Training under the Bailey era

[dee-tox 4,835]

Say what you want about Bailey but 8 and a half wins without Clark, beats one proper win every time. I went to training a number of times and at times it was bordering on overtraining. One session went for 3.5 hours at good intensity.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

Bailey allowed unaccountable one way football to be played.

We were so erratic it wasn't funny. We were the definition of flat track bullies.

Players were given games on their draft selection number rather than earning a spot.

And 186 possibly the worst football ever seen by any team playing since the AFL's inception.

Bailey was ultimately responsible for the lack of competitive effort that disgraced the jumper that day.

I find no revelation in the fact that bailey wasn't up to it.

[Born to Run 204]

Dee-tox, didn't we beat gold coast last year? That's one less "real win" as you put if we are comparing apples with apples. As for Clark, he missed half the season this year.

Our wins last year were not against sides that were performing well.

This year has been terrible, and I am not saying by any means acceptable, but please, let's not suggest we were anything but rubbish last year. 186.......

[Jonesbag 487]

I blame Cale Morton

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Everyone seems insistent that Bailey was a terrible coach. Face the facts, we were playing much better footy in 2010-2011. It was one loss that undid Bailey, sure we were inconsistent but this year we have been consistently non competitive and far more players are out of form. What reason is their to believe Neeld is a better coach? We obliterated some teams last year, all we can really praise is our essendon win which was a fantastic defensive performance but largely due to comical essendon mistakes.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Everyone seems insistent that Bailey was a terrible coach. Face the facts, we were playing much better footy in 2010-2011. It was one loss that undid Bailey, sure we were inconsistent but this year we have been consistently non competitive and far more players are out of form. What reason is their to believe Neeld is a better coach? We obliterated some teams last year, all we can really praise is our essendon win which was a fantastic defensive performance but largely due to comical essendon mistakes.

Im affraid what youre not quite grasping is that under Bailey weplayed a poor type of football quite well ( at times ) this gave us the equivalent of false positives as outcomes. We had reached our known Zenith...and eventally also found our Nadir !!

Under Neeld we are attempting to play a much better brand of football but arent able to do it very well to date resulting in the losses we have witnessed.

The paths taken are diametrcally opposite. One will eventually lead to sustained success where as the other was a recipe for prolonged mediocrity verging on delusion.

[monoccular 17,427]

Don't blame the players...human nature being what it is, if the coaches let the players get away with it, they will...In my opinion, the coaches would be equally at fault...

No...I WILL blame the players. They are supposed to be professional full time footballers, and if this is true each and every one of those involved must go.

What an absolute total stuff up.

Is this why 22 looks as if he can't give a stuff this year?

Send a rocket up where it hurts , Neeld and Missen. Those who don't like it, pi$$ off now.

[monoccular 17,427]

Bailey allowed unaccountable one way football to be played.

We were so erratic it wasn't funny. We were the definition of flat track bullies.

Players were given games on their draft selection number rather than earning a spot.

And 186 possibly the worst football ever seen by any team playing since the AFL's inception.

Bailey was ultimately responsible for the lack of competitive effort that disgraced the jumper that day.

I find no revelation in the fact that bailey wasn't up to it.

Not just unaccountable football it seems, but totally and absolutely unaccountable anything!!!

This, if true, paradoxically gives me a lot of optimism under Neeld, once he finishes weeding out the bludgers

Edited August 30, 2012 by monoccular

[Waltham33 475]

once he finishes weeding out the bludgers

Will be interesting watching the trade and delisting period - will tell a story

[diesel 420]

Everyone seems insistent that Bailey was a terrible coach. Face the facts, we were playing much better footy in 2010-2011. It was one loss that undid Bailey, sure we were inconsistent but this year we have been consistently non competitive and far more players are out of form. What reason is their to believe Neeld is a better coach? We obliterated some teams last year, all we can really praise is our essendon win which was a fantastic defensive performance but largely due to comical essendon mistakes.

I have to disagree with this statement. I've been to most of our games in the last four years, certainly all the Victorian games. The results this year may show we aren't better but there is clearly a structure to the way we now play. The issue right now is that the personnel, experience and fitness are not there to execute. If it is true that Bailey was to get a contract extension on the weekend of 186 then I see that as a black mark against the Board. Carlton have shown this week that you don't rush into those sorts of decisions. In my mind there was little tangible improvement from 2010 to 2011 and Bailey needed to be judged more critically, including on what was going on off-field.

[Deeoldfart 8,027]

Have a think about the positive side of this crap for a moment. I have no idea whether it's true, but if it is, it's now history and can't be changed. 'Witch hunting' is pointless. The positive view is that there might be far more upside in the current playing group than many of us thought. Get rid of the poor influences, change the poor attitdes, introduce some new blood, and demand high standards. If Neeld can do this (and I believe he is the man for the job), then the future may not be as bleak as many around here are forecasting.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Deeoldfart

[Dr. Gonzo 24,214]

Everyone seems insistent that Bailey was a terrible coach. Face the facts, we were playing much better footy in 2010-2011. It was one loss that undid Bailey, sure we were inconsistent but this year we have been consistently non competitive and far more players are out of form. What reason is their to believe Neeld is a better coach? We obliterated some teams last year, all we can really praise is our essendon win which was a fantastic defensive performance but largely due to comical essendon mistakes.

Completely and utterly wrong. It was not one loss that undid Bailey at all and to think that is the case is sheer lunacy. Look at our performances against the Hawks, WCE in Perth, Carlton (bruise free), Collingwood, any game we played West of Victoria - and that was only 2011.

[Range Rover 1,935]

It was one loss that undid Bailey

Surely you are kidding.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Agreed 100% mate - I've been saying on these boards since at least the start of last season and possibly earlier that just watching us on game day our players are either extremely unfit or extremely lazy or both. That is why it makes me believe these rumours because the performance each weekend makes it self-evident. It is crazy to think these guys are getting paid hundreds of thousands a year to just turn it up and just coast along at our expense. Sometimes I get so frustrated watching their efforts on game days that I want to go over to the race and go all Richmond supporter on them, the only thing keeping me from doing so is my dignity, but once that's gone look out. Too many lazy primadonnas running around like they think they're Carey or Ablett but they're more like Godfrey or Nicholson.

Sadly a great post, Agree with it all. Lazy and unfit. Primadonnas abound. Morton and Sylvia are at the top of my list.

[Guest]

Getting back to Greeny not confronting the slackers, I have heard one of the Jack's talk about when they asked Greeny about the role of the captaincy. He suggested that if you see a problem emerging, you should tackle it straight away. Methinks that him coming out so strongly behind Neeldy and questioning his teammates professionalism is his conscience plaguing him upon realizing that, yes, a lot of his 'mates' were just being lazy bludgers.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Surely you are kidding.

Look, it's so easy to say that now. But face it, how else would've Bailey been shown the door? If we were competitive in that game he'd still be coach. There'd be no reason for him to be gone. Don't underestimate how much that loss rattled the club. It was a HUGE loss of course it was reason enough to sack him. It could be a blessing that he is gone, but I haven't seen it yet, I wasn't too fazed with the decision because I thought we'd actually make good progress under Neeld. But all I've seen so far is a game plan not fit for 90% of our players, our club's reputation going downhill, and from what our players and Neeld say there seems to be nothing wrong and we are just "rebuilding". The players are less competitive than ever, and are giving up. Surely Neeld would know how to lay down the law on that, but no. I've definitely seen more 4-quarter efforts under Bailey

[beelzebub 23,364]

Its easier to give 4qtrs of effort playing tiddlywink footy than when playing accountable.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Look, it's so easy to say that now. But face it, how else would've Bailey been shown the door? If we were competitive in that game he'd still be coach. There'd be no reason for him to be gone. Don't underestimate how much that loss rattled the club. It was a HUGE loss of course it was reason enough to sack him. It could be a blessing that he is gone, but I haven't seen it yet, I wasn't too fazed with the decision because I thought we'd actually make good progress under Neeld. But all I've seen so far is a game plan not fit for 90% of our players, our club's reputation going downhill, and from what our players and Neeld say there seems to be nothing wrong and we are just "rebuilding". The players are less competitive than ever, and are giving up. Surely Neeld would know how to lay down the law on that, but no. I've definitely seen more 4-quarter efforts under Bailey

All I can say is ... pass judgement on Neeld in year's time. Even then, don't expect miracles.

Neeld is teaching these Dean Bailey downhill skiiers how to climb Everest and you expect him to do it one year?

They haven't even reached Base Camp yet. THat comes when Neeld gets to re-shape the list this post-season.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Strangely enough im going to Everest next year.... Ill have a look and see what playets are making progress lol

[Guest King Cuthbertson]

Bailey, Green, Moloney, Rivers and Davey gone. There's a big part of your problem there. In fairness, i've got a lot of time for Brad Green, but to allow that rubbish to go on for such a long period of time as a 'leader'...is weak and not good enough. Could you imagine what Paul Chapman or Matthew Scarlett would say to their peers if they decided they couldn't be bothered doing a time trial??

I remember hearing that Scarlett called out Gary Ablett during their 'heart-to-heart' session back in early 2007. He called him a sook! Told him that he's always whingeing about niggling injuries, and that he wasn't working hard enough. Who out of our previous leaders would've done that??

This is an isolated incident relayed by Jim. But you know the saying, Where there's smoke there's fire.

Neeld needs to be given time to turn this rabble of a playing group around.

Edited August 31, 2012 by King Cuthbertson

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Completely and utterly wrong. It was not one loss that undid Bailey at all and to think that is the case is sheer lunacy. Look at our performances against the Hawks, WCE in Perth, Carlton (bruise free), Collingwood, any game we played West of Victoria - and that was only 2011.

Im affraid what youre not quite grasping is that under Bailey weplayed a poor type of football quite well ( at times ) this gave us the equivalent of false positives as outcomes. We had reached our known Zenith...and eventally also found our Nadir !!

Under Neeld we are attempting to play a much better brand of football but arent able to do it very well to date resulting in the losses we have witnessed.

The paths taken are diametrcally opposite. One will eventually lead to sustained success where as the other was a recipe for prolonged mediocrity verging on delusion.

Neeld is driving a new game plan that clearly isn't working for our players. Under Bailey we looked quicker and at least could keep a forward structure and transition the ball. Don't tell me you didn't see our dominant performances in the last couple of years as stepping stones for the club, but rather "False positives"? I know it's easy to criticise Bailey now but just think of all the positive team performances and player development under him.

And on to the game plan, we have been kicking too wide this year, constantly turning the ball over with useless disposal and ever since Clark's been injured no one has been able to kick consistent goals in the way Green, Petterd (I wonder if Neeld likes him), Bate or Dunn used to. This game style's killed many of our forwards We don't have a consistent group of defenders either. Frawley looked elite under Bailey but has been lacking confidence all year. Garland played well forward for 2 weeks but now doesn't seem to play well in either. Trengove, Moloney, McKenzie and Sylvia all seemed like a very capable midfield group. Jamar hasn't been the same. Jones, Howe, Rivers and Blease- our only 4 players who are looking good under Neeld.

[GM11 776]

What ever spin you want to put on it, Dean's game plan was flawed.

Runaway wins & big losses over a short period speak for themselves.

As RR says - downhill skiers.

That said, 186 is in a category of it's own. That's 31 goals.

Sure, blame the coach for the loss, but blame the playing group for the margin.

There was no leadership and no heart in red & blue that day.

[Guest King Cuthbertson]

Neeld is driving a new game plan that clearly isn't working for our players. Under Bailey we looked quicker and at least could keep a forward structure and transition the ball. Don't tell me you didn't see our dominant performances in the last couple of years as stepping stones for the club, but rather "False positives"? I know it's easy to criticise Bailey now but just think of all the positive team performances and player development under him.

And on to the game plan, we have been kicking too wide this year, constantly turning the ball over with useless disposal and ever since Clark's been injured no one has been able to kick consistent goals in the way Green, Petterd (I wonder if Neeld likes him), Bate or Dunn used to. This game style's killed many of our forwards We don't have a consistent group of defenders either. Frawley looked elite under Bailey but has been lacking confidence all year. Garland played well forward for 2 weeks but now doesn't seem to play well in either. Trengove, Moloney, McKenzie and Sylvia all seemed like a very capable midfield group. Jamar hasn't been the same. Jones, Howe, Rivers and Blease- our only 4 players who are looking good under Neeld.

It's not working because our players only ever had to play 50% of what modern football is under Dean Bailey. They are not fit enough, some of them just don't have the talent. I was at ALL those MCG games where we flogged interstate teams and Richmond. They were all AWFUL. We got on the front foot, and got a run on of momentum that our opponents couldn't stop because they were being half assed.

Try that against Collingwood and all the other Victorian teams we never managed to beat under Bailey...It doesn't work. Queens Birthday last year, and the ineptitude of the Bailey gameplan was there for all to see. It could be seen in all our heavy losses last year.

Front-running, down-hill skiing of the highest order and it made me sick to watch it. I never want to hear the term 'bruise free football' again.

Edited August 31, 2012 by King Cuthbertson

[Je Roos Salem 661]

All I can say is ... pass judgement on Neeld in year's time. Even then, don't expect miracles.

Neeld is teaching these Dean Bailey downhill skiiers how to climb Everest and you expect him to do it one year?

They haven't even reached Base Camp yet. THat comes when Neeld gets to re-shape the list this post-season.

I will wait, as I have waited with Bailey (Who I thought I'd be waiting with). And I'll wait with our next coach who may be appointed in 2 years after a demoralizing loss. Neeld may not be the epitome of coaches. Sure he has a good resume, and so did Bailey. Maybe Neeld's game plan will never work. I await the future and of course I desperately want Neeld to succeed but I fear time may beat him, he is not a god, he may be even be a sub par coach. If we win 4 games against next year surely you won't have the same confidence about him.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

Look, it's so easy to say that now. But face it, how else would've Bailey been shown the door? If we were competitive in that game he'd still be coach. There'd be no reason for him to be gone. Don't underestimate how much that loss rattled the club. It was a HUGE loss of course it was reason enough to sack him. It could be a blessing that he is gone, but I haven't seen it yet, I wasn't too fazed with the decision because I thought we'd actually make good progress under Neeld. But all I've seen so far is a game plan not fit for 90% of our players, our club's reputation going downhill, and from what our players and Neeld say there seems to be nothing wrong and we are just "rebuilding". The players are less competitive than ever, and are giving up. Surely Neeld would know how to lay down the law on that, but no. I've definitely seen more 4-quarter efforts under Bailey

I think it's the other way round. 90% of our players aren't fit enough for the game plan.