Everyone Stand Up And Applaud Mark Neeld

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Poor metric to measure. And its chalk and cheese comparing Bailey's 1st game with this.

Lets hope Hawthorn can kick worse than they did on Friday night when we next play them.

We got monstereed on the ground and blown away on the scoreboard.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I think this is my genuine concern. I'm worried that Neeld's timing is wrong for us. It's only early but his long term game plan looks outdated. Couple this with his so called 'hard nosed my way or the highway' mentality at the worst time to have that belief. Only last night on Fox Footy were they talking about how difficult it's going to be for clubs to rebuild over the next few years with the 2 new teams. One of the guys talking about that was Lynch - a player manager. If our senior players all look to step out we are talking about another 5 year rebuild after this year. We can't run on emotion forever in terms of membership base and the all important sponsors. This is why Neeld's playing a dangerous game with us. I hope he is right, because if he's isn't I'm very worried.

Since when has a game-plan that is based on defending well ever been out of vogue ? The players aren't implementing it well and because of this aren't spreading and attacking well, but the game-plan is sound. Neeld told the players before the match to be bold. They weren't, but it will come.

Game-plans based on defence have won finals for time immemorial.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Jarka 767]

Since when has a game-plan that is based on defending well ever been out of vogue ? The players aren't implementing it well and because of this aren't spreading and attacking well, but the game-plan is sound. Neeld told the players before the match to be bold. They weren't, but it will come.

Game-plans based on defence have won finals for time immemorial.

It's a good point BH, there's no point attacking the game plan because we haven't seen it properly yet. It will take time for the players to be 'reprogrammed' and for many of them they're only now learning how to play at a real AFL standard. It's still not instinctive to them yet.

[Theo 272]

What befuddles me is the rhetoric the Club gives its members and supporters, I did the "Walk to the G" in 2010 before our first game against the Swans. The powers that be, i.e. CC and CS spruiked to all and sundry about our "Window of Opportunity" or to be more precise our "Bifold" of Opportunity" in having a premiership tilt from 2013 onwards.

In that same year CC talks on TAC Cup Future Stars how J. Fitzpatrick will be a great Melbourne fooballer. Let's hope his "super powers" in identifying great talent is better than mine.

Last year at a function in Darwin before the Port game this bifold of opportunity was also spruiked.

Sadly it is plain to me that the Club is having us on, or more likely has no idea about running a football club and identifying real talent on the field. We put our faith in the recruiters and the development of players at the Club. It is just another carbon dioxide tax con.

We are not stupid supporters, we can tell a good player when we see him. How often have you gone to training or looked at games and had this inkling straight away that this recruit just isn't that good. Yet we generally ignore our instincts and put faith in the club that they know what they are doing.

Let's face facts, our recruiting has been below par over the last decade or more. Identifying talent and having a balanced list both in size, structure and age has been a big problem. Because most of our top 20 -30 picks have not been successful we have relied on late picks and rookies to field an average team at best with little leadership qualities.

If I was Mark Neeld I would take a big role in recruiting and make everyone accountable. Unless we recruit well in the next 2 years he is DOOMED to fail. At the moment I don't think the players are fully supportive of Mark and his game plan. Unless this is turned aroung quickly Mark will be just another failed MFC coach.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Theo

[Macca 16,922]

Hysterical much. We are improving.

So I have a differing opinion to yours and you call my post "Hysterical much" ? I question a game plan that isn't working - so what . I also question why so many players are out of form or underachieving - again , so what .

My comments were about the "here and now" , not about any futuristic stuff . Crystal ball gazing is not for me . Nor is blind faith . I believe in practicalities .

Where are we improving ? Please explain .

Edited May 13, 2012 by Macca

[praha 11,236]

Part of the problem is that there always seems to be justification from the club, either literally or insinuated, that one needs to bottom out in order to be successful. Carlton is applied to that rule, but they're not great. Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, none have had to really bottom out. The Eagles had an off year, but I think that had more to do with off-field issues and a little tanking. They were last one year, premiership contender the next.

There is always justification for being crap, and the "short term pain, long term gain" rhetoric kind of says to me that there is a justifiability of bottoming out.

I wouldn't have an issue with this if it were the first time - Carlton won its first wooden spoon in the 00s - but the club always does it. It bottoms out, and then has nothing to show for it 5-6 years later. What will we get out of this? Faith comes into it, because the club has never proven it can come out of things successfully.

I'm just pushing the faith aside and demanding accountability. A short term gain should be to WIN, not to develop for the LONG TERM gain, if that makes sense. If you can't win games in the short term, where is the logic to suggest you can in the long term? I don't see how that logic needs to be exclusive to the notion of rebuilding.

There seems to be very little issue on the act of WINNING, and perhaps TOO much focus on long term. It's very frustrating, because I want to see the team winning and beating teams like Brisbane.

[The heart beats true 18,110]

It will take time for the players to be 'reprogrammed' and for many of them they're only now learning how to play at a real AFL standard. It's still not instinctive to them yet.

This is an assumption though. We are all buying into the rhetoric that this group of coaches can turn them into 'AFL Standard' players. I agree it's way too early to evaluate. You have to give them a season and 2 preseasons before you can expect to see anything much but Neeldy has certainly backed off from the 'hardest team to play against' tag.

If you can only evaluate players on performance then the same is true of coaches. No blind faith for anyone. Not throwing away the coach, but not giving a standing ovation for christ sake. We are 0-7 and everyone should share the responsibility.

[Hannibal 5,814]

If you can only evaluate players on performance then the same is true of coaches. No blind faith for anyone. Not throwing away the coach, but not giving a standing ovation for christ sake. We are 0-7 and everyone should share the responsibility.

I have no doubt that Neeld has been surprised by how insipid we've been. I remember him highlighting during one of his preseason speeches that the footy community were taking too much notice of NAB Cup form. Unfortunately that form has been mirrored in the season proper.

I like Neeld when he doesn't spin. I hate spin from anyone and he's been giving too much lately, especially on our performance against Geelong. He's probably just giving hope to supporters as well as sending a positive message to his own team, but it's BS I can do without.

But he's got a tough gig and I'll cut him slack.

[Fat Tony 5,220]

Kahuna's ? To take on a head coaching job ?

They either remain an assistant on way less money or take the job of a head coach on about 3 - 5 times more money . Often with a 3 year guarantee . Sympathy for any coaches , any time , is misguided . Go and join the general workforce if you can't handle being a head coach . Oh , and be prepared for a bit of a paycut .

Coaches get well renumerated for their time . At least 6-7 times the average Australian wage and up to 15 times this amount . And there is a fairly good life after coaching . They're not forced to do it .

At the moment all Neeld has proven is that we don't know if he can coach or not . His game plan is ridiculous and won't work . It's only a matter of time before somebody in the media will take his outdated game plan to task . And then watch all the others jump in like vultures . Hardest team to play against ? What an absolute joke . Now , he might or should get much better . I hope so , but only those with blind faith will guarantee that .

Pressure needs to be put on Neeld . It should have happened after round 2 . He needs to abandon this game plan altogether and start again . I hope he's not too stubborn to change . All our attacking flair and creativity has vanished . Our teamwork is virtually non existant . That is Neeld's fault . The buck stops with him , as it should . I'm not calling for his head but he needs to lift his game .

The players don't get off the hook . Only Clark , Jones , Magner and maybe Bartram , Howe , McKenzie , McDonald and Rivers have had acceptable years so far . The rest are either way below form , injured or not good enough .

Excellent post.

Recruiting has been our major problem and is obviously the key reason we are where we are. However, I also think it is the coach’s role to get the best out of our list every single week. IMO we are currently playing in a fashion that makes it very easy for our opponents.

I strongly don’t agree with the view that we need to take steps backwards in order to go forwards. Lack of short-term success makes it more difficult to retain and attract quality players which inevitably leaves us worse off in the long term.

I also think the ‘reprogramming the players takes time’ argument is flimsy. AFL players are full time and have been able to adjust quickly at other clubs. And how do we know they will be better players with their attacking instincts dulled?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,593]

I think at the end of the day, whether we think Neeld is the right man or not, we have no option but to sit back and see what happens and hope that he does get proven right.

[frankie_d 1,471]

What befuddles me is the rhetoric the Club gives its members and supporters, I did the "Walk to the G" in 2010 before our first game against the Swans. The powers that be, i.e. CC and CS spruiked to all and sundry about our "Window of Opportunity" or to be more precise our "Bifold" of Opportunity" in having a premiership tilt from 2013 onwards.

"Culture" is a dark word on D'Land - some think it's at the core, others say that's all BS. I'm in the former group

Can't imagine the great Jim ("Mirror") Cardwell ever uttering the phrase "Bifold of Opportunity". He would have, on hearing the phrase, thought it's complete BS and the speaker a w@nker.

No blazers until you earn them - putting up a facade that mimics the glory years is delusional.

"Honour before Honours" should be our motto.

*Edit: spelling

Edited May 13, 2012 by frankie_d

[Hardnut 327]

I'm tired of reading that it's the players who are to blame for poor performances, that the players should be replaced, that the players should be 'reprogrammed' to a massively different game plan etc etc.

That's rubbish in a black and white sense (no pun intended)! Of course, players have to learn and adapt etc - that's the grey area that is part of building on their natural talent (which is why they were recruited) and becoming much better, experienced AFL standard players (and of course some won't make it.

It is the coach's role to get the best out of all players, not just get rid of them quickly if they don't fit the coach's 'game plan'. Football is a simple team game as well illustrated in recent years by the success of teams like Geelong - the players have highly developed skills and know where each other will be as a result of working together over time. The so-called 'game plan' in this case is natural football, relatively simple, and certainly does not require a robotic approach - it is in fact the complete opposite, allowing players to take responsibility, which is why it is so successful. The grey area is where the coach tinkers with details, which could be called that coach's 'game plan'. IMO Neeld's approach is complicated, robotic (partly Craig's influence?) and has already been overtaken by (tinkering) developments at other clubs. That's why I can't applaud Neeld, probably his assistants, or the administration that selected this group.

[red and blue forever 1,001]

I truly do not think the club is in as bad a position as some people fear.

ok, it is obvious we are in another rebuilding phase, which like many of us here, pisses me off. 2008 - 209, we were meant to be in rebuild under bailey, by 2010 we were pushing finals and by 2011-12 we were meant to be celebrating a grandfinal win. but it did not go like that.

we apparently had an aweful gameplan, and evedently we have not recurited the best.

BUT

our recruting has not been so poor, well, not as far as we can accuratley tell so far. we have lots of unexperienced kids, who when we recruited them were all skinny bean poles.

we knew at that time, in a few years when they bulk up they will be high class players. they just need to get the chance to do that.

Blease, Cook, Gysberts, Mckenzie, Watts, Trengove, Morton all fit into this category.

Also the game plan, whilst leaving us 0-7 needs time to develop.

First thing Neeld is doing, is teaching them a defensive gameplan. the basis of footy. if you get that working well, it makes it hard to loose games, the opposition struggles scoring and you can prevent them getting a run on and massing on quarters(like 2nd quarter the hawks game friday)

once that is 100% then you go onto other gameplans, and whilst they are teething problems learning them you switch back to the defencive plan and claw your way back, then switch back again

you cant expect the kind to learn multiple gameplans at once, they need to do it one at a time, which takes time.

the ball handeling it partly down to panic, low confidence. once we get on our game that will improve naturally.

we had a reasonable attacking gameplan last year, just no defence. we get this defencive plan down, then the ease we will then incorporate a attacking plan will be brilliant..

at that point our rise will be meteroic. but that is 2 to 3 years away

Neeld himslef said they were putting the attacking plans from last year to the side for the moment, not throwing them away fully.

with good recruting at the end of the year, and some more good off seasons to bulk and speed up the players, a gameplan which is understood by the players and executed properly, and some self confidence and we will be back.

All we have seen so far is step one in the plan, and it is taking a little time for that to be implimented fully, but rest assured by the time step 3 and 4 come around the football will be much more pleasent to watch and talk about.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,593]

id be surprised if all the players you mentioned will be in our future. Sure they are young and sure most are skinny, but when compared to their peers the only ones I really see with clear potential is Gysberts and Trengove. The others may just be taking longer to get there or struggling because we are relying on them too early, but im not convinced yet.

[Macca 16,922]

I'm tired of reading that it's the players who are to blame for poor performances, that the players should be replaced, that the players should be 'reprogrammed' to a massively different game plan etc etc.

That's rubbish in a black and white sense (no pun intended)! Of course, players have to learn and adapt etc - that's the grey area that is part of building on their natural talent (which is why they were recruited) and becoming much better, experienced AFL standard players (and of course some won't make it.

It is the coach's role to get the best out of all players, not just get rid of them quickly if they don't fit the coach's 'game plan'. Football is a simple team game as well illustrated in recent years by the success of teams like Geelong - the players have highly developed skills and know where each other will be as a result of working together over time. The so-called 'game plan' in this case is natural football, relatively simple, and certainly does not require a robotic approach - it is in fact the complete opposite, allowing players to take responsibility, which is why it is so successful. The grey area is where the coach tinkers with details, which could be called that coach's 'game plan'. IMO Neeld's approach is complicated, robotic (partly Craig's influence?) and has already been overtaken by (tinkering) developments at other clubs. That's why I can't applaud Neeld, probably his assistants, or the administration that selected this group.

Good post 'Hardnut'

I fail to see why Neeld has "put aside" the attacking element of our game whilst we're supposedly learning the defensive aspect .

Couldn't he have left it in ? From day 1 ? Does he think he can just add it in later like it's some sort of "tap" that you turn on and off .

We should be playing a more "total" game , rather than just one aspect . From day 1 . We may not have been very good at it but at least we'd be learning on the job and practising a more "total" game . If it's good enough for both Essendon and Adelaide to have lot's of aspects of their game plans up and running , why not our team ?

This is not primary school where you learn one thing at a time . It's footy , and a team needs to practice all aspects of the game , all at once , to improve .

Edited May 13, 2012 by Macca

[Adam The God 30,126]

It reminds me of when Clarkson and Hardwick began their coaching career. Both of their clubs were off to a very slow start, but after time things began to change.

Hawthorn has been one of the most successful sides over recent years, and the tigers are even starting to show a bit

The frustration of our supporter base obviously comes from being through this with Bailey though, Juicebox. The Hawks lucked it up in 2008, but before that they didn't have to wait through two top-down rebuilds to achieve success. Admittedly, Richmond have had to endure this. Wallace made a number of critical recruiting errors (along with his recruiting team - what a joke he's known as a draft expert now!), which put them back five, arguably seven years.

I, myself, am deeply frustrated by our performances this year. Hird was able to come in and instill a defensive mentality at Essendon (albeit for half a season), Neeld still hasn't. But that's not to say he won't, even by this year. The enormity of his task is perhaps greater than Hird's (leader's with experience like Fletcher to lead the youngsters from the back etc). He must be given a greater chance than seven rounds, but I think it's good that we as a supporter base question the development of our list, otherwise inadequacies fester.

Finally, it's all well and good to have people that love the club running it, but if their egos are so big that it prevents them from getting results - what would you prefer? It's a no-brainer really.

[Bonkers 994]

Not much has been spoken about Neeld's ability to get the players onside. To me it appears many of the younger players have bought in to the new coaches message. The real worry is in regards to the senior players. Moloney, Davey, Green & Sylvia when in form are/ were our most important players(no matter what our personal opinions of them as players are). The real test of Neeld will be to get these players to buy into what the club is trying to do & to get the best out of their abilities.

The club will be far better off if Neeld is able to get inside the senior players heads give them some confidence & also turn them into disciplined players rather than another clean out. Moloney & Sylvia in particular are both good enough & it's up to Neeld to turn these players careers around. Question is whether some of the senior players really have any desire to adhere to team structures & perhaps sacrifice some of the aspects of their own game & ego for the betterment of the team.

Needs also has to give this group some belief & confidence. 95% of the game is played above your ears, you can talk tactics, structures, player abilities till the cows come home if the players aren't playing for each other & the coach as a unified group we are going nowhere. There are numerous examples of players who forged careers out of not much ability but got through on mental application some of out players could learn from those examples.

[Adam The God 30,126]

Not much has been spoken about Neeld's ability to get the players onside. To me it appears many of the younger players have bought in to the new coaches message. The real worry is in regards to the senior players. Moloney, Davey, Green & Sylvia when in form are/ were our most important players(no matter what our personal opinions of them as players are). The real test of Neeld will be to get these players to buy into what the club is trying to do & to get the best out of their abilities.

IMO, people are a little harsh on Davey. I believe he's bought into it. He's an outside mid/forward who potentially still embodies a little bit of laziness, but has certainly picked up since last season.

Meanwhile, Green hasn't really played enough this season to tell. It's obvious that Moloney and Sylvia haven't bought into it though.

The club will be far better off if Neeld is able to get inside the senior players heads give them some confidence & also turn them into disciplined players rather than another clean out. Moloney & Sylvia in particular are both good enough & it's up to Neeld to turn these players careers around. Question is whether some of the senior players really have any desire to adhere to team structures & perhaps sacrifice some of the aspects of their own game & ego for the betterment of the team.

They won't get games in other sides if they have a refusal to adhere to basic structures and team rules. Brock McLean, Cameron Bruce etc.

Edited May 13, 2012 by AdamFarr

[Range Rover 1,935]

IMO, people are a little harsh on Davey. I believe he's bought into it. He's an outside mid/forward who potentially still embodies a little bit of laziness ...

If that's the case then he hasn't bought into it at all.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,593]

Davey is a shadow of his former self. Maybe this is speed, maybe its confidence, but all I know is that something is wrong and has been for a while.

[Adam The God 30,126]

If that's the case then he hasn't bought into it at all.

It seems paradoxical I know, but I think he's really trying. Certainly wouldn't put him in the same category as Moloney or Sylvia.

[Range Rover 1,935]

It seems paradoxical I know, but I think he's really trying. Certainly wouldn't put him in the same category as Moloney or Sylvia.

Either would I actually. I think he's trying but the game looks to have passed him by. I hope he can turn it around but he hasn't fired a shot for 2 years now.

[Roost It 1,434]

I'll take the new coach at his word. On arrival he found an unfit, unprofessional group of highly rated juniors. Most of them with 2 to 3 years of serious hard work to do before they have any chance to adapt to a game that demands physical sacrifice. Remember Northey had a guy called Jamie Dursma stopping the likes of Kernahan and Brereton in finals matches. When Neeld arrived he found a guy called Jack Watts prancing around pretending to be a footballer. It's going to take time and I'll give him my support because currently he's all we have.

[Guest José Mourinho]

One thing that hasn't been discussed in this thread (or perhaps I missed it) is that we are only now being able to compete with the better clubs in terms of the amount spent in the footy and recruiting department. We just haven't had the cashflow to be able to compete, but now we do (thanks Jimmy). We have been far behind the rest of the competition with our fitness and it's crazy to think that we can close the gap in just one season.

This season is a reality check for everything about our club. We have to improve in every single area if we are to survive and I believe that Neeld has the knowledge, temperament and energy to make the hard decisions and bruise ego's which will make us a better club. I don't see what happens within the club but it appears that there's a group of players who've had it very easy for a long time who may be reluctant to change, I also have a feeling that it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Don't agree that it'll get worse, but it may continue as it has been.

This is what Malthouse meant when he was talking about the enormity of the job ahead of Neeld.

But I believe he is winning.

[stuie 7,374]

You a re right about the "absolute joke" part, but just a bit off in terms of where to look to find it.

To begin, find a mirror...

Cheap shot, well done mate, the old "I know you are but what am I" routine, pure genius....