Square Peg, Round Hole - Exactly why we need Neeld!!!!

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

What rubbish! A good coach gets the most out of what he has got, and then gradually adds the type of players he believes will best improve the team. Any coach who only wants his type of players isn't worth the time of day. As for where he has come from, you surely are kidding! If that statement is true, why didn't MFC get Sanderson who came from a much better background!

fair go Hardnut. The Filth and Geelong were pretty close over the last 3 years.

[Hardnut 327]

fair go Hardnut. The Filth and Geelong were pretty close over the last 3 years.

Really! Collingwood were lucky to get a flag (remember Stephen Milne's hesitation). Geelong established a dynasty (a la Brisbane)!

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Really! Collingwood were lucky to get a flag (remember Stephen Milne's hesitation). Geelong established a dynasty (a la Brisbane)!

yes really. Look at the whole seasons.

Do you think Sanderson would be doing any better with our unfit list??

Neil Craig left his list in superb condition.

Don't forget that.

[Hardnut 327]

yes really. Look at the whole seasons.

Do you think Sanderson would be doing any better with our unfit list??

Neil Craig left his list in superb condition.

Don't forget that.

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

You will be wiping googy-egg off your boat race when Neeld turns this ship around.

[rpfc 28,383]

Again, we have this argument - should your player's strengths determine the coach's plan.

Again, my view is that our players aren't good enough to determine anyone's plan. Let's play to their strengths and front run, and find easy footy and drive from the back with the 60 I50s we allow each week and let's take it to the worst third of the comp, while getting smashed by the rest because they play accountable footy and overwhelm our back 6.

It isn't worth considering in my view. We have to instil a strong defensive, accountable, and tough mindset in our talented kids now or risk losing another generation of footy to our 'close enough is good enough' culture.

[Fork 'em 6,983]

Again, we have this argument - should your player's strengths determine the coach's plan.

Again, my view is that our players aren't good enough to determine anyone's plan. Let's play to their strengths and front run, and find easy footy and drive from the back with the 60 I50s we allow each week and let's take it to the worst third of the comp, while getting smashed by the rest because they play accountable footy and overwhelm our back 6.

It isn't worth considering in my view. We have to instil a strong defensive, accountable, and tough mindset in our talented kids now or risk losing another generation of footy to our 'close enough is good enough' culture.

Whereas I think we Neeld must utilise what he has right now to the best of their skillset and implement his plan slowly but surely by choosing players in upcoming drafts that better suit what he has in mind.

What is happening now is soul destroying.

[bing181 9,218]

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

MFC are not making poor decisions. So no reason to make any excuses.

Just one of the many fallacies in your superficial assumptions.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

Do you even realise that the "overtraining" you're deriding is what has made them the "barbaric" team they are today?

Without that, they'd be boys against men, much like our team is now.

Hence the term "short term pain for long term gain."

[binman 42,896]

Again, we have this argument - should your player's strengths determine the coach's plan.

Again, my view is that our players aren't good enough to determine anyone's plan. Let's play to their strengths and front run, and find easy footy and drive from the back with the 60 I50s we allow each week and let's take it to the worst third of the comp, while getting smashed by the rest because they play accountable footy and overwhelm our back 6.

It isn't worth considering in my view. We have to instil a strong defensive, accountable, and tough mindset in our talented kids now or risk losing another generation of footy to our 'close enough is good enough' culture.

I (sort of) agree to this. In terms of Neeld and his game plan i'll give him to mid next season to form my judgement (obviously i have my short term views etc but i'll keep my powder dry). As i have said in another thread in the short term i have little doubt they are getting absolutely flogged on the track which means on top of not being able to fully recover before the next game means they are stuffed late in quarters and in games. They'll ease up in the second half of the season and we'll get a few wins (5-6 i reckon, which if we did wouldn't look so bad compared to last year)

I'm completely unfit but when i do do some exercise i know once i get fatigued (about 10 mins after i started) my capacity to think straight diminishes and i suspect fatigue will also be affecting the players ability to stay focused on their role, structure etc (as NJ has pointed out they are working on making things instinctive, which takes ages).

But in regard to the quote above i share the view in so far as i reckon there is an incredible amount of revisionism going on in the media about our so called game plan and form in 2011. I reckon we went backwards in 2011, wins not withstanding. Of course alot of player want to play that sort of game, its what they are used to and it doesn't take as much effort but half decent sides crushed us last year because of it. Essendon (as much as i hate to admit it) and the Crows are playing great attacking footy this year but is 100% underpinned by ferocious tackling and pressure and attention to defensive structures.

Edited May 26, 2012 by binman

[mauriesy 7,287]

Playing soft, run and carry football that beats up some lowly opposition only on the wide spaces of the MCG, and loses by 100-186 points to the best teams, especially interstate or at Geelong, isn't playing to the players strengths, it's compromising for their weaknesses. Those weaknesses include the inability to defend strongly against good sides, inability to beat a good press and the inability to play hard, contested football.

If you all want Melbourne to continue the weak, lily-livered football it's been adhering to for the last four years then by all means be happy with 8 wins a season. But it won't take us to a 'Grand New Flag' (nor will micro-waving your membership cards and calling for coach sacking).

I'd much rather have a revolution that brings some period of tears and hurt but ultimately a better team and style of play in the long run. If that means disposing of some players that refuse to put-in and adapt, then that's what needs to be done. I don't see why the club should compromise in the face of public pressure, or from a few bleating supporters who are happy with continuing soft, mediocre football.

[dee-luded 2,959]

There's a truck load of evidence that a lot of the players aren't overjoyed but that's life. I have no doubt that Dean Bailey was a great friend to the players, but that's not what they needed to reach their potential. AFL is a tough environment and we can't be half arsed about it anymore. A lot of supporters of the MFC have shown a lot of love for our footy club in the last few years. It needs to pay us back.

Again playing the 'dead man', instead of playing the truth. Scapegoat'isms. Typical of the Melbourne disease.

And the truth is it's our fault.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

Short sighted, & knee jerk...

[dee-luded 2,959]

yes really. Look at the whole seasons.

Do you think Sanderson would be doing any better with our unfit list??

Neil Craig left his list in superb condition.

Don't forget that.

As did Rendell.

[H_T 3,043]

Playing soft, run and carry football that beats up some lowly opposition only on the wide spaces of the MCG, and loses by 100-186 points to the best teams, especially interstate or at Geelong, isn't playing to the players strengths, it's compromising for their weaknesses. Those weaknesses include the inability to defend strongly against good sides, inability to beat a good press and the inability to play hard, contested football.

If you all want Melbourne to continue the weak, lily-livered football it's been adhering to for the last four years then by all means be happy with 8 wins a season. But it won't take us to a 'Grand New Flag' (nor will micro-waving your membership cards and calling for coach sacking).

I'd much rather have a revolution that brings some period of tears and hurt but ultimately a better team and style of play in the long run. If that means disposing of some players that refuse to put-in and adapt, then that's what needs to be done. I don't see why the club should compromise in the face of public pressure, or from a few bleating supporters who are happy with continuing soft, mediocre football.

Hit. Nail. On. Head.

I encourage all to read this post time and time again.

Then....if not convinced.....read it again.

It's what all the calls here were on about last August/September.

[Fork 'em 6,983]

Hit. Nail. On. Head.

I encourage all to read this post time and time again.

Then....if not convinced.....read it again.

It's what all the calls here were on about last August/September.

The problem is no-one expected the complete turnaround from attacking to defensive football.

Most would have expected and appreciated a happy medium.

It's all very well for us that are seasoned to whats happening right now to try to remain patient but getting flogged playing uninspiring football every week is making it very hard to keep my kids(the next generation) on the straight and narrow.

If this carp isn't sorted soon , they and those like 'em are lost forever.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

Because Neeld's appointment had a lot to do with the 186 point smashing last year...

Edited May 27, 2012 by Norm Smith's Curse

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Yes, IMO Sanderson would have done better with our list.

Craig left a list which could not run out a game or a season because they were over-trained in the off season - that's common knowledge.

Stop looking for excuses for MFC's poor decision making and face reality.

where am i making excuses?

I blame the MFC entirely for the mess we are in. Not Mark Neeld as you clearly are.

Tell me how Sanderson would be doing a better job than Neeld at this point. With our current flaky list

[bing181 9,218]

The problem is no-one expected the complete turnaround from attacking to defensive football.

Most would have expected and appreciated a happy medium.

But why are you presuming that that's not the case? Asking for the players to be more defensively accountable isn't the same as asking them to stop attacking.

Whether they're doing it or not, or able to do it or not, is another question.

[Hardnut 327]

Do you even realise that the "overtraining" you're deriding is what has made them the "barbaric" team they are today?

Without that, they'd be boys against men, much like our team is now.

Hence the term "short term pain for long term gain."

That is just plain rubbish - Sanderson has turned them into the 'barbaric' team they are now - a physio friend commented on how the crow players body shapes have marginally changed (and that was observed from the telly replays by a non-football specialist) and how they can now runout games!

[Hardnut 327]

Short sighted, & knee jerk...

No, based on observation!

[Hardnut 327]

You will be wiping googy-egg off your boat race when Neeld turns this ship around.

I'll happily acknowledge the day the MFC ship turns around, but it won't be under Neeld.

[Hardnut 327]

Because Neeld's appointment had a lot to do with the 186 point smashing last year...

No, Bailey's dismissal and CS's survival had a lot to do with 186!

[Hardnut 327]

where am i making excuses?

I blame the MFC entirely for the mess we are in. Not Mark Neeld as you clearly are.

Tell me how Sanderson would be doing a better job than Neeld at this point. With our current flaky list

Seems to be some confusion here - MFC is responsible for the current situation - Neeld is caught up in it. I agree with you wyl, but some of the responsibility has to be sheeted home to Neeld.

Sanderson has excellent people and management skills - just look at his interviews, his match day demeanour in the coach's box (as opposed to Neeld's ranting), his popularity with the players despite taking a hardline with them (eg. the most likely re-signing of Sloane, Dangerfield and Tippett apparently for less money, but because they like the way the club is headed under Sanderson). IMO Sanderson seems to have the smiling assassin ability and the players love and respect it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Seems to be some confusion here - MFC is responsible for the current situation - Neeld is caught up in it. I agree with you wyl, but some of the responsibility has to be sheeted home to Neeld.

Sanderson has excellent people and management skills - just look at his interviews, his match day demeanour in the coach's box (as opposed to Neeld's ranting), his popularity with the players despite taking a hardline with them (eg. the most likely re-signing of Sloane, Dangerfield and Tippett apparently for less money, but because they like the way the club is headed under Sanderson). IMO Sanderson seems to have the smiling assassin ability and the players love and respect it.

You really think Sanderson would have got wins this year with this unfit list??

I am not having a go at Sanderson but i don't think it would make a difference.

We need to trade big time at years end.

I am more worried about Trengove than Neeld.