Frawley is the only b*stard who should be kicking out. To whom is another question.

Garland? Much better kick.

Garland? Much better kick.

Right you're likely 2b. However, maybe, just could be, Frawley works on his kick to straighten up / lengthen (over summer with more intent and purpose) and stays round in his designated posy. Just a thought

Right you're likely 2b. However, maybe, just could be, Frawley works on his kick to straighten up / lengthen (over summer with more intent and purpose) and stays round in his designated posy. Just a thought

I agree he has superior pace and can gain 15-20m by playing on, but his ball drop is too high, hence he'll always remain quite unpredictable.

Actually.....I prefer him in the mid field - time to use that pace and hulking body to good effect.

The most important line:

"I simply want to coach the team that is the hardest to play against in the AFL," he said.

"That means all over the ground we're going to be the hardest to play against."

That's all i want from a coach to instil that idea in the boys and then it will change the habit like Checker did in the 30's.

I was thinking the same thing Darkhorse.

With all his talk of the team being hard and him being direct, I hope that means he'll be imposing hardness as a standard within the team.

I guess this really means a cultural change, which isn't easy to impliment, but ultimately rewarding.

There needs to be an expectation of hardness, and it needs to be reinforced.

And once it gets to a cultural level, the players will find that they also are reinforcing these standards on one another.

A new game plan will take some time.

A new intent should be evident almosts straight away.

Listened to the MMM interview and he talked about being hard again. But this time when pressed on what that meant by Barrett I think, then he unequivocally stated that we would be a HARD football team.

I was under no illusions that he meant ferociously hard at the FOOTY and by extension the hardest team to play.

Yeah I think it was his way of saying no more bruise-free footy. At least I hope so

I also hope he is strong internally, in getting his team in the FD and standing up against the other parts of the club in the interests of the FD

Football is a sport not for the feint hearted. It is at times akin to a gladiatoral scene of carnage. We as supporters would like to think that the team we support is up to the challenge , that they are of sufficiently stern and robust stuff to make a stand. Its a very athletic and skillful game for sure but we're as impressed by the mettle shown by our combatants. You dont shirk, you dont absolve your duty....you do.

Over time various teams take on an aura. Some are seen as determined, some as gifted and some as just plain hard. I must confess I dont think of our beloved Demons as 'Hard'. With some talent, of ability, frustrating, inconsistent ...yes. Hard, no ! I lament this.

But all this is about to change or so it is the belief of our new coach Mark Neeld. "I simply want to coach the team that is the hardest to play against in the AFL,"

Now I suspect there might be a slight differing in terms of definition between Hardest and Hard. But in order to BE the hardest you must surely be the hardest at it.

Therefor there will be no second guessing, no feigning, no panicking. There WILL be a methodical and unbending dedication to the cause and that is to make it the hardest day for any opposition on occasions when they come up against the might Dees.

For this to happen the make up of some elements of the team will need to change. If the notion of 'bruise free' was to be dismissed then now it is to be banished. Every contest is just that , a contest. Its not sonething to be spectated, well not by the players and ive seen this occur far to ooften; the waiting for someone else to do the HARD work.

I cant wait to see this new improved hard Melbourne. Ive waited far too many years to see teams called the Demons feared like ones.

In watching Collingwood you sense theres not too much room for 'outside' playing. In fact when you look at the teams that are in the finals you see a common thread. They are indeed hard to play and hard at the ball.

We arent, not yet. Looking forward to seeing this New Melbourne. I would think the list will look a little different next season, not just because some nameswont be there but because I imagine ( or more proable, hope ) some will have transformed themselves , some beyond recent recognition.

Go Dees.......the new hard ones !!

I think Jack Trengove, Luke Tapscott, Brent Moloney, Nathan Jones, James Frawley, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Neville Jetta and Jack Grimes will be starting to get quite excited! Oh, and Jake Spencer, the forgotten man, who probably feels he can now unleash a bit of his inner mongrel. And just possibly Cale Morton, Aaron Davey, Jamie Bennell and Liam Jurrah might be getting a little nervous. One in, all in boys! Gotta love the noises coming from Mr. Neeld! Oh, and a final farewell to Millionaire Tom.....see you at the 'G' next year.

I really like this from The Age

Schwab talks about 4 key questions posed in the interviews. One in particular catches my attention.

"The final one is how he is going to lead, how he is going to set standards, how he is going to drive performance, almost the pure leadership element of it."

It gives me great confidence if ticks all those boxes.

Encouraged to hear this talk from Neeld but our problem has not been talk, it has been action. Remember Bailey was all about ‘competitiveness’.

I will get excited when I see it on the field.

Go Dees

I think Jack Trengove, Luke Tapscott, Brent Moloney, Nathan Jones, James Frawley, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Neville Jetta and Jack Grimes will be starting to get quite excited! Oh, and Jake Spencer, the forgotten man, who probably feels he can now unleash a bit of his inner mongrel. And just possibly Cale Morton, Aaron Davey, Jamie Bennell and Liam Jurrah might be getting a little nervous. One in, all in boys! Gotta love the noises coming from Mr. Neeld! Oh, and a final farewell to Millionaire Tom.....see you at the 'G' next year.

I would agree with you on two.

Davey has only a season left so he is not long term and unless his form improves dramactically in 2012 he will be at Casey most of the year

but my old mate Bennell will be worried.

Encouraged to hear this talk from Neeld but our problem has not been talk, it has been action. Remember Bailey was all about ‘competitiveness’.

I will get excited when I see it on the field.

Go Dees

could not agree more Waltham33

Actions speak louder than words.

But I guess words all we have for the next 5 months.

I took " 'Hardest' to play" to mean " 'Difficult' to beat".

But I do believe we need to harden up and hope he achieves that too.

Correct. I think is what the purpose of the statement was.

The sub-text in all of this is pretty obvious.

Melbourne are soft. Melbourne are the easiest side to play against.

Can't disagree with either sentiment. I hope he gives a cultural enema to all at the club, Get tough or **** off. (Morton & Davey I am looking at you!)

I was 6 months ahead of time - I compared Melbourne to Collingwood in article published on AFL.com. What is interesting is the Collingwood comparison - if he can bring the two things that are so evident at Collingwood to Melbourne I will be a happy man ( you will note that I used the word harder almost a dozen times in the article. Hey Mark - I want royalties !)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110896/default.aspx

If I was to have my time again, I wouldnt be so dismissive of "the game plan" - but I am still of the opinion that you can have all the game plans in the world but if you cant execute then it is nothing more than chalk on a blackboard ( or whiteboard these days)

Correct. I think is what the purpose of the statement was.

Demons to play tough

I must confess initially i took a littel liberty in immediately going to the notion of HARD as opposed to HARDEST ( or most difficult ) as subconciously I must have wanted to air this concern or approval. However the more and more I hear or read of his commentary I sense it wil lindeed involve the notion that we will toughen up considerably.

I would ask , not as argument , but inquiry that as yourself and Demonland considered it more the "difficult " aspect what do yo consider that actually to be ?

What makes it difficult to play a team. Here are some elements of our game currently ( or ratherthis past season ) to consider. We as a team dont hunt the opponent nearly enough. Opponents are given far too much largesse to dispose of a ball as they wish. By this I mean , and I wish I had a dollar for every time i witnessed this, an opponent might have th ball; now instead of a 110% effort to tackle or smother or cut off their line many an oppositionplayer got their kicks or handballs in relatively unopposed. Not nearly enough pressure applied. Oftena melbourne player might run at them but you could almost sense them pull up as they realised they ( other team ) were about to unload. Often instead of running AT they would all but run with ( parrallel ) avoiding the actual contest. Id be interested to see if others felt this too.

Theres a lot of 'outside' play by Melbourne. hence the so called bruise free. Simply taking pot shots doesnt constitute teh opposite either. A few Demons are particularly guilty of that. Just dumb.

Making it difficult ( or hard ) for opponents to play on you does of course encompass the notion that youre exectuting well considered structures and plays. When we came upon even 'softer' teams than us we took advantage and occasionally ( but far too few and between ) looks the goods. The minute we were pressed we fell apart. We also were all but incapable of applying a decent press to save ourselves.

We were easy because we werent hard at it. Look at the likes of the finalists and then is almost a gay abandon to self preservation as these teams go about their games. You just dont see this much in Melbourne. Too many players watch others. Too many expect others to to the down and dirty.

So what is difficult really if not hard ?

I was 6 months ahead of time - I compared Melbourne to Collingwood in article published on AFL.com. What is interesting is the Collingwood comparison - if he can bring the two things that are so evident at Collingwood to Melbourne I will be a happy man ( you will note that I used the word harder almost a dozen times in the article. Hey Mark - I want royalties !)

http://www.afl.com.a...96/default.aspx

If I was to have my time again, I wouldnt be so dismissive of "the game plan" - but I am still of the opinion that you can have all the game plans in the world but if you cant execute then it is nothing more than chalk on a blackboard ( or whiteboard these days)

well done nut..I'll even write the ticket to stick on yaself..lol Havent got this weeks powerball by any chance ??

Certainly fortuitist and foretelling that you used the Collingwood comparison. I think he WILL indeed bring those aspects and possibly others, now he's in the drivers seat. Im trying not to get excited...trying !!

My Filthy relos ( wife included ) are giving me dirty looks... got to love that !!!B)

well done nut..I'll even write the ticket to stick on yaself..lol Havent got this weeks powerball by any chance ??

Certainly fortuitist and foretelling that you used the Collingwood comparison. I think he WILL indeed bring those aspects and possibly others, now he's in the drivers seat. Im trying not to get excited...trying !!

My Filthy relos ( wife included ) are giving me dirty looks... got to love that !!!B)

My back and my hand are a bit sore from the constant patting on the back I am giving myself.

But your previous post sums up my thoughts - yes we need a game plan but we need to do the simple things better but more importantly harder.

Commentators mention that games plans to a certain extent go out the window in the finals and it reverts back to one on one footy. So who wins ? The team that goes harder at the contest, goes harder when the ball is in hand and goes harder when the ball isnt.

The difference between Heath Shaw and say Jamie Bennell - at the risk of being shouted down I would suggest the our Jamie probably has more tricks - but Heath Shaw runs hard yards over and over and over again to give an option. He throws his body into the line of fire without fear or favour. Jamie at this stage doesnt do this.

I look at the Pies and I only see three to four footballers who will beat their opponents one on one on every occasion - Pendlebury, Didak, Cloke and now Thomas ( and cameo's from the Krak ) - the balance are better than their opponents because they work harder. ( and yes - are better drilled, but you can be as drilled as you like - without a work ethic drilling is moot). Dane Swan is my perfect example - he is quick but not lightening, he is adequate overhead without being sensational, his disposal is ok. What he is, is a continual presenting machine - never stops presenting and never stops running - he just gets to contest after contest. Now he may be drilled in structures and where he should be presenting but he has to have the want and desire to do the yards.

We need to be drilled and have a game plan - but first we need a committment from the players to be hungry and hard - not just to expect things will happen but to make things happen by gut busting running and presenting.

If this is the hardness that Neeld can extract from our list he will be a success.

I really like this from The Age

Schwab talks about 4 key questions posed in the interviews. One in particular catches my attention.

"The final one is how he is going to lead, how he is going to set standards, how he is going to drive performance, almost the pure leadership element of it."

It gives me great confidence if ticks all those boxes.

+1 Jack. I also like that MFC spoke to MM about Neeld. Proves that we covered all angles, and MM was probably asked "Sure you don't want to coach us?".

The powerpoint method has not proved a winner for us before, and you have to hand it Garry Lyon; there's no doubt in my mind that he will have been instrumental in discarding the 'corporate-style' interview. Lyon knows what is required and has made a bee-line for it. I'm pumped about next year.

My back and my hand are a bit sore from the constant patting on the back I am giving myself.

But your previous post sums up my thoughts - yes we need a game plan but we need to do the simple things better but more importantly harder.

Commentators mention that games plans to a certain extent go out the window in the finals and it reverts back to one on one footy. So who wins ? The team that goes harder at the contest, goes harder when the ball is in hand and goes harder when the ball isnt.

The difference between Heath Shaw and say Jamie Bennell - at the risk of being shouted down I would suggest the our Jamie probably has more tricks - but Heath Shaw runs hard yards over and over and over again to give an option. He throws his body into the line of fire without fear or favour. Jamie at this stage doesnt do this.

I look at the Pies and I only see three to four footballers who will beat their opponents one on one on every occasion - Pendlebury, Didak, Cloke and now Thomas ( and cameo's from the Krak ) - the balance are better than their opponents because they work harder. ( and yes - are better drilled, but you can be as drilled as you like - without a work ethic drilling is moot). Dane Swan is my perfect example - he is quick but not lightening, he is adequate overhead without being sensational, his disposal is ok. What he is, is a continual presenting machine - never stops presenting and never stops running - he just gets to contest after contest. Now he may be drilled in structures and where he should be presenting but he has to have the want and desire to do the yards.

We need to be drilled and have a game plan - but first we need a committment from the players to be hungry and hard - not just to expect things will happen but to make things happen by gut busting running and presenting.

If this is the hardness that Neeld can extract from our list he will be a success.

Well said. Great article too. Well done.

Does all this mean we will be off to Arizona??

I love this appointment (or the promise of what it might bring). For some reason I can't stomach MM's personal style - worst examples were his public slurs on S. Milne and A. Maric.

Two things I hope this appointment brings, and as others have said, they are present at the Pies in spades, so credit to MM and the rest of the filth where it's due:

1. Hardness

2. Game plan

I agree about some of the players named earlier who will hopefully get a big reality check. No need to put the boot in again. In a rare moment of charity, I wish them all the best in seeing if they can rise to this last chance at a new challenge. But I hope we don't give non-performers another very long leash. I'm not looking for proof via physical development, which needs to take time. But we are needing to see an instant attitude transplant. Time for some to [censored] or get off the pot.

I paid up for 2012 in the low point after the TS GWS saga. No coach, and having lost a #1 pick to that grubby old [censored] Sheeds.

Now feeling a whole lot more positive about next year. Let me just live in that bliss for a few months until the NAB cup comes around and we see what prevails - words or actions.

C'mon Dees - fire up!

I'll believe the hard edge when I see it. Making this list (and club) hard will be a hell of a task... Jones, Moloney, McKenzie... they can all sit back and relax... but Morton's gonna be sitting in the corner in a ball peeing his pants, rocking back and forth.

........

Encouraged to hear this talk from Neeld but our problem has not been talk, it has been action. Remember Bailey was all about ‘competitiveness’.

I will get excited when I see it on the field.

..

Agree with the above.

Think there is a clause that says a player cannot be traded in the 1st year of a contract? Pity (Morton).