Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

In a Perverse way I am glad we lost by so much, as it tells the Football dept exactly where we are at. All Reputations are back to zero as far as i am concerned

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

Maybe, maybe not . Essendon got flogged a few times last year.

Well Sheedy isn't our coach. Bailey is.

What's the point in grovelling (not sure if that's the right word) and thinking 'what if' when it clearly isn't.

Bailey wants to move on and so should we.

but we did lose by 88, 85, 85, 95, and 98, not to mention quite a few by 70+

i know it seems like a massive difference, but i don't think there is a big one between getting done by 16 goals, and getting done by 17. and comparing a coach with 10 years, another with 25 years, to a guy with an up and down side in his first game is a bit harsh. not like he can really instill hardness of attitude and spirit within one summer.

mind you if it happens again i'll be more worried

by the way, sheedy lost a game by 163 points, one by 160, another by 114 and a grand final by 84. Another by 94 (a prelim) another by 99 and others by 88, 96, 96, 97 and one in 2006 by 138 points.

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

What a stupid thread.

Hey lets sack Bailey after one game and see if Sheedy will take over.

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

i remember losing to Carlton in 2000 by 98 points and then we beat them in a final, and then ended up in the grand final! So it's not over till the season's over.

Sack Bailey! Break up the team!

Bailey will be a good coach I still believe that. He now knows the job in front of him, which is good

Bailey will be a good coach I still believe that. He now knows the job in front of him, which is good

Same, but I get an eerie "Wayne Brittain" type feeling from him. Remember, Brittain was supposed to lead Carlton back to the promised land after being Parkin's assistant for so long. You can say that Bailey come to being an AFL coach in the same manner; being an assistant to a relatively successful coach. Not trying to prove any logic here at all (and no, I don't think that "Good Assistant under good coach = bad coach) but I hope he doesn't turn out like Brittain.

What a stupid thread.

Hey lets sack Bailey after one game and see if Sheedy will take over.

The only thing stupid about the thread Tess is the people who don't have the mental capacity to think deeper than the words on the screen in front of them!

I did not propose that we sack Bailey. He is and will be a good coach. However, clearly there is a cultural discipline problem at the club (not to mention too many players who lack a killer instinct and REAL passion) which are the sorts of issues that are often handled best by an experienced campaigner - a coach who demands respect and tenacity by virtue of the years he has put in to the game and also the (premiership) results he has extracted from it.

My question (to the intelligent members out there) asks would our players have played with a superior intensity for a living legend like Kevin Sheedy thus producing a better result than a 104 point loss! Personally I think they would have but I do not necessarily believe he was a long term coaching option for the Dees. Still, it is our 150th year!

respond to my post then stuey if you want an answer to your question...i don't see the point in challenging a post you don't think to carry weight

The only thing stupid about the thread Tess is the people who don't have the mental capacity to think deeper than the words on the screen in front of them!

I did not propose that we sack Bailey. He is and will be a good coach. However, clearly there is a cultural discipline problem at the club (not to mention too many players who lack a killer instinct and REAL passion) which are the sorts of issues that are often handled best by an experienced campaigner - a coach who demands respect and tenacity by virtue of the years he has put in to the game and also the (premiership) results he has extracted from it.

My question (to the intelligent members out there) asks would our players have played with a superior intensity for a living legend like Kevin Sheedy thus producing a better result than a 104 point loss! Personally I think they would have but I do not necessarily believe he was a long term coaching option for the Dees. Still, it is our 150th year!

I think it's a legitimate question, and as I said to a friend on Sunday, if Danners was still coaching we might not have lost by that much either, but at the end of the day it would still have meant nothing. I've heard a fair bit about Sheedy since then and I'm glad we didn't appoint him - He's got too many other interests now. I'm with Why You Little.... there were no excuses for our performance on Sunday and there's no hiding from just how bad we were and what we need to do to improve.

Same, but I get an eerie "Wayne Brittain" type feeling from him. Remember, Brittain was supposed to lead Carlton back to the promised land after being Parkin's assistant for so long. You can say that Bailey come to being an AFL coach in the same manner; being an assistant to a relatively successful coach. Not trying to prove any logic here at all (and no, I don't think that "Good Assistant under good coach = bad coach) but I hope he doesn't turn out like Brittain.

Sheeds gave him a fine blessing in saturdays paper. Bailey wont be a Wayne Brittan. Anyway Carlton were shot by the time Brittan took over. Bailey will be ok BUT HE HAS TOO GET TOUGH.What we need is a new Generation Alan Jeans.

I Met him once- He was

Tough. Taught Lethal

Bailey inherited a list hand-picked by Daniher and CAC over a 10 year period.

Sheedy would have inherited the same crap.

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

no 103 i reckon, all hypothetical hogwash, who gives a rats tosbag what would have happened he's not our coach

Melbourne apparently did not lose a game by 100 points plus in the entire 10 years Daners was coach.

I pose the question for discussion, would we have lost by 104 points on Sunday if Sheeds had been coaching us?

I have borrowed the Oracle's crystal ball, and changed the time space circuitry of the flux capacitor and viewed the game again with Sheeds coaching us and we lost by 123 points

I think it's a fair question, but it's one there's no answer to. How could we possibly know? We might've lost by 130 if Sheedy had coached or we may have won. I have no idea which it is and neither does anyone. That said, I doubt it would have made any significant difference.

I think we may have traded better for some players that would have been happier to play under Sheedy.

One of his forte's is that he can get quality players to come and play for him.

Would this be better in the long run? Maybe not.

Sheedy as coach, Ward, Bizzell, Brown & Pickett, still would have lost by 10 goals.

I'm sure Melbourne would have done better with Sheeds at the helm. I mean, look at the form Sheedy is in right now.

He lost Lucas after about 20 mins on Monday, forgot to pick a captain, and still scored 1924 in Supercoach. The man is a genius.

Seriously though, Melbourne may well have got closer if Sheedy was coaching [hell, they couldn't of got much worse], but for the long term benefit of the team, Bailey is the right man.

I'm sure Melbourne would have done better with Sheeds at the helm. I mean, look at the form Sheedy is in right now.

He lost Lucas after about 20 mins on Monday, forgot to pick a captain, and still scored 1924 in Supercoach. The man is a genius.

Seriously though, Melbourne may well have got closer if Sheedy was coaching [hell, they couldn't of got much worse], but for the long term benefit of the team, Bailey is the right man.

Ash, I reckon you're right re long term but my concern is we are not a footy club that can be considering anything other than short to medium term atm. Unlike the Bombers who can have a pretty ordinary year and then get another 5000 members sign up, we are heading south in a hurry. I think appointing Sheedy would have been an enormous opportunity to galvanise the club and help to rebuild in the 150th year. If you like it could have been similar to the job Barassi did with the Swans in the early to mid 90's which really set up Eade and Roos for the success they had. I can see Sheedy promoting that the MFC provided more players to the armed services than any other club (and more war dead) and we would have been playing for the "Kokoda Cup" or some such! He would have generated an enthusiasm and excitement that would have allowed us to develop (or redevelop). Let's say we have a dismal year this year ( a development year) then how many members sign up for next year? If we follow the Hawthorn model, then we are talking at least three years before we experience any sort of success, as well as replacing about one third f our present list. At the minute we have pretty much a no name coach, no marquee players and a membership base that is the smallest in the league. We desperately needed to appoint more than a footy coach and I can't help thinking that we missed a massive opportunity. By the way, these are views I have held since August last year as my previous posts indicate, and in no way reflect the disgraceful effort put in last weekend.

How the hell could you predict whether we would have lost by less under Sheedy?

I agree - stupid thread.

I don't think it's a stupid thread, but for me, the question is not the one in the title but this: Is Melbourne more likely to win a flag under Dean Bailey or Kevin Sheedy? I hear the argument for Sheedy. I know we're a struggling club financially and have a low membership base. However, don't be mistaken into thinking that three to five years of mediocrity (finishing 5th-12th) from Sheeds would sell more memberships thana couple of years of utter tripe from Bailey's men, followed by a gradual renaissance leading to a premiership. I know I'm simplifying matters, but the way I see it, Bailey will build this team for a premiership assault in four to five years time as opposed to Sheedy attempting to lead us to the finals each year, and that's fine with me. I've seen Melbourne make the finals plenty of times, but never a flag. It's why I follow sporting teams - to watch them in the hope of seeing them one day reach the top of the mountain, and it's why I'll support Bailey as long as he builds meticulously with a clear plan to win a premiership at Melbourne.

The strongest case for Sheedy I believe lies in his potential to turn around the ordinary culture at the club in rapid fashion. That said, West Coast were premiers two years ago and Hawthorn are well and truly on the rise, so I'd rather the club focus on correctly putting the list together before worrying about culture. Actually, I'd rather them both addressed, but the state of the list comes first for me.

How the hell could you predict whether we would have lost by less under Sheedy?

I agree - stupid thread.

I understand that Sheedy's presentation and initial interview at MFC for the coaching role was lacklustre relative to other candidates.

I doubt whether Sheedy was really interested in the job and secondly has been that focussed on the Essendon coaching job for some time.

Its hard to change a Club's culture and fortunes when your heart is not in it.

Believe me, MFC needs a coach that is dedicated and focussed and who has some career skin in this. Bailey does. As time has shown Sheedy could turn a quid without coaching.