Hannabal

Spare me the powder puff replies. If you have any substance to defend Bailey and his inept gameplan and gameday tactics then knock yourself out and I'll be all ears. *crickets*

I don't believe that you have any great feel for the game and nor do I value your opinion on the merits of Bailey as a coach. Other than your cries of 'torch bearers' and those being unjust, or counter productive you've really added nothing. At least you're contributing and perhaps you'll improve, but right now it's a trite offering.

An unusual leap of faith and certainly one I don't share. As previously requested, who are these posters ?

This comment actually highlights how much the game has changed in 3 or so years. The game has riverted back to a heavily contested style.

He'll stay.

No, Scully is a non issue in the latest developments. On Stynes involvement, etc., which is what I thought you were referring to in your penultimate post.

For prosperity (as all will come out at some point) what's your take ?

King is an excellent analyst and gave sound reasoning to his views. Did you watch the show ? Roos has expressed surprise at Melbourne's gameplan. Brad Scott mentioned on Footy Insider that we setup very differently and haven't embraced the forward press. You may think that's a good thing. Lyon has expressed concerns. Gerard Healy wrote an article in March which was highly critical of our gameplan. But you prefer the views of anonymous Melbourne supporters that post on the internet ? Btw, who are these well informed posters ? And what do you mean "trust" ? It's not a matter of "trust".

There have been comments made on radio and in the papers that all may not be well with the relationship between Bailey and Connolly. Connolly's silence is noticeable, which is significant to me. Garry Lyon is very close to Connolly, Stynes and Cameron Schwab. Anyone that has followed Melbourne through the 80's onwards knows this. Connolly and Lyon were teammates and Lyon has publicly stated on many an occasion how much Connolly loved talking footy. They used to spend hours discussing the game and Connolly's appetite for such discussions was legendary from Lyon's point of view. But such a terrific talker who is often the face of the club, who delights in analysing the game for hours on end is suddenly being scrutinised over his silence ? Lyon clearly wouldn't endorse Bailey on his footy show and said that Bailey is in a terrific position to ensure his future with performances over the next 16 rounds. He then stated that the next 6 weeks were really important. Does anyone think that Lyon doesn't have significant influence at the club ? Does anyone think that Lyon hasn't had significant discussions with Stynes, Connolly and Schwab regarding on-field performances ? Does anyone think that Lyon would say things that he knew the club didn't want him to say ? Did he think that when he said we had a high risk/high reward gameplan as opposed to West Coast's organised and well structured gameplan that it wouldn't be noticed ? Stynes now wants to be more hands on in the FD. Does anyone think that this isn't a significant development ? Does anyone think that the club doesn't realise how this actually looks to the outside world ? Clubs are so great at managing spin these days you'd be a fool to think they don't know how this is being perceived. It was unusually noticeable when Schwab even felt the need to prompt Brett Moloney into discussing his binge drinking at Moloney's presser. He almost had to intervene by prodding Moloney and saying half way through "what else Brett ?", "oh yeah" says Brett, "I also have a drinking problem". Schwabby could be seen nodding in the background. That's when I knew that Moloney was being hung out to dry, but that's another story. We are now told that there's going to be a sub-committee to review the coach's performance and to determine whether he should have his contract renewed. Eighteen months ago the coach had his contract extended because the club wanted to "avoid media speculation". Does anyone see them rushing out to avoid such speculation now ? Or have they only heightened speculation by this announcement which coincides with one of our worst performances under Bailey ? Hmm Yes, yes, the ones on here that see nothing out of the ordinary and simply a prudent Board being diligent in the light of a couple of ordinary performances are surely correct. Aren't they ? Yeah, right.

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with Stynes, who is a very hands on person, would bet that this is more a Stynes initiative than a Board initiative. No doubt it's been ratified by the Board, but equally I have no doubt that Stynes has CLEAR concerns about the coach and FD, otherwise he wouldn't take this approach. He obviously is more concerned than the well-meaning Bailey apologists that post here. Thank God for Jimmy.

The issues I've had with Bailey are in the main to do with the gameplan and I've made that quite clear to you. Did you watch AFL 360 tonight where they examined our gameplan and came to the same conclusion ? It's great to get the calculator out and pore over ages and games played, but you really need to open your eyes on our out of date tactics and inability to compete with most clubs on a level playing field, because we're 4 goals down before we take to the field.

They said what some have been saying for weeks and some, such as yourself, simply don't have the footy cognitive skills to understand. Our game plan isn't based on defence and the high risk/high reward strategy will never stand up in finals. We're one of 3 clubs that doesn't do the forward press and moreso doesn't have any clue how to counteract it, so we're behind on two counts. Bailey isn't a tactician's a-hole and has been caught asleep at the wheel over summer with his pants around his ankles. Some people get it, some people get it but won't publicly admit it and some just don't understand it. Welcome to category three.

How do you account for our more games experience and same age lists ? Explain to me why they're wrong. I'll analyse (pick apart) your stats and offerings when I get the chance later today.

You're now using Rhino's lines ? I'll be reading with interest all of the comments by those so staunchly defending this ordinary coach when he's replaced at year's end.

Very true. Over a year ago I attended a Wellman's lunch in which McLardy (an old Boy) attended and Connolly was guest speaker. Connolly spent the first 5 minutes humourously deriding Richmond's list and stating how the next 10 years was incredibly bleak for them. He even made a couple of poor sod Tigers fans identify themselves by putting their hands in the air, much to the guffaws of the rest of us. Even Richmond supporters I know acknowledged that whilst they went down the reaches of the ladder before Melbourne they were in fact 18 months behind in development after Hardwick cut hard into the list. Richmond have no right to be playing as well as us and certainly no right to be better, but no doubt the apologists on here will do their utmost to make excuses. Cotchin is finally starting to show his worth, Martin impacts games, Foley's last two games have been good, Deledio is important off half back and Riewoldt is a quality key forward. In the main though they have some very ordinary C graders, many of whom wouldn't get into our side. A blend of a best 22 would be interesting.

Or if he's not a great tactician, not great at getting the most out of his players, or put simply an ordinary coach. Despite the never ending excuses of some, into his 4th year the answer is looking more and more likely.

I understand your point, but I disagree. The Saints bottom 6 last year wouldn't have been better than Melbourne's bottom 6 yet they drew a GF and arguably should have won it. Their stars in Goddard, Riewoldt, and Hayes enabled their team to compete on the last Saturday of the year. Until we unearth bona fide A graders, and a number of them, we'll be treading water. Stars win premierships not ordinary footballers. But yes, it goes without saying that every player on the list is being developed as best a club can. You want to have 26-28 players that can take the field without the side being overly compromised. I do believe however that gameplan and well drilled tactics/discipline has never been more important. Far more so than 2-3 years ago. And right now we're bottom 3 in that regard.

I can't believe what I'm reading. So precious and so naive.

Notsureifserious. The world is rid of a vile murderous scumbag and I for one am rejoicing. You can please yourself.

You're welcome to, but you'd be wrong. It's a club's best players that have always been the barometer of the quality of a side. The stars make the also rans around them seem better than they are, which is why some players that leave a really good club struggle at a poor one. It's much easier to play well in a good side than a poor one. It all gets back to the quality at the top end. I'm not suggesting that you don't want depth, of course you do, but unless you've got a number of A graders all the depth in the world won't make you a good side. We're virtually bereft of A graders. We haven't had a star of the game since Flower, so it's little wonder you haven't seen a flag in that time. Most stars of the game have played in premierships, not all, but most, and there's a reason for that. Presently the Saints 'best 6' are playing woeful footy, or in Hayes' case are out injured, so it's little wonder they are where they are after round 6. Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Hayes, and Dal Santo are having terrible years and low and behold the side is sh*t. Hmm EDIT: add Gilbert and Milne. They're only good player playing well is Fisher.

It is. Dennis Pagan won two flags, but looked like a chump at Carlton with terrible cattle. Unlike Carlton at the time I think that the basis of our list is good and can continue to be tweaked over the next couple of years. For a moment let's deal in known knowns. We know that Malthouse is finishing as the coach of Collingwood later this year and we know that Paul Roos is also not engaged in a senior coaching role. We also know that they are recognised throughout the industry as terrific senior coaches with a track record of success. We believe that we have a quality young list and have a 4 year coach coming out of contract that has yet to taste finals (I'm obviously making an assumption here). If we're tracking ok mid year, but still have question marks as to whether we've got the right coach to take us to a flag, do we sit down to negotiate a new contract, or do we make approaches to one or both of the above and go all out to secure one of their services ? I have to say that the thought of Malthouse, or Roos taking control of our playing list in a quest for a flag has much appeal.

Sorry, for some reason I missed it. In reality, into Dean's 4th year you and I both agree that we really don't know for certain if can coach, and we certainly couldn't say with any confidence that he has the nous to be a great coach, but at least we were encouraged by the Footscray game, the two Collingwood games and the Swans game. Ultimately, we won one. In James Hird's first year as coach they look really well structured and organised and unless it's an amazing aberration he looks like a well drilled, albeit young, coach. And this has been noted from his first foray into the NAB Cup. Have we ever looked so well organised as a team under Bailey ? Perhaps you'll point to the Sydney game, but I'd suggest that that was a game where everything went right, Sydney weren't on their game and it had less to do with gameplan, but rather a young side with their tails up taking their chances. More a case of high risk high reward footy that paid off. We can all make excuses for Dean and many of them are valid, but for me it's the inability to be able to handle the forward press and poor defensive aspects that lead me to the conclusion that he's been asleep at the wheel over summer and has been relying on the natural maturation of the group to provide those "thrilling" performances he said we'd see when addressing the faithful at the AGM. It's like he's just been waiting for it to happen and not diligently orchestrating his own unique style that was going to make it happen. Dean speaks well, he's been in footy a long time so clearly he isn't a dill, he's handled himself in the media astonishly well, but save a few good performances there's not much to hang your hat on from a playing perspective.

My take: Garry Lyon doesn't rate Bailey. He came armed with damning ammunition as to how we're playing by showing embarrassing statistics. He wouldn't endorse the coach when asked, but instead said "we'll know in the next 6-8 weeks". He also said that Bailey is in the "perfect position" (emphasised) in that he can redress the imbalance and ensure his own survival with on-field performances. It smacked to me as someone saying the ball is in your court Dean, hit the winner. Lyon has also recently queried the game plan calling it "high risk high reward", as opposed to West Coast being "well organised and structured". Lyon knows that every footy person is keen to hear his views about the club he once captained. My gut feel is that he doesn't overly rate the coach and I'd be surprised if some inside the club don't share those concerns. Snoopy has made some valid points, but I want to know why we've been caught off guard over the preseason by the forward press and why many players are simply not having a crack. Our defensive game plan is almost non existent. I made a thread a while back titled "top 6", which explained that a club's fortunes and ladder position is usually mirrored by the quality of their top 6. That thread supports the Snoopster, as our top 6 are playing poorly and are yet to reach consistent A grade status. Top 6 players of last year are for varying reasons playing poorly. Frawley, Green, Davey, Jamar, Sylvia, and Moloney. Frawley has an excuse, Jamar has been OK, but the rest are lamentable. Some will say that Moloney could have 3 BOGS, but I consider him a flat track bully and ordinary against decent opposition. So yes, there are reasons which partly explain why we're so poor; and it's not all laid at the feet of Bailey, but I'm firmly of the view that Bailey isn't the coach able to bring everything together to take this group forward.

You have a familiar style. What name do you usually post under ? Trying to even up the status quo as best you can ?

The only bandwagon I'm pushing is my own. And Snoopy, you may have missed a question I asked you on this thread.