Tynan

Magner

Bartram

Howe

Bail unlucky not to be mentioned

I wonder how close I got to Neelds FOUR

Manger, Watts he definitely meant. He named them - 'a first gamer, and a 40-gamer who doesn't normally play in the midfield'. Trengove the 3rd. I'd probably say Howe was the 4th.

Bartram! What are you nuts. He may look like he's trying and he did take a tough mark at one stage but my god he's a pathetic footballer. He can't kick at all and he was often off his man. He is completely incompetent with ball in hand and just loses all clue as to what to do.

Also I really like Tynan but he ran out of puff in the second half and his game went off because of it. I'd be keen to put him as the sub next week. I certainly wouldn't drop him but I'd be managing him through the season.

Magner, Bail and Howe put in respectable performances, I'm happy with those 3, not sure if I can find a 4th. Trengove had a crack as always. Mitch Clark didn't play the smartest game but he did compete hard in the first half in an impossible set up.

Magner, Trengove, Watts, Martin.

Magner, Trengove, Watts, Martin.

Maybe Jones instead of Trengove.

agree with chook - magner, watts, trengove, martin.

we are a very, very ordinary football side.

Magner, Watts, Trengove and ???

Manger, Watts he definitely meant. He named them - 'a first gamer, and a 40-gamer who doesn't normally play in the midfield'. Trengove the 3rd. I'd probably say Howe was the 4th.

He didnt name them.... Magner would be one, Either Watts or Trengove for the 2nd.Although either could make the FOUR. I think Martin for fourth

For mine.....

Magner, Watts, Trengove & probably Martin

And while they were good(ish) that number is still extremely sad.

Edited March 31, 201214 yr by QueenC

Bartram???

I'm still staggered that we have such a spud in the leadership group. Obviously Neeld didn't wait to watch him kick a football before deciding he was leadership material.

Magner, Watts, Trengove and Bail would be my guess.

Magner and Watts can be inferred quite easily from the press conference. I'll give another two when I get around to watching the game.

Maybe Jones instead of Trengove.

It is as simple as this - Jones, Martin, Watts and Magner.

I don't know why there needs to be any more discussion on this thread.

Magner and Watts can be inferred quite easily from the press conference. I'll give another two when I get around to watching the game.

Why not Trengove with 38 games?...Hmmm!

Why not Trengove with 38 games?...Hmmm!

Well he wasn't really playing in a position foreign to him, but you could well be right there Rhino.......

Either way they both had better games than most of their illustrious team mates and thus are probably both in "The Four"!!!

Edited March 31, 201214 yr by QueenC

Why not Trengove with 38 games?...Hmmm!

He mentioned 40 or so games who has probably never played in the midfield before. I know Watts did in fact play mid as a junior from time to time, but Neeld might not know that. Trengove plays there all the time and Grimes has done so for us on the odd occasion, but I don't recall Watts being played as a mid. He was listed on the wing today.

I think there is a bit of licence in a press conference, If he did speak of Watts well that's a slight positive. Personally I was not rapt in Watts game but hell there were worse and I can understand why he would be in the "FOUR".

I can only go by the numbers. 18 disposals, 5 marks 1 goal. Three weeks ago we'd have taken that from him and been thrilled.

You should actually watch the game to determine the impact on the game. He wasnt disgraced fully. He didnt star and yes there were far worse.

Why not Trengove with 38 games?...Hmmm!

I think it is Watts because Neeld after the preseason Malthouse comments has labelled/created a precedent of Watts as "the 40 game player" and then has mentioned 40 game player again today, plus the positional inexperience to boot. Not conclusive but...........

The fact that we can't easily name the 4 tells me that Neeld probably overvalued 3 of them.

Magner is the ONE, obviously.

Watts was OK. Still waits to tackle rather than get it first. If OK is a pass mark for Watts then that problem will never get solved.

Martin? I didn't see anything that made him stand above the others.

Trengove was OK, nowhere near his best, but he's in the four by default.

My point is there weren't 4 very good players. And if 3 of them did exactly what Neeld wants, well maybe he should leave himself in Melbourne next week.

Four is generous. Magner was very good. Trengove was okay. Watts had his moments, as did Martin. That's it.

Probably the 4 hat got named in the best I would have thought....

Best:

Melbourne: Magner, Trengove, Watts, Frawley

Brisbane Lions: Black, Rich, Hanley, Rockliff, Adcock, McGrath

Who here thinks Neeld counted how many players he was happy with on his fingers before the press conference? I wouldn't take his words so literally - he was just making the point that most of our players played below expectation. I think Magner is the only one who played well enough for four quarters.

Watts for sure!

I was quite surprised to see him go into the centre for a couple of ball ups and I was equaly surprised to see him have a positive impact when there.

No, he wasn't great but he was still one of the better players.

The others? Magner for sure and I reckon Martin and Jones (or possibly Trengove).

i was at the game, and i thought jones' impact was negligible at best. he didn't do much.

god it was awful. i then backed up last night with the bombers vs north thriller, and i think both the lions and the demons are potential cellar-dwellers this year. we're both absolute rubbish football sides based on yesterday's showing.