The return of Moloney, Sylvia and Jurrah may improve things, but interestingly they didn't miss Green, I felt.

Moloney, Sylvia and Jurrah is 64 possessions and 8 goals of the last time we played Richmond in 2011. Arguably 3 of our 5 best players. I think its more than "may" improve things. Our backline and forwardline are fine, our mids lack clean hands and the courage to run both with and without the ball. Moving Watts and Howe to the midfield is a great idea that will have a excellent long term benefits . Getting Grimes in there also would not hurt. I do not understand this obsession with playing him deep back. Take the 3rd qtr out we played much improved football with some costly errors.

It's still far too early to make any sort of judgement about the game plan. I clearly remember the DL consensus under Bailey was that, if we had a game plan, it didn't work and the coaching staff had no idea how to respond. Clearly, Neeld does know about a game plan that works - it helped C'wood win a premiership. What we seem to lack is players with the required skills to be competitive. This doesn't mean they can't be taught, it just takes time before that judgement can be made.

.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Neelds involvement with a winning set up at Collingwood is no more compelling argument for future success than DB's involvement with a winning plan at Port.

Moloney, Sylvia and Jurrah is 64 possessions and 8 goals of the last time we played Richmond in 2011. Arguably 3 of our 5 best players. I think its more than "may" improve things. Our backline and forwardline are fine, our mids lack clean hands and the courage to run both with and without the ball. Moving Watts and Howe to the midfield is a great idea that will have a excellent long term benefits . Getting Grimes in there also would not hurt. I do not understand this obsession with playing him deep back. Take the 3rd qtr out we played much improved football with some costly errors.

But you can't take the 3rd Quarter out of the equation. It's the game breaking one.

23-4 goals so far this year in the 3rd.

The entire comp is lining up to play us in the 3rd. $cully could go feral in 10 weeks.

That would be the last straw for many.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Neelds involvement with a winning set up at Collingwood is no more compelling argument for future success than DB's involvement with a winning plan at Port.

Absolutely right. The difference,as I see it, is that Bailey had 4 full seasons to prove that his plan no longer worked, Neeld has had 3 full games. Just not long enough to make a judgement.

This post seems appropriate to this thread as well as another so I have repeated it.

'Fix the problem and the blame will fix itself.' (That is, don't waste time blaming anyone.)

First, look at the playing list and assess its strengths and weaknesses - IMO the list consists of predominantly attack oriented players (compare Geelong with Collingwood for example).

Second, look at how to get the best out of the current playing list.

Third, invent a game plan to suit the list at the moment and then evolve it over time - don't try to enforce preconceived ideas or copy others as there is never enough time to do this and MFC needs to be ahead of copying which never works anyway.

In short, be flexible and make the most of what you have got - the great Norm Smith created the ruck-rover role to find a position for a member of his playing list who could play but didn't fit the conventional positions of the time, Ron Barassi!

Neeld had to start somewhere. He says he's still getting to know the players' particular strengths and weaknesses. Are we going to see him adapting then, in the next so many weeks, on the basis of what he learns? I am hoping so. What he has said suggests it is a possibility.

Tailoring the game plan to the players will help restore the players' confidence. Confidence is from self-belief, but I suspect the value of "self" is not rock-solid for players at Melbourne, what with with the running disaster of 2011, and the public "new game plan" talk, and everyone being unsettled by the axe falling regularly since at least when Junior was moved on, not to mention the amount of mortality hacking at the club over the past few years. I think lack of confidence all round is a big part of Grimes turning it over in the face of no presenting option. Throughout the game we fumbled and reacted slowly, Davey and Morton and others hesitated and were lost - it could all be down to lack of confidence, especially when we have seen these same players decisive and accurate in the past.

In the long run we want a cohesion made of what we have, rather than a created cohesion made up of players acting out "roles". That's not to say we can't look for improvements, and change bad habits and learn good ones and so on, obviously you can learn and develop and still be yourself (every school teacher will have studied the concept of "respect for persons" as a necessary element in classroom teaching. It means that we value the individuality of the student, and the knowledge and experience they bring to the classroom; the teacher aims to foster growth rather than imposing on the student values and judgments that invalidate the student's own take on life). I agree with Hardnut, we want to see some inspired outside-the-square thinking from our coach, alongside his unyielding expectations. We want a club that embraces its originals and values the contributions of its players, as well as one that toughens up. Watts is not the next this player or that player, any more than Jurrah is, just as Jakovich and Flower and Barassi and Doull and so on all were unique and the direct cause of many wins. By all means play cohesively and responsibly, but let it be a cohesion of the players that we have, and please never just the playing out of a white-board.

When Richmond got their run on, they went for shots in total faith that it would go through - in contrast to themselves in the first two quarters and us all day. They suddenly remembered they can do it, and went for it. We look like we are flat out trying to play parts, and not really knowing them. This is what frustrates me, because there are some really talented players out there, under-performing...

Hopefully, Neeld is on his own learning curve... New boy, everyone's patient, but he is not god. At the same time, on the evidence of his Collingwood experience, he does have an impressive skill-set of his own too. Unless he goes pig-headed and bullying, we can expect him to be thinking out modifications to his default game plan, as he gets to know the specifics of what talent is available to him. He admitted that it will take time to really know the list. On these grounds, at this stage I say we are reacting hastily, no matter how upsetting the current form is. Give him - and them - time to adjust to one another, and see what comes out of that. You can be sure they are putting into it at least as much thought as we are!

Neeld had to start somewhere. He says he's still getting to know the players' particular strengths and weaknesses. Are we going to see him adapting then, in the next so many weeks, on the basis of what he learns? I am hoping so. What he has said suggests it is a possibility.

Tailoring the game plan to the players will help restore the players' confidence. Confidence is from self-belief, but I suspect the value of "self" is not rock-solid for players at Melbourne, what with with the running disaster of 2011, and the public "new game plan" talk, and everyone being unsettled by the axe falling regularly since at least when Junior was moved on, not to mention the amount of mortality hacking at the club over the past few years. I think lack of confidence all round is a big part of Grimes turning it over in the face of no presenting option. Throughout the game we fumbled and reacted slowly, Davey and Morton and others hesitated and were lost - it could all be down to lack of confidence, especially when we have seen these same players decisive and accurate in the past.

In the long run we want a cohesion made of what we have, rather than a created cohesion made up of players acting out "roles". That's not to say we can't look for improvements, and change bad habits and learn good ones and so on, obviously you can learn and develop and still be yourself (every school teacher will have studied the concept of "respect for persons" as a necessary element in classroom teaching. It means that we value the individuality of the student, and the knowledge and experience they bring to the classroom; the teacher aims to foster growth rather than imposing on the student values and judgments that invalidate their own take on life). I agree with Hardnut, we want to see some inspired outside-the-square thinking from our coach, alongside his unyielding expectations. We want a club that embraces its originals and values the contributions of its players, as well as one that toughens up. Watts is not the next this player or that player, any more than Jurrah is, just as Jakovich and Flower and Barassi and Doull and so on all were unique and the direct cause of many wins. By all means play cohesively and responsibly, but let it be a cohesion of the players that we have, and please never just the playing out of a white-board.

When Richmond got their run on, they went for shots in total faith that it would go through - in contrast to themselves in the first two quarters and us all day. They suddenly remembered they can do it, and went for it. We look like we are flat out trying to play parts, and not really knowing them. This is what frustrates me, because there are some really talented players out there, under-performing...

Hopefully, Neeld is on his own learning curve... New boy, everyone's patient, but he is not god. At the same time, on the evidence of his Collingwood experience, he does have an impressive skill-set of his own too. Unless he goes pig-headed and bullying, we can expect him to be thinking out modifications to his default game plan, as he gets to know the specifics of what talent is available to him. He admitted that it will take time to really know the list. On these grounds, at this stage I say we are reacting hastily, no matter how upsetting the current form is. Give him - and them - time to adjust to one another, and see what comes out of that. You can be sure they are putting into it at least as much thought as we are!

Thoughtful post with good insights.

There will be a vacant seat in front of the Betty Cuthbert bar for the foreseeable future. My golf is crap but it's better than Melbourne's football at the moment.

run the optimism bit by me again

But you can't take the 3rd Quarter out of the equation. It's the game breaking one.

23-4 goals so far this year in the 3rd.

The entire comp is lining up to play us in the 3rd. $cully could go feral in 10 weeks.

That would be the last straw for many.

Obviously that's true. All the same, it doesn't negate the fact that there were some good signs in the other parts of the game. Not everything to take away from the game is bad. Some trends with promise, alongside the glaring problem needing to be addressed. Sufficient to make attendance next week interesting - stuff to watch for further development. As Beckett said, "I'm alive: it may come in handy later on...".

Obviously that's true. All the same, it doesn't negate the fact that there were some good signs in the other parts of the game. Not everything to take away from the game is bad. Some trends with promise, alongside the glaring problem needing to be addressed. Sufficient to make attendance next week interesting - stuff to watch for further development. As Beckett said, "I'm alive: it may come in handy later on...".

I understand mate. But we have been doing just that since 2008.

But you can't take the 3rd Quarter out of the equation. It's the game breaking one.

23-4 goals so far this year in the 3rd.

The entire comp is lining up to play us in the 3rd. $cully could go feral in 10 weeks.

That would be the last straw for many.

I am not saying our 3rd qtr efforts are not disgraceful. Just as you cannot disregard the third you cannot ignore how we play in the other 3.

I understand mate. But we have been doing just that since 2008.

your footy team is like your family. My kids are all late 20's/early 30's and I'm very glad they're alive. My kids have some great things about them, and some average things. It took a long time for them to grow up. It turns out (now that I look back on it) that I never did mutter "only a parent could love them". At times (lots of them) I got frustrated, and angry, as well as proud, and a couple of memorable times I've been awestruck by stuff they've done, mountain-peak experiences in my life, but overall, it's just family. No superstars, but great company and engrossingly interesting even though they don't make the headlines. You love them. You love the ride, and every little bit of their stuff (I notice supporters who get real pleasure out of seeing the caught-in-the-headlights moments, roar with laughter and point it out to each other, which I take as sort of affectionate). Weaknesses are not just failure to win, they are also personality, and you can have affectionate commitment to the personality alongside the most fervent desire to see it improved. And actually, what is > what could have been.

I know footy is a competition, so it's different, but when we are losing, the family thing sustains me. My absolute best memories of football are the Robbie Flower years. Loyalty under ridicule has its own special pleasures. I don't think we are insolvent yet, and life goes on for a long time. Enjoy the ride, I say. Yell abuse from the window and all that, but you don't need to turn on your own. I'm not just waiting, I'm enjoying it.

I am not saying our 3rd qtr efforts are not disgraceful. Just as you cannot disregard the third you cannot ignore how we play in the other 3.

... two of which we won.

I am not sure what you are all on about the answer is simple

We did not buy in!!!!

As I was saying in another thread - I think Crawford hit the nail on the head: new coach, players wanting to impress new coach by sticking to game plan and new structures to the point where they are second guessing their natural play and instincts and wanting to do the structure thing even when it may not make sense at the time. he thinks it will click eventually. We are better than this.

I never ever want to see Clark play on 10-12 metres out from goal in heavy traffic again, that was brutal!

Just watched the replay and noticed that when we don't have the ball, there are often 2/3/4 of our players in pursuit of the player who's got it. Unsurprisingly, this leaves 1/2/3 opposition players unmarked and ready to receive the hand pass or kick. This means that one of our other players then has to run 10-15 meters to cover (leaving their player in the clear). No wonder they run out of puff. Until single players learn how to make a tackle (and hold it), it's going to be tough.

Just watched the replay and noticed that when we don't have the ball, there are often 2/3/4 of our players in pursuit of the player who's got it. Unsurprisingly, this leaves 1/2/3 opposition players unmarked and ready to receive the hand pass or kick. This means that one of our other players then has to run 10-15 meters to cover (leaving their player in the clear). No wonder they run out of puff. Until single players learn how to make a tackle (and hold it), it's going to be tough.

Good point. It is a total shambles right now isn't it.

The thing to bear in mind is that if we can see it, there's a pretty good chance that the coaches will see it as well. There's enough showing to encourage me to give it another few weeks before unpacking the razor blades - do they still make them?

It's still far too early to make any sort of judgement about the game plan. I clearly remember the DL consensus under Bailey was that, if we had a game plan, it didn't work and the coaching staff had no idea how to respond. Clearly, Neeld does know about a game plan that works - it helped C'wood win a premiership. What we seem to lack is players with the required skills to be competitive. This doesn't mean they can't be taught, it just takes time before that judgement can be made.

There definitely were some positives that I saw:

- Clark tried all day and could easily have had another 5 bag

- Howe & Watts competed well in the air. Watts has a great football brain & his use of the ball is a stand out

- I suspect that I'll be abused but I thought that Rivers & Frawley did a pretty good job all day under trying circumstances

- Jones has become a real highlight. For many years, I thought he was well over-rated however I was wrong. he's still young and learning but already he is becoming a potential game-changer

Believe it or not, like most saw, there were a fair few negatives:

- After half-time, the mids were absolutely smashed. Jamar disappointed again but the mids did not seem to know how to get near the ball during stoppages. How does that happen? I don't understand.

- Garland was a weak link at the back. He threw a bit of a tanty when he kicked out poorly to Bate and it was intercepted by a Tige. The kick was the problem, not Bate. It needs to go on the chest, not overhead. Poor skill, poor attitude.

For the rest, sure, some things didn't happen but, as I said earlier, it's still too early. Bailey had a lot of seasons to create a platform from which to go forward and he didn't do it. Neeld hasn't taken over a cohesive team/squad, he's got us - something less than cohesive.

One of the best comments I've read on DL.

But you can't take the 3rd Quarter out of the equation. It's the game breaking one.

23-4 goals so far this year in the 3rd.

The entire comp is lining up to play us in the 3rd. $cully could go feral in 10 weeks.

That would be the last straw for many.

To be fair, I'm far more worried about Selwood and Bartel in 3 weeks.

I wish you luck QC...

Cheers mate !!!

hi all, first time poster.

i feel so disheartened atm.

The reason is not only that ive seen our players go backwards this year, but that we lost to a side that i feel is a real ordinary side. richmond are a bottom 6 side and they made us look terrible, where does that leave us.

Watched from the top deck of the northern stand and from that angle it really exposes just how bad we are in every area of the game.

Clearances, spread, work rate, hardness, ability to tackle, no hard running, shocking skills, lack of heart, confidence and gameplan where most evident.

The players play without heart and soul and I won't be supporting them again until that changes. I have the feeling it won't change with this current group, which means a long road ahead.

I was in the top deck of the same stand and agree. Watching from that "bird's eye" you can see where we fall down in these areas. Our lack of work rate I think is the most damning. Mitch Clarke for mine had the highest by a long way for our forwards but one thing I really noticed was the turn overs going into our forward line where a player is running towards goal, away from the ball carrier. The ball carrier either couldn't kick it far enough to the player leading away from him or was waiting for the forward to lead back at him. I noticed this on 3-4 occassions where we turned it over when it should have been a shot of goal. Frustation all over the shop but we are coming from a long way back hopefully with some "class" like Jurrah, Col and Beamer we can see some further improvements. Col has probably the longest boot in our club on the run and will add a little bit extra for us I think. Will it be enough... probably not but something.

Just watched the replay and noticed that when we don't have the ball, there are often 2/3/4 of our players in pursuit of the player who's got it. Unsurprisingly, this leaves 1/2/3 opposition players unmarked and ready to receive the hand pass or kick. This means that one of our other players then has to run 10-15 meters to cover (leaving their player in the clear). No wonder they run out of puff. Until single players learn how to make a tackle (and hold it), it's going to be tough.

As previously noted sitting high in the stands it was so clear to see this happening, there is a clear plan of pressuring the ball carrier and either causing a sloppy disposal or holding the ball up in a tackle but as you stated we have too many players attaching the ball carrier. Again a seemingly MFC trait for years of not talking enough as there were a number of times where two players would go at a ball carrier, both seeing each other go then both stopping as they saw each other.

Plan is in place, execution is a work in progress.

Absolutely right. The difference,as I see it, is that Bailey had 4 full seasons to prove that his plan no longer worked, Neeld has had 3 full games. Just not long enough to make a judgement.

You are correct but please lets not wait 4 years this time.