Like i said if Green is reappointed captain it will be on the current preseason attitude and form. Last year will have nothing to do with it. And good luck to him. Brad Green is a ripping guy who i have chatted with a few times...but i do not see him as a captain. Leadership group...definately.

I know Neeld has commented on his starting with a clean slate etc etc, but I still get the feeling hat in the case of the incumbent (Green) he will take last year into consideration as he will be well aware of the kinds of negative effects that could occur by simply dumping him. I'm certain he will have taken note of the treatment JMac received and it's impact on the playing group and will not be wanting history to repeat itself. I personally would still prefer to have Beamer at he helm, but am simply saying Green's reappointment would not surprise me in the least.

I know Neeld has commented on his starting with a clean slate etc etc, but I still get the feeling hat in the case of the incumbent (Green) he will take last year into consideration as he will be well aware of the kinds of negative effects that could occur by simply dumping him. I'm certain he will have taken note of the treatment JMac received and it's impact on the playing group and will not be wanting history to repeat itself. I personally would still prefer to have Beamer at he helm, but am simply saying Green's reappointment would not surprise me in the least.

I get the opposite feeling from Neeld. One of the first things he commented on after he came to the club was how touchy-feely everyone was at Melbourne. Lots of "would you mind if ..." and "how does that make you feel?" etc.. He said words to the effect that Collingwood eschewed that type of communication.

A big part of the reason Jnr Mac's 'treatment' (if you want to call it that) had a destabilizing effect on some players was that Bailey lacked the hardness and presence to lay down the law to dissenters. Hopefully that sort of nonsense will receive zero tolerance under the new regime. By all reports it already appears that that will be the case.

Regarding the captaincy, I don't think Neeld will take any notice whatsoever of who's nose might be put out of joint by whatever selection he makes.

I get the opposite feeling from Neeld. One of the first things he commented on after he came to the club was how touchy-feely everyone was at Melbourne. Lots of "would you mind if ..." and "how does that make you feel?" etc.. He said words to the effect that Collingwood eschewed that type of communication.

Interesting.

Is this in context of the playing group, FD or even those above on the board/executive?

Interesting.

Is this in context of the playing group, FD or even those above on the board/executive?

From top to bottom according to this article ...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/mark-neelds-hardline-approach-to-lift-dees-out-of-the-doldrums/story-e6frf9jf-1226193168855

Interesting.

Is this in context of the playing group, FD or even those above on the board/executive?

All of the above, from memory.

From top to bottom according to this article ...

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

ah yes, I remember reading that now. It certainly seems more than just the players will learn a thing or two from Neeld.

Not sure if its been posted - more speculation from the Hun although this one indicates we may opt for co-captains in the Sydney model (JT, Grimes & Frawley).

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/demons-likely-to-opt-for-co-captains-model/story-e6frf9if-1226250859080

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226250859080

The captaincy will be one of the toughest and most important decisions that Mark Neeld will have to make in his (so far) short time at the MFC. I'm not keen on shared captaincy as a concept, but it might be judged the best option in the unusual leadership circumstances that we currently face. I'll be comfortable with the final decision, whoever it might be, or whatever the configuration, because Neeld (aided by his panel), is better placed than anyone else to make the final call. I would not have this confidence if we were still running with the Leading Teams model for choosing our captain.

Edited January 22, 201213 yr by Deeoldfart

The captaincy will be one of the toughest and most important decisions that Mark Neeld will have to make in his (so far) short time at the MFC. I'm not keen on shared captaincy as a concept, but it might be judged the best option in the unusual leadership circumstances that we currently face. I'll be comfortable with the final decision, whoever it might be, or whatever the configuration, because Neeld (aided by his panel), is better placed than anyone else to make the final call. I would not have this confidence if we were still running with the Leading Teams model for choosing our captain.

I am sure LT or something or an equivalent consulting firm will be involved.

Leading Teams didn't give us an awful senior player group last year. The senior players gave us an awful senior player group last year.

I'm not a fan of consultants (Garry Lyon aside) but they can't be blamed for not turning hay into gold.

In his 2 seasons and 37 games, he has polled one Brownlow vote. It's like all the hype and excitement of getting the number 1 and 2 draft picks in such a stacked draft has been put on the shoulders of Trengove since Scully's departure. He has done nothing on field to suggest he is the next Wayne Carey or worthy of being a captain at 20. Obviously he has stacks of potential but lumping all this expectation and demanding him to be made the captain so early doesn't seem healthy.

Yep, Trenners is Not ready. It is too soon. He needs another year or 2 just being a senior player. Leadership group OK.

IMO the Captain should come from Moloney, Rivers, or Jamar.

I am sure LT or something or an equivalent consulting firm will be involved.

Leading Teams didn't give us an awful senior player group last year. The senior players gave us an awful senior player group last year.

I'm not a fan of consultants (Garry Lyon aside) but they can't be blamed for not turning hay into gold.

I totally agree with your last two sentences rpfc, but my point is that I think you can take democracy too far in choosing leaders (especially with a very young list like ours). I much prefer the 'top down' approach that it seems to me that Neeld will be taking, to the more 'bottom up' approach which is my understanding of the LT model.

From top to bottom according to this article ...

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

About time!

Respectful challenges, I like it alot.

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

Staff members and players of the AFL's oldest eucalypt, Melbourne, are clinging to branches.

Neeld is the first to admit he has brought a new, direct style of management to the Demons, conceding there is some apprehension at the club.

"I don't know whether confronting is the right word, but I've been different," Neeld said.

The new coach said he had set about "challenging people, respectfully".

"Whether I'm kidding myself or making myself sound nice, that's what I'm calling it. I'll run with that," Neeld said.

But the fact is, Neeld stirs very little sugar into his conversations. He has left nobody at the club wondering what he requires of them.

"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.

"What I'm saying to the players is, I've got no idea what happened before and I'm not going to sit in judgment . . . but this is what we're doing," he says.

"Some of them are thinking, 'Gee, that's a bit blunt', but that's me. With the age of the group right now, my call is they need a fair bit of direction -- so that's what I'm going to give them."

Everyone else at Melbourne's football headquarters is also on their toes. For November, there is a distinct edge about the place.

"I'm getting through all the people who work in the footy department, having discussions with them and trying to work out where they fit and what they do," Neeld says.

"I understand there's a fair bit of apprehension at the moment, but at the same time that can be exciting."

• Lift your game, Neeld tells Watts Herald Sun, 12 Nov 2011
  
• Dees to reveal leader next month Adelaide Now, 10 days ago
  
• Demons close to naming skipper FoxSports, 10 days ago
  
• Inside the red and blue camp Herald Sun, 19 Dec 2011
  
• Couch time finally arrives Herald Sun, 14 Dec 2011
  
• Neeld issues tough demands to Demons FoxSports, 16 Nov 2011
  

About time!

Respectful challenges, I like it alot.

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

Neeld is the first to admit he has brought a new, direct style of management to the Demons, conceding there is some apprehension at the club.

"I don't know whether confronting is the right word, but I've been different," Neeld said.

The new coach said he had set about "challenging people, respectfully".

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.

"What I'm saying to the players is, I've got no idea what happened before and I'm not going to sit in judgment . . . but this is what we're doing," he says."

In the light of these comments, who do You think will get the main OnField Job?

IMO Greens stats were good as a player. It wasnt his best year and it wasnt his worst. But he did perform well. I dont think anyone can judge him as captain as the club fell over in every dept. Barassi, Flower, anyone would have struggled under the same circumstances.

Not trying to be pedantic but I saw Robbie Flowers career from beginning to end and he played in some horrible sides and he never ever struggled.

Even if he did own the previous appointment, your point would still hold. Making a poor decision in the past shouldn't prevent you from making the right one in the present.

That's true, although it's easier to distance oneself when you've not been party to a previous decision. And sometimes that's an advantage.

I know Neeld has commented on his starting with a clean slate etc etc, but I still get the feeling hat in the case of the incumbent (Green) he will take last year into consideration as he will be well aware of the kinds of negative effects that could occur by simply dumping him. I'm certain he will have taken note of the treatment JMac received and it's impact on the playing group and will not be wanting history to repeat itself. I personally would still prefer to have Beamer at he helm, but am simply saying Green's reappointment would not surprise me in the least.

History wouldn't be repeating itself if Green was told to step aside. Junior was shown the door and that's what the players took exception to (I think); nobody's suggesting that we put Green out on his arse, just remove him of a title. I really doubt the playing group would be all that upset about that - they may even agree that it's the right thing to do.

Bottom line: I don't think there would be any catastrophic fallout if Green was replaced. Worst case scenario I think is that Green himself cracks the sads - he's a big boy and if he wants his career to continue then he'll build a bridge eventually.

Not a fan of this Co-Captains idea. Nota at all. Pick someone and mentor and support them. Anything else is a dilution of the position all but rendering it moot.

A leadership group is fine.. has a purpose. So does captaincy..that is one head to captain and instruct..

What ever will be will be ...but im not convinced this ever works.

Not a fan of this Co-Captains idea. Nota at all. Pick someone and mentor and support them. Anything else is a dilution of the position all but rendering it moot.

A leadership group is fine.. has a purpose. So does captaincy..that is one head to captain and instruct..

What ever will be will be ...but im not convinced this ever works.

If you don't have a captain amongst the playing group, you don't have a captain amongst the playing group.

I don't like the idea much but it may be the best way to A) have a strengthened yet less burdened leadership core in 2012 and B) develop two young leaders into captain material for the future.

And yet everyone (all but) seasoned media, footy observers and many supporters with more than a passing idea have suggested Trengove as the natural selection. Whilst its not our job to pick alot of indicators would suggest there IS a Captain in waiting.

Not a fan of this Co-Captains idea. Nota at all. Pick someone and mentor and support them. Anything else is a dilution of the position all but rendering it moot.

A leadership group is fine.. has a purpose. So does captaincy..that is one head to captain and instruct..

What ever will be will be ...but im not convinced this ever works.

I too am not overly enthused by co-captaincy, but in this instance I see the merits. Michael Voss was a co-captain in his first year and went on to captain 3 premiership teams, so it didn't do him, or the Lions much harm.

As I said elsewhere, those that understand footy clubs consider the leadership group to be a significantly more important issue than the indivual/s that become captain.

Not a fan of this Co-Captains idea. Nota at all. Pick someone and mentor and support them. Anything else is a dilution of the position all but rendering it moot.

A leadership group is fine.. has a purpose. So does captaincy..that is one head to captain and instruct..

What ever will be will be ...but im not convinced this ever works.

This is the problem with Trengove B59, which I know will get you going due to your stance on the matter.

Do we really want a Captain that we have to support and mentor? This is exactly what we will need to do with JT, and possibly have to do it for a couple of seasons. I know it may be like Easter Bunny and Santa, but I want our Captain to be able to do the job in 2012, with only a very minor part of the time being spent in developing (or fune tuning) the leadership qualities. I think with JT he is just too inexperienced and we would have to mentor and support him just too much.

In regards to the topic, it's a bloody tough one. I would lean toward Grimes for 2012, and hope that he stays on the park. He did win the Leadership award playing only 8 games or whatever - has to be a big pro in his arguement.

And yet everyone (all but) seasoned media, footy observers and many supporters with more than a passing idea have suggested Trengove as the natural selection. Whilst its not our job to pick alot of indicators would suggest there IS a Captain in waiting.

Yes, in waiting...

We have a few 'born captains' on the list, but they were just born a few years too late...

Joint captaincy isn't something that is set in concrete - you can give it solely to a 22 year old Trengove for a decade if you want to.

This is the problem with Trengove B59, which I know will get you going due to your stance on the matter.

Do we really want a Captain that we have to support and mentor? This is exactly what we will need to do with JT, and possibly have to do it for a couple of seasons. I know it may be like Easter Bunny and Santa, but I want our Captain to be able to do the job in 2012, with only a very minor part of the time being spent in developing (or fune tuning) the leadership qualities. I think with JT he is just too inexperienced and we would have to mentor and support him just too much.

I think it's pretty simple, if the club thinks that Trengove isn't ready they won't make him captain.

Co-captaincy is just an official title - in the end the end, the best leader will naturally come to the fore and unofficially become the captain, with the other 2 his deputies.

Some might disagree, but I think that's what happened with Brett Kirk at the swans.

The co-captaincy just aids the transition and makes it easier to share the load when needed.

It's a great concept, and I'm yet to hear any valid arguments against it.

Co-captaincy is just an official title - in the end the end, the best leader will naturally come to the fore and unofficially become the captain, with the other 2 his deputies.

Some might disagree, but I think that's what happened with Brett Kirk at the swans.

The co-captaincy just aids the transition and makes it easier to share the load when needed.

It's a great concept, and I'm yet to hear any valid arguments against it.

The argument against it is that bucks got to stop with someone in an organization and having two official joint leaders can create confusion. In a worst case scenario, cliques can and often do form.

I'm not a fan of it. There should be one commander-in-chief.

Edited January 23, 201213 yr by Range Rover