Right behind you Neeldy!!

[Disco Demons 92]

Anyone who has a crack at Neeld or his style is a joke...give the guy a chance.

I think Neeld will be making a huge statement to the players at the end of this year. Certain players will be surely shown the door and careers ended.

[praha 10,352]

Yeah, but the team's 0-8, worst team in the league.

I am not giving someone respect where it's not due. Respect would be to win 6-7 games for the year, beat a few top-8 sides. I haven't seen one ounce of improvement since round 1, so I am not blindly supporting anyone anymore.

From his own mouth: no more blind faith.

Only results will get my support behind this guy. It's hard? Poor guy, really. But get the job done.

[hardtack 10,136]

You have got to be joking!

DREAMING!!

Neeld is indeed unproven. He is also an extremely crap coach. The guy is void of ideas and has changed us from a team of potential finalists to permanent cellar dwellars.

Blind Faith indeed!! Tell me at what stage does Neeld have to be held accountable for this mess?? "Best young list"..."Hardest team to play against"....Total Crap..

Ahh, the fast food generation!

[Vitamin Dee 849]

How could it possibly be the coach?

The club and in particular this playing group have a habit of CHOOSING the easiest option, irrespective of who is at the helm.

How many exciting ‘come from behind’ wins have we had where the players have left everything they had out on the ground? Since 2000 no more than 3 come to mind – that’s12 years people and God knows we have had plenty of opportunity to come from behind.

Whether you like the coach or not, whether you like the CEO or not, as a player you’re employed to play. To play, as a minimum is to compete. This means to run hard both ways, to put your body between your mate and oncoming traffic, putting your head over the ball and to tackle with intent. It is the things you are willing to do when your team doesn’t have possession that shows true grit and character.

We are at rock bottom and it is easy to blame the coach. All the coach has done is identified within the group individuals that lack character and grit. My guess is that he has told them this just to see how they react. Their lack of reaction and care for each other, the jumper and in turn themselves only heightens the lack of will and desire. This largely is influenced by the senior players, it has to be.

Sport at the highest level is Ego driven and our senior players don’t like being told they don’t work hard enough. Their lack of receptiveness also goes a long way to reflect their lack of character.

Watch WC or Syd play, then sit high in the stands (level 4 Q41 next to the TAB, food and bar in the MCC members is highly recommended) and watch how stagnant we are.

The end of the season will be active, we have a ‘talented’ crop of youngsters who are being led astray and influenced by our more experienced players. If these experienced players aren’t moved on (along with Brian Royal) we as a team have no chance and as a club may not survive.

By Neelding the axe we force the youngsters to create their own identity and give them opportunity to change the perceptions of the club. What would be more rewarding than dragging a club that hasn’t had the ultimate success since 64 over the line in a GF? To do that we need buy in, for buy in we need to change the culture.

In the wise words of Yazz, ‘THE ONLY WAY IS UP’.

PS: I read this morning that a Demonland poster flew in from O/S to simply watch the games this week. What commitment!! Give that man a jumper and throw him in the guts this week!

Lace Out.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Lace Out

[Face Your Demons 175]

I actually think we are on the right track. We need to get to the end of the year and get rid of anyone who thinks their bigger then the club.

We would have been better off given our whole list to GWS and starting with kids, at least they listen to what the coach has to say.

I did not want to believe this but we have more than a few very bad apples in our club.

[old dee 22,981]

I think Jeff Kennet may be right.

( ducking into the trench and pulling down hard hat )

[Sir Why You Little 34,841]

I think Jeff Kennet may be right.

( ducking into the trench and pulling down hard hat )

When was that?

[old dee 22,981]

When was that?

Not sure if you are winding me up wyl!

But here goes

"the MFC should amalgamate with NM"

[Sir Why You Little 34,841]

Not sure if you are winding me up wyl!

But here goes

"the MFC should amalgamate with NM"

I refuse to read that.

"Death before Merger"

[Hannibal 5,814]

I've been vocal in my support for Mark Neeld and the defensive styles he was bringing to the club because we didn't play contested accountable football under Bailey, but I am bemused by the preparedness on this thread to seemingly absolve Neeld from any accountability with our current plight. I was critical of Bailey and I reckon I'd be pretty hypocritical if I wasn't at least raising an eyebrow at what Neeld is dishing up.

The MFC club has given Mark Neeld unbridled support. They've given him carte blanche to implement his strategies. He wanted Mitch Clark and the club did all in its power to land him. He wanted a stronger coaching group and the club helped deliver Neil Craig plus supported his request for a revamped line coaching structure, which included 3 new IT support staff for each line. He wanted industry leaders in sports science and he got it. He was specific in his requirements and he's been supported in every way. He wanted to dismantle the old leadership group and placed his faith in young charges to lead the club. I don't know if there's anything more the club could have done for Mark, so in this regard I can't be critical of the Board, or CEO.

But Neeld has some issues. The players, or some of them, are not playing for him. Anyone that has the remotest idea about footy knows when players aren't playing for the coach. They haven't bought in to his plan or style. Neeld must take some responsibility for that. Neeld is playing a one-on-one style around the stoppages. Other clubs have decided to hang back from the stoppage and allow Melbourne players to get sucked into the contest. The spread and run this has created for the opposition hurts Melbourne every week. Players are not busting a gut for the coach. They're not putting their body on the line for the coach. The coach has to wear some blame and must shoulder some responsibility in what is a results oriented business.

Our older players should be embarrassed by what they're dishing up. I have no interest in letting them off the hook. I would trade Sylvia at the end of the year and I'd never play Davey again, but I have to question whether it was going overboard to remove nearly every older player from the leadership group. I accept that they're woeful leaders who only led on their own terms, but was it smart to walk into a club and get just about every older player off side ? The senior players have an effect on the psyche of a club. And when a significant number are disenchanted it has to effect the fabric of a club.

Neeld is now putting positive spin on diabolical performances. He's had a baptism of fire and one can't help but feel sorry for him, but don't insult me by talking about positives in the second half of a 100 point debacle. There was not one positive out of that match and you'd do well to not even attempt to gild the lily.

I believe that our list is in good shape. We're desperate for two A grade mids and we need a couple of dangerous small forwards, but the holes aren't so significant that they won't be addressed in the up-coming trade/draft. I know this view flies in the face of many other supporters view of our list, but it's one of the reasons that I'm starting to question Neeld. The talent at his disposal isn't as bereft as the performances suggest. Trengove is playing worse football than his first year. No players have improved. Something is horribly wrong and it's not just coming to grips with a new game-plan.

Last year we beat Adelaide by 96 points at the MCG. Adelaide supporters knew that the time for their coach was up. Some supporters would have thought that their list was average, just like some Melbourne supporters reckon we've drafted terribly and our list is average. We've made mistakes in the draft, but the list is far better than what we're seeing. Fifteen of the Adelaide players that were embarrassed by Melbourne last year played in the side that just thrashed Carlton. They're now considered premiership contenders. Taylor Walker didn't play because he was suspended. Is their list really that average ? Was it average last year when many of their supporters thought it was ? Why has the club gelled so quickly under Brenton Sanderson while ours appears the opposite ? Fourteen Melbourne players that played in Paul Roos' worst defeat as coach took to the field on the weekend. Fourteen Sydney players that were embarrassed by Melbourne two years ago also took to the field. The Swans were actually weaker this time around because they didn't have Goodes or Mumford. There was a 174 point turnaround. So, are these players playing for the coach ? We had 51 tackles compared to 82 even though we were chasing tail all day. Was there a modicum of effort from Melbourne players ? Players have lost all trust in their teammates to win contests and because of this they're losing their structures. Is this solely the players fault, or the coach's too ?

This club is most certainly in crisis, so it's folly to suggest the senior coach shouldn't be under scrutiny. I don't know what's going to happen at year's end, but the club can't keep dishing up these sorts of performances. This list can be turned aroung very quickly, especially with the up-coming draft, but the fabric/culture has to be addressed. Hopefully Neeld is the man to do it. But there has to be question marks.

Nothing has changed from 186, which suggests that it certainly isn't all of the coach's fault. Whatever the underlying problem is clearly hasn't been addressed and I suspect that the approach of the new coach hasn't helped.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[praha 10,352]

I've been vocal in my support for Mark Neeld and the defensive styles he was bringing to the club because we didn't play contested accountable football under Bailey, but I am bemused by the preparedness on this thread to seemingly absolve Neeld from any accountability with our current plight. I was critical of Bailey and I reckon I'd be pretty hypocritical if I wasn't at least raising an eyebrow at what Neeld is dishing up.

The MFC club has given Mark Neeld unbridled support. They've given him carte blanche to implement his strategies. He wanted Mitch Clark and the club did all in its power to land him. He wanted a stronger coaching group and the club helped deliver Neil Craig plus supported his request for a revamped line coaching structure, which included 3 new IT support staff for each line. He wanted industry leaders in sports science and he got it. He was specific in his requirements and he's been supported in every way. He wanted to dismantle the old leadership group and placed his faith in young charges to lead the club. I don't know if there's anything more the club could have done for Mark, so in this regard I can't be critical of the Board, or CEO.

But Neeld has some issues. The players, or some of them, are not playing for him. Anyone that has the remotest idea about footy knows when players aren't playing for the coach. They haven't bought in to his plan or style. Neeld must take some responsibility for that. Neeld is playing a one-on-one style around the stoppages. Other clubs have decided to hang back from the stoppage and allow Melbourne players to get sucked into the contest. The spread and run this has created for the opposition hurts Melbourne every week. Players are not busting a gut for the coach. They're not putting their body on the line for the coach. The coach has to wear some blame and must shoulder some responsibility in what is a results oriented business.

Our older players should be embarrassed by what they're dishing up. I have no interest in letting them off the hook. I would trade Sylvia at the end of the year and I'd never play Davey again, but I have to question whether it was going overboard to remove nearly every older player from the leadership group. I accept that they're woeful leaders who only led on their own terms, but was it smart to walk into a club and get just about every older player off side ? The senior players have an effect on the psyche of a club. And when a significant number are disenchanted it has to effect the fabric of a club.

Neeld is now putting positive spin on diabolical performances. He's had a baptism of fire and one can't help but feel sorry for him, but don't insult me by talking about positives in the second half of a 100 point debacle. There was not one positive out of that match and you'd do well to not even attempt to gild the lily.

I believe that our list is in good shape. We're desperate for two A grade mids and we need a couple of dangerous small forwards, but the holes aren't so significant that they won't be addressed in the up-coming trade/draft. I know this view flies in the face of many other supporters view of our list, but it's one of the reasons that I'm starting to question Neeld. The talent at his disposal isn't as bereft as the performances suggest. Trengove is playing worse football than his first year. No players have improved. Something is horribly wrong and it's not just coming to grips with a new game-plan.

Last year we beat Adelaide by 96 points at the MCG. Adelaide supporters knew that the time for their coach was up. Some supporters would have thought that their list was average, just like some Melbourne supporters reckon we've drafted terribly and our list is average. We've made mistakes in the draft, but the list is far better than what we're seeing. Fifteen of the Adelaide players that were embarrassed by Melbourne last year played in the side that just thrashed Carlton. They're now considered premiership contenders. Taylor Walker didn't play because he was suspended. Is their list really that average ? Was it average last year when many of their supporters thought it was ? Why has the club gelled so quickly under Brenton Sanderson while ours appears the opposite ? Fourteen Melbourne players that played in Paul Roos' worst defeat as coach took to the field on the weekend. Fourteen Sydney players that were embarrassed by Melbourne two years ago also took to the field. The Swans were actually weaker this time around because they didn't have Goodes or Mumford. There was a 174 point turnaround. So, are these players playing for the coach ? We had 51 tackles compared to 82 even though we were chasing tail all day. Was there a modicum of effort from Melbourne players ? Players have lost all trust in their teammates to win contests and because of this they're losing their structures. Is this solely the players fault, or the coach's too ?

This club is most certainly in crisis, so it's folly to suggest the senior coach shouldn't be under scrutiny. I don't know what's going to happen at year's end, but the club can't keep dishing up these sorts of performances. This list can be turned aroung very quickly, especially with the up-coming draft, but the fabric/culture has to be addressed. Hopefully Neeld is the man to do it. But there has to be question marks.

Nothing has changed from 186, which suggests that it certainly isn't all of the coach's fault. Whatever the underlying problem is clearly hasn't been addressed and I suspect that the approach of the new coach hasn't helped.

All of this.

The coach must shoulder some of the blame in all of this. At quarter-time Neeld said players weren't implementing what they had been told to. Why is that the case?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,600]

If you want to know why we're dishing up the rubbish we're dishing up, read the "Misson's Mission" article from last Friday. We are training in 2012 with an eye to moulding the list at the end of the year and having the players have a fitness base to be able to compete and run out games in 2013. After reading that article I've decided to go a bit easier on the players this year as it would be difficult for them to put out the effort we expect if they're effectively playing 2 matches a week.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Dr. Gonzo

[rpfc 27,633]

Nothing has changed from 186, which suggests that it certainly isn't all of the coach's fault. Whatever the underlying problem is clearly hasn't been addressed and I suspect that the approach of the new coach hasn't helped.

Well said.

I just wonder whether we will be better off in the long run having the issues we obviously have come to the surface. There is a harsh sunlight on the club at the moment, in many ways harsher than in 2011 when hollow victories over poor sides papered over some cracks.

I guess these are "unknown unkowns" as Doanld Rumsfeld once said. Maybe Neeld will 'break' more than he will 'make.'

As for the list - they are better than they have shown but our players in their prime 24-29 would have to be the worst in the league outside of the expansion teams. These players drive your season and thankfully Clark, Magner, and Jones are starting to take over the mantle but it they are alone at the minute out of our senior players.

[bing181 8,218]

At quarter-time Neeld said players weren't implementing what they had been told to. Why is that the case?

Why not ask the players?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

This is from Crackers Keenan so whether it's true or not remains to be seen but it's out there and if it is true we have bigger problems than we think. Surely Neeld wouldn't say something like this to a rival Captain and if he did you would expect it to remain in house.

http://www.sportal.com.au/opinion-display/crackers-call-dees-sinking-further-177715

Eight weeks later everything is in tatters, there are rumblings about the CEO's job and it's even rumoured that Neeld told Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell that two of his senior players, Mark Jamar and Brent Moloney, won't listen to him

[Guest gidon]

Cudi & Ben Hur, well put. Our team has gone backwards (in the hope to go 'very far' forwards) and the coaching group should not be exempt from scrutiny. Having said this, new FD structures are in place and they need time to play out. BUT, there has to be a better way to get the hopeful (ultimate) results moving forward.

The players are poor, the coaching has been poor and the development (seemingly) has gone backwards. Its clear the supporters are very tired of the recent 4 years of poor performances. But now, it seems confidence is lost in the re-build as the club keeps changing tact in its philosophy on how to re-build.

I dont believe the club should directly address the supporters, but they do need to take us into account. We need more, SOMETHING! to maintain hope.

I hate how alot of ppl dish out faith in a coach who has yet to fire. Just because Neeld was touted as the next big thing does not mean it will come to fruition. Neeld could leave us in worse condition than Bailey. I hope that he succeeds and still support him, but I'm not waiting for the end of his contract believing in something that may not happen. I want incremental results! If the senior players are not firing, the question has to be asked why? Its not like it a few of them, its a dozen, 2/3 rds of the players on field.

[olisik 4,060]

This is from Crackers Keenan so whether it's true or not remains to be seen but it's out there and if it is true we have bigger problems than we think. Surely Neeld wouldn't say something like this to a rival Captain and if he did you would expect it to remain in house.

http://www.sportal.c...-further-177715

Eight weeks later everything is in tatters, there are rumblings about the CEO's job and it's even rumoured that Neeld told Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell that two of his senior players, Mark Jamar and Brent Moloney, won't listen to him

If your a coach and u have players who wont listen to you, then isnt the course of action simple?

Let them rot out there days at Casey. Isn't rocket science

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,078]

David Schartz cut loose on the players tonight - he said certain players were choosing whether to turn it on or not (effort) and with their performances they should be returning their salary to the club and he couldnt care less if 15 players were sacked tomorrow.

[Rogue 585]

Mark Neeld came to the Dees as an extremely highly credentialed and well regarded senior assistant coach. He would've been high on the list for the Adelaide and St Kilda gigs too, but we moved more quickly. In short, he was very respected by those in the know in the industry. And, I expect, still is.

Our list is not that good. For a start, we have far too few really good senior players, a leadership vacuum and, historically, a very weak culture. Everyone knows this.

In particular, Mark Neeld knows this. All the signs to date show that. And, for the first time in decades, we have someone who is determined to change it. Importantly, I think he has the character, the conviction and the ability to actually change it too. He is trying to introduce a professionalism to this club that it has not seen in a very long time.

Personally, I think we're bloody lucky to have him.

Right now I reckon it's pretty hard to tell whether Neeld is any good.

Think about his 'achievements' so far; mull over what you think he's done that's worth a pat on the back.

I think a poor Coach could have done the same things Neeld's done so far tbh.

[Nascent 7,440]

A pretty decent read here for all who haven't seen... although nothing revolutionary or that hasn't been discussed here.

http://www.bigpondsp...05/default.aspx

"Neeld is exposing those on the list who don't desire or deserve to be there. It's a difficult process but one that will reap dividends in time."

Edited May 22, 2012 by Nascent

[P-man 13,276]

I've been vocal in my support for Mark Neeld and the defensive styles he was bringing to the club because we didn't play contested accountable football under Bailey, but I am bemused by the preparedness on this thread to seemingly absolve Neeld from any accountability with our current plight. I was critical of Bailey and I reckon I'd be pretty hypocritical if I wasn't at least raising an eyebrow at what Neeld is dishing up.

The MFC club has given Mark Neeld unbridled support. They've given him carte blanche to implement his strategies. He wanted Mitch Clark and the club did all in its power to land him. He wanted a stronger coaching group and the club helped deliver Neil Craig plus supported his request for a revamped line coaching structure, which included 3 new IT support staff for each line. He wanted industry leaders in sports science and he got it. He was specific in his requirements and he's been supported in every way. He wanted to dismantle the old leadership group and placed his faith in young charges to lead the club. I don't know if there's anything more the club could have done for Mark, so in this regard I can't be critical of the Board, or CEO.

But Neeld has some issues. The players, or some of them, are not playing for him. Anyone that has the remotest idea about footy knows when players aren't playing for the coach. They haven't bought in to his plan or style. Neeld must take some responsibility for that. Neeld is playing a one-on-one style around the stoppages. Other clubs have decided to hang back from the stoppage and allow Melbourne players to get sucked into the contest. The spread and run this has created for the opposition hurts Melbourne every week. Players are not busting a gut for the coach. They're not putting their body on the line for the coach. The coach has to wear some blame and must shoulder some responsibility in what is a results oriented business.

Our older players should be embarrassed by what they're dishing up. I have no interest in letting them off the hook. I would trade Sylvia at the end of the year and I'd never play Davey again, but I have to question whether it was going overboard to remove nearly every older player from the leadership group. I accept that they're woeful leaders who only led on their own terms, but was it smart to walk into a club and get just about every older player off side ? The senior players have an effect on the psyche of a club. And when a significant number are disenchanted it has to effect the fabric of a club.

Neeld is now putting positive spin on diabolical performances. He's had a baptism of fire and one can't help but feel sorry for him, but don't insult me by talking about positives in the second half of a 100 point debacle. There was not one positive out of that match and you'd do well to not even attempt to gild the lily.

I believe that our list is in good shape. We're desperate for two A grade mids and we need a couple of dangerous small forwards, but the holes aren't so significant that they won't be addressed in the up-coming trade/draft. I know this view flies in the face of many other supporters view of our list, but it's one of the reasons that I'm starting to question Neeld. The talent at his disposal isn't as bereft as the performances suggest. Trengove is playing worse football than his first year. No players have improved. Something is horribly wrong and it's not just coming to grips with a new game-plan.

Last year we beat Adelaide by 96 points at the MCG. Adelaide supporters knew that the time for their coach was up. Some supporters would have thought that their list was average, just like some Melbourne supporters reckon we've drafted terribly and our list is average. We've made mistakes in the draft, but the list is far better than what we're seeing. Fifteen of the Adelaide players that were embarrassed by Melbourne last year played in the side that just thrashed Carlton. They're now considered premiership contenders. Taylor Walker didn't play because he was suspended. Is their list really that average ? Was it average last year when many of their supporters thought it was ? Why has the club gelled so quickly under Brenton Sanderson while ours appears the opposite ? Fourteen Melbourne players that played in Paul Roos' worst defeat as coach took to the field on the weekend. Fourteen Sydney players that were embarrassed by Melbourne two years ago also took to the field. The Swans were actually weaker this time around because they didn't have Goodes or Mumford. There was a 174 point turnaround. So, are these players playing for the coach ? We had 51 tackles compared to 82 even though we were chasing tail all day. Was there a modicum of effort from Melbourne players ? Players have lost all trust in their teammates to win contests and because of this they're losing their structures. Is this solely the players fault, or the coach's too ?

This club is most certainly in crisis, so it's folly to suggest the senior coach shouldn't be under scrutiny. I don't know what's going to happen at year's end, but the club can't keep dishing up these sorts of performances. This list can be turned aroung very quickly, especially with the up-coming draft, but the fabric/culture has to be addressed. Hopefully Neeld is the man to do it. But there has to be question marks.

Nothing has changed from 186, which suggests that it certainly isn't all of the coach's fault. Whatever the underlying problem is clearly hasn't been addressed and I suspect that the approach of the new coach hasn't helped.

This is a brilliant post. Sums up my feelings perfectly.

[Pennant St Dee 11,467]

Not sure if you are winding me up wyl!

But here goes

"the MFC should amalgamate with NM"

Old Dee now your getting ridiculous, we arent doing things by halves this time, it will make us what we have all craved.

Take the pain

[Macca 16,173]

Old Dee now your getting ridiculous, we arent doing things by halves this time, it will make us what we have all craved.

Take the pain

Maybe that should have been our slogan leading into the season !

"Take the Pain"

Edited May 22, 2012 by Macca

[Macca 16,173]

Old Dee now your getting ridiculous, we arent doing things by halves this time, it will make us what we have all craved.

Take the pain

Reminds me of this .....

[felixdacat 459]

Keep at it Neeldy don't let the naysayers and the pessimists get you down!