I think Bailey had some vision on the playing front but didn't have the steel to take on Schwab and Connolly. If what they are saying about those two is true, he needed to turn around and tell the board 'either they stop what they are doing or I leave'. He was on a hiding to nothing and if he had done that, maybe things would have turned out differently.

I mean vision more around culture - Neeld definitely understood that we needed a complete shake up culturally - unfortunately from what he could control he didn't have the competency to create change.

As you say Bailey may have had the vision but not the cohones to take on S&C.

I mean vision more around culture - Neeld definitely understood that we needed a complete shake up culturally - unfortunately from what he could control he didn't have the competency to create change.

As you say Bailey may have had the vision but not the cohones to take on S&C.

Maybe that was part of his problem. Too much vision (i.e. too rigid) and not enough ability to accept facts on the ground. I think he should have promoted his vision a little more progressively. But then again, maybe a radical solution was needed? Who knows?

Maybe that was part of his problem. Too much vision (i.e. too rigid) and not enough ability to accept facts on the ground. I think he should have promoted his vision a little more progressively. But then again, maybe a radical solution was needed? Who knows?

sometimes it takes a complete breakdown,and the vision becomes clear and the clean up becomes easier.

the good things neeld did

built young blokes in ressies and kept thier exposure to harder bodies ,confined and protected.

terlich,let him run with mistakes.ok in an average team,but its easier to damper those errors when you can show them.

and the new coach will,be a better player with confidence for it,now not afraid to get pill.

got game time into new rucks while jamar injured,good

rebuilt main backs,good

saw grime/trenners get mid time,this was needed to prove to the pair of them that they are just gravediggers.

players ended up hating the game and coach,this taught them to accept the new coach and philosophies,

im not over playing this,we are in for a big year,the minor fill in players have got game time under thier belts and the new recruits will buck up the midfield,the new coach doesnt accept mistakes of turning the footy over without an out of bounds throw in

all in all the last 4 years will prepare for the next 3

I think Bailey had some vision on the playing front but didn't have the steel to take on Schwab and Connolly. If what they are saying about those two is true, he needed to turn around and tell the board 'either they stop what they are doing or I leave'. He was on a hiding to nothing and if he had done that, maybe things would have turned out differently.

Perhaps, but when it did finally come down to a Bailey vs Schwab situation, the Board backed Schwab & sacked Bailey. If he'd confronted them earlier, the odds are that the same would have happened, and the only thing that would have "turned out differently" is that it would have happened earlier than it did.

I've always wondered whether 186 was a horribly misguided ploy by the players to bring "Bailey vs Schwab" to a head, hoping the BOard would back the coach, not realising that in such a situation, any Board is just about obliged to always back their CEO (who is often their only source of information) against anybody, unless they have watertight information to the contrary from elsewhere.

So Bailey was always "coaching to instructions", & could never really do what he wanted. And as soon as he did "take on Schwab & Connolly", he was sacked.

Perhaps, but when it did finally come down to a Bailey vs Schwab situation, the Board backed Schwab & sacked Bailey. If he'd confronted them earlier, the odds are that the same would have happened, and the only thing that would have "turned out differently" is that it would have happened earlier than it did.

I've always wondered whether 186 was a horribly misguided ploy by the players to bring "Bailey vs Schwab" to a head, hoping the BOard would back the coach, not realising that in such a situation, any Board is just about obliged to always back their CEO (who is often their only source of information) against anybody, unless they have watertight information to the contrary from elsewhere.

So Bailey was always "coaching to instructions", & could never really do what he wanted. And as soon as he did "take on Schwab & Connolly", he was sacked.

And the festering issue was not solved by hiring Neeld. Neeld by default became part of the Schwab faction and I think any coach no matter how good would have been in a no win situation as long as Schwab and Co remained. I believe Neeld was a bit naive to what he got himself into and was expecting. I seriously doubt an experienced coach would have ever taken the job on or even considered it during the post 186 environment. They would have smelt the rat in the hole

Perhaps, but when it did finally come down to a Bailey vs Schwab situation, the Board backed Schwab & sacked Bailey. If he'd confronted them earlier, the odds are that the same would have happened, and the only thing that would have "turned out differently" is that it would have happened earlier than it did.

I've always wondered whether 186 was a horribly misguided ploy by the players to bring "Bailey vs Schwab" to a head, hoping the BOard would back the coach, not realising that in such a situation, any Board is just about obliged to always back their CEO (who is often their only source of information) against anybody, unless they have watertight information to the contrary from elsewhere.

So Bailey was always "coaching to instructions", & could never really do what he wanted. And as soon as he did "take on Schwab & Connolly", he was sacked.

I don't think history backs you up on that one Akum. From all accounts, Schwab was gone come the game against Geelong. It was the hiding that we received that ultimately saved his bacon. I am no fan of what the man did in his second stint at the club but let's not change the situation into something it never was.

I think Bailey may have lost in an earlier showdown against Schwab but I think it would have given him greater longevity as a coach. I think the industry knew that he was coaching to 'instructions' in 2009 and if he had fronted the board at the end of 2010 with an ultimatum of 'he backs off or I go' then even if he had lost that showdown, he would have been able to have gotten a job in the future (perhaps).

Neeld had poor vision as evidenced by his wearing of glasses, Bailey was balding and I believe this caused him much angst which detracted from the job at hand

Both Bailey and Neeld had their strengths and their weaknesses, though not all of our (massive) failings can be attributed to them alone.

But neither was ready to be head coach of an AFL side, and I suspect that there won't be too many more senior coaches appointed after only a few years in the system. The career paths of Hinkley, McCarthy and Richardson are more what we'll see in the future I imagine, as we move more into line with other sports where head coaches are often "senior" in every sense of the word. Coaches are going to need to spend either a lot longer as assistants, or longer in the lower leagues - though for the moment, that's not a recognised career path either. Will be interesting to see where Nathan Bassett ends up.

Very few players consistently play 22 games per season. I believe we had two last season (Jones x 2) but happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.

I had at look at this in a bit of detail a few years ago. I examined about a dozen clubs over I think three seasons, looking specifically at:

Number of players who played every game in a season (including finals if applicable)

Result: An average of 6 per club with a surprisingly low standard deviation.

Number of players who played most games (I think i set the line as 18+ out of 22, adjusted for finals depending on me mood)

Result: Coincidentally, another average of 6 per club, though this one was a little more varied.

So from that you can conclude that most clubs see about half their 'best 22' play solidly through a season.

Sydney was a positive anomaly at the time, with a noticeably high number of players who played 'most' games, which as no one will be surprise to see, suggests really good conditioning, injury management and medical, as opposed to dumb luck of being injury-free.

Melbourne, yep, we were particularly short on players who played a full season. For instance, remember the B&F year a few years back where two of the top three accepted their awards while carrying bandages/casts? What a year.

And it seems we still have a serious problem with getting players through a full season, even acknowledging that the portion of our team 'settled' into the best 22 is much lower than most. Just 2 in 2013 is alarming.

Both Bailey and Neeld had their strengths and their weaknesses, though not all of our (massive) failings can be attributed to them alone.

But neither was ready to be head coach of an AFL side, and I suspect that there won't be too many more senior coaches appointed after only a few years in the system. The career paths of Hinkley, McCarthy and Richardson are more what we'll see in the future I imagine, as we move more into line with other sports where head coaches are often "senior" in every sense of the word. Coaches are going to need to spend either a lot longer as assistants, or longer in the lower leagues - though for the moment, that's not a recognised career path either. Will be interesting to see where Nathan Bassett ends up.

I don't think anyone is holding either Coach solely responsible for the MFC disaster. However they should be accountable for their duties. And while both failed Neeld kept his strengths well camouflaged.

I thought Bailey had served a decent apprenticeship prior to the MFC role but was not up to it. Neeld a poor choice as a result of an inept process.

It's good Hinkley, Richardson and McCartney have their chance now. I don't think there necessarily the role model of the future bu their apprenticeship reflects the demand for and supply of coaches and the fact they did not seem to win out in earlier job interviews.

I don't think history backs you up on that one Akum. From all accounts, Schwab was gone come the game against Geelong. It was the hiding that we received that ultimately saved his bacon. I am no fan of what the man did in his second stint at the club but let's not change the situation into something it never was.

I think Bailey may have lost in an earlier showdown against Schwab but I think it would have given him greater longevity as a coach. I think the industry knew that he was coaching to 'instructions' in 2009 and if he had fronted the board at the end of 2010 with an ultimatum of 'he backs off or I go' then even if he had lost that showdown, he would have been able to have gotten a job in the future (perhaps).

You are correct on Schwab but Bailey (186 or not) was in his last year in 2011.

Neeld had poor vision as evidenced by his wearing of glasses, Bailey was balding and I believe this caused him much angst which detracted from the job at hand

Dam and I thought that he was bad becaue of Moonie, Biff and BBO

You are correct on Schwab but Bailey (186 or not) was in his last year in 2009.

?

So who coached us in 2010 and 2011?

?

So who coached us in 2010 and 2011?

Doh. Correction made.

You are correct on Schwab but Bailey (186 or not) was in his last year in 2011.

Wasn't it a case that they were both in the last years of their current contracts? I got the feeling as well that Bailey had been set a pass mark of 10 wins but that was out the window after 186.

Wasn't it a case that they were both in their last years of their current contracts? I got the feeling as well that Bailey had been set a pass mark of 10 wins but that was out the window after 186.

Neeld had 18 moths to go on his contract.

I was count it down by the minute, as everyone knows in DL I was such a Neeld fanboy.

Wasn't it a case that they were both in the last years of their current contracts? I got the feeling as well that Bailey had been set a pass mark of 10 wins but that was out the window after 186.

I think thats right Colin. The inconsistency of performance under Bailey prior to 186 was the big issue. And given the lobby against Bailey from within the FD made his chances of contact renewal highly unlikely.

Neeld had poor vision as evidenced by his wearing of glasses, Bailey was balding and I believe this caused him much angst which detracted from the job at hand

Lord, don't you wear glasses and are balding (See Avatar) LOL

I think thats right Colin. The inconsistency of performance under Bailey prior to 186 was the big issue. And given the lobby against Bailey from within the FD made his chances of contact renewal highly unlikely.

I thought Bailey had been given a year's extension to his contract during 2010, partly to head off any media speculation about his future in the final year of his contract.

I also recall there being some discomfort among some Demonlanders about that, on the grounds that if the Board really had faith in him as our coach into the future, they would have simply offered him a new 3-year contract.

On the other hand, the extension seemed to indicate that there were misgivings about him, that they really weren't sure whether he was our future coach or not. In other words, the extension meant that his position really wasn't as secure as it seemed.

What irks me though is standing next to supporters who lazily criticise his decision to go with Trengove and Grimes as captain. You can be a monkey and state that "Grimes and Trenners" were too young and should not have been given the gig.

In the HS article Roos said of Trengove "Roos is blunt: he plans to rebuild Trengove's game.

"I have seen some positive signs with Jack. What we need to do is reconstruct his game. He has been the captain and he's never been able to solely worry about his game."

Well back to the opening post and it seems that Roos is not of your opinion TGR. For all Trengove and Grimes might have been good leadership material they were not ready for it and it hurt Jack Trengove significantly.

In the HS article Roos said of Trengove "Roos is blunt: he plans to rebuild Trengove's game.

"I have seen some positive signs with Jack. What we need to do is reconstruct his game. He has been the captain and he's never been able to solely worry about his game."

Well back to the opening post and it seems that Roos is not of your opinion TGR. For all Trengove and Grimes might have been good leadership material they were not ready for it and it hurt Jack Trengove significantly.

I don't really see how it follows from Roos' comments that TGR's view is incorrect. Trenners came to the club as #2 choice in the 2009 draft and has had two regular coaches and two stand-in coaches in that time who have all failed to bring the best out in him. He has been particularly restricted by a series of injury concerns over the seasons during which he was captain and his game is in need of a rebuild after that. This is what Roos addresses. He might have an opinion about how the captaincy might have affected him but he doesn't know for sure because he wasn't close enough to the club. However, giving the player a place in the reduced leadership group and his demeanour under fire in the difficult times, suggests to me that on balance, TGR got his thesis right.

As far as Neeld goes, he may have been a consummate failure, but I wonder how Roos would have fared coming into the club if Neeld hadn't lifted the training standards to a professional level (pretty much the only thing he managed to get right).

As far as Neeld goes, he may have been a consummate failure, but I wonder how Roos would have fared coming into the club if Neeld hadn't lifted the training standards to a professional level (pretty much the only thing he managed to get right).

Can you explain this to me. What evidence do you have that we were fitter and better prepared under Neeld than Bailey.

I certainly didn't see any evidence on field and I find it hard to believe that a team that won just under 40% of its games over two seasons was as far off the pace as many suggest.

I think Bailey had the team far fitter than Neeld ever did.

Mental fitness is just as important as physical

Can you explain this to me. What evidence do you have that we were fitter and better prepared under Neeld than Bailey.

I certainly didn't see any evidence on field and I find it hard to believe that a team that won just under 40% of its games over two seasons was as far off the pace as many suggest.

I think it's been stated many times by many people.

I'm surprised to hear you've managed to miss it.

And now Roos himself has said that its something that has pleasantly surprised him.