Does not compute.

Well , you do have some support Doc

I think bennell has many attributes that can make him a very very good footballer. I have seen him do things that are fantastic. He is the prime example of a potentially top line footballer that has not been developed.

If he could actually get his hands on the ball he would be fantastic but 4 or 5 possessions a game is simply not good enough.

Over 4 years and 56 games he is averaging 10.5 possessions a game and this year in 5 games his "average possessions" has gone down to 5, in fact his first year, 2009 was his best with 12.5.

So why do you think he is going backwards?

Nb: I am not saying Bailey is a better coach than neeld, I think they are both b-graders. I would have selected sheedy in 2007, and malthouse in 2010.

When was Bennell good last year?

This premium list you refer to in your next post, when did we have that and who were the players that you consider made it a premium list?

We have a bunch of very ordinary players and we've been conned in to believing that they were talented; they never were and never will be, if Cam Bruce was still with us I guarantee he would be getting a game, how many has he played this year with Hawthorn?

ZERO.

You are right. Cam Bruce would be still getting a game. So would several other players we need not punish ourselves any more. Bennell is OK and played some consistent footy under Bailey.

Sure Hawks has a better list than Melbourne and certainly a better coach. There is one player couldn't get a run with Melbourne and still gets random runs with Hawkers ?

So why do you think he is going backwards?

Nb: I am not saying Bailey is a better coach than neeld, I think they are both b-graders. I would have selected sheedy in 2007, and malthouse in 2010.

At last someone in the real world. Sheedy could of passed the baton on the Malthouse.

Well , you do have some support Doc

[media=]

Good one Macca!!! Like it

So why do you think he is going backwards?

Nb: I am not saying Bailey is a better coach than neeld, I think they are both b-graders. I would have selected sheedy in 2007, and malthouse in 2010.

Because he's not a very good player, that's all, soft as butter and incapable of getting his hands on the ball because it would mean player engagement. He never hit the heights, but was more suited to the open free flowing game that Bailey employed where you didn't have to actually go near an opponent.

I think Bennell's case just comes down to our long history of not being able to develop highly skilled 17-18-19 y.o's into proper footballers. Being a club with poor facilities and lack of FD funding, we shouldn't be surprised.

Bennell hasn't gone backwards, to suggest so is a fallacy. He has maintained a consistent output since 2010.

Bennell hasn't gone backwards, to suggest so is a fallacy. He has maintained a consistent output since 2010.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-melbourne-demons--jamie-bennell

I would have selected malthouse in 2010.

You would have appointed Malthouse as coach of Melbourne in the year he won the flag for Collingwood ?

Thanks for the chuckles.

Sorry, malthouse instead of neeld in 2011. I would also be open to getting malthouse at the end of this year and keep neeld as his assistant.

Sorry, malthouse instead of neeld in 2011. I would also be open to getting malthouse at the end of this year and keep neeld as his assistant.

Of course you would...and Mark would be happy to comply ??

Think i'll go now as threads are dissolving into lunacy/juvenile rationale ( thats an oxymoron...as a heads up )

I think I've got you covered bb. Your an easybeat.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-melbourne-demons--jamie-bennell

I meant he's been consistently poor - those stats show a drop off in output over his 5 games this year but it's not like he was getting 20 touches a week and dominating games before this year.

"a couple of easy shots we missed, we'd have beaten them". Please spare me this. What's the old saying - "if my aunty had balls she'd be......." . FFS we are shite and we need to do something about it urgently.

That's the bottom line.

Judging by your avatar, I suspect your Aunty does have balls.

But I find it slightly frustrating that you homed in on that part of my post,(249) and completely ignored the main thrust , which was noting the courage of Rivers and Tapscott.

You didn't recite your hackneyed cliche when posters said that Richmond would have thrashed us if they'd kicked straight.

Some supporters derive satisfaction from emphasizing negativity.

Edited July 8, 201213 yr by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

One of the things that worries me about Neelds coaching is that it appears that we start games asleep.

Is it not the coaches job to make sure his team runs onto the field with the required mindset to compete from the 1st bounce ?

How many games have we lamented that " If it wasn't for being smashed in 1st qr , we went ok."

Thats not to say its a new issue, just another unresolved old one but one purely related to coaching IMO.

Sorry, malthouse instead of neeld in 2011. I would also be open to getting malthouse at the end of this year and keep neeld as his assistant.

And you say I've got my head in the sand?

To me the first quarter was one of the worst we have seen since 2007. This game was there to be won, we posted after round one about our footballers being dumb, not much has improved. To me Sylvia and Jones are our only 2 midfielders that would get regular games at other clubs, including GWS and Gold Coast. To me we have added to our talls that look OK, Clark, McDonald and Sellar have been good for us this year. Our midfield we have seen 1 new player in Magner that after 2-3 rounds hasn't played in the midfield. We may be lucky this week to add Couch and Gysberts into our midfield but below them there isn't any options. Blease is restricted to our forward half, he just can't ran through the midfield at present. Moloney needs a couple of weeks at Casey to get some confidence, McKenzie needs to throw the footy on your boot when in trouble inside your defensive 50m arc. Trengove isn't right and is spending more time up forward and little time on the ball and Grimes has been good in the midfield but also looked done on Saturday.

The next point is Jack Watts, I thought Jack was OK on Saturday considering that whoever he played on took him straight back to the square. The issue I have with Jack down back is the run, he doesn't offer any run of half back all his kicks are deep in defense and he is usually standing still. If he is to play this role he needs to offer run off Half Back and be kicking to our forwards or at least to the middle of the ground. To me we need to switch him back forward.

And you say I've got my head in the sand?

Confucious say....better head in sand than up your .........