In 2007, the then Gardner Board undertook a search for a new coach. They chose Bailey. Presumably during the interview process they established Bailey's football philosophy, game plan, strategies and measured those against the then "best practice". Bailey would have outlined the type of players that were needed to implement the strategy and then undertook the rebuild of a terrible list in conjunction with Cameron (2007) and Prendergast (2008 - 2011).

In February 2010 the Stynes Board extended Bailey's contract by 12 months until the end of 2011. They had had the benefit of seeing Bailey in action for two years, had a chance to determine if his philosophies were sound and had seen how he managed the players and the other members of the club. Clearly they thought he was doing a good job and hence was extended on the back of 2 years "exposed form".

in July of 2011, some 18 months after reviewing his performance and endorsing his direction they sacked him and undertook a search for a new coach. Among others Sanderson and Neeld applied at a time where Collingwood were seen as clearly the best side in the AFL.

Sanderson would have come to interview and said "I've been at Geelong since 2007 and experience 2 GF victories and one defeat. Melbourne play a "Geelong" style of footy and I can take your group and build on what has been done since Bailey's appointment. It needs development but it's the same genre."

Neeld would have come to interview and said "I've been at Collingwood since 2008 and I was involved in the 2010 GF. Collingwood are now the benchmark of the competition and it's game plan has superseded all others. It's designed on defence, stoppages and strength. Unfortunately your recruiting and coaching for the last 4 years is contrary to this game plan and I'll have to go back to square 1, rebuild your list and completely deconstruct the game plan. It will most likely take 3 to 5 years to build a list capable of competing at the top level. The last 4 years have been a waste."

History now shows us that Geelong beat Collingwood in the 2011 GF and there game plan is being copied by most teams with the centre corridor being used much more frequently.

Why did the current administration abandon 4 years of work and pain and opt for a complete rebuild last year when there was an equally well credentialed coach who could have taken that previous work and developed it? The only reason I can think of is they didn't believe the Geelong game plan could stand up. To make that decision a sophisticated understanding of game plans and the future direction of the game would be critical. And guess what, there wasn't a coach on our selection panel just a couple of Board members, a footy commentator who hasn't coached and an administrator.

IMO Sanderson was clearly the correct choice because he would have develop and used philosophies based on Geelong and endorsed by the very people who extended Bailey contract and run our club now. Neeld was a knee jerk reaction to copy the team of the moment but which ended up failing in September and are struggling now.

Our management panicked and abandoned their 4 year strategy and we are now back to square one where we don't even measure our performance by wins (Neeld presser after Bulldogs) and a President who by his own admission has got no idea why things have gone so wrong.

Encouraging isn't it!

Clarification: This is in no way a criticism of Neeld, it is a critique of the management flip flop that has given us the laughing stock of the competition and consigned us to yet another rebuild.

Your whole premise (and conclusion) is based on an "imagined" conversation between each of Sanderson and Neeld and the board - time will tell if Neeld was the right choice.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by hardtack

Agree with hardtack.

Also, that 12 month contract extension was pure genius (and one rpfc lobbied for - http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17506-one-year-extension-for-the-coach/page__p__274654__hl__+rpfc%20+extension__fromsearch__1#entry274654) as what do we think would have happened if, at the end of 2010, the board would have done?

They would have re-signed Bailey for another three years after a very good 2010.

Sometimes prudence pays off.

Post Apocalyptic Rebuildaphobic revisionist conspiracy theory .

I am interested to know who the other candidates were for the job. When Bailey was appointed we knew who the final four candidates were. I have not read anywhere who the shortlisted were.

I ask this out of interest only. Does anyone know?

I think Neeld knows exactly what he is doing, I may get hate for suggesting this but i do think that he is trying to Tank while preparing the team for the 2013 season at the same time.

The loss 2 days ago showed that the dees could compete, however most likely notched us 2 picks higher up the pecking order for next draft.

Its obvious that we wont make the finals, so the outcome on saturday was probably the best possible outcome for the club longterm. and longterm plan is what Neeld is going for.

He will want the players to be able to compete against top sides without notching the wins.

...

Why did the current administration abandon 4 years of work and pain and opt for a complete rebuild last year when there was an equally well credentialed coach who could have taken that previous work and developed it? The only reason I can think of is they didn't believe the Geelong game plan could stand up. To make that decision a sophisticated understanding of game plans and the future direction of the game would be critical. And guess what, there wasn't a coach on our selection panel just a couple of Board members, a footy commentator who hasn't coached and an administrator.

IMO Sanderson was clearly the correct choice because he would have develop and used philosophies based on Geelong and endorsed by the very people who extended Bailey contract and run our club now. Neeld was a knee jerk reaction to copy the team of the moment but which ended up failing in September and are struggling now.

Our management panicked and abandoned their 4 year strategy and we are now back to square one where we don't even measure our performance by wins (Neeld presser after Bulldogs) and a President who by his own admission has got no idea why things have gone so wrong.

Encouraging isn't it!

Clarification: This is in no way a criticism of Neeld, it is a critique of the management flip flop that has given us the laughing stock of the competition and consigned us to yet another rebuild.

FCS...

Sanderson has been a relative success at Adelaide because, as was noted at the time, whoever took over Adelaide was taking over a physically mature list ready to take the next step. It's clear to see that, while there they weren't winning last year, they have been well physically and mentally prepared by Neil Craig and Sanderson is reaping the benefits.

Many footy ex-perts have noted this. Most recently I recall David King & Cam Mooney mentioning this on SEN.

Do you really think we are playing this bad purely because of the gameplan?

Do you recall 186?

Have you noticed that there has been a trend in Geelong's play that is actually similar to ours?

Focus on contested ball? The game is changing.

And have a quick look at our list - that may give you an idea of why we are losing.

I don't care about fools like McAvaney saying we're going to be the next Geelong (Voss was playing mind games btw).

They overrated guys like Green, Davey, Rivers and Bruce, and conveniently ignored the dearth of mature players once you got past them.

As a MFC supporter I'd expect you to know and understand the list a bit better.

Webjet.

Opel.

Your whole premise (and conclusion) is based on an "imagined" conversation between each of Sanderson and Neeld and the board - time will tell if Neeld was the right choice.

I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done so unless you think he didn't tell the coaching selection panel what he was going to do or even worse, they didn't ask his part is "known".

We've seen what Sanderson's done at Adelaide. He has introduced a more attacking Geelong game plan so unless he was going to do something different at Melbourne we know what he would have done.

IMO it was folly to throw out 4 years work and a very poor management decision. That's my point.

Cuddles I agree with you 100%. The current crop of players we have were recruited and built to play an attacking game similar to that played by Geelong. Bailey himself came from Essendon and Port Adelaide, two sides which played attacking fast flowing games. Despite the second half of last year we had made steady progress. We shouldn't have jumped ship and abandoned the way we played. We should be embracing the qualities that we already have and enforcing a tough defensive edge. There should be no need to start from scratch and change the philosophies of all our players.

I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done so unless you think he didn't tell the coaching selection panel what he was going to do or even worse, they didn't ask his part is "known".

We've seen what Sanderson's done at Adelaide. He has introduced a more attacking Geelong game plan so unless he was going to do something different at Melbourne we know what he would have done.

IMO it was folly to throw out 4 years work and a very poor management decision. That's my point.

I wasn't aware that Adelaide and Melbourne had identical lists, free from variables...

Webjet.

Opel.

Cuddles I agree with you 100%. The current crop of players we have were recruited and built to play an attacking game similar to that played by Geelong. Bailey himself came from Essendon and Port Adelaide, two sides which played attacking fast flowing games. Despite the second half of last year we had made steady progress. We shouldn't have jumped ship and abandoned the way we played. We should be embracing the qualities that we already have and enforcing a tough defensive edge. There should be no need to start from scratch and change the philosophies of all our players.

Have they?

Where are the similarities?

Forget the style of play -- the Geelong list is full of big-bodied contested ball winners.

Even kids like Menzel and Duncan have put on some decent size already.

I wasn't aware that Adelaide and Melbourne had identical lists, free from variables...

Webjet.

Opel.

Your problem is that you're comparing lists and outcomes, I'm looking at the selection process of the coach and it's appropriateness which has got nothing to do with your focus.

I hope you can see this.

I think Neeld knows exactly what he is doing, I may get hate for suggesting this but i do think that he is trying to Tank while preparing the team for the 2013 season at the same time.

The loss 2 days ago showed that the dees could compete, however most likely notched us 2 picks higher up the pecking order for next draft.

Its obvious that we wont make the finals, so the outcome on saturday was probably the best possible outcome for the club longterm. and longterm plan is what Neeld is going for.

He will want the players to be able to compete against top sides without notching the wins.

Nice summary, nothing to do with the OP.

Consider this cuddles asks. "i had a conversation in my head that i now believe is real" Dean Bailey was hung out to dry, but it was not personal. He worked under conditions that were sub standard. The board got its priorities wrong & Dean took the hit. Once the debt was cleared the FD should have been beefed up straight away.

We now have a situation where our high draft picks need to be reprogrammed.

What a mess it is sadly. But Neeld is the man.

Your whole premise (and conclusion) is based on an "imagined" conversation between each of Sanderson and Neeld and the board - time will tell if Neeld was the right choice.

what he said

Your whole premise (and conclusion) is based on an "imagined" conversation between each of Sanderson and Neeld and the board - time will tell if Neeld was the right choice.

And based on a premise that our list is just useless. I don't agree at all. Tappy Trenners, Howe, McDonald, Gawn, Watts, Grimes, Frawley etc, etc, you think they can't learn any gamplan???

If we adopt a contested ball plan to learn/teach our boys that is adaptable to all gameplans universally.

I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done so unless you think he didn't tell the coaching selection panel what he was going to do or even worse, they didn't ask his part is "known".

We've seen what Sanderson's done at Adelaide. He has introduced a more attacking Geelong game plan so unless he was going to do something different at Melbourne we know what he would have done.

IMO it was folly to throw out 4 years work and a very poor management decision. That's my point.

Adelaide are building on an already strong list with much teaching & discipline in place. they already can hunt the hardball & they can already defend... They don't have to learn these traits from scratch, & they have a solid culture already built in since Blighty.

To take them & free them up, to be a bit more offensive in they're ways, is not a hard task to do as a rejig.

We on the other hand have not been good at winning contested ball for at least 14 years or more....

Your problem is that you're comparing lists and outcomes, I'm looking at the selection process of the coach and it's appropriateness which has got nothing to do with your focus.

I hope you can see this.

And your problem is that you're not taking into account those lists and outcomes.

Furthermore you used Geelongs defeat of Collingwood in last years GF, as a basis for your argument. Let's not forget how good Geelong are. One of the greatest teams of all. And Collingwood didn't miss by much.

I am interested to know who the other candidates were for the job. When Bailey was appointed we knew who the final four candidates were. I have not read anywhere who the shortlisted were.

I ask this out of interest only. Does anyone know?

From memory it was down to Bailey & Hardwick, it's not hindsight but at the time I wanted Hardwick he played hard and from what he has shown at Richmoond he coaches the same and expects the same of his players

I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done .....

After 4 matches, we 'know what Neeld has done'?

I don't believe we are even beginning to see Neeld's game plan, and won't until the players get a year or two into it.

Adelaide moved to a more attacking game from a strong defensive one. We have no defensive game. We were front-runners. Chalk and cheese in other words.

Adelaide moved to a more attacking game from a strong defensive one. We have no defensive game. We were front-runners. Chalk and cheese in other words.

I don't think you understand our gameplan then.

It's main focus is defensive.

Geelong has had an exceptional group of talented hard-bodied players. Not many teams could play that way.

We went around to try and recruit elite skilled players (don't laugh!) with athletic ability and endurance to try and play a similar style. Aside from the fact the jury is out on our recruiting We are fighting yesterday's war. The game has moved on and we have the wrong cattle.

Dean Bailey was hung out to dry, but it was not personal. He worked under conditions that were sub standard. The board got its priorities wrong & Dean took the hit.

Once the debt was cleared the FD should have been beefed up straight away.We now have a situation where our high draft picks need to be reprogrammed.

What a mess it is sadly. But Neeld is the man.

Great summation WYL, and this is the crux of it for me......

Things need to be re-built and we have to be patient while this is done no matter how painful it is and will continue to be.

It is way to early for any kind of judgement on either Neeld or Sanderson, and given the respective list and their talents I'm not sure you can make a definitive comparison at all.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by QueenC
Improved language skills!!!

I don't think you understand our gameplan then.

It's main focus is defensive.

That's what I said. We had been attacking, now we're learning defense. Adelaide the other way round and it's easier for them as a result. You need to read what people write.