mo64

Not always. Both Moloney and Buckley have been dropped after having mild doses of it.

Rhino, what's your opinion of Cooney now? I rate the Dogs. Only team that I backed to make the eight prior to the start of the season, and backed em again last night. The structure of the Saints forward line is similar to ours, but 100 times more talented. If their 3 key forwards are held, they get murdered on the rebound, which puts pressure on their midfield.

I'm awaiting the brightsiders spin on our team selection. We're trying to play a run and carry game, so we bring in a key position backman in Rivers (which is natural), in place of a small running player. Go figure! Then to confuse the Cats, we name a forward line that includes P.Johnson, Miller, Robertson and Neitz. I'm sure the Cats are going to make a late change to nullify our big forwards. There will be a late change for Melbourne. Davey out, Frawley in, just to further f#ck with our minds!

I'm I missing something. I didn't realise that the midseason draft has been restored!

Maurie, I like others just get frustrated by mediocrity. I'm no marketing guru, but the reality of memberships at MFC, is that there is a 'wait and see' attitude by supporters. I keep reading that our NAB Cup and preseason was so poor because of the number of players on restricted programs. If that's the case, surely the mass marketing and impassioned pleas should have occured prior to the preseason. Or was the football departments' "everyones training the house down" spin relayed to the marketing dept., who in turn thought that the memberships will sell themselves.

This is the conundrum that Bailey faces. Does he persevere with players of average ability who follow his game plan to the letter, or play players with natural ability who can't fully grasp his game plan? At the moment we have very few players with natural talent who can grasp his game plan. Hence the floggings.

Then why does Bailey persist with a forward line comprising of three cumbersome talls in Neitz, Robertson and Miller/Newton?

Spot on Hards. You've summed up what I've been trying to argue over the past fortnight.

Great minds think alike. All my multies this week will revolve around the $1.45 for Cats 60+, as they did last week with the Dogs at the line of 18+ paying $1.90. There's no glory in taking long odds if they don't get up.

You're right, but I was just pointing out the fact that a premiership doesn't necessarily guarantee financial security. The problem I have got with Jaded's posts and others, is the inference that there is a greater likelihood of success under Bailey if we weed out those who struggle with his game plan. And Jaded is implying that his notion of success under Bailey is a premiership. Noone can guarantee that 3 years down the track, we will be in a position to make the finals, let alone contend for a flag. What I'm saying is, let's play a brand of football that will at least make us competitive, and start getting cute when we have the cattle to seriously contend for a flag. Whilst I agree that the game has changed markedly in the past 5 years, the basics of football still apply. I watched the game between Brisbane and Collingwood in awe, because it was old style head over the ball footy. And quite often the Lions would kick the ball to Jonathon Brown, who had to contest against 2 or 3 players. Leigh Matthews is a great coach because his teams do the basics well, and he doesn't try to be too cute with his game plan.

You're right, but vitriolic (passionate) supporters makes good radio. Hosts such as KB would enjoy Melbourne supporters ringing up to slag their club. It would make a pleasant change for him after years of listening to Richmond supporters bag the club constantly.

Are you talking about players like McLean, Sylvia, Moloney, Dunn and Davey? These are the guys that are underperforming under Bailey, and according to some, are prime candidates for the purge.

Then explain why the Hawks were a proposed merger candidate? And during their premiership years, Brisbane weren't making huge profits, if any.

Hawthorn of the '70s, '80s and early '90's, North Melbourne of the '90s, and Brisbane of the 2000's defy this assertion.

Jaded, you still didn't answer the question "What is the role of the coach?". If the players are displaying "pathetic, lifeless performances", maybe the coaches' communication and motivation skills need addressing. Players aren't robots. They have different emotions, and not all people respond to criticism the same way. By the way, I agree that the players are displaying pathetic, lifeless performances. As for our future, whilst we as a club continue to bury our head in the sand, and not realise that we are 2 bad years away from being a financial basket case again, we will continue to be target of the media. Stop the spin doctoring, with bad on-field performances, our financial position will worsen. That's a fact, not media over-dramatization.

I agree that Johnstone should have been traded, but would have prefered a straight swap with Cameron Wood. Pies gave up pick 14 for Wood, and we got the Lions' pick 16 for Johnstone. We then could have kept our 2nd round pick instead of trading it for a non-ruckman in Meesen.

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.