Do you really think McClardy is going to step up and say "oh geez we sure have stuffed up big time!" Give us a break. Is the word gullible still in the dictionary? I hear it was removed from the recent Oxford addition.

Are you replying to yourself..?

why is it pathetic?

surely the coach must take a some responsibility for this predicament.

quash the illusion that Neeld was such hot property when in real terms he was not.

if Melbourne were 0-8 with some credible losses then the post would not have gone up. Truth is we are getting absolutely flogged every week and are a complete joke. Can't be an argurment here. Sheedy would have been great for Melbourne but Lyon stuffed it up by backing Bailey. Now it's just got much much worse.

Fast food king

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.

10,000 hours, is 416 days at 24 hours a day.

if, say they work at it 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, thats 1250 days

if you minus one day for gameday, and one for a day off in the week, that equals 1750 days roughly 4.8 years.

if it takes anywhere near 10,000 hours we are in deep poop.

then again, 240 hours, again at 8 hours a day 7 hours a week. that equals 30 days. which as you say, is bugger all really.

Definitely the wrong call...by Mark Neeld. he would have been happier if he'd stayed at Collingwood.

Seriously, none of us nor Caroline Wilson were involved in Neeld's selection and therefore have no idea what the club was looking for and how it went about it. We do know that Neeld had strong, public support from Mick Malthouse and I would have thought that endorsement would count for something.

I firmly believe that the problems haven't arisen in the last 8 months. Rather they are the result of poor player development over the last 4 years so that when attempting to go from downhill skiers without a defensive mindset (aka the Bailey game plan) to a style of play where defence becomes the key, the playing list is not made up of players of the appropriate physical type (strength, fitness) or psychological makeup (maintaining structure, preparedness to gut run) to deliver.

Neeld should have the club's and supporters' complete, rock solid, 100% support.

Wrong Call yes I agree this whole thread is a wrong call.

Too soon to tell.

I'm certainly not inspired by Neeld so far, though; the more I've seen the less I've liked.

Everyone is missing the point. It's not Neeld's fault that he was given the job and he might be the right man, it's far too early to tell.

Great little rant with assumptions that just prove my point!

Thanks for the nice feedback on the 'rant'. If you refer to my calling you on your points as a rant you might make me sound insane. Maybe I should do a psych test?

By the way...get lost Troll

Neeld hater.

Can you possibly contribute something other to this forum apart from bagging our coach, who is trying to change the culture of this football club?

Can you?

Re-read your posts in the morning footynut.

Yep keep going with the insults hardnut.

Of course trying to discredit me rather than address my views is the way to go.

Feeling better?

Wrong Call yes I agree this whole thread is a wrong call.

Guys, we should all be united here, we are all passionate melbourne supporters.

what is with the school yard bickering???

I note in the article that they mention other clubs employing consultants to help them pick a coach also. I would just like to say that I find this a truly abhorrent practice and one that I am very happy we did not indulge in. Why on earth would you hire someone who is an expert at hiring coaches? Surely you'd be better off listening to people who know about the game and the club rather than an off-the-shelf solution that is applied to every situation.

You may note from this little rant that I am not a fan of consultants. I also despise Leading Teams and their ilk, and MBA's getting management jobs in industries they know nothing about (yes, I've been unfortunate enough to work for one). Perhaps I'm behind the times, but I think if you want someone to help run a football club, get someone who knows football clubs inside out. It really isn't relevant whether or not they know about how water-polo players bond after a match.

Too soon to tell.

I'm certainly not inspired by Neeld so far, though; the more I've seen the less I've liked.

What haven't you liked from him ?

And maybe for another thread or two, what don't you like from the players ? (don't answer this)

turn around what rabble? Melb had a list to die for according to Malthouse and Neeld. He was the last option, we pannicked and snapped him up. No other team wanted him. You guys are dreaming! Melb competavtive under Bailey and now wouldn't win a game in the VFL. Sadly will have to waste another two years until he goes. Melbourne would have won 5 games by that time. Sucked in Big time!!

A list to die for ? I don't think so. Far from it.

A bit too much red curry chicken, for my liking.

Who ever was responsible for not picking Sheedy as coach in 2007, should NEVER be allowed to be have an influence again.

Lyon.

He refused Sheedy and picked untried, speculative long-shots like Bailey and Neeld. He gambled with the club and lost. As a result, our recruiting (which would have been overseen by Sheedy) was terrible, aka Darling. Sheedy would have put the club on the map as one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

Now, he is building a strong, hard edged GWS unit, that will probably beat us.

Never give Lyon the power of influence again.

Definitely the wrong call...by Mark Neeld. he would have been happier if he'd stayed at Collingwood.

Seriously, none of us nor Caroline Wilson were involved in Neeld's selection and therefore have no idea what the club was looking for and how it went about it. We do know that Neeld had strong, public support from Mick Malthouse and I would have thought that endorsement would count for something.

I firmly believe that the problems haven't arisen in the last 8 months. Rather they are the result of poor player development over the last 4 years so that when attempting to go from downhill skiers without a defensive mindset (aka the Bailey game plan) to a style of play where defence becomes the key, the playing list is not made up of players of the appropriate physical type (strength, fitness) or psychological makeup (maintaining structure, preparedness to gut run) to deliver.

Neeld should have the club's and supporters' complete, rock solid, 100% support.

This exactly.

Everyone who works in a corporate environment, or has worked in a corporate environment, that has 'psychological' testing knows what a load of b.s it is. It's funny that a 'footy journalist' is seemingly commanding such currency on this issue. Wilson wouldn't know the first thing about professionalism. Ironically, I reckon Neeld would have a fair clue though.

The best recruits are often through contacts and by word of mouth, particularly from respected people in the know. Malthouse's endorsement of Neeld is worth so much more than some b.s 'psychological' test - it stuns me that this has got so much press to be honest. Shows how easy it is to excite the masses these days.

The MFC absolutely nailed our recruitment in the off season - Neeld, Misson, Craig, Rawlings, Clark. I fail to see any credible contrary view - other than, of course, from a muck-raking perspective.

And as to the game plan, perhaps a lot of MFC players and supporters are disappointed that the days of the downhill skiing game plan are officially over ...

As Allen Iverson would say "We are talking about process?!"

I think someone needs to send that video to the club. If I hear that the players are "killing it on the training track" one more time, I will personally burn the AAMI centre to the ground on the off chance that they actually kill it during a game.

That's AN interpretation.

Pysche evaluations lead to decisions like not taking Darling in the first 25 picks.

Where did I mention pyyche testing? I'm talking about a process that meant we didn't interview other very well credentialed applicants, we didn't have a person on the football panel who had coached a game, we made a decision in a panicked way because we thought someone might steal him from us and yes, we didn't do psyche testing.

It was an unprofessional process but that is in no way a criticism of Neeld, he may have got the job anyway.

Where did I mention pyyche testing? I'm talking about a process that meant we didn't interview other very well credentialed applicants, we didn't have a person on the football panel who had coached a game, we made a decision in a panicked way because we thought someone might steal him from us and yes, we didn't do psyche testing.

It was an unprofessional process but that is in no way a criticism of Neeld, he may have got the job anyway.

You are more than welcome to see it like this.

I see it differently.

I see club officials, and a demi-god of this club, who knew exactly what the club as a whole needed and didn't want to involve the Robert Walls-type 'Premiership Coach' that was involved in the previous panel.

We did everything you 'should' do in the process that landed Bailey.

Everything people paid to 'consult' says you 'must' do to get the best coach.

Sick and tired of consultants rpfc is. Sick and tired of doing what we 'should do.'

If we had done what we 'should do' since Neeld arrived we wouldn't have got into the 'lost cause' that was landing Clark, we wouldn't have removed an underwhelming captain, we wouldn't have given over the reigns of the club to the next generation of players.

Rant over. I think there is some sense in there...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/coach-not-to-blame-say-demons-players-20120522-1z38d.html

David King became irrelevant as a respected analyst last night with his comments. Especially the tripe he peddled about us being on the right track with Bailey. He was one of our loudest critics last year carping on about how we didn't press etc. Someone should embarrass him by finding the footage from AFL360 last year and getting him to admit he just loves the sound of his own voice.

Do you really feel so superior sitting back in your Range Rover....

Oh dear, that is just below the belt.

I thought the interviews and touching base with candidates were "extensive". News to me that it was a "panicked" appointment all of the sudden at 0-8 !

Where did I mention pyyche testing? I'm talking about a process that meant we didn't interview other very well credentialed applicants, we didn't have a person on the football panel who had coached a game, we made a decision in a panicked way because we thought someone might steal him from us and yes, we didn't do psyche testing.

It was an unprofessional process but that is in no way a criticism of Neeld, he may have got the job anyway.

I reckon it went something like this ... Garry spoke to Mick when the Pies were absolutely towelling everyone up last season possibly to see whether he'd take the job. Mick said he wouldn't be coaching in 2012 but gave a roaring endorsement to Neeld. The coaching selection panel pushed forward on that basis. As RB points out - many of the best hires come from reliable recommendations. If that's the way it panned out it's flawed because it didn't canvas all the options and that's a worry. But it doesn't mean we got the wrong guy. It is very possible that what's happening right now, although unforeseen, is exactly what this club needs to happen to be successful. There's a certain irony about "Dollars" appointment of Mark Neeld and the path we've now gone down with player behaviour and attitudes.

There is an alternative.

Let’s sack the coach and have the disgruntled players select the new coach. The psych test will be optional, they wouldn’t like to be told how to run the process either way.

By coach I mean someone who would be happy for the players to advise of their preferred style of play and training regime. Modern game trends and proven finals football is not essential.

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.

David King has a woeful coaching record in the AFL. I stand to be corrected but I believe his only coaching stint was as an assistant during the Wallace years at Richmond. Maybe if Wallace and King had demanded elite preparation and performance from the Tiges Hardwick would not have had to come in and clean up their mess.

Who ever was responsible for not picking Sheedy as coach in 2007, should NEVER be allowed to be have an influence again.

Lyon.

He refused Sheedy and picked untried, speculative long-shots like Bailey and Neeld. He gambled with the club and lost. As a result, our recruiting (which would have been overseen by Sheedy) was terrible, aka Darling. Sheedy would have put the club on the map as one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

Now, he is building a strong, hard edged GWS unit, that will probably beat us.

Never give Lyon the power of influence again.

Sheedy need a long break after his Essendon stint. He does look alot more, um, er, match fit these days compared to his last years at Essendon. His nose is less, well, red. He would have been a very poor appointment at the end of the 07 season. End of story.

10,000 hours, is 416 days at 24 hours a day.

if, say they work at it 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, thats 1250 days

if you minus one day for gameday, and one for a day off in the week, that equals 1750 days roughly 4.8 years.

if it takes anywhere near 10,000 hours we are in deep poop.

then again, 240 hours, again at 8 hours a day 7 hours a week. that equals 30 days. which as you say, is bugger all really.

What you've outlined (5 years) is pretty much the timeframe for an AFL player who comes into the system at 18 to develop into a fit, hardened, skillful professional footballer.

Out problem is our development has always been poor. Thus Neeld and Misson face the legacy issues of sub elite fitness, tactical naivety and lack of a hardened defensice ethos.

Just look at fitness. When Neeld, Misson and Craig arrived from Pies, Saints, Crows they realised our player's 1 and 3km time trial times were not in the same ballpark as the times they were used to seeing at their old clubs. So deficient were the times that Misson, renowned for his conditioning work at the Swans and the Saints, had to accept that it would take a couple of pre seasons to bridge the gap.

David King is the same bloke that said last year and consistently through last season that Geelong would not win the premiership.

He also offered no solutions to his argument, only offering "that's for them (MFC) to figure out". He ignored the fact that Neeld's game plan is a 180 from how they've originally played.

Pathetic really.

As soon as I saw the positive mentions of 2011 I rolled my eyes, why do people who have the memory of a goldfish and do zero research think they are in a position to judge others?

Here is a lesson, kids.

If you have an argument - get the basic facts right, don't gloss over obvious things that go against your argument - challenge the perception of them, if you are struggling then you have a sh!tty argument.

Here endeth the lesson.