Thought it may be interesting to make some comparisons between the last two senior coaches of the MFC and get some feedback on how we feel our players have responded to the change. I find it interesting that both coaches at this point in time seem to be from the opposite end of the spectrum and that can't be easy to adjust to.

IMO Baileys great strength was that he was a very good manager of people and he was truly the players coach (the boys clearly loved him) . Although there wasn't enough of an emphasis on defensive pressure and pressing I liked the fact that he was positive in taking the game on and he got us playing a brand of footy that when we were on could almost match it with anyone. I think we only need to look at the way guys like trenners,jurrah,chip and Russian developed under him to contend that he had a positive impact on the club in some way.

On the contrary Neeld seems to be the binary opposite of DB. The guy dead set scares me. At this stage it looks as though his method is to strike fear into the hearts of the players and almost threaten them into getting what he's after. Hes trying to get the players to execute a completely foreign gameplan that worked at a side as good as Collingwood but may not with a group of under-developed kids littered with insipid senior players. There has been a huge focus on contested possession but now our outside game is suffering and we are not spreading and linking up as we used to.

My contention is this: I feel there has been a massive over correction under Neeld and some of the things that were our strengths have been completely watered out. There is no point in winning contested possession if you can't run and spread effectively. I also believe the players will be too scared to take the game on for fear of failure and a rocket from Neeld. Flair can sometimes be a good thing. I always felt our players were stung by the fact that they never got the chance to play for Bailey post 186 and that 'their' man was out of a job due to their lack of effort. Speaking from some personal experience as an athlete I've always found it difficult to get the best out of myself under the hard taskmaster Neeld type coach and fear is not always the best motivation. I wonder if our players are feeling the same?

Ask me again in round 12

Ask me again in round 12

Will do but any initial thoughts for now?? It may be early in the season but we've still played 6 matches for the year and suffered losses to the GCS, PA and Brissie at the G

Did not work for the filth at first, give it time. About time we had a coach who puts fear in the players.

Did not work for the filth at first, give it time. About time we had a coach who puts fear in the players.

So that fear is going to make our players better in your opinion??

Thought it may be interesting to make some comparisons between the last two senior coaches of the MFC and get some feedback on how we feel our players have responded to the change. I find it interesting that both coaches at this point in time seem to be from the opposite end of the spectrum and that can't be easy to adjust to.

IMO Baileys great strength was that he was a very good manager of people and he was truly the players coach (the boys clearly loved him) . Although there wasn't enough of an emphasis on defensive pressure and pressing I liked the fact that he was positive in taking the game on and he got us playing a brand of footy that when we were on could almost match it with anyone. I think we only need to look at the way guys like trenners,jurrah,chip and Russian developed under him to contend that he had a positive impact on the club in some way.

On the contrary Neeld seems to be the binary opposite of DB. The guy dead set scares me. At this stage it looks as though his method is to strike fear into the hearts of the players and almost threaten them into getting what he's after. Hes trying to get the players to execute a completely foreign gameplan that worked at a side as good as Collingwood but may not with a group of under-developed kids littered with insipid senior players. There has been a huge focus on contested possession but now our outside game is suffering and we are not spreading and linking up as we used to.

My contention is this: I feel there has been a massive over correction under Neeld and some of the things that were our strengths have been completely watered out. There is no point in winning contested possession if you can't run and spread effectively. I also believe the players will be too scared to take the game on for fear of failure and a rocket from Neeld. Flair can sometimes be a good thing. I always felt our players were stung by the fact that they never got the chance to play for Bailey post 186 and that 'their' man was out of a job due to their lack of effort. Speaking from some personal experience as an athlete I've always found it difficult to get the best out of myself under the hard taskmaster Neeld type coach and fear is not always the best motivation. I wonder if our players are feeling the same?

The club as a whole needs to stop finding excuses. Neeld was loved at Collingwood so I don't see the problem being him. The responsibly rests with the players. If they don't realize they are playing for their careers so be it. We are better off as a club without them.

Much better. When the last time a nice friendly coach won a flag.

I feel there has been a massive over correction under Neeld and some of the things that were our strengths have been completely watered out.

Neeld wants the game played in a certain way and he has to hold true to his convictions. It's as simple as that. If it doesn't suit some players then in time they'll be replaced.

Under Neale Daniher Aaron Davey came third in a best and fairest even though he didn't front on tackle and even though he didn't put his nose over the ball. We finally have a coach that won't tolerate such efforts and certainly won't reward such efforts. I'll back him to the hilt.

So that fear is going to make our players better in your opinion??

I've heard plenty of respected footy people say that a certain level of intimidation of the coach by the players is a must. Neeld will get the balance right.

Do you think Bailey had any level of intimidation with the players ?

Edited March 31, 201213 yr by Ben-Hur

Much better. When the last time a nice friendly coach won a flag.

Paul Roos in 2005?? This is what I'm suggesting. Would we have been better off with someone in between the bailey who was too soft and neeld who is just dead set scary??

Neeld wants the game played in a certain way and he has to hold true to his convictions. It's as simple as that. If it doesn't suit some players then in time they'll be replaced.

Under Neale Daniher Aaron Davey came third in a best and fairest even though he didn't front on tackle and even though he didn't put his nose over the ball. We finally have a coach that won't tolerate such efforts and certainly won't reward such efforts. I'll back him to the hilt.

So just ignore and forget about your strengths.is that what you're saying??dont embrace anything that's made you somewhat successful??

So just ignore and forget about your strengths.is that what you're saying??dont embrace anything that's made you somewhat successful??

How do you know what the game-plan is or whether it's being carried out the way the coach wants ? It's new and will take time. Neeld already knows they can attack, but like most good sides wants their game based first on a sound defence. It's too early to be critical of a game-plan when clearly it's not being implemented properly.

And as for being too hard as a coach, how do you know what he's like behind closed doors ? How do you know what he's like one on one ? The players at Collingwood loved him and he took Ocean Grove to 4 flags in a row, so clearly the players there bought in to his agenda.

How about you allow things to unfold beyond round one before you pigeon hole him. How does that sound ?

EDIT: by the way, you say "somewhat successful" ? Are you frigging kidding me ? FMD. Your idea of success and mind couldn't be further apart.

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by Ben-Hur

I'm hearing alot of experts talking about the art of macro and micro management. Neeld seems to be setting team and club standards, but isn't micro managing his players well. It ain't going to work if you can't get people on board. Yes just get rid of the dead wood, but you can't do that til October.

I think the better option is to get ppl on board. Good coaches don't always make good leaders. IMO Neeld has a massive ego and this could be his downfall. Neil Craig talks the club up with it's history, Neeld talks the club down by saying he won't play players for the sake of putting games in ppl (a slap in the face to the club last few yrs) I don't see 22 players worthy of a game to get us more wins than loses. He may have to play younger talented player for development.

It is too early to judge Neeld and he needs time, but he needs to produce actions and our game plan is not going to win games. Pendlebury, Swan and Cloke would help, but we don't have them. Maybe he will need to coach to what he has and tweak things without sacrificing his main aim like harnessing the players offensive skills.

At least we weren't bored to fricken tears when getting smashed under Bailey.

And if you in the southern stand bring binoculars as the only time you'll get a close up of the action is when the ball wizzes past held by unmanned opposition.

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by Fork 'em

So just ignore and forget about your strengths.is that what you're saying??dont embrace anything that's made you somewhat successful??

What success are you referring to?. I must have blinked when it happened.

If players can't cop the new coach they will be out.

Neeld talks the club down by saying he won't play players for the sake of putting games in ppl (a slap in the face to the club last few yrs)

It is too early to judge Neeld and he needs time, but he needs to produce actions and our game plan is not going to win games.

Neeld hasn't put the club down by saying that. He's saying that to play under him you need to earn games through performances on the training track, as well as performances at Casey. You're drawing a ridiculously long bow with that assertion.

And how do you know his game-plan won't win games when it's being executed properly ?

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by Ben-Hur

If fear is Neeld's prime driver, then we're stuffed - it just doesn't work. Need to support our strengths and work on the weaknesses - not one at the expense of the other - we're not going to progress otherwise

If fear is Neeld's prime driver, then we're stuffed - it just doesn't work. Need to support our strengths and work on the weaknesses - not one at the expense of the other - we're not going to progress otherwise

What are the strengths?

How do you know what the game-plan is or whether it's being carried out the way the coach wants ? It's new and will take time. Neeld already knows they can attack, but like most good sides wants their game based first on a sound defence. It's too early to be critical of a game-plan when clearly it's not being implemented properly.

And as for being too hard as a coach, how do you know what he's like behind closed doors ? How do you know what he's like one on one ? The players at Collingwood loved him and he took Ocean Grove to 4 flags in a row, so clearly the players there bought in to his agenda.

How about you allow things to unfold beyond round one before you pigeon hole him. How does that sound ?

EDIT: by the way, you say "somewhat successful" ? Are you frigging kidding me ? FMD. Your idea of success and mind couldn't be further apart.

Ben Hur u clearly didn't read my post before jumping on your very high horse. I don't give a flying f**k what neeld did at frigging ocean grove. How could you be so negligent to draw any comparisons between club footy and the elite level. My point is that at this stage it looks as though neeld coming in from the outside is trying to implement a gameplan that is almost playing to our weakness and which we don't have the cattle to execute. Because it worked at Collingwood doesn't mean it will work with us. I'm not saying we were successful under bailey but at least we won 8.5 games in 2010. We won't win 3 this year the way were going.

If fear is Neeld's prime driver, then we're stuffed - it just doesn't work. Need to support our strengths and work on the weaknesses - not one at the expense of the other - we're not going to progress otherwise

Thanks stormndemon. Exactly my point.

If senior players refuse to put in unless under their own terms then we are stuffed forever. Better play all the the kids and start afresh.

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by Jackie

If senior players refuse to put in unless under their own terms then we are stuffed forever. Better play all the the kids and start afresh.

I agree. The coach rules. My way or the highway. None of our list has any credits. The club has not acheived in decades.

Get used to it.

I don't give a flying f**k what neeld did at frigging ocean grove. My point is that at this stage it looks as though neeld coming in from the outside is trying to implement a gameplan that is almost playing to our weakness and which we don't have the cattle to execute. I'm not saying we were successful under bailey but at least we won 8.5 games in 2010.

"I don't give a flying f**k what neeld did at frigging ocean grove."

Why not ? Do you think his personality has changed ? You don't win 4 flags at any level if you're players can't relate to you. You're obtuse if you think otherwise. And the Collingwood players think highly of him, or doesn't that count ?

"My point is that at this stage it looks as though neeld coming in from the outside is trying to implement a gameplan that is almost playing to our weakness and which we don't have the cattle to execute"

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it.He has the cattle to do it, but it's clearly going to take time. How would he look if he changed his principles and game-plan on the back of a terrible effort in round one ? Do you even understand the intricacies of his game-plan ? If so, share them with your Demonland brethren. No game-plan is going to work if you're smashed at the clearances.

"I'm not saying we were successful under bailey but at least we won 8.5 games in 2010."

You said, "somewhat successful". Now you're saying, "I'm not saying we were successful". Which is it ? Just accept that it was a stupid comment. The Bailey years were an unmitigated disaster even if your good-self found them "somewhat successful".

At least we weren't bored to fricken tears when getting smashed under Bailey.

And if you in the southern stand bring binoculars as the only time you'll get a close up of the action is when the ball wizzes past held by unmanned opposition.

Yep, it was really entertaining to watch us get belted by 186 points by Geelong last year - especially given we were apparently well advanced in our rebuild.

I am genuinely relieved we have Neeld at the helm. He'll sort these choir boys out. And he'll bring a level of professionalism to this club that it's probably never experienced before.

In fact, it may even be a good thing for Neeld to see what this team is really like so early into his MFC career. There definitely won't be any delusions of grandeur about this list anytime soon.

I reckon there are some excellent discussion points in the OP and congratulate Gotsy15 for raising them and responding in the way he has when he has been attacked for no good reason.

The question for me is should Neeld ignore the attributes of the players and coach his game style regardless or try and use the attributes of the players. Many make the point, fairly, that it's really too early to tell and most, including me, want to believe in Neeld. But that doesn't mean we can't question his approach and like Gotsy I have concerns. In essence if what he is doing is using fear as one of his primary tools then he won't gain the respect of the players and that is a major issue.

The other interesting thing, which I think I'm right in saying, is that of the coaching group only two have done the job before. We have Craig in the wings but only Royal and Rawlings have done their job at AFL level previously. Whilst we focus on the inexperience of the players the coaches hardly have a game between them.

The most disappointing thing from my viewpoint is the lack of commitment of the players to the contest and after all the focus of the preseason was aimed at that I was hoping for more.

Early days - poor start and I fear for next week. One this is for sure, Neeld has not shown Bailey up at this stage.