Bailey and Neeld - worlds colliding

[Dee man 303]

Let's forget the last quarter for a moment. For about three quarters - minus maybe 5 minutes in the 2nd quarter - we were pretty competitive yesterday.

We tackled hard and make Carlton earn every possession and we created uncontested play through the centre of the ground. In my eyes this was the best of Neeld and Bailey coming together. Neeld has taught our players to win the hard ball, Bailey taught our players to capitalise on uncontested football through fast handpassing and running through the centre.

While we lack the ingredients of a premiership engine room (Moloney, Jones, Magner etc. will never be Swan, Pendlebury, Thomas, etc.) we do have some silky skilled players who thrived under the Bailey era. I think of Daniel Nicholson (I forgot how good this guy was), Sam Blease (as soon as this guy starts putting those running shots on goal on line, he will be a star) and Rohan Bail (just never stops). Bennells not too bad on his day either.

In other words, I don't think the Bailey era was time wasted. If Neeld can develop guys like McKenzie, Trengove, Tapscott, Gysberts, Tynan and even Morton into hard-at-it ball-winning midfielders (still a long way off, I know, but I'm assuming this is the long-term plan) I think things will start clicking pretty quickly. With Clark (and Jurrah?) focal points up forward, I think the attacking side of our game will come naturally as soon as we can get all the defensive stuff down pat.

[praha 11,240]

The game threatened to be blown out several times. Carlton is missing a few keys players and they never truly look threatened. Stop kidding yourself.

[DeeSpencer 25,708]

Don't be fooled by how awful Carlton were, but you aren't completely wrong.

If we do get a competitive midfield we certainly have a backline that can hold up and a forward line that can cause problems, but the personnel isn't only lacking talent that is the frustrating thing. If we were plainly useless it would be sad, but were not very good but also burdened by poor work rate.

I'm sure a firing Davey, Jurrah and Sylvia thrown in with Clark, Howe and Blease would make us a gun froward line but when are Davey, Jurrah or Sylvia going to be firing again? That was and still is Neeld's biggest challenge - getting a competitive and consistent effort from players who haven't done that before.

Then it's the midfield problem. Carlton missed Murphy and Carrazzo and whilst they couldn't move the ball for 3/4's they still smashed us in clearances. It's going to take amazing recruiting to get the 2 midfield stars and 1-2 more midfield depth players we need and then even better development considering out poor record in that regard. Even if Viney and whoever else we take are the next Dusty Martin, Fyfe, Cotchin or Mark Murphy it will take them 3-5 years to routinely influence games. You are certainly right to say that Trengove, McKenzie, Gysberts, Magner and Morton need to keep finding new levels in the mean time.

[PaulRB 6,363]

Hey Dee Man, I agree with what you're saying about taking the best of what Bailey taught the players. I thought there were several times we moved the ball fast and with purpose (Bailey), while also congesting, pressuring and limiting Carlton's ability to easily counter attack (Neeld) when we fumbled or Carlton won it off us. Several time the Blues had no idea how to easily move forward.

Interesting that several players who featured in Baileys time and benefited from his approach (Davey, Sylvia, Green, Jurrah, Petterd) were all absent (albet Green and Jurrah injured). I reckon the balance between these to styles will settle and improve after the bye when we can develop it with less pressure against lesser teams than we have met so far this season.

I also think Bailey deserves his due for his efforts in implementing his philosophies in an environment that in retrospect was harder than we realised at the time. I suspect that as his kids grew bigger their defensive pressure / contested ball winning capacity would have been focused upon...

Edited May 28, 2012 by PaulRB

[DemonWA 3,934]

I dont think Bailey's philosophy was all that different to Neelds. To say Bailey was all attack and no defence is not true. How much did Bailey used to talk about competing, and winning quarters? Neeld is saying much of the same thing In the games we did win under bailey we attacked the footy hard, tackled well and maintained good intentsity for 4 quarters. I guess the only difference between both philosophies is that Bailey was teaching both attack and defence at the same time (probably to the detrement of the defence side of the scales), where as Neeld is taking a 'one step at a time' approach.

[Ricky P 757]

I agree Dee man.

There was a definite change in the way we were moving the ball from the early rounds. It was more reminiscent of how we moved it under Bailey rather than simply kicking it long down the line. Hopefully this continues to happen in the future because at times over the last two years, we have moved it as well as anyone.

The intensity and pressure that we played with in the first quarter against Hawthorn and in the first three quarters yesterday is what I would call the Neeld factor. We actually put really good sides under pressure and even bullied them a bit.

I see genuine cause for optimism. It's just a case of doing it consistently.

[Cheesecake 92]

Good call about the change in game style, DM. I stated pretty much exactly this in the match review thread. Best of Bailey and Neeld combined.

It is good to see that Neeld is malleable enough to tweak with the plan, and not so pigheaded as to continue with a plan that was seeing us thrashed repeatedly. My faith in the man has grown.

[Dee Adjudicator 9]

It is good to see that Neeld is malleable enough to tweak with the plan, and not so pigheaded as to continue with a plan that was seeing us thrashed repeatedly.

Did you consider that Neeld's gameplan isn't being tweaked as such, but is just following a staged implementation? Get the defensive work up to an acceptable level, then focus on switching the play and running through the corrider.

FWIW I think that when we see Neeld's gameplan fully implemented, that we will play a Collingwood Gameplan when the opposition has the ball (The defensive gameplan) and a Geelong Gameplan when we have the ball (The offensive gameplan). Once were fit enough opposition teams will find it hard to combat both of these in the space of one game, and we will be able to cut through opposition zones. (This all requires our players to improve over the next couple of years though).

[Bonkers 994]

I dont think Bailey's philosophy was all that different to Neelds. To say Bailey was all attack and no defence is not true. How much did Bailey used to talk about competing, and winning quarters? Neeld is saying much of the same thing In the games we did win under bailey we attacked the footy hard, tackled well and maintained good intentsity for 4 quarters. I guess the only difference between both philosophies is that Bailey was teaching both attack and defence at the same time (probably to the detrement of the defence side of the scales), where as Neeld is taking a 'one step at a time' approach.

Strongly disagree. Against most quality sides it was evident Bailey didn't have a defensive game style other than to flood the backline. He was tactically inept other than running the ball forward in waves Pagan paddock style almost. We never had permanent forwards & had the weekest zone in the entire comp with the exception of GC. We had our pants continuously pulled down because of this. Whilst the current side under Neeld has also had bad losses, it isn't because there isn't a defensive side to our game, but more so the fact that the players haven't put in the effort.

[Carrot Top 947]

Strongly disagree. Against most quality sides it was evident Bailey didn't have a defensive game style other than to flood the backline. He was tactically inept other than running the ball forward in waves Pagan paddock style almost. We never had permanent forwards & had the weekest zone in the entire comp with the exception of GC. We had our pants continuously pulled down because of this. Whilst the current side under Neeld has also had bad losses, it isn't because there isn't a defensive side to our game, but more so the fact that the players haven't put in the effort.

I agree with that except the last bit. I see it as 'can't yet put in the required effort'.

[Redleg 40,925]

we do have some silky skilled players who thrived under the Bailey era. I think of Daniel Nicholson (I forgot how good this guy was

Is that the same Nicholson who can't kick?

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Neeld was out coached by Ratten yesterday.

Ratten was able to pull out 'the flood' and this confused the players.

If Neeld is coaching players to perform, then he'll also need to coach thyself.

I thought there was better pressure yesterday, but elite fitness is the key here.

Our forward line could do with a Cloke.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

We had a much better looking midfield yesterday. Importantly, there is still room for more to come. Imagine the running and attack on the player and ball we saw yesterday with the addition of Strauss off half back, Gysberts in the guts and Jetta working off half forward. Add in Taggert and Viney sometime next year as well. Suddenly it looks like a pretty good bunch of players. Even Evans could still find his way back in there to give us a bit more run if his back ever recovers.

[DemonWA 3,934]

Strongly disagree. Against most quality sides it was evident Bailey didn't have a defensive game style other than to flood the backline. He was tactically inept other than running the ball forward in waves Pagan paddock style almost. We never had permanent forwards & had the weekest zone in the entire comp with the exception of GC.

Perhaps Bailey knew the limitations of the list and coached accordingly? If that meant we'd be better served putting numbers behind the ball rather than zone, well so be it (in the short term). it seems people are pretty quick to draw conclusions on how Bailey wanted us to play in the long term, based on what he delivered in a relitivley short period of time (when not playing for draft picks). he still talked about being competative and doing the 1%ers, but perhaps not at the point where it becomes the sole focus.

Neeld is taking a very different approach, starting at Basics and working up from there. I'm backing him in as i hope he gets us to where we want to be. BUT, give credit where credit is due, Bailey was able to win the odd game whilst deveoping a young list. Winning breeds confidence and Morale in both players and supporters

[Bonkers 994]

Perhaps Bailey knew the limitations of the list and coached accordingly? If that meant we'd be better served putting numbers behind the ball rather than zone, well so be it (in the short term). it seems people are pretty quick to draw conclusions on how Bailey wanted us to play in the long term, based on what he delivered in a relitivley short period of time (when not playing for draft picks). he still talked about being competative and doing the 1%ers, but perhaps not at the point where it becomes the sole focus.

Neeld is taking a very different approach, starting at Basics and working up from there. I'm backing him in as i hope he gets us to where we want to be. BUT, give credit where credit is due, Bailey was able to win the odd game whilst deveoping a young list. Winning breeds confidence and Morale in both players and supporters

He had them for 4 years I would call that long term. He talked about a lot of things. He also talked about how we were trying to implement the forward press. Funny how he talked about it but the players knew nothing about implementing it.

[DemonWA 3,934]

He had them for 4 years I would call that long term. He talked about a lot of things. He also talked about how we were trying to implement the forward press. Funny how he talked about it but the players knew nothing about implementing it.

i see where your coming from, but Bailey didnt coach to win for the first season or two. Then, when he did try to teach the team to press, the club didnt have the resources to teach effectivley - i can imagine him at Junction Oval scribbling on a big pad of butcher paper with a permanant marker

[Cheesecake 92]

Good call about the change in game style, DM. I stated pretty much exactly this in the match review thread. Best of Bailey and Neeld combined.

It is good to see that Neeld is malleable enough to tweak with the plan, and not so pigheaded as to continue with a plan that was seeing us thrashed repeatedly. My faith in the man has grown.

Did you consider that Neeld's gameplan isn't being tweaked as such, but is just following a staged implementation? Get the defensive work up to an acceptable level, then focus on switching the play and running through the corrider.

FWIW I think that when we see Neeld's gameplan fully implemented, that we will play a Collingwood Gameplan when the opposition has the ball (The defensive gameplan) and a Geelong Gameplan when we have the ball (The offensive gameplan). Once were fit enough opposition teams will find it hard to combat both of these in the space of one game, and we will be able to cut through opposition zones. (This all requires our players to improve over the next couple of years though).

Yep, I did consider that. In fact, I was thinking exactly that as I wrote my post (but chose to keep my post short). And I think your proposition is, to a pretty large extent, true.

Still, early on in the season, I got the impression that his pride had taken a beating, and I was worried that he might put that before the benefit of the team, and dig in his heals. The last few weeks, I get the feeling that he is starting to take on board what a lot of commentators, colleagues and professionals were saying about the predictability of his plan, and tweaking it accordingly. That shows a willingness to learn. Like I said, I have more faith in him now.

[Grapeviney 9,720]

It's a fallacy that Neeld doesn't have an offensive component to his gameplan and that the boys channelled the ghost of Bailey in the first quarter yesterday.

Anyone who thinks Neeld came to Melbourne with a one-dimensional outdated defensive gameplan from 2010 must think the coach a monkey.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Grapeviney

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

It was interesting how Carlton anticipated our entry throught the pockets and double teamed us forcing us to centre to corridor and bang - actual forward 50 entries that looked dangerous.

[Bonkers 994]

i see where your coming from, but Bailey didnt coach to win for the first season or two. Then, when he did try to teach the team to press, the club didnt have the resources to teach effectivley - i can imagine him at Junction Oval scribbling on a big pad of butcher paper with a permanant marker

Your looking for excuses. Every other team was capable of it being taught.

[Wells 11 5,401]

Im with you on this dee man. I felt so much better watching the game yesterday and felt I could really see where we are going. I remember the last few times we've played carlton where we just got smashed in the physical elements of the game. Made me cringe. Not yesterday. Not until 3/4 time anyway.

Yes Carlton were missing players. But we were also missing (from our supposed pre season best team) Jurrah, Davey, Slyvia, Green. In Feb I would have thought they were all big outs. Bar (hopefully) Jurrah the others are probably not returning now so we're rebuilding. We ran out of legs playing such an intense brand of footy...but that wont be the case for too much longer.

Mc Kenzie was awesome on Judd, Nicholson, Watts, Blease, Frawley, Bail, Jones, Mc Donald...I KNOW we lost but honestly I think I saw the first sign of dawn after a long dark night.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Good god I hope Neeld doesn't put a wet blanket over the likes of Blease and Nicho. Their speed is a great asset to have and at least they move off their man to try and be a link up player through the middle. To me it looks as if Bennell doesn't know what he is under Neeld he isn't an inside mid and he isn't getting much loose ball at the moment either. I watched the tigers game and their run and movement through the middle reminded me of us last year (on a good day). I hope Neeld can get his style of play through to the players but Bailey did have some good points to so no need for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.