binman

Have read most posts on the Scully saga, the tweets, the links, the articles etc etc. Like someone posted it's a sick addiction, like a very slo mo car accident. Anyway for what its worth i thought, having weighed and considered all the data and info, i'd post what i reckon might happen from here (nb i have no inside sources and this is purely my speculation). My strong feeling is that whilst the money is a big factor (obviously) the issue of which environment will help Tom reach his potential is the biggest driver for him. I suspect he is hell bent on being the best he can be and that is his priority. The player he most reminds me of in this respect is Nathan Buckley. Which football environment is seemingly universally regarded as the most professional? Which FD has the biggest budget? Which club will have a a driven coach, great assistants and a gun head of fitness next year? Which club can give him success, both short and long term - and allow him to remain in Melbourne where he has such strong family support? Collingwood. Consequently I reckon there is a very good chance he may end up there. How? Well he could go into the draft and advise GWS he wants to go Collingwood. Collingwood could then deal directly with GWS and trade for pick number 1. Lets say Thomas and another lower ranked player. Thomas would be exactly the sort of player GWS would love - flashy, talented, media friendly. He could get the big, big pay cheque and the Maggies would have a ten year gun. The maggies could then also afford to pay TS a pretty fair wack, whilst still helping resolve what will become a pretty serious salary cap issue from next year. Alternatively they could trade some of their mid range 23 -26 year players like Beams et al. This would help GWS as they will absolutely look for older more seasoned player than GC as the AFL cannot afford the sort of losses GC have had. A win win for both clubs. In this scenario, i'm not sure but i don't think Melbourne would get any compensation. If that's the case this would be a pretty handy bargaining chip for TS, one that he could play and perhaps "force" Melbourne to deal directly with Collingwood. Not sure what they could/would give us. Perhaps some draft picks and some players? Far fetched? Perhaps. But whilst there would have to be some pretty serious wheeling and dealing and there are lots of pieces to the puzzle, if Tom advised his management to make it happen (ie get him to Collingwood), i don't see why it couldn't. I think the dees are still in with a chance however. I believe Tom is a straight up guy and believe him when he says no deal has been struck with GWS. Even without a commitment lots of people supposedly in the know might believe he will go (which becomes a self propelling rumour windmall where every shake of the head has deep meaning) and therefore it becomes some sort of fact. Buts let's say it's true he has been thinking about leaving he may still change his mind. The rumours about TS returning from China because he was uncomfortable with the drinking culture ring true for me for some reason and may well have caused him to reconsider his future at the dees. However since then i wonder if perhaps the dees have made some ground up in the club culture and professional stakes. I reckon the club handled his injury really well, have been super supportive of him and fierce in their resposne to suggestions he a liar (and traitor - the dees should ban talking to John Ralph). Shwabby has lately emphasised the improved professionalism, infrastructure, facilities etc etc. The dees have handled all this with real class i reckon, which will also help. Finaly another year playing with his young team mates will make it harder and harder to leave and might be enough to sway him our way. I would be gutted if Tom goes (god forbid to Collingwood!) but in the end i don't suscribe to the theory it will derail our march towards success (can you derail a march?). Huge blow, sure but not a disaster. As i said the dees have handled this with class and not having to pay a huge wack to Tom will in the long run help us keep other player over the next few years. I would be more worried about losing Watts as i reckon he will be the most important player for the dees over the next decade. Now for the many who won't have bothered to read the above palaver (which would be totally understandable) i will give my probabaility of where i reckon Tom will go (drum roll): 45% chance of remaining at Melbourne Football Club 40% chance of going to Collingwood 15% chance of going to GWS

Cannot agree with that all. Why would his intertity be questioned. If he goes it will be because at the end of the season he has considered the GWS offer (assuming they actually make one) a better deal for him than the one the dees put to him. Simple as that. He has every right to take this course of action. I actually think his integrity would be enhanced as he would be following the course of action he (and his management) have been steadfast about since the beginning of the season, despite the inane pressure from the media (and many demons fans if this board is any indication) to make his decision (and the associated disruptive negotiations) now because they can't stand the self imposed tension. Good on him for staying firm and focusing on his footy. The only way his integrity might be "shot" would be if he has, contrary to his public denials, already agreed to terms with GWS

Was just about to post exactly the same quote. The article suggests it is a "direct and seemingly illegal approach" so where does his confidence come from. In fact if nothing has come "across" his desk about this how on earth could be have an opinion at all about it? He also says: “I think (AFL football operations manager) Adrian Anderson is obliged to make inquiries. I think the media likes using the word investigation, he will probably make some inquiries.” Hardly fills you with confidence the matter will be seriously looked at when the boss is basically saying "nothing to see here, move on" to the fans and the silly old media. His complete dismissal of concerns about a high draft pick going off to GWS after only 2 years (sculls) was similarly contemptuos and his argument that the CEO's signed off on it disengenous at best given the punishment he would mete out if they objected (fixturing, TV exposure, bail out money etc etc) Geez he has done an ok job but he can come off as a supercillious [censored] can't he?

I was just saying yesterday to a mate how exciting we are when we get going. Our ability to score in bursts and move the ball so quickly end to end is fantastic to watch. Imagine following the saints - it would be akin to watching a bloke push a big rock up a hill. Funny how earlier in the season our "game plan" was getting a hammering. A few win shuts that talk up pretty quickly,that and 35 tackles inside 50 - which by the by is the sort of pressure Bailey has pointed out all season we are aiming for and that a failure to do so is not related to game plan but execution. Oh, also intersting how now there is the talk about the Hawks "slice and dice" game plan based around clinical kicking. If they win the flag will that become the new tactical orthodoxy?

Yes good point. I agree it won't happen but hypothtically if he wanted to play hardball he has "the going to GWS card" and if played we would get 2 draft picks. But as we would have just found out the draft is a gamble and besides we don't want to have to wait for another 2 youngsters to come on, the ones we've got are taking long enough. As noted above GWS, if they finish bottom could also do a deal with Richmond as could Port or Brisbance if they get the spoon, so forcing him into the draft might mean we get nothing if another club could get a deal done with the tiges (giving him another ace up his sleeve). So in a scenario he was adamant he wanted out a deal with Richmond might be a better bet for the dees, depending on who they put up. Any way crazy talk and again i agree won't happen. Perhaps i should give myself a two week demonland ban for trade related craziness. I claim sudafed as a defence!

The talk of Skull going to Richmond is an intersting one and in some ways perhaps not as crazy at it might appear at first blush. Why? First, he's out of contract at the end of this year so therefore any team can sign him, so talk of GWS signing him and then on trading is a little strange (or am i missing something?). What if it isn't all about money? Whilst Richmond could not afford to match a GWS offer they could match any any offer we might make i assume Second, as i have said in other posts about Skull he strikes me as someone who is focused on achieving team success, is clearly a family man, wants to be at a club with a strong healthy culture, wants to remain in Melbourne (by some accounts), is perhaps not motivated by short term financial gain and there is potentially great long term financial incentives staying in a footy mad town. I have used these as reasons why he would stay at Melbourne, but they would all equally apply if he played at Richmond. And at this point in time who is more likely to win a flag first (or even experience medium term success) - Richmond or Melbourne? Of couse i would love to say the dees but to be honest am less sure about that than i was six months ago. And what if the whispers about his unease with elements of the demon culture have some merit? Thirdly, perhaps the reluctance he's had to commit to the dees and the unease some feel he has shown relates not to a decision to head to GWS but to another club. Certainly if it were true it would mean there have been no lies about commitments being made to GWS. Where there's smoke there's fire - maybe something other than the obvious is burning. Perhaps Mike Sheean should ask him about the tiges Lastly losing him to a cross town rival (and not getting any player in return) would be the right level of pathos for our long suffering supporters. Watching him run around with Martin every week would be a shocker. Can you imagine the media storm? Little Johhny Ralph and the rest of gossip hounds at the Hun would go into melt down and Demonland would implode. Of course this is all a strange twisted nightmare. I have had the flu so perhaps i'm delusional. Nah of course it won't happen. Please Tom , say it 'aint so! Sign soon and put us out of our misery

up 'till this point i felt sure you were going to say "bring in Fev!"

yep. i like bater, always have. But that was one of the worst games i have seen from him. Forget the crapola about him making a contest, he was woeful. Actually think it is another example of bailey making a tough call. Last game for MFC?

Good call. Quite a coincedence actually, was just looking at the stats from the game and a few jumped out at me. One was that Maric had 15 score involvements, the most of any player in the team (Davey and Sylvia next on 12). Also he had 10 inside 50's, equal most with Maloney. I like him in the side, smart thinker, good user, looks to set players up and is creative. In our best 22

Beautiful kick. I was sitting at the top of the ponsford right behind the goals and initially it looked like missing but the ball curved in flight.He sure can kick it. There was another kick where he transfered it across the ground and off two steps it must have gone 60 metres easy. Not sure about favourite but Baters goal was sort of funny.He had such a shocker that i had to think he was better of trying not to use his hands.

Spot on by a factor of ten. What an absolutely ridiculous conclusion to reach (ie sack Bailey). I was joking with my (rabid demon fan) mate after todays result what ways demonland and big footy posters could find a negative about todays result - who have they beaten? why do we need a crisis to respond, etc etc. Didn't see the result "as evidence Bailey should be sacked" line though. Pure comedy gold Prey tell what would be the response if we had been, beaten, just won, won by 4 goals (but should have been 6)? Bailey got the boys up, repsonded as he should on the track, responded in the match when we lost Grimes, was brave enough to go with one ruck, was as calm after this win as he was after the loss and he's still done the wrong thing? Pleeease. Results such as last week happen to a young side.Jeez a worst result just happened to a similarly young Crows side - sack Craig? Does any one really believe Richmond won't get a touch up at some stage. When they do, sack Hardwick? What about sacking Scott and Voss whilst we're at it One final thing. We are in the 8. We are not a top 4 side (obviously). Our "peers" in terms of development stage etc are West Coast, Richmond, North and the Crows. We are above those sides on the ladder and if history is any guide are a good chance to remain so (ie the final 8 is often set about this stage of the year)

Good article, spot on really. Selection this week will be fascinating. They have the option of going hard with the axe with some okay games at Casey (Bate in?) but would also be loathe to make too many changes as teams with mutiple changes rarely win. Also its pretty easy to blame and then punish the players - [censored] 'em on the track seems to be the message - but what reponsibility do the coaches have and what should be their punishment?

Yep

Yep i agree. As i have said in a previous post our governance has been a shambles since at least 1966. It seems under Jimmy we are starting to get our ducks in a row (though this remains to be fully proven). Of course we all want success sooner rather than later (yes, yes we have all been waiting nearly half a century) but we are building toward 2013-14 and to expect miracles is folly. Two examples illustrate this point well i believe. The first is Brisbane. They took a massive risk last year with their recruiting strategy in the hope of snagging a quick flag. If successful they would have been lauded - but it didn't and now they have to go through a whole lot more pain whilst they go back to the tried and true methd of building from ground up. The second example is Colllingwood. When fast Eddie came on board their board (pardon the pun) the Collingwood governance was in a mess and had been for some time. If memory serves they were near bankrupt and internal divisions wracked the club. Sound familiar? Eddie asked the Maggie army to be patient. He promised - and delivered - a slow build towards success, with each piece of the puzzle carefully put in place ad no cut corners. Correct me if i'm wrong but it took at least 10 years for his vision to come to fruition. Forget game plan it is this focused planning and strategising that the dees are (hopefully) looking to emulate.

I knew we had a Trident Club at the dees, didn't realise we also had a Strident Club. Exclamation mark

I'm 100% with you on this. Absolute pet hate of mine and seems to happen all the time. Up there with playing on when only 20 -30 metres out after a mark. Dribble away from the boundary but from straight in front? Looks great but as noted above surely as sooon as you put the ball on the ground it reduces the likliehood of it going straight and/or increases the chances a defender will be able to touch the ball. Jurrah did it against the lions and almost hit the post.

Thanks HT for introducing some sanity to this thread. What is going on, why the panic? Improvement is rarely linear (Essendon not making the 8 last year for example, but pushing again this year - this is not all to do with Saint Hird, their improvement has been 2-3 years in the making). The club has been crystal clear we are building a foundation and the main game is 2 years away. My feeling pre season was that we wouldn't make the 8 but would be close and nothing that has occured thus far has changed that feeling. It was a calculated gamble axing McDonald (and Yze, Robertson, Wheatley et al in previous years) and not meeting Cam Bruce’s terms. Of course in the short term this was going to hurt but it was cold, hard business and based on future pay off. As someone noted Gysbersts and Tapscott may not be in the side if not for those hardnosed calls. I suspect the club has gone very hard in the pre season on building the core strength of our players - see the increased bulk of Bate, Martin, Newton, Morton - at the expense of aerobic capacity. Bailey has made the point on numerous occasions how important core strength is and how vital it is to winning stoppages (and how key that is). I'm not a stats man but i reckon our contested possession stats would be pretty good this year. I reckon we will improve our aerobic stuff as the year rolls on and be better able to run quarters and games out. As for the game plan it seems to me that we are, in fact changing our style this year. Whilst still playing a spread and carry style we are clearly going 'round the boundary more and less through the corridor. He has also been playing Jamar deep more often to encourage less shallow inside 50 kicks and provide a contest near our goal. I also reckon the sub rule aligns well with our style as games seem to be breaking open more late in quarters (as is the intention of this rule change). Bailey has also emphasised on several occasions the need for our forwards to create more pressure and i think Wonna’s relatively early call up (given his very interrupted pre season) is evidence of his focus on this. I would have thought that our current lack of pizzazz might be a direct result of trying to implement a rejigged game plan, just as we struggled early in Bailey's tenure with the Geelong style run and carry. The Collingwood forward press? The football media (and seemingly many fans) have very short memories (and attention spans for that matter). This is just the current orthodoxy which will be replaced by something else soon enough (ie by the side other than Collingwood who next wins a flag). Half way through last season Geelong were the favourites to win the flag and at the start of the season there was criticism of the Malthouse predilection for going around the boundary line. It also a style that is 100% reliant on having a side with few injuries, particularly to key runners. Hawthorn, the Saints and Collingwood have had sustained success with it only when they have had an almost full list for the whole season. Let’s see how Essendon goes now they have lost 2 key runners. I find it interesting that many of naysayers and doom merchants stress how long they have followed the club and how we should be delivering now. Surely the experience of watching footy over a long period teaches that only the clubs that plan well over the long term succeed. This has been the failing of Melbourne in the 30 odd years I have passionately followed the redlegs. In that time our governance has generally been an absolute shambles. This is why we haven’t been successful, not some half baked idea our fans tolerate mediocrity or our players are soft. Come on give me a break. We have had our fair share of warriors and talent but that is not enough. Our current governance structure seems to be sound and i am confident they will make the right calls, including who should coach the team. I actually think we will push for the 8 (though as i noted not neccesarily make it) and finish the year well. I also reckon we will continue the trend of last year and play well against the top 4 teams. Deep breathes all round and lets reassess where we at the end of the season.

Yes, i thought that was very interesting and it lines up with the comments he made before the season about the need to focus on improving our forward pressure and going to the boundary. I read his comments as a pretty strong critique of our forwards and their lack of pressure. I'm sure that they want more from Watts and Jurrah in this regard and i reckon Watts starting as sub was a pretty clear message he needs to improve in this area. Jurrah i thought was better this weekend and Wonna is terrific with his tackling and harrasment. I also liked Davey up there as its probabaly hard to tag him there in some senses and his pace means he can shut space down quickly and put pressure on defenders. Dunn does not do enough in terms of tackling etc and to be honest i'm not too sure Greeny does either (a bit slow?) As for Jamar up forward i know we are thinking 2012-13 with players like Cook but i do wonder if the FD made the wrong call not selecting Darling given their stated need for a strong forward they can kick deep to (Bailey noted the probelm with the "shallow" kicks into our 50). Darling played 2 years senior footy in the WAFL i think and i know Bailey is realy keen on soild citizens (and probabaly not keen on drafting kids from WA for fear they will want to return)but his aggression and precense (on field)would be pretty handy this year and beyond. Any way done now - lets see what the Cook can serve up.

What does this mean? We don't accept it! Lets say, for the sake of argument "we" don't accept mediocre skills what will happen?

Yep i'm with you on this. There was a thread asking how much we should win by for a pass mark. Many said around the 70 range. The betting line (which is alot more reliable than online forum predictions, given it is peoples hard earned) was about 50 points i think. Well we almost doubled that. But of course some people still aren't happy. Perhaps we should have beaten them by 500 points. Given the Bulldogs could only beat them by 70, at home, they must be a monty to finish near the bottom of the ladder (that's supposed to be ironic btw) Nothing wrong with constructive, well reasoned criticisms but It amazes me how negative many of the posts are on this site.

I'm with you on the negativity front. I'm also not so keen on the way threads seem so often seem to deinigrate into personal insults. Call me old fashioned but i was brought up to belive in the importance of respect and being polite. I'm keen on footy discussion not cheap point scoring. A postive from today? Jurrah - worth going along just for him, really smart in the last quarter the way he sheparded the Moloney goal through. Also Gysberts, he's a natural footy player and just a ball magnet. And Wonna showed how valuable his forward pressure will be in the next few years. Oh and 4 points. As i posted in another thread this was a real danger game and i'm happy to come away with a win

Absolutely. If we go out and show the lions the level of respect shown to them by a few posters we are a chance of losing. We need to bring our A game pure and simple. If we do and win by a point because the lions play out of their skins then all good. If we hammer them then great, but to be honest i would love both teams playing great footy and us winning going away.

A danger game for the dees, one we should win but as much as it pains me to say i like the Lions to cover the 31.5 line. We had a scratchy pre season, were poor in the second half last week, are struggling to kick big scores, the lions beat us in the pre season match (admittedly we had a pretty weak side in), our mid field is struggling and they still have a pretty good one. Also it might be a little slippery which does not suit our game style, with its emphasis on transition from defence via precise kicking and slick handball.

Its not just power forwards we are lacking, we also need to improve the tackling and physical pressure from all of our forwards. Collingwood and the Hawks have both power forwards and forwards and mids that tackle like demons (metaphorical ones not us). This obviously traps the ball in, causes turnovers but almost as important creates the referreed pressure so vital in causing errors and panic. I think from Bailey's comments before the season it is something he is working on (ie forwards tackling etc) but we have a long way to go with this.Wona has to come into the side for his forward pressure In terms of a power forward, don't laugh, but i reckon Newton is a chance to come into the side to be our power forward. He has been working to bulk up and is now big enough for the role. This might be his window of opportunity and perhaps like Brown he is a late developer.

I agree with these comments, spot on i reckon. Bailey's lack of a tactical response to the opposition having the momentum has been a theme in his tenure thus far, as has having no so called plan b, or simply an effective secondary model that works against sides that bottle it up well when our standard spread and run approach isn't working. On Sunday the older players didn't step up in the 3rd quarter but Bailey has to take some responsibility as well. Where were his moves to counter their run on (eg as one poster noted what about Dunn into the centre to get some hardness there), where was his tactical response? Team development is all well and good but tactical nouse in this day and age is crucial. I thought it was really intersting that Davey called for a slow down at 23rd min mark of the second, which may or amy not have been the right thing to do, but did not do so (& nor did any other senior player) in the 3rd when the game was being ripped away from us. Surely that was the time to stop the momentum, hold the ball, chip it around, rebalance. Green acknowledged exactly this point in his press conference on Monday. Now here's my point about this - Bailey was down on the ground during the 3rd so could communicate directly with the players. Why didn't he direct a player to go out and slow things up? Why didn't he take charge tacticaly. He's the senior coach after all and the buck stops with him Also tacticaly it was a huge risk having Maric as the sub as he can only play up forward, when we needed some mid field grunt and run in the last q not a goal sneak. He should have statred on the ground with Jetta sub as at least Jetta can play in a variety of spots and generally tackles well (though not on Sunday)