Bonkers

I hope Miller never gets another game for the club. I have nothing against him personally I just think playing him is a backward step when we have other younger players with more talent in the VFL that are yet to get a chance. Miller has had 133 chances to make an impact at AFL level and it hasn't happened, by playing Miller the FD will find nothing out about him that they didn't already know.

Don't know about Bartram. Surprisingly Dunn is one of the taller players on our list. Think he was drafted as a forward & I think that position is probably his best. If he can develop his overhead marking and kicking a little more he could be a real valuable asset over time.

If Brown is out play Chip on Fev & get him to run off him all night. Fevola won't be able to go with him up the ground.

I'd rather get rid of Newton & Hughes and possibly another and recruit a rookie ruck to develop. Most ruckmen on AFL lists are spuds, it's very rare to be able to pick any quality ruckman from the draft. The only successes I can think of are Natanui & Kruezer picks 2 & 1 respectively. We could alternatively go down the path that Collingwood have and give up a first rounder for someone like Jolly, I'd rather the club didn't. All we need is someone to pinch hit for Jamar in certain games, not really worth giving up a high draft pick for IMO.

Have to agree with you there. If we can get 4-5 years out of Thompson and his body is deemed up to scratch then the only question is; what price would we have to pay? You would have to jump at the chance to bring in some more quality if it comes cheaply. We can't keep drafting kids forever, we have a stockpile of them as it is. Whilst 28 isn't the ideal age I believe there is a dearth of talent on our list from the ages of 22-27. This is the area the club should be trying to bring in mature age rookies or players from other AFL clubs that will fit within our on-field structure and list management strategy. At 22-23 an AFL player still has a good 5+ years left in them barring injury, this would mean they would fit into our premiership window comfortably. If the club can bring in a couple of quality players between the ages of 22-25 we will fast track our development and become finals contenders a lot quicker. We can still keep drafting kids and develop them while adding the odd mature aged player to bolster our best 22. At the moment our two weakest areas to target would be a marking forward and a skilled midfielder. The opportunity to bring in these players may never arrive as they are high in demand, however I definitely think it's worth the club doing their homework to find out if these avenues are possible.

I think the players decided to take the game on & take risks. They weren't afraid of making mistakes and moving the ball. They put their heads over the pill and backed their team mates to do the right thing. I would call it instinctive footy. I don't know if Dean Bailey instructed them to just have a dip or whether switching to man on man footy gave the team the impetus to compete hard for one another, I don't really care as long as they continue to do it in every game. The challenge is for the team to continue to show what they did today whilst they work on polishing their games and eradicating their errors.

Considering the lead up to todays game & the pressure which was placed on the players to put in a good performance I would try not to make any changes at all. The team did everything asked of them today in terms of contested footy & put in the effort which we all wanted. Sylvia has to come in so I'd probably drop Bate if he's not match fit or Bartram. I'd consider Bartram depending on what his role in the team was today. I wasn't at the ground so I don't know if he tagged anyone out of the game or not? Although Bennell shirked a contest, he gave us forward pressure which has been lacking & also some run & creativity. Sylvia IN Bartram OUT

At the end of the day we all know its only a game, but for 2.5 hours on saturday I want our players to get out their and play like their lives depended on it, like they are going into battle. It's not too hard to ask, those of us who have played any form of footy know what it's like to walk onto the ground with your mates and put your body on the line for them. All our players have to do is keep it simple and go in hard for their mates. That's all I ask from them being a Melbourne Member for them to play like demons.

I would love to know what sort of key performance indicators & criteria that need to be met/passed in order for the club to offer him a contract. I would say at this stage their expectations of Bailey are extremely low, he hasn't proved much other than being able to turn over a list and get some improvement from some players whilst other players have gone sideways or backwards. Tactically he has shown at times he is inept or is not capable of getting his players to carry out his instructions (one of the two). There is only so much you can do when you just plain and simple don't have the cattle, however when he was signed Bailey was signed as being a teacher and developer of players. I think the jury is still out whether he is capable of doing this. The players don't appear to have learned anything regarding kicking, handballing and running through zones. They continue to fail to make space to run into or run at all. The clubs contested footy is poor. As a coach surely the bare minimum that is expected of you is that you get your players mentally ready, that your players can execute simple skills & that the team play hard contested football. Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't see much evidence that Bailey is going to instill that at this moment in time. I think expectations need to be raised if we are going to become a great club again, the bar is low at the moment due to our considerably young list. I just wonder if its too low in terms of asking for the basics of AFL football to be displayed by all players on our list.

Your initial argument was that if we perform poor on field we will be removed from the AFL. The statement is not entirely true and is determined by a variety of different factors not just on field. In reply to your last post survival is the point and the main goal, without survival there is no football club. The second goal should be to build assets. If you have a good business model in place with assets to create income outside of the income generated from on field issues you have a strong club that is not reliant on income generated from things that are often variable, such as revenue created from on field performance. From the assets you acquire you will then have more money to invest back into the club. You may argue that if we are poor on field we are stuffed and that revenue to acquire assets may never come which may be the case, however there are a lot more ways to be a strong club than by relying on how you perform in terms of ladder position and premierships won. Collingwood has won 1 flag in 50 years yet they still manage to be strong off the field. I realize what you are trying to say, however I don't agree with it entirely. Lets agree to disagree on this issue.

Well that would mean that any time the club is poor on field we are poor off it. It makes a weak position for the club.

Well that's where we differ. I don't agree that the business plan should entirely depend on on field performance.

I'll disagree with that, the on field performance of the club is one part of the business plan/model. Yes it impacts on revenue through sponsorship, merchandise, memberships, gate receipts etc. It is not the be all and end all of making a profit however. It certainly helps I'll agree and will make it easier for us to achieve a break even result or profit. It doesn't solely contribute to whether we will still be in existence though. There's other ways of staying afloat financially than displaying good on field performances and these are the areas the club needs to start exploiting.

Both of your points are valid. However if the club is able to put into place a business model that is not reliant solely on how the club performs on field then we will have a place in the AFL.

Has the AFL or VFL excluded a team for poor on field performance? Yes or No?

Name one club that has been removed for poor performance? The only clubs to die have died because of financial stress. eg: Fitzroy, South Melbourne. Performance & financial stability can be linked, however do you think a club like Collingwood would be removed from the comp if they were on the bottom of the ladder for five years consecutively? The point I'm trying to make is that we are lucky we don't get relogated etc for poor performance. The advantage we have in regards to the article written is that we can build a business model that will allow the club to remain within the AFL and compete in the AFL if we work hard and are smart enough to do it.

DO you think the club has a spare 700k floating around somewhere?

The backline had no chance to regroup on those occasions you mentioned after we turned over the ball. Hawthorn players spread fast & moved the ball quickly inside their 50 leaving our defenders half way up the ground where the ball had been turned over. I think the issue was not about the backline, I think it was more to do with accountability and costly turnovers catching players out of position.

The advantage the club has is that we will never be removed from the competition due to performances, on the flip side we will be if we continue to perform poorly financially. In the long term I hope the club is capable of acquiring strong assets so that we are able to compete with the likes of Essendon off the field. Does anyone know what the clubs plans are in terms of building assets after the club has wiped its debts?

I have been thinking similar thoughts and have had discussions with mates regarding the same things you mentioned. I think that it is one of our biggest problems that the experienced players just don't have enough desire, mongrel, ticker, balls (call it what you want) to put any doubt in the oppositions minds. I really don't care as a member of the club if the players ability doesn't match the opponents, I just want to see the club instill a culture of hardness at the ball and opponent. As a team we are far to soft mentally and physically. It's time for the Dees to start playing their own brand of unsociable football and if the current players can't do it the club should bring in players that can.

Either way you look at it whether this is a sack the coach thread or just plain and simple have a whinge thread. It doesn't change the fact that the team showed little commitment last night. You have got to ask the question whether the players are switched on enough at times and whether they are willing to put their bodies on the line and show pride in the jumper. The coaching staff are responsible for motivating the players. How bout they get the playing group to start playing with a bit of mongrel. Play like demons as Checker Hughes once famously said. The game is played in the mind a lot of the time, I would like to see a change in mental approach to games. It's not good enough to keep saying we are just developing players and we need time. It's creating a get out and a cheap excuse for the players. The club needs to get harder or we will still be talking about winning our first flag since 1964 in another 5 years. The games we won last year against Freo and West Coast are a perfect example of what this playing group is capable of. They should be aiming at that level of commitment each performance and privately the playing group should have expectations placed on them from the coaching staff to aim for in terms of ladder position this year. Even if yesterday was only NAB cup it felt like just the same type of performance as the first three rounds of 2008.

Jamar & Miller one year contract extensions I don't see a mention of two years anywhere here.........

When did Jamar get offered two years?

Great teams are teams that are full of footballing ability as well as having members in them that are willing to sacrifice a part of their game & sometimes their body for the greater good of the team. Selfless acts etc. If Miller was so essential to the teams well being they would have offered him a more secure contract than a one year extension. I think we all know he has a spot on the list until a better option arises, that's the nature of professional sport.

I don't want to turn this into a Miller thread, but if you have a look at him when he plays he has got no idea what to do with the footy when he's got the ball. He is a back to goal lead up forward and that is about all he will ever be. His ability as an AFL forward is pretty much limited as he doesn't have much of an idea when he is facing his own goal or when he is trying to bring his team mates into the game. He's almost as one dimensional as Ben Holland.