"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.

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.

But the process was flawed and that is a real worry.

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!!

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.

Great little rant with assumptions that just prove my point!

The responsibility lies at the top as in any organisation - the wrong processes lead to the current situation - we cannot blame the players when we have not given them the best chance to succeed. (The obvious contra example is Adelaide - ironically also since we now have Neil Craig!) The events as detailed in Caro's article support this view - I'm still waiting for people to 'fess up' and take responsibility for what has happened. As I said, don't blindly support the club - fix the problem.

Great little rant with assumptions that just prove my point!

The responsibility lies at the top as in any organisation - the wrong processes lead to the current situation - we cannot blame the players when we have not given them the best chance to succeed. (The obvious contra example is Adelaide - ironically also since we now have Neil Craig!) The events as detailed in Caro's article support this view - I'm still waiting for people to 'fess up' and take responsibility for what has happened. As I said, don't blindly support the club - fix the problem.

Yes well done on recognising the list Neil Craig and the team around him assembled.

As you say it starts at the top and Adelaide when Neil was there certainly did a great job on their list. In addition Neeld was pretty good at Collingwood too.

Its easy to blame everyone else with your pitchfork in hand. Reality is that we have made our decisions. What more do you need people to say that will help you understand? I think the club has openly admitted the process. What else do you want 'fessed up' so you can be satisfied and the world can go back to normal?

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?

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!!

Nice quotes but is that what they actually said.

I think Neeld said everyone had a fresh start and chance to make an impression with him from scratch. In addition I believe he presented on the holes in our list. So 'to die for' im not so sure you have nailed that one. Looking forward to you backing up your statement with articles that prove this.

By the way...get lost Troll

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.

But the process was flawed and that is a real worry.

That's AN interpretation.

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

They need to stay away from sports by and large.

If there is someone patently unprepared mentally they wouldn't even make it to this level of testing.

All these psyche evals give anyone is a buttress to a decision already made.

And as for the rush to get Neeld - isn't that what you want the club to do? If he is far and away the most impressive candidate and we are competing for his services - you get your man.

We could have waited, lost Neeld to Adelaide (despite their oh-so-convincing 'we only wanted Sanderson' spiel), and made the 'late, reactionary decision to appoint Sanderson who has just led the Demons to deafening defeats against many teams at the start of the season.'

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

Yes well done on recognising the list Neil Craig and the team around him assembled.

As you say it starts at the top and Adelaide when Neil was there certainly did a great job on their list. In addition Neeld was pretty good at Collingwood too.

Its easy to blame everyone else with your pitchfork in hand. Reality is that we have made our decisions. What more do you need people to say that will help you understand? I think the club has openly admitted the process. What else do you want 'fessed up' so you can be satisfied and the world can go back to normal?

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?

I take responsibility for the stuff-up on the quote. Here's how it should be (I hope).

Neil Craig did have a hand in assembling the Adelaide list, but then he lost them - sound familiar! Did Mark Neeld have such a massive role in assembling the Collingwood list - a few others might have been involved - and is it that good compared with a number of other clubs!

The top is the club board/administration. I don't believe the full story was detailed last night.

"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.

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?

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?

history of this poster indicates he won't....

he is a troll..

You'd think we picked Neeld out of some bush league competition.

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!!

Y_M?

That's AN interpretation.

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

They need to stay away from sports by and large.

If there is someone patently unprepared mentally they wouldn't even make it to this level of testing.

All these psyche evals give anyone is a buttress to a decision already made.

And as for the rush to get Neeld - isn't that what you want the club to do? If he is far and away the most impressive candidate and we are competing for his services - you get your man.

We could have waited, lost Neeld to Adelaide (despite their oh-so-convincing 'we only wanted Sanderson' spiel), and made the 'late, reactionary decision to appoint Sanderson who has just led the Demons to deafening defeats against many teams at the start of the season.'

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

Psych evaluations are well established in sporting circles around the world rpfc - the interpretation of them is also well understood by those who administer and use them.

No club should 'rush' into appointing a coach under any circumstance.

I take responsibility for the stuff-up on the quote. Here's how it should be (I hope).

Neil Craig did have a hand in assembling the Adelaide list, but then he lost them - sound familiar! Did Mark Neeld have such a massive role in assembling the Collingwood list - a few others might have been involved - and is it that good compared with a number of other clubs!

The top is the club board/administration. I don't believe the full story was detailed last night.

So now you're saying Neil Craig has lost the Melbourne players? You would think the head coach at Adelaide for that period of time had the final tick on players coming to the list.

To be honest some of these players deserve to be lost (if thats the case and none of us know that for sure). How much more would you like the tail to wag the dog?

My point is these guys are not duds and their resume stacks up to any of Sanderson etc....

So whats the problem? Do you want Don and Cam to resign? Whats the outcome you want to get out of this confession from the top?

Re-read your posts in the morning footynut.

Absolutely pathetic thread this.

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?

Sorry, why didn't we get sheedy in 2007.

Sorry, why didn't we get sheedy in 2007.

I think it was because of the psych test result....

Absolutely pathetic thread this.

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.

Absolutely pathetic thread this.

It's manna though for those who reckon they know why we are losing games and want to blame anyone except, the players and previous FD who led us to the postion that Neeld picked up at.

The sad fact is that if we had interviewed Sanderson and missed Neeld and the two were at opposite clubs you could put your house on Adelaide having more wins than the MFC right now. And these same dills would still be crticising the process, Caro would be rehashing it negatively, Walls would be lauding Baileys coaching genius, King would still be Noddy, Thomas woud still be shrugging and those of us who know that our players were the worst prepared and drilled in the competition lead by our 'self destruct' leadership group will wait a bit longer to see how it unfolds.

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!

Caroline Wilson is a mischievous journalist with a strong track record of stirring the pot at Melbourne. Remember her pathetic little "expose" on Cameron Schwab's home loan a couple of year's ago?

She digs up one apparent fact out of the past - failure to undertake a psychological test - many of which are inconclusive if not flawed anyway - and then tries to imply that our whole process was amateurish. A "maybe" here and a "what-if" there - and all of a sudden there is a lead article suggesting that our coach is a major problem

There was nothing fresh or insightful in Caro's article. She is nothing more than a professional stirrer.

Let's all accept McLardy's statement - and Grimes' assurances - and move on

So now you're saying Neil Craig has lost the Melbourne players? You would think the head coach at Adelaide for that period of time had the final tick on players coming to the list.

To be honest some of these players deserve to be lost (if thats the case and none of us know that for sure). How much more would you like the tail to wag the dog?

My point is these guys are not duds and their resume stacks up to any of Sanderson etc....

So whats the problem? Do you want Don and Cam to resign? Whats the outcome you want to get out of this confession from the top?

Players seem lost right now because there is no leadership both in a coaching or captain capacity. Possibley also the board. Everything was done in such a rush around the time of our great Pres's illness. Started with the short Viney experiment. If we could do it all over again given what we know now then Bailey should have been given the full season. Viney was a total waste of time. Is Malthouse available next year?

Caroline Wilson is a mischievous journalist with a strong track record of stirring the pot at Melbourne. Remember her pathetic little "expose" on Cameron Schwab's home loan a couple of year's ago?

She digs up one apparent fact out of the past - failure to undertake a psychological test - many of which are inconclusive if not flawed anyway - and then tries to imply that our whole process was amateurish. A "maybe" here and a "what-if" there - and all of a sudden there is a lead article suggesting that our coach is a major problem

you don't think Melb need any stirring? Her article is spot on the money.

There was nothing fresh or insightful in Caro's article. She is nothing more than a professional stirrer.

Let's all accept McLardy's statement - and Grimes' assurances - and move on

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.

I know.

Hence the line:

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

Caroline Wilson is a mischievous journalist with a strong track record of stirring the pot at Melbourne. Remember her pathetic little "expose" on Cameron Schwab's home loan a couple of year's ago?

She digs up one apparent fact out of the past - failure to undertake a psychological test - many of which are inconclusive if not flawed anyway - and then tries to imply that our whole process was amateurish. A "maybe" here and a "what-if" there - and all of a sudden there is a lead article suggesting that our coach is a major problem

There was nothing fresh or insightful in Caro's article. She is nothing more than a professional stirrer.

Let's all accept McLardy's statement - and Grimes' assurances - and move on

No mention in the article of whether Bailey, or other failed coaches, completed psychological testing and how they performed if they did.

Safe to say that if Bailey did and performed admirably, the selection panel may have been right to dismiss the need for that testing.