I get sick of journalists dumping on the Dees. In Jake Niall's article Damaged Goods, he makes the point that Neil Daniher 'even managed to lift the dismal dees' into the finals in the 90's. I emailed him, pointing out that Melbourne, far from being dismal, had featured in six of the preceding ten final series, including three prelims and a grand final.

Our club had quite a successful record in the AFL until the Daniher demise in the mid 2000s and Daniher was a good coach although he did fail to renew the list towards the end of his tenure.

Actually BD, the article does mention Daniher's record of six finals appearances and a grand final and I don't think he's dumping on either Daniher or Melbourne in the article. He's making the point about some coaches coming out of fashion and being unfairly thrown on the scrapheap.

  On 22/02/2014 at 20:51, Whispering_Jack said:

Actually BD, the article does mention Daniher's record of six finals appearances and a grand final and I don't think he's dumping on either Daniher or Melbourne in the article. He's making the point about some coaches coming out of fashion and being unfairly thrown on the scrapheap.

While you're right that the gist of the article is that coaches quickly get written off after being seen to have 'failed' as senior coach, bush demon's point is that Jake Niall talks up ND's achievement as if it's so amazing because he was coaching at the 'dismal dees' - 'that's right folks - he managed that record at MELBOURNE'. However, if we made finals in 6/10 years before ND's arrival, as bush demon asserts, then we were hardly dismal at that stage.

As for the article's main point, I think Niall's final line sums it up: 'AFL clubs worry too much about whether they can ''sell'' a coach, and they don't think they can sell anyone without the sheen of success'. It's why someone like Knights, despite undoubtedly being a better Coach in a second incarnation, is unlikely to ever get a crack at a senior gig again. It's much easier for a Board to either go for an untested coach or someone with proven success, rather than risk explaining why you've gone for someone who was seen as a failure.

You can't compare Jake Niall with the likes of Denham, Barrett and Wilson who have it in for our club and often write and say things because they have agendas. Daniher went out of fashion because he stayed too long at one club without tasting ultimate success. I would imagine he would have been much sought after if available in the mid 2000s but those last couple of seasons saw him associated with a steep decline and a sacking.

I hate Denham, the guy makes stuff up to create a story and sell papers. But he was right about Melbourne and how incompetent we were.

The only remedy for this is to re-establish our success in the 1990s and early 2000's. They wrote the same stuff when Neil Balm was sacked in 1998, but we made the finals in 1999 and the grand in 2000. No-one called us the dismal Dees then, except in as much as we were uncompetive against Sheedy's "greatest Essendon side" in the Grand.

Success will shut this talk up right away. I must say the publicity we have got with the arrival of Roos and our good first up showing against Richmond has been almost universally positive. I get the impression much of the football community would like to see us do well. It is almost as though many opposition supporters from Melbourne clubs have us as their "second team", replacing the Swans as it might have been ten years ago. Even Barrett and Wilson have been very quiet about our first outing against the Tiges.

I think Mcguie's attitude is more insidious. He makes very positive noises about what a wonderful Club Melbourne is, but opposes vociferously behind closed doors any move by the AFL on equalization and aid to us to re-establish ourselves from the AFL post the Neeld disaster. He in my view is far more dangerous. Fortunately we have an equally "tough nut" in Peter Jackson so I have no doubt we will survive and prosper again in the medium term.

  On 22/02/2014 at 20:51, Whispering_Jack said:

Actually BD, the article does mention Daniher's record of six finals appearances and a grand final and I don't think he's dumping on either Daniher or Melbourne in the article. He's making the point about some coaches coming out of fashion and being unfairly thrown on the scrapheap.

You may be misreading the OP.

He's referring to the ten years before Daniher took over, dating back to 1987/88, if I'm not mistaken.

Dannihers biggest failing at Melbourne was not being able to reload and improve during the "odd years" of 1999-2003.

For whatever reason he could not extract consistantcy.

footy journos have very very very short memories

  On 23/02/2014 at 00:22, biggestred said:

footy journos have very very very short memories

Correct. It is fashionable to call us dismal at the moment.

That will change. Just look at the eyes of both PJ & Roos.

They are not losers. PJ wasn't on the phone for 6 months to Roos for nothing.

  On 23/02/2014 at 00:22, biggestred said:

footy journos have very very very short memories

Spot on. I remember back in 1997, we were apparently the next Fitzroy then and it would take 10 years to improve. Next year, we were one game away from the GF.

If there was a ladder for late 80's, 90's and up until 2005 we would've been quite good. We had our moments in the 90's where things went wrong but those were the days that if you had some talent on your list and ability to coach things could turn around pretty quickly.

The last few years with the introduction of GWS and GC and the monumental increase in footy department spending at a time where a number of clubs including us still aren't financially secure has made it hard to turn things around.

I know he left in pretty bad circumstances but Bailey with proper sports science, training, recruiting and coaching budgets very well could've made it as I coach I believe. If he succeeded then there would've been cause for the 'even made it at the dismal dees' line.

If Roos turns this club around it will be a huge testament to his ability as a coach. But it will also likely mean Peter Jackson has done a fantastic job as CEO, Todd Viney in list management, Jason Taylor in recruiting and Dave Misson in sports science.

The point about Daniher not getting another senior gig is interesting but I would've thought after nearly a decade coaching the Dees he would've been happy with the West Coast job for a time and then probably felt once he settled in to that job there wasn't much point going for another ride on the coaching bandwagon.

I do think Roos should be considering Brett Ratten for the senior assistant and successor job. And Voss or Matty Knights could be worth an interview at least if they had strong interest. But Ratten was great as our midfield coach. And took a limited Carlton team from a mess to the 8 by developing young talent. Plus I think the recruiters he had working for him were pretty average besides from getting the number 1 picks somewhat right. If Ratten had a weakness it might have been his tactical knowledge but that would be improved by working under Clarkson and I think Ratten would be receptive to Roos' philosophies on defensive play, stoppages and ball control.

  On 23/02/2014 at 00:22, biggestred said:

footy journos have very very very short memories

Because quick sensationalism is always easier to sell than long term perspective.

I don't buy newspapers anymore although I miss the quiet 2 hours on Saturday morning with a coffee reading the paper from front to back. I don't subscribe to any online newspapers. 3 reasons why:

1) The standard of most writing, grammar, expression and general phrasing has slipped so far it is now pitched at 16 year old girls. Most written journalism is magazine/soundbyte in style.
2) Many journos now report rumour because they can't be bothered investigating sources.

3) Many journalists prefer their own fame to being silent middle men or conduits for public information.

The above three reasons scream the loudest from sports journalists, and in particular AFL people like Barrett, Wilson and co.

I have to tolerate sports journalism or I get no news at all but I just read results game info and stats. The rest of it is fairy-floss sugary carp.

Finalists 1987-91, including GF in 1988 under Northey, finalists again 1994 under Balme so that's your 6/10 before Daniher.

But we were wooden spooners in 1997, the year before Neale D took over and lifted us back into the finals so Jake N can defend himself on the basis we were dismal when Neale took over, but I think he is consciously writing from the perspective of a contemporary spectator.

Jake gets that most football people now still regard us as rubbish and he is emphasising Daniher's achievement perhaps also because we were (are) under resourced compared to the power clubs.

I must say I have never sensed that Jake Niall was anything but a fair observer of the game and he has written some good insightful stuff about us.

He is not a Denham trying to big note himself on radio by bullying the perceived weaklings.

I'm giving Jake a pass on this although I wish had had not capitalised our name in that context. That was unnecessary.

Barrett has been quiet for a while must have realised north really aren't that flash

I thought Niall's article was a good one. His opinion that former coaches are more valued in other codes, and should be more valued in the AFL is a good one. If the only gripe is the use of the word "dismal" I think that shows a thin-skinned attitude.

Just thought I'd mention that I got a reply from Jake. I have asked him if he minds me printing his reply here.

  On 23/02/2014 at 09:45, bush demon said:

Just thought I'd mention that I got a reply from Jake. I have asked him if he minds me printing his reply here.

And?..

Niall: "Yes, Northey did well at the Dees, you're right (and Balme had them fourth in 1994), but I reckon the club was - relative to the competition - in better shape than when ND took over, when it was on the bottom and had major issues with finances, resources, facilities and disunity. The CEO job was a revolving door - he had several. Implicitly, the point is that they haven't fared so well since ND, who did more than enough to get another job (eg Essendon). ND seemed to help hold the Dees together."

Jake didn't really acknowledge my complaint, that he casting Melbourne as "dismal" going back to the 90's, which just isn't the case. I thanked him for his response.

  On 23/02/2014 at 15:45, bush demon said:

Niall: "Yes, Northey did well at the Dees, you're right (and Balme had them fourth in 1994), but I reckon the club was - relative to the competition - in better shape than when ND took over, when it was on the bottom and had major issues with finances, resources, facilities and disunity. The CEO job was a revolving door - he had several. Implicitly, the point is that they haven't fared so well since ND, who did more than enough to get another job (eg Essendon). ND seemed to help hold the Dees together."

Jake didn't really acknowledge my complaint, that he casting Melbourne as "dismal" going back to the 90's, which just isn't the case. I thanked him for his response.

Cannot sleep bush demon?

2.45 AM! Wow

  On 23/02/2014 at 04:36, pitmaster said:

Finalists 1987-91, including GF in 1988 under Northey, finalists again 1994 under Balme so that's your 6/10 before Daniher.

But we were wooden spooners in 1997, the year before Neale D took over and lifted us back into the finals so Jake N can defend himself on the basis we were dismal when Neale took over, but I think he is consciously writing from the perspective of a contemporary spectator.

Jake gets that most football people now still regard us as rubbish and he is emphasising Daniher's achievement perhaps also because we were (are) under resourced compared to the power clubs.

I must say I have never sensed that Jake Niall was anything but a fair observer of the game and he has written some good insightful stuff about us.

He is not a Denham trying to big note himself on radio by bullying the perceived weaklings.

I'm giving Jake a pass on this although I wish had had not capitalised our name in that context. That was unnecessary.

  On 23/02/2014 at 15:45, bush demon said:

Niall: "Yes, Northey did well at the Dees, you're right (and Balme had them fourth in 1994), but I reckon the club was - relative to the competition - in better shape than when ND took over, when it was on the bottom and had major issues with finances, resources, facilities and disunity. The CEO job was a revolving door - he had several. Implicitly, the point is that they haven't fared so well since ND, who did more than enough to get another job (eg Essendon). ND seemed to help hold the Dees together."

Jake didn't really acknowledge my complaint, that he casting Melbourne as "dismal" going back to the 90's, which just isn't the case. I thanked him for his response.

I'm going to boost myself here and say from the reply you received I had it right - he was writing about the state of the place that Neale inherited as opposed to the fact we were a well performed, albeit non-premiership club in the previous decade - as well as our chronic low level resources, something we still have not fixed, and may never fix.

Daniher's Dees were consistently inconsistent.

Reality is that had the club made the right choice after the '03 season and decided to move him on, the club would be different now: it would have been able to build a young list around experienced leaders that, as history shows, had 4-5 years left.

Daniher was at the club for four years too long. Great bloke and great coach for '08-2000, but '02 was a massive underachievement after a dismal opening against Adelaide in the semi (we'd have pushed for the flag that year had it shown up in the first 20 minutes of that match), and '03 was truly "dismal". Kept players on for longer than he should have, and seemed to lack a "plan B". The club got way too comfortable with him and it cost the club, big time.

  On 23/02/2014 at 15:45, bush demon said:

Niall: "Yes, Northey did well at the Dees, you're right (and Balme had them fourth in 1994), but I reckon the club was - relative to the competition - in better shape than when ND took over, when it was on the bottom and had major issues with finances, resources, facilities and disunity. The CEO job was a revolving door - he had several. Implicitly, the point is that they haven't fared so well since ND, who did more than enough to get another job (eg Essendon). ND seemed to help hold the Dees together."

Jake didn't really acknowledge my complaint, that he casting Melbourne as "dismal" going back to the 90's, which just isn't the case. I thanked him for his response.

Hmm, looks to me like Niall had an honest perspective on the Demon's being a dysfunctional club in the late 90s early 2000s, but his writing gave the impression of painting the Demon's late-2000s hideous malaise as being a permanent condition. That's plainly unreasonable and demeaning.

  On 24/02/2014 at 04:08, Little Goffy said:

Hmm, looks to me like Niall had an honest perspective on the Demon's being a dysfunctional club in the late 90s early 2000s, but his writing gave the impression of painting the Demon's late-2000s hideous malaise as being a permanent condition. That's plainly unreasonable and demeaning.

It is now fifty years since the last flag for all but about a dozen years of that time we have been the easy beats of the league.

Also a fair percentage of that time our administrations could not beat time with a stick.

We have been mostly mired in a different era.

While not permanent it has been high percentage of half a century.

Not a lot to be proud of over fifty years IMO.