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.

Arrrrrgggghhhhh too many buzzwords in one post.....

Look there are a lot of people to blame here, if Bailey was as bad as it appears they should have acted. I love Jimmy and can't thank him enough but it's clear to me he was not capable of doing Leoncelli's job after he left.

Everyone has the utmost repsect for Jimmy and he may well have been the white elephant in the room and lets face it at the end of 2010 we thought we were tracking well and it was easy to continue the way things were going. 2011 really opened our eyes GWS & Gold Coast as bad as they are still manage to get wins so nobody kid yourself about 2011 and the 8.5 wins we were shocking and wilted under severe pressure and teams who were willing to work hard.

What's done is done and things are very clear now such as the lack of development in some of out draft picks compared with others, a lot of these boys have now realised what it takes to be a good side, some have taken it on board and those who aren't prepared to put in the hard yards will be culled. Pretty sure Neeld and the rest of the footy department have made their decisions on who needs to go and reputations will stand for nothing. It's going to be a very interesting trade period and I will be very interested to see what sort of players we target in the draft.

Under Bailey, getting to the club early meant going straight from the MCG changerooms to Boutique.

They still go to Boutique. Mate took an interesting photo of our captain. But who cares if they go to a nightclub when they have a 7 or 8 day break

I'd love to know more about the famous cancelled session. Surely Mr Professionalism $cully just went out and ran on his own. Or was that when he was 'injured'?

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.

Rubbish. It was not one loss at all.

All those losses previously mentioned were his undoing. By the time the Bulldogs thrashed us, Bailey was finished.

I'd love to know more about the famous cancelled session. Surely Mr Professionalism $cully just went out and ran on his own. Or was that when he was 'injured'?

He went for a swim in his piles of dirty [censored] cash.

I still woner how anyone can proclaim how good 2011 was?

You can rate it 'better' than this year but how is beating up on interstate teams at the G so attractive, when against the decent or even half decent teams we were shown to be even more uncompetitive than we are now.

Letting Hawthorn kick 8 goals 11 in 1 qtr of footy. Letting Geelong embarrass us.

It was a failure of a year and I hardly see what is so great about wanting to go 'back to the halycon days of Bailey'...

Edited August 31, 201213 yr by rpfc

They are supposed to be professional full time footballers.

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25.

This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates.

I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25.

This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates.

I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

Not sure on 21 Nasher but I reckon you are on the money.

definitely should be 19+

In fact I would punt for 20

It might also help prevent a lot of the serious injuries a lot of these skinny kids get in their first year or two.

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25.

This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates.

I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

I have thought this for a long time. When the draft came with Judd,Ball and Hodge everyone was asking how did Judd not become the number 1 pick? At 21 we would have known who the best was. Plus we would know if a player can hold down a key position (Watts and Cook). We would also know if someone isn't mature enough to handle AFL football on and off the field. It would also help teams out quicker with draft picks more then likely being big enough to play round 1. It takes out the guessing game to a degree. I want Jesse Hogan he looks like an absolute gun but I don't know if he will be for certain at AFL level. At the age of 21 I would know if he is a gun or not.

What consenting adults do in their spare time/as a professions should be their business. Restricting AFL to 21 and over goes against what it means to be an adult.

Agree totally boys make them play WAFL, SANFL, VFL while doing apprenticeships, uni or whatever they need to do to pay the bills, then if at 20/21 they get the chance they realise how bad they and that they only get one shot and don't want to give it up.

Mark Hutchings, Luke Blackwell, Kane Mitchell have all had a taste and find themselves back in the WAFL, I watch them now and see how hard they are working and the hunger they have to get another shot

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25.

This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates.

I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

A very good post Nasher.

What if we had Seniors, Reserves and Under 19s at every club? We could then watch the development of players, and move players up or down freely, depending on their development.

Sound familiar?

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25.

This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates.

I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

Very good post.

My take on Neeld and this season is that Neeld came in to move us forward and quickly realised the way we were structured and training had plateaued and the only way to move up is to go back to scratch.

I too would love to know more about the famous cancelled session. It reflects badly on the way we were being coached in 2011 and possibly explains a lack of discipline and why the development of the playing group was stunted.

The news of this had obviously come to Jim Stynes and his board but allegedly they were still contemplating Bailey's renewal as a coach in the days before 186.

Interesting!

'I promise I wont let them cancel any more training sessions if you rehire me?'

If this is true.. imagine what would have happened if Bailey got them to train properly??!!! Suddenly 8 and 1/2 wins becomes 10 or 11 and we MAKE FINALS. Neeld's got them throwing up after every sesh and we can't win a quarter. Wow, class difference.

I still woner how anyone can proclaim how good 2011 was?

You can rate it 'better' than this year but how is beating up on interstate teams at the G so attractive, when against the decent or even half decent teams we were shown to be even more uncompetitive than we are now.

Letting Hawthorn kick 8 goals 11 in 1 qtr of footy. Letting Geelong embarrass us.

It was a failure of a year and I hardly see what is so great about wanting to go 'back to the halycon days of Bailey'...

It's not about how great 2011 was, it's about how bad 2012 is.

It's not about how great 2011 was, it's about how bad 2012 is.

To you perhaps.

This year didn't come on the back of any great height, it came on the back of a year of failure in which we lost to a team by 31 goals. We lost our entire footy dept (save for Royal) and we were revealed as frontrunners, and our leaders as invisible and weak.

But I don't like dwelling some on here.

In the AFL - you must match talent with experience and strong leadership.

In 2012 we decided to move past the failed leadership of the experienced for the impressive youth that we have and it has been tough. The new expectations saw a few excel, some plod along, and many simply fell to the demands.

I refuse to believe that this year was not a helpful year to the future of the Demons.

I would think it has been revealing for the young players that will take us forward.

To you perhaps.

This year didn't come on the back of any great height, it came on the back of a year of failure in which we lost to a team by 31 goals. We lost our entire footy dept (save for Royal) and we were revealed as frontrunners, and our leaders as invisible and weak.

But I don't like dwelling some on here.

In the AFL - you must match talent with experience and strong leadership.

In 2012 we decided to move past the failed leadership of the experienced for the impressive youth that we have and it has been tough. The new expectations saw a few excel, some plod along, and many simply fell to the demands.

I refuse to believe that this year was not a helpful year to the future of the Demons.

I would think it has been revealing for the young players that will take us forward.

rpfc I agree with a lot of what you say above.

But 2 things

I think there is little proof we have "impressive Youth" 2 -3 players perhaps but the rest are showing signs of how ordinary they are.

The alternative is very bleak so we cling to this more in hope than any facts

rpfc I agree with a lot of what you say above.

But 2 things

I think there is little proof we have "impressive Youth" 2 -3 players perhaps but the rest are showing signs of how ordinary they are.

The alternative is very bleak so we cling to this more in hope than any facts

24 year olds - Jones, Clark, Garland

23 year olds - Frawley, Jurrah*, Grimes

22 year olds - McKenzie, Howe, Strauss

21 year olds - Nicholson, Blease, Watts, Tapscott, Trengove

19 year olds - McDonald

*Yeah, yeah, I know...

You may disagree on a couple but there is 15 talents 24 years of age or younger.

They are the match, or the better, of many clubs. But those clubs have more experience above them and better leadership around them.

They have been asked to do more than their contemporaries at other clubs and they are failing and flailing but I hope more as they get older and our list becomes more experienced - starting this October.

24 year olds - Jones, Clark, Garland

23 year olds - Frawley, Jurrah*, Grimes

22 year olds - McKenzie, Howe, Strauss

21 year olds - Nicholson, Blease, Watts, Tapscott, Trengove

19 year olds - McDonald

*Yeah, yeah, I know...

You may disagree on a couple but there is 15 talents 24 years of age or younger.

They are the match, or the better, of many clubs. But those clubs have more experience above them and better leadership around them.

They have been asked to do more than their contemporaries at other clubs and they are failing and flailing but I hope more as they get older and our list becomes more experienced - starting this October.

They are not even close to the match of many other clubs. Sorry. Rose coloured glasses. If I had more time I would type the equivalents at a couple of clubs. Agree however that our under 25s haven't been given a fighting chance due to leadership and until very recently, facilities and coaches etc...

Edited September 3, 201213 yr by Choko

24 year olds - Jones, Clark, Garland

23 year olds - Frawley, Jurrah*, Grimes

22 year olds - McKenzie, Howe, Strauss

21 year olds - Nicholson, Blease, Watts, Tapscott, Trengove

19 year olds - McDonald

*Yeah, yeah, I know...

You may disagree on a couple but there is 15 talents 24 years of age or younger.

They are the match, or the better, of many clubs. But those clubs have more experience above them and better leadership around them.

They have been asked to do more than their contemporaries at other clubs and they are failing and flailing but I hope more as they get older and our list becomes more experienced - starting this October.

I guess it depends at what age you determine "youth" to be

I set it a little lower than you, 22 and under

-Howe good player we agree

-Strauss average player who has had bad injuries I will give him the benefit of the doubt

-McKenzie a good scrounger who does know how the get the ball but bad kick. Average is best for me.

- Nicholson another poor kick average average player

- Blease Potential good I agree

- Watts serviceable back man that will be about it, he does have good skills when he gets the ball.

- Tapscott displays little actual talent at any one skill not sure what his claim to fame is. Average

- Trengove Shows glimpses but I think we play him in the wrong spot. I think he will be a good small forward.

- McDonald Looks the goods

From that list I have confidence in 2 and another 2 might develop into good players the rest average.

Only Howe shows signs of being very good and he has trouble kicking goals.

Is it surprising?

"Accountability" is a term thrown around quite a bit. It didn't exist in the Bailey years.