I do too Jose, but that incident I mentioned above must have consequences regardless of who it is. Neeld can make a statement to the whole group by dropping him for a week, or in my view, he can play him again this week by slapping him on the wrists and therefore, what has changed in the coaches box from previous years (except the volume of people in there)?

Imagine your boss gives you valid criticism of your work, tells you how to improve it, and then sends you to the basement to sort letters or something. What would you think about that? How is Morton supposed to show improved his intensity if he's relegated to a leage where the intensity is inherently lower? I'm not saying leave him in the ones forever., but nothing good comes from chopping and changing a team every damn week. Mortons issues are mental; confidence, willingness to risk injury and help his team-mates, and so on. Those areas of his game are most easily fixed by keeping him in the side.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Chook

YELLING!!!!!!!!

But Dean Bailey showed he didn't know how to develop players. Mark Neeld, Neil Craig, Dave Misson and the rest are probably far better at that than Bailey ever was. So much has changed since the DB era, so you can't expect the same results from giving players more matches if they need it. Look at how James Hird's faith in Patty Ryder has helped his development. He's currently in All-Australian form despite everyone calling for his head last year.

I have faith in Mark Neeld's ability to get inside Morton's head and get him to go harder than he did under Dean Bailey. Remember, despite having played 65 games under Dean Bailey, Morton's only played one under Neeld. So as far as I'm concerned, history means nothing. If he plays next week and shows absolutely no development in any area, then I'll be much harsher in my assessment of him.

But Dean Bailey showed he didn't know how to develop players. Mark Neeld, Neil Craig, Dave Misson and the rest are probably far better at that than Bailey ever was. So much has changed since the DB era, so you can't expect the same results from giving players more matches if they need it. Look at how James Hird's faith in Patty Ryder has helped his development. He's currently in All-Australian form despite everyone calling for his head last year.

I have faith in Mark Neeld's ability to get inside Morton's head and get him to go harder than he did under Dean Bailey. Remember, despite having played 65 games under Dean Bailey, Morton's only played one under Neeld. So as far as I'm concerned, history means nothing. If he plays next week and shows absolutely no development in any area, then I'll be much harsher in my assessment of him.

Ok I have calmed down...

You can have your opinion of course. I can't agree with it though.

Pigs ear silk purse....

You can't shine a t&*(....

Ok I have calmed down...

You can have your opinion of course. I can't agree with it though.

Pigs ear silk purse....

You can't shine a t&*(....

But can you make a man who doesn't care decide to commit? I think so.

But this is the thing - it's not what he can and cannot do.

It's what he does and does not do.

That incident on the forward flank last week was not a skill error - it was a seriously bad mental lapse.

It was petulance because he'd been pushed out of the way, wanted a free, and gave up.

He'd have been shown that incident, he'd be very embarrassed, and if he has any pride (which he does) he'll go out there and try to make up for it on Sunday.

He can and will change.

I've already seen it this year.

I saw him run with the ball as hard as I've ever seen him go just last week.

He also looked like he had more power.

Small signs, but I won't give up on him yet... and I'll be very disappointed in the match committee if he is dropped this week.

But Dean Bailey showed he didn't know how to develop players.

Mark Jamar, James Frawley, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Stefan Martin, Jack Watts, Jack Trengove all say hi!

Mark Neeld, Neil Craig, Dave Misson and the rest are probably far better at that than Bailey ever was.

To date a number of players have gone backwards so far. Jury is out.

So much has changed since the DB era, so you can't expect the same results from giving players more matches if they need it. Look at how James Hird's faith in Patty Ryder has helped his development. He's currently in All-Australian form despite everyone calling for his head last year.

Your example contradicts your statement. James Hird's faith in giving Ryder more games has helped his development. Maybe the same should be done with Morton

Did anyone witness Brennan come skimming across the turf at an attempt to win a ball from two bombers, then jump up to stick a tackle? That's the intensity i'd like to see at the demons

e.g from Morton

Mark Jamar, James Frawley, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Stefan Martin, Jack Watts, Jack Trengove all say hi!

All valid examples of players who developed quite well under Dean Bailey. I have to give him credit for that at least.

To date a number of players have gone backwards so far. Jury is out.

That's a very small sample-size, Rhino. Cast your mind back to round 3, 2007 and you will see that three weeks is certainly not long enough to judge a coach by.

Your example contradicts your statement. James Hird's faith in giving Ryder more games has helped his development. Maybe the same should be done with Morton

My statement is that Morton should be given more games under Mark Neeld. I used the Hird example to show what faith in a player can do, provided there is significant work done in other areas. To my knowledge, DB never publically supported Cale Morton in the way that James Hird supported Patty Ryder. He gave him more games under the (ultimately flawed) "games at all-costs" mantra, but he didn't seem to be able to motivate quite a few of our players to get the best out of themselves. I think Morton needs that kind of motivation, as do many of our players. In fact, the examples you mentioned above all seem to be people who don't require as much outside motivation to improve/were practically guaranteed to improve based on their talent and youth anyway.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Chook

I will never know why he was picked.

Not ever.

Fair point. I say give him 5 games in a row.Sink or swim.If he isn't in the best 3 times then out . Has has had 65 chances to show some guts and desperation . Make it 70 or a swansong

That's a very small sample-size, Rhino. Cast your mind back to round 3, 2007 and you will see that three weeks is certainly not long enough to judge a coach by.

I said the jury is out. i have not made up my mind on Neeld like you have . You said "Mark Neeld, Neil Craig, Dave Misson and the rest are probably far better at that than Bailey ever was." I am not sure what you are basing that on beyond hope. I hope you are right.

I dont believe the start of 2007 was a good point in question: It was when our list was crippled by injury and the senior players who had served us so well...caved in. It was also a well established coach whose credentials could be fairly judged at this point in it.

To my knowledge, DB never publically supported Cale Morton in the way that James Hird supported Patty Ryder. He gave him more games under the (ultimately flawed) "games at all-costs" mantra, but he didn't seem to be able to motivate quite a few of our players to get the best out of themselves. I think Morton needs that kind of motivation, as do many of our players. In fact, the examples you mentioned above all seem to be people who don't require as much outside motivation to improve/were practically guaranteed to improve based on their talent and youth anyway.

I could not disagree more with your assertion on Bailey. Under Bailey since Morton was recruited, Morton has played the following number of games out of 22 each year.

2008 -19

2009 - 21

2010 - 14 - Did have a medial ligament injury in pre season which hampered his pre season and fitness leading into 2010. Missed 8 weeks. His form was not great.

2011 - 10 - Once again sustained a hand wrist injury and missed a number of weeks during the year. However some of his performances were apathetic to say the least.

Out of a possible 76 games Morton was fit enough to play, he played 64 in the past 4 years. About 84% selection.

The issue is with Morton. He is 5th year player with 60+ games. Its up to him.

The issue is with Morton. He is 5th year player with 60+ games. Its up to him.

When I said 2007, I meant 2008 (Bailey's first year as a coach).

I agree with you that Morton should have developed by now. But he hasn't, and I'd like to see him given some opportunities under the new coach to show some improvement. You point out that Morton was given games under DB, and I don't disagree. I merely assert that giving him unconditional games probably hindered his development, since he doesn't appear to have been given enough impetus to improve. That is not what I suggest Neeld should be doing.

Playing AFL games is both a reward for effort and a valuable learning tool. But being gifted game after game with not enough coaching on the fundamental errors which are limiting performance is a horrible mistake that I think underpinned Dean Bailey's downfall. He analysed premiership-winning teams and found that their success correllated with an average of x number of games' worth of experience for the players. What he didn't seem to recognise was that the Premierships were won on the back of more than just games. I'm speculating here, but it appears that he took the attitude that simply marking time in the AFL would be enough for his high draft picks to become good. Clearly it wasn't enough.

I certainly haven't made up my mind on Neeld yet, but from all reports we are significantly fitter this year than we have been in previous years and our defensive press works better than before. These are two issues that Dean Bailey was reticent to fix during his tenure, and the fact that Neeld is making strides to catch us up to the rest of the competition is encouraging. It shows a level of proactivity that I don't believe I ever saw from Bailey. I don't want to get into the relative merits of a 60+ game coach in comparison to a 3 game coach. Needless to say, the fact that the old one is gone makes me inclined to support the new one.

To be honest, I doubt Morton will make it, and I certainly agree that if he doesn't, there will ultimately be no-one to blame for that than him. However, I would like to see every opportunity be given to him to improve. Given that most of his flaws are to do with his attitude and "intensity," I feel that with the proper instruction and coaching, further games in the big time will be of more benefit to him than continual relegation to the VFL.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Chook

I thought 2007 should have been 2008. I still dont think 2012 should have been the trainwreck it has become. And I need more evidence to say it is the coach or the players. In 2008, the trainwreck was in 2007 and damage was known prior to the season starting.

On one hand you want him to get more games in the big time yet your critical of Bailey's unconditional support of Morton by giving him games.FWIW, in 2008 and 2009, Morton was good in a really carp midfield that was getting smashed. Morton was earning his place. His 2010 was injury interrupted and he struggled. Bailey still gave him game time given the promise he showed in 2008. And the "continual relegation" to the VFL is a beat up. He has been dropped 4 times over 2 years. His performances justifiably so. It has been cited attitude and motivation were issues. You cant instruct it or coach it. And to date there are a couple of other players who have known attitude issues and I dont think Neeld has swung them around.

I havent written off Morton but he is disappointing to date. I hope Neeld can do something with him.

But Dean Bailey showed he didn't know how to develop players.

Mark Jamar, James Frawley, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Stefan Martin, Jack Watts, Jack Trengove all say hi!

This, to me, is where development becomes about resources (and as the bad doctor would say, that comes from $$$$$).

More time was spent on some players than others, or they responded to a lesser amount of tuition, but there's a reason some did and some didn't.

Development is about up close tuition, 1-on-1 as much as possible, and hours and hours of advice, making corrections, do it again, discuss the correct way to do it, discuss why, study tape.

Personalised. Repetition. Reinforcement.

It's like in schools where the class numbers are too large.

Under Bailey, the footy dept was under-resourced, and it was too easy to hide for some players.

There simply wasn't enough man hours and coaches to go around, to make all the correction, adjustments and reinforcements that were needed.

FCS, we had just Kelly O'Donnell as a 1 man band at one stage. Then Todd Viney, but so much work to do with so many kids, and no one to coordinate it (now we have Neil Craig).

You even hear at other clubs, guys like Judd sitting down with the kids to analyse their tape - which players at MFC would (could) do this?

I think I can see with Cale now that someone has spent some serious time analysing his game in isolation, and stressed which areas need to be improved.

It's also about doing this with a strategy - we work on this, then when that is at an acceptable standard we work on this, then we work on that.

We systematically eliminate the deficiencies from his game.

And we do this for every player on the list.

I'm not surprised that in the past some players were skimmed over and didn't progress as we'd have hoped.

And I think it's not surprisingly players at other clubs that have had these resources seem to have gone lightyears ahead of them.

We're playing catch up, but that's not to say that we CAN'T.

They all have a ceiling - we'll just be reaching ours at a later stage.

Edited April 19, 201213 yr by José Mourinho

Just found this

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/best-laid-plans-20120418-1x7n9.html

Scientific, military management of the game is relatively new, however coaches have forever sought to ensure their team carries their imprint. A former Magpie who was at the club when Mick Malthouse replaced Tony Shaw as coach in 2000 recalled sessions where errors on the training track attempting to learn the new man's way were repeated, over and over, until perfected. ''It was like reprogramming your decision-making and your mental memory.''

Now we have an intensified version of this where we seek to do the same for individual players.

We're playing catch up in this regard.

1. Your assuming we are better resourced now to be able to do this. Its been mentioned in the media MFC have not go ahead with certain initiatives due to the lack of a 2nd sponsor.

2. We are still light years behind most other clubs in development. Neil Craig was not appointed as a Development Coach. One of key responsibilities is "a key responsibility for the Director of Sport Performance will be supporting, developing and mentoring the coaching team. The role will strongly focus on the establishment of an elite performance culture, in particular strategy and innovation." His focus is not on 1 on 1s with the players. We are up against sides that have groups of development coaches.

3. You are assuming Cale has been skimmed in the past also that he was worked on these issues in isolation and there have not been individual programs for players. In the past 2 years when he was dropped there have been statements that Cale has had to work on certain parts of his game and his attitude towards it.

And give Cale has played over 80% of matches in the past 4 years and his form has waivered its a bold assumption that he has been skimmed.

1. We have by pure numbers.

Line coach + Line development coach + Line video analyst > Line coach alone.

Not sure what these missing initiatives would be, or where they've been mentioned.

2. We are behind, and NC was not appointed as development coach, but his role does encompass assisting coordination between the coaches.

It will greatly assist with development.

3. I'm assuming all players have been skimmed to a certain degree.

You don't agree, or I haven't sufficiently explained what I'm getting at.

But I'm willing to give Cale more time, and I think most of us will be surprised by his development.

You have spouted what you believe to be the case and tried to pass it as fact not what is actually the case.

Regardless of what you believe to be the case he needs to significantly lift his game..

You have spouted what you believe to be the case and tried to pass it as fact not what is actually the case.

Regardless of what you believe to be the case he needs to significantly lift his game..

You'd think it was obvious it was my opinion by the way I began the post with "This, to me, is..."

It's the details you miss Rhino.

& nowhere have I contended that he doesn't need to lift his game.

Imagine your boss gives you valid criticism of your work, tells you how to improve it, and then sends you to the basement to sort letters or something. What would you think about that? How is Morton supposed to show improved his intensity if he's relegated to a leage where the intensity is inherently lower? I'm not saying leave him in the ones forever., but nothing good comes from chopping and changing a team every damn week. Mortons issues are mental; confidence, willingness to risk injury and help his team-mates, and so on. Those areas of his game are most easily fixed by keeping him in the side.

If I make the same mistake over and over again, I would expect consequences. His first game for a new coach, with a history of attitude problems and he still makes the same fcuking mistake.

Believe me, I'm not a MOrton basher. If I see any player do what Cale did, I would be calling for their head too, regardless of where they stand within the Club. I'm sick of my club being soft, and to be nicknamed "bruise-free" last year was an insult. It must change.

You'd think it was obvious it was my opinion by the way I began the post with "This, to me, is..."

It's the details you miss Rhino.

Yes and not just by that. And the details...its more of what you believe to be the case and are try to push as fact in the case of Morton.

& nowhere have I contended that he doesn't need to lift his game.

And nowhere have I contended that you think otherwise.

I feel a bit for Cale, he came into the MFC as a top line midfielder with good endurance and good disposal. The first two years he showed this although he was intimidated by the hard contest. Then the game became all about contested footy, Cale didn't have a defensive side and struggled with the contested footy. We try to change him re-program the way he was played footy for 15 years change his position from an outside mid to a mid sized defender, he hasn't been able to change his defensive side and contested footy is still poor, he is not a defender and never will be.

As a club we have two choices with Cale, get him back on the wing and let him show us if he still can be that outside talented midfielder that we drafted or delist him.

If I make the same mistake over and over again, I would expect consequences. His first game for a new coach, with a history of attitude problems and he still makes the same fcuking mistake.

I'm sick of my club being soft, and to be nicknamed "bruise-free" last year was an insult. It must change.

This is where I am at. I continually marvel at the Roo's that play with an identifiable Shinboner spirit (most of the time). Over the journey clubs have been identified with something. Cats for a long time were identified as handbaggers and worked hard to overcome that tag.The longest tag in footy history - Colliwobbles.

I want us to be "labelled". I fear at this stage we already are and not a label that I am proud of.

This is where I am at. I continually marvel at the Roo's that play with an identifiable Shinboner spirit (most of the time).

Its a beat up. Until last Sunday every time they came up against a top side in the past 4 to 5 years they have failed the test.

Tags on sides are for people who want to believe such things.

Its a beat up. Until last Sunday every time they came up against a top side in the past 4 to 5 years they have failed the test.

Tags on sides are for people who want to believe such things.

So do you disagree with the thoughts of Mitch Robinson?

Regardless of your thoughts RR, for another team to imply we are soft, is a tag that doesn't sit well with me, and it's the players that should ensure such tags, regardless of how much of a beat up it is, are not mentioned in the same breath as the Melbourne Football Club.