two sheds jackson

You're talking about skills as a footballer and using this as a guide to whether someone may or may not be able to coach. You're doing the very thing that you're accusing others of doing.

Not exactly. I'm saying there is a strong correlation between accomplished -but not especially skilled- footballers and highly successful coaches, and suggesting that there's probably some rhyme and reason to it. That's not the same thing as saying, for instance, that clubs should consider excellent football skills as a negative trait when searching for a coach. My explanation was pretty simplistic (and I admitted so in the post), basically because my contention itself was a pretty general one. As I said, it would be equally stupid of me to argue that because Lyon was a talented player he wont be a good coach. All I'm saying is, people who want Lyon as coach based purely on their fond memories of his playing days would do well to take into account that traditionally, it is not players of his ilk that make the best coaches.

You even say "by all reports Malthouse, Sheedy and Matthews were never blessed with anything resembling the skills of a Buckley or even a Lyon". You have to be kidding. Matthews was probably the best player I've ever seen and it wasn't just because he was tough, his skills were superb. I know that you never saw him play, so it's best to not comment when you don't know.

Fair enough. I did take care to say "by all reports", but I guess that's the risk of making an argument based on hearsay; you'll come off looking like a goose if you've been fed wrong information, or if you haven't been listening properly, so I'll wear that. That said, my point still stands that recently, most of the better coaches were not the most remarkably skilled footballers. Even if you don't think it's a very important correlation, would you agree that it exists?

... that's patent rubbish. They say he'll be a good coach because he was an exceptional captain, a fantastic leader of men that will be instantly respected by any playing group, and just about the best public and private speaker that you'll ever hear...

I touched on this with my point about an inspirational personality not being enough, in itself, to make a good coach. I agree that he's a good speaker and an inspirational figure, and that's great. Now, can he come up with a premiership-winning structure? Can he maintain a productive working relationship with a board, a coaching panel, a playing list and a football department who will all, at times, have different ideas about how to do things? There are a whole host of other factors equally as important as his undoubted leadership and oratory skills, in which -having never sat on a coaching panel- he has not demonstrated. He is completely unproven in any of the practicalities of coaching.

People who are clamoring for Lyon to come in and coach Melbourne have failed to put forward even a semblance of a reason why Lyon would be any good at the job- much like the people who argued that we chase Buckley. The reasoning seems to be that because he was a talented footballer, he will automatically be a talented coach. In fact, when you look at the really good coaches in the last 20 years or so, they were very accomplished -but not especially skilled- footballers. Admittedly they were before my time, but by all reports Malthouse, Sheedy and Matthews were never blessed with anything resembling the skills of a Buckley or even a Lyon, but achieved varying degrees of success by being tough, uncompromising players who would sooner kill you than give up the contested ball. You could probably say the same about Paul Roos and Bomber Thompson. Some people might point to a Malcolm Blight as an exception (and that's debatable in itself), but as a general rule, those are the types of players who've had the most success in coaching, and I believe that this correlation is no accident; I'm being a bit simplistic here, but basically, players who -by sheer pigheaded force of will- managed to achieve more as footballers than players with far more natural ability than themselves, will generally have a better idea of how to get the best out of every player on their list than someone who had more talent in their playing days than most of the guys they are coaching.

Now, Lyon might well be the exception, and it would be equally stupid for me to argue that being a talented player rules him out from being a good coach, but his advocates seem to think he'll be a good coach simply because he was a talented player. I guess people might also point to the fact that he's a club champion, and an inspirational figure who sacrificed his own body for the benefit of the club by playing injured on numerous occasions; this is undoubtably true, and it's a fantastic reflection on Lyon's character, but long gone are the days when being an inspirational personality was enough to get your team over the line. If Bailey is given a proper chance and fails, and if Lyon shows that he has the ability to devise a premiership winning gameplan, then I'll jump straight on the bandwagon. But until then...

Agree with WYL; it's an absolute non-event. Even if he's "guilty", I really don't care and nobody else should either. If he was in any other profession, no one would.

DaveyJones'sLocker, your "drugs are bad, they are illegal" angle is nothing short of circular logic; you're not saying "drugs are bad because they do this this and this to you", you're saying, "drugs are bad because they are illegal, and they are illegal because they're bad, and they're bad because they're illegal". Its an argument that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's surprising how many people get sucked in by it.

Absolutely.

Did I just hear Bryan freaking Taylor on FOX sports, say something like "I think we can well and truly say the tanking talk is over as far as the Eagles are concerned, and with Melbourne only going down by a kick, hopefully people can lay off them, too"?

Didnt see todays game Titan, but definitely agree with the gist of what you're saying re: Cheney and others. The first two picks are fantastic, but the main priority always has to be developing the list.

I felt really conflicted when we beat Port Adelaide, for exactly this sort of reason. We played the kids with a view to fast-tracking their developement and getting the first two picks, but when the kids come on better than expected and you end up winning (and jeopardising the picks), how are you sposed to feel?

I agree with Jaded, but take some heart in the fact that North are a considerably better side than Richmond, and us too for that matter. I'm still nervous, though.

I would like to see Watts come in, and I'd like him played all over the ground. I'd be keen to see this even if we werent tanking, but considering we are, it should be a no-brainer; it'll be a good learning experience for him and he won't have any huge influence on the game. Maybe they could rest a guy like Bate or Jones in order to make way for him. We probably can't justify keeping Sylvia out any longer, so bring him in and don't take him out of the backline unless and until we are no chance of winning the game.

I'm almost tempted to suggest we drop Grimes, but I'd hate to see us lose the plot and curb the developement of younger players in our effort to lose. The more games we can get into guys like Grimes and Jurrah, the better- its a good problem to have actually; playing the kids with a view to getting a PP, but being worried that one or two of them might be so good that they'll win a game off their own boot.

I didnt get to see the game or hear it on the radio, so for anyone who did: is this a game we can take alot of heart in? I mean, this was arguably our worst possible side, hand-picked to lose, and with the coach reportedly playing people out of position and resting key playmakers at crucial moments in the game, and we still apparently outplayed Richmond (who were trying to win) and were probably screwed out of a victory. Watching today, did anyone see signs that we're possibly better than our position on the ladder indicates and -when playing at full strength again next year- we may improve quicker than expected, or were Richmond just that bloody awful?

As others have menitoned, for me its the lack of essential development of Garland, Wanna, Blease, Strauss, Maric, Buckley mainly due ot injury and the low number of games played by Watts. Thought it would be a major development year for these blokes but instead we have been stuck with the the likes of Jones, Batram, miller, Dunn, Johnson who we already knew were not up to it.

I agree with the gist of this (although I'm happy with Watts' progress this year, and think Jones is more than up to it), but while I think its dissapointing that the guys you mentioned have had their developement stifled due to injuries, there is a silver lining in the sense that if the guys you mentioned had got regular games this year (let's say LTI's had happened to Newton, Bartram and Dunn instead of the Wonna, Garland and Maric), theres a good chance we would have won another game or two earlier in the year and not been in a position to grab the first two picks.

Its still frustrating, but looking at it that way makes it less so.

For those who are still iffy on the subject - these are the tactics that the coaching staff will/should use to develop players, give opportunities, and plan for 2010.

- Tom McNamara, Kyle Cheney, Jack Watts, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Jake Spencer may get one or two games they don't deserve on form as a spur for the future (ala Jack Grimes' 1 game at the end of 2008).

- Valenti, Newton, Dunn, Batram, Johnson, Miller, and Buckley might see extended runs so that Bailey and the development coaches can make a judgement on their futures.

- Perrenially injured players - McLean, Moloney, Rivers, and Jamar - may be wrapped in cotton wool with an eye to 2010.

- Grimes may play RR, Petterd a wing, Bate a FF, Jurrah a HFF, Jetta a HBF, Morton a CHF, or Bennell a FP to develop different aspects of their game, and increase their base knowledge in various positions.

I agree that this is the most likely scenario. To address your point; I think it is a sort of tanking, but it's not entirely disingenuous to call it "list management" as well because it does, in fact, benefit the list in a very tangible sense (and not only because it helps shore up Scully and the PP). I know I'm stating the obvious a bit, and I'm probably repeating alot of what you already said, but:

- If we play the seven fringe players you mentioned for the last 7 games, there is a chance that one or two of them might show something, just like Warnock came out of nowhere last year to become a good defender. It's a longshot, but if just one of those players turns out to be capable of contributing in a premiership side, then that helps us more than, say, a win over Richmond.

- Players like Jurrah and Grimes will genuinely learn something from playing in different positions early in their career, and will hopefully be smarter, better-rounded players for it.

- Players like McLean, Sylvia and Moloney have had obvious injury woes, as you pointed out. Likewise, the 28+ year olds we plan to keep on our list need to be used judiciously in the hopes that they might still be around when we're hitting our straps. Theres nothing to gain by playing these guys at this point.

- By giving games to guys like Wonna and McKenzie, even if they struggle, we give them a taste of senior football and the message that patience and hard work will be rewarded.

Even if we did not stand to get the number one draft pick and a PP, I'd be in favor of managing the list with a view to 2010; the above benefits alone are worth more than a couple of wins this late in the year. The fact that we do stand to get the 1st and 3rd picks, obviously makes it a no-brainer.

Anyone who compares Jack Watts to Jonathan Brown is a moron, and deserves a punch to the head by Jonathan Brown

Which, of course, would hurt much more than a punch to the head by Jack Watts.

Sorry, just had to.

Yeah, silly thread- a couple of weeks ago we had people saying the exact opposite. He might have found it tough against Jamar today, but give him a couple of years to fill out and learn the trade and he'll be beating guys like Jamar without too much trouble (that's no slight on Jamar, who I thought was very good today). Both he and Watts will have games like this in the next year or so, but in the end I think both will be something special. Impossible to say at this stage who'll be better- I find it really hard to gauge the extent of Natanui's upside; he's handy already, and will definitely get better, but god only knows how much better.

Anything is better than Bailey but having Laidley lead the club would be a disgrace. The kangas have always played a terrible congested brand of football. The only reason they have been reasonable is because their experienced players are a lot better than ours.

Bailey can't even comunicate a game plan and the development of his players is going at snail's pace. What evidence do you need that he can't coach? Another 20 wooden spoons.

Pretty simple, really; if we our win-loss record doesn't gradually improve when our list gradually improves, we'll come to the conclusion that he can't coach. At the moment, he could be Norm Smith, John Kennedy and Kevin Sheedy all rolled into one, but when the side itself consists of kids, washed-up veterans and downright average footballers, he's not going to get much out of it. Next year, most of the average players and past-it veterans will be gone, and the kids -by and large- will be that little bit stronger, fitter and more experienced. Bailey will have had three years. If things arent looking up by then, he won't last. If they do, you'll probably be the first to call him a genius.

Our midfield is our weakest area and the most ineffectual in the league right now, but if you look at the reasons for this, I think its something that can be largely corrected without necessarily using first round picks. It's not simply that our midfielders are useless, it's that our midfield is completely one-dimensional; we actually have a wealth of good-to-decent inside mids (McLean, Jones, Moloney etc), but are completely lacking in faster, more polished players to compliment them. We've seen in the last few years that with shrewd recruiting, you can often draft good running midfielders in the 20s and early 30s. An elite KPP is harder to come by.

Apart from Watts, we went exclusively for midfielders and HBF types in last years draft. Now, considering our inside mid stocks are decent already, I think that if Blease, Strauss etc kick on as expected, and if Scully is as good as he sounds, and given we'll take a few midfielders with our second and third round picks, and considering we've got guys like Bennel, Davey, Morton, Wonna, Maric, Jetta, Sylvia, who might be able to pinch-hit in the midfield in future, our midfield should actually have a good balance of speed, hardness and skill in a few years time.

Our forward situation is not great. While we all love Jurrah already, it's still too early to tell how his story will unfold- in any case, even if he stays and regardless of how good he turns out to be, he is not really a KPP. Miller and Bate are honest but limited footballers; as long as they're a focal point of our forward structure, we'll struggle. Newton is just about a write-off. The value of an elite key forward would be immeasurable.

Obviously we should go for the best available with our first two picks; simply put, we'll take the two players most likely to become outright superstars. But -and I'm open to persuasion here- if it's a 50/50 split between Butcher and one of the mids, and we've already taken Scully, I'd pick Butcher.

He was/you were saying that because Jurrah's community are Aboriginal, they will riot if Jurrah doesn't play well. You can bring up edgy, race-based humor in shows like Family Guy or South Park all you want, but the context in which he made the comment, combined with the PM he sent dandeeman (and don't bother saying you havn't read it; you wrote the bloody thing because you're the same person) makes it difficult to believe there was no malice intended. It's not an issue of political correctness. It's an issue of being a dick.

dude you dont scare no one

I'm pretty sure 'sock puppet' accounts are frowned upon, too.

LJ hasn't proved anything yet! so I can't even compare him to lamb. And what a great player chris was sadly having his playing days cut short in the red and blue... Call me a jerk all you want it's only my opinion and if it irritates and upsets you 45hotgod maybe you shouldn't be on this site

That's fine, but your comment was borderline racist. I'm not much for political correctness, but to say something like that in a thread that's supposed to be all about celebrating how much Jurrah has achieved in spite of some pretty overwhelming odds, on a forum frequented by at least a couple of people who know him personally, is a pretty ordinary thing to do. Don't try to turn this into "everyones jumping on me just for having an opinion"; you know damn well that's not the issue.

Okay. So in the last week, we've had the following suggestions:

- A call to sack Bailey, pay him out, and replace him with a guy whose never been part of an AFL coaching panel in his life.

- A call for a 19 year old kid, who has played a grand total of six AFL games, to be made captain next year

- A suggestion that we should have picked Natanui instead of Watts, on the grounds that he played better in his first game

- A call for us to move our best young defender into the forward line and take two quick midfielders with the first two draft picks, instead of simply picking the best two young players in the country (one of whom is apparently a gun key forward, giving us a chance to develop a great forwardline on top of our already promising backline)

And now we have a thread insisting that Hardwick would have been a much better coach than Bailey, a point that has been substantiated with precisely bugger-all. I'm looking forward to the next "let's do this" thread, which -I expect- will be a passionate 2000 word post, discussing at length why Davey should sit on Jamar's shoulders in the ruck contests, why McLean would be a 10x better player if he had a silver mouthguard, and why it is imperative that we draft Randy "Macho Man" Savage as our next full forward.

I listen to pretty much anything, and it'll be impossible to list all the styles I love -let alone individual bands- in one post. Like, five minutes after I post this, I'll probably go "siht! why didnt I mention such and such". But I'll have a go.

My absolute favorite artists, who I am not at all joking when I say that I would rather have all four limbs removed with a rusty fork, with no anesthetic, than never be able to listen to them again, are Tom Waits (hence the display pic), Van Morrison, The Pogues and Tim Rogers (counting You Am I and all of his solo efforts and side projects).

I love 60s-era rock; massive fan of Creedence, The Doors, Dylan, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin etc etc. Really into blues, especially the stuff that came out of Chicago in the 50s (Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters etc), gypsy swing, jazz generally (particularly Dixieland rooted stuff).

Also a huge fan of Johnny Cash, Nick Cave, Leonard Cohen and generally anyone who transcends musical boundaries, writes incredible if somewhat depressing ballads, smokes heaps of cigarettes and sings in a ballsy baritone voice.

Some of my favorite Australian musicians (other than Nick Cave and Tim Rogers) are Billy Thorpe, Johnny O'Keefe, Tex Perkins, Australian Crawl, Spectrum/Indelible Murtceps, INXS, Hunters, Cog, Frenzal, Divinyls, I could go on and on. I'm also a massive wrap for John Williamson and think he's an incredible song-writer.

The next gig I'm going to is Alice Cooper. Absolutely cant wait.

I am very concerned about where Brock is at the moment. His lack of pace and flaky disposal cannot be hidden behind his endeavour and club attitude. If ever there is a player who has plateaued over the past 3 years its Brock.

Agreed, Rhino. What gets me, is that while he was never the most polished player to look at, his disposal was always fairly reliable before this year, and while he was never quick, I don't remember him being caught with the ball so often, struggling to make contests, or lagging behind his opponents to the extent that he has this year. I'm not making excuses -as long as he's out there, he should be judged just like everyone else- but he cant be 100%; a simple form slump might account for his disposal issues, but it shouldn't be making him slower.

Nah mate, figured it wasnt worth it (got it second hand for about $15, the [censored] of it was that I was just about to the end!). Ah well, hopefully one day they'll [censored] off the wrong people- it's easy to be a hero when there's six of you verses one guy and one woman.

Agreed, most disappointing QB game I've been to.

Maybe a bit off topic, but I really need to vent: today also confirmed for me that its not just Collingwood who have a fair share of scumbag supporters who cant handle their grog. At about 8 o'clock, my girlfriend and I had to get a taxi to St Vincents Hospital (I won't go into detail, but something pretty serious came up) from Punt Road. We had ordered one, and were standing a few houses down from the Cricketers Arms hotel, and when it finally pulled up, six drunk idiots and a spoiled little skank who was with them, all wearing Melbourne scarves, tried to push us out of the way and jump in. The taxi tried driving a couple of metres further so they couldnt get in -the driver knew we were the ones who'd ordered the cab, and in any case didnt want to let them in because they were screeching and hollering as if it was their first time drunk. Again, they tried to shove us out the way. I've gone, "look, mate, we need to get to the hospital", and one of them replied with, "tell ya what, how about WE go to a restaurant, instead". This went on for a while, eventually we pushed through, but as I was getting in the cab, one of the [censored] pinched my book (Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man, highly recommended btw) and ran off giggling like a schoolgirl. He could have at least pinched my mobile; if you're going to have a go, have a real go, you pathetic [censored]. Anyway, it's one thing to try and steal a cab from someone, but to try and do it when you know they're trying to get to hospital makes you an absolute disgrace.

The [censored] in question probably don't post here on account of being pathetic, illiterate deadshits, but if any of you are reading this, you're the lowest form of life.

Mousey, I didnt hear it so I might be wrong, but I'd say Malthouse was talking about the average age of the playing list. He might technically be right, but it's a bit misleading. Say Team A consists almost totally of 26 year old players, with two or three under 21s, whereas Team B is full of under 21 year olds but has five 30+ year olds- chances are Team A are at their peak and will be more experienced and stronger than Team B, who are well and truly in development mode. But, on paper, Team A could easily, on average, be a "younger side".

The formula also doesnt take into account the degree to which an individual player is relied on, e.g. the Bombers are a very young side on average, but have some key players close to retirement.

Their average age might be younger, but in anyones language, Melbourne are a much younger side than Collingwood.

Embarrassingly stupid thread. We've shown immeasurable improvement from last year, but are a team made up of teenagers, with no forward targets to speak of. The fact that we've been competitive in most of our games this year says something about Bailey's ability to develop a list.

It's too early to say whether or not he's a good coach, but he's showed all the right signs so far, and anyone who thinks otherwise purely on the strength of todays game, needs to take a breath and get things into perspective. Our list still has a long way to go, and unfortunately, you'll get the odd game like this. But compare it to this time last year -when we were losing by todays margin regularly, and 100+ point beltings were more common than wins- and tell me we havnt improved.

I'm as disappointed as anyone, but Jesus Christ, a bit of perspective wouldnt go astray.

Jurrah has probably sealed the game, with his forth goal, which he then followed up immediately with an excellent goal assist to Brad Miller.

Fairly stock-standard for anyone who didn't see it. When asked if he's ready for AFL footy, said he felt that he was ready to play HFF or on the wing, but not to play KP. My favorite part of the interview was when Gary asked him if, since joining Melbourne, he's developed an appreciation of the proud history and tradition of the club. Said it was a "great honor" to play for Melbourne, and that (I'm paraphrasing, mind you) "the MCG is our home ground, and hopefully in the next few years we can get back to where we once were, when other teams FEARED to go to the MCG and play Melbourne".

There was more, but nothing too memorable. That said, he gives a very good account of himself, is obviously very mature and intelligent for his age, and will be a great spokesman for the club in years to come.