Mark Neeld in the media

[mauriesy 7,287]

Funny how here we are criticising Neeld for being honest and open about players' performances, but in another thread on the current Player Reports, we're criticising the club for sugar coating and never saying anything bad.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If he needs to do that then he's not the man for the job.

Fair comment. You do wonder why he want public on those 2 specific players.

Totally disagree. This club has been far too forgiving for decades and got nowhere. I like the attitude of Neeld.

And what did he actually say that was so humiliating?

I dont the reason that the club has been too forgiving for decades is a valid justification of sending messages to players via the media. Such messages can be delivered face to face to each player or behind closed doors.

I dont think any of the comments were humiliating but it is irrelevant matter when the issue is the mode of communication.

Funny how here we are criticising Neeld for being honest and open about players' performances, but in another thread on the current Player Reports, we're criticising the club for sugar coating and never saying anything bad.

Astute thinking.

It'll be interesting to see who Neeld ultimately puts in the leadership group. I expect there will be some changes.

We'll see then what Neeld actually thinks of Watts and Davey.

I agree Neeld will make changes to the leadership group and IMO Green and Davey (certainly) should be replaced.

However I dont think you will be any the wiser when the leadership changes happen about what Neeld thinks of Watts and Davey

[Very Old Demon 8]

If we wanted a media performer as a coach we should have contracted Eddie. All I want is a top coach and good bloke who can help us win a few games of footy .,more the merrier From what I have read we have that in Mark. Time will tell of course.

[McQueen 17,864]

Even if the players in question were to be slightly embarrassed, or even humiliated, by Neeld's disclosure of their meetings, I'm curious to know what posters think this negative side effect could possibly be?

Does anyone really think it will lead to them demanding a trade, or create disharmony within the playing group?

Cos I don't.

The players have outwardly expressed their excitement and approval of the new program and coaching group - Jack Watts included.

AD has been quiet but I hardly think he will sulk about getting named by the coach. If anyone has the right to name players in a public forum, the coach is it, whether he's had 1 month or 5 years in the job.

They're all men playing a tough sport.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Neeld has already stated that he comes from an environment at Collingwood where a spade is called a shovel; and one of the first things he noted about the MFC was that there was a reticence to speak one's mind because such frankness may offend. I suspect that he decided very early on to alter the mindset of a very conservative football. club. I think his comments were considered and calculated. I didn't find them over the top with regards to Watts, or Davey, they were merely pointed remarks that nearly all supporters with any reasonable knowledge of the club would have already held. I find the notion that we can all think it as supporters, but he was somehow out of line as coach with what I consider to be relatively innocuous remarks to be overly precious and merely reinforces his early views of many associated with this club.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Even if the players in question were to be slightly embarrassed, or even humiliated, by Neeld's disclosure of their meetings, I'm curious to know what posters think this negative side effect could possibly be?

Does anyone really think it will lead to them demanding a trade, or create disharmony within the playing group?

Cos I don't.

I don't either really but like everything relationships are built over time and events form part of the fabric of that relationship. On its own the comments will do nothing but nothing is "on its own".

Neeld has already stated that he comes from an environment at Collingwood where a spade is called a shovel; and one of the first things he noted about the MFC was that there was a reticence to speak one's mind because such frankness may offend.

I've not seen those comments made anywhere and again if he did make them I don't like them. Firstly I don't think is serves any purpose to critique publicly any past FD performances and secondly he wasn't there to know what was said. Can you reference the article, I'd be interested to see it.

I think some here may have misinterpreted my, and perhaps others, comments. I don't think that anyone is saying those comments should not be made, in fact I'd be very disappointed if they weren't. All players should know exactly where they stand and what is expected of them and there should be no ambiguity or vagueness. The issue is the fact that the comments in relation to two players were made public.

[Sir Why You Little 37,032]

The issue is the fact that the comments in relation to two players were made public.

What is the issue? I am glad they were made public. We the supporters give a lot of $$$ and time to this club and i was rapt to read that Neeld wants Jack and Aaron to work harder.

Nowhere to hide anymore.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I've not seen those comments made anywhere and again if he did make them I don't like them. Firstly I don't think is serves any purpose to critique publicly any past FD performances and secondly he wasn't there to know what was said. Can you reference the article, I'd be interested to see it.

I think some here may have misinterpreted my, and perhaps others, comments. I don't think that anyone is saying those comments should not be made, in fact I'd be very disappointed if they weren't. All players should know exactly where they stand and what is expected of them and there should be no ambiguity or vagueness. The issue is the fact that the comments in relation to two players were made public.

I completely understand your viewpoint about publicly mentioning players, but I disagree with you. This club needed a shake-up - especially the players that decided to lay down and put in that 186 point drubbing against Geelong. I don't believe that Neeld has crossed any line even though I acknowledge that you do.

Here's the article, although I was referencing it from memory and put my own spin on it. The comments I was referring to are here:

"I've come from a club, Collingwood, that is very direct. Very direct. I really like that," Neeld says. "That's not for everyone. I understand that . . . and that's set right from the top."

Neeld noticed a marked difference between the clubs as soon as he took on the job eight weeks ago.

"It's a bit more conversationalist over here. They'll sit," he says.

"There's a bit more short, sharpness down the road.

"Down here, it is, 'What do you feel about that?', 'What would the impact of that be?' and, 'How's that going to make him feel or her feel?'.

"I've spent the last four years 300m down the road. The clubs are completely different. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, I'm just saying how different clubs can be."

Though Neeld remains diplomatic about the past, in effect he has made it clear there will be no more pussyfooting around.

Link:

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226193168855

Edited January 9, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

I completely understand your viewpoint about publicly mentioning players, but I disagree with you. This club needed a shake-up - especially the players that decided to lay down and put in that 186 point drubbing against Geelong. I don't believe that Neeld has crossed any line even though I acknowledge that you do.

Here's the article, although I was referencing it from memory and put my own spin on it. The comments I was referring to are here:

"I've come from a club, Collingwood, that is very direct. Very direct. I really like that," Neeld says. "That's not for everyone. I understand that . . . and that's set right from the top."

Thanks, I hadn't seen that as I don't get the HS and don't routinely check the site; and what he said was fair enough in that it recognized a difference without saying one was better although by implication he obviously thinks one is.

FWIW I like the concept of the players feeling on edge in the environment, I think that will help them. It may not suit a few but overall it will improve them. If they don't like an edgy environment they won't like a competitive hostile one on the field in finals.

[Footynut 302]

I have to say that article is followed through in how he speaks and carries himself. I know if I was JW or AD or any player I would be busting my gut to want to prove myself to a guy who has clearly told me what he wants.

I believe the feedback has been taken on very well.

[Lutz 76]

I have no issue with the comments being made public, because I think Neeld feels that the players should be happy for the criticisms to be out in the public sphere.

They should not hide from criticism and there will be nowhere that they are allowed to.

They should embrace it.

They need to know and own their strengths and weaknesses.

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Great to see Lenny Dockett's face again. A wonderful all-round sportsman.

Was sorry to hear of the passing of your nom de plume who was a great player.

[Whispering_Jack 30,018]

I have to say that article is followed through in how he speaks and carries himself. I know if I was JW or AD or any player I would be busting my gut to want to prove myself to a guy who has clearly told me what he wants.

I believe the feedback has been taken on very well.

I would suggest that this is most likely due to the fact that in addition to having made the "public" comments in question about the players, Neeld would also be communicating with the players as well and fortifying the message he wants to get across to the individuals and the team.

If only we could be flies on the wall then we might know the full story but I would be surprised if these things cause any major worries to most professional footballers of today.

I can recall our own esteemed chairman getting an almighty public bake from John Northey after a rather infamous incident in the 1987 preliminary final which many might consider a public humiliation. The bloke came back and was instrumental in our getting to a grand final the next year, winning a Brownlow, a handful of b & f's and playing a thousand games in a row. I have a feeling he might have even attributed his determination to succeed and prevail at least in part to that experience. Times have changed since then but the effectiveness of a well placed message is no less on the right people if done in the right way.

[mauriesy 7,287]

From the Melbournefc website today:

Meanwhile, Neeld said another key forward, Jack Watts, had responded strongly to his expectations.

“Jack came into the competition three or four years ago and like all No.1 draft picks, he’s under a fair bit of pressure. His efforts are always going to be highlighted,” he said.

“I see Jack as a player who’s played 40 AFL games and he shows a lot of potential. As to how long it’s going to be before he reaches that mantle, where everyone expects him to be - I’m not sure.

“But to his credit, obviously I’ve said a few things in the media regarding Jack and I’ve had those discussions with him face to face. I’m really pleased with the way that he’s training, so we’ll wait and see.”

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

From the Melbournefc website today:

Meanwhile, Neeld said another key forward, Jack Watts, had responded strongly to his expectations.

“Jack came into the competition three or four years ago and like all No.1 draft picks, he’s under a fair bit of pressure. His efforts are always going to be highlighted,” he said.

“I see Jack as a player who’s played 40 AFL games and he shows a lot of potential. As to how long it’s going to be before he reaches that mantle, where everyone expects him to be - I’m not sure.

“But to his credit, obviously I’ve said a few things in the media regarding Jack and I’ve had those discussions with him face to face. I’m really pleased with the way that he’s training, so we’ll wait and see.”

And this article with interesting observations:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/127784/default.aspx

"... but I don’t want to go into individualising anyone yet,”

“We’re beginning to know the group, but reality still says we’re in our 10^th week of training.

“We don’t know them intimately about how they go about their footy, but we’re getting a fair idea. There has been an initial upward spike in intensity by the players."

These comments seem to be at odds with his naming of Davey and Watts.

[Sir Why You Little 37,032]

Keep rocking Mark...

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I think I maybe setting myself up to be hurt again but I just can't stop loving her

[Lutz 76]

And this article with interesting observations:

http://www.melbourne...84/default.aspx

"... but I don’t want to go into individualising anyone yet,”

“We’re beginning to know the group, but reality still says we’re in our 10^th week of training.

“We don’t know them intimately about how they go about their footy, but we’re getting a fair idea. There has been an initial upward spike in intensity by the players."

These comments seem to be at odds with his naming of Davey and Watts.

Nitpicking?

All Neeld was really doing, was repeating what he said to them at their first one-on-one meeting, as an example of how he operates.

Nothing overly critical or in-depth -- just something to give the players focus going forward.

I really don't see the issue.

edit:

And your post lacks context - Neeld isn't looking to individualise players in terms of performing well in pre-season; he's not patting anyone on the back for merely training well.

It should be expected.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Lutz

[Lutz 76]

More accurate:

"In terms of training there has been a level of intensity initially that's about - not making statements, it is not the right terminology - they're out there impressing a new coaching group," said Neeld. "We're beginning to know the players but reality still says we're in our 10th week of training so we don't know them intimately about how they go about footy but we're getting a fair idea so there has probably been an initial upward spike in intensity by the players."

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/127787/default.aspx

[Sir Why You Little 37,032]

Interesting reading this thread. The way some are interpreting the public naming o Jack and Aaron as wrong and humiliating.

Mark Neeld clearly issued a challenge to these guys and let the members know.

Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

And this article with interesting observations:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/127784/default.aspx

"... but I don’t want to go into individualising anyone yet,”

“We’re beginning to know the group, but reality still says we’re in our 10^th week of training.

“We don’t know them intimately about how they go about their footy, but we’re getting a fair idea. There has been an initial upward spike in intensity by the players."

These comments seem to be at odds with his naming of Davey and Watts.

I agree, it seems strange. A contradiction possibly

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Nitpicking? No, just pointing out a contradiction. It's no big deal.

All Neeld was really doing, was repeating what he said to them at their first one-on-one meeting, as an example of how he operates.

Nothing overly critical or in-depth -- just something to give the players focus going forward.

I really don't see the issue. I know.

edit:

And your post lacks context - Neeld isn't looking to individualise players in terms of performing well in pre-season; he's not patting anyone on the back for merely training well.

It should be expecteded. Really? So no praise for good play, no praise for winning, no praise courage, no praise for team acts etc etc. It should be expected.

[Lutz 76]

I don't think individual praise should be handed out so easily.

And I also think that Neeld has been quoted talking about an entirely different topic that you are trying to apply to previous articles that don't really correlate.

I see it as nitpicking.

Each to their own.

[nutbean 8,838]

I am very happy with some straight shooting - I read the Watts comment as a roadmap rather than criticism.

With Aaron Davey - every scribe and knowledgable supporter ( be it from within our club or outside) knows what a disappointing year he had last topped up with some very questionable efforts - intimate knowledge is not necessary to state the obvious.

Three cheers for the very very direct Collingwood approach.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

And I also think that Neeld has been quoted talking about an entirely different topic that you are trying to apply to previous articles that don't really correlate.

In case others can't see what the inconsistency is I'll explain my view. Neeld names Watts and Davey in the media and, depending on your interpretation, challenges them or criticizes them. This was reported on or about 10th November. He had been appointed coach on 17th September. The players are on their preseason break and he speaks to them for the first time early in October (the day of the B&F). The players then return for PS training some weeks later. So he's make his Watts and Davey comments with very little chance for them to demonstrate to him their attitude or approach and I, along with others, thought this odd.

On 11 January, some two months later he states he doesn't want to individualize. But he already has in November.

I think it's an inconsistency, nothing more. It's not a hanging offence, it doesn't mean he's no good as a coach, it doesn't mean I don't support him or have confidence in him and it doesn't mean the players involved responded badly to it. It was just "odd" and I'm interested to see if I can work out why he did it. No logical explanation has been offered here that I'm happy with. TBH I think he made a mistake and he knows it. Not a big one, not a hanging offence, just a small error and he's learning on the job.

For clarification, I fully expect him to make these statements privately and if Bailey had made them I'd accept them because Bailey had a history with these players. Neeld didn't. And I don't buy this rot about making public statements for the supporters, if he wants to do that he shouldn't and wouldn't individualize.