mo64

He definitely played a fair bit in the SANFL before he came to us, so I doubt that he missed 2 full seasons. And I thought that he had another year to run on his contract?

At least someone has some common sense around here.

Aussies look home despite Brad Haddin, who's not a keeper's a#sehole. Gilchrist was a freak because he was a great keeper/batsman. But unless another Gilchrist comes along, I'd rather have a keeper who only averages high 20s low 30s like Healy did, than a batsman/keeper like Haddin. Give him a game in the shorter form of the game, but that's it. Hopefully they take Wade to England as the 2nd keeper.

Stefan Martin might be the short term answer. He came to prominence as a ruckman in the ammos. We're well off for key backmen, and I can't see Garland, Warnock, Rivers and Martin all being selected for round 1, unless Martin is played as the 2nd ruckman. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a better ruckman than PJ.

The difference is that Roos' processes, which were left field but his team adhered to them, worked from day 1. Bailey's processes are unproven, and that's being kind. So it's all very well to say that you just concentrate on the processes and the results will follow. What if the processes are flawed?

It's not just about Morton missing targets. On 2 occasions last season he actually shanked set shots for goals when within 40 metres. Even the best kicks miss set shots, but to shank a kick (the ball skewed of his boot to the right at 45 degrees) suggests a poor kicking technique. As previously posted, both Stewie and Robbo dramatically improved their kicking for goal, and hopefully Morton can do the same, but let's not kid ourselves into believing that he's a great kick.

KK, thanks for putting me out of my misery. I was going to post the same thing yesterday, but couldn't recall Jim Furyk's name. His name has been racking my brain all day.

I'm not sure who the panel of judges are that decide who is an elite kick, but I'd rate Brendan Lade's foot disposal and kicking for goal as elite. But I agree with some of your sentiments Freak. Many on this site are blinkered when it comes to our young players. I said last season that Morton's kicking skills are flawed, and got howled down.

Hird was not a great kick. Gary O'Donnell, his former teammate and assistant coach at the time, made mention of this fact during Hird's last season. He kicked some freakish goals and made good decisions, but was not the most reliable kick for goal. Ken Hunter and Jared Rivers are 2 players with awkward but effective kicking styles.

dandeeman, our gameplan revolves around trying to avoid a contest once we have possession. We kick or handball short rather than kicking the ball long to a contest. Probably 50% percent of the coaches have tried to adopt this gameplan, with varying degrees of success. For this gameplan to succeed, you need to have players in your side with the talent to avoid a tackle and break the lines. WCE had it with Judd, Cousins and Kerr and Pt. Adel had it with the Burgoynes. These players don't come round very often. Your strong inside mids compliment these players, and not all of your players need to have this quality. Bailey inherited a midfield that was drafted under the latter part of the Daniher regime to play contested football. We already had the mids who ran forward of the contest in Bruce, Green, Yze and Johnstone. So we drafted McLean, Sylvia, Jones etc. to fulfill a need, which was to make Daniher's gameplan of contested football successful. This season, the drafting of Blease, Bennell, Strauss and Jetta was designed to address our lack of skilled pacy players, who are essential in making a possession gameplan work. So I disagree when you say that we drafted for needs, but not for a gameplan.

Let me start by saying our financial predicament is the underlying reason behind my beliefs on how we should have gone. If we had the financial resources to be able to bottom out for 3 years and accumulate early draft picks, I'm all for it. As a club, our on field performance has a direct correlation with our off field performance. We can't back away from that. What could have Bailey gotten out of the team last year? We'll never know. A win/loss record of 3/19 didn't faze me that much. But a percentage of 64% or thereabouts was pathetic. What should have Bailey gotten out of the team last year? From day 1, I didn't agree with Bailey taking us down the same track as Daniher did in 2007, by playing run and carry. In the preceding 4 years, we'd gone about drafting a specific type of midfielder to counter the strength of Essendon and the Brisbane Lions. McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Moloney and Jones were all basically 1st round draft picks, and were all considered strong inside mids. None of these players would be considered the prototype of a run and carry footballer. So basically we have to turnover a generation of 1st round picks for Bailey's plan to succeed. Financially, we haven't got 5 years to get things right. Having said all that, once Bailey adopted his gameplan, we should have seen some improvement from round 1 to round 22. We didn't, which led me to doubt his ability to motivate the players.

I'm not going to respond to your whole post because it's too long winded, but you fall for the same trap as most on this forum by pinning your hopes on players who haven't or hardly played senior AFL football. And for you to suggest that any club would continually turn over their list until the players can perform to a coach's gameplan, borders on stupidity. When does it get to the point when the coach is held accountable?

When he was drafted, people were comparing him to Ricciuto. He hasn't got the football smarts to be a gun midfielder, so the best we can hope for is that he becomes a Paul Medhurst type.

I think we have different philosophies on football. I would be staggered if Bailey's job interview went along the lines of "for the first 2 seasons I'll develop the players and not be concerned with how we play, and in year 3 I'll devise a gameplan to suit them". If they are thoughts of our coach given our financial position, I give up. My philosophy on coaching is that the coach has to get the best results out of the cattle he has in any given year. That means that he devises a gameplan based on the players he has today, not on players he may have in 3 years time.

Totally disagree. Last season we were the worst team at clearances which resulted in the fewest inside 50s by a considerable margin. And when we did get it forward, we were usually outnumbered. For our gameplan to work, we need our mids to present as goal kicking options, and our defenders to be pushing through the middle. We seem to be pre-occupied with getting numbers behind the ball, which is a defensive mindset. I expect us to finish 16th with 5 wins. I can see improvement in individual players, but whether that translates to improvement as a team, is questionable.

Chooka, were we playing with a 6 man forward line at the time?

Spot on. We need to have a more creative structure to our backline, which means that Garland, Warnock and Martin shouldn't be in the same side. In the past I've also suggested that Davey should be given a run in the back pocket. We'll never break down an opposition's flood or zone unless we become more attack minded.

He's already missed near enough to a full season with back problems. Another long stint on the sidelines would be devestating to the kid.

At least Ferguson has been able to attract players to Man U. Now let's see, under Bailey we've given powerpoint displays to Judd, Warnock, Prismall and Meesen, and guess who we ended up with? I'm a long suffering Man City supporter, and I can assure you, under Mark Hughes, dollars haven't mattered.

Your comment may well apply to every current player in the AFL. Given that we've made 2 grand finals in 44 years, and been beaten by huge margins, when exactly will our next crack at a flag be? 5 years, 10 years or when Ben Cousins is in a rocking chair?

Jones is a good/smart footballer who was guilty last season of trying to find the best option rather than playing instinctively. He wasn't on his own there.

Where we are at as a team, we need demonstrate some consistency of performance as a team. If Bate is fit, he needs to play.

All very nice, but "what's in it for us"?

The same football dept. that gave Meeson a 3 year contract and resigned Newton for 2 years? They don't always get it right. Jones is on the main list because he was a 1st round draft pick 3 years ago. Valenti was rookied last season, and has been given another year because he showed talent in the games he played. So what's your point? You've never rated Valenti based purely on his lack of physical attributes. You can't accept the fact that he is a good footballer.

I'm done.