It's easy to say that about Bailey now (well, probably by this time last year), but in his first couple of seasons he was going to be "that" coach that took us to a premiership.

Time will tell how Neeld goes. He has been in the job for 3 official games, and my word it is very early to make any bold statements about his ability/inability to steer us straight. But so far, and having been one of those who put faith in Bailey for probably 3 and a half years, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. However, to date, the only positive I have seen that Neeld could put his name to would be, well, I'm buggered if I know to be honest. I will give him some credit for the new look Football Department as well as getting Mitch on board. I was happy with his no BS presser after Round 1, but as always, the Club put an end to that type of talk.

Yep, I thought so too.

But I think I see a difference between the 2 now, and I think that will hold Neeld and the club and good stead.

And now I just have to hope that I'm right?

But what other choice do I have, but to trust my own judgment?

Think about how I see things, then decide that logically the opposite must be true?

That could lead to some interesting conclusions...

It's easy to say that about Bailey now (well, probably by this time last year), but in his first couple of seasons he was going to be "that" coach that took us to a premiership.

Time will tell how Neeld goes. He has been in the job for 3 official games, and my word it is very early to make any bold statements about his ability/inability to steer us straight. But so far, and having been one of those who put faith in Bailey for probably 3 and a half years, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. However, to date, the only positive I have seen that Neeld could put his name to would be, well, I'm buggered if I know to be honest. I will give him some credit for the new look Football Department as well as getting Mitch on board. I was happy with his no BS presser after Round 1, but as always, the Club put an end to that type of talk.

As they should. Neeld would now know better too.

All this does is gives the media the impetus to apply the blowtorch.

Before the revelation of the Davey/Mifsud saga, the focus was already on Neeld because of his post-game presser.

As they should. Neeld would now know better too.

All this does is gives the media the impetus to apply the blowtorch.

Before the revelation of the Davey/Mifsud saga, the focus was already on Neeld because of his post-game presser.

Personally, I don't see the harm in highlighting some areas that are obvious to us all. Instead of saying that we were in the game up until 11 minutes to go in the third quarter is nothing but [censored] and wind to me. I'd rather front the fact that in that last 11 minutes, we let the opposition kick 7 goals, which basically ruined any chance we had of winning that match, and that sort of effort is not what we want to see from our players.

That type of response should be well within the MFC Presser Code of Conduct Guidelines, and will ensure that Neeld still has that hard-arsed edge.