Hannabal

1. We'll agree to greatly differ with our interpretations on the Viney quote. The right coaching, structures and gameplan will only help develop players individually and should never take a backseat to anything. I reckon Paul Roos was a great coach. His teams were some of the best drilled and organised you'll ever find. He won a flag with a pretty ordinary group. In my opinion one of the main reasons that he got the best out of players once they'd been traded to Sydney was their gameplan disciplines. Every player clearly knew their role and what was expected of them; and that certainty helps players out on the field. People often wonder why players suddenly improve in Sydney. Is it the lifestyle ? Is it being in a non footy state, so players aren't exposed to the same scrutiny ? A far more logical reason is the coaching, leadership group, structures and disciplines. The leadership group enforces how they want to play and helps indivuals meet those demands. 2. Gameplan isn't "small potatoes" to me. And I consider gameplan and structures to be one and the same. Your set-up and structures is central to your ball movement and how you want to play. There's really only two aspects to any gameplan. What you do when you have the footy and what you do when you don't. Your structure is pivotal when you don't have it and your ball movement is pivotal when you do. It's all 'gameplan'. I don't think Malthouse agrees with you either. This from today's HS - But Malthouse was adamant his team would remain predictable despite the absent stars. "We don't win with players, we win with structures," he said. Now I don't completely agree with the first bit and I'm sure Malthouse knows the value of his elite players, but the emphasis on structure/gameplan is clear. 3. I haven't mellowed about Bailey on the back of this discussion. You're not that persuasive. The Bailey supporters take a view that's very predictable. I have clear concerns. I really rate the quality of our list. In three years time a midfield of Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, McKenzie, Viney plus others will be unsurpassed. I want the best possible coach at the helm. Bailey will get some success with this group. It will be too good for him not to. But I want real success. Can he deliver ? Any new contract for Bailey would be at least two years. I don't like the prospect of a six year coach who hasn't proven he's a good coach. For me there's something amiss with that. However, I agree that there's been extenuating circumstances that have contributed to Bailey's plight that possibly no other coach has faced.

Some more than others.

So may words, written by so many people, who know so little. So futile.

How is Chewy, Wheels ? You may remember my dog with the ultra long tongue - Hannabal ? She died last year. Anyone ever had a 15 year old family dog put to sleep at your home while she lay on your lap ? I've not been the same.

I've only read a few posts, but some of you remind me of my Mother. My only gutfeel is that he'll stay and I'll take his words on face value, rather than assume he's a liar. If he goes he goes. I'll be exceedingly disappointed. But I'll not fret every day and try and second guess any move he makes, or doesn't make. I'd hate to be in the trenches with most of you.

Thanks. (note: not interesting and too long for others) I never read your quoted comment piece and thankfully after two "WTF are you talking abouts ?" you've provided it. The link you provided in a post a few above was you stating the obvious about midfields. You may be surprised, but it's been a long time since I've read this forum daily and when I do read I skim most posts and don't open the majority of threads - I could list my life's priorities if you're interested. "You seem to be holding on to Viney’s quote for everything.." I list it because it's poignant. The fact that I refer to it often doesn't invalidate my view. I wouldn't have referred to it the first time if I believed it was a non event. If you don't agree with my view that's fine, but whether I mention it once or 100 times doesn't change his comments or my interpretation of his comments. If something is only worth highlighting once then it's not a major issue, but clearly to me it was hence the number of times I mentioned it. "You have the quote, but I’m not sure that you know how to use it" The fact that you're not sure of whether I'm in a position to adequately interpret his comments is no different to your own capacity to interpret his comments. You choose to read into his comments your preferred line of thought and I've read into them what he actually says, which I'll expand upon. For me the gameplan is paramount. Structure, discipline, players performing their role, knowing what other teams objectives are, being able to retain the ball in your forward 50, making it hard for the opposition to get it out, knowing when to guard space, knowing when to zone off, knowing when to lock down 'man-on-man', are all paramount in my opinion. Individual development shouldn't be at the expense of knowing how the game is played. Having the right structures and organisation helps a player's development, it makes the game easier for them, it doesn't hinder them. You shouldn't have an attitude that "we're not in premiership mode, so we're not concentrating as much on tactics and gameplan". So it's fair to say, Bob, that I don't agree with Viney or, by default, Bailey's directives. The players are at the club 6 days a week for 5 months before the season starts. There's time for individual development and a strong focus on game-plan; and I'd argue that one should not be at the expense of the other. And it clearly has been if you read Viney's comments. "You said yourself that West Coast’s structure took 2 years to put into place properly. They couldn’t play the style properly until this year and everyone called them a rabble with no direction, no gameplan and appalling footskills. Suddenly now they are a disciplined unit. What has happened?" I don't profess to be an expert on every club's gameplan. Afterall, I don't make my living out of football. In the main, Essendon have performed the press very well this year and clearly they haven't had 2 years at it. West Coast's issues were compounded by an unfit Cox, Kerr missing, poor footskills, and players like Masten and Swift not coming on. Lynch, Priddis, and Embley are in career best form, Kerr is back, Shuey is fit, Darling has come in, Cox is back to his best, etc. And no doubt having had a second preseason to implement their gameplan has been important. Why has West Coast spent two years trying to adopt frontal pressure, or a forward press, yet (supposedly) this is our first year adopting these structures ? My contention is that this preseason we were caught behind most teams in adopting well structured frontal pressure. I don't expect all clubs to have the same gameplan. And even if most are similar there'll be plenty of variances. The best coached teams are well organised and every player knows his role. I contend that we haven't handled the press well and we don't implement it well. We've tried to implement frontal pressure, but as we haven't spent huge amounts of time on it our structures get lost and it only takes one player that doesn't fulfill his role for it to lose traction. Really good coaches have very well drilled units. We do have tactics against the press, all clubs do, and our talent will win us games if our pressure is strong enough. But our structures to defend against it are behind plenty of other clubs. It's no coincidence that as players fatigue it's easier to get through the press. We've often struggled early, but as the games open up we've been better able to get through. It relies on work-rate, good kicking, pressure at stoppages, run and talent. Also, we lose our forward structure too easily when our forwards are sucked up the ground by opposition teams that are conducting the press. A couple of weeks back it was likened to a reverse press (not in a good way). I don't think that Bailey is a poor coach and nor do I think he's a really good one. Too often Bailey led teams have been inconsistent in the required levels of effort. I accept that he's still learning and he may well prove that he warrants more years, but the onus should be on him to prove he deserves more time. The talent on our list is undeniable and he has gone down the correct path, but it was the only path. I want a really good coach to take this group forward and I have strong doubts that he's a really good coach. I wouldn't replace Bailey for another untried coach, but I'd move heaven and earth for a motivated great one. "You obviously don’t know me very well" How would I ? "This is probably why you find it so hard to debate with me" I've never shied away from a debate with you. Ever. I strongly disagreed with you on your forward line theory a few years ago and I'll let other observers from that time determine who won, but needless to say I haven't changed my view. Your forward-line theory on structure wasn't condusive to premiership glory. That said, we've usually been on the same page with matters relating to football, which is why we've had very few major disagreements over 8+ years. There's been the odd one and I've always presented my view head on, so I disagree with your pretentious assertion that I struggle debating with you. I argued with you, and others, that in the final few years of Daniher we didn't turn the list over enough. I listed a 3 or 4 year period in which we went to the draft with less picks than any other club, because we misread our premiership chances. I did the research when no-one else was even highlighting it. As I said, I disagree with your self-important assertion. "It’s easier when you try to see the debate from different perspectives, rather than try to simplify it to a point where you can understand. The beauty lies in the complexities" Years ago on a private forum I along with you and a host of others were asked to participate in a debate/discussion where we had to take the opposing view to the one we actually held. I, amongst others, had to argue in favour of Daniher and his list management (with which I disagreed) over a set period of time and you, amongst others, had to argue against Daniher's list management (even though you agreed). Old 55, Rhino, etc, would remember and Deefan was the judge. Two winners were declared, you and me. I reckon it's easy to see the other side of any argument, but more complex to distinguish subtleties. You really need to get over yourself. (I'm still waiting for my bottle of wine. B) ) "As for who I am (A question which you seem perpetually confused by)?" So you're not Spunjy, who Rono often referred to as the 'Ball Boy', aka Dave ? Well [censored] me.

For such an innocuous and tepid fellow in person you do have quite the ego on-line, Bobby. Wtf are you talking about ? Ask any question and I'll give you an answer. I always have. I stated for years that we'd be "consistently inconsistent" until we addressed our midfield. We all know that midfields are fundamental to flags. I never agreed with your pygmy forward-line theory and argued accordingly. I was happy to leave the thread alone, but I'm more than happy to engage as you seem so eager.

Not at all. You post reasonable thoughts with no sniff of an agenda.

Gday Bobby. Another moth. No-one has swayed me of anything. The defence of Bailey is full of the obvious. Why don't you list them for me and we'll go through them together. If one of them is earth shattering then please share it. I suspect I'll be hearing crickets.

Let me get this straight. You're concerned about how my Dream Team is going ?? There's no doubt that some events haven't helped Dean. Some events have been beyond his control. I won't harp on again about some areas of concern and I'll admit that one of the main reasons I jump on my bandwagon is because of Snoopy and that Artie fellow. If they weren't so sycophantic in their support I'd ease up. If they found Bailey standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in his hand they'd immediately assume that someone else did it and threw the gun to an unsuspecting Bailey that just happened to be walking by. If Artie caught Bailey sleeping with his wife he'd apologise for the interruption.

I think that that's a very fair call. I don't see a lot of point dumping Bailey for another untried coach. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I have two questions for the apologists. 1. Why do you take any criticism of Bailey so personally ? At the end of the day I want success and I'm not much fussed who gets it. If it's Bailey that's great, but if there was a chance of securing Malthouse or Roos I'd be keen to explore it. Some of you seem emotionally invested in Bailey (I understand why one of you is). Maybe you're just delightfully fair people. Although it's noticeable that most of you are the old Demonlanders that right on cue jump to the beat of a couple of others. 2. Do you think that behind the scenes the club just brushes any concerns about his performance aside as quickly as most of you, or do you think that they too are very closely monitoring his performance and any perceived areas of weakness ?

You may as well stop reading as you certainly don't contribute anything meaningful. Where have I ever said that Bailey "has lost the players" ?

So sorry. When people don't answer it's usually because they can't, or they're in agreement. Where have I selectively quoted you a lot lately ?

You're becoming a cyber stalker, Timbo. I'm the light and you're one of the moths. I know what Viney said and I'm saying that not enough time went into the gameplan preseason. Please yourself what you think. I've also outlined my concerns about Bailey. That said, there's plenty that he's done in which I agree. He cleaned out the dead wood, he's played youth, and he's handled himself remarkably well through the course of having 3 CEO's, two Presidents, and two Boards. You'll note that in his first 3 years I never called for his head. In his 4th year I believe he was slow to catch on to modern trends in footy, such as the forward press and applying frontal pressure; he hasn't played enough man-on-man footy, which is still the cornerstone of good teams; his teams haven't had consistency of effort; and I believe he's focussed too much on an attacking gameplan and not enough on a defensive one. Is it not reasonable that in a coach's 4th and last year of a contract to show why he deserves another crack ? If you asked just about any person on the planet whether Dean Bailey is a good coach, or not, the answer would be "I don't know". Well, he's running out of time to show one way or another. If that question can't be answered by round 22, or whenever our season ends then I don't believe he should be recontracted. The ball is in his court. Should those that question him have to prove that he's not the right person to take the club forward, or should the onus be on Bailey to show why he is ? ------------------------------------------ On a side note, can players love their coach too much ? I'm interested in people's views. The players seem to love Dean a little too much for my liking, but I accept that I'm not a Gen Y type of guy. Seeing Bailey give Davey a cuddle at the 3/4 time huddle after he squibbed it, didn't do it for me. I might be out of touch (how do I know that that comment will be copied and pasted ? ), but for me that's not how to handle that type of moment. How about looking the player in the eye and telling them that that type of effort, or lack thereof won't be tolerated at the MFC ? I wonder how Norm Smith would have reacted. Yes, yes, I know, things are done differently these days.

Yes, I know. As was noted by a fellow poster "the silence was deafening". And who didn't "catch on" ? Why should a club commit to a coach for 5+ years if they don't think, or even know if he's a "really good coach" ? If I was contemplating appointing a coach for that length of tenure that would be a (one of) base parameter. At least you admit that he's not a really good coach. I agree with you.

Do you really think that you have come up with any startling revelations ? Games have been won in the midfield for over 100 years. The concerns some supporters have had with Bailey was that the team was disorganised and didn't cope well against the press and haven't provided any frontal pressure themselves, which is understandable in the light of Viney's comments preseason. Also, Bailey coached teams lack consistent effort. I'll cop a loss if the players have a crack. I'll blame the pertinent players if they don't have a crack, but I'll also lay much of the blame at the feet of the coach if he can't get consistent efforts from his group. The ball is in his court and he'll be judged accordingly at the end of the year. What's the bet that he doesn't start a game with a loose man in defence for the rest of the year ? I've asked you before why you reckon that Bailey is a really good coach. All I got was tumbleweeds.

They say there's a positive out of everything.

I really like listening to both of them.

Not only is every game winnable I picked them to win and bet on them winning. Can you read ? Your glasses seem a tad foggy.

Yeah nah.

I have incredible man-love for Jack Trengove. Destroy All - *snigger*

Fair enough. Better footy minds than mine agree with you. My easy to understand gradings: (subject to change) Superstar - Judd Elite - Selwood A grade - Murphy B grade - Boak C grade - Jones

He's not creative by hand or foot, he can't run the lines, he regularly turns the ball over, and is average in the areas you mention. His fans see an honest mid and they won't have a word said against him. Bully for them. C grade.

Depth is important in a given year. You're unlikely to have depth for a few years running, as the depth players will ultimately leave for a host of reasons, but to have depth when you're a genuine premiership chance is fantastic. Ideally you want players under pressure to perform and depth gives you that. You want the players ranked 15-22 in your side feeling under pressure to retain their spot. Collingwood had good players such as Lockyer, Medhurst, Blair, McAffer, Goldsack, Dick and a few others all knocking the door down last year and all capable of adequately fulfilling a role if they got their chance. It was a very healthy position to be in. The Saints didn't have great depth, but nearly won a flag, so depth isn't the be all and end all, but it's ridiculously nice to have and will increase your chance of a flag if you're in contention.

That's because he is mate. We'd all love him to be a Joel Selwood or Marc Murphy, but he aint. Is he good enough to get a game ? Sure. Would he get a game at Collingwood or Geelong ? No. He's an honest toiler that gets the most out of himself and dishes up some serviceable games. I like the guy, but I recognise his limitations. He's C grade most days, but will put in the odd B grade performance and I thank him for it when he does. Will he ever become a bona fide B grader ? It's not impossible.