inflicted by the other top 4/5 sides. Even top 8 sides. Not sides like us. (And yes, I did say majority. Yes, Essendon beat Geelong.)

In the end, would it not be fair to say of a coach that he's doing a good job because he's beating the sides that we should be beating? Conversely, wouldn't you be more angry if we were losing to the sides we should be beating, and getting the occasional win against the good sides?

I think we are all missing the fundamental points here - first, we were never as weak as some would make out (a poor excuse imo); second, a good coach (and assistants) will aim to beat whoever they are playing, not just those sides perceived to be weaker than us, otherwise we will never improve. I also subscribe to the theory that there is not much between most sides - on a given day anyone can win, especially if they do their homework.

[titan_uranus 23,254]

I think we are all missing the fundamental points here - first, we were never as weak as some would make out (a poor excuse imo); second, a good coach (and assistants) will aim to beat whoever they are playing, not just those sides perceived to be weaker than us, otherwise we will never improve. I also subscribe to the theory that there is not much between most sides - on a given day anyone can win, especially if they do their homework.

1) We were most definitely as bad as some are making out. We were horrendous.

2) Who's doubting the coaches are aiming to beat whoever we are playing? I haven't seen anyone say we're not trying. That would be tanking. Let's not go back there...

The problem isn't that we're not trying, it's that we're not good enough. Try as hard as we want, we're not going to beat Geelong this weekend. Does that make Bailey a crap coach? No.

3) Anyone can win, sure, but the likelihood of Port Adelaide beating Collingwood if they played this week is about 0.0001%.

[Sir Why You Little 35,358]

1) We were most definitely as bad as some are making out. We were horrendous.

2) Who's doubting the coaches are aiming to beat whoever we are playing? I haven't seen anyone say we're not trying. That would be tanking. Let's not go back there...

The problem isn't that we're not trying, it's that we're not good enough. Try as hard as we want, we're not going to beat Geelong this weekend. Does that make Bailey a crap coach? No.

3) Anyone can win, sure, but the likelihood of Port Adelaide beating Collingwood if they played this week is about 0.0001%.

Spot On.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,269]

No.

Don't be so verbose Jaded! Be more direct!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I also subscribe to the theory that there is not much between most sides - on a given day anyone can win, especially if they do their homework.

Its a shame its not grounded in any reality. Blind Freddy can see the difference between the calibre of players in the top 4 sides versus the bottom four sides.

[old55 21,913]

In what years?

Personally I always thought Port/West Coast/Sydney were stronger through those 2004-2006 years.

Adelaide finished 1st in 2005 and 2nd in 2006 and didn't make the GF in either year.

[Demons 32 235]

You two are, sorry to say, idiots.

Apologies for having a different opinion...

[Guest fitness]

Now that Craig has resigned, Dangerfield is surely on the market for Victorian clubs. Would love him at Demonland...

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

Crows man through and through. He won't coach any where else.

[praha 10,575]

Melbourne has defeated two, repeat TWO Victorian teams in the four years since since DB took charge.

It is untenable for him to continue.

This.

I feel like I am alone in not wanting Bailey to stay no matter what the circumstances...unless we make the friggin' Prelim.

[Hardnut 327]

Its a shame its not grounded in any reality. Blind Freddy can see the difference between the calibre of players in the top 4 sides versus the bottom four sides.

That's why Blind Freddy never coached Rhino! Coaches don't concede because the opposition looks better - they do their homework, work harder and achieve the results that the public find unbelievable!