Bailey or Neeld?

stuie · June 9, 2013

Is Neeld a better coach? Not sure, but he is paying for the sins of Bailey.

Neeld is a terrible coach because of Bailey now... ughhhhh... That's the Neeld school of excuses shining through there

stuie · June 9, 2013

The fact is that we were a rabble under Bailey. We won a few more games because his mantra was "attack at all cost" and it cost plenty. Our players were soft and undisciplined in defence, and they were being exploited by every team that could run the other way.

Neeld is the opposite. He wants them to be accountable and disciplined first and foremost. The said right from the start that he would not be focusing on how to attack. I think this mas changed somewhat since he first arrived, but it is still evident in the low scores we are producing.

Personally, I will take Neeld's approach over Bailey's. What Bailey was teaching them would have gotten the team to the first week of finals, but no further. What Neeld is teaching has the potential to take the team all the way if they can get the attacking side of things right.

The only problem with your argument is that our defence was MILES better statistically under Bailey.

Funny how strong perceptions are and how wrong they can be. Neeld talks defence, but there's nothing to back it up.

You are sucked in by him obviously. Gonna have to win more than one game to test out Neeld's "finals winning football".

deanox · June 9, 2013

Posting an essay doesn't mean you understood the point, I hope you get that now...

If it's too long to read just tread the first paragraph, the rest was just additional commentary probably not relevant to this thread anyway.

RalphiusMaximus · June 9, 2013

The only problem with your argument is that our defence was MILES better statistically under Bailey.

Funny how strong perceptions are and how wrong they can be. Neeld talks defence, but there's nothing to back it up.

You are sucked in by him obviously. Gonna have to win more than one game to test out Neeld's "finals winning football".

I would argue that our defence is as good as it ever was under Bailey. We are still holding the key forwards and still getting smashed by the crumbers. The difference is the amount of opportunities we are giving our opponents. I would love to see the number of opposition goals being generated by turnovers for instance, because that has been one of our biggest issues all year. The reason we are giving up big scores is because of our inability to hold our own in the middle, not because our defence is falling down on the job.

stuie · June 9, 2013

I would argue that our defence is as good as it ever was under Bailey. We are still holding the key forwards and still getting smashed by the crumbers. The difference is the amount of opportunities we are giving our opponents. I would love to see the number of opposition goals being generated by turnovers for instance, because that has been one of our biggest issues all year. The reason we are giving up big scores is because of our inability to hold our own in the middle, not because our defence is falling down on the job.

Defence is everyone's job, not just the backmen.

And you can argue that as much as you like, but the facts and stats say otherwise. Strongly.

Pitchy · June 9, 2013

We were supposed to push on from 8 wins - 9 losses (what Bailey got sacked at) to the finals. There was never any talk of going backwards to become one of the least competitive teams in the history of the AFL/VFL.

That's been Neeld's effect thus far. Neeld took over a team that was ready to challenge for 7th-10th place. A team that was well ahead of Richmond and just behind the Kangas. His mandate was to bring the accountability perceived to be lacking in Bailey's gameplan. You cant say "Neeld's only 2 years in". Neeld took over a list that was capable of thrashing Sydney two years ago.

Bailey build the list that could do it, on a shoestring, while tanking orders were coming down from above. Neeld took over and should have rammed us forward. But he made blunder after blunder and will leave us a rabble.

Ron Burgundy · June 9, 2013

Under Bailey in 2010 against Collingwood we got within 1 point and then drew against them.

I would like to say I am excited about tomorrow, but under Mark Neeld, to get within 10 goals would be a good result.

Thesedays we celebrate any loss under 100 points.

This is the type of comparison analysis that I find truly annoying.

Bailey had another year with his player group in 2011. In fact, we even played against the Pies that year.

So, how is not more relevant to compare 2011 under Bailey to anything under Neeld? In fact, why not even compare 2010 under Bailey to 2011 under Bailey.

Conveniently though, such comparisons are generally overlooked here, and several posters continue to hark back to games in 2010, specifically against the Pies, Swans and the Crows (arguing inductively all the way).

So, why not compare those performances in 2010 with a year later under Bailey in 2011. I don't see how one can conveniently select some okay performances in 2010, skip a year and then compare the two. It's clearly a flawed methodology - although, I concede, it's a very convenient approach to take in the circumstances.

FWIW - here's the result from our game against the Pies in 2011 under Bailey:

R12, 2011, Collingwood 19.15 (129) d Melbourne 6.5 (41) at MCG.

Why not compare this result with the two games we played against them in 2010?! Seriously.

2012 under Neeld:

R11, 2012, Collingwood 19.15 (129) d Melbourne 13.9 (87) at MCG.

dazzledavey36 · June 9, 2013

I would argue that our defence is as good as it ever was under Bailey. We are still holding the key forwards and still getting smashed by the crumbers. The difference is the amount of opportunities we are giving our opponents. I would love to see the number of opposition goals being generated by turnovers for instance, because that has been one of our biggest issues all year. The reason we are giving up big scores is because of our inability to hold our own in the middle, not because our defence is falling down on the job.

Lol our defensive plan is one of the worst i have ever seen. My country footy club plays better defensively then Melbourne. Bailey had a better defensive side then Neeld..

dazzledavey36 · June 9, 2013

Im angry about 186.

we were 8-9 at that stage, just a game or 2 our of finals.

Its now obvious that it was Cameron Schwab causing all the problems and divisions. Yet bailey gets sacked and that loser Schwab gets to stay and continue to destroy our club.

I hate that guy,

Everyone knows i have a complete hatred for the guy. I got shouted down the other day for "attacking a melbourne supporter that cant come on here and defend themselfs". My response was i didnt give a flying [censored]. How people continue to defend this nutjob has me bewilded.. Edited June 9, 2013 by dazzledavey36

deanox · June 10, 2013

Everyone knows i have a complete hatred for the guy. I got shouted down the other day for "attacking a melbourne supporter that cant come on here and defend themselfs". My response was i didnt give a flying [censored]. How people continue to defend this nutjob has me bewilded..

Attack his actions, name calling isn't appropriate on a published forum (which is what this is) and you can discuss his action and display your disappointment in the situation and his actions without calling names, which doesn't actually add any information.

Discussing their failings is one thing, but

I still maintain that denigrating fellow Melbourne supporters won't get us anywhere.

Return to Glory · June 10, 2013

Off to the game in half an hour. As usual this season, will take to looking at the games of our younger guys. In particular, I'm convinced Michael Evans is a goer and it would be great to see Toumpas perform now that the spotlight is off him a little .

June 10, 2013

Like a lot of things in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
It's not a case of Neeld or Bailey. What needed to happen after we got the mother of all thrashings at Skilled was that a coach with a more defensive mindset and a history of demanding success needed to come in. BUT we overcorrected in who we hired. We went from the most laid back bloke in the league to one of the bigger type A personalities I have seen on the AFL coaching scene (he is starting to relax a little but I feel that is more out of self preservation than a legitimate change of philosophy). The answer was somewhere in-between but that being said, we could have gone down the hard arse route if we had hired an experienced hard arse as opposed to an inexperienced one. Neeld's problem may simply be that because he hasn't been an AFL coach prior to this, his words don't hold as much weight as a Williams or Eade.

robbiefrom13 · June 10, 2013

The fact is that we were a rabble under Bailey. We won a few more games because his mantra was "attack at all cost" and it cost plenty. Our players were soft and undisciplined in defence, and they were being exploited by every team that could run the other way.

Neeld is the opposite. He wants them to be accountable and disciplined first and foremost. The said right from the start that he would not be focusing on how to attack. I think this mas changed somewhat since he first arrived, but it is still evident in the low scores we are producing.

Personally, I will take Neeld's approach over Bailey's. What Bailey was teaching them would have gotten the team to the first week of finals, but no further. What Neeld is teaching has the potential to take the team all the way if they can get the attacking side of things right.

maybe if the AFL gave us a 15 goal start each week we'd get to see what you mean

titan_uranus · June 10, 2013

The only problem with your argument is that our defence was MILES better statistically under Bailey.

Funny how strong perceptions are and how wrong they can be. Neeld talks defence, but there's nothing to back it up.

You are sucked in by him obviously. Gonna have to win more than one game to test out Neeld's "finals winning football".

I'm interested - which statistics are those? Are they based on Bailey's first two years, or all four?

You may well have statistics to back you up, but our game back in 2010-2011 was attack at all costs, that much is undeniable. Bailey pushed numbers behind the ball to run forward and score heavily - it worked against sides who weren't prepared or good enough to defend, but against decent sides we were just as uncompetitive as we are now under Neeld.

We were supposed to push on from 8 wins - 9 losses (what Bailey got sacked at) to the finals. There was never any talk of going backwards to become one of the least competitive teams in the history of the AFL/VFL.

That's been Neeld's effect thus far. Neeld took over a team that was ready to challenge for 7th-10th place. A team that was well ahead of Richmond and just behind the Kangas. His mandate was to bring the accountability perceived to be lacking in Bailey's gameplan. You cant say "Neeld's only 2 years in". Neeld took over a list that was capable of thrashing Sydney two years ago.

Bailey build the list that could do it, on a shoestring, while tanking orders were coming down from above. Neeld took over and should have rammed us forward. But he made blunder after blunder and will leave us a rabble.

Were we 'supposed to push on'? Or was Neeld brought in to start again, given Bailey had put our list in a situation that was never going to win us a flag? You say there was never talk of us going backwards - are you sure?

Neeld is only two years in - that's a fact, Demonstrative. Sorry if you don't like it. Neeld's mantra and game plan is starkly different from Bailey's. Why was Bailey afforded two free years that his supporters are now all just wanting to ignore, when Neeld doesn't get that luxury? Bailey was brought in to change the club after Daniher; Neeld was brought in to change the club after Bailey. They both changed the list, both brought new thoughts and strategies.

Bailey built a list that could win games. He did not build a list that could win a premiership. We were wildly inconsistent, ranging from thrashing clubs when things went our way, to getting hammered and being uncompetitive against even lesser clubs (remember the West Coast game in 2011? The loss to North Melbourne despite us coming off three wins and them having just one win all year? Losing to Collingwood on QBD by 88, not giving a yelp? Losing to the Bulldogs on Friday night by 64, when we were above them on the ladder?).

Pitchy · June 10, 2013

Were we 'supposed to push on'? Or was Neeld brought in to start again, given Bailey had put our list in a situation that was never going to win us a flag? You say there was never talk of us going backwards - are you sure?

Neeld is only two years in - that's a fact, Demonstrative. Sorry if you don't like it. Neeld's mantra and game plan is starkly different from Bailey's. Why was Bailey afforded two free years that his supporters are now all just wanting to ignore, when Neeld doesn't get that luxury? Bailey was brought in to change the club after Daniher; Neeld was brought in to change the club after Bailey. They both changed the list, both brought new thoughts and strategies.

Bailey built a list that could win games. He did not build a list that could win a premiership. We were wildly inconsistent, ranging from thrashing clubs when things went our way, to getting hammered and being uncompetitive against even lesser clubs (remember the West Coast game in 2011? The loss to North Melbourne despite us coming off three wins and them having just one win all year? Losing to Collingwood on QBD by 88, not giving a yelp? Losing to the Bulldogs on Friday night by 64, when we were above them on the ladder?).

There you said it! Bailey built a list that could win games. Why can't another coach win games with that list?

A better coach moves forward like Mick Malthouse at Carlton. The losses under Bailey you point out are nothing compared to what we are now. We, like Carlton did last year, hired someone to take us to the next level. Surely you aren't saying that we hoped Neeld to take us to this position?

Rhino Richards · June 10, 2013

Oh, you mean the 12 month period commencing halfway during Bailey's third year?

Given that he spent the first two years manufacturing sub 5 win outcomes for a Board approved tanking strategy to secure draft picks then his 3rd year its a fair assessment.

Little Richard · June 10, 2013

Given that he spent the first two years manufacturing sub 5 win outcomes for a Board approved tanking strategy to secure draft picks then his 3rd year its a fair assessment.

Do you really think we could have won more games than that if we tried? We were terrible. Aside from the Richmond game, no others stand out as having should have won.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Django

Rhino Richards · June 10, 2013

Neeld is only two years in - that's a fact, Demonstrative. Sorry if you don't like it. Neeld's mantra and game plan is starkly different from Bailey's. Why was Bailey afforded two free years that his supporters are now all just wanting to ignore, when Neeld doesn't get that luxury? Bailey was brought in to change the club after Daniher; Neeld was brought in to change the club after Bailey. They both changed the list, both brought new thoughts and strategies.

Bailey built a list that could win games. He did not build a list that could win a premiership. We were wildly inconsistent, ranging from thrashing clubs when things went our way, to getting hammered and being uncompetitive against even lesser clubs (remember the West Coast game in 2011? The loss to North Melbourne despite us coming off three wins and them having just one win all year? Losing to Collingwood on QBD by 88, not giving a yelp? Losing to the Bulldogs on Friday night by 64, when we were above them on the ladder?).

Neeld is only two years in and it's clear from what has transpired to date is that he is part of the problem with the FD.

And Bailey was afforded 2 extra years because it was acknowledged he coached with one arm tied playing for draft picks.

And is noticeable you have had to cherry pick Bailey's losses to find a foothold to justify Neeld. Hell you take nearly any of Neelds losses and they rank as poorly as the worst of Bailey.

Bailey was a flawed coach who time at MFC was undermined by a crippled list he inherited, a ineptly managed tanking strategy, an under resourced FD and some terrible recruiting. However, given what I have seen under Neeld he looks like a genius.

The only thing more excruciating than watch MFC play over the past two years has been some of the appalling efforts to talk up and justify Neelds time as something other than another blundered and wasted opportunity by this Board.

Rhino Richards · June 10, 2013

Do you really think we could have won more games than that if we tried? We were terrible. Aside from the Richmond game, no others stand out as having should have won.

Yes we could have been a chance but we will never know because in a number of games we knee capped any opportunity for the side to perform to its capability. And it's clear this strategy impacted adversely on a number of players.

At least in these games we were in the mix. Rd 7 at Subi - lost the Eagles by 8 pts. Rd 8 lost to WB by 8 pts. Sydney at the G by 18 pts and of course Richmond by 4 pts in the famous Jordan McMahon cup match.

And after we trounced Freo by 63 points at the G late in the season (our 4th for the season) it was clear the cue was back in the rack for MFC and games we probably would have lost were made certain losses by some of the most unusual positional moves you would see.

Mind you If we had any of those close winning margins under Neeld, his supporters would calling him the messiah!!!!

71 Molloy · June 10, 2013

Neeld is a terrible coach because of Bailey now... ughhhhh... That's the Neeld school of excuses shining through there

Didn't say that.

Just pointing out that any coach would have had difficulty turing this group around.

titan_uranus · June 10, 2013

Given that he spent the first two years manufacturing sub 5 win outcomes for a Board approved tanking strategy to secure draft picks then his 3rd year its a fair assessment.

Neeld is only two years in and it's clear from what has transpired to date is that he is part of the problem with the FD.

And Bailey was afforded 2 extra years because it was acknowledged he coached with one arm tied playing for draft picks.

And is noticeable you have had to cherry pick Bailey's losses to find a foothold to justify Neeld. Hell you take nearly any of Neelds losses and they rank as poorly as the worst of Bailey.

Bailey was a flawed coach who time at MFC was undermined by a crippled list he inherited, a ineptly managed tanking strategy, an under resourced FD and some terrible recruiting. However, given what I have seen under Neeld he looks like a genius.

The only thing more excruciating than watch MFC play over the past two years has been some of the appalling efforts to talk up and justify Neelds time as something other than another blundered and wasted opportunity by this Board.

Yes we could have been a chance but we will never know because in a number of games we knee capped any opportunity for the side to perform to its capability. And it's clear this strategy impacted adversely on a number of players.

At least in these games we were in the mix. Rd 7 at Subi - lost the Eagles by 8 pts. Rd 8 lost to WB by 8 pts. Sydney at the G by 18 pts and of course Richmond by 4 pts in the famous Jordan McMahon cup match.

And after we trounced Freo by 63 points at the G late in the season (our 4th for the season) it was clear the cue was back in the rack for MFC and games we probably would have lost were made certain losses by some of the most unusual positional moves you would see.

Mind you If we had any of those close winning margins under Neeld, his supporters would calling him the messiah!!!!

Your position on this is absolute tripe, RR, though I have come to expect that from you.

Any tanking, if it did occur, did so in 2009. Not 2008. At any rate, Bailey's first two years, tanking or otherwise, gave him two years to implement development, to build relationships, to teach, to learn, to set in place what he wanted. You cannot write those off because he was told to tank. That may explain our uncompetitiveness in 2009, but it doesn't explain it in 2008, and at any rate, it doesn't change the fact that Bailey had two years with the group before he began to get something out of them.

I am not justifying Neeld, I am attacking arguments which seem to suggest that Dean Bailey was a good coach. He was not. I didn't 'cherrypick' games, RR, I referred to games in which we were non-competitive. That's what transpired. Of course, what do you care, you've gone and 'cherrypicked' yourself - mind you, you've picked games where we were competitive, but lost, to the 11th (West Coast), 12th (Sydney) and 15th (Richmond) sides. Yes, we ran the Dogs to 7 points, who then made a preliminary final. But that doesn't change my point - under Bailey we were not consistently competitive. He was not a good coach.

And then to suggest that if it weren't for the tanking directive, we would have been more competitive, is absolute rubbish. We were a terrible side, we might have won one or two more matches at most. You're attempting to make it sound like we took a premiership, or even finals-quality list, and abused it for draft picks. We did not.

Unfortunately for you (maybe I should call you a 'Bailey apologist'?), Bailey was not able to get our list, in his four years with the club, into a position that was threatening in any way. We beat up on sides when we had a good day, but we were still at our core weak, unfit, not defensive and not capable of winning a flag.