Mark Neeld and the coaching group are in the best position to assess the performance of the talent on our list and to make decisions in relation to thier development.

I am glad to be rid of the "get games into young players at all costs" mantra and support creating a minimum standard that every player must adhere to. Only then can we trust that when we buy our memberships and go and watch our boys that they will be consistently "competitive" so that the phrase isn't a hollow ambition but something that can be applied here and now.

Support this bloke, he knows what he is doing.

I have absolutely no doubt that, in the years to come, Mark Neeld's appointment will prove itself to be a masterstroke.

Absolutely no doubt?

Have you watched the club over the past 50 years?

I'll wait until we're a top-tier team until I even contemplate such blindsighted rubbish.

In Neeld I trust (& hope). But i wont give him blind love. He needs to produce results to gain respect. I like what he is doing, but he did start from a very poor beginning. The first few rounds gave him a very poor base to start with. This was his own doing with a game plan that only included boundary line play. Some will say the players were to blame for not implimenting the plan, but it was obvious that it was Neelds plan and the players were too scared to do otherwise.

The fact is we are performing worse than last year. but, we are starting again and learning a foriegn game plan. Having said this we are not playing as well offensively and Neeld has yet to use the players offensive skills to his advantage. I m seeing a better offensive plan to tie into the defensive plan in the last two weeks. I believe Neeld has realised himself the change in game plan overall and has not deviated from his defensive play but is adding a offensive game plan that is allowing 'Corridoor Football' when suited.

I keep hearing that the palyers are struggling with the new game plan, but also hear that Neeld is simplifying the game plan in comparasin to Bailey. Apparently the new plan is designed for players not to think. Our list have played footy all their lives and have intellectual capacity in their trade. yes it will take time, but in time i will say what are the coaches doing if they cant implement a simplified game plan. Half way thru this yr is when ill start to judge the game plan and if its dated like some experts are saying. I just hope Neeld has not does his best work with the Pies and like Bailey, we are behind the times with our strategy.

does anyone know what the game plan is, maybe getting the ball and using it effectively would be a start, a game plan should involve winning games at the moment the game plan aint workin

Righto, I'm back on this blokes back...

Firstly, he cries about "putting blind faith in players" after Round 1. What did he do when selecting our captain/s? He put blind faith in the players opinion and as a result, he has elected 2 captains who are just not cut out for the job...yet.

Secondly. I'm sitting her watching the Gold Coast game. They have a heap of kids - no doubt would be more "immature" in terms of age and games played. Neeld has come in with concerns of our fitness levels - has this given our players an "out"? The Gold Coast kids, who have obviously been in the system a lot less than most of our team, are just running, spreading, playing as a team. Neeld can't use our so called fitness levels as an excuse when other sides, like Gold Coast, shouldn't appear to be a fitter and faster team than us.

Neeld had a chance today to prove that he has made some changes to this team. What I mean is that we put in a satisfactory display against St Kilda, and we had the chance to do it 2 weeks in a row. So far, he hasn't proved to be any better than Bailey in terms of our consistency. Don't be mislead by the margin, the scoreboard was very, VERY kind to us today. It should've been 100+, and even with the result, I feel it was the most dismal performance of the season.

It should've been 100+, and even with the result, I feel it was the most dismal performance of the season.

Well I disagree, the Lions game was a disgrace and the Tigers game not much better. We were playing Geelong away.

We weren't great today but we beat Geelong in the contested possies down in Geelong. And while that is a phyrric victory it is one that would never have occurred under Bailey.

The next step is spreading from a stoppage, trusting your team mate and running into space and moving the footy.

Consistency is a relative thing - if we had played Geelong with the effort of last week we would have been beaten by 43 points I reckon...

Well I disagree, the Lions game was a disgrace and the Tigers game not much better. We were playing Geelong away.

We weren't great today but we beat Geelong in the contested possies down in Geelong. And while that is a phyrric victory it is one that would never have occurred under Bailey.

The next step is spreading from a stoppage, trusting your team mate and running into space and moving the footy.

Consistency is a relative thing - if we had played Geelong with the effort of last week we would have been beaten by 43 points I reckon...

The players had a chance to prove that they have improved by backing up their efforts from the St Kilda game to a genuine top team. They were beaten before they ran out, and they played that way. Even when we got back within 14 points in the 3rd, I, and the players, had absolutely no belief they could cause an upset.

That mindset is disappointing.

On another note, anyone notice when Clark kicked his 2nd (I think)? 1 person gave him a high 5. It was in the 2nd quarter (construction end). Fcuking embarrassing.

The players had a chance to prove that they have improved by backing up their efforts from the St Kilda game to a genuine top team. They were beaten before they ran out, and they played that way. Even when we got back within 14 points in the 3rd, I, and the players, had absolutely no belief they could cause an upset.

That mindset is disappointing.

That is disappointing.

But I feel like you are throwing that 'mindset' onto the players because you believe it.

Clark, Jones, Grimes, Frawley and Garland didn't look to me as if they were 14* points down.

*No chance.

That is disappointing.

But I feel like you are throwing that 'mindset' onto the players because you believe it.

Clark, Jones, Grimes, Frawley and Garland didn't look to me as if they were 14* points down.

*No chance.

Grimes? I guess you can still have effort but have no influence.

Clark wasn't there last year.

Jones is the only player to remain in the leadership group from last year.

Frawley and Garland are new to the LG, and as true leaders should, they tried.

I believed it because I can only feed off what the players give me. The players take me on the journey on match day, and it was evident from the opening 20 seconds we were in for a very toguh day, which a lot has to do with attitude.

Grimes? I guess you can still have effort but have no influence.

Clark wasn't there last year.

Jones is the only player to remain in the leadership group from last year.

Frawley and Garland are new to the LG, and as true leaders should, they tried.

I believed it because I can only feed off what the players give me. The players take me on the journey on match day, and it was evident from the opening 20 seconds we were in for a very toguh day, which a lot has to do with attitude.

Well, I am glad you are making snap judgements after 20 seconds...

I have no idea why you are comparing to last year - I said that it is your mindset and that this team that apparently never thought they were a chance did a pretty good effort of imitating a team that gave a sh!t and gave some effort.

And if you want to - you can compare that to the corresponding game last year.

I heard a short snippet on SEN this arvo with Neeld saying something along the lines of "talent isnt important to us", but then clarified it by saying it wasnt the number one thing they were looking at, he was interested in players commitment ect alot as well rather than just natural ability. only heard a 20 second part but sounded intersting?

"discipline and work ethic" were the word used

Anybody hear this, may not have been today, just replayed today?

found it:

http://www.sen.com.a...Mark-Neeld/4593

Edited May 16, 201213 yr by Jordie_tackles

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 .

Not sure he doesn't always pass the buck. He did come in and pretty much [censored]-can the Bailey era (rightfully so, mind you).

Everyone talks about him being a hard*ss. Frankly he hasnt scared me yet. All reports from Collingwood was that we was a relaxed bloke, no-nonsense but not a psycho like malthouse or clarkson maybe sheeds when he blew his top. Would like to know how he ranks in the paint peeling category and who he has given a good bake. Im over touchy feely coaches. I know he misjudged our list and general football health etc - apparently like so many others, but Neeldy talking about being disappointed if the same thing happens 3 years later is more than just lowering expectations. Its planting seeds of complacency and affects club culture we are so desperately longing to forge. Every game is there to be won. Any games we can pinch in the 'development' phase the better. We need him to be ruthless no matter what because whether we like it or not he will form the soul of the MFC for the next 4-5 years, assuming he coaches min 3 years and their is the dragover effect (like Bailey's shadow we are sitting in now)

Tanking v2012 = Our fitness base isn't where we need to be as an AFL club, and our ability to not keep to structures for an entire game is hurting us.

Smart play Mr Neeld. I find it interesting that for a ruthless [censored], you appear happy to accept losing when we play 4 quarters of keeping to a structure, regardless the opposition.

Edited May 17, 201213 yr by H_T
Poor foul unnecessary language

Mark neeld reminds me of the new coach that came in in the mighty ducks 3 movie. Before he came in the ducks had a coach that was pals with the team and joked around and was just so nice to them, then when Emilio Estevetz's character leaves they get in this new coach who is tough, hard and firm who takes no crap and focus's on defence. Straightaway some of the players arent happy and get annoyed because they get this new coach that is tough and isnt there to muck around and wants them to play a different game.

Anyway im still condient with Neeld at the helm and I reckon this time next year we will be doing a whole lot better.

Mark neeld reminds me of the new coach that came in in the mighty ducks 3 movie. Before he came in the ducks had a coach that was pals with the team and joked around and was just so nice to them, then when Emilio Estevetz's character leaves they get in this new coach who is tough, hard and firm who takes no crap and focus's on defence. Straightaway some of the players arent happy and get annoyed because they get this new coach that is tough and isnt there to muck around and wants them to play a different game.

Anyway im still condient with Neeld at the helm and I reckon this time next year we will be doing a whole lot better.

Thank fcuk for that.

Thank fcuk for that.

I have no idea how French Connection plays into this...

I know he misjudged our list

You were at his interview for the job? You know how he rated the list?

I have no idea how French Connection plays into this...

They are a potential new scoreboard sponsor of the MCG for Melbourne games. As well as sponsoring the whiteboards that the coached hold up at each break showing how the unconested possession stat is -148.

To clarify ass i heard it again, Neeld says

something more like "we arnt interested in talent, talent will only get you so far in this game, we want people that want to play ect"

To clarify ass i heard it again, Neeld says

something more like "we arnt interested in talent, talent will only get you so far in this game, we want people that want to play ect"

It was more that he is not seduced by talent, as many are.

Talent will get you onto an AFL list, but without application you won't last.

It was more that he is not seduced by talent, as many are.

Talent will get you onto an AFL list, but without application you won't last.

That is the quote i was looking for thankyou Jose

Was quite a good interview i mucked up about 3/4 of the way through for me, but i like listening to Neeld personally.

It was more that he is not seduced by talent, as many are.

Talent will get you onto an AFL list, but without application you won't last.

True of other sides, but for too long it has been enough at the Demons

Yes, Neeld deserves time.

Yes, the players had a lot they needed to learn, but that fact that the team appears to have gone backwards places serious questions over what Neeld is doing. It takes years to change a list to suit a game plan (by which time that plan will probably be four or fiver generations old), so unfortunately we can't just quickly start again with a new list.

From the pre-season video of Neeld to the players:

"""

I'm not going to be promise or be hollow. I'm just going to give you commitment. You can trust me ... that if the bloke you're sitting beside can't do that to a level I'll set, he won't play.

"""

I really hope we can trust him. It's time for a few to be not playing - ever again.

Ever.Again.

What? We might get thrashed if we play the kids --- oh, wait.

What? We won't have any senior on field leadership if we play the kids -- oh, wait.