This to me seems to be part of Bailey's new concept to learn from current/just retired players - The concept of coaching that won him the job.....

I reckon the leadership group is made up more of assistant coach types than just potential leaders. Just my view...... and this explains the lack of youth

Very similar to how Port have utilised retired and even current players into the coaching box ...... Josh Mahoney ring a bell?

Bailey's latest coaching recruits

This to me seems to be part of Bailey's new concept to learn from current/just retired players - The concept of coaching that won him the job.....

I reckon the leadership group is made up more of assistant coach types than just potential leaders. Just my view...... and this explains the lack of youth

Very similar to how Port have utilised retired and even current players into the coaching box ...... Josh Mahoney ring a bell?

Bailey's latest coaching recruits

I found the tone of the article anoying if not a bit offensive. Is there any proof selecting young guys in the leadership group is a better formula? Ffs Melbourne would have gone though the process and you have to hope they know better than the author? I guess it's easier to write negative tripe.

Yeah...

Because according to these so-called experts, leaders are supposed to be players under 21. I thought leaders were supposed to be experienced? If this guy had his way Jones, Brock, Moloney, Davey and Miller would be leading the club. What a twit.

Apparently Richmond has it right promoting Newman and some guy who's only been with the club a year. So yep, let's follow suit with the weakest and worst club at the moment, and the wooden spooners of 2007 eh? They ALWAYS get it right...

This clown is clearly a Carltank fan who thinks that a leadership group that comprises twelve players is the way to go, and among them an 18 year old who hasn't even played a game.

Football media = more incompetent than CBA and Telstra put together.

Clinton, we miss you.

I found the tone of the article anoying if not a bit offensive. Is there any proof selecting young guys in the leadership group is a better formula? Ffs Melbourne would have gone though the process and you have to hope they know better than the author? I guess it's easier to write negative tripe.

And that is best part about it.... As per usual, these negative sentiments from people in the media will come back to haunt them later in the year when Melbourne is the "big suprise packet"

Having nothing to lose, coming from the bottom of the ladder seems to be a great motivator for Melbournefc's to prove these people wrong, and you watch, it will happen again this year

So I say bring on all the negativity, because they are only fuelling the fire. <_<

We don't take advise from journalistic heroes, but I can understand where they are coming from.

It is rather odd that a relatively young side, which has only recently culled a large number of 'over the hill' players, has appointed such an old leadership team. Worst still, is the re-introduction of some older players who have been given the opportunity to lead before and failed. They were promoted again, ahead of younger more promising kids. And it's January and there's absolutely nothing worth writing about.

There's a reason why Stephen Rielly writes about football and doesn't coach a football team.

We don't take advise from journalistic heroes, but I can understand where they are coming from.

It is rather odd that a relatively young side, which has only recently culled a large number of 'over the hill' players, has appointed such an old leadership team. Worst still, is the re-introduction of some older players who have been given the opportunity to lead before and failed. They were promoted again, ahead of younger more promising kids. And it's January and there's absolutely nothing worth writing about.

There's a reason why Stephen Rielly writes about football and doesn't coach a football team.

I can understand the youth argument, because everyone wants to look forward to the future and promote young talent... Me too

But consider this; perhaps these guys are going to be playing a slightly different role under the Bailey regime to what they were under Daniher. So things have changed slightly and it doesn't make sense to argue that some of these leaders underperformed under Daniher

From what I can gather, Bailey has come up with a new concept of learning from the players themselves, and whilst young players can also potentially have a good view and ideas on the game, there is no substitute for maturity in terms of games played and in terms of consulting as more of an assistant coach. I believe that this is why they are generally older - something to do with Bailey's learn from the player approach.

Players that are still learning the game potentially have every bit as much leadership as an older bloke, but they simply may not carry themselves as well in the coach's box. (So to speak)

If you look at what Port have been doing with there just retired or soon to be retired players, then it makes sense of our leadership group.