Interesting debate....

Personally I think the problem lies with the 'old boys club' that has selected both coaches; Neeld and Bailey.

I don't blame the players or the past or present coach.

With regard to the coaches, they came in with a game plan and 'managed' the list accordingly.

Bailey bottomed out and cleaned out to gain maximum draft picks to then select players to suit his style of play which was based on Geelongs; a tested and proven game plan. (and FWIW a bold and exciting one). Where I believe we failed with this plan is that it was not given enough time to blossum. All it required was more mature bodies so that players were able to stand up in tackles and also lay stronger tackles, both of which would have significantly reduced the turn over rate accros the entire ground and subsequently the turn over scores against.

Neeld has definitely brought the Mick Malthouse Collingwood game plan to Melbourne. A game plan that necessitates playing the defencive percentages and relies heavily on winning the constested ball at the contests that they are trying to create. Neeld doesn't have the luxury of completely bottoming out to change the list to the type of players he needs but did go for big bodied stoppage players at last years draft. (Magner, Couch).

It is accurate to say that both game plans are diametrically opposed to one another.

The former is centred around a 'kamakazee' style of 'run and carry' up the centre of the ground. The other is based around a defensive 'boundary first' create a stoppage mentality.

Both game plans rely on winning the contested football or stripping your opposition when they have it by either 'forward press' (Collingwood) or 'flooding back'' (Geelong).

What we have at MFC at the moment is NOT just a group of players trying to learn a new game plan but a group of players trying to un-learn one too.

I believe a more defensive tweak the to Bailey game plan would have put us in a far better position than the one we are now currently in which has taken us 3 steps back in the hope of taking us 4 or 5 steps forward.

We all know that when Bailey lost his job it wasn't because of his game plan.

Neeld has come in with some bold moves like scrapping the leadership group made up of senior players, for a young inexperienced one. This is probably the best way to lose the respect of those senior players. Furthermore, he continually points to the senior players and mentions 'leadership' or lack of in press conferences; and has not only stripped the last MFC captain of his position but also dropped the last Australian captain back to the twos. In my eyes these are all moves that won't get you any support from the senior experienced players and they are showing it in their performances.

He has a lot of work to do to build a team environment back at the MFC, one where everyone feels included, respected and a part of the future.

As I have said before. Neeld and the players are not to blame.

He is doing what he told the 'old boys club' he was going to do when he was interviewed for the job. THEY are the probem by not having the foresight to see what sacking a good coach and appointing one with such a vastly different game plan would do to the players, membership and on field success.

I am yet to be convinced that a new coach is a good move.

But sometime people throw out the baby with the bath water because they are too pig headed or stubborn to face the reality that they are the problem not those they have influence over.

Go Dees - .....on the long road back.....AGAIN.

Agreed. By the time we're a developed side and are playing finals footy, it'll be the Melbourne game plan. I don't think we know what the game plan looks like yet. Neeld is trying to instil a philosophy that works for any game plan - one about hard bodies applying pressure and winning hard ball. Those elements are common to every side that has won a flag in the whole time I've been watching football.

Didn't we say the same thing about Bailey?

Didn't we say the same thing about Bailey?

We gave Bailey a hell of a lot longer to show it before getting our ignorant knickers in a twist.

We gave Bailey a hell of a lot longer to show it before getting our ignorant knickers in a twist.

Well perhaps you should un twist your's joe.

You really should read the post and the response before you fire off your garbage.

btw I will excuse your ignorance in this instance.

Interesting debate....

Personally I think the problem lies with the 'old boys club' that has selected both coaches; Neeld and Bailey.

I don't blame the players or the past or present coach.

With regard to the coaches, they came in with a game plan and 'managed' the list accordingly.

Bailey bottomed out and cleaned out to gain maximum draft picks to then select players to suit his style of play which was based on Geelongs; a tested and proven game plan. (and FWIW a bold and exciting one). Where I believe we failed with this plan is that it was not given enough time to blossum. All it required was more mature bodies so that players were able to stand up in tackles and also lay stronger tackles, both of which would have significantly reduced the turn over rate accros the entire ground and subsequently the turn over scores against.

Neeld has definitely brought the Mick Malthouse Collingwood game plan to Melbourne. A game plan that necessitates playing the defencive percentages and relies heavily on winning the constested ball at the contests that they are trying to create. Neeld doesn't have the luxury of completely bottoming out to change the list to the type of players he needs but did go for big bodied stoppage players at last years draft. (Magner, Couch).

It is accurate to say that both game plans are diametrically opposed to one another.

The former is centred around a 'kamakazee' style of 'run and carry' up the centre of the ground. The other is based around a defensive 'boundary first' create a stoppage mentality.

Both game plans rely on winning the contested football or stripping your opposition when they have it by either 'forward press' (Collingwood) or 'flooding back'' (Geelong).

What we have at MFC at the moment is NOT just a group of players trying to learn a new game plan but a group of players trying to un-learn one too.

I believe a more defensive tweak the to Bailey game plan would have put us in a far better position than the one we are now currently in which has taken us 3 steps back in the hope of taking us 4 or 5 steps forward.

We all know that when Bailey lost his job it wasn't because of his game plan.

Neeld has come in with some bold moves like scrapping the leadership group made up of senior players, for a young inexperienced one. This is probably the best way to lose the respect of those senior players. Furthermore, he continually points to the senior players and mentions 'leadership' or lack of in press conferences; and has not only stripped the last MFC captain of his position but also dropped the last Australian captain back to the twos. In my eyes these are all moves that won't get you any support from the senior experienced players and they are showing it in their performances.

He has a lot of work to do to build a team environment back at the MFC, one where everyone feels included, respected and a part of the future.

As I have said before. Neeld and the players are not to blame.

He is doing what he told the 'old boys club' he was going to do when he was interviewed for the job. THEY are the probem by not having the foresight to see what sacking a good coach and appointing one with such a vastly different game plan would do to the players, membership and on field success.

I am yet to be convinced that a new coach is a good move.

But sometime people throw out the baby with the bath water because they are too pig headed or stubborn to face the reality that they are the problem not those they have influence over.

Go Dees - .....on the long road back.....AGAIN.

Interesting debate....

Personally I think the problem lies with the 'old boys club' that has selected both coaches; Neeld and Bailey.

I don't blame the players or the past or present coach.

With regard to the coaches, they came in with a game plan and 'managed' the list accordingly.

Bailey bottomed out and cleaned out to gain maximum draft picks to then select players to suit his style of play which was based on Geelongs; a tested and proven game plan. (and FWIW a bold and exciting one). Where I believe we failed with this plan is that it was not given enough time to blossum. All it required was more mature bodies so that players were able to stand up in tackles and also lay stronger tackles, both of which would have significantly reduced the turn over rate accros the entire ground and subsequently the turn over scores against.

Neeld has definitely brought the Mick Malthouse Collingwood game plan to Melbourne. A game plan that necessitates playing the defencive percentages and relies heavily on winning the constested ball at the contests that they are trying to create. Neeld doesn't have the luxury of completely bottoming out to change the list to the type of players he needs but did go for big bodied stoppage players at last years draft. (Magner, Couch).

It is accurate to say that both game plans are diametrically opposed to one another.

The former is centred around a 'kamakazee' style of 'run and carry' up the centre of the ground. The other is based around a defensive 'boundary first' create a stoppage mentality.

Both game plans rely on winning the contested football or stripping your opposition when they have it by either 'forward press' (Collingwood) or 'flooding back'' (Geelong).

What we have at MFC at the moment is NOT just a group of players trying to learn a new game plan but a group of players trying to un-learn one too.

I believe a more defensive tweak the to Bailey game plan would have put us in a far better position than the one we are now currently in which has taken us 3 steps back in the hope of taking us 4 or 5 steps forward.

We all know that when Bailey lost his job it wasn't because of his game plan.

Neeld has come in with some bold moves like scrapping the leadership group made up of senior players, for a young inexperienced one. This is probably the best way to lose the respect of those senior players. Furthermore, he continually points to the senior players and mentions 'leadership' or lack of in press conferences; and has not only stripped the last MFC captain of his position but also dropped the last Australian captain back to the twos. In my eyes these are all moves that won't get you any support from the senior experienced players and they are showing it in their performances.

He has a lot of work to do to build a team environment back at the MFC, one where everyone feels included, respected and a part of the future.

As I have said before. Neeld and the players are not to blame.

He is doing what he told the 'old boys club' he was going to do when he was interviewed for the job. THEY are the probem by not having the foresight to see what sacking a good coach and appointing one with such a vastly different game plan would do to the players, membership and on field success.

I am yet to be convinced that a new coach is a good move.

But sometime people throw out the baby with the bath water because they are too pig headed or stubborn to face the reality that they are the problem not those they have influence over.

Go Dees - .....on the long road back.....AGAIN.

Some good points & only time will tell with Neeld,......

wasnt the leadership group picked by the players?

These so called senior players have gone missing on many occasions & off field issues eg Moloney,Silvia

Personally I would have rather seen Jones & Frawley captains they have experience & bust their chops each week!

Well perhaps you should un twist your's joe.

You really should read the post and the response before you fire off your garbage.

btw I will excuse your ignorance in this instance.

Bog standard reply from you Robert.

Get a clue.

Some good points & only time will tell with Neeld,......

wasnt the leadership group picked by the players?

These so called senior players have gone missing on many occasions & off field issues eg Moloney,Silvia

Personally I would have rather seen Jones & Frawley captains they have experience & bust their chops each week!

Do you really think the leadership group was picked by the players alone!! They might have had a vote but so did the coach (s).

In my view the leadership group looks like it does partly because DB didn't 'read' what was actually going on with his players and rigorously stood by a predetermined plan to bring through the youth he had drafted. He delisted good honest hard working and some very talented players well before their time, some who should still be in the leadership group. All just to enable youth with more 'potential' to get games instead of the old traditional way; by earning them.

Moloney and Sylvia may not be model leaders off the ground or even sometimes on it, but neither is the rest of the team/ However their time in the game has earned them, to my mind, a certain postition in the pecking order, one that the younger players need to 'take' from them not have it given to them based purely on their 'potential'.

As you have pointed out there are still some mature players at the club that should be leaders; at least ahead of those currenlty annointed. I agree.

The biggest problem with the coaches at the club since ND was moved on is the fascination with 'potential' ahead of 'abitlity'. I understand that players need experience and an education in the game, but that doesn't necessarily need to be at the highest level. Personally I would have preferred Jack Watts to have 42 consecutive games at Casey before a call-up to the senior team than the 42 consecutive games at Melbourne before being dropped.

Why?

Confidence and self belief.

42 games where he can build his confidence and learn the game on lesser players vs. 42 games where he was mostly thrown to the wolves to fend for himself.

Go Dees ....on the long road back.....again

Bog standard reply from you Robert.

Get a clue.

Try and get it right next time joe, and spare me the reason to ever have to respond to your tripe.

If each poster were to describe our gameplan, how many differences would appear in the descriptions? Coaches all say that the game is always evolving. Neeld knows that his current team doesn't have the resources to be successful now. So he would also know that the gameplan he needs them to play will be the one that's successful in about 2014, not 2012.

In my view, when Neeld talks about establishing foundations (or whatever he said) he was telling supporters, the media and the players that there is no point even looking at the game being played now and assume it will look like the finished product. Yes, I'm disappointed we're not winning games, but as I said elsewhere I feel much more satisfied that there is a strong base being established which should produce success in the longterm.