I know I've been very critical and negative of late. I have taken time to reflect and take in what is going on at the club.

But after watching the above video, it's clear that what is wrong with the playing group goes far beyond anything within Neeld's, or anyone else's, reach.

The confidence of that young playing group of Brisbane is amazing stuff. It was the best game we had played since 2006, and we absolutely deestroyed (sorry) them from the first bounce.

So what has happened? I think it goes deeper than we think, and I'm happy for it to stay within the club as long as it's rectified. I think that the loss at Geelong was indicative of more than some of you may be willing to accept, and I think our performance this year definitely stems from that.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and I genuinly don't intend on having this seem like a personal attack on the playing group or club.

But I'm pretty convinced that Bailey wasn't holding players accountable to the level demanded by the club's powers-that-be (Schwab, perhaps Lyon, too), and this caused the friction between the group, who had otherwise been given the freedom they enjoyed to play the unaccountable football we had become accustomed to watching as fans, that eventuated on that gloomy day. I think this assumption is backed up by Neeld's only subtle, albeit clear rhetoric regarding the playing group's fitness levels, and the amount to which they were able to get away with upon his coming to the club.

I don't think we've drafted poorly. In fact, I think Neeld is molding a gameplan around what sort of playing group we have. The problem is accountability, professionalism and committment to the club (and brand), and this is why I've shown frustration at players being seemingly light-hearted at games in which the team is getting belted.

I don't think there is a magic wand, and I don't think we'll see a rebound from the bottom as quickly as we did in 1997-1998. I think we're looking at another 2-3 years as a league whipping boy, but I most certainly don't want that time spent on drafting more young, unexperienced players. In every area of the field we have a young, talented player that can lead that area, but it's about building a team around those players (Clark, Jones, Frawley), and I think bringing in experience, ala. the Sydney model, with perhaps a little Collingwood touch, where those familiar with the AFL system understand the professionalism demanded by Neeld, and can come in and help evolve the young players that seem to be so grossly out of confidence.

We needed the elite coaches to be on board by 2010. Big mistake. Our number one draft pick may not have run if the coaches & FD were in place.

I remember the above game well. I thought we were truly rolling.

It's sad.

Very depressng viewing. Have to say Bailey knew how to make the boys spread after the stoppages

Edited May 14, 201213 yr by DeeTermination

Interesting thoughts but i disagree.

I think our on field performace has alot to do with players overthinking the game - spending too much time thinking about where they should run or kick the ball according to Neelds game plan, rather than backing their own ability and lnstincts . I hate the term "game plan", and ever since Need has come in the club has used it to death - i fear that alot of the side have been bamboozled/overwelmed by all of the new structures and plans and have forgot that they are listed at an AFL club becasue they are good footy players - they've lost the confidence in their own instincts and abilities to just get out there and play footy! The extent of the game plan under dean bailey was "take the game on" (as far as i could tell), but maybe it wasnt such a bad mantra for the blokes.

Ahhhh .... a downhill skiing attacking free-for-all smashing of an interstate side at the G. Those glorious Bailey years!!

Interesting thoughts but i disagree.

I think our on field performace has alot to do with players overthinking the game - spending too much time thinking about where they should run or kick the ball according to Neelds game plan, rather than backing their own ability and lnstincts . I hate the term "game plan", and ever since Need has come in the club has used it to death - i fear that alot of the side have been bamboozled/overwelmed by all of the new structures and plans and have forgot that they are listed at an AFL club becasue they are good footy players - they've lost the confidence in their own instincts and abilities to just get out there and play footy! The extent of the game plan under dean bailey was "take the game on" (as far as i could tell), but maybe it wasnt such a bad mantra for the blokes.

Well said DemonWA.

I certainly don't want a Sydney or Collingwood style introduced to MFC!

A clearer representation of Melbourne under Bailey around the same time.

Move on RR! Taking the game on is the way forward as some other clubs know. Just because we didn't find the right formula in the past doesn't make the principle wrong - I'd be rapt if we could take risks and play like Adelaide, Geelong ....

If this isn't proof that the players are being over corrected then nothing is. Yes, it was attacking footy, but the current game style of kicking down the line to the boundary isn't just proving unsuccessful - it makes for a really dull spectacle.

And you can say what you want about belting an interstate team on the G, but you might wanna watch the replay of round 1 2012 and tell me how it looks?

Move on RR! Taking the game on is the way forward as some other clubs know. Just because we didn't find the right formula in the past doesn't make the principle wrong - I'd be rapt if we could take risks and play like Adelaide, Geelong ....

It's clearly not me who needs to move on Hardnut.

No amount of pining for the security blanket of 7 cushy wins under Bailey is going to bring him back, thank Christ.

wait and see - it will take time for them to get the new structure naturally and not have to think twice. then we might see some rapid progress.

If this isn't proof that the players are being over corrected then nothing is. Yes, it was attacking footy, but the current game style of kicking down the line to the boundary isn't just proving unsuccessful - it makes for a really dull spectacle.

And you can say what you want about belting an interstate team on the G, but you might wanna watch the replay of round 1 2012 and tell me how it looks?

The players are being reprogrammed. Some will make it, some won't.

Judge Neeld in 18 months, not after 7 games.

The players are being reprogrammed. Some will make it, some won't.

Judge Neeld in 18 months, not after 7 games.

GOod call - and perhaps its just taking the older players longer because they are either dumber or cant be taught new tricks.

I don't disagree that Bailey wasn't the best coach. I'm highlighting rather the confidence portrayed by the players that night. The first few minutes showcases that.

I also think I make that clear in my post.

"But I'm pretty convinced that Bailey wasn't holding players accountable"

I think that was evident.

If this isn't proof that the players are being over corrected then nothing is. Yes, it was attacking footy, but the current game style of kicking down the line to the boundary isn't just proving unsuccessful - it makes for a really dull spectacle.

And you can say what you want about belting an interstate team on the G, but you might wanna watch the replay of round 1 2012 and tell me how it looks?

My thoughts exactly, especially that last bit, although I'm willing to give Neeld a chance to showcase what he can do over a 12-24 month period.

The players are being reprogrammed. Some will make it, some won't.

Judge Neeld in 18 months, not after 7 games.

I'm willing to do that. I just don't see how a new coach can lead to such a drastic change in player confidence, which is where my entire argument stems from.

Edited May 14, 201213 yr by Cudi_420

RR I'm not sure your point is being made well with comparing hawthorn games in 2010 vs 2012. If they kicked straight Friday night the result would have been very similar.

Hardly proves how valuable our defensive game plan is does it?

It's clearly not me who needs to move on Hardnut.

No amount of pining for the security blanket of 7 cushy wins under Bailey is going to bring him back, thank Christ.

Read what I said RR - I certainly did NOT say I wanted DB back - I did say I wanted to take the game on, that is, take risks like Geelong, Adelaide, etc., to move the ball down the ground essentially through the corridor to kick goals and win!

I have this game on DVD. It's a cracker.

I cannot watch it at the moment. I get too depressed.

The players are being reprogrammed. Some will make it, some won't.

Judge Neeld in 18 months, not after 7 games.

As I have said in another post on another thread, players should not be 'programmed like robots' - they should learn together as a team so that they know where each other will be and have trust in each other!

RR I'm not sure your point is being made well with comparing hawthorn games in 2010 vs 2012. If they kicked straight Friday night the result would have been very similar.

Hardly proves how valuable our defensive game plan is does it?

Read what I said RR - I certainly did NOT say I wanted DB back - I did say I wanted to take the game on, that is, take risks like Geelong, Adelaide, etc., to move the ball down the ground essentially through the corridor to kick goals and win!

From the man himself ...

"We're going through a stage of laying some foundations for what will be good times to come, so we need to stay true to the way we want to play, train and the players we want to get games into. "You can go and plug holes and do a whole heap of other things, but I don't think in the long run we're going to learn much from that."

Listen to the coach, folks.

Ahhhh .... a downhill skiing attacking free-for-all smashing of an interstate side at the G. Those glorious Bailey years!!

Exactly.................spot on RR!

Read what I said RR - I certainly did NOT say I wanted DB back - I did say I wanted to take the game on, that is, take risks like Geelong, Adelaide, etc., to move the ball down the ground essentially through the corridor to kick goals and win!

Who has said we aren't going to take games on once the players have mastered the structures they are being taught? I agree with RR, no good being wistful about wins against interstate clubs in April. I want a systems/structures that stand up in September. Once these blokes have got the defensive mindset and fitness they need I'll look forwad to seeing them play attacking football. Attacking football that doesn't result in a goal everytime they turn it over.

Neeld inherited an unfit dysfunctional group / mob of players who were very short on discipline and accountability.

Sure the free running style sometimes came off and was exciting but probably never destined to get above mid table.

Anyone remember Balme as coach? He let them do more or less as they liked, it seemed. And we had a pretty good list then to work with. Exciting at times but also very unpredictable under pressure from a well drilled defensive team.

We should all hope MN's (certainly less visually appealing) more accountable plan will get us further.

Far far too soon to judge Neeld - it will take another full preseason of Misson's slave driving to be able to make that call.

Unaccountable, bruise free footy played like millionaires - when things turned, they sook.

This style saw teams like Collingwood, Hawthorn and even bloody Port touch us up.

The style we want nearly worked against St Kilda....tough, uncompromising.

A balance between both is what we are all after . I bloody hope it happens soon ....

I support Neeld because he is the current coach and success will only come to a united club.

However, I am getting tired of the endless threads laying the blame for all the current poor form on the previous coach. For the record I thought Bailey was a good coach, who had the Dees winning more games each year of his tenure.