I differ with opening comment. Personally I think the leadership issue was a debacle. I'm concerned his coaching will turn out to be a one system fits all. Bailey came from a premiership team and thought its pattern was a formula for a priemiership, hand ball, games into players etc. Neeld has come from a premiership team and seems to believe that the system is the thing. Already I fear he may similarly be a one approach coach. If so that's bad. I certainly like much of what we have seen over the summer, some great stuff. High performance. But fancy setting a time for the three k time trial that all players must achieve to play and our 40 goal forward of 11 will probably never get. Good on paper but you could end up shooting yourself in the foot. I certainly love seeing him on TV. Coaching structure is sensational. But the ultimate product will have to develop/ mature as a coach way beyond what we see so far.

Having said all that I'm hopeful he'll prove just what we want. I'll disagree on many things over time as I hope our assitant coaches do, but I'll follow him all the way over the next few years as he grows into the role. Let's hop he is our Red Fox Mark 2.

Edited March 14, 201213 yr by Harrisonrules

I'll be sold after he delivers me a flag and a week long bender to celebrate said flag.

Until such time, I care not for hasty unfounded judgements.

I'll be sold after he delivers me a flag and a week long bender to celebrate said flag.

Until such time, I care not for hasty unfounded judgements.

HAHAHAH...but agree 100% or more GO DEES!!!

He's not quoted in this article just posted on the MFC website. But the attitude coming through as expressed by Neil Craig shows a real change in the mindset of the coaching staff.

Might just be a few more baby steps - but says a lot :

http://www.melbourne...07/default.aspx

Now thats what I'm talkin a'bout - great article. I get a clearer picture of this bloke every day. He had me at "Hello"

Initially I smirked at the quirky grammar in the headline: 'Mark Neeld "Has Sold" Me', but then I thought about it...

Could Mr Watts be making this statement come the end of the year?

Initially I smirked at the quirky grammar in the headline: 'Mark Neeld "Has Sold" Me', but then I thought about it...

Could Mr Watts be making this statement come the end of the year?

If his ampage is up

The King is dead.

Long live the King.

Live in hope that this one will take us to the promised land.

I differ with opening comment. Personally I think the leadership issue was a debacle. I'm concerned his coaching will turn out to be a one system fits all. Bailey came from a premiership team and thought its pattern was a formula for a priemiership, hand ball, games into players etc. Neeld has come from a premiership team and seems to believe that the system is the thing. Already I fear he may similarly be a one approach coach. If so that's bad. I certainly like much of what we have seen over the summer, some great stuff. High performance. But fancy setting a time for the three k time trial that all players must achieve to play and our 40 goal forward of 11 will probably never get. Good on paper but you could end up shooting yourself in the foot. I certainly love seeing him on TV. Coaching structure is sensational. But the ultimate product will have to develop/ mature as a coach way beyond what we see so far.

Having said all that I'm hopeful he'll prove just what we want. I'll disagree on many things over time as I hope our assitant coaches do, but I'll follow him all the way over the next few years as he grows into the role. Let's hop he is our Red Fox Mark 2.

Perfectly said, and sums up exactly how I feel. With my Assistnat Coach hat on, I challenged the appointment of Trengove as co-captain. Doesn't mean I won't support JT or MN for that matter.

I'll be sold after he delivers me a flag and a week long bender to celebrate said flag.

Until such time, I care not for hasty unfounded judgements.

Jaded - if you can manage to pull out of the premiership bender after 1 week - can you please take me home when you leave? At the start of each year, I make no plans for the whole month of October, just in case I need to have annual leave up my sleeve should we win the flag. Of recent times, I'm normally booking my October holiday at the end of March. I'm allowing 4 weeks to celebrate becuase I think the first 3 weeks will be an absolute blur, and the last week will be spent in hospital recovering from getting my guts pumped for the 8th time in a short period.

I'm not sold but so far I like the test drive. I like the no nonsense talk. I like his obvious input into the leadership group. I like his influence in getting two hardened rookies to bolster our midfield(whether they work out or not - he has immediately identified that we get smashed in clearances). I like on his watch that we landed a big fish in Mitch Clark. I like the impression that on his watch we have had a much tougher preseason.

I will be sold when I see how go when the first shots in anger are fired.

This place is full of fence sitters. Grow some balls and get on-board. (Oh thats right I wouldn't want to be wrong on Demonland)

Mark Neeld "sold me" when he fixed his steely blue eyes on a reporter at the weekend and said (in response to some inane question):

"You reckon Liam Jurrah's going to help with the missed tackle count?"

This place is full of fence sitters. Grow some balls and get on-board. (Oh thats right I wouldn't want to be wrong on Demonland)

Extremism is dangerous, there are differing shades of grey.

I complained all last year about our lack of leadership from our 'senior' players, and I wanted a leadership overhaul. Neeld came in and did that straight away and he has my full support. Obviously we have to wait til game day to see if he cuts it there, but I love the off field stuff he has done already, and I have a good feeling about him.

From what I have heard and learned of Mark Neeld he will upset the establishment a little. His focus is to win games of football, everything else is secondary and of less concern.

He stands to become a contentious figure at the Melbourne Football Club.

I complained all last year about our lack of leadership from our 'senior' players, and I wanted a leadership overhaul. Neeld came in and did that straight away and he has my full support. Obviously we have to wait til game day to see if he cuts it there, but I love the off field stuff he has done already, and I have a good feeling about him.

I love it how Trengove got quoted today in the herald sun as saying that Jack Watts has to earn his spot in the team.

Hard line approach from the cap to (Y)

I enjoy his media on-the-spot pressers thoroughly, but haven't enjoyed his pre-prepared speeches at all. Needs to work on them.

Cant possibly make any judgement on his coaching ability yet.

I was intrigued by Neeld's reference to personality testing during his speech at the recent dinner (vision on the MFC website).

He mentioned scoring 92.5% in the top right hand quadrant and he appeared to glance at the playing group while saying this!

Does anyone know what the heck that means - is he a nasty bastard or just very competitive?

I never thought it was because we defended too far back ( partially true). My view is we didnt defend agressively enough. As soon as Collingwoods opponents got the ball the Pies were immediately in your face. Never gave their opponents a second no matter where they were on the park. We did not go nearly hard enough to stop our opponents moving the ball around.

I guess that equates to "we werent up to the job".

edit: the most interesting stat is how goals are scored. Most are scored from turning the ball over. My belief is we did not make our opponents turn the ball over by pressuring and we did wayyyy too much turning over ourselves through pressure ( and bad skills)

And too slow. We would wait for other teams to get their zone in place, then kick in!

Sorry if this has been posted before.

http://www.melbourne...95/default.aspx

A few things I've gathered from Neeld's rhetoric since signing on:

1. The club hasn't been up to standard across a number of facets (der!)

2. There have been a lot of changes to bring the players up to the standard of the top 4 (or Collingwood)

3. Neeld may have been challenged by how hard he was working the players: suggestions that journos asked if he was, certainly suggests that they were driven to ask the question in some capacity

4. He acknowledges that sometimes the powers that be can be a little overbaring on what's happening in the football side of things. He said they "respect" the history, but that sometime's it's good to try new things.

I really like the man, but he's brought up a few interesting things for me.

For one, it's quite clear that he's come in and been shocked at the lack of quality across on the board. Says quite a lot about previous coaching teams (namely Bailey and co.)

Also, I think it's quite clear in the video that he is fighting resistance to aggressive changes he's implementing, which is no surprise. I've always felt that Melbourne the club would never be bigger than Melbourne the establishment, but he seems to be trying to buck that trend while still maintaining strong historic ties with the club's past.

I also think Schwab is party responsible for this on an aesthetic front, bringing certain things back (logo, blazers) that obviously allude to past great years.

It's great that we have someone like Neeld here. I think his commentary on what the club NEEDS to be is better than saying what the club WANTS to be, and it's clear that he knows what it takes to succeed with the best in this league. It's also clear that the club is no where near the best, but we're making strides to get there.

What did you think of the speech?

Edited March 16, 201213 yr by Cudi_420

If I remember correctly Misson was shocked at the overall shape of the players strength and fitness wise of the group, bet one JW's body shape will change a hell of a lot over the years, the same goes for Cook and company he will prove to be the recruit of the year. Neeld getting him will help him in the long run.

I was intrigued by Neeld's reference to personality testing during his speech at the recent dinner (vision on the MFC website).

He mentioned scoring 92.5% in the top right hand quadrant and he appeared to glance at the playing group while saying this!

Does anyone know what the heck that means - is he a nasty bastard or just very competitive?

It probably depends upon the particular model adopted by the (did he say entertaining or amusing ?) fellow conducting tests.

The fact that he refferred directly to the players probably means Hard arsed bastard as you intimate. He seemed pleased enough with that result.

97.5% shows an overwhelming concentration so I hope it was a good quartile.

and wouldnt it be fantastic to know where the others fell

Althougn I have always been slightly sceptical of any personality or psych testing methods being conclusive of anything other than a result on that day and under those circumstances. I would imagine Jurrah results would have fluctuated in recent times.

A while back I posted about Neeld how he just didn't feel like our coach in my opinion (wasn't in this thread, but can't be bothered finding it!). I felt that he hadn't quite become the coach of Melbourne, and that I didn't have full faith in him while I felt this way. I was shot down by some, but it was frustrating becuase I couldn't work out why I felt this way.

I've finally worked it out!!!

Now, rightly so, he doesn't take any responsibility for anything in the past - can fully understand that. But, where I think he needs to improve is in the way that he addresses some issues. For example, the Watts issue. Neeld made the comment "My plan is to play Jack Watts forward. When he was drafted he was certainly drafted as a key position prospect". The thing that I don't like about these type of comments is in the words he uses. If Neeld came out and said "We drafted Jack as a key position prospect, so our plan is to play him in that role", it would sound so much better. There's a lot of "I" when Neeld talks, there's not much "we" or "us". Don't worry about "when Jack was drafted", you're a part of the Melbourne Football Club now, so it should be "when WE drafted Jack".

Anyway, I'm glad I worked it out. 99% of the people on here won't care - I'm happy with that, but be supprotive knowing I will sleep better tonight!

Also, I think it's quite clear in the video that he is fighting resistance to aggressive changes he's implementing, which is no surprise. I've always felt that Melbourne the club would never be bigger than Melbourne the establishment, but he seems to be trying to buck that trend while still maintaining strong historic ties with the club's past.

Beautifully put. Neeld biggest challenges start internally and ones Bailey was never confident or effective enough to communicate.

A while back I posted about Neeld how he just didn't feel like our coach in my opinion (wasn't in this thread, but can't be bothered finding it!). I felt that he hadn't quite become the coach of Melbourne, and that I didn't have full faith in him while I felt this way. I was shot down by some, but it was frustrating becuase I couldn't work out why I felt this way.

I've finally worked it out!!!

Now, rightly so, he doesn't take any responsibility for anything in the past - can fully understand that. But, where I think he needs to improve is in the way that he addresses some issues. For example, the Watts issue. Neeld made the comment "My plan is to play Jack Watts forward. When he was drafted he was certainly drafted as a key position prospect". The thing that I don't like about these type of comments is in the words he uses. If Neeld came out and said "We drafted Jack as a key position prospect, so our plan is to play him in that role", it would sound so much better. There's a lot of "I" when Neeld talks, there's not much "we" or "us". Don't worry about "when Jack was drafted", you're a part of the Melbourne Football Club now, so it should be "when WE drafted Jack".

Anyway, I'm glad I worked it out. 99% of the people on here won't care - I'm happy with that, but be supprotive knowing I will sleep better tonight!

Fooled by pronouns...

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by rpfc

A while back I posted about Neeld how he just didn't feel like our coach in my opinion (wasn't in this thread, but can't be bothered finding it!). I felt that he hadn't quite become the coach of Melbourne, and that I didn't have full faith in him while I felt this way. I was shot down by some, but it was frustrating becuase I couldn't work out why I felt this way.

I've finally worked it out!!!

Now, rightly so, he doesn't take any responsibility for anything in the past - can fully understand that. But, where I think he needs to improve is in the way that he addresses some issues. For example, the Watts issue. Neeld made the comment "My plan is to play Jack Watts forward. When he was drafted he was certainly drafted as a key position prospect". The thing that I don't like about these type of comments is in the words he uses. If Neeld came out and said "We drafted Jack as a key position prospect, so our plan is to play him in that role", it would sound so much better. There's a lot of "I" when Neeld talks, there's not much "we" or "us". Don't worry about "when Jack was drafted", you're a part of the Melbourne Football Club now, so it should be "when WE drafted Jack".

Anyway, I'm glad I worked it out. 99% of the people on here won't care - I'm happy with that, but be supprotive knowing I will sleep better tonight!

I like the way he takes responsibility for the Club on his shoulders .There is no spreading blame or buck-passing .

Also ,he has a steely gaze which frightens me a little.

Piercing blue eyes a little like a Nazi SS man .

Would not want to rock up to training smelling of grog if I was a player .

Or even forgetting my socks for that matter .