Who should be held accountable?

[Waltham33 475]

Was his promise to let you know personally, was it?

No, but I did take it as an intent to get back to all supporters, something I would suggest would help address the current mood of the same people who have kept this club going.

[Guest José Mourinho]

No, but I did take it as an intent to get back to all supporters, something I would suggest would help address the current mood of the same people who have kept this club going.

Well, I think you misjudged his intent then.

You really think, for instance, it would be beneficial for supporters for him to come out and say "we have some substandard footballers on our list who have been able to get by on minimum effort for too long, and they'll have to go at the end of the season"?

You think that would satisfy you?

McLardy's job isn't to waste time to pandering to supporters who can't figure it out for themselves, so you'll just have to keep trying.

[rjay 24,834]

seriously though what would Tim Watson know about the internal dealings of the MFC?

"the fish rots from the head" is just a throw-away line anyone could use and without any facts is totally useless

we all know the fish is rotting but why is it the head causing it?

Yes, and I totally agree with you. He is not the only one making these throw away lines, they point to issues and nudge, nudge, wink, wink, but no one is coming out and saying why the head is causing problems...

I guess I'm thinking there is no smoke without fire. Where is the fire and who is causing it or is it all just a smoke screen?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,589]

Even that was still the right decision at the time.

Couldnt disagree more. The only midfielder that season that put an effort in every week. Having met the guy personally he is a top character and an obvious leader.

[diesel 420]

Did I ever endorse the players attitude? Read my post again.

You set up your post to blame the adminstration and said responsibility starts and ends at the top?

All I'm saying is that the root cause of a cultural problem at the club persists and needs to be solved for everyone to move on.

I clearly said accountability sits with everyone. I'm simply pointing out that the club has players that are proven to be capable of more that aren't delivering under Neeld. The same team minus Mitch Clark won 8 games last year. We are on track for 1-4 wins this year. Have the same players got half the skill all of a sudden, or is there more going on? Like it or not the results speak for themselves, and they are a lot more cringeworthy than my opinion.

The root cause of the problem at Melbourne is the playing group. They either cannot or will not impliment a game plan. they have shown they can do it for parts of games so why should they get let off for not being able to do it for 4 quarters or week in week out? It goes without saying that everyone is accountable but my view is that the admin and coaching stuff ups are behind us so we have to stop looking for problems elsewhere of which there is no evidence. The evidence of our problems is the three hours every week when the players are on the ground. The buck stops there.

[Hardnut 327]

Read Matthew Lloyd's article on the Crows in today's Sunday Age Sport section - very interesting!

[robbiefrom13 887]

Over and over on this forum, we find ourselves being lobbied (not always politely or respectfully) to take sides: the players or the coach.

The coach's job is to get the best out of the players that he has, and get the team thing happening. The players' job is to do what they've been preparing their whole lives to do, and follow team structures in doing it. Clearly the players are not playing to their previously proven ability, and cannot be following instructions when they play such rubbish football (with no spread, no shepherding, etc); and the coaches clearly are not encouraging the players' self-belief and use of their skills, nor are they getting through with their intention to harness the players' efforts to "a game-plan". The players are failing to do their job, and the coach is failing to do his.

Does this mean we have to blame somebody?

well, what if we do? If you drop the players, you have to pick somebody else, and we are already picking the best we have. If you sack the coach we have to start all over again, again, with further loss of face and confidence and morale, as well as the inevitable confusion.

These guys (players and coach) need to get it right, together - they are who MFC has. If anyone else is interfering with their doing so, then the Board should surely tell them to f*** off - we are a football team, and the playing of football is our core business. The players are our ultimate assets in that sense, and the coach is there to get the best out of the players. Anybody else and their importance is secondary to the players running out onto the ground to play the game.

So, what do we need to do to get players and coach sorting out the stuff that has them currently "not on the same page"?

Do we think the players need to learn e.g. how to shepherd, as though they don't understand the concept??? Or does someone think the problem is that the coach needs to learn how to be a conductor instead of a Roman flagellator??? do we really think either party has got to where they are without such elementary things well understood (even though they clearly are not working at present, for whatever reason?)

Or are the posters right when they suggest this mess is something that was here already, before Neeld arrived, and beyond him or the players to fix?

In which case is it perhaps time somebody was put in on a permanent basis to restore what has been somehow broken in the lines of communications between players and club? Just like it was needed at Chelsea not so long ago? Such a person would work out what went wrong, of course, but not just to identify where to lay the blame and then get out - we don't need a report, or a Garry Lyon short-term fix. What we need is a permanent change in our system, that starts by acknowledging that employees of the club are all highly competent people, and motivated, but at the moment not able to make it happen... needing help, therefore. Not their fault, but about to be helped with a structure that maybe should have always been in place.

It does seem that part of the bigger story here is that some players last year did express some opinions about what was going on; and the way it has played out it appears that it was not a legitimate thing for them to do so. If that's how it was, it is unfair.

I know the hardline player-bashing posters, who call the players "cattle" and so on, will want to punish and discipline any player who does anything other than "comply" and play crash-and-bash; but that just isn't working, and the club is bleeding while we stand unbudgingly waiting for it to kick in.

Chelsea is succeeding after a period of failure and upheavals, at least partly because they recognised the human capital in their players, and treated them with respect, and provided them with a permanent conduit for their thoughts about stuff at the club. Chelsea agreed that the players were stakeholders, entitled to speak. Qualified to, actually - more so than anyone, perhaps. Because, unlike anyone else, they are the guys who actually run out and experience the playing of the game. And so they and their thoughts matter, a whole lot. Questions to ask of the players, that only they can answer: is the way they are preparing for games working? Could improvements be made? Do they feel positive about their being at the club? They will know what they want to address...

I can't understand the view that we should be angered by players having something to say about the way the club facilitates their playing the game. A corporatised view of football sees the players as mere operatives in a grand scheme way above their grasp. That is simply BS, and will never engage players in a creative and exuberant commitment to playing the game they dreamed about all their childhood. The team is, by definition, made up of (and, if you insist, at the mercy of) the players....

As I see it, it's time for MFC stakeholders to sit down together and come up with something that doesn't blame, but which all can own. Get onto the same page! And, the players are the most important, no matter how you look at it. To the hardliners on this forum, I ask you - if it is the players who are at fault here, is there any way you can see that will improve the results for the club in spite of the players? Drop them? - but who do you want running out for the club? Do you want us to shut down? You can't drop them all, even though some posters have actually advocated exactly that. Better to work with the players, I say.

Excuse me while I duck for cover.

Edited May 20, 2012 by robbiefrom13

[Hardnut 327]

Very well said 'robbiefrom13'.

[Deano74 156]

Why are we so bad? forget the coaches and game plan, its simply the players arnt up to it!

If you look at Essendon and pretend Melbourne are the reserves, whom would get a game?

Jones, Frawley, Clark and Jamar.

Only 4 Players in my mind.

And thats why we are getting smashed.

[jimcor 212]

Robbiefrom13, I agree with Hardnut, well said! I think we already have someone at the Club to play that link role - Neil Craig. He seems to be respected by both the players and the coaches and I'm sure he's acting as something of a conduit. I strongly agree that the solution is Ito be found by working honestly and sincerely with the players. In a work environment, I was taught that change was a manageable exercise and that those affected by change generally fell into one of four groups:

1/- Those that would immediately see the benefit of the change being offered and embrace & support it e.g. Jones, Trengrove, Grimes, Watts, etc (approx 50% of the group)

2/- Those that, after further and detailed explanation and the guidance of those that they respected, would then accept the necessary changes e.g. .??? (approx 25% of the group)

3/- Those who would accept change after being satisfied that their personal needs were going to be satisfied e.g. More money, premiership, etc (approx 15% of the group)

4/- Those that were determined to resist change under any circumstances for whatever reason e.g. Inability to change, loss of status, etc (approx 10% of the group)

So, in short, approx 90% can be worked with and 10% may not be able to be worked with and a separation of some sort will need to be effected. These percentages are plucked from the air but they might be close to reality.

The bottom line is that once the decision to make changes has been made, it can then be managed. The coaches and the leadership group have to do more than talk the talk. They have to provide some guidance and inspiration for the rest of the team.

[Indeed 15]

Former Swan Tadgh Kennelly whacks Melbourne

Tadgh's take on our predicament. Pretty damming really - he was at the game.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/former-swan-tadgh-kennelly-whacks-melbourne/story-e6frexx0-1226361447422

[Cards13 9,117]

Former Swan Tadgh Kennelly whacks Melbourne

Tadgh's take on our predicament. Pretty damming really - he was at the game.

http://www.dailytele...0-1226361447422

It is out in the open for all to see bar seemingly the players. It is so horrilbe to read this about a club who i support, who i used to love and who annoys me no end now days.

[Fat Tony 5,216]

Why are we so bad? forget the coaches and game plan, its simply the players arnt up to it!

If you look at Essendon and pretend Melbourne are the reserves, whom would get a game?

Jones, Frawley, Clark and Jamar.

Only 4 Players in my mind.

And thats why we are getting smashed.

We beat Essendon last year. IMO our list is capable of 8-11 wins not 0-3.

[Pates 9,655]

It's a simple thing that happened right in front of me but it tipifies why I think it's the players that need to look at themselves and hold each other accountable. There was a contest which we won right in front of the members in the last quarter, we had numbers and Garland put out his arm to "shepard". It was weak and pointless, it left our player completely vulnerable to tackle and the ball went out of play.

I like Garland for the most part but it was disgusting, there is no intent to play for each other, the players have no pride in the jumper or care for their teammates. What I want from the LEADERship group is to drag everyone on the list together, highlight that and say "never again". You do this and WE (the entire list) will hold you accountable and take action. This should be an escalating thing where it starts out as doing volunteer stuff for the club, paying for a membship or getting friends/family members of the club, and end with simply not letting them play seniors until they trust them it protect their mate.

And for the record the leaders haven't been doing it either, they must take it as a minimum requirement as being part of the group.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,589]

It is out in the open for all to see bar seemingly the players. It is so horrilbe to read this about a club who i support, who i used to love and who annoys me no end now days.

Should he really be using Jimmy Stynes as a way to shame the players?

[Sir Why You Little 36,939]

Should he really be using Jimmy Stynes as a way to shame the players?

Why not? It's true.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

All of them, the Administration, the Players, the Coaches and the previous Administrations and Players and Coaches from the past 40 odd years who have allowed the club to fall to the level it currently finds itself at.

They have all failed us and it matters not if we tip in money to try to get the best for them, they will never, it seems, repay us in kind.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,589]

Good point.

[Pennant St Dee 13,054]

Even that was still the right decision at the time.

Jose can people make a comment without you trying to be authoritarian "My view is it and thats the end of it" everyone has different opinions.

Letting Junior and Brad Miller go was a mistake. Junior for his on and off field leadership and Miller for his professionalism on the training track. Big deficincies were missing, whilst we have been well compensated for Scully moving on he was absolutley right if he left due to a lack of professionalism in the playing group, it is very clear now. Whatever people say about him he knows how to train and put the effort in and it's contagous

I accept Neeld and Misson are trying to change this and it will take time, but those two (Miller & Junior) would have assisted in getting the message across to the playing group. At the worst we could have got another season at least out of them and kept one on as an assistant.

[bing181 9,193]

We beat Essendon last year. IMO our list is capable of 8-11 wins not 0-3.

We lost to Geelong last year, by 186 points.

Half the problem here, we need to be judging the team by their losses, not by the odd win. Those wins were one-offs, not typical of our season. Or the one before.

[Pennant St Dee 13,054]

Why not? It's true.

Tadhg was commentating yesterday and he was absolutley disgusted in the application of our senior players, his exact words were that Jimmy would be turning in his grave

[Macca 16,900]

Robbiefrom13, I agree with Hardnut, well said! I think we already have someone at the Club to play that link role - Neil Craig. He seems to be respected by both the players and the coaches and I'm sure he's acting as something of a conduit. I strongly agree that the solution is Ito be found by working honestly and sincerely with the players. In a work environment, I was taught that change was a manageable exercise and that those affected by change generally fell into one of four groups:

1/- Those that would immediately see the benefit of the change being offered and embrace & support it e.g. Jones, Trengrove, Grimes, Watts, etc (approx 50% of the group)

2/- Those that, after further and detailed explanation and the guidance of those that they respected, would then accept the necessary changes e.g. .??? (approx 25% of the group)

3/- Those who would accept change after being satisfied that their personal needs were going to be satisfied e.g. More money, premiership, etc (approx 15% of the group)

4/- Those that were determined to resist change under any circumstances for whatever reason e.g. Inability to change, loss of status, etc (approx 10% of the group)

So, in short, approx 90% can be worked with and 10% may not be able to be worked with and a separation of some sort will need to be effected. These percentages are plucked from the air but they might be close to reality.

The bottom line is that once the decision to make changes has been made, it can then be managed. The coaches and the leadership group have to do more than talk the talk. They have to provide some guidance and inspiration for the rest of the team.

You have to also factor in the influence that a certain % can have on a group . If that certain % don't want change and they are "The older players" then you could end up with a large % that reject change .

A lot of us suspect that this is a real issue , in fact , many on this site have been saying as much for quite some time . I suspect that the younger players are wanting to "buy in" but the influence of others is impeding things .

If you look at all our older players , not one of them is even having an "acceptable" season . Unless those who judge them are easy marker's . And not having one senior player in form is unacceptable .

Edited May 20, 2012 by Macca

[Diablo Deemon 220]

Tadhg was commentating yesterday and he was absolutley disgusted in the application of our senior players, his exact words were that Jimmy would be turning in his grave

Good at least someone gets it the players certainly don't frankly they look like they couldn't give a stuff the pea hearts.

We're a commune for well paid spuds and free loaders more concerned about the social status footy at the elite level affords than pride.

[jimcor 212]

You have to also factor in the influence that a certain % can have on a group . If that certain % don't want change and they are "The older players" then you could end up with a large % that reject change .

A lot of us suspect that this is a real issue , in fact , many on this site have been saying as much for quite some time . I suspect that the younger players are wanting to "buy in" but the influence of others is impeding things .

If you look at all our older players , not one of them is even having an "acceptable" season . Unless those who judge them are easy marker's . And that is unacceptable .

Absolutely right, Macca. That small minority can have a huge influence on the remainder because they are often older, well-entrenched and have a lot to lose if they allow the change to occur. The 'separation' I talked about can range from playing out your contract through to paying out your contract but as long as they are there, they are going to be a negative influence.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,589]

Absolutely right, Macca. That small minority can have a huge influence on the remainder because they are often older, well-entrenched and have a lot to lose if they allow the change to occur. The 'separation' I talked about can range from playing out your contract through to paying out your contract but as long as they are there, they are going to be a negative influence.

Yeah this has to be it. What else could it be? And if its true then we have only one option as I see it.