Everyone Stand Up And Applaud Mark Neeld

[old dee 23,870]

I think every player contract drawn up from now on should include "Strong Perforrmance Incentives" regardless of who the player is.

The players on our list do not deserve the same cash as a top 4 performing side.

No wonder they are all smiles after a game.

That is what the current agreement gives us wyl.

What you ask for is illegal under the current agreement.

18th side Melbourne can only reduce total payments to 95% of the cap.

If I was Sylvia or Davey I would be smiling too. If fact I would be laughing

[Macca 17,032]

This much is true.

Yep , I'm about the here and now - and I'm just reporting the facts as I see them . And as many others see them .

You're looking into the future - you may well be right . Who knows ?

Essentially we are are talking about 2 different areas of the one subject matter .

[Hannibal 5,814]

Read the entire thread Ben , you'll see it there . I'm not going to repeat myself .

I dragged out that "first half of the season" thread last night .

Nearly 87% of Demonlanders predicted 4 or more wins in the 1st 11 games . 87% !

You and Jose need to tell all those people to have lower expectations . How many wins did you pick by the way ?

I'm not taking sides Macca, but I'm just wondering what supporters think our game-plan is. I was talking to my despairing older Brother earlier today and he's just about had a gutful. He's been as loyal as any supporter over the last 40 years. He'd catch a train down to Kardinia Park as a 14 year old in the 70's by himself when we were sh*t. He'll stay loyal, but his resolve is being tested.

He thinks our game-plan must be to grab the ball and kick it 40 metres down the boundary line; and you can't blame him, because that's what we invariably do. But I explained that the long kick down the boundary is our last resort. It's our 'get out of jail' card. Goals in the modern game come from turnovers and it's far easier to defend a turnover if it's close to the boundary. If you turn the ball over near the corridor you're invariably punished. So Neeld's/Malthouse's theory is sound. Get the ball forward, neutralise the next contest and start again. The problem is we're doing it far too often because we're not having nearly enough run, carry, and spread. The players aren't trusting each other. They're not trusting each other to win a 50/50 contest, so in turn they get sucked back into the contest. Have you noticed that we often have more numbers around a stoppage, but the opposition have more positioned outside ? We either win the ball and handball to a teammate under pressure, get a quick kick along the boundary, lose possession, or create another ball-up. When the opposition get hands on it they flick it backwards 10-15 metres, or wide and they're off. And we start chasing tail, while their forward half opens up. We need to stop over committing to stoppages and have our own outriders ready to create and run, but this is hard when you don't have faith in your teammate to win the contest. This is why we are diabolical when it comes to uncontested possessions.

Neeld doesn't want to play like this. He wants the players to structure up well and be bold with their run and options. His game-plan is so foreign to Bailey's it's proving to be hard yards. I'm no Neeld apologist and right now he has to carry the can for not being able to get his players to implement the plan well enough. Afterall, he'll be happy to take the plaudits if they come his way, so he can't complain about the brick bats now. Everyone is accountable.

The reason I'm not as gloomy as some is that I know the talent on the list isn't as dire as it appears. I hate the saying that a team is "playing above themselves" as physics tells me it's not possible, but I understand that some teams seem to eke out just about every ounce of their ability. However, those teams usually fail to win the holy grail. They're usually found wanting when it matters most and their lack of class catches up with them. Conversely, we're playing well beneath our true potential, which is why my wrists remain scar free. I still have faith in the quality of the list.

I expect to see improvement and don't want any spin, because I feel I understand where we're at. But Neeld has to sell his message to the players and on the surface they're not buying in. Morale is low, especially amongst the older players, but with more understanding of what's required I do expect things to get better.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Weedster 174]

I agree Macca By any measure to be last after seven rounds with an average loosing margin of 8+ goals

Is a bad result no matter who is at fault.

I did not expect to be 7 - 0 but I hoped we could have won a couple of games by now and that we could be competitive against most of the teams we have played.

Not sure how long as members we are supposed to keep coping seasons like the last five before we are allowed to complain.

I say enough is enough [censored] loud and clear.

Can it make us worse?

I saw on replay Our team out on the ground well after the Hawks game all smiles and congratulating the hawks on a great game.

Now that really pisses me off.

Shake their hand and get off the ground.

Does not appear there is much hurt in the Dees after another belting.

If the boot had been on the other foot would the Hawks be all smiles?

No they would be inside imediately planning the next encounter.

Agree.

I think this argument about time to learn a gameplan is a crock.

Under DB, we leaked goals like no other team in the comp. yet managed 7 wins.

We have not looked like winning a game, not even close, so far.

We lost no player of note over the summer, have a huge Football Dept by comparison, yet are failing to fire a shot.

Patience is all well & good - we have offered this in spades - but our performances this year are completely unacceptable.

Fair dinkum - even our scores look accidental.

FFS - Give us something to hang on to

Edited May 14, 2012 by Weedster

[Sir Why You Little 37,119]

That is what the current agreement gives us wyl.

What you ask for is illegal under the current agreement.

18th side Melbourne can only reduce total payments to 95% of the cap.

If I was Sylvia or Davey I would be smiling too. If fact I would be laughing

Makes it hard for any coach to get improvement doesn't it.

The improvement has to come from within the playing group..ala what Paul Chapman demanded of his team mates post 4 2007.

Rock and a hard place....

[PaulRB 6,411]

By the end of the year all MFC players would have given Mark and the FD with an understanding of their value to the club.

At the end of the year Mark Neeld will act on this knowledge and remove players from the list and draft/trade in new ones.

Preseason, development, Season 2013 and repeat.

Melbourne have an average list with potential. We have no stars, few reliable old hands, and our quality picks have languished since arrival.

Neeld's job is to change that, and that depth of change will take a year or three..

Edited May 14, 2012 by PaulRB

[old dee 23,870]

By the end of the year all MFC players would have given Mark and the FD with an understanding of their value to the club.

At the end of the year Mark Neeld will act on this knowledge and remove players from the list and draft/trade in new ones.

Preseason, development, Season 2013 and repeat.

Melbourne have an average list with potential. We have no stars, few reliable old hands, and our quality picks have languished since arrival.

Neeld's job is to change that, and that depth of change will take a year or three..

If it takes another 2 like 2012 PaulRb the membership will be 20 000 and our major sponsors will be paying $500 000 for the rights.

[Trisul 664]

.. The next AGM should be interesting. ..

I wonder if questions and their scope will also be limited by request next AGM.

Need made some calls at the AGM, three months ago, that appear off the mark.

Eg (poster quotes), 'We will by round 1 have done enough work to be able to compete.', 'the players will be fit enough and have the right conditions to produce their best.'

[satyricon 267]

By the end of the year all MFC players would have given Mark and the FD with an understanding of their value to the club.

At the end of the year Mark Neeld will act on this knowledge and remove players from the list and draft/trade in new ones.

Preseason, development, Season 2013 and repeat.

Melbourne have an average list with potential. We have no stars, few reliable old hands, and our quality picks have languished since arrival.

Neeld's job is to change that, and that depth of change will take a year or three..

Gee, had to wade through 9 pages to actually get to this one, well said.Paul,, it is a really good Epistle

For anybody who doesn't want to tighten the grip on the rail, don't watch/listen/write/espouse opinions, come back in a couple of years when it is less for the faint hearted and jump back on the wagon

I am 100% behind Mark Neeld because I am 100% behind MFC

Edited May 14, 2012 by satyricon

[Macca 17,032]

I'm not taking sides Macca, but I'm just wondering what supporters think our game-plan is. I was talking to my despairing older Brother earlier today and he's just about had a gutful. He's been as loyal as any supporter over the last 40 years. He'd catch a train down to Kardinia Park as a 14 year old in the 70's by himself when we were sh*t. He'll stay loyal, but his resolve is being tested.

He thinks our game-plan must be to grab the ball and kick it 40 metres down the boundary line; and you can't blame him, because that's what we invariably do. But I explained that the long kick down the boundary is our last resort. It's our 'get out of jail' card. Goals in the modern game come from turnovers and it's far easier to defend a turnover if it's close to the boundary. If you turn the ball over near the corridor you're invariably punished. So Neeld's/Malthouse's theory is sound. Get the ball forward, neutralise the next contest and start again. The problem is we're doing it far too often because we're not having nearly enough run, carry, and spread. The players aren't trusting each other. They're not trusting each other to win a 50/50 contest, so in turn they get sucked back into the contest. Have you noticed that we often have more numbers around a stoppage, but the opposition have more positioned outside ? We either win the ball and handball to a teammate under pressure, get a quick kick along the boundary, lose possession, or create another ball-up. When the opposition get hands on it they flick it backwards 10-15 metres, or wide and they're off. And we start chasing tail, while their forward half opens up. We need to stop over committing to stoppages and have our own outriders ready to create and run, but this is hard when you don't have faith in your teammate to win the contest. This is why we are diabolical when it comes to uncontested possessions.

Neeld doesn't want to play like this. He wants the players to structure up well and be bold with their run and options. His game-plan is so foreign to Bailey's it's proving to be hard yards. I'm no Neeld apologist and right now he has to carry the can for not being able to get his players to implement the plan well enough. Afterall, he'll be happy to take the plaudits if they come his way, so he can't complain about the brick bats now. Everyone is accountable.

The reason I'm not as gloomy as some is that I know the talent on the list isn't as dire as it appears. I hate the saying that a team is "playing above themselves" as physics tells me it's not possible, but I understand that some teams seem to eke out just about every ounce of their ability. However, those teams usually fail to win the holy grail. They're usually found wanting when it matters most and their lack of class catches up with them. Conversely, we're playing well beneath our true potential, which is why my wrists remain scar free. I still have faith in the quality of the list.

I expect to see improvement and don't want any spin, because I feel I understand where we're at. But Neeld has to sell his message to the players and on the surface they're not buying in. Morale is low, especially amongst the older players, but with more understanding of what's required I do expect things to get better.

As I posted earlier , my opinion is about the here and now . That doesn't make my view too simplistic . People view things differently . Some like tangible proof , others have unquestionable faith .

I'd like to think I have reasonable expectations . More than 86% of Demonlanders thought we'd win 4 or more games in the first half of the season . Most picked 4 , 5 or 6 wins . Now the reason that I'm emphasising this is because like it or not , we are in the results business .

Your post was up to it's usual standard though Ben and I can't disagree with a lot of it . But I'm more about the "now" and I make no apologies for that .

I too caught trains to Kardinia park as a kid in the 70's . As I did to most of the suburban grounds . Even though they we didn't win much it was still great times .

Edited May 14, 2012 by Macca

[Fat Tony 5,262]

What do you envisage the game-plan to be ?

Clearly Neeld would prefer the kick down the line to a contest to be more of a last resort option. (He would prefer to maintain possession but without risking going through the corridor.) But he has stacked the midfield with grunt players who are slow and don’t provide sufficient spread and included too many poor kicks in the back half.

Players like Bartram and McDonald lack the ability to hit targets by foot and lack confidence to take the game on. They both need to be removed from the side or play further up the ground.

Including some outside support to our best inside mids would also help. A midfield of Jones, Moloney, Magner, McKenzie, Bate, Grimes and Trengove doesn’t have the outside runners to either provide chasing pressure of ‘win’ uncontested possessions.

IMO Neeld has taken too much notice of the Collingwood game last season when we were monstered in the clearances and Cloke killed us.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Yep , I'm about the here and now - and I'm just reporting the facts as I see them . And as many others see them .

You're looking into the future - you may well be right . Who knows ?

Essentially we are are talking about 2 different areas of the one subject matter .

No, you're expecting the future to be now, without any consideration for what it takes to get from A to B.

I'm all about the present and what we have to do now in the present, to get to where we want to be in the future.

Yours is a simplistic view that conveniently excludes critical factors.

[bing181 9,328]

The game plan isn't working .

If you believe our gameplan is working so well then why are we on the bottom of the ladder (18th) with a woeful percentage .

In case you didn't realise it bing , we're in the results industry here . Wins and losses .

Can you kindly explain how are wonderful gameplan is working so efficiently . Leave out any crystal ball or futuristic stuff . Just the cold hard facts thank you .

Weep ...

[Hardnut 327]

When correctly compared with other clubs, the playing list at MFC is actually not too bad (allowing for age, experience in different roles, etc etc). Analyse the full lists of all clubs and you will get a surprise.

On average, the playing list's ability to learn (IQ if you like) will most likely also show no significant difference to other clubs.

A difficult few years for MFC has not helped player performance, and couple that with a loss of experience in a short time which can be shown to have an effect on any list (look at Geelong). Also, both Geelong and Collingwood have their own VFL sides - young players come into the senior side having trained with the experienced players and having learned the same approach to the game.

It is the responsibility of the coach and admin to deal with these and other issues. The so-called game-plan has been much discussed and in my view is somewhat over-rated, particularly as all plans must evolve over time. The Collingwood and Hawthorn game-plans suited those teams at the time. Over time, the Geelong style of play has been more successful and on Saturday, Adelaide 'out-Geelonged' Geelong! This style of play does have contested ball, spread, run, defence, but it also has elements of risk by attacking closer to the corridor. However, the risk is minimised by highly developed skills which also contribute to spread and reduce fatigue by proper ball use. (EG, a handball to a player in the clear and accurate kick passes which are faster than anyone can run - good ball movement.) This style of play is not complicated or hard to teach and in the process players learn where each other will be.

Good footy is a simple game really - the coach in particular, just has to realise how to get the best out of the available list rather than spending years trying to get the list to suit his pre-conceived plan!

[Macca 17,032]

No, you're expecting the future to be now, without any consideration for what it takes to get from A to B.

I'm all about the present and what we have to do now in the present, to get to where we want to be in the future.

Yours is a simplistic view that conveniently excludes critical factors.

I'll give you an example so it might make more sense to you

Jack Watts - some have unquestionable faith and won't criticise him no matter what - they're looking into the future and it looks rosy . Others have vitually ruled a line through him because of what they see right now . Which camp is correct ?

[Macca 17,032]

Weep ...

You make that one word comment just because somebody doesn't agree with you ?

Play the ball , not the man bing .

You're better than that .

[Sir Why You Little 37,119]

When correctly compared with other clubs, the playing list at MFC is actually not too bad (allowing for age, experience in different roles, etc etc). Analyse the full lists of all clubs and you will get a surprise.

On average, the playing list's ability to learn (IQ if you like) will most likely also show no significant difference to other clubs.

A difficult few years for MFC has not helped player performance, and couple that with a loss of experience in a short time which can be shown to have an effect on any list (look at Geelong). Also, both Geelong and Collingwood have their own VFL sides - young players come into the senior side having trained with the experienced players and having learned the same approach to the game.

It is the responsibility of the coach and admin to deal with these and other issues. The so-called game-plan has been much discussed and in my view is somewhat over-rated, particularly as all plans must evolve over time. The Collingwood and Hawthorn game-plans suited those teams at the time. Over time, the Geelong style of play has been more successful and on Saturday, Adelaide 'out-Geelonged' Geelong! This style of play does have contested ball, spread, run, defence, but it also has elements of risk by attacking closer to the corridor. However, the risk is minimised by highly developed skills which also contribute to spread and reduce fatigue by proper ball use. (EG, a handball to a player in the clear and accurate kick passes which are faster than anyone can run - good ball movement.) This style of play is not complicated or hard to teach and in the process players learn where each other will be.

Good footy is a simple game really - the coach in particular, just has to realise how to get the best out of the available list rather than spending years trying to get the list to suit his pre-conceived plan!

I agree. Out of confidence in each other the Gameplan will grow. Right now the Midfield is missfiring and the list as a whole is unfit.

The sitting board members are ultimately to blame for this.

[satyricon 267]

I'll give you an example so it might make more sense to you

Jack Watts - some have unquestionable faith and won't criticise him no matter what - they're looking into the future and it looks rosy . Others have vitually ruled a line through him because of what they see right now . Which camp is correct ?

Neither, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, my opinion is the Board and the Football Dept have taken on board the fact that we want success to be more than a flash in the pan, it needs to continue year by year, playing finals year by year, if that takes a bit more pain then so be it, Mark Neeld is trying to do his bit, but he also inherited a playing list, he is quietly working his way through, let's see what happens at the end of the season.

Essendon are flying at the moment, because Hird has had a year to two to build and set the standard.......Alwyn Davey, Ricky Dyson, Tom Bellchambers even Brett Stanton are barely recognisable from the players they were two years ago, they have bought in, Neeld is trying to do the same but make it long lasting, if you don't buy in you are gone.....I like it

[Guest José Mourinho]

I'll give you an example so it might make more sense to you

Jack Watts - some have unquestionable faith and won't criticise him no matter what - they're looking into the future and it looks rosy . Others have vitually ruled a line through him because of what they see right now . Which camp is correct ?

Neither.

And I don't believe there are many of the first type.

Constructive deserved criticism is what is needed, along with understanding of where he is at and where he should be heading.

Nothing more or less.

Unfortunately there's very little of that from supporters.

[Allen Jakovich 516]

I just think a lot of what is being said (by MFC) is BS. I've never seen a team go so far backwards while learning a new gameplan. Something is wrong with the players mentally, and I don't buy into this 'short term pain' kind of view, I expected it to be tough this year with a new coach, structure, etc... but we've gone too far backwards for that to be enough justification.

I guess my main point was just to point out how rubbish most of our supporter base (or at least how it's represented on 'Land) is when we get behind a guy who's been at the club 2 minutes and bag the hell out of a guy who's been at the club, what 8 years, when both are struggling.

That's the joke to me.

+1

[old dee 23,870]

Neither, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, my opinion is the Board and the Football Dept have taken on board the fact that we want success to be more than a flash in the pan, it needs to continue year by year, playing finals year by year, if that takes a bit more pain then so be it, Mark Neeld is trying to do his bit, but he also inherited a playing list, he is quietly working his way through, let's see what happens at the end of the season.

Essendon are flying at the moment, because Hird has had a year to two to build and set the standard.......Alwyn Davey, Ricky Dyson, Tom Bellchambers even Brett Stanton are barely recognisable from the players they were two years ago, they have bought in, Neeld is trying to do the same but make it long lasting, if you don't buy in you are gone.....I like it

Hird won 4 games, lost 2 and drew 1 in the first 7 games of his coaching career.

A lot better than 7 straight losses.

Whatever way you want to look at the bombers they have performed much better under a new coach that the MFC

[Macca 17,032]

Neither, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, my opinion is the Board and the Football Dept have taken on board the fact that we want success to be more than a flash in the pan, it needs to continue year by year, playing finals year by year, if that takes a bit more pain then so be it, Mark Neeld is trying to do his bit, but he also inherited a playing list, he is quietly working his way through, let's see what happens at the end of the season.

Essendon are flying at the moment, because Hird has had a year to two to build and set the standard.......Alwyn Davey, Ricky Dyson, Tom Bellchambers even Brett Stanton are barely recognisable from the players they were two years ago, they have bought in, Neeld is trying to do the same but make it long lasting, if you don't buy in you are gone.....I like it

I'll be the first to put my hand up and say well done if we start playing decent football . In my opinion it will take a change in philosophy though . Hardwick threw his version of the "cluster" out after his first 9 games (all losses). Or that's what I've heard from a few people .

I have bought into Neeld and will continue to , but I question the game plan . You're allowed to have an opinion like that . It's like tough love .

Neither.

And I don't believe there are many of the first type.

Constructive deserved criticism is what is needed, along with understanding of where he is at and where he should be heading.

Nothing more or less.

Unfortunately there's very little of that from supporters.

There were loads of Jack Watts fans just a few weeks ago . That's the reference I was referring to .

Edited May 14, 2012 by Macca

[Bossdog 2,002]

I agree. Out of confidence in each other the Gameplan will grow. Right now the Midfield is missfiring and the list as a whole is unfit.

The sitting board members are ultimately to blame for this.

I don't know why you blame the board for everything....Is it their job to get the players playing in a cohesive unit...They are there to put everything in place for the FD,which I think they have done this year....Not their fault that the players are shite at the moment....

[Frenzy Mckenzie 61]

I'm not taking sides Macca, but I'm just wondering what supporters think our game-plan is. I was talking to my despairing older Brother earlier today and he's just about had a gutful. He's been as loyal as any supporter over the last 40 years. He'd catch a train down to Kardinia Park as a 14 year old in the 70's by himself when we were sh*t. He'll stay loyal, but his resolve is being tested.

He thinks our game-plan must be to grab the ball and kick it 40 metres down the boundary line; and you can't blame him, because that's what we invariably do. But I explained that the long kick down the boundary is our last resort. It's our 'get out of jail' card. Goals in the modern game come from turnovers and it's far easier to defend a turnover if it's close to the boundary. If you turn the ball over near the corridor you're invariably punished. So Neeld's/Malthouse's theory is sound. Get the ball forward, neutralise the next contest and start again. The problem is we're doing it far too often because we're not having nearly enough run, carry, and spread. The players aren't trusting each other. They're not trusting each other to win a 50/50 contest, so in turn they get sucked back into the contest. Have you noticed that we often have more numbers around a stoppage, but the opposition have more positioned outside ? We either win the ball and handball to a teammate under pressure, get a quick kick along the boundary, lose possession, or create another ball-up. When the opposition get hands on it they flick it backwards 10-15 metres, or wide and they're off. And we start chasing tail, while their forward half opens up. We need to stop over committing to stoppages and have our own outriders ready to create and run, but this is hard when you don't have faith in your teammate to win the contest. This is why we are diabolical when it comes to uncontested possessions.

Neeld doesn't want to play like this. He wants the players to structure up well and be bold with their run and options. His game-plan is so foreign to Bailey's it's proving to be hard yards. I'm no Neeld apologist and right now he has to carry the can for not being able to get his players to implement the plan well enough. Afterall, he'll be happy to take the plaudits if they come his way, so he can't complain about the brick bats now. Everyone is accountable.

The reason I'm not as gloomy as some is that I know the talent on the list isn't as dire as it appears. I hate the saying that a team is "playing above themselves" as physics tells me it's not possible, but I understand that some teams seem to eke out just about every ounce of their ability. However, those teams usually fail to win the holy grail. They're usually found wanting when it matters most and their lack of class catches up with them. Conversely, we're playing well beneath our true potential, which is why my wrists remain scar free. I still have faith in the quality of the list.

I expect to see improvement and don't want any spin, because I feel I understand where we're at. But Neeld has to sell his message to the players and on the surface they're not buying in. Morale is low, especially amongst the older players, but with more understanding of what's required I do expect things to get better.

Just about sums it up for mine. Neeld said much of the same in his SEN interview before the Casey game on Saturday - well worth a listen.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

I expected 9-10 wins this year. I understand Neeld has carried himself well so far and seems to know what he's doing but all you can do so far is praise his attitude, personality and perhaps his credentials as there is no evidence his game plan is working whatsoever