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

two reasons

We didnt present an option hard enough and quick enough. And two - even if we did, we did not enough confidence in each other to pull the trigger quickly on anyone presenting

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!

This strikes a chord with me. These choice-of-words things may be little things, but actually the words can skew the message.

In the trenches, when it got really out-of-the-question awful, what soldiers continued for apparently was their mates.

If the players know that Neeld is thinking "us", it must be easier for them to go with him when he keeps pushing them further and further outside their comfort zones. If it hurts, does the one making it happen feel any empathy, any appreciation of what they are doing? There has to be a bonding between coach and players, and language could interfere with that. At really tough training, do our players see their coach out there pushing himself too - that earns respect, and provides perspective when you think you've had enough. I appreciate that Neeld sees the need to make changes (we are grateful!), but he also needs to develop the right relationship with the players. We will want them to follow him absolutely.

"Comply" worries me too, as a them-and-us word. A top-down word, implying a very strong focus on the coach's demand rather than the players' growth. A really good balance would allow for the nature of each individual, so that the Liam Jurrahs of the world would never be left wondering whether they belong...

Still, Neeld says he has been focused on individual development so far, and perhaps we are reading too much into his choice of words. I hope so. Norm Smith was at times hated for his toughness, but he was loved for his personal connection with the players' lives. The Red Fox tells us that he knew them individually well enough not to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by robbiefrom13

Ok, so our coach takes responsibility for his decisions and uses politically incorrect pronouns...

Impatiently awaiting 1.45pm tomorrow.

"Comply" worries me too, as a them-and-us word. A top-down word, implying a very strong focus on the coach's demand rather than the players' growth. A really good balance would allow for the nature of each individual, so that the Liam Jurrahs of the world would never be left wondering whether they belong...

What would you prefer ahead of "comply"?

obey

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/131813/default.aspx

The word ‘compliance’ has popped up a fair bit already. What’s your definition of it for the team?

MN: Again, you go back to those annoying terms that no one likes, like structure and process. But I’ve got a strong belief that when you start at an organisation, it’s the best time to set standards. So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve come in and set our expectations in terms of preparation, training and performance here.

The other thing to go with that is that I’m delivering that message, but I may not necessarily be the one who made those standards. The top four sides or last year’s premiers - they set those standards. Their standards are how the big boys train. These are the times that they run. These are the weights that they lift. These are the diets that these guys abide by. These are their skinfold measurements. If you want to compete with the best on a regular basis and drive to the MCG - no matter who we’re playing - and believe that we can be competitive, they’re the standards that we’ve got to reach. Can they be reached in five months over pre-season? No. No, they can’t, because we’re talking about 47 individuals that have to get there. Some players will get there and others won’t and they’ll fall by the wayside. That’s the system that we work in.

It’s a lot easier to come in from day one and say ‘this is where we’re aiming and this is how we’re going to get there and this is what you’re measurements need to be’. [it’s easier to do that] than come in after 12 months down the track and decide ‘oh gee, we should’ve started there, let’s do it now’. So we’ve come in and been really clear with the players - and the staff for that matter - that this is how it’s going to look. And we’re going to give it every chance we can to work.

I don't think he means negotiate a consensus.

"The ruthless element is interesting. I’ve heard people say that, but for me, my role in the football club is to coach the team. I don’t want to be here happy being an AFL coach. I want to be an AFL coach who has an impact on the Melbourne footy club - and a positive one.

Right now, there are a whole heap of AFL footballers, who are just happy to be an AFL footballer. I don’t want to coach them. I want to coach people who are prepared and want to be an AFL player who has an impact on their football club and the competition. They’re the ones [i want to coach]."

I LOVE THIS!

No passengers....

This strikes a chord with me. These choice-of-words things may be little things, but actually the words can skew the message.

In the trenches, when it got really out-of-the-question awful, what soldiers continued for apparently was their mates.

If the players know that Neeld is thinking "us", it must be easier for them to go with him when he keeps pushing them further and further outside their comfort zones. If it hurts, does the one making it happen feel any empathy, any appreciation of what they are doing? There has to be a bonding between coach and players, and language could interfere with that. At really tough training, do our players see their coach out there pushing himself too - that earns respect, and provides perspective when you think you've had enough. I appreciate that Neeld sees the need to make changes (we are grateful!), but he also needs to develop the right relationship with the players. We will want them to follow him absolutely.

"Comply" worries me too, as a them-and-us word. A top-down word, implying a very strong focus on the coach's demand rather than the players' growth. A really good balance would allow for the nature of each individual, so that the Liam Jurrahs of the world would never be left wondering whether they belong...

Still, Neeld says he has been focused on individual development so far, and perhaps we are reading too much into his choice of words. I hope so. Norm Smith was at times hated for his toughness, but he was loved for his personal connection with the players' lives. The Red Fox tells us that he knew them individually well enough not to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

Compliance is about performing in accordance with a set of rules and/or expectations. Neeld makes it clear that these expectations have been established not by him or the coaching panel but by the way the successful clubs go about things. He's simply saying that if MFC wants to be successful everybody has to comply with the expectations that lead to the rewards. i'm sure he doesn't exclude himself from that sort of compliance. I'm also sure that he expects to be judged according to the standards he sets for others. My guess is, at this early stage, that Mark Neeld is prepared to be tough, demanding and uncomromising with the players and that he expects the club to be the same way about him and his performance. Only time will tell if he has the substance to back up his words. I'm hoping he has.

obey

haha

I'd like them to get it, and be working hard together with the coaching staff to achieve the goals they'd identified. Fine by me for the coaching staff to have put a fire under them, and so on, and to have come up with the goals, but in the end the players have to own it too. Coaches would do well to at least publicly talk up the players' ownership of the big enterprise. I dunno how you say that, but it is a different story to "comply", and "comply" does leave room for the players feeling maybe not quite included.

Part of success has to be intellectual property, and I don't think it's so great when the way things are described sounds a bit like the coach is the owner of what's going on.

I just think that a different way of saying some of this stuff would look better, and I hope that the authoritarian/paternalistic/threatening tone that some of us bleeding hearts fear we are hearing is not actually representative of the way the new coaches are interacting with the players. I guess 99% won't actually go for that, either, now that I look at it. But still, it's my opinion.

Spot on Crawf, good post. Compliance is not a dirty word.

It's not about complying with Kim Jong Neeld, it's about getting the team pulling in the same direction to win footy matches.

His style irks some, bad luck. I/we/you/me/us am/are prepared for casualties.

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by dandeeman

The beautiful thing about living in the free world is that ultimately we can all make our own choices. Social Contract theory says that we agree to comply in order to ensure our own well-being and to maintain the rights of others. Think road laws. We want to drive - we obey the laws. When I go outside this I expect to cop a fine. It's the way it is - for the common good. Those who choose to go outside of the contract can do so as long as they're prepared to accept the consequences. For mine if a player finds it too uncomfortable and they can't see the benefits for the common good they then have a decision to make. If they're not honest or courageous enough to make that decision then someone else Neelds to do it for them. Simple really. Football is not about individuals, it's a team sport. "One for all and all for one, that's the way we are at H.......n." Works for them!

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by Crawf52

Round 1 update - how has Mr Neeld gone so far? Give you a tip punters, if he doesn't drop Green and Moloney, but decides to drop Bate and Blease instead, he's just another puppet on a string.

Round 1 update - how has Mr Neeld gone so far? Give you a tip punters, if he doesn't drop Green and Moloney, but decides to drop Bate and Blease instead, he's just another puppet on a string.

In other words, if he doesn't agree with your opinion re the players mentioned, he's useless.

In other words, if he doesn't agree with your opinion re the players mentioned, he's useless.

Out of today's game, who was most "useless" - Blease and Bate, or Green and Moloney?

Interested to know what your opinion of today's performance was...

"The ruthless element is interesting. I’ve heard people say that, but for me, my role in the football club is to coach the team. I don’t want to be here happy being an AFL coach. I want to be an AFL coach who has an impact on the Melbourne footy club - and a positive one.

Right now, there are a whole heap of AFL footballers, who are just happy to be an AFL footballer. I don’t want to coach them. I want to coach people who are prepared and want to be an AFL player who has an impact on their football club and the competition. They’re the ones [i want to coach]."

I LOVE THIS!

No passengers....

This will be fully executed this week.

Do what must be done Mark. Do not hold back.

Out of today's game, who was most "useless" - Blease and Bate, or Green and Moloney?

Interested to know what your opinion of today's performance was...

Blease was dragged in the 3rd qtr, I would suggest Blease will be in the VFL this week,

Bate has issues but I cant slam him for 10 possessions in 1 qtr.

Green and Moloney have marked their cards badly for future weeks.

Round 1 update - how has Mr Neeld gone so far? Give you a tip punters, if he doesn't drop Green and Moloney, but decides to drop Bate and Blease instead, he's just another puppet on a string.

I'm happy with the whole coaching set up including Mark Neeld and the way he goes about it. He is clear and concise in his message to supporters and I would say that the way he comes across that he would have problem delivering his message to the playing group.

Saying that and this may sound somewhat contradictory but there was some clear basic things that could have been changed during the course of the game but weren't for example 48 inside 50's for 5 marks. Was there a message to the players to hit up some targets? or did they just think Mitch would have a world record 48 contested marks so they just kept bombing it in. Also every player diving on the ball while no one was covering BL's spread. No changes were made over the course of the game to fix these.

Blease was rissoled and quite rightly at 3/4 time. For Bate to have more DT points in one 1/4 than Blease in 3 should get him a ticket to WA. I would like to see him start in the mid field with Magner and Maloney.

Green and Davey to VFA this week.

Whilst we played badly and naturally the players did not play as well as expected,I thought the coaching also left a lot to be desired.No countervattacks, left to many players on that were getting belted all the time- and Garland is just not up to being a key defender.He just doesn't have it.

So, how do we rate Neeld's performace after 2 rounds?

All this juice flying around about Misson and the ability to get players fitter, well, we've failed to run out the 2nd half in both games to date.

While I'm gald he wants to make us the hardest team to play against, I appreciate this will take time. What should not take time is getting the basics right.

Neeld has not started his coaching career in very good style - far from a par mark. Look at the Crows - new coach, coming off a bad year, they are flying. I didn't hear Sanderson using excuses from early in the preseason.

Still shaking my head at the Trengove captaincy appointment. Neeld made this decision, he has to live with it, but I will continue to criticise it, and question just how much negative impact it will have on JT's development. Amateur mistake from an amateur coach. And as someone mentioned in a different thread, we've got an amateur coach on the back of the Club claiming that we will go out and get the best.

So, how do we rate Neeld's performace after 2 rounds?

All this juice flying around about Misson and the ability to get players fitter, well, we've failed to run out the 2nd half in both games to date.

While I'm gald he wants to make us the hardest team to play against, I appreciate this will take time. What should not take time is getting the basics right.

Neeld has not started his coaching career in very good style - far from a par mark. Look at the Crows - new coach, coming off a bad year, they are flying. I didn't hear Sanderson using excuses from early in the preseason.

Still shaking my head at the Trengove captaincy appointment. Neeld made this decision, he has to live with it, but I will continue to criticise it, and question just how much negative impact it will have on JT's development. Amateur mistake from an amateur coach. And as someone mentioned in a different thread, we've got an amateur coach on the back of the Club claiming that we will go out and get the best.

What excuses?

Trengove has been one of our better players this year? better than last year?

You admit this process will take time, but then question why we are not seeing results?

Not much to your arguments imo

What excuses?

Trengove has been one of our better players this year? better than last year?

You admit this process will take time, but then question why we are not seeing results?

Not much to your arguments imo

Read it again Jordie. I said that making us the toughest team will take time, but working on the basics is something that should be achieved in a summer.

Trengove one of our better players this season? He has far from inspired, and I don't expect him to considering he is at the start of his 3rd season.

Read it again Jordie. I said that making us the toughest team will take time, but working on the basics is something that should be achieved in a summer.

Trengove one of our better players this season? He has far from inspired, and I don't expect him to considering he is at the start of his 3rd season.

Ok skills may be down, but the game plan has changed dramatically, to a more contested rather than outside style of play.

Trengove has been easily one of our best imo both games

and again what excuses?

So, how do we rate Neeld's performace after 2 rounds?

All this juice flying around about Misson and the ability to get players fitter, well, we've failed to run out the 2nd half in both games to date.

While I'm gald he wants to make us the hardest team to play against, I appreciate this will take time. What should not take time is getting the basics right.

Neeld has not started his coaching career in very good style - far from a par mark. Look at the Crows - new coach, coming off a bad year, they are flying. I didn't hear Sanderson using excuses from early in the preseason.

.......

re fitness.....starting from our very low point, Missen needs a lot more time.

To compare us with Adelaide - Craig would have had them far fitter for Sanderson to inherit.

Now that's not the whole story of course but we ARE starting well behind the pack fitness wise.

Ok skills may be down, but the game plan has changed dramatically, to a more contested rather than outside style of play.

Trengove has been easily one of our best imo both games

and again what excuses?

The excuses about how far our players are in terms of fitness compared to the top teams.

The excuses about how radical changes to football departments and game plans.

Footy is a very simple game that we are all guilty of over-complicating. If you don't get the simple things right, it makes it very difficult to be competitive. While the players have a lot of responsibility to make sure they get the basics right, the coach has just as much responsibility - they are afterall, the first ones to get the arse if they don't.

Mono-our fitness doesn't seem to be an issue when we dominate, such as Adelaide last year, and Sydent the year before.

The excuses about how far our players are in terms of fitness compared to the top teams.

The excuses about how radical changes to football departments and game plans.

Footy is a very simple game that we are all guilty of over-complicating. If you don't get the simple things right, it makes it very difficult to be competitive. While the players have a lot of responsibility to make sure they get the basics right, the coach has just as much responsibility - they are afterall, the first ones to get the arse if they don't.

Mono-our fitness doesn't seem to be an issue when we dominate, such as Adelaide last year, and Sydent the year before.

I would have thought that we were obviously treated very softly under bailey, including amount of fitness work we did over summer ect

I definitely dont agree football is simple, the evolution means that when a few players are out of position or not working hard enough then a whole structure can fall apart

Edited April 9, 201213 yr by Jordie_tackles