As soon as I saw the positive mentions of 2011 of rolled my eyes, why do people who have the memory of a goldfish....

Here endeth the lesson

Memory like sieves.

My view of what has transpired:

Garry Lyon and the Board were seeking a coach with a hard edge to toughen us up. Neeld fit the bill nicely. He came from working under a great coach at a successful club and he also thought some tough love was required. I didn’t really agree that this was what we needed at the time, but given that was their view, I don’t now have any issue with Lyon and the Board not casting the net more widely. They thought they had the right man for the job and they backed their judgement.

Neeld then entered the club like a bull in a china shop, slagging off a number of players in the media, completely turning over the senior leadership group (which was at the very least an implicit slap in the face) and presenting a tough guy image to all and sundry. In addition, he introduced an outdated, ultra-defensive game plan and also displayed a selection bias towards grunt. The result has been a slow, unskilled outfit which lacks any confidence and cohesion. (This is evident by the low uncontested possession stats.) Now, after getting off on the wrong foot with the several of the players and such a horrendous start, Neeld may well have already ‘lost’ some of the players. IMO we are now likely to see a large number of exits at season’s end and get little in return.

Despite all this, we need to stick with coach until the end of the year at the very least. (I would advocate an annual season-end review of the coach’s role, in any event of the current situation.) Neeld, on the other hand, must do his best to unify the playing list and get some confidence and flair back into the team. Talk of ‘cutting away the cancer’ or ostracising older players to Casey will only make things worse and we will have (even younger) players asking themselves if they should leave. (IMO if players like Bleese and Watts look to depart the coach is in real trouble.)

While Neeld’s judgement has been poor to date, I think it is really the judgement of the Board, Lyon and the front office that we should be questioning. They clearly were after a coach with a hard edge and they should have realised there was a risk of it backfiring given our recent history (i.e. Bailey’s sacking, tanking, mistreatment of older players). If players leave en masse at season’s end, I would like to see many of those in charge of the club follow suit. They should not be given a second chance to oversee a full rebuild.

With respect to our game plan, I disagree with those of the view that we haven’t had enough time to learn it properly. Adelaide is flying under Sanderson. Essendon adjusted quickly under Hird last year. IMO Neeld’s plan has already been surpassed by more attacking plans which attempt to quickly move the ball through the press. If Neeld is ever to succeed at MFC coach he needs to quickly realise this and adjust.

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!!

According to who? Caroline Wilson? LOL. yeah Melbourne was so competitive under Bailey that we got beaten by 186 points in Geelong. Oh hang on, ignore that fact... Not everything you read in the media is accurate, not every opinion is correct.

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by Norm Smith's Curse

FYI

Essential reading.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/crows-got-it-right-rejecting-mark-neeld/story-fn83zgw9-1226363950856

FYI

Essential reading.

http://www.adelaiden...9-1226363950856

I wouldn't say essential reading.....was this the same journo that asked for Primus' resignation/sacking?

My view of what has transpired:

Garry Lyon and the Board were seeking a coach with a hard edge to toughen us up. Neeld fit the bill nicely. He came from working under a great coach at a successful club and he also thought some tough love was required. I didn’t really agree that this was what we needed at the time, but given that was their view, I don’t now have any issue with Lyon and the Board not casting the net more widely. They thought they had the right man for the job and they backed their judgement.

Neeld then entered the club like a bull in a china shop, slagging off a number of players in the media, completely turning over the senior leadership group (which was at the very least an implicit slap in the face) and presenting a tough guy image to all and sundry. In addition, he introduced an outdated, ultra-defensive game plan and also displayed a selection bias towards grunt. The result has been a slow, unskilled outfit which lacks any confidence and cohesion. (This is evident by the low uncontested possession stats.) Now, after getting off on the wrong foot with the several of the players and such a horrendous start, Neeld may well have already ‘lost’ some of the players. IMO we are now likely to see a large number of exits at season’s end and get little in return.

Despite all this, we need to stick with coach until the end of the year at the very least. (I would advocate an annual season-end review of the coach’s role, in any event of the current situation.) Neeld, on the other hand, must do his best to unify the playing list and get some confidence and flair back into the team. Talk of ‘cutting away the cancer’ or ostracising older players to Casey will only make things worse and we will have (even younger) players asking themselves if they should leave. (IMO if players like Bleese and Watts look to depart the coach is in real trouble.)

While Neeld’s judgement has been poor to date, I think it is really the judgement of the Board, Lyon and the front office that we should be questioning. They clearly were after a coach with a hard edge and they should have realised there was a risk of it backfiring given our recent history (i.e. Bailey’s sacking, tanking, mistreatment of older players). If players leave en masse at season’s end, I would like to see many of those in charge of the club follow suit. They should not be given a second chance to oversee a full rebuild.

With respect to our game plan, I disagree with those of the view that we haven’t had enough time to learn it properly. Adelaide is flying under Sanderson. Essendon adjusted quickly under Hird last year. IMO Neeld’s plan has already been surpassed by more attacking plans which attempt to quickly move the ball through the press. If Neeld is ever to succeed at MFC coach he needs to quickly realise this and adjust.

Problem with your view is it simply doesn't concur with those who's views matter ... the players.

''He could not be any more open and encouraging. He is open to giving feedback no matter who it is and how you are going, but there are also non-negotiables. And the perception that is out there at the moment could not be further from the truth. He has just set a standard and it is an elite standard that we want to get to. We want to be a club that plays finals footy.''

- Nathan Jones

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Problem with your view is it simply doesn't concur with those who's views matter ... the players.

''He could not be any more open and encouraging. He is open to giving feedback no matter who it is and how you are going, but there are also non-negotiables. And the perception that is out there at the moment could not be further from the truth. He has just set a standard and it is an elite standard that we want to get to. We want to be a club that plays finals footy.''

- Nathan Jones

Jones is clearly trying his guts out. But there is so much spin coming out of the club at the moment. What did you expect him to say?

Jones is clearly trying his guts out. But there is so much spin coming out of the club at the moment. What did you expect him to say?

Nathan Jones strikes me as a straight shooter in both the way he plays and the way he speaks.

Unlike another player we once had on our books, I'll accord him the respect of taking him at his word.

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by Range Rover

FYI

Essential reading.

http://www.adelaiden...9-1226363950856

FMD, Rucci can carry some water...

That was written as if Trigg and the Crows board were over his shoulder.

The following quote:

"Neeld certainly wanted the Crows job, as evidenced by his moves in August last year to garner support from hand-picked would-be backers, particularly in the media, who he hoped would influence the debate in Adelaide."

What does this mean? He does not go into any depth. Just that.

There has been a great deal of crap thrown our way, and I have to reject this on the smell test.

FMD, Rucci can carry some water...

That was written as if Trigg and the Crows board were over his shoulder.

The following quote:

"Neeld certainly wanted the Crows job, as evidenced by his moves in August last year to garner support from hand-picked would-be backers, particularly in the media, who he hoped would influence the debate in Adelaide."

What does this mean? He does not go into any depth. Just that.

There has been a great deal of crap thrown our way, and I have to reject this on the smell test.

Rucci is trying to deflect after what he was saying about Primus and the campaign he was running to oust him stalled leaving egg all over his face last weekend. He is in a race with King for the Acker of the year trophy although I think Acker himself is still running favourite after his Jimmy comments.

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.

Pretty sure we had Leigh Matthews consulting during the process...

Or did we need someone officially on the selection panel?

Seriously, some people ignore all the evidence in front of them and search for a reason to pin it all on an answer that makes it all easier to digest.

Pretty sure we had Leigh Matthews consulting during the process...

Would be interested to know if this could be confirmed as had not heard this before. Matthews was certainly a full member of the Adelaide selection panel during this same period.

Edited May 24, 201213 yr by Japaljarri