1858

Still no score - ouch! How many times have we gone inside forward 50?

After seeing Josh Hunt go down last night (out for the season) I am not so worried about the players we have out. As long as the players who are playing represent themselves well and don't cop an injury I will be content.

Agreed. The horror of 2008 (to me anyway) was not that we were playing deplorable football but that we had too many under developed youngsters and too many seniors on the way out and the realisation that the solution to this was not going to be a quick one.

To a degree this is a bit of a storm in a teacup scenario but it is an important line that is being drawn here by the club. With a young up and coming list it needs to be shown that rules are nothing if they are not enforced. I think the embarrasment of being dropped is bigger than the actual offence but I hope Sylvia is embarrased because he is going on 24 this year (in age) and he should be using his head more by now.

I think it is also great that Hankook has (reportedly) since 1992 advertised at the MCG. Hopefully this will strengthen the association of the Dees being the true tennants of the MCG. Even in non-MFC games when people see any Hancook signage at the MCG (assuming they continue) it will give a link to the Dees - some sort of reverse advertising if you like ...or am I just getting carried away now lol. I didn't realise that Hancook had involvement in "grass-roots" footy in the Casey area either so this is also an asset (and probably contributor to our situation with them sponsoring MFC).

You've made a lot of Dees fans happy mate, thanks for the effort!

The Melbourne board on BF is also appreciating some of the good work by 'faultydet'.

Round 2 being Collingwood who we seem to lift against so the first two games are very important from a membership pov.

That is pretty much my thought on the topic. Bailey is simply making a sound judgement on our performances and stating (an obvious area) where we need to improve.

Good to hear Maric is finally training.

You don't, you follow MELBOURNE - always remember that. The AFL is just a two bit organisation lacking professionalism and integrity run by douches with vested interests in this, that or the other.

Stability at a club is pretty important and the amount of productivity achieved at a club during the stable times is a good measure. The Tiges have had Wallace for a while now and not too many off field dramas so you would expect them to be reasonably well placed at this point in time. I agree with all the posters who put Richmond in front of us right now (list wise) but project us to do greater things and have a better list once we have had the same amount of time to build. We are entering what seems to be a stable period (finance aside) with the coach and people at the club. Richmond are not only coming near the end of their list development and looking for results but they are probably nearing the end of their window of stability if they don't improve on the field. If it all falls in a bundle for the Tiges this year then Wallace will be a major talking point and the Tiges will be in trouble quite simply because their productivity during their stable period was not good enough. I'd rather be in our shoes.

So in essence you are prioritising the direction of the gameplan based on the financial situation of the club and suggesting the club should have gone with a gameplan they did not deem part of their future direction. Appease the masses so to speak. The fact that Bailey did the very opposite to that is what has many Melbourne supporters excited about the direction of the team/club. "Building from the ground up" is not just a cliché it is a reality under Bailey. Both Paul Gardner and Jim Stynes gave Bailey an open licence to do this and the reason is because they (unlike yourself) understand what it takes for a club to become succesfull and are looking at the big picture. Throughout the Daniher era we were continually compromised by our off-field situation and had to play a brand of football that didn't develop us long term but kept us competitive with a topped up list, this subsequently landed us in the quagmire that was 2008. Furthermore a game plan is not just a half time chat by the coach it is the complete direction that your team is undertaking throughout it's development, if you are suggesting that it is the sort of thing that you can change at the nearest convenience then that is laughable. Indeed the blowouts that we suffered last year were very bad there are many factors that contributed to those however. Young players taking on a new game plan was only a part of that. Senior injuries (youngsters thrown in the deep end), players with poor preparation, the increased pace of the game, our fitness, our skills all were factors. Bailey and the team did it the hard way no doubt but it was the only way. One thing is for sure and that is the Bailey gameplan will demand excellence from our players and will make them better players. Unlike yourself, I don't profess to know the complete gameplan as yet as it is still underdeveloped so I am not going to waste time arguing the merits of it. Given that it is the direction the coach is taking, to defer it longer than necessary (simply for short term financial reasons and playing alternative football) is nothing short of suicidal and would hold the club back even further. I think you are copping out here, in a round about way you are trying to connect a lack of efficiency of certain players to the possesion game. The reality is that McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Moloney and Jones are not the fatest players in our side let alone the AFL. In the last two years the game has gone up in pace dramatically. Bailey inherited a team which was losing experienced players at the same time the game was going up a notch. The players you mention are not add odds with the Bailey gameplan at all, if there is any question as to their ability it is with respect to the current state (speed) of the game. Again, you do not compromise your game plan because of a certain group of players in the team. By the standards of most clubs in the AFL those players lack pace (maybe apart from Bell) ignoring this fact and doing a patch up job is the last thing we need to do. Your "run and carry" label on the Bailey game plan (as if we were the only ones) is not that uncommon amongst teams in the AFL to a degree. If we have players who can't fit in with this then they are going to struggle regardless. McLean and Jones are inside mids (extractors if you like) and serve a distinct roll but when you see them struggle to chase as well as evade opponents that is not the fault of the gameplan. FWIW I think once our faster mids come to the fore, McLean and Jones will become even more effective players with their support around them. Rhino retorted this quite aptly.

If anyone is falling for traps it is yourself, you make one rediculous assumption after another on my posts. In case you hadn't noticed we have turned over 19 players since Bailey has been with the club. I am not "pinning my hopes" as you put it on players who haven't played the game - I am facing the reality that we have a new generation of players coming through the ranks. I am saying that our game plan will not come into full swing until we have the best 22 out there showing it for what it is - simple really. A gameplan is not as simple as Bailey coming to the club and saying "this is it boys now go out there and do it". A gameplan (just like a squad) takes time to instill and develop - join the real world. I am not saying that Bailey is (or should be) unaccountable with developing all of our players, in my previous post I stated that he spent much of last year honing the skills of the entire squad. Your second point is yet another theoretical generalisation. As far as skills are concerned we recruited players who were accomplished with their disposal. Does that mean we get rid of every player on our list? NO, does it mean that the coach shouldn't think about our gameplan when recruiting new players NO. You confessed to not reading the entire post which if you had you would see that I said that Bailey has to develop the players he has but the lack of talent shouldn't compromise the direction of the gameplan. Your comprehension skills and football understanding are quite limited. Please stop replying to my posts with one dimensional, ill though comments.

You are completely missing the point or at least jumping to rediculous assumptions. I didn't suggest that Bailey doesn't have a gameplan nor did I suggest that he isn't instilling fundamentals of it. Quite simply last year we were disastrous and struggled to play even a basic level of footy let alone adhere to the Bailey gameplan. I am not saying that Bailey is holding off on it (that is a stupid suggestion) more so that we won't be able to perform it optimally for a while until the majority of players have developed. That is why I said that last year wasn't about the gameplan - it became about footy basics because we were so poor at the basics. Over the summer break Bailey recruited with a specific purpose to getting ball carriers with good disposal. Even though we tried last year we were not in a position to focus too much on the Bailey gameplan as our skills were shocking - we could see that they were applying a few aspects but they struggled majorly. As our players improve and play to instruction more, our gameplan will become more apparent - get it? You also seem to have a one dimensional view of what a gameplan is. It isn't just posession like we have seen so far, also you would have to be naive to think that once our forward line is established that our gameplan won't evolve to incorporate different tactics going forward. A gameplan is a combination of style of play as well as tactics, Bailey has started instilling this but it will take time - it won't happen over night as you seem to suggest it will. Your philosophy on football is flawed. You would be a good coach at Richmond who coach for the moment and make compromises due to their cattle. I on the other hand believe in the philosophy (that Bailey is approaching with) which is you define a long term goal and build towards it. If you don't have the players who can perform to that game plan then you get players who can (which we seem to have done over the summer). Of course you have to develop the players you have (which Bailey is doing) - he isn't getting paid to sit on his ass but it doesn't mean you change your gameplan to suit a lack of talent. It stands to reason that until we have the best players on the paddock playing to the gameplan, we won't see that plan at it's most effective which was my original point. Bailey saw how bad we were last year and focussed on competitiveness and not losing posession - not because he felt like it but because he had to. He didn't think to himself "hmm I don't feel like enforcing a gameplan this year, maybe next year" he acted accordingly based on our footy skills and brought in a few basics of the game plan. If you think what we saw last year is the extent of the Bailey gameplan then you are deluded. When Bailey applied for his job he would have outlined his goals, his gameplan and how he would go about achieving a new generation team adhering to the gameplan over time. Our next generation forward line is not even on the park. Watts, Jurrah and Maric will all be key prospects going forward and when they finally get a game we will hone our tactics so that the midfield and forward line interact like in top sides like the Hawks - if you can't see this then I think you should indeed "give up".

I think we are coming from different perspectives here. An important part of my point: "which you would expect to come into a more obvious phase later in the year". If I read you right you are saying that our gameplan is already out there but we just aren't performing it well enough and by mids moving forward this will make our gameplan more effective. My perspective is that we haven't even started on our game plan and tactics yet. We are working on basics like ball skills and team interaction. Bailey hasn't even had enough time yet to determine our best 22. What we saw last year was not a gameplan. Perhaps we have different opinions on what constitutes a gameplan, in my books last year was about retaining posession and seeing which players were strong under pressure. My point of view is that as our list gets better and we lock more players into positions Bailey will develop a more in depth and robust game plan which involves tactics and game play from one end of the ground to the other. This is the context that I say our forward line will be pivotal. With respect to some of your other points; In a perfect world where we run the ball from defence and our mids can just waltz inside forward 50 to be a marking option or slot one on the run that's great. In the real world where we are still developing our midfield to even get the ball and make proper decisions and enhance their skills you need genuine forwards and structure to be in place so they have options and can develop their game. I think you are trivialising the game a little too. Not every play is from defence, there is also a thing called a centre bounce - that thing we were killed at by Hawthorn last week in the final quarter. From a centre break, if you get the ball down quickly it will be a good forward set up that finishes it. I look forward to seeing our young mids run the lines from half back to half forward and slot some goals but that is only part of the game. Even if some mids push forward as an extra target that is fine but I doubt Bailey will hang his hat on that as a winning formula as time progresses. Also, besides clearances, one of the main reasons our inside 50s was low (last year) was due to a lack of options - how many times did we go forward only to hold it up due to indecision? The lack of numbers you refer to can also be attributed (in part) to our poor forward line - no quality or structure enables the opposition to free up defenders or to play to a preferred zone. Having a well functioning forward line gives the ball carrier options as you can manipulate the oppositions defence. A good forward setup can create spaces or fill spaces depending on the play and this in turn effects the ball carriers decision making process about passing (and to which target) or retaining possession and running the lines. Finishing is not just about the quality of your kick but also where you kick. It stands to reason that with well drilled interaction with forward targets that your disposal will improve over time as will decision making and that is crucial to developing our young midfielders. I am not disputing your point about numbers behind the ball, that certainly did happen too much last year when we were in damage control. I like your point about midfielders working forward but (for a good football team) that should compliment a forward line not replace it. Bailey will undoubtedly develop our game plan through out the year to have defence, midfield and forward line come together. My point is that until our forward line is fully structured we won't be able to do this to the best of our ability and our midfielders will suffer to a minor degree. I think you are hinging your ideals on a brand of footy that is still in the making and if we are solely going to rely on midfielders pushing forward (as you suggest) then that would be inadequate.

I agree but it isn't just goals on the board that is an issue with our forward line either, to a minor degree the development of our midfield and ball carriers will be effected by having such an ordinary forward line. Without clear cut targets and forwards who know where and when to lead, we will have ball carriers who won't know what to do when going forward. Hesitation causes players to hold the ball up and then they naturally get into trouble which effects their disposal and confidence not to mention the attacking flow of the team. Bailey I expect, will do a pretty good job of getting our ball carriers to run and get the footy and will emphasise skills under pressure but unless we have a reasonably settled forward line then it will be hard to drill into the younger players the team rules and tactics. Our forward line is pivotal to our overall gameplan which you would expect to come into a more obvious phase later in the year. Our lack of quality forwards means some experimentation will be used at different stages but I don't think we can afford too much of this. We may have to keep certain players in spots up forward simply for the purpose of training aids to our midfield. Miller needs to be kept closer to goal where he is in range and the other forward target whether it be Newton or someone else needs to play a consistent roll (even if they are no good) until they are replaced by Watts (or Jurrah) later this year or next year.

Was Dunn ordinary as far as offence goes or was he ordinary in his tagging roll as well? - also do you know which Swans player Bailey put him on?

Process is everything and this is yet another example of how our footy department is looking at the big picture and not taking short-cuts. Also if we do the right thing by Watts and other youngsters they are more likely to do the right thing by the club in the future. I think it is great how professional the club is becoming at multiple levels. From an excitement point of view I can't wait to see JW out there but we have so many other 1st year and 2nd year players to watch grow that I will certainly be pre-occupied anyway. Exciting times Dees supporters! PS does anyone have an update on how Maric is going, the last I heard is that he was being held back from proper training - that was about two weeks ago.

If Dean Bailey was the first coach in VFL/AFL history to employ clichés in his media dealings then I might have shared a similar concern to the OP.

I am obviously not suggesting it, but I would love to see Newton spend a day in defence on a top AFL forward to learn how a forward at that level operates and also to lift his work rate and accountability. Newton comes across to me as the type of player that you just can't teach. Maybe putting him in the deep end would be the only way for it to sink in. Stuffing around with our defence in this way is not even a remote option (I speak theoretically) but it would be good from a kick up the bum approach and give him some genuine insight as to how hard a good forward goes about it. Back OT I agree with drdrake, we need to play as many youngsters as possible this week with at least a couple of senior players for guidance.

If we examine Saturdays game against the Hawks it tells of a well known tale about Sylvia and in fact it some what cements our thoughts. To say Sylvia is inconsistent is an understatement. To say he can be damaging on his day is fair but on his bad days he often leaves us perplexed. I think Saturdays game was quite an eye opener. We had a multitude of young second year and other younger players bust their guts and keep us in the game for three quarters untill Hawthorn hit their straps and quite simply outclassed us. We didn't choke in anyway, the younger players just weren't accomplished enough for the onslaught that we copped but they were instrumental in achieving what should have been a game winning lead at 3/4 time. The big question from the game is how did so many of our young players step up and play honest, tough and constructive football and yet a player in his 5th season has virtually a dog of a day? Spencer, Martin, Grimes, Frawley, Morton, Cheney, Garland and Petterd to name a few all dug in and tried their hardest. In the same game against the same opposition we look at Sylvia and he simply didn't do his share. A previous poster stated that he just had a "Sylvia day" - well if this is the case then god help him because it is not good enough. Maybe last year when we got belted from the opening bounce and multiple players struggled you could say ok Sylvia had an off day and will bounce back. From Saturdays game I think we can genuinely say that he simply did not play to the level required and he was shown out by our younger brigade who not only played better but approached the game with genuine professionalism. The younger players delivered in spades for the whole game not just the first 3/4s and we should have won the game for them. As far as the whole 3rd pick champion expectations go that is in the past. Melbourne supporters no longer expect Colin Sylvia to be a champion of the game based on his draft pick status however some supporters use this as a way of defending his inconsistency. We do on the other hand expect him to put in (even on an off day) to be constructive and competitive like our youngsters were on Saturday and this here is where the problem lies. He simply can't pick and chose when he is going to have a good game, the MFC, the other players and supporters deserve better. As the team moves forward nothing but the best effort will be required by all players. You can have a bad day but still put in your best effort. What does this all mean? Well I for one think Sylvia should be given this season before final judgement (as hard as it is after Saturdays game) but one thing is for certain and that is that he (as well as a couple of others) needs a rocket up the ass from the coach. Saturdays game wasn't just about losing a close pre-season game. It was about how the game was played and why we lost the game and how the younger players in the side were let down and deserved a win. It would have been great for the club, players and supporters if we got up and the loss was unecessary. Many people who have posted on various sites were livid and I understand why. I am quite a reserved supporter/member and I always look at the big picture so losing this game won't (on paper) be the end of life as we know it. What some people don't understand however is that the significance lies in the loss not the game. The game itself was immaterial but the reasons for losing need to be put under the microscope. Playing under injury is often overlooked and form can fluctuate for different players so it is easy to give your two cents worth from a keyboard but given Sylvia is in his 5th season it is quite reasonable to expect even a base level of football and competitiveness which unfortunately was not on display on Saturday. He quite simply has to start playing for his team.

Dunn was definitely given some game time up forward and I think there is a fair arguement that he didn't have enough to see what his full potential could be. In any case, Bailey has identified a very purposeful roll as a negater which Dunn seems to have taken on-board. Despite what others think I personally reckon this has improved his football and I think that is what Bailey was thinking about. There is no doubt that this year the focus is about consolidating Dunn's negating roll and adding a few strings to his bow. There was an article around the time this thread started (apologies if someone has already mentioned this) which outlines his MO. Given our limited options up forward I wouldn't be dissapointed if Dunn was moved forward but I think the club has concentrated on Dunn's specific roll knowing full well that our forward line is not up to scratch and the other forward options are going to take time to develop so I can't see them changing anything. Regardless of how you look at it, the negating roll he played last year did improve his footy and if he can add an attacking side to this then he could be a real headache for opposition teams, good attacking tagger types are reasonably rare.

If he is earning biscuits then I guess it dosen't matter too much between 1 year or two years. I just think the club kept him for insurance and to see what he might do but it appears to be a foregone conclusion that he won't actually do that much. As long as we don't have to watch him play (ie do nothing) that much then I can handle two years as if he wasn't there. When I look at Newton he plays 1980's style football. He actually reminds me of Simon Beasley back in his day - slow, talented, can take a mark here or there and kick a couple but in no means worried about doing 1%ers. Newton is averse to modern football in all it's competitiveness and professionalism, I say we put him in a time machine and send him back to 1985.

I agree both players were a huge loss. But I think sometimes there can be a tendancy to sidestep the crux of an issue and that is that we had enough opportunities to ice the game in the last quarter up forward and our midfield was completely over-run. Our younger players battled their guts out yesterday and they honestly deserved a win because it was those youngsters who gelled so well that gave us even a hope of winning in the first place. Instead of looking at what the younger players did do how about we concentrate on what the more senior players didn't do - this is where the problem layed. When Hawthorn decided that they were going to put in and actually play a quarter of football our juniors were always going to struggle. In fact the only reason we looked ok for the first 3 quarters is because Hawthorn let us. What I saw yesterday was a contingent of young players (who are still learning the game) play their guts out and be let down by more senior players who simply did not put in. I was swearing my backside off that last quarter with my heart in my mouth like any Dees supporter but once I calmed down I realised that even though I felt let down I actually felt more for the younger players who were put under pressure and made to look as not being good enough for the win - they were fantastic and they were sold out. Our senior Midfielders and forward line have a lot to answer for. I was disgusted that some people (on not just this site) suggested that we were chokers when in reality the young players who played hard were hard at it all day.