13 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Fitness and conditioning were a huge issue with the playing list - which also comes down to how the coach was being supported by the football department.  This, coupled with a huge loss of experienced players, meant that oppositions would get on huge run-ons against us and were were never able to stem the flow.  There was neither the physical condition, nor the cooler, older heads to lead the younger players.

The biggest mistakes of that era was that too many senior players were moved on too quickly and that the senior players that were retained, or the ones we hoped would step up to be the next leaders of the club, were not suitable for the role.  We needed Bruce, Robertson, Yze, Rivers, McLean and Davey to be the next generation of leaders, but Green was the only one to flourish under that pressure.

I think all those players you have listed above were moved on at the right time. 

We just replaced them with shocking and i mean shocking choices...

Perhaps Howcroft's 'letter" was in some way cathartic for him and if so, that is understandable.  As dark as those days were, Dean Bailey did a fine job under the circumstances, but he was obviously undermined on a continual basis.

In terms of "186' and why the players let it happen?  I suspect the players knew that DB had, at least, one hand tied behind his back and a pervading culture that top 10 draft picks would fix all our ills.  The players had had enough of the machinations of the footy department as it was then.

Anyway, it is all done now.  RIP Dean.

57 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think all those players you have listed above were moved on at the right time. 

We just replaced them with shocking and i mean shocking choices...

I agree that they were moved on at the right time- the issue is there wasn't a David Neitz or James McDonald amongst them.

I feel like I've been reading threads for the last 5 years on how crap we were. Now the sun is shining, and I'm still reading these threads.

Bails was definitely a gentleman in the truest sense of the word, and is missed. Breakfast with Bails is a great read if you haven't read it.

Time for positive (with constructive criticism) threads about a winning team and culture. 

5 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

This 'protest' part has never made sense to me; how could a coach, who was already under pressure to retain his job, survive a 186 point defeat?  It'll all come out one day but it is a very sad chapter in our club's history.

 

I have no issues with this article, these events should be remembered if for no other reason than to remind all of us that the figures at the club are all human beings.

It could have had to do with Bailey standing by the board and supporting them whenever they got involved in on-field matters, such was the nature of his professionalism and personality. It may have been a last resort for a playing group that, despite loving Bailey, really had no where to turn.

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes. Class in spades. 

At the time, after 186 I wanted Bails to go. But we didn't know the full story (although it started to come out the previous week)

The position of CS should never have been preserved, regardless of the consequences. 

But what i never understand was..If the players loved Bails so much, how did they allow 186 to occur. 

Was Dean given assurances that were not upheld?

Ive never understood that either swyl

It casued a reaction but sadly we now know it was the wrong reaction 

Surely there was a better way then 186

5 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Ive never understood that either swyl

It casued a reaction but sadly we now know it was the wrong reaction 

Surely there was a better way then 186

You would think so. But then how bad was it it in the top office?

must have been really putrid and much blame must be put on the board of the day which did and said nothing. 

Until today

I was a huge fan of Dean Bailey. I used to attend a fair bit of Dees training at Casey Fields, and watching them practice attacking running patterns under his eye was an amazing thing to behold. What could have been! 

The Neeld era was another matter. I remember the wooden spoons and failures of the 1970's but the Neeld era was the entire club failing, from playing list to President. I remain indebted to PJ, Bartlett and Roos for the MFC salvation. 

6 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

I'll tell you what played a big role in the demise of Dean Bailey (and also Neeld).

Between 2007 & 2010 we had some reasonably high draft picks which should have been used to rebuild the Club.

Our selections in that time included Cale Morton, Addam Maric, Sam Blease, James Strauss, Rohan Bail, Jordan Gysberts & Lucas Cook.

 

While I agree with the point your making, it's probably a bit unfair to include Rohan Bail. While all the others you've listed were in the first 20 picks or thereabouts, he was pick 64 and performed above expectations for someone picked that late in the draft.

You must go to funerals to pay respects and comfort the family.  Shame!

I went to Watts' debut which was unremarkable for a player's debut.  I cannot see what there is to agonise over.

Bailey at times seemed competent but big wins and bigger losses.  He accepted tanking which I too believed scarred the players which such abject betrayal should have.

The management of MFC including Howcroft has seemed incapable of having an adult relationship with their senior coach.  Furiously brown-nosing while the team meanders and finally goes over the 186 metre waterfall.  A stout-hearted Board would have insisted that Daniher coach out the year.   After the termination of Balme, Daniher, Bailey and Neeld, the season just got worst.