My thoughts? Well, Bailey has worked under Kevin Sheedy and Mark Williams, so he will be familiar with the tactical aspects of the caper. I just hope he's tough. Under both Neil Balme and Neil Daniher Melbourne could play scintillating footy, but when the pressure went on the Demons almost always failed to cope. There were too many times under both those coaches when you knew the Dees were done five minutes into a game. One time against Essendon in early 2003 we started OK, but at quarter time you knew the game, and the season, was in the torlet. It was painful. The same goes for round one against the Saints this year. If Bailey can get us playing hard footy and keep us in games, especially on the off days, then it will be a step forward. Williams' tactics, Sheedy's spiteful rat cunning and Northey's spirit - is that too much to ask?
An email arrives:
- It was Bailey and then daylight – Nathan Burke (who was involved in the process) described him as the best presenter he has ever seen and the first time he had actually learnt something from a coach (that’s not surprising after playing under Cornflakes)
- The board agonised over whether to announce before the weekend but Chocco did the work for them – they do not seem too worried about that although given that they have pissed Bailey off immediately I would suggest Port is not too happy – big call to get rid of your key assistant when you are 2nd on the ladder and about to go into a finals campaign
- Big chance for Connolly to replace Fagan although Peter Schwab is also a candidate
- They want Riley to stay on in more of a player development role
- Here’s the big one – we might get Hardwick as an assistant as well – that would be huge as I reckon he could be a gun
What a gimmick - having four of the candidates on the payroll. Sheedy can sell hot dogs and we'll go for the grandslam.
I'm more than comfortable with this appointment. I liked the idea of Sheedy just to turn the place into a bit of a media circus, but I really fail to see what he's done recently to be praised as the messiah.
Posted by: Adam 1.0 | 31 August 2007 at 21:07
Sheedy would have been okay. Barassi did turn the Swans around, and if you cast your mind back, they were even more of a rabble then the current day Demons.
The Crows have failed once again to tank and have left themselves with a perfectly unwinnable finals campaign instead of loading up with good draft picks. Fools!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 31 August 2007 at 22:16
Essendon are tripe, and I guess at least Sheedy has given them some hope into the future, coming from the bottom quarter of the ladder last year.
3 years for the new bloke - is that a bit much? I thought the days of the extended contract were gone, especially for untried senior AFL coaches.
But the bloody Pies though... I went against every fibre in my being to barrack for them tonight (once and once only) and what do they do? Play like they're the ones who should just be missing out on the eight. Can't be too hard I guess, the Saints were pus for 3 quarters of this season.
Posted by: Adsy | 31 August 2007 at 23:52
It's noteworthy that in 1981 we went for Barassi, but knocked back Sheedy. (Because we didn't want a full-time coach.) Then in 1993 we went for Balme, but knocked back Pagan. (Pagan was signed, sealed and delivered, but we made a snap late judgment.)
Maybe we've learned from those two and decided to go for the "young" bloke "with ideas". I always hold my fire when it comes to coaching appointments. After all, you never know how good or bad the appointment is until you've seen some results. And if they were game to pick Bailey over Sheedy then Bailey probably presented an irresistible case. Then again, maybe Sheeds will coach Richmond to four premierships before he's 70.
Posted by: Tony T. | 01 September 2007 at 09:07
Mind you, these selection processes may well be the very best in management techniques, and you may well get the very best in managers, but it's also the very muchest in arse-covering.
Posted by: Tony T. | 01 September 2007 at 09:12
Ahh hell, bombers and sheeds are crap? Damn nearly sunk the Mighty Eags in that last quarter. The Eags have thrown it - I think 2007 is now a hill too far to climb.
Posted by: os | 02 September 2007 at 01:31
No Judd, no Kerr, No Andrew Lockyer, no Eagles.
Still, if any team can smear the Paps in Adelaide, WC can.
Posted by: Tony T. | 02 September 2007 at 08:58
B.T.W.
By. The. Way.
I would have been happy to get Sheeds, but not without reservations. Over the past few weeks since he's become involved in the Melbourne selection process there have been a few odd signs.
Every time he was asked by a reporter about what he thought were his chances of getting a gig at Melbourne, his replies were less than encouraging. It was all "ohh, I'm just seeing what's going on" or "we're just having a chat" or "just trying to work out if it's a good fit". Yes, he was probably being cagey, but I got this nagging feeling he thinks he has nothing left to prove and saw the Melbourne coaching job as nice way to round off his career, rather than an appointment to be grabbed and shaken for all it was worth.
It would have been preferable had we taken the hungry, nasty, young Sheeds of 1981 (we opted, of course, for Barassi because we didn't want to appoint a full-time coach) rather than the elder statesman Sheeds of 2007, who may, or may not, have lost his edge.
With that in mind, I'm quite content to wait a few years to see how Bailey turns out.
Posted by: Tony T. | 02 September 2007 at 10:53