mo64

Agree. It defies logic. Ponting's captaincy has been a disgrace on this tour. I wanted to back India at Tea, because I thought that Australia would get bowled out chasing anything around 300. The odds were too short. The way the games going, India will still be batting at Tea time tomorrow.

You probably said the same thing when the likes of Akermanis, Chris Johnson (Bris.), Wirrapanda, McLeod, and Johncock where shifted to the back pocket, after starting their careers as forwards. Lateral thinking obviously isn't your strong suit. We were sh#thouse this year at playing rebound footy and transferring play. If you're going to play run and carry, you need to move the ball quickly through the lines. Davey is one of the few players on our list you can "run the lines". He's wasted as a forward under Bailey's gameplan.

Assuming that Bailey wants to continue with "run and carry": FB: Whelan Garland Davey HB: Bruce Rivers Petterd C: Morton McLean Green HF: Sylvia Miller Bate FF: Wona Robertson Maric Foll: Jamar McDonald Jones Inter: PJ Moloney Wheatley Grimes We need some creativity and run out of the backline, hence Davey in the bp.

B#llshit. If a player wants to leave the club for whatever reason, he will. But in the future, they won't stand up in front of the other players and give the reasons for their decision. I'm sure that 90% of the players would be supportive of any player who chooses to leave a club. It's the reality of sport.

Depends on who's wearing the cost of the QC. Could end up being more than Carroll's contract.

We had 3 coaches from 1986 - 2007. Carlton had 4 coaches from 1978 - 1981, and won 2 premierships. In the history of world sport, there is nothing to prove that changing a coach is detrimental to a club. Classic case is Tottenham. Didn't look like winning a game 2 weeks ago, sacked their coach, who'd had some success in previous seasons, and have since won 2 and drawn 1, against the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal. Sometimes coaches just can't get the message across.

What, that he ate too much?

I'm not disputing that Bailey is trying to build a team from the ground up. What I am suggesting is that by the time Bailey has a list capable of playing "run and carry", his gameplan will be outdated, and will not win us a premiership. And I pose this question, do under 18's teams play a "run and carry" gameplan? I'm of the understanding that tagging and flooding is frowned upon, and players pretty much play conventional footy. So surely it's harder to develop kids playing a gameplan that's foreign to them? I'll go on record now and say that Bailey won't be coach in 2010. Given our financial position, the board won't tolerate another season like 2008.

It was predominantly the same list that got us into the finals 3 years running from 2004-2006 without any superstars. So do players' skill levels and decision making evaporate with age? When Bailey took over, he said that the as an assistant at Port, he found Melbourne to be a skillful team. So either he was lying, or we've regressed under his coaching. In fairness to Bailey, I've never heard him come up with any of the lame excuses that his apologists use.

Is that the same list that you said was capable of winning the 2007 premiership? And don't deny it, because it was reposted recently, and I'll repost it again.

Neither Clarkson nor Ratten have pigeon-holed themselves with a set gameplan, so what's your point? They've both done excatly what I said a coach should do, and that is acquire the best available talent, and refine your gameplan accordingly. Do Hawthorn play the same way now with Franklin and Roughead as key forwards as opposed to when Mark Williams was full-forward? The answer is "NO". Defining a gameplan, and recruiting accordingly is fraught with danger.

When I first saw us play like that in a NAB Cup game against Hawthorn, Yes.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not always the case. Sydney were far from the best team, but Roos was able to devise his own gameplan with the sole intention of beating the opposition. It was ugly to watch, but effective. "Run and carry" worked for West Coast and Port Adelaide because they had the players who could make it work, ie; Judd, Cousins, Kerr and the Burgoynes and Cornes. So why did Bailey adopt it, when there is no guarantee that we'll ever get players of this quality. And if you hadn't noticed, we intend to draft a key forward with our no. 1 pick, so it doesn't look like we'll be addressing it in the short term. Daniher's gameplan may have failed to win us a premiership, but maybe that was because we never had any genuine superstars. So you still haven't explained why Bailey would adopt "run and carry" this season.

I wasn't expecting miracles, but when I first heard Bailey say that we'd adopt a "run and carry" game plan, I cringed because I knew we didn't have the sort of players that could make it work. My belief is that a coach can only work with what he has. You don't adopt a game style based on the sort of players you ideally want, but don't currently have. There is no guarantee that Bailey will ever get players capable of playing run and carry. A player like Nathan Jones will never be suited to Bailey's game plan. So what becomes of him? After 2000, after being out-muscled by the Bombers, we made a concerted effort to draft hard bodied players, hence Thompson, Bell, McLean, Sylvia, Moloney (via trade), Jones were all recruited. Three years down the track, and these type of players were superceded by hard running, line-breaking mids. The Johnsons and Solomon types, who we feared in 2000, became redundant a few years later. The point I'm making is that you can't afford to give a coach 3 years to build a list around a game style, because that game style may be redundant in 3 years time. A coach's job is to build a list with the most talented players available, and refine his game plan according to their strengths.

It's no point arguing with you about football when you come out with this b#llshit statement. Daniher had everything to do with getting White, given that he was an assistant coach at Freo. Are you saying that a coach doesn't has the final say when it comes to giving up pick 2 in the ND? You are a dead-set clown when it comes to actual football matters.

Shaft, when did you start following the club, because you obviously weren't around in 1998 when we had aging stars, who all retired within a year or 2, in addition to some young inexperienced players, and we made the preliminary final. So like Rhino, don't let the facts get in the way of your emotive rants.

Just as I thought, you either have no regard for facts, or you base all your comments on what you read in the newspapers. White was acquired by trading pick 2 in the ND to Fremantle, who on-traded it to Richmond for Chris Bond. Richmond then drafted Brad Ottens. And to say that Lyon, Tingay, G. Lovett, Schwarz, and Stynes were in their prime in 1997 is factually wrong. Stick to your Patrick Smith like commentary on player morals and club cultures, because on-field football debates are not your strong suit.

I've been saying since our practice matches that Bailey's game plan was wrong for our list. I was proven right. And don't give me this b#llshit that our list is so bad, that we were basically uncompetitive in 80% of the quarters we played. Another coach may not have improved our win/loss ratio this year, but at least we could have played cohesive and competitive football. We were horrible to watch, and not even the greatest Bailey apologist in yourself could deny that. And give credit to Daniher for getting the best out of ageing players, and attracting a big name recruit in White. Bailey failed on both counts.

You are kidding yourself. You really believe that this club can financially afford to be in the doldrums for 2 more years, whilst Bailey develops his wunderkids. And what evidence is there that Bailey can mould talented footballers into a premiership team, based on this season? Kids like Jones and Bate who finished in the top 3 of the 2007 B&F, actually regressed under Bailey, with his whiz bang game plan. And you have the gall to bag Daniher for building a competitive side from day one (1998). What a joke.

If you've been put up for trade, the coach obviously doesn't love you that much. Can't understand why Bailey is having a whinge about him seeking opportunities elsewhere, and why we changed our offer to 2 years. If you put a player up for trade, you obviously believe that you have better players to cover that position. And in our case, I would have thought that Petterd, Morton and possibly Grimes, are better options than CJ.

If he nominates for the National Draft, he can't specify contractual requirements.

I've made it clear how I feel about Bailey as a coach, but even the most ardent apologist can understand that the above comment is an indictment on the coach. Either he can't get the message across, or what he's trying to teach is beyond the players capabilities. Either way, the buck stops with him.

Exactly. Are attendances are reflective of our on-field performance, not when we play. It's not rocket science.

I doubt that it's a money problem. We've shot ourselves in the foot too many times in the past, by giving fringe players multiple year contracts (the name Godfrey immediately springs to mind), and end up having too many list cloggers. I don't see the problem in offering a fringe player a 1 year contract with the option of an additional year if certain criteria are met. If CJ takes up the offer to play elsewhere, and plays well, so be it.

If he nominates for the PSD, what's stopping another club from drafting him?