I'm a first time poster ......but wanted to wade in with 2 questions

Personally, as much as I hate losing week in week out, I can live with it if I have a definite sense of a positive direction.

Having adjusted myself to life post 186, and accepted the necessity of rebuild Mk 2, I have 2 big concerns.

1. The game plan. Aside form a Clark or Howe screamer, we just seem to be playing such uninspired, slow, predictable football! Im afraid we've over reacted to the criticisms of Baileys style and in doing so have made "outside" football some kind of dirty word. I dont think you can win a flag without a functioning inside AND outside game. Neeld looks like Baileys opposite and mirror image and Im concerned we'll get into equal and opposite bad habits. Anyone got anything positive to say about it?

2. Player unity. Whatever happened before and after 186 it seems a whole group of demon players got pulled into something political then hung out to dry. Their big sin after all was to back their coach against some others in the club. A position they should never have been put in. 186 was at least partly the result of a deeply distracted player group. Neeld has a tough, hard style...which is ok, but the TOTAL change of the leadership group seemed related to that day and a further divisive action. Its not clear to me , looking at them play, if the team is united. Does any one know what the feeling amongst the players actually is?

I'm a first time poster ......but wanted to wade in with 2 questions Personally, as much as I hate losing week in week out, I can live with it if I have a definite sense of a positive direction. Having adjusted myself to life post 186, and accepted the necessity of rebuild Mk 2, I have 2 big concerns. 1. The game plan. Aside form a Clark or Howe screamer, we just seem to be playing such uninspired, slow, predictable football! Im afraid we've over reacted to the criticisms of Baileys style and in doing so have made "outside" football some kind of dirty word. I dont think you can win a flag without a functioning inside AND outside game. Neeld looks like Baileys opposite and mirror image and Im concerned we'll get into equal and opposite bad habits. Anyone got anything positive to say about it? 2. Player unity. Whatever happened before and after 186 it seems a whole group of demon players got pulled into something political then hung out to dry. Their big sin after all was to back their coach against some others in the club. A position they should never have been put in. 186 was at least partly the result of a deeply distracted player group. Neeld has a tough, hard style...which is ok, but the TOTAL change of the leadership group seemed related to that day and a further divisive action. Its not clear to me , looking at them play, if the team is united. Does any one know what the feeling amongst the players actually is?

It looks to me as if everyone is playing for their career and instead of there being one in, one out, the players are all diving in after the ball and the result is there is no one on the outside to receive. I'm sure when the dust settles the players that have convinced the coach they are keepers will not feel the need to prove 20 times a game they ate prepared to put their head over the ball he will already know that.

i may be wrong and I'm sure that some will disagree with me but that's my take on it; we can't continually have everyone in and expect to win games. Somehow I don't think winning is the coach's main priority.

With regard to the player unity I wouldn't have a clue if they are united or not but it always seemed to me that their is some sort of pecking order and I can't see that as being a good thing for team unity.

I do recall several years ago that there was a name given to the row of lockers where the numbers were under 10 and they were considered the elite; I'm sure someone on here will remember the name used; Main street or Hollywood Boulevard, something like that.

I'm not sure which press conference or which player it was, but I'm certain there was some mention last week that the "running" part of the game is coming. I really know SFA about modern football, but the players focus on structure and the defensive elements of the game seems like their only focus at the moment, and they seem so concentrated on it that they are not applying themselves to the attacking styles of the game. Hopefully, their preventative, uncertain, slow movement of the ball will be less frequent as they have adjusted to the new style of playing before the year ends.

Malthouse mentioned in his commentary on Saturday that he like's Neeld's theory of coaching this team. Malthouse is most likely biased towards approving of Neeld, but he seems to think that the 'one on one' style of shutting down opposition is a good one if the players can make certain that they do it effectively. (Take it with a grain of salt what I’ve written here; I don’t exactly remember what he said, but it was something like that.)

I'm also interested in how the players are getting along, but it seems all a bit tight lipped. No one rushed to help Jack Grimes up when Waters knocked him down during the WCE game. Maybe there is some bitterness since the demotion of the leadership group. Who would know and if so, how would tell anyone outside the club anyway? It may not be any of our business but as a supporter, I hate to think that the performance of the club is hindered by the fact that players aren’t getting along. Carolyn Wilson is still banging on with her unsubstantiated claims but maybe she's in the ball park on the politics. The link is here if you havn't read it already;

http://www.theage.co...0504-1y4ky.html

Good thread..

I think you have to build your "outside" game from an "Inside" base.

What is the point of having a great outside game if you can't win the footy in a contest in the first place. Win the inside game and develop the rest of your game around it. You put down the foundations before the frame and cladding. We are witnessing the laying of the concrete slab.

Our failure to build a reliable inside game account for out ridiculously inconsistent results last year.

Yes we have probably gone too far the other way, I believe that it is completely by design and believe it or not, things would be going to plan, regardless of scorelines.

I cant helpbut get teh feeling that the game plan is structure of parts, all of which have not been able to be implemented nor rolled out purely on the basis that the first part isnt put to bed..

If this was a building then the 'footings' arent in place yet. Cant build anything upon this until this is done as rote.

We havent mastered the basics...and we dont have the cattle...not quite, not yet.

I cant helpbut get teh feeling that the game plan is structure of parts, all of which have not been able to be implemented nor rolled out purely on the basis that the first part isnt put to bed..

If this was a building then the 'footings' arent in place yet. Cant build anything upon this until this is done as rote.

We havent mastered the basics...and we dont have the cattle...not quite, not yet.

I'm with you on this Belzebub. Neeld is a teacher and understands the need to build skills upon a strong foundation of understanding and practice. From what I've seen this year, it appears we are indeed more focused on practising the structures than on winning games. It goes against the grain a bit to condone not being focused on winning at all costs, but I think Neeld has it right and that the long term future of the club depends on getting it right step by step.

The blocks are being put in place for future success.

If you look at some of the players who are in the reserves(Bennell, Blease and Watts), I would consider them some of our outside players. But it is clear they have been given a mandate they will not get a game if they don't do the hard stuff required. Even Cale Morton seems to have improved this area of his game under Neeld, and Davey has shown some small signs of improvement, but due to our lack of crumbers, he is a necessity in our team anyway.

I think when we get some of these outside players up to speed, our balance will look a bit better on the field, which will hopefully see improved results.

Against the Saints I thought our linkage and ball use speed was improving, but we took a back step yesterday against the Cats, although I feel we went down there with a mindset of not to get belted, rather than a mindset to take the game on and win.

I do fear for Fridays game though, because the Hawks uncontested ball winning ability will destroy us as usual, and they appear to have a mental edge on us and treat us with comtempt. I would really like us to go out and play some very unsociable football against them. Our own line in the sand sought of stuff.

I do fear for Fridays game though, because the Hawks uncontested ball winning ability will destroy us as usual, and they appear to have a mental edge on us and treat us with comtempt. I would really like us to go out and play some very unsociable football against them. Our own line in the sand sought of stuff.

I fear this one also...but if we play a one on one game then the uncontested stuff doesn't become a problem. Our problem with this is that we continually get drawn to the ball like moths to a flame and leave opposition players running free.

I think Neeld is aiming to have no inside or outside players, just players who can be inside or out depending on the circumstances, when it is their turn to go. Of course as with everything some will be more biased one way or another.

186- The biggest 3-digit tragedy since 911.

I fear this one also...but if we play a one on one game then the uncontested stuff doesn't become a problem. Our problem with this is that we continually get drawn to the ball like moths to a flame and leave opposition players running free.

I think Neeld is aiming to have no inside or outside players, just players who can be inside or out depending on the circumstances, when it is their turn to go. Of course as with everything some will be more biased one way or another.

That's a good way of putting it. Well done.

I agree that I fear for what the Hawks could do. We have been an incredibly low possession side this season and they kick the ball around with ease like the air is made of cream. I feel for us to beat the Hawks we need to be quick down the corridor and isolate Clark with Schoenmakers or another forward/defender combination

I fear this one also...but if we play a one on one game then the uncontested stuff doesn't become a problem. Our problem with this is that we continually get drawn to the ball like moths to a flame and leave opposition players running free.

I think Neeld is aiming to have no inside or outside players, just players who can be inside or out depending on the circumstances, when it is their turn to go. Of course as with everything some will be more biased one way or another.

there was lots of this against the cats, and Mick Malthouse picked up on it. For example, tather than holding the structure and minding their man, if there was a 1 on 1 contest on the wing, our half back would leave his man to get to the contest, which the Geelong player would win, then get a a ball over the back to the man at half forward who is now free. Malthouse referred to it as trust in your teammates to play their role, to win the contest, and noticed that the trust wasn't there yet amongst our players. Our half back has to back his team mate to win that contest, mind his man or his space to ensure the next kick isn't an easy one for the opposition if they do win it... Seems simple footy, but hopefully something that shouldn't be too hard to fix...

I also believe neeld is building the base for our future game plan.

The start of this base is the hardest part of football. Structure and contested possession.

There is no point in working on 'run and carry' and 'spreads' if you haven't mastered contested possession.

Learn the hard stuff first and the rest will follow (hopefully)

This year is all about learning to be hard at the ball and winning the though possession.

The ladder will show us going backwards however I believe the team would have built a base to go forward.

I'm a first time poster ......but wanted to wade in with 2 questions

Personally, as much as I hate losing week in week out, I can live with it if I have a definite sense of a positive direction.

Having adjusted myself to life post 186, and accepted the necessity of rebuild Mk 2, I have 2 big concerns.

1. The game plan. Aside form a Clark or Howe screamer, we just seem to be playing such uninspired, slow, predictable football! Im afraid we've over reacted to the criticisms of Baileys style and in doing so have made "outside" football some kind of dirty word. I dont think you can win a flag without a functioning inside AND outside game. Neeld looks like Baileys opposite and mirror image and Im concerned we'll get into equal and opposite bad habits. Anyone got anything positive to say about it?

2. Player unity. Whatever happened before and after 186 it seems a whole group of demon players got pulled into something political then hung out to dry. Their big sin after all was to back their coach against some others in the club. A position they should never have been put in. 186 was at least partly the result of a deeply distracted player group. Neeld has a tough, hard style...which is ok, but the TOTAL change of the leadership group seemed related to that day and a further divisive action. Its not clear to me , looking at them play, if the team is united. Does any one know what the feeling amongst the players actually is?

Great thoughts for your first post.

Dandeeman touches on this but an inside game is harder to develop than an outside one.

But...

It looks to me as if everyone is playing for their career and instead of there being one in, one out, the players are all diving in after the ball and the result is there is no one on the outside to receive. I'm sure when the dust settles the players that have convinced the coach they are keepers will not feel the need to prove 20 times a game they ate prepared to put their head over the ball he will already know that.

i may be wrong and I'm sure that some will disagree with me but that's my take on it; we can't continually have everyone in and expect to win games. Somehow I don't think winning is the coach's main priority.

With regard to the player unity I wouldn't have a clue if they are united or not but it always seemed to me that their is some sort of pecking order and I can't see that as being a good thing for team unity.

RF is right in that the 'swarming of the footy' that we are engaged in sends alarm bells for me about the faith a Demon has in another Demon. If you are not there for the handball and are right next to your team mate with the footy 'helping' him - then you don't trust him to win the footy and get it out to you.

Thinking about careers is an interesting take - it would make sense. But Cale Morton is trying to spread and run and his career is at the crossroads. Maybe for some.

Good thread..

I think you have to build your "outside" game from an "Inside" base.

Yes we have probably gone too far the other way, I believe that it is completely by design and believe it or not, things would be going to plan, regardless of scorelines.

Yes, the desire to run and spread forward is not difiicult to instil - the desire to run backwards, or work and give options for your defenders is tougher.

I hope to see progress on that soon.

I cant helpbut get teh feeling that the game plan is structure of parts, all of which have not been able to be implemented nor rolled out purely on the basis that the first part  isnt put to bed..

If this was a building then the 'footings' arent in place yet. Cant build anything upon this until this is done as rote.

We havent mastered the basics...and we dont have the cattle...not quite, not yet.

Couldnt agree more. basics basics basics like:we cant even apply sufficient forward pressure to stop being cut up through the mid field Our back line must be sick of the ease at which all teams run off half forward and slice straight through the midfieldI would hate being in the back line of the Dees at the moment

Neeled has said quite a few times at he is building everything from scratch, basically peeling our game back to the very basics and implementing things as we go, sort of like mastering a level in a video games and then adding more challenges.

It makes sense to go all the way back to an inside ball winning game, I feel Morton's development (which I'm cautiously pleased with) is almost the start of the next phase where the players feed it out to players like him. Meanwhile the attitude of "when it's your turn to go, you go" is being more and more accepted.

With the players unity, I spose unless your in the inner sanctum you can't really say for sure, but I think the bonds with the younger players are getting stronger and the senior players not so much about being loved by everyone but just wanting to secure a role. A lot of people are criticising Beamer at the moment, I actually think he'll be OK, there were passages in the Geelong game that looked a lot like his old self, and he has the quality to know when to adhere strongly to Neeled's gameplan (boundary) and when to check inside and use his long kick to pick out blokes running in the middle (Bails long goal v St Kilda).

The players aren't really teaming up and supporting each other just yet .

I think it will come soon and when we start winning we will naturally gain the confidence to yell ,shepherd ,harrass ,block etc.

All those little things are missing .

I dont think the older guys resent the younger ones.

They've been relieved of the pressure .

Now they can just do their jobs and enjoy it rather than feel responsible for it .

Funny things happen in sport when a player enjoys it again .

I agree that I fear for what the Hawks could do. We have been an incredibly low possession side this season and they kick the ball around with ease like the air is made of cream. I feel for us to beat the Hawks we need to be quick down the corridor and isolate Clark with Schoenmakers or another forward/defender combination

Other than 186 we seem to have more trouble playing against their zones than any other team's set up in the past couple of years. Swans game was interesting. They were zoning in the first half and the Hawks were just pinging it around at will massing up uncontested possessions without the Swans being able to get a hand on them. When they manned up in the second half the Hawks crumbled under one on one direct pressure. Hope we see them manning up one on one and not getting sucked in to leaving players to create a 2 on 1 and watching it being released to uncontested players. We will go some way to stemming the damage if we play like that. Then we have to work out how to play around the zone if they have it. If we bomb it in like we have all year, it will be game over very quickly. If we are smart and patient it will be a less humiliating game.

all things take time...some things more than others

patience

During my uni years training as a PE teacher, the first practical thing I was taught was that people can only process and respond to 2 maybe 3 things at a time. That related to all people, not just school kids. The other thing which probably relates more to the MFC right now is that it takes a extremely high number or repetitions to make an action permanent/automatic. I am confident Mark Neeld is following this theory, thinking long term.

While I was despondent with the team's effort in the first few weeks I have been pleased with the effort, but of course, not the result in the last couple.

But for the first time EVER (and I've been going since 1964) I can see that there is a development plan. I'm not sure of the details, but I can see that Neeld actually has a plan. And you can see from posters here that many others believe there is a plan, too. The amount of discussion about contested/uncontested football, being 'sucked into contests' and aspects of individual performance changes shows the willingness of Demonlanders to go along for the ride. In short, while I might not like the current results, I'm more than happy to see proper foundations being laid for a solid brick home to be built rather than the veneer we've put up with in the past.