Wrong call

[thaipantsman 180]

"But the pressure has continued to mount on Neeld, who declared last September on his appointment: ''I simply want to coach the team that is the hardest to play against in the AFL. That means all over the ground, we're going to be the hardest to play against. That's what our aim is, as simple as that.''

Despite the perceived competition, Neeld did not reach the last stage of the Bulldogs' coaching search, which went to Brendan McCartney. At the end of 2010, Neeld was interviewed for the Port Adelaide job, but after profiling did not reach the final stage of that process in which Matthew Primus was chosen ahead of Chris Scott.

The Adelaide final four was made up of Sanderson, Neeld, Scott Burns and Rodney Eade. When the Crows conducted their final interview with Neeld he had not yet met the Melbourne panel, which offered him the job 72 hours later."

Intersting the article went on to highlite at the same time last year MFC flogged Adelaide.

[Chook 15,022]

You're right. All those other teams did make the wrong call.

[getonwiththejob 15]

Neeld is not the issue.

We cant win the ball and we cant hit a target. We dont spread from the contest. No confidence at all. We have no cream at the top and we are shallow in depth. Our midfield is crap. The players are predictable. We lack experience. We cant stop the other team when they get momentum.

The Coach can't do much from the box..........when we handball to stationery players or to the other team, when we miss easy goals from straight in front, when we get sucked to the ball carrier and beaten on the overlap.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

It is just a crazy, short-minded way to think that Neeld is the problem. And you'll notice most in the media pedalling that idea cant really hang their hats on success either.

Sure malthouse talked neeldie up, but the problem is that Neeld and Misson have upped the training regime by so much and expected accountability and discipline.

[Striker475 696]

Eight. Games.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Poor bloke has not been given the chance to show if he is the right man, and who knows, he may never. Unfortunately I don't think there was such a thing as a 'right call' at the time, as I don't think there is a single person in the game that would be doing much better with the way this club is at the moment.

Anyone who looks at Neeld, the game plan, or even individual players is missing the point, the issues seem to be much bigger than any of that.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Forest Demon

[Range Rover 1,935]

"But the pressure has continued to mount on Neeld, who declared last September on his appointment: ''I simply want to coach the team that is the hardest to play against in the AFL. That means all over the ground, we're going to be the hardest to play against. That's what our aim is, as simple as that.''

Despite the perceived competition, Neeld did not reach the last stage of the Bulldogs' coaching search, which went to Brendan McCartney. At the end of 2010, Neeld was interviewed for the Port Adelaide job, but after profiling did not reach the final stage of that process in which Matthew Primus was chosen ahead of Chris Scott.

The Adelaide final four was made up of Sanderson, Neeld, Scott Burns and Rodney Eade. When the Crows conducted their final interview with Neeld he had not yet met the Melbourne panel, which offered him the job 72 hours later."

Intersting the article went on to highlite at the same time last year MFC flogged Adelaide.

TPM ... don't get sucked in by this nonsense. The tabloids want a coach sacking and they will angle for one any which way they can when they smell a bit of blood in the water.

The bigger story for them of course would be the demise of a Victorian AFL club as it's something they could document and run with for months and even years until it happens. North were in the gun there for a while and now you sense the crosshairs are being switched over to us.

We must back our man Neeld. As players. As administrators. As supporters. We must back him.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Range Rover

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

If some of the players had shown half the passion of Neeld on Saturday the result might have been respectful.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Eight. Games.

Exactly.

He's had 8 games to turn this rabble around, and there was bound to be a lot of resistance, whether conscious and intentional or not.

Edited May 22, 2012 by José Mourinho

[Dr. Mubutu 866]

Exactly.

He's had 8 games to turn this rabble around, and there was bound to be a lot of resistance, whether conscious and intentional or not.

Please note in advance: This is not meant to be an indictment on Neeld, but rather the players.

Neeld has had eight months with these players, assuming the usual 4 weeks annual leave, that is still 7 months. Therefore, at a conservative estimate, they've had 30 weeks with Neeld to work on the gameplan.

I'm going to again make an assumption (again on the conservative side) that the team have spent 20% of their time on the gameplan. This gives a figure of 240 HOURS spent on the gameplan.

Surely whatever Neeld is trying to implement is nowhere near this complicated? Especially given that we've had reassurances that this is only the FIRST STAGE. If this is the case, given the learning aptitude of the current group, we may have something RESEMBLING what Neeld wants to bring in sometime during season 2023.

[waynewussell 6,237]

Finally a thread on the issue that seems to make sense! I fully support most of the views expressed here. We need to support the Neeld regime 100% until we drag ourselves up from the floor, climb the ladder and banish the lack of belief that has engulfed the players (whether the brutal honesty of Neeld contributed or not). The whole club, including the supporters, need to stick fat and go the distance... I will accept a change of direction if we show no growth by the beginning of 2013.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Please note in advance: This is not meant to be an indictment on Neeld, but rather the players.

Neeld has had eight months with these players, assuming the usual 4 weeks annual leave, that is still 7 months. Therefore, at a conservative estimate, they've had 30 weeks with Neeld to work on the gameplan.

I'm going to again make an assumption (again on the conservative side) that the team have spent 20% of their time on the gameplan. This gives a figure of 240 HOURS spent on the gameplan.

Surely whatever Neeld is trying to implement is nowhere near this complicated? Especially given that we've had reassurances that this is only the FIRST STAGE. If this is the case, given the learning aptitude of the current group, we may have something RESEMBLING what Neeld wants to bring in sometime during season 2023.

240 hours might sound like a lot, but a lot of professional sportspeople talk about the need for 10,000 hours practice to become elite at anything.]

This is AFL at an elite level.

While learning a gameplan is but one facet, and does not take 10,000 hours, 240 hours is evidently not enough.

Nor do I think we have the personnel.

Some we need to bring in, some we need to further develop.

Part of the reason seems to be that even if the players understand the gameplan, some are just incapable of implementing it.

All the good intentions in the world mean nothing if you are not capable.

[Hardnut 327]

So, let me get this right, ignore the facts that have emerged (and the still unanswered questions) because they are unpalatable and everyone else must be wrong, despite their current success and our current failure, albeit short term so far. Caro's article today seemed pretty right. Looks like MFC repeating the mistakes of the past and the same old responses coming out again - stand by your club, they are right, they know what they are doing,...! How about a few people 'fessing up' to what really happened, forget blame, and then we move on to fix the problems!

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

I personally think Neeld will be proven the right man, but more to the point it almost doesnt matter now. Do you think that sacking the man will be the right call this early? Give the players a new coach and another game plan when they rarely seemed to understand Bailey's let alone Neelds. Stick it out, see what happens and if it was the wrong call THEN cut loose.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Please note in advance: This is not meant to be an indictment on Neeld, but rather the players.

Neeld has had eight months with these players, assuming the usual 4 weeks annual leave, that is still 7 months. Therefore, at a conservative estimate, they've had 30 weeks with Neeld to work on the gameplan.

I'm going to again make an assumption (again on the conservative side) that the team have spent 20% of their time on the gameplan. This gives a figure of 240 HOURS spent on the gameplan.

Surely whatever Neeld is trying to implement is nowhere near this complicated? Especially given that we've had reassurances that this is only the FIRST STAGE. If this is the case, given the learning aptitude of the current group, we may have something RESEMBLING what Neeld wants to bring in sometime during season 2023.

The problem is some horses just won't be led to the water. "Why climb that mountain when I can prop here with my snout contentedly eating from this trough?", they say to themselves.

Thankfully not all of them have adopted this attitude. Just a few. And once they are weeded out and Neeld has the right troops at his disposal, we will make strides up the mounatin and we will begin to win games of footy.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Range Rover

[Dr. Mubutu 866]

240 hours might sound like a lot, but a lot of professional sportspeople talk about the need for 10,000 hours practice to become elite at anything.]

This is AFL at an elite level.

While learning a gameplan is but one facet, and does not take 10,000 hours, 240 hours is evidently not enough.

Nor do I think we have the personnel.

Some we need to bring in, some we need to further develop.

Part of the reason seems to be that even if the players understand the gameplan, some are just incapable of implementing it.

All the good intentions in the world mean nothing if you are not capable.

Yes, but this is 10,000 hours to be able to perform it at an elite level. I've heard the same thing about professional musicians, so I'll continue by using this as an example:

one requires 10,000 hours to be able to perform at this level, but not ON EACH PIECE. If we're using your 10,000 hours as an example, each professional musician would only be able to play one (possibly to a maximum of 4) piece of music. The 10,000 hours generally refers to acquiring and honing the required skills to perform at an elite level. One would assume once they HAVE those skills, they'd be able to adapt their use to differing situations, or, indeed, gameplans.

[jimcor 212]

If some of the players had shown half the passion of Neeld on Saturday the result might have been respectful.

I disagree with this. I have seen the younger players consistently show passion however it's the senior players that are a bit of a worry. I wonder now whether with regard to the training, we might have gone too hard, too early. Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing but what else have got when trying to understand how we've got to where we're at.

Anyway, I will reserve my judgement for a little while longer to see if we can get back on a 'week-by-week improvement' trajectory.

[Japaljarri 28]

Not bothering to buy into the broader issues, it is simply too early to judge Neeld although no one can be encouraged by 0-8 etc etc.

However just on a more specific point of process surely this can't be true?! Not from first interview to appointment?

Melbourne hired Neeld three days after interviewing him, but McLardy stands by his club’s decision.

Read more:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-chief-defends-coaching-appointment-20120522-1z284.html#ixzz1vaw0Ll6J

[P-man 13,366]

David King endorses this thread.

Don't know if anyone caught his performance on AFL Insider. What an absolute dope of an individual. Reminded me why I don't watch the show.

- Said Neeld was the wrong appointment because he wasn't the right fit for the club and the list, but couldn't specify who would be the right fit or why. Continued to use the 8 and a half wins last season as evidence the wrong decision was made.

- Said the club needed to act swiftly to fix "the problem", but couldn't specify what that act should be.

- Said the club should do a review of its operations to identify "the problem", completely oblivious to any review having already taken place.

- Claimed that the club was not acknowledging there was a problem. President and captain have done exactly that.

- Implied that the club could go under in a couple of years time due to sponsors and members jumping off.

Just hysterical nonsense from start to finish, and Fox try to tout this bloke as a brilliant footy brain. He's a complete imbecile.

[Neita3000 37]

David King endorses this thread.

Don't know if anyone caught his performance on AFL Insider. What an absolute dope of an individual. Reminded me why I don't watch the show.

- Said Neeld was the wrong appointment because he wasn't the right fit for the club and the list, but couldn't specify who would be the right fit or why. Continued to use the 8 and a half wins last season as evidence the wrong decision was made.

- Said the club needed to act swiftly to fix "the problem", but couldn't specify what that act should be.

- Said the club should do a review of its operations to identify "the problem", completely oblivious to any review having already taken place.

- Claimed that the club was not acknowledging there was a problem. President and captain have done exactly that.

- Implied that the club could go under in a couple of years time due to sponsors and members jumping off.

Just hysterical nonsense from start to finish, and Fox try to tout this bloke as a brilliant footy brain. He's a complete imbecile.

It was embarrassing wasn't it.

Good on Dunstall for playing devil's advocate

[P-man 13,366]

It was embarrassing wasn't it.

Good on Dunstall for playing devil's advocate

When they set up the show by saying they would analyse where Melbourne was going wrong, I assumed they meant analysing what was happening on the field. Instead we got King spewing a bunch of beaten up crap about off-field issues.

Dunstall played devil's advocate but he could've humiliated him. Almost every point he made was plucked out of thin air with no backing. It was like they grabbed someone off the street and asked their opinion.

[Footynut 302]

So, let me get this right, ignore the facts that have emerged (and the still unanswered questions) because they are unpalatable and everyone else must be wrong, despite their current success and our current failure, albeit short term so far. Caro's article today seemed pretty right. Looks like MFC repeating the mistakes of the past and the same old responses coming out again - stand by your club, they are right, they know what they are doing,...! How about a few people 'fessing up' to what really happened, forget blame, and then we move on to fix the problems!

Actually I think the club acknowledged the process they went through.

We did the testing with Bailey did that help?

Everyone knows those tests are 5% of any decision making on candidate anyway.

Why is it some people cannot fathom our team is pathetic with players who are petulant and cannot even hold a tackle or chase with any vigour.

But no bury your head in the sand as usual and blame the coach, president, CEO and anyone else you can find except the players!

Oh yes now you will say,"oh I didn't say I'm not blaming the players"

Well who are you blaming then?

Oh yes and let's not stand by our club because it makes sense to abandon it when the going gets tough and things from the outside don't add up according to your perception.

Well done.

[Supermercado 2,802]

The only problem we had with not doing psychological testing when selecting our coach was that it wasn't done on the players.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

When they set up the show by saying they would analyse where Melbourne was going wrong, I assumed they meant analysing what was happening on the field. Instead we got King spewing a bunch of beaten up crap about off-field issues.

Dunstall played devil's advocate but he could've humiliated him. Almost every point he made was plucked out of thin air with no backing. It was like they grabbed someone off the street and asked their opinion.

Street talk in Rundle Mall?

[Axis of Bob 11,841]

Dunstall went very easy on him. He repeated a few questions to King (that King couldn't/refused to answer), but he could have made him look a lot stupider if the circumstances were. King was embarrassingly awful.

Dunstall was, behind the veil of 'Devil's Advocate', backing what was happening at the club. He said that the same thing happened at Hawthorn, but there was a vision behind it that people outside the club couldn't see. Neeld has spoken about the similarities with Hawthorn and Richmond.

People have short memories (Chris Judd said it was about 2 weeks in AFL footy), so we forget just how bad those teams were during the initial stages of turmoil with a new coach. In time, people will forget how bad we were during this initial run. They may possibly even forget by round 22, but more likely by round 1 next season.