2013 realistic expectations

[binman 38,019]

I reckon with our draw we are an outside chance of a top 8 finish if we get on an early season roll and do ok with injuries. Could be worth a sneaky bet at around $10.

[Miles from Nowhere 199]

Just like you're supposed to start sentences with capital letters.

Can you gaurantee (sic) that?

[bing181 8,165]

If he can't match Bailey's 2010 and 2011 record against non expansion teams, the period where Bailey wasn't "experimenting", I'd consider it a fail.

You mean the record where we never beat ANY of the Victorian teams (except the odd fluke and our yearly wins against a developing Richmond), and where a lot of the wins came from beating out of town teams at the MCG? Throw into that the odd interstate win (Port in Darwin, Lions at the Gabba) and you have Bailey's wins.

As for the 6% against non-startup teams, even that's a stat of your own fabrication. Go back a few years and Richmond were as bad or worse than GC or GWS, and some of the others at that time weren't much better - it wasn't for nothing that Freeo, Adelaide, Essendon and the Dogs all sacked their coaches.

Your stats don't really tell much of a story, yet alone the whole story.

[rpfc 27,451]

You mean the record where we never beat ANY of the Victorian teams (except the odd fluke and our yearly wins against a developing Richmond), and where a lot of the wins came from beating out of town teams at the MCG? Throw into that the odd interstate win (Port in Darwin, Lions at the Gabba) and you have Bailey's wins.

As for the 6% against non-startup teams, even that's a stat of your own fabrication. Go back a few years and Richmond were as bad or worse than GC or GWS, and some of the others at that time weren't much better - it wasn't for nothing that Freeo, Adelaide, Essendon and the Dogs all sacked their coaches.

Your stats don't really tell much of a story, yet alone the whole story.

Well said.

The best win I have seen since Daniher would be the Essendon win last year against a team in form and in a tough game.

Bailey got us thrashing interstate teams and lowly teams and that was great, but it turned out to be hollow. THAT Sydney game, and those near misses against Collingwood, were a part of the facade that was broken down by 186 and the football of 2012.

The group had massive structural issues and we have removed some of those issues but the facts are that question marks remain over the plurality the list (if not a majority).

Can Trengove, Watts, Blease, Sylvia, Frawley, Garland, and Nicholson find, or recapture, some consistency?

Will Toumpas, Viney, Tapscott, Strauss, Gillies, Tynan, Kent, Barry, Evans, Gawn, Jetta, Davis, Spencer, Taggert, Fitzpatrick and Bail realise their potential and how quickly?

How much can Pedersen, Magner, Sellar, Rodan, Byrnes, Davey, MacDonald, M.Jones, Terlich, Dunn contribute in 2013?

I don't think any of us know for certain what 2013 entails but we have more questions than answers at the moment.

[McQueen 17,863]

I reckon with our draw we are an outside chance of a top 8 finish if we get on an early season roll and do ok with injuries. Could be worth a sneaky bet at around $10.

A general sentiment held by many this time last year.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Front running game style not suited to finals.

I know this is a commonly held view on Demonland but it's not necessarily one I agree with. Bailey coached close to the youngest group in the AFL in 2010 and 2011 and he coached to their strengths therefore maximizing their chance of success. And while this was based on fast ball movement and a very attacking gameplan there is no reason to suggest that as the players got older, fitter and stronger they would not have developed the defensive skills and running ability of the top teams.

I know that Bailey's strategy led to large swings in results and we regularly got beaten up by teams such as Hawthorn, Geelong and WC but it also showed some very significant promise against Swans and Collingwood. It also allowed us some big wins against other clubs such as Adelaide and Freo at the G and some consistent performances against the likes of Richmond and Essendon. Young teams getting beaten up by older powerhouses is to be expected but the significantly good performances against others showed more potential than anything we saw this year.

I know that in order to feel good about the Club it's necessary to blame Bailey for everything and praise Neeld but it's not that simple. In 2012 we focused on defence and the groupthink round here would have it that this was a necessary first step. But we conceded almost exactly the same score against us as the previous year albeit that we played three games against development clubs compared to two the previous year. To compound the situation we kicked 400 less points and had a 20% drop in percentage. Despite putting all our efforts into stopping the opposition scoring and blowing us away our losing margin increased significantly.

I'm very happy to forget 2012 as a learning year. Much went wrong, Neeld was new and learning on the job and the players were dealing with a new game plan. But the reality is we now have a significantly better list than Bailey had in 2011, we have significantly more resources within our footy department, the players have had time to learn and implement a new game plan and we have several years benefit of the facilities of AAMI.

I know that setting a benchmark for Neeld is difficult because we all want him to succeed and we all want success. Setting a benchmark which he fails to reach will threaten all of us because we are all utterly sick and tired of failure after 6 years. But that doesn't mean we should go easy. He's certainly not going easy on the players and he wouldn't expect us to go easy on him.

Can anyone really suggest that we shouldn't be better in 2013 than we were under Bailey in 2010 and 2011? Given our draw that must mean 10+ wins although with the responses to this thread I get the impression that not many think that's possible.

Your stats don't really tell much of a story, yet alone the whole story.

The stat that does tell the whole story is 15 wins for Bailey in 2010 and 2011 against non development clubs and 1 for Neeld in 2012. That's just a plain fact and it's a pretty terrible one.

It's time for the Club to produce.

[rpfc 27,451]

It is really quite startling how two games against Collingwood and one against Sydney still endures in the minds of people who think 'we were really not that bad'...

I was a defender of Bailey and then in 2011 - my own thread of KPIs showed the fraud of what was happening ( http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/25041-rpfcs-measurement-of-2011/) - demolishing insterstate teams and being so thoroughly dismantled by the better sides.

It's disheartening and tough to let go of firmly held beliefs but when the facts are staring you in the face, it just seems foolish to keep up the pretences.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I know this is a commonly held view on Demonland but it's not necessarily one I agree with.

Its' a commonly held view full stop. The same view was held by a number of footy experts including opposition coaches. Commonly held views often(not always) become that way for good reason.

Bailey misread the game and collected a list of players to suit a game style that helped Port Adelaide to a flag.

The game had moved ahead and sadly for all of us Bailey was stranded in 2011. We were on our own with that run and carry quick burn style, every other club had moved on.

Holes in our list in 2012 caused by the loss of form/interest of Moloney, the departure of who was supposed to be our midfield star and the stalling of Trengove. The midfield was uncompetitive.

We don't know what the future holds with Neeld, it certainly appears that the expectations and standards have increased and improved. Perhaps Neeld is also selling us fools gold, I hope not.

I certainly won't be lamenting the "loss" of Bailey. Any tilt at a flag needs to be done on a solid foundation with the players and game plan that can withstand finals pressure. I am comfortable that would not have happened under Bailey.

So would you have stuck with Bailey Fan?

Edited December 18, 2012 by dandeeman

[timD 994]

It is really quite startling how two games against Collingwood and one against Sydney still endures in the minds of people who think 'we were really not that bad'...

I was a defender of Bailey and then in 2011 - my own thread of KPIs showed the fraud of what was happening ( http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/25041-rpfcs-measurement-of-2011/) - demolishing insterstate teams and being so thoroughly dismantled by the better sides.

It's disheartening and tough to let go of firmly held beliefs but when the facts are staring you in the face, it just seems foolish to keep up the pretences.

Fan is making a simple point. He must write in a language other than english I reckon.

Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now. If Neeld cannot win more games now than Bailey would have then the club is going backwards and we are being sold a line.

What other metric, other than wins, do people want to use to assess the team's performance? Maybe the site should invent a 'feelgood' stat and everyone rates how happy they feel and we use that to tell us how we are going. Let's just ignore objective reality.

Nothing is wrong. everything is working. Just like we were told last time.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

TimD far too defensive, nothing wrong with any of the posts.

[timD 994]

Its' a commonly held view full stop. The same view was held by a number of footy experts including opposition coaches. Commonly held views often(not always) become that way for good reason.

Bailey misread the game and collected a list of players to suit a game style that helped Port Adelaide to a flag.

The game had moved ahead and sadly for all of us Bailey was stranded in 2011. We were on our own with that run and carry quick burn style, every other club had moved on.

Holes in our list in 2012 caused by the loss of form/interest of Moloney, the departure of who was supposed to be our midfield star and the stalling of Trengove. The midfield was uncompetitive.

We don't know what the future holds with Neeld, it certainly appears that the expectations and standards have increased.

I certainly won't be lamenting the "loss" of Bailey. Any tilt at a flag needs to be done on a solid foundation with the players and game plan that can withstand finals pressure. I am comfortable that would not have happened under Bailey.

So would you have stuck with Bailey Fan?

It is now; it wasn't 18 months ago. Re-writing history with hindsight must be a fun game.

Bailey was being lauded and MFC fans told to wait for our inevitable success. We'd bottomed out the way everyone thought we should have and were progressing slowly.

It wasn't the game having moved on, it was a gameplan X list problem that we were repeatedly told would be fixed by experience put into our kids.

This is all really simple. How do you measure improvement? If not by wins, then what?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So would you have stuck with Bailey Fan?

He has already said on a number of occassions that Bailey had to go.

Why do you have to reduce this to a naive Bailey versus Neeld?

timD has restated the position clearly...as if needed it.

[timD 994]

TimD far too defensive, nothing wrong with any of the posts.

I'm not defensive, I'm sick of the thoughtless responses to serious ideas. On this thread it is being argued that wins are not a reasonable way to measure performance. This site has gone so far into itself that posters are actually arguing that wins don't count.

Mark Neeld coached one of the most insipid teams I have ever seen. One of the least competitive teams I have ever seen. And posters are suggesting that Bailey somehow winning 10 or so games is less impressive that Neeld effectively winning one. Now, I'm all for a nuanced understanding of team style and needing to go backwards to go forwards but i'd also like to win a game. Neeld needs to see us win quite a few this year to show that he knows what he is doing.

[jnrmac 18,954]

Fan is making a simple point. He must write in a language other than english I reckon.

Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now. If Neeld cannot win more games now than Bailey would have then the club is going backwards and we are being sold a line.

We haven't won a first round since 2005

Since 2007 we have only beaten 2 Victorian teams (Ess & Rich)

Both track records I will be happy to consign to history. Don't care how we do it. Its just important that we do and we start the year with some momentum

[rpfc 27,451]

Fan is making a simple point. He must write in a language other than english I reckon.

Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now. If Neeld cannot win more games now than Bailey would have then the club is going backwards and we are being sold a line.

What other metric, other than wins, do people want to use to assess the team's performance? Maybe the site should invent a 'feelgood' stat and everyone rates how happy they feel and we use that to tell us how we are going. Let's just ignore objective reality.

Nothing is wrong. everything is working. Just like we were told last time.

How am I saying that?

Fan is quite rightly giving his opinion that all wasn't that bad in 2011 and we can expect better results with a arguably better list.

I am saying that better results doesn't necessarily mean a better team, or a more worthwhile season.

2011 would have to be the most hollow 8 and a half win season in the modern era.

We can be a better team but not win as many games.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Over 4 years Bailey's team never had a defensive bone in their collective body, yet we're being told by Fan that in time it may have come. That's a stretch too far for me. They never bothered training to implement or defend the forward press over his last preseason, yet other clubs had spent 2-3 years perfecting it. In reality, he didn't know where the game was going.

I don't understand how long time posters could take any solace out of victories over Adelaide, Brisbane, Port, or Freo at the G. Three of those clubs have since changed coaches after stagnating and the other had a novice with a rebuilding side. And three of those 4 clubs were bottom 4 in 2011. The reason Bailey's last side had less scored against it is because they were winning games of footy against other mediocre teams, such as the ones just mentioned. It's obvious that when you're kicking goals the opposition isn't. But just as obvious is that Bailey's teams' lack of accountabilty and gameplan wouldn't hold up against good opposition regularly, let alone finals. To think that after 4 years he was going to suddenly introduce them to the word "defence" (in any meaningful way) is a self-serving argument. Some clubs just do things differently. Matty Lappin went from Carlton to Collingwood as an assistant coach a couple of years back. He said that at Carlton 80% of the focus was on offence, but at Collingwood 80% was on defence. Bailey went to Ratten's school of coaching. But it's defence that wins finals and premierships.

Neeld didn't have the support of a woeful senior group and has had to endure the most wretched start to a coaching career in VFL/AFL history. If supporters can't see that then they don't want to. That said, the honeymoon is over. The list is now largely what he wants and he's had another preseason to get them fitter and playing how he wants; and I expect to see some genuine improvement in the year ahead. For me 8 wins is a bare minimum and 10/11 ought to be a distinct possibility - subject to injuries.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I know this is a commonly held view on Demonland but it's not necessarily one I agree with. Bailey coached close to the youngest group in the AFL in 2010 and 2011 and he coached to their strengths therefore maximizing their chance of success. And while this was based on fast ball movement and a very attacking gameplan there is no reason to suggest that as the players got older, fitter and stronger they would not have developed the defensive skills and running ability of the top teams.

I know that Bailey's strategy led to large swings in results and we regularly got beaten up by teams such as Hawthorn, Geelong and WC but it also showed some very significant promise against Swans and Collingwood. It also allowed us some big wins against other clubs such as Adelaide and Freo at the G and some consistent performances against the likes of Richmond and Essendon. Young teams getting beaten up by older powerhouses is to be expected but the significantly good performances against others showed more potential than anything we saw this year.

I know that in order to feel good about the Club it's necessary to blame Bailey for everything and praise Neeld but it's not that simple. In 2012 we focused on defence and the groupthink round here would have it that this was a necessary first step. But we conceded almost exactly the same score against us as the previous year albeit that we played three games against development clubs compared to two the previous year. To compound the situation we kicked 400 less points and had a 20% drop in percentage. Despite putting all our efforts into stopping the opposition scoring and blowing us away our losing margin increased significantly.

I'm very happy to forget 2012 as a learning year. Much went wrong, Neeld was new and learning on the job and the players were dealing with a new game plan. But the reality is we now have a significantly better list than Bailey had in 2011, we have significantly more resources within our footy department, the players have had time to learn and implement a new game plan and we have several years benefit of the facilities of AAMI.

I know that setting a benchmark for Neeld is difficult because we all want him to succeed and we all want success. Setting a benchmark which he fails to reach will threaten all of us because we are all utterly sick and tired of failure after 6 years. But that doesn't mean we should go easy. He's certainly not going easy on the players and he wouldn't expect us to go easy on him.

Can anyone really suggest that we shouldn't be better in 2013 than we were under Bailey in 2010 and 2011? Given our draw that must mean 10+ wins although with the responses to this thread I get the impression that not many think that's possible.

The stat that does tell the whole story is 15 wins for Bailey in 2010 and 2011 against non development clubs and 1 for Neeld in 2012. That's just a plain fact and it's a pretty terrible one.

It's time for the Club to produce.

So where do you think Bailey's game plan would have had us at in 2012 and 2013?

Serious question, where do you think the team would have been placed and how many games would we have been poised to win in 2012 under Bailey? Also do you think the style of play that Bailey adopted would have been good enough to win a final considering the brutal way the series was played this year? Do you think Bailey would have had to take a backward step if his plan appeared to him to be lacking and changed the style, or would he have been comfortable with a slower progression up the ladder?

Finally, do you think we would have been capable of winning a grand final with the run and carry game?

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Over 4 years Bailey's team never had a defensive bone in their collective body, yet we're being told by Fan that in time it may have come. That's a stretch too far for me.

We are basically in agreement but I think it's naive to think Bailey wouldn't have developed the defensive side of the game and as the players matured they would have been able to play that style of game better. When you've got boys playing men there is no point trying to out muscle them. Interestingly we played the 2011 Collingwood gameplan last year when every other side had moved on to quicker ball movement and use of the central corridor.

Also interesting that whilst most argue how much better we are now nobody wants to suggest that winning more games than Bailey did with a terrible list, poor fitness and a "terrible game plan" is a minimum reasonable level. Go figure.

I'm sick of saying this but I support what Neeld is trying to do. He's trying to make us more competitive and he's trying to change our culture. I like what I'm hearing from training and I like the LM and I think he's improved out of sight compared to last year which you'd expect from a first year coach. But I won't accept 2012 as a benchmark, I'll accept 2011 as a benchmark and we must improve on that.

If others are going to wax lyrical over a 9 win season given our cushy draw that's up to them, I won't.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Remember when run and carry was brought in and was strongly against it, but people such as Fan argued it was "modern football"? Nowadays teams are doing the things I was calling for, long kicking to forwards in the forward line in particular helped Geelong win a flag last year.

The Bailey and Daniher years were the worst tactically in the modern era, I could see it but the cheerleaders couldn't.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,151]

5-7 wins is a realistic, sensible and responsible target for next year.

The club will not magically start winning games every second week.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

He has already said on a number of occassions that Bailey had to go.

Why do you have to reduce this to a naive Bailey versus Neeld?

timD has restated the position clearly...as if needed it.

Who did what now?

[mauriesy 6,790]

Games won must be a yardstick, but the nature of losses, especially against the good teams, must come into consideration because it shows the side's defensive and endurance capability.

I'd much rather lose a dozen games by a couple of goals, than a few by 100, or one by 186.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

If others are going to wax lyrical over a 9 win season given our cushy draw that's up to them, I won't.

If we win 9 and take it right up to a number of top 4 teams and see real development in discipline, progression in our kids and consider that the improvement will be on an incline then I will be reasonably satisfied, especially if there are no or very few blowouts.

[H_T 2,941]

5-7 wins is a realistic, sensible and responsible target for next year.

The club will not magically start winning games every second week.

Five is just one more than last season. I don't think that would be seen as a sensible and responsible target by the fans, or the club. Given the fixture, it's realistic.

My expectations are for improvement across the board and approx. 9 wins. More would be a decent result.

Fifty-5's thread highlighted Champion data rankings according to stats. What it doesn't show in that link was what was reported in the H-Sun paper that same day (not on-line). There was a table highlighting rankings and averages for the age of lists and the level of experience. GWS and GC were ranked the lowest in terms of age and experience. That would be obvious. Melbourne were the next youngest and in terms of experience the least of experience outside of the two new teams.

Although the list has changed in personnel (14-15 changes), there's been no significant change from 2010-11-12 seasons in regard to average age and experience on our list. We're still ranked the lowest of the established.

So in 2013, our club is entering the season with - if anything - a different looking list. As timD pointed out back on page ~2 of this thread, the midfield is the key. And we'll enter 2013 with some changes that will effect the dynamic. I agree with timD that we have one of the worst midfields, but I'm a bit in the unknown as to the influence of newcomers Toumpas and Viney. After all, we can't rely on them being their first year, even if Viney appears as a definite 'plug'n play' type.

The changes in the midfield and the forward line with Dawes coming in, means there is work to be done. Cohesiveness being one. Things such as setting about changing or improving the culture, and 9 day Darwin camps are invaluable for aspects like leadership and cohesiveness. This along with some exciting new talent will be where the improvement comes from.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The Bailey and Daniher years were the worst tactically in the modern era, I could see it but the cheerleaders couldn't.

Nothing like revising history and hitching yourself to whatever was successful in recent years. Well done.

Who did what now?

You did.