titan_uranus

I definitely enjoy him on TV. He's been on Before the Game a couple of times and he's been good fun on that.

I quite like this article from Michael Gleeson. Seems to sum up the situation well: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/its-not-just-a-numbers-game-when-weighing-up-dees-bailey-20100224-p3j5.html

So when we win it works, and when we lose it doesn't work. Sounds like a bit of a chicken-egg debate. I mean, is it the loss that means the gameplan falls apart, or is it the gameplan falling apart than means we lose? Simplistic it may be, but at least you can look at any Essendon match (win or lose) and you can see what Matthew Knights is trying to make happen.

No, I'm frustrated that we haven't had a gameplan for over a year now. The NAB Cup match was hopefully going to be the first showing of some change in the football played by the MFC. Well I can do one of them. Essendon's would be to run the ball with pace through the midfield and share it by hand. But they still have talls in the forward line (I'm guessing they'll use Neagle, Gumbleton and Hurley, along with Monfries) to aim for.

Unbelievable stuff from Tendulkar. The man knows no limits. Queensland 9/209. Hartley's out, but we've only got 42 runs to play with, so we need to wrap this up quickly. This Swan guy seems to be pretty capable with the bat. Gotta win this. Edit: Not good. 9/226. 32 run partnership already. Ach, this is going to be close... Edit: Rain delay now! 9/231, this is going to go down to the wire. Edit: This is over now I feel: 9/241 Edit: It's over! 9/252. A 58 10th wicket partnership between their number 10 and 11s gets them the win, our first outright Shield loss in a couple of years, and they close the gap. Bad loss, really. Why McDonald didn't bowl himself I'll never know.

Yes, nice in theory. But we've seen what happens. We kick/handpass backwards, sideways, we eventually miss one and we turn it over. It's time for us to be more proactive and look to force the opposition into getting defensive. Of course it was. It was one of the biggest, alongside our horrible skill level.

I believe he was also on 3AW last night. Probably was asked the exact same questions and gave the exact same answers though...

No, I meant that I was hoping you'd got the sarcasm in Roost It's post.

Bailey signs 2 year contract (extending his tenure to the end of next year): http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/89859/default.aspx

Oh boy... Please tell me you are joking...

FWIW, I think we'll end up in the same place regardless of when (or even whether) we extend Bailey's tenure. I'm still of the opinion we should wait and see, at least to see if our H&A form is an improvement on last year's. But it's not my decision, it's the board's, and the board have done a lot of good things for this club recently, so I'm not complaining.

I'll give you the fact that attacking our gameplan is a bit of a moot point when we're such a young list with lots of first-year players and not a lot of experience. But: I don't agree with this. The last few years have been dominated by teams who are more offensive and more able to score whilst still having strong defences. The era of depending on flooding and congestion ended after Sydney won their flag. Why can't a team make it difficult for the opposition to hit a target inside 50 by having a defensive unit that can do that themselves? Why is it that when a team gets a run on of 4 or 5 goals, we see our forwards in our defence? The best way to negate a 4-goal run would be to kick 4 goals of our own, right?

You know, at one centre bounce on Sunday, which we won, we had 2 men behind the ball (Cheney was one of them IIRC). We proceeded to kick the ball into a foward line that was outnumbered. But nothing is getting created. Partly due to our skill level, but partly due to our forwards being anywhere but forward. It doesn't matter what their reasoning is for pushing up the ground. The fact is it isn't helping. So if it's Bailey's instructions, he needs to change them. If it's happening because the players think that's the best way to stop opposition teams from scoring, Bailey needs to re-assure them that if we stick to our own gameplan we can match them.

Surely we picked him for reasons other than his physique. But I guess it's a bit ironic.

Oh dear God... Victoria, recommencing on 1/4 with a lead of 150, are currently 9/89. Yes, 9 down. At one stage it was 7/33. To think that if we'd bowled Queensland out for just 4 runs less we could (and probably would) have enforced the follow on. This is such an important match, and we may have blown it. The lead is currently 235. 70 short of what we need, but some disciplined bowling should hopefully give us a chance. A massive 10th wicket partnership would help.

Disagree. 10 rounds could easily change the board's opinion. If we play those 10 rounds showing little to no improvement on last year, how could it not?

It's not just Pavlich. I remember a game last year where Jarad Waite marked on the 50 and immediately swung around and kicked a goal. Miller needs to do the same.

So will there be the option for players to field offers during the season, and for those who are unrestricted free agents, to sign with a rival club during the season (a la the NRL)? Edit: This article helps explain things: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/89809/default.aspx

Seems like the AFL is targeting this with the following: • The AFL will closely monitor access to uncapped third party independent arrangements. • All player investments with associates must be lodged with the AFL. That's exactly how I feel.

I'm still not sure if this is to the benefit of the lesser clubs, but I do like this bit: Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club will be eligible for restricted free agency for their first new contract after they have served eight years on the primary list of the club. Restricted free agents have the right to move to a club of their choice subject to the current club’s right of first refusal over their services. That is, if the current club can match the offer from a rival club, the player must stay or enter the draft

Only player worthy of getting dropped at the moment is North. So unless either Hughes is willing to bat at 6, or the selectors wish to risk a lot by splitting the highly successful opening pair of Katich and Watson, Hughes isn't getting back in any time soon.

The issue is not Bailey's past 2 years at the club. No one else could have done any better, and, as Sheahan points out, if there wasn't the lure of a PP, we may well have won a few more. However, I still believe signing Bailey to a contract now is foolish, and that's something I've believed since well before Sunday. I'm not saying we will, but if we do have another year like the last 2, I'm not sure that Bailey will be the right man to lead us beyond this year. I've made my views very clear in regards to our gameplan/match-day tactics, and ultimately those are the responsibility of the coach. There do exist reasons for extending contracts early, such as club stability, player faith, and the coach's personal assurance, but in this case I believe the most important factor is on-field improvement. Before Sunday, the overwhelming thoughts on this site were that we were going to improve this year to a point where we would win something like 7 wins and climb a few spots up the ladder. Whilst that is still achievable, Sunday's performance can only diminish our chances of that. IMO, the best thing we can do is put our faith in Bailey publicly, but not sign him up until we show improvement on the field.

He played pretty well, though, but I do agree. If he wasn't our captain I'm not sure he'd be getting a game (and hence he probably would have retired at the end of last year).

This is true. And quite amazing, given the perception of Jamar a few years ago. Spencer is not a no. 1 ruck yet. But I'd like to see him kept in the team for his development, as I think he could end up a decent AFL ruckman. There is no future in PJ. Only should be playing when we have no other options.

So you like the gameplan then? You like having 0 players forward of the centre, having defenders work their asses of to get possession of the ball, only to look up and find that the CHF is not at CHF, but at CHB? I don't. An alternative? No flooding, no numbers behind the ball in the first quarter, less use by hand and more by foot (which requires players forward of the ball carrier).