Jolly's blunt assessment of Daniher

[PaulRB 6,297]

I disagree. The current lack of senior leaders at Melbourne is a direct result of the Daniher years. Those players who were "raised" by Daniher who are still on our list appear to be at the core of our current problems.

Getting us into a GF which we lost by a (then) record margin was "great", but does not hide the legacy that Daniher left behind for Bailey and Neeld to clean up.

Edited May 22, 2012 by PaulRB

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

seriously? playing guys like Luke Williams, Simon Godfrey Al Nicholson ahead of Darren Jolly, Troy Simmonds and some of our many young kids trying to crack it into the side. and when he did they would get 5 minute game time for the whole day. nhis game plan went to crud in his last couple of years.

As if they were competing for the same spot?? Simmonds leaving opened the door for Jolly. But never let the facts......

I got a "warning point" for comments about Daniher. I hope Rhino gives Jolly the same.

Rhino gave me a warning 2 years ago that i've just noticed this week,LOL.

Bitter, Jolly did not participate in public abuse of ND like you did.

Jack 7, I also note that the owners and other mods have given you warnings in the past to for Breaches of CofC... Penny dropped?

It's interesting that Daniher gets accused of hanging on to players too long, but get rid of them like Bailey and he's accused of lack of loyalty and removing leaders too early.

Indeed. Its telling that some posters still want to blame ND for the problems of today when many of the preceeded him and they were issues he had to contend with.

I doubt there was anything in that article that most of us didn't suspect anyway; I wasn’t shocked when Jolly left. I remember when he came back from injury and was passed over for Jamar, who was clearly an inferior ruckman at the time, it was evident then that they didn’t like him.

I must say it left me gobsmacked as Jolly was a far better ruckman at the time but I guess Jamar made less noise when only given 5 minutes a game.

The facts were that White was the AA ruckman at the time in awesome form. Jolly missed alot of 2004 with injury. When he did come back he played poorly and was petulant about not getting more game time in the face of White's 2004 domination. Jolly's post injury performances were inept to the extent that MFC went for a raw Mark Jamar as a consequence at the end of 2004. Jolly publicly demanded that he want to go to be a No 1 ruckman elsewhere, a role he took some years to grow into. MFC organised a trade.

Its history now that the changes in the rucking rules at the end of 2004 neutered White. He would have been good to retain.

But he is not the first player who is disgruntled because he could not get things his way.

Scary thing about Jolly's tale is it describes a culture where the senior players were pampered and the junior players neglected.

This culture stills seems to be biting us 10 years later.

Which senior players are pampered now??? We dont have many and they have been hung out to dry, dumped from leadership and the Club and held accountable for many of the off field issues which were not there doing.

Guys it was a different era, ND probably had a FD of 4 people.

So some players do not get on with the coach now there is a surprise.

Players not getting on with the coach is as old as the game.

Whatever is said about ND there is one fact that cannot be denied

He got the dees into a GF when we had terrible training facilities, poor back up , little money and a disfunctional board.

Only the second time in 48 years.

Great post OD. Not to mention the salary cap penalties.....

ND had his problems but he is not the ogre many revisionists are seeking to make him.

[H_T 3,032]

It's interesting that Daniher gets accused of hanging on to players too long, but get rid of them like Bailey and he's accused of lack of loyalty and removing leaders too early.

Interesting comment. I've certainly not accused Bailey of lacking loyalty, in fact I supported most of his decisions in turning over the list thanks to Neale.

[H_T 3,032]

Indeed. Its telling that some posters still want to blame ND for the problems of today when many of the preceeded him and they were issues he had to ....

ND had his problems but he is not the ogre many revisionists are seeking to make him.

Interesting comment given the copious amounts of posts long ago from you stating that Daniher squeezed every last drop out of what he had left on an aging list. In most cases you agreed with me through '09-10.

And those too highlighting the lack of development and topping up with recycled players.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,726]

Look I don't think we need to go rehashing old ground but the problems we have today were evident in the Daniher era. Not saying it was caused then (the roots seem to go very deep) but they were quite clearly evident then. If you go back to the Balme era, "Hollywood Boulevard" is another symptom of the culture we need to overturn if we ever want this club to be successful again.

[Pates 9,625]

I've always looked at Jolly and Simmonds with a lot of frustration directed at Daniher. I'm a fan of Neales, we enjoyed some great times with him and for a period we were the most successful and best Victorian clubs in the league when the interstate clubs were "taking over". But Jolly was never given a go, forget about rucking, the guy was tall had good hands and a good kick for a ruckman. He should've been playing mostly forward with ruck relief. But Daniher loved White, I don't blame him for that he was one of the best rucks the club has seen, but his lack of management with Jolly and Simmonds has [censored] me off ever since they left.

I can't speak to his style of coaching, as I said, we enjoyed some good times. A pretty incredible article to come out from a current player though.

I think it's more of a message to Melbourne fans as to why we need Neeld as an antidote to purge us of this "old Melbourne" style...

I thought the same thing. Given Marks apprenticeship has been under Malthouse you would think he's taken his style of coaching with him.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Pates

[pitmaster 3,448]

I don't think anyone doubts that Neale had more favourites than Cadbury's - young players could not get a look in. Chris Lamb comes to mind as a promising full back who played in three flags for Sandy but was given no chance by Neale.

We're still paying the price of his lack of development of young players - he persisted with White long after rule changes nobbled him as a ruckman. And he held on for too long with Yze - once my favouriter player but one who was allowed to play regardless of form or fitness.

Jolly's not sooking I just think he is telling it as he found it.

[Dr. Mubutu 778]

I disagree. The current lack of senior leaders at Melbourne is a direct result of the Daniher years. Those players who were "raised" by Daniher who are still on our list appear to be at the core of our current problems.

Getting us into a GF which we lost by a (then) record margin was "great", but does not hide the legacy that Daniher left behind for Bailey and Neeld to clean up.

I won't disagree there. It may also be an issue that will come from the aftermath to the Bailey era: "Play the high draft picks and damn the consequences!"

And to lose by only 60 was a fair effort, especially against those snipers. The record you're looking for was '88 under Swooper.

[PaulRB 6,297]

True on the record loss being in 1988. Was happy when Geelong demolished Port to set us in second place.

Edited May 23, 2012 by PaulRB

[rpfc 28,052]

The warning points? WTF? I had it there below my name today - surely June last year is enough time for my one point to be erased?

Anyway...

Not going to hang Danners on the back of one account but it plays into what we have discussed previously about the state of the list in 2007. Lots of solid pros retiring, solid role players, NQR role players, and not a great deal of good kids.

Danners did what he thought he should - to try and get a flag.

Bails did what we needed him to do - get the list in decent order. And, apart from the 25+ year olds, it is.

[waynewussell 4,873]

The final straw for Daniher re Jolly came when he was finally given a go against the Bulldogs at the G (in the days when the construction workers had taken over the Ponsford). He had a (brief) altercation with Darcy at the City end and Darcy slapped him around like a puppy. Jolly went down awkwardly and did a knee... missed something like 8 weeks. At that stage Daniher's preconceptions were vindicated. Jolly went on to bigger and better things but he can't complain about not being given a go... he blew the opportunity he was given by looking a fool against a wily (but hardly intimidating) foe.

[H_T 3,032]

The warning points? WTF? I had it there below my name today - surely June last year is enough time for my one point to be erased?

Anyway...

Not going to hang Danners on the back of one account but it plays into what we have discussed previously about the state of the list in 2007. Lots of solid pros retiring, solid role players, NQR role players, and not a great deal of good kids.

Danners did what he thought he should - to try and get a flag.

Bails did what we needed him to do - get the list in decent order. And, apart from the 25+ year olds, it is.

Accurate account. Whilst we should thank him for having us on the edge of our seats and being competitive, we should also be mindful of what he left Bailey and accounts such as Jollys.

"Wouldn't talk to you at all"

"At no point did I feel Neale wanted to help me turn into the player I wanted to be"

Ouch. No revisionism there...

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

Can't believe people on here are bagging Darren Jolly.

He left and played strongly in 2 GF victories.

Sounds familiar to me.

Huge mistakeMFC (again)

[Dee Fan 3,247]

The final straw for Daniher re Jolly came when he was finally given a go against the Bulldogs at the G (in the days when the construction workers had taken over the Ponsford). He had a (brief) altercation with Darcy at the City end and Darcy slapped him around like a puppy. Jolly went down awkwardly and did a knee... missed something like 8 weeks. At that stage Daniher's preconceptions were vindicated. Jolly went on to bigger and better things but he can't complain about not being given a go... he blew the opportunity he was given by looking a fool against a wily (but hardly intimidating) foe.

Jolly took a mark and the umpire called play on, I believe and Darcy charged him, he went to the ground and did his knee, hardly Jolly's fault and there was no slapping around in it it was purely a charge.

[pitmaster 3,448]

True on the record loss being 88. Was happy when Geelong demolished Port to set us in second place.

96 points in our case, not 88.

[DEELIGHTED 16]

i have spoken to a well known past player who does not have a nice thing to say about danners at all. His point was he definately played some blokes regardless of form and didnt really matter how they went in the 2's. Fair bit of sour grapes from this said past player as it was towards the end of his playing days and blames danners for it. Just saying.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I don't think anyone doubts that Neale had more favourites than Cadbury's - young players could not get a look in. Chris Lamb comes to mind as a promising full back who played in three flags for Sandy but was given no chance by Neale.

We're still paying the price of his lack of development of young players - he persisted with White long after rule changes nobbled him as a ruckman. And he held on for too long with Yze - once my favouriter player but one who was allowed to play regardless of form or fitness.

Jolly's not sooking I just think he is telling it as he found it.

Lamb was a bog ordinary player at AFL level that we held onto for too long. We tried but could not get a trade for him.

The lack of development of young players should be levelled at the Club.

The biggest error of the White era was that we did not recruit a proper understudy after Jolly left. We recruited PJ in 2005 and we got a 200cm rover!

You are right Jolly was not sooking now...he was back then

Interesting comment given the copious amounts of posts long ago from you stating that Daniher squeezed every last drop out of what he had left on an aging list. In most cases you agreed with me through '09-10.

And those too highlighting the lack of development and topping up with recycled players.

Like I said, ND had his faults. He topped up with PJ a fail, Pickett a fail and Holland 50/50 over a 3 year period. ND had crap facilities no development and he is being hung for it.

ND did well to achieve what he did with the list he had. His recruiting team IMO were a fail with poor returns from 2001,2003 and 2004 and the salary cap problems of 1999/2000.

The final straw for Daniher re Jolly came when he was finally given a go against the Bulldogs at the G (in the days when the construction workers had taken over the Ponsford). He had a (brief) altercation with Darcy at the City end and Darcy slapped him around like a puppy. Jolly went down awkwardly and did a knee... missed something like 8 weeks. At that stage Daniher's preconceptions were vindicated. Jolly went on to bigger and better things but he can't complain about not being given a go... he blew the opportunity he was given by looking a fool against a wily (but hardly intimidating) foe.

Jolly was selected by ND when he returned to fitness but played poorly upon return so I dont believe that was the final straw at all.

[Face Your Demons 175]

If all Jolly says is true he has a lot to thank Daniher for. Two flags in fact.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,423]

This article - given its timing - seems pretty poor. Obviously Jolly hasnt got over the fact that he couldnt get a game. Dainher could have tried him up forward I guess but perhaps there is more to this than the story indicates.

daniher was a successful coach. We made in to a grand final.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Tomorrow in the HUN Mike Sheahan takes his turn to have a whack at us and I guess someone will start a thread up for it. Can I suggest that we incorporate all the negative articles in the one thread so we can have continuous reading without the need to go from one thread to the next.

It's becoming quite boring.

[Dr. Mubutu 778]

Tomorrow in the HUN Mike Sheahan takes his turn to have a whack at us and I guess someone will start a thread up for it. Can I suggest that we incorporate all the negative articles in the one thread so we can have continuous reading without the need to go from one thread to the next.

It's becoming quite boring.

Hopefully for a change it's actually constructive, and aimed at the right place......

Oh wait, in the HUN? Excellent. More sensationalist tripe.

[daisycutter 29,343]

Tomorrow in the HUN Mike Sheahan takes his turn to have a whack at us and I guess someone will start a thread up for it. Can I suggest that we incorporate all the negative articles in the one thread so we can have continuous reading without the need to go from one thread to the next.

It's becoming quite boring.

some people don't understand the meaning 'retired'

[Dee Fan 3,247]

some people don't understand the meaning 'retired'

Correct.

And there's nothing nice in it it's another whack at the club I've seen some of it.

[Guest lambtotheslaughter]

Who?

[The heart beats true 17,825]

Seriously, this is ridiculous. You can't please all the people all the time. Jolly has gone on to do well, best of luck to him. I heard from a good source that Greg Doyle wasn't happy under Balmey. Lets dig that up too.

I agree with Ox on this. All this is doing is making Jolly look silly, especially as he comes to the end of his career. People have a short memory in footy especially to players that have moved around from club to club.

Is there not an argument that says that perhaps Darren Jolly might not be a keeper since 2 clubs have let him move on? If he was on our list right now and we got rumblings of his 'poor me' attitude we'd all be lining up to kick him out the door. It was clearly the best thing that ever happened to him, yet he wants to whine about it almost a decade later.