On 22/02/2012 at 10:38, bing181 said:

Yeah, we saw where "keeping the players happy" got us last year. Maybe you'd rather we brought back Bailey?

Sam isn't being criticised here for not being perfect, he's being criticised for not doing what the team and club required of him. Discipline, structure, and doing what you're supposed to starts off the field.

Not criticising Sam here for not being 'perfect' but the posters who reckon they are. If the cap fits..........Surely there are better ways to discipline a player without disrupting the team? eg 10 kilometre run wearing army boots, early morning swim in the Yarra, a couple of bob out of his pocket etc,etc.

Jamar said in his pre conference early that it was likely that not players would play every game of the NAB cup anyway, so eh. Who cares about him missing some shitty pseudo-footy week 1.

If he did something really bad he would be sitting on the sidelines with Colin in Rd1 of the real stuff.

The only issue I have with the penalty is the rationale for suspending him. If Sam Blease failing to attend his meeting has damaged his development, and the selection of a young player in the NAB Cup is good for development (no doubt it is), then hasn't the suspension simply compounded the negative impact Sam's non-appearance has had on his development as a footballer?

The coaching panel's aim is to create a professional environment, but surely their ultimate goal is to win a Premiership. Any sanction that interferes with that goal - and I believe denying a player the chance to develop match-fitness and experience does interfere - is an incorrect punishment. A large financial penalty or some thoroughly unenjoyable training would be better for Sammy's development (and the development of the team, keeping in mind it's ultimate aim) than denying him and the coaches the chance to see what he can do or where he would be best suited to play.

  On 22/02/2012 at 11:46, Chook said:

The only issue I have with the penalty is the rationale for suspending him. If Sam Blease failing to attend his meeting has damaged his development, and the selection of a young player in the NAB Cup is good for development (no doubt it is), then hasn't the suspension simply compounded the negative impact Sam's non-appearance has had on his development as a footballer?

The coaching panel's aim is to create a professional environment, but surely their ultimate goal is to win a Premiership. Any sanction that interferes with that goal - and I believe denying a player the chance to develop match-fitness and experience does interfere - is an incorrect punishment. A large financial penalty or some thoroughly unenjoyable training would be better for Sammy's development (and the development of the team, keeping in mind it's ultimate aim) than denying him and the coaches the chance to see what he can do or where he would be best suited to play.

The thing is he missed a compulsory meeting, it would most likely have been based around team set ups and preparation (I'm just guessing) so by missing this he does not deserve to play ahead of someone who may not be as likely to play round one, but still ticked all the right boxes and the nab cup match will help to develop anyway

Disagree Chook. It's Sams actions that have impacted his development, and selections for developments sake have ceased. This can't and won't be allowed to affect the teams development - as a repeat of the session to an idividual (and the precendent it would set) would.

Not sure why this is such a big deal. If I were being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be at a planning meeting for a big project (such as, say, the first game of the year) and I missed it, then my boss would be tee off at me as well.

He is a big boy. About time that something as simple as being on time is now demanded.

Can you imagine Geelong or Hawthorn letting junior players swan into a meeting late without saying anything?

And its actually probably not his development that is harmed. In fact, I reckon he will redouble his efforts and it will enhance his development in the end, if he is half the player I think he is.

I mentioned it in the Brad Green thread and melbman brought it up here "Elite compliance" we're starting to see what this means, the players already know, this is warfare mentality anything outside the rules has a consequence. Anybody see Warhorse where a man stays back in the trenches and is supposed to shoot anybody who retreats? Sam, knowing this, will cop it sweet (lucky for him with the timing) and will or won't make it with the MFC accordingly, if not, his talent will prove useful in a trade!

  On 22/02/2012 at 11:46, Chook said:

The only issue I have with the penalty is the rationale for suspending him. If Sam Blease failing to attend his meeting has damaged his development, and the selection of a young player in the NAB Cup is good for development (no doubt it is), then hasn't the suspension simply compounded the negative impact Sam's non-appearance has had on his development as a footballer?

The coaching panel's aim is to create a professional environment, but surely their ultimate goal is to win a Premiership. Any sanction that interferes with that goal - and I believe denying a player the chance to develop match-fitness and experience does interfere - is an incorrect punishment. A large financial penalty or some thoroughly unenjoyable training would be better for Sammy's development (and the development of the team, keeping in mind it's ultimate aim) than denying him and the coaches the chance to see what he can do or where he would be best suited to play.

since when did a professional enviroment go against the grain for winning a premiership.

i reckon you can take it as a given, that in most of these situations you and i are not privy to all the facts

Isn't Blease Scullys (only) mate ? Not a good look .

Didn't Darling get punished at the eagles for being 1min late to a training session?

  On 22/02/2012 at 04:52, robbo24 said:

Has nobody ever been late to work due to factors beyond their control? From the information we have been given, he was simply late to a morning meeting. This happens, hardly a fineable offence

I have heard it mentioned that 'His preparation was improvised' meaning it was probably his most important meeting of the week. Understandable to miss the game for this reason, but not a fine.

My preparation is often improvised

  On 22/02/2012 at 11:46, Chook said:

The only issue I have with the penalty is the rationale for suspending him. If Sam Blease failing to attend his meeting has damaged his development, and the selection of a young player in the NAB Cup is good for development (no doubt it is), then hasn't the suspension simply compounded the negative impact Sam's non-appearance has had on his development as a footballer?

The coaching panel's aim is to create a professional environment, but surely their ultimate goal is to win a Premiership. Any sanction that interferes with that goal - and I believe denying a player the chance to develop match-fitness and experience does interfere - is an incorrect punishment. A large financial penalty or some thoroughly unenjoyable training would be better for Sammy's development (and the development of the team, keeping in mind it's ultimate aim) than denying him and the coaches the chance to see what he can do or where he would be best suited to play.

Sorry chook can't agree with this. Sammy, like the rest of the team, has been busting a gut all pre season and again like all his team mates would have been dying for the chance to have a proper game of footy. Denying this reward will do more for his development than 18 minutes of quasi game time

Sam really needs this kind of discipline if he is going to make it and use the potential he has. Looking from the outside in to me he seems to get ahead of himself, after a good game last season he started to lairize in the next and got caught out. He showed some class on Friday at match practice so it's ok to be late to a meeting, maybe not his thinking here but it is the action.

I hope he takes it the right way and as part of his learning experience otherwise his potential won't be realised which would be a pity. The coaches need to ride Sam hard, he is one of the players that will make it or be broken.

  On 22/02/2012 at 13:39, binman said:

Sorry chook can't agree with this. Sammy, like the rest of the team, has been busting a gut all pre season and again like all his team mates would have been dying for the chance to have a proper game of footy. Denying this reward will do more for his development than 18 minutes of quasi game time

If that's true, then I have no problem with the punishment. I just want player development with a view to winning football matches to remain at the forefront, not "elite compliance" with a view to totalitarian rule by the coaching staff. Keep in mind the goal. Anything that is good for the goal is worth doing, certainly.

  On 22/02/2012 at 04:15, bazza226 said:

The Club statement said he missed the meeting after arriving late....Could have been a short meeting or he was very late?

Could also mean he could have been there 30 Minutes early to do other tasks. Then he'd have been there before the meeting, with plenty of time.

Maybe he was nesting, to busy to arrive on time.

benchmark has been set. neeld has said that this punishment is to be the norm, therefore any future leniency can be construed as exceptions to the rule.

blease was unlucky he had to be the sacrificial lamb but its just a nab cup mini-game and this way neeld has set the standard and once again the players wont be confused with where the FD stands on the issue.

  On 22/02/2012 at 11:19, Bobby McKenzie said:

Not criticising Sam here for not being 'perfect' but the posters who reckon they are. If the cap fits..........Surely there are better ways to discipline a player without disrupting the team? eg 10 kilometre run wearing army boots, early morning swim in the Yarra, a couple of bob out of his pocket etc,etc.

I learnt a valuable lesson about time keeping from a strict boss a long time ago; hopefully Sam will learn it too. That is all...no perfection here; just ask my wife!

  On 22/02/2012 at 08:51, Bobby McKenzie said:

Yes, there are a lot of PERFECT individuals on this forum! On the eve of a GF and Chapman arrives late for a compulsory meeting.

"Sorry, Chappy, but you are out of the Grand Final!"

Great way of getting players offside.

Bobby, Bobby ... I'm both surprised and disappointed that someone who has as their forum name that of a player from the era of the great Norm Smith, could take that sort of an attitude.

If there is one thing that Melbourne has lacked in the makeup of its coaches since Norm left was the ability to instil and exert proper discipline in the team (Northey was the only one who came close IMO). The excuse was always that times have changed and you can't treat young people the way they used to ...

The truth is that strong teams have always been built on tight discipline and if Mark Neeld is going to succeed as a coach, the team must have discipline. All power to him.

The result of the decisions to discipline Colin Sylvia and now Sam Blease will be felt in the future and that the players will develop great respect for what the coaches are seeking to achieve at the club which is to be successful. That's what this is about

  On 22/02/2012 at 22:25, Whispering_Jack said:

The result of the decisions to discipline Colin Sylvia and now Sam Blease will be felt in the future and that the players will develop great respect for what the coaches are seeking to achieve at the club which is to be successful. That's what this is about

Agreed... in more recent years our coaches (Daniher and Bails in particular) have tried to be regarded as "friends" of the players... Neeld is obviously bringing his teaching past into play and distancing himself from the players to the point where he will demand their respect and compliance. This is not to say he won't be approachable... but he certainly won't be ignored.

If the club continued to accept less than a professional discipline, then we would still be rock bottom.

Every player at the club now understands what is expected..................no,........ demanded, of them now.

This is Neeld's gift to the players.

Bailey did not have this demand and we saw what happened with his results.

Can't believe many on here don't approve of Blease's treatment. Soft attitudes there !

In a successful environment, all persons will toe the line or the whole structure falls a peg.

Stop making excuses for tardy efforts. The MFC needs to change attitudes here, big time.

Get on with the stronger work ethic and do what you are paid to do.....perform and be punctual or suffer the consequence.

Neeld has had at least 2 blow ups so far and a few players are very, very red faced. Should have happened 5 years ago!!!!

Playing senior footy depends upon the committment now.

Great decision I reckon!

I wouldn't say that Neeld has had Military Training but IMO he has certain similar characteristics that he uses that gets the same TEAM point across.

Having served in the Army in the late 60's. If you were late for a meeting / parade or any other team event. Not only did you get punished but your whole team / unit got punished. They had a way of increasing your self discipline for the sake of the TEAM.

AFL footy is all about doing things for the TEAM. Individuals / cowboys don't get rewarded ( except if you are $T $S)

Mind you in my time since I have never been late for an appointment. Also most of my old Army mates will always turn up for an event at least 15min. early. A very good habit to have.

  On 22/02/2012 at 22:25, Whispering_Jack said:

Bobby, Bobby ... I'm both surprised and disappointed that someone who has as their forum name that of a player from the era of the great Norm Smith, could take that sort of an attitude.

If there is one thing that Melbourne has lacked in the makeup of its coaches since Norm left was the ability to instil and exert proper discipline in the team (Northey was the only one who came close IMO). The excuse was always that times have changed and you can't treat young people the way they used to ...

The truth is that strong teams have always been built on tight discipline and if Mark Neeld is going to succeed as a coach, the team must have discipline. All power to him.

The result of the decisions to discipline Colin Sylvia and now Sam Blease will be felt in the future and that the players will develop great respect for what the coaches are seeking to achieve at the club which is to be successful. That's what this is about

WJ, I respect your comments on this forum and take aboard your surprise and disappointment at my stance on this one. I am all for strong disciplinary measures but as I have stated there must be many unpalatable ways of punishing a player. Neeld has now created a dangerous precedent. Imagine finals eve and one of our playmakers, in top form is late for a compulsary team meeting. Following precedence,he has to miss the next match, maybe even a GF. How would we like that? Yes, the great Norm Smith was a tough disciplinarian but I cannot remember him ever banning a player from playing the next match. You memory may be better than mine, but correct me if I'm wrong here. Smithy was big on the physical tortures for a player's indiscretion on the track. So far since being at the club Neeld has dismissed the existing medical staff and fitness boys and brought in his own team. Jobs for the boys maybe? I did say maybe! We have all heard of the old saying 'A new broom sweeps clean" and we all know what that can mean. I hope for one that this is not the case here. We won't know his true worth and ability for quite some time when the season starts and his methods start bearing fruit. Remember how we welcomed Bailey? Let us all keep our fingers crossed that with Neeld's arrival our long premiership wait could be over.

  On 23/02/2012 at 06:21, Bobby McKenzie said:

Neeld has now created a dangerous precedent.

As we have no idea what the real circumstances were, I cannot see why this would necessarily be the case.

Perhaps they were informed of the importance of this meeting and that late arrival could mean disciplinary action? Perhaps Sam had been late on previous occasions and was on a last warning? Do you know? I certainly don't.

I would also expect that later in the season if a player has proven themselves a reliable and valuable team player, then the punishment will be meted out accordingly; at this point in time though, until they can put up, they need to shut up and show the required level of discipline and commitment.

  On 23/02/2012 at 06:21, Bobby McKenzie said:

WJ, I respect your comments on this forum and take aboard your surprise and disappointment at my stance on this one. I am all for strong disciplinary measures but as I have stated there must be many unpalatable ways of punishing a player. Neeld has now created a dangerous precedent. Imagine finals eve and one of our playmakers, in top form is late for a compulsary team meeting. Following precedence,he has to miss the next match, maybe even a GF. How would we like that? Yes, the great Norm Smith was a tough disciplinarian but I cannot remember him ever banning a player from playing the next match. You memory may be better than mine, but correct me if I'm wrong here. Smithy was big on the physical tortures for a player's indiscretion on the track. So far since being at the club Neeld has dismissed the existing medical staff and fitness boys and brought in his own team. Jobs for the boys maybe? I did say maybe! We have all heard of the old saying 'A new broom sweeps clean" and we all know what that can mean. I hope for one that this is not the case here. We won't know his true worth and ability for quite some time when the season starts and his methods start bearing fruit. Remember how we welcomed Bailey? Let us all keep our fingers crossed that with Neeld's arrival our long premiership wait could be over.

Lol, what a post!

Somebody get this guy a Bex- I think he needs a lie down!