mo64

Jaded, what's your definition of the role of a coach? And who's to say that there will be long term gain? Unlike most posters, I can't cop the 100 point beltings, and find it ridiculous that everyone is blaming Neil Daniher. The coach doesn't have to be best friends with the players, but he must earn their respect. If Bailey's idea of discipline is to alienate the players, his tenure will be shortlived. As a club, we can't afford 4 years in the wilderness, which is how long it will take any coach to reconstruct a list. If our on and off field record remains the same, we will be the no. 1 target by the AFL for relocation. My take on proceedings is that Bailey's game plan should be based on our players strengths, which will at least allow us to be competitive. If our players are playing competitive football, they will some trade value come year end, if Bailey wants to rebuild the list. The way he's going, we'll have a firesale or mass walk out come trade week.

Tony, I totally agree with everything you've stated in your first 2 pars. What concerns me is the comment by the players that "They are taking time adjusting to the new game plan". I don't believe that the structure of the side compliments Bailey's game plan. A forward line comprising Neitz, Robertson and Miller/Newton is too immobile. Our backline lacks the class to generate any creative run. And our mids lack evasive skills.

Was this the powerpoint display he presented during the interview process?

The point I'm trying to make is that Bailey needs to work with what he's got, and get the best out of them. Devise a game plan around the players he currently has, and if he is able to change the list over a period of time, then modify our game plan to what he believes will achieve the ultimate success.

Who's to say that the 16 new players that replace those that you believe need to be cleared will actually be any better? In all likelihood, in 2 years time, you might be saying that some of the players we drafted last year need to be cleared. And as Rhino stated in another post, clubs are less likely to trade high draft picks for average players.

I share these sentiments entirely. Our list is not that bad. A new game plan should not mean that the basics of football are thrown out the window. We are playing a brand of football that requires highly skilled evasive players, of which we have 2 (Davey and Morton). It's little wonder that the players are getting frustrated. A new coach should work with the players at his disposal. He should also understand that how the trade/draft period works. He won't be able to turnover the list and replace them with super skilled players in the space of a few years, if ever. Bailey needs to get the best out of what he's got. At the moment he's failing.

Rhino, not all supporters vent their spleen when the club handles things poorly. They just cancel their memberships and remain silent. I'd rather have supporters like MrMoose, than those who accept mediocrity.

Another point of difference is that Hawthorn were honest with their supporters, and admitted that they were rebuilding. In turn their membership didn't suffer. At Melbourne, it's all about spin doctoring, which in turn disenfranchises supporters and sponsors. Whenever Paul Gardner steps aside, let's hope the leadership of a new president, McNamee and Connolly will leave the cloak and daggers aside, and be upfront and honest with our supporters.

Let's hope that Melbourne doesn't become the next Ian Baker-Finch.

Whilst I agree that Garland's performances this year have been mediocre, he like many others are not playing on instinct, but seem to have too many thoughts going through their head. It worries me when after a game, players come out and say that we didn't follow the coach's instructions. It suggests that the "team rules" are too complex. If Garland was allowed to play instinctively in his rightful position up forward, I think he has got a future at AFL level.

We'll agree to disagree that spin-doctoring is in the best interests of the club. As for your rebuilding claim, we had the perfect opportunity to trade Robertson prior to the draft. Why wouldn't it start then rather than 2 games into the season?

Totally agree Scoop. Didn't Bailey get the gig over Hardwick because he believed that we didn't need to rebuild? And Pipefitter, if the policy of the club is to keep everyone in the dark about our "obvious rebuiding", then members and sponsors will stay away in droves, and the media will rightfully come down us like a ton of bricks. With our relatively injury free list, we should be competitive every week. And the basics of football should apply regardless of whether Bailey is implementing a new gameplan.

Does Frawley fall into this category?

The Ins and Outs haven't changed the composition of the side, or the inherent problems. Our backline lacks creativity and a genuine shutdown player. Johnson and Welsh will have a field day. And whilst we have a forwardline that contains Neitz, Robertson, Newton/Miller, the opposition will create havoc on the rebound. Our perceived lack of midfield pace is compounded by our structural problems in defence and forward lines.

First and foremost, I am a member. But I don't get irate with people who are not members. What has the club done both off-field and on-field to warrant new members signing up? Off-field - Where has the marketing been for our 150th year anniversary? Where has the promotion been of our new coach and new football department? On-field - How did the membership and corporate sales department feel about us tanking the NAB Cup game? And how did they feel about our abysmal form in the preseason games? The same posters that bemoan our poor membership and attendances, are the same ones who state that NAB Cup preseason games mean nothing. These games mean EVERYTHING to a club like Melbourne.

Maybe our tall forwards such as Neitz, Robertson and Newton lack the mobility to veer a metre either way, to accept an errant pass. We need forwards that will apply defensive pressure and have agility. Dunn, Bate and Sylvia need to be given time in the forward line. Yze and Robertson to Sandy. Davey Bate Dunn Green Neitz Sylvia

"Young side with a couple of players missing". Are we talking about Hawthorn or Melbourne. No excuse. Who's to say that the new game plan will actually work. Including the preseason games, we've played 2 quarters of competitive football. Maybe Bailey should get the players to focus on the basics of football, rather than clouding their simple minds with a convoluted game plan.

If we line up like that, we're in a bad way. There's no run or creativity in our backline, let alone any lockdown players. As for our forwardline, I would have loved to see a forwardline of Yze Neitz Robertson, but that was 3 years ago.

timD, you've obviously redirected your rants on this topic away from Demonology, where your arguments were contested by all and sundry. You probably thought you'd get a more sympathetic ear on Demonland. Not from me pal.

I'm glad you found your post enjoyable. How can anything be factually informed if you don't know the full facts?

TimD, the title of this thread is a misleading. "Funding" to all 16 AFL clubs was an equal $4.913m. Until you know on what basis the "other payments" is apportioned, your arguments are purely emotive. The bottom line is that our $ contribution to the AFL, whether it be from TV rights or merchandising, would be amongst the bottom 3 clubs in the competition. That's reality, not fantasy land.

By round 6, when we're 0-5, we should have a full list to choose from. Round 11 is when we start tanking.

No, you appoint an interim one, like Collingwood did when Swann jumped ship.

Well said. Some posters seem to believe that just because you have a media profile, you haven't got anything worthwhile to contribute. By having a profile, they are able to open doors that faceless board members are unable to do. And I'm not having a go at the current board members.

How many companies would retain a failed CEO in an interim role?