I was listening to ABC 774 at about 12:30 this afternoon and Gerard Whately had a really insightful comment to make. He has an annoying voice when commentating but his pre-game andf post-game insights are the best in the business.

He basically said that there was a battle of wills happening at Melbourne. Neeld has a specific model of how football should be taught, trained and played and he has no room for contradictions. Whately reckons that the senior players like Green, Davey, Rivers, Jamar (he did not put Moloney in this group) have not "bought in" to his plan and are playing as if to say "well your method is OK, but this is how we play footy".

He intimated that the main issue under Bailey's rule was that the leadership group would not lead his game philiosophy, therefore laying the playing form of the last 4 yeras squarely at the feet of the senior group.

If there is a battle of wills at the moment I have three responses:

1. Neeld is very tough and seems very fair. Unlike Bailey, he is tough enough to put to aside those players who will not buy in.

2. The board, CEO's and supporters must get behind him so that his plan can be fully inplemented.

3. I am absolutley furious. If this is true, then Neeld should do what Blight did at Adelaide and move these so-called senior players on. A player should be coachable whether they have played 3 or 300. If they don't buy in then get out of the way and give someone else a go.

I have no idea where players get off dictating terms to coaches. It's absolutely unfathomable.

As a coach, you ask for input from many, accept the advice of few, and delegate roles to all. But the number one thing is that you must rule with an iron fist. Anyone who won't listen to you is poison and must be gotten rid of immediately.

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by Chook

I have no idea where players get off dictating terms to coaches. It's absolutely unfathomable.

... or where people and commentators get off making assumptions about players getting off dictating terms to coaches.

... or where people and commentators get off making assumptions about players getting off dictating terms to coaches.

So Aaron Davey is playing to instructions by failing to chase hard and tackle? What about Brad Green falling on his arse after every contest? They don't want to do what I'm sure Neeld has told them to do. It is an assumption, but this whole website is based on assumptions, so I don't think you can really blame me for that.

Hate to think this is true, but it is the way they appear to play.

So Aaron Davey is playing to instructions by failing to chase hard and tackle?

... which is what he did last year as well under a different coach, and while in the leadership group.

You're drawing a very long bow to presume that their form (or lack of) is part of an internal power struggle.

... which is what he did last year as well under a different coach, and while in the leadership group.

You're drawing a very long bow to presume that their form (or lack of) is part of an internal power struggle.

You are right bing he is just plain and simple past it

Well I hope this is true, because God help us if everything is A-OK and we still play like we did yesterday.

Cannot believe this is true, and if it was there's a simple fix.................drop those who refuse to follow the coaches requests until they comply, and if necessary, tell the media the reasons why.

Surely no player or group of players could be so stupid.

Watching and hearing Brad Green on The Sunday Footy Show, I don't get the impression he would carry on like this.

I posted this in the game plan thread but think its also relevant here:

I read the Game in Time of War by Martin Flanagan last year. One of the things that jumped out for me was the chapter on Peter Schwab as coach of Hawthorn in early 2000s.

Flagan said in regards to Schwabs philosophy/gameplan:

"As I understood it, at a time when the game was becoming more planned and preprogrammed, with more and more of the thinking being done by men in glass boxes and not the players on the ground, Schwab was trying to develop a side in which the players made the decisions themselves. His team had proved erratic, one observer describing them as a 'collection of unhinged athletes', Others questioned their hardness at the ball..."

This sounds an almost identical description of the Demons under Bailey. Which would seem a strange approach of Bailey to take given it largely failed to deliver anything at Hawthorn until the Line in the Sand game and all that has happened since under Clarkson. The parallels with Neeld and Clarkson are quite similar I would think so i take some hope from this. Also, if the players were supposed to make decisions themselves (from all I have heard/read this sounds very plausible) under Bailey, then no doubt the more regimented approach under Neeld would be quite a drammatic change and you would have to expect some time for it to become second nature for the players.

... which is what he did last year as well under a different coach, and while in the leadership group.

You're drawing a very long bow to presume that their form (or lack of) is part of an internal power struggle.

Last year, Bailey didn't require chasing and tackling from Davey - at least not explicitly. This year, it is Davey's number one role. Rather than being a part of a "power struggle," I believe he's simply not willing to do what the coach tells him to do. It amounts to the same thing. Whether through outright rebellion or unwillingness to fulfil his role, Aaron Davey is nowhere near in line with the Neeld ethos, which as a senior player and likely our second highest earner, he damn well should be.

Surely this is all [censored] and wind from this bloke. Jamar was voted into the leadership group by the coach based on his actions over pre season. Lets be honest the likes of Davey, Green, Maloney, Rivers, Sylvia and Jamar are not going to be around when we have our next serious run at finals footy and none of them would be in any other teams best 22 except for that of GWS or GC. I can't believe that none of these guys would not be buying into Neeldies game plan. Where else would they go!

The proof will this week and who gets on the plane to WA!

I have no idea if this is true, however Neeld will be polarising. I mean that in a positive sense.

If true, then the players are outnumbered. They could get away with it under DB but not under the large, expanded and widely respected coaching & fitness team that is in place now. Same goes for board or CEO boundaries. How can you argue with Misson, Craig, Viney, Neeld (GF assistant coach) and all the assistants?

disclaimer: yes Viney was there last year but hey, I need him for my argument ;-)

heard it too, thought it was a good call.

davey's chasing and tackling was actually okay yesterday when compared with 2011 - 5 tackles and 2 holding-the-ball decisions in his favour.

it was everything else he was doing - not running to position, not shepherding, not offering an option as a forward, not getting to the fall of the ball as a crumber - that was awful to watch.

Whateley is the best ball-by-ball caller and has one of the best football brains.

One of the simple yet most alarming things yesterday was forwards were simply not leading at the ball carrier and attempting to create space. Regardless of the game plan being long kicking around the boundary you still need to move to make things happen and the midfielders and forwards were simply not giving the backmen any options.

So are Moloney, Davey and Green who were 3 big examples of this simply confused by the game plan and trying to work it out or are they lazy footballers who won't spread and help their team mates. I see Magner and Trengove running to be an option, I saw Rohan Bail, Jeremy Howe and Josh Tynan doing it, why aren't the leaders?

the first time I've heard Neeld refer to the previous regime was in yesterday's press conference, where he stated:

I am not going to go down a similar road and continue to put blind faith in players - no way, absolutely no way. And that’s fair enough. That’s not a threat. It’s not anything other than being honest, and that’s what the players were told.

prior to him saying this, whenever he'd been asked about the past he'd indicated that he didn't care about what had happened before he arrived, and that he'd judge the players based on what he saw while at the club. This statement above though indicates that he feels players were getting a game on reputation in the past, they got a game on Saturday (as an opportunity to fit in with his side)

this won't be happening any more, and expect some big names to be dropped this week... This is all consistent of what is said in the opening post, although I find it hard to believe Jamar is considered a problem.

he also said before the game that being coach of the team this season will allow him to evaluate the players, and make some decision on players at the end of the season... this suggests that there some players he's not happy with...

interesting times, lets see how this plays out over the coming weeks...