Mark Neeld's Spray on Morton.

[kallangurdemon 470]

14 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Do you really think we hired Neeld to be the father figure... or to cut deep into the clubs ills.

We had the chance to hire Sheedy (a proven Super Coach),  ahead of Bailey,  and the club called the media to be there,  to film Sheedy leaving that house after the meeting. The club wasn't serious about hiring Sheedy,  because the club had other ideas of what was necessary for that list.  They collected Sheedy's thoughts,  and said thanks.  Another huge mistake.

 

Then under the Bailey era,  it got even worse,  the players were running their own race.  And that is what we witnessed,  in the infamous 196 game.

It takes special sort of players and culture,  to do that and throw a game on-field, like that.

fair go it was only 186, you make it sound like a thrashing !

[Cards13 9,117]

21 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

fair go it was only 186, you make it sound like a thrashing !

The 2nds got done by 140 odd points in the game before it as well didnt they haha. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,418]

3 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Yeah I realize that, but I interpret it differently. IMO, the fact that he was still able to come back and play well at AFL level after a year out of the system really highlights how much he had left in the tank when he 'retired'.  

I'm not suggesting Junior wouldn't have made much difference to our playing list in 2011-12. Would 186 have happened if he was on the list? Who knows. But the fact is that we lacked leaders, and he was our best.

The decision to axe him had nothing to do with form. It was based on a flawed coaching philosophy that overvalued youth and undervalued senior leadership. 

Fair Comment.
But we lacked Leadership when Jnr was in the side, and i am not being disrespectful to him by saying that. Back then we would win the odd big game, and then the week after would crash to the ground. The Strong leadership wasn’t there. 
I understand why big changes were made, they had to be done. Trouble is, many wrong changes were made. 
CEO being the main one.....

[Foopy on the telly 468]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Fair Comment.
But we lacked Leadership when Jnr was in the side, and i am not being disrespectful to him by saying that. Back then we would win the odd big game, and then the week after would crash to the ground. The Strong leadership wasn’t there. 
I understand why big changes were made, they had to be done. Trouble is, many wrong changes were made. 
CEO being the main one.....

2010 was when junior and Bruce left. That year we seemed on the up, being competitive against many top sides (1 point loss and draw against Collingwood being the biggest examples). It was the year after where we were beating most bottom sides one week but were getting smashed by top sides the next. The absence of those two leaders was one of the reasons why that happened.

Edited May 13, 2020 by nacnud

[Sir Why You Little 34,418]

2 hours ago, nacnud said:

2010 was when junior and Bruce left. That year we seemed on the up, being competitive against many top sides (1 point loss and draw against Collingwood being the biggest examples). It was the year after where we were beating most bottom sides one week but were getting smashed by top sides the next. The absence of those two leaders was one of the reasons why that happened.

No i Disagree. The results would have been very similar, if they had stayed

They were not the players to take us to the next level, same with Maloney. We were treading water at best. 
i am not saying they didn’t try, but it wasn’t going to happen

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

On 5/12/2020 at 8:07 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Jnr didn’t play in 2011. He had a year off before going North 

As I recall, Jnr went into retirement,  & Sheedy asked him back the next season to play for GWS as a leader & mentor.   And he played very well.

The leadership of that club did a very good job.  And Sheedy could have already been at Mfc for some years,  & deep into a rebuild.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

On 5/11/2020 at 7:03 PM, Jack Russell said:

You are right about Neeld so bad CEO Pres Board all got cleaned out and cleaning up culture starts at the top that’s why Bartlett and Jackson got Roos and cultural change in footy started to suggest anything else is rewriting history and delusional.  What you are saying about Roosy is ill informed and not very nice - yes he was well paid but walked into a mess I.e the culture was one of losing bad decisions tanking and pointing the finger

They ringmasters were already gone before Roosy got the invitation.

Yes the culture still needed transforming,  but the dirty part of that job had been done already. 

Roosy had mostly a clean slate,  and mostly young players to work his magical soft tones on.  He tried to woo all and sundry,  and some still refused to walk to his beat.

And some still didn't cut the mustard... some very talented players who lacked in fundamental areas.  But did find distant shores, in footy terms.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Fair Comment.
But we lacked Leadership when Jnr was in the side, and i am not being disrespectful to him by saying that. Back then we would win the odd big game, and then the week after would crash to the ground. The Strong leadership wasn’t there. 
I understand why big changes were made, they had to be done. Trouble is, many wrong changes were made. 
CEO being the main one.....

Jnr was our only natural leader at that time.

Green didn't know how to lead,  and the others all had the questionable holes in their games,  which showed out at crucial times. 

Bruce soft under physical pressure.   Green same..   Robbo, another of the same basket.

We did Not have many at all who,  'could play',  and show courage under fire at the same time.

IMO, Jnr was blessed with ability,  skill and courage, and a fine example of putting the workload in off the track.  We had few who were great role models.   Again our footy dept stufffed it.

[Supermercado 2,609]

On 5/11/2020 at 12:27 PM, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Neeld did us a huge favour,  pulling the network of rotten and soft culture apart...   

This is like saying the cyclone does you a favour by knocking your house down so you can build a better one. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Supermercado

[Cards13 9,117]

6 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

This is like saying the cyclone does you a favour by knocking your house down so you can build a better one. 

 But but but I have all of this empty land now that I can camp on.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

56 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

This is like saying the cyclone does you a favour by knocking your house down so you can build a better one. 

We have/are building a better one,  started after Neeld was sacked.  But he would have done so as well. 

But I would prefer Roosy every time to rebuild a list than Neeld. 

But the cuts done were necessary,  and the Culture shift was rehab'd  by Roosy.   But if Roosy had come in at the time we appointed Neeld,  he would have taken 5 or 6 years to get to where he got us to,  Pre Goodwin.   Neeld fast-tracked the hard change.

- - - - -

I think we should remember that the club stuffed the initial rebuild with the likes of morton, bennell, gysberts, etc.

We didn't have time to stuff about again,  after already stuffing it up under Bailey.

Neeld was appointed when other, more senior coaches were out there.  Our admin chose a newbie in Neeld.  Why,  was it because he did as they asked him to do.  To sort the list and culture.?

The AFL was already watching over us like a hawk, checking our progress, or non-progress.

        Neeld came in to do a specific job right from the very start.  In other words he started like a house already on fire,  establishing the rules at the B&F night.

He did not have to attend that night,  but wanted to,  and he put the wind up the players there and then.  It also flushed out many staff & officials volunteers, who [censored] themselves,  and started to worry about his methods. Scared,  they all gossiped behind his back all off season,  before pre-season had even kicked off.

He was on a hiding to nothing,  so,  he had nothing to lose by going as hard as he could, to effect as much change as he could get done in the time he had.

     IF you cannot see,  this current list and culture is way better than our late 90's  and early 2000's culture,  then you would need to look more closely when we are winning.  Because winning alone does not indicate a strong & healthy culture.

But this is what we had even when playing finals.  Lacking ability to continue developing youth, as we play high level senior footy...   like the Cats did do in the 2000's.

The Cats continued have kids raise their standards, even with great players in the seniors holding them out.

     Roos would have taken a season to ascertain what he could work with,  and slowly,  those who had let him down would be cut.  or traded to other clubs.

 

Difference is methods,  one louder, more out there,  and the other is more diplomatic,  more private thinking, and scheming,  to effect  the change.   Result not much different over the timespan.

 

The big difference is that Roosy is the better salesman.   Enjoying the support of those outside the club, (thru his diplomacy),  and so, also the admins inside the club, for that same reason. 

Keeping us Indians,  non-restless.

.

Edited May 14, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[Foopy on the telly 468]

14 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

We have/are building a better one,  started after Neeld was sacked.  But he would have done so as well. 

But I would prefer Roosy every time to rebuild a list than Neeld. 

But the cuts done were necessary,  and the Culture shift was rehab'd  by Roosy.   But if Roosy had come in at the time we appointed Neeld,  he would have taken 5 or 6 years to get to where he got us to,  Pre Goodwin.   Neeld fast-tracked the hard change.

 

Roos would have taken a season to ascertain what he could work with,  and slowly those who had let him down would be cut.

 

Difference is methods,  one louder, more out there,  and the other is more diplomatic,  more private thinking, and scheming,  to effect change.   Result not much different over the timespan.

The big difference is that Roosy is the better salesman.   Enjoying the support of those outside the club, (thru his diplomacy),  and so, also the admins inside the club, for that same reason.  Keeping us Indians,  non-restless.

.

I really don’t think that’s how it works mate. While neeld was coach the club was evidently managed poorly but the higher ups and this was reflected in the on field performance. By the time Roos came on board the players were bereft of even the most basic skills of an afl footballer, and he noted this numerous times. I seriously doubt you can put this all down to ‘culture’, as the club was always going to be improve by putting the right people in the right places, both on and off the field.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

10 minutes ago, nacnud said:

I really don’t think that’s how it works mate. While neeld was coach the club was evidently managed poorly but the higher ups and this was reflected in the on field performance. By the time Roos came on board the players were bereft of even the most basic skills of an afl footballer, and he noted this numerous times. I seriously doubt you can put this all down to ‘culture’, as the club was always going to be improve by putting the right people in the right places, both on and off the field.

Of course it is,  our tails had been wagging the club,  since the mid 90's.  They ran the show under weak coaches, who tolerated them... a bit like that coach of the day, played and socialised, when he was a player.

     Thru that weal culture period, we also copped many serious injuries via a lack of off field professionalism,  in the gym,  and about the club.  This is why we has so many serious back injuries.

And the club didn't have the money to employ the best. 

We had the most natural talented list.  Which sorely lacked discipline and an honest work ethic of two way running.  Front runners-we were.

This carried on after the new coach came aboard in '98.    And any new recruits were initiated into the existing culture.

Edited May 14, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[Foopy on the telly 468]

9 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Of course it is,  our tails had been wagging the club,  since the mid 90's.  They ran the show under weak coaches, who tolerated them... a bit like that coach of the day, played and socialised, when he was a player.

     Thru that weal culture period, we also copped many serious injuries via a lack of off field professionalism,  in the gym,  and about the club.  This is why we has so many serious back injuries.

And the club didn't have the money to employ the best. 

We had the most natural talented list.  Which sorely lacked discipline and an honest work ethic of two way running.  Front runners-we were.

This carried on after the new coach came aboard in '98.    And any new recruits were initiated into the existing culture.

Fair comment, I just think that the culture is a byproduct of how the organisation is run... and Melbourne is no exception. I think the clubs properly run now but it can only be judged in hindsight, and how many games the team has won of course.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

When we have top level talented players,  who are being idolised just as they are for all their weaknesses,  the tendency,  without strong leadership from the coaches and from above,  is the players won't improve much beyond their natural selves.

This continues to hamper Mfc players,  every decade.  When the players are young and still playing, they just don't realise the impact, that their near enough attitude will have on their careers.  And on the clubs successes.

 

we supporters get over-hyped about talent when it comes on board the Mfc, and we contribute to the failures of our kids, Via our over-exuberance toward the kids,  and our impatience for their elevation to the senior team.

We pump them up too high in social media, and around training, etc. causing them to get a sense of over-security.  A bit of anxiety in the kids keeps them on their toes and to not get ahead of themselves... such as Watt.  and possibly Hoges.  Some become overnight legends in their daytime lunch-boxes. 

This is a negative impact for their development.  It strays from honesty, and of reality deep in many players minds.

[Neil Crompton 4,675]

16 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

The big difference is that Roosy is the better salesman.   Enjoying the support of those outside the club, (thru his diplomacy),  and so, also the admins inside the club, for that same reason.  Keeping us Indians,  non-restless.

.

I'm not sure how Roosey even gets raised in a discussion about a Neeld spray on Morton.

But since you have, the big difference between the two is not "salesmanship", as you suggest,  but rather that Roosey had credibility and the respect of the whole AFL football world as both a past champion player and a premiership coach. Its a hell of a lot easier to make a point (be a "salesman") when you have that credibility and respect - rather than just his "diplomacy" as you put it.

If diplomacy was the recipe for success - how the hell did Ron Barassi ever win 4 premierships as a coach?

 

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

1 minute ago, nacnud said:

Fair comment, I just think that the culture is a byproduct of how the organisation is run... and Melbourne is no exception. I think the clubs properly run now but it can only be judged in hindsight, and how many games the team has won of course.

No...!

Because it s a group culture situation which is continually refreshing itself from the bottom...   The senior players can have poor attitudes and not even understand this.   As it feels all so innocent to them.    "I'm not doing anything wrong, sir"

 

The kids come into the cubs raw,  and they adopt the attitudes ways and styles of their seniors;  unconsciously,  as they struggle for acceptance within the structures.  Few are able to remain themselves,  and maintain a single-minded attitude to a total professionalism, at the expense of the social inside club experience.

 

So the senior players can hand down a poor culture of self protectionism,  and a sort of losing with status mindset,  learned after decades of losing in the 70's,  and into early 80's.

This is where we lost the culture that Checker brought to us,  which grew with winning momentum,  thru Checkers and Smith's tenures.  The loss of this winning culture has been irretrievable so far.

 

IT IS so important,  and it can take generations of players winning,  to get that level of culture back into the club.  Half of that time is eradicating the learned losing attitudes,  that no one ever searches for in their minds. 

Most ego centric people cannot handle searching for negatives in themselves... they just do NOT want to do that,  as it implies they have failings,  weaknesses.  And it hurts them to even think such a negative thing.

Many just cannot do it.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

8 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I'm not sure how Roosey even gets raised in a discussion about a Neeld spray on Morton.

But since you have, the big difference between the two is not "salesmanship", as you suggest,  but rather that Roosey had credibility and the respect of the whole AFL football world as both a past champion player and a premiership coach. Its a hell of a lot easier to make a point (be a "salesman") when you have that credibility and respect - rather than just his "diplomacy" as you put it.

If diplomacy was the recipe for success - how the hell did Ron Barassi ever win 4 premierships as a coach?

 

And just where do you think that creditability starts from.  Its how one expresses themselves.  In Roosy's case,  he has carried it naturally all his footy life.

Probably not so for Neeld.

For Barass, he carried it from his playing ways,  and honed it in his early media days. This gave him his cred,  and his start in footy as a playing-coach.

For Jordan,  he had the respect afforded from his generation, his credentials from playing high level cricket, and footy to a level.  And so his start was in lesser age groups and rose to prominence from there.   Credentialed as one of the best junior developers in the country.

 

Neeld did not play at the top level,   like Jordan,  so he was always struggling for the respect required, not just by the playing list,  but by many "Melbourne people",  close to and around the club.

This poor support does not bode well for any Coach, starting off.

And so it started this way...  and ended this way.  The tail still wagging.   Happily wagging. 

Smithy would NOT approve of the clubs actions,  or of the players of that time,  nor of those around the club who backstabbed the coach from the very start.  Not giving it a red-hot chance.

In short,  the negative attitude Neeld wanted out,  ending up staying,  and took his coaching life.  But he met it, head on.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

1 hour ago, nacnud said:

Fair comment, I just think that the culture is a byproduct of how the organisation is run... and Melbourne is no exception.

One sign of happiness,  and of a strong club culture, is how much the players desire to defend and work hard when we don't have the ball... consistently.  The desire to fight to stop 'them', and win the ball back for our team.  This should be second nature for all players,  And they should all be outraged when one of their own is put down.  All for one, and one for all... is the only way.

Working hard off the track in the gym,  and away from the club.    Socialising should take second place to the team and club.

And we've had players,  talented players sniffing about socially.  that is no good and very self.   tittsornot, pool or not.    board short, or not.

[Neil Crompton 4,675]

Is this the MFM thread? he seems to own this one,

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

Is this the MFM thread? he seems to own this one,

I'm simply doing the running on behalf of a person who is down,  cannot yell for himself,  and is being kicked whilst on the ground. 

This is a trait of Melbournians,  to hate at people they 'Think',  has done them wrong.  hurt them.

... so we try to hurt them back,  right or wrong.

 

Not being able to  'Own'  our mistakes, or misjudgements,  is ours, and this clubs fault,  and hinders us from becoming a power again.

Blaming others all the time,  and crying we be wronged,  stops us from learning where WE go wrong.   And so we do-not empower ourselves,  to make the adjustments we really need to make.

 

Its no one else's fault,  that we haven't won an AFL Premiership  in more than 50 years.  Its Our Fault.  We have not learnt,  and adapted to winning, as a club. Inside and outside the club.

Edited May 14, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[Jaded No More 57,662]

What an utter ****show our club was. Toxic environment under Neeld is an understatement. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,418]

23 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

And just where do you think that creditability starts from.  Its how one expresses themselves.  In Roosy's case,  he has carried it naturally all his footy life.

Probably not so for Neeld.

For Barass, he carried it from his playing ways,  and honed it in his early media days. This gave him his cred,  and his start in footy as a playing-coach.

For Jordan,  he had the respect afforded from his generation, his credentials from playing high level cricket, and footy to a level.  And so his start was in lesser age groups and rose to prominence from there.   Credentialed as one of the best junior developers in the country.

 

Neeld did not play at the top level,   like Jordan,  so he was always struggling for the respect required, not just by the playing list,  but by many "Melbourne people",  close to and around the club.

This poor support does not bode well for any Coach, starting off.

And so it started this way...  and ended this way.  The tail still wagging.   Happily wagging. 

Smithy would NOT approve of the clubs actions,  or of the players of that time,  nor of those around the club who backstabbed the coach from the very start.  Not giving it a red-hot chance.

In short,  the negative attitude Neeld wanted out,  ending up staying,  and took his coaching life.  But he met it, head on.

Can you please stop defending Neeld. The guy was right out of his depth. 
At halftime of his first match i knew the bloke was a shocker senior coach.
He was unable to learn as well as communicate. 
Pretty amazing stuff for a School Teacher

[Left Foot Snap 1,822]

Is posting lots sequentially in a thread the online equivalent of raising the volume of your voice in an argument to talk over someone to get you point across?

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Can you please stop defending Neeld. The guy was right out of his depth. 
At halftime of his first match i knew the bloke was a shocker senior coach.
He was unable to learn as well as communicate. 
Pretty amazing stuff for a School Teacher

Neeld didn't put US in the position we were already in.   We were just in a downward spiral,  and he was a mere puppet in the scheme of it all.

 

So stop kicking someone who just wasn't up to it,  as you say.   He didn't hire himself.  Simply tried to make a difference.  

So how can people hate someone so much,  for trying.?

 

#  I think he must be wearing 50Yrs of Pain,  from Mfc supporters.

                 Hating isn't going to make us winners.    only Honesty can do that.

Edited May 15, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian