A salient point that will not be understood by some, in fact they may assume Sandersons success is all his own and despite the Craig influence

I likened the Crows to a Hollywood movie.

Talented actors, a credible budget and great marketing.

Just a s&^t script.

One Home Renovator bought a house in Smith St, to Jazz up & sell for profit.

One Home Buyer bought a house in Smith St, to renovate & move his family into.

Both houses had turned out to be in poor condition, with weak foundations, & hidden faults.

The Renovator got a Jack & hoisted the house up in parts & stacked bricks & wood under to level it. And put tape around electrical wires where they were worn & exposed. the plumbing was blocked & this was given a temp fix.

The renovator quickly plastered over the cracks & painted, sold this house to a young couple & moved on.

The Home Buyer took his time fixing things properly himself, one by one, methodically moving thru the issues in a logical order.

The Home owner spent more time but used much more care.

50 Years later the Home Buyers house has been extended & a further renovation done to it. It stands Tall & Proudly, in Smith street.

The other has been leveled, and is a retirement home these days.

not a bad analogy at all... Nice

So much today about gen Y ( and other impatient lots ..lol ) is that its all about now,.,..want it now..... need it now. and so on

The other thing along the housey line is that sometimes when you are fixing things up you discover a few surprises.. Sometimes...you find rot and ant where it was assumed/hoped it wasnt. But it is. And it needs removing completely in order to fix.

So much of footy is between the ears. This goes to mindset. Expectations and aspirations and determinations etc are all 'cultural' in nature.

Changing culture is hard. Its started but there's much to do. That any might think this would happen by now will be in for serious disappointments.

I would however suspect a major shift in this to come through the next preseason. There will be those who'll moan 'yeah we keep saying this year after year" and to them there is a certain degree of being right. We have. And we will have to keep saying/doing until it actually happens.

I will be as curious to see who goes/who comes into the FD at seasons end almost as much as the new players.

There is still fine tuning to do everywhere. We can never become too complacent or arrogant to think we cant improve.

Having spent the last 45 minutes reading through some of the treads on Demonland I am surprised.

I am surprised that so many on here are surprised at last nights result.

We played almost exactly as I expected with the result almost the same as I predicted.

All last Summer I kept saying but we have the same basic cattle as the lot that produced 186.

The simple matter is we have a poor list. low quality with low skills

There have been quite a few on here that have been saying it for some time e.g. wyl who gets canned every time he says it.

I hope a lot on here now get it.

WE have a poor list that is not being helped by a lot of injuries to some of the better players.

IMO 2012 is the result of the Youth only policy we endured under DB.

Our recruiting has been less than great and we have a number of young players of dubious quality.

We really are unfortunately at Ground Zero.

There is a lot of good recruiting needed to get our list into a position were we can compete with the last ten teams let alone the top half dozen.

The next 2 - 3 years are going to be very tough to endure.

I hope the membership can go the distance because this club could easily slip into oblivion if it does falter.

So let's consider.

Neeld and Sanderson are both untried coaches.

Neeld apparently gets his job without any alternatives being considered.

Sanderson gets his job after at least three candidates are considered.

Neeld then welcomes Sanderson's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Sanderson welcomes Neeld's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Neeld brings a complicated and barely ever successful gameplan to an unsuitable MFC list and it doesn't work.

Sanderson implements a proven gameplan at AFC (essentially used at a few clubs) and it works.

So Sanderson's sacked predecessor created Sanderson's success by producing a good playing list, but they didn't react positively to Sanderson's predecessor.

Neeld's plan failure is attributed to inheriting a poor playing list, despite the number of high draft picks and mid-range ladder performance in previous years, and its all his predecessor's fault anyway. Sanderson's predecessor sits in the background behind Neeld.

Sure sounds like a hollywood script, never mind reality getting in the way of a good story - if only it was that simple!

How about an alternative analysis - Sanderson has people skills and can get his straightforward, logical message across (look at his interviews) - Neeld struggles to get his message across because it is illogical, unnecessarily complicated, and he isn't a good communicator (look at his interviews).

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

Edited July 22, 201213 yr by Hardnut

One Home Renovator bought a house in Smith St, to Jazz up & sell for profit.

One Home Buyer bought a house in Smith St, to renovate & move his family into.

Both houses had turned out to be in poor condition, with weak foundations, & hidden faults.

The Renovator got a Jack & hoisted the house up in parts & stacked bricks & wood under to level it. And put tape around electrical wires where they were worn & exposed. the plumbing was blocked & this was given a temp fix.

The renovator quickly plastered over the cracks & painted, sold this house to a young couple & moved on.

The Home Buyer took his time fixing things properly himself, one by one, methodically moving thru the issues in a logical order.

The Home owner spent more time but used much more care.

50 Years later the Home Buyers house has been extended & a further renovation done to it. It stands Tall & Proudly, in Smith street.

The other has been leveled, and is a retirement home these days.

So what you're saying is that we'll be a retirement home soon? I thought we already were.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viWunyHapPA

I believe we can turn it around reasonably quickly, too. Moreover, I believe we will.

Huge player cleanout coming at season's end though.

The lingering effluent of the Bailey era needs to be formally purged.

You are dreaming

So let's consider.

Neeld and Sanderson are both untried coaches.

Neeld apparently gets his job without any alternatives being considered.

Sanderson gets his job after at least three candidates are considered.

Neeld then welcomes Sanderson's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Sanderson welcomes Neeld's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Neeld brings a complicated and barely ever successful gameplan to an unsuitable MFC list and it doesn't work.

Sanderson implements a proven gameplan at AFC (essentially used at a few clubs) and it works.

So Sanderson's sacked predecessor created Sanderson's success by producing a good playing list, but they didn't react positively to Sanderson's predecessor.

Neeld's plan failure is attributed to inheriting a poor playing list, despite the number of high draft picks and mid-range ladder performance in previous years, and its all his predecessor's fault anyway. Sanderson's predecessor sits in the background behind Neeld.

Sure sounds like a hollywood script, never mind reality getting in the way of a good story - if only it was that simple!

How about an alternative analysis - Sanderson has people skills and can get his straightforward, logical message across (look at his interviews) - Neeld struggles to get his message across because it is illogical, unnecessarily complicated, and he isn't a good communicator (look at his interviews).

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

Neeld is a perfectly good communicator. Craig left a side after about a year of poor performance. Bailey left his side after at least 4 years of poor performance. If you're looking for the simple answer, it's that our list is shocking and our fitness is worse. Adelaide's list is good and their fitness even better. They can adapt to the game plan better because they're not knackered after one quarter. Our guys can't adapt for long periods because we're tired as all hell after about half an hour. There's your simple answer

Didn't get to watch or hear the game last night, from all these reports

I think I at least had a win ,,

We obviously need players with kicking skills, mature bodies who can play

various positions

My question then is how many of the bottom half of our list would get a game

anywhere other than GWS or the Suns, not many I would say.

So, are we playing players to increase their value to GWS/Suns. I bloody well hope so!

Lets trade as many as we can of that half cos any one we get can't be much worse.

seriously disappointed... sorry end of rant !

You are dreaming

we're all dreaming....constantly. We're Melbourne supporters after all.

Dreams are all we have to hang a hat of hope on until all thats "mediacre" (sic) is purged.

I believe we can turn it around reasonably quickly, too. Moreover, I believe we will.

Huge player cleanout coming at season's end though.

The lingering effluent of the Bailey era needs to be formally purged.

The soft culture grew thru the Daniher Era. The Bailey Era was one of recruiting young & skilled running players first, before the hardnosed ones, so 'List Management' was big then. Then he ran out of time, before we picked up the harder edge.

So let's consider.

Neeld and Sanderson are both untried coaches.

Neeld apparently gets his job without any alternatives being considered.

Sanderson gets his job after at least three candidates are considered.

Neeld then welcomes Sanderson's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Sanderson welcomes Neeld's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Neeld brings a complicated and barely ever successful gameplan to an unsuitable MFC list and it doesn't work.

Sanderson implements a proven gameplan at AFC (essentially used at a few clubs) and it works.

So Sanderson's sacked predecessor created Sanderson's success by producing a good playing list, but they didn't react positively to Sanderson's predecessor.

Neeld's plan failure is attributed to inheriting a poor playing list, despite the number of high draft picks and mid-range ladder performance in previous years, and its all his predecessor's fault anyway. Sanderson's predecessor sits in the background behind Neeld.

Sure sounds like a hollywood script, never mind reality getting in the way of a good story - if only it was that simple!

How about an alternative analysis - Sanderson has people skills and can get his straightforward, logical message across (look at his interviews) - Neeld struggles to get his message across because it is illogical, unnecessarily complicated, and he isn't a good communicator (look at his interviews).

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

So are you going to tell me that Northey didn't inherit what Barassi/Jordan built, & took any credit from that?

Who's the better Coach, Barassi or Northey?

..............

.............

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

Youre right !!

Lets consider:

Sanderson has a team that has more than a handful talented and able footballers, Neeld doesnt

Couldnt be that simple could it ??

So are you going to tell me that Northey didn't inherit what Barassi/Jordan built, & took any credit from that?

Who's the better Coach, Barassi or Northey?

I think you have missed the point!

we're all dreaming....constantly. We're Melbourne supporters after all.

Dreams are all we have to hang a hat of hope on until all thats "mediacre" (sic) is purged.

'Only in dreams'.

Youre right !!

Lets consider:

Sanderson has a team that has more than a handful talented and able footballers, Neeld doesnt

Couldnt be that simple could it ??

That would be too simple!

So let's consider.

Neeld and Sanderson are both untried coaches.

Neeld apparently gets his job without any alternatives being considered.

Sanderson gets his job after at least three candidates are considered.

Neeld then welcomes Sanderson's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Sanderson welcomes Neeld's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Neeld brings a complicated and barely ever successful gameplan to an unsuitable MFC list and it doesn't work.

Sanderson implements a proven gameplan at AFC (essentially used at a few clubs) and it works.

So Sanderson's sacked predecessor created Sanderson's success by producing a good playing list, but they didn't react positively to Sanderson's predecessor.

Neeld's plan failure is attributed to inheriting a poor playing list, despite the number of high draft picks and mid-range ladder performance in previous years, and its all his predecessor's fault anyway. Sanderson's predecessor sits in the background behind Neeld.

Sure sounds like a hollywood script, never mind reality getting in the way of a good story - if only it was that simple!

How about an alternative analysis - Sanderson has people skills and can get his straightforward, logical message across (look at his interviews) - Neeld struggles to get his message across because it is illogical, unnecessarily complicated, and he isn't a good communicator (look at his interviews).

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

...and the agenda gets clearer and clearer.

This is not about the coach or the players or the performances or the board or the gameplan.

you have no idea what the gameplan is: to say it doesn't work is a red herring.

Sanderson and Neeld are being directly compared despite all the obvious differences in their situations.

What is the agenda, Hardnut?

Stop dodging things. Why are you pumping up Sanderson's tyres and letting the air out of Neeld's? Your argument is a sham so we can ignore that. What is it - personal, financial, philosophical, religious...what? Don't talk about lists (the idea they are all about the same is so laughably silly that I doubt you actually think that). Don't talk about gameplan - neeld is barely showing it yet. Don't talk about the board - again a red herring.

Own up.

...and the agenda gets clearer and clearer.

This is not about the coach or the players or the performances or the board or the gameplan.

you have no idea what the gameplan is: to say it doesn't work is a red herring.

Sanderson and Neeld are being directly compared despite all the obvious differences in their situations.

What is the agenda, Hardnut?

Stop dodging things. Why are you pumping up Sanderson's tyres and letting the air out of Neeld's? Your argument is a sham so we can ignore that. What is it - personal, financial, philosophical, religious...what? Don't talk about lists (the idea they are all about the same is so laughably silly that I doubt you actually think that). Don't talk about gameplan - neeld is barely showing it yet. Don't talk about the board - again a red herring.

Own up.

My guess is financial. Always follow the money.

...and the agenda gets clearer and clearer.

This is not about the coach or the players or the performances or the board or the gameplan.

you have no idea what the gameplan is: to say it doesn't work is a red herring.

Sanderson and Neeld are being directly compared despite all the obvious differences in their situations.

What is the agenda, Hardnut?

Stop dodging things. Why are you pumping up Sanderson's tyres and letting the air out of Neeld's? Your argument is a sham so we can ignore that. What is it - personal, financial, philosophical, religious...what? Don't talk about lists (the idea they are all about the same is so laughably silly that I doubt you actually think that). Don't talk about gameplan - neeld is barely showing it yet. Don't talk about the board - again a red herring.

Own up.

I will own up Tim - I have absolutely no agenda!

Don't dare to tell me what to talk about - this is a free speech/opinion site!

I thought all of us knew what the 'gameplan' was - weren't we told numerous times early in the year?

Just what is your agenda?

I think you have missed the point!

Maybe you should explain it then as I think Neeld is starting to build this club with our youth, & to strip out the old culture.

So could you enlighten me on the point missed?

I saw 0% of the game last night, which, it seems, was a blessing in disguise. However, I've read about it, I've heard about it, and I feel like I know exactly what happened.

I think the reason why the negativity seems to be higher this week is the fact that we lost to Port. And I think that's something that needs to be acknowledged. I'm as used to losing as anyone else, and I am as apathetic towards this season as many others are. But to be generally very poor against a side who, in all fairness to Port, is no better, and potentially worse than we have been recently, can't be brushed aside. I don't care if we lose to good sides, even when we're smashed, because we're simply no good. But when we come up against crap sides, I want to see a contest, and from what I've heard of this game, there were periods in which we weren't competitive, and that to me is not good enough.

Having said that, the simple facts remain that we have a very poor list which we are trying to re-mould, and that we are missing key players. You put Clark, Watts, Jamar, McKenzie and Jurrah into our side and we no doubt improve. Losing your ruckman, your All-Australian-bound full forward, a key playmaker from defence, your hardnut tagging mid who gives 100% no matter what, and your x-factor up forward, and clearly you suffer, and that isn't an excuse or a reason, it's nothing but a simple piece of truth. We can't be at our best given our terrible list when we're missing 5 of our best 10.

I think the extra negativity and disappointment is warranted, but some of the ridiculous conclusions that continue to be drawn by people who refuse to consider the impact Bailey's insipid tenure has had on us, and the fact that we can't just turn things around with the click of Neeld's fingers, are just out of place.

In the end, this year has given us Clark, Watts, McDonald, Howe, Rivers/Garland as forwards, and to a lesser extent, Magner, Nicholson and Blease. It has also confirmed to me, and hopefully to everyone else, that we have a lot of candidates for delisitng: Bate, Dunn, Morton, Moloney, Petterd, Jetta, Spencer and Bennell surely head the list (contracts aside). In other words, we will clean out more of the Daniher/Bailey-caused deadwood, and Neeld will be able to focus on the core strengths of our list and continuing to develop a gameplan which actually might stand up against decent sides.

Watched the replay. Not as bad as I was expecting. Sounded worse on the radio. Keen to see how we go against North.

Chin up!

We won the inside 50s by 10 but have no forward line. Rivers can be effective but not as a focal point.

And we had 222 uncontested possessions! Not as much as a real team! Good work lads!

Seriously we are rubbish and our best players are struggling or out which means we are partnering rubbish with rubbish.

Can Neeld coach?

Don't know.

Can't tell with this group.

But coaching isn't the deficit to the best teams - it is the sports science stuff that the best teams have had for years now that we have just employed. And that is not going to happen overnight, they need time and whether a few on here think they should or shouldn't - they will.

But by all means howl at the moon...

Not saying he's solely to blame.

Not saying we should be playing finals this year.

What I AM saying, is he needs to cop some heat for where we are at, just like the players should. This mamby pamby "we'll be better next year" attitude that surrounds MFC is part of the problem and I won't cop it anymore.

WHY did we need to go backwards? That's a falsehood that some seem to cling to. Did the Bombers go backwards under Hird? Crows under Sanderson? It's just another excuse.

We SHOULD be better than what we currently are, that is the simple reality.

You think Sanderson had a list equivalent to ours?

Even the bombers?

Seriously none of those 2 measure up as an example as they didn't do the type of rebuilds we did.

Let's face it we purged our senior players and have no A grade seniors like the Crows and bombers do.

If we had Watson or Thompson running around for us we would be a lot better for certain.

Edited July 22, 201213 yr by Footynut

So let's consider.

Neeld and Sanderson are both untried coaches.

Neeld apparently gets his job without any alternatives being considered.

Sanderson gets his job after at least three candidates are considered.

Neeld then welcomes Sanderson's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Sanderson welcomes Neeld's sacked predecessor as part of his new team.

Neeld brings a complicated and barely ever successful gameplan to an unsuitable MFC list and it doesn't work.

Sanderson implements a proven gameplan at AFC (essentially used at a few clubs) and it works.

So Sanderson's sacked predecessor created Sanderson's success by producing a good playing list, but they didn't react positively to Sanderson's predecessor.

Neeld's plan failure is attributed to inheriting a poor playing list, despite the number of high draft picks and mid-range ladder performance in previous years, and its all his predecessor's fault anyway. Sanderson's predecessor sits in the background behind Neeld.

Sure sounds like a hollywood script, never mind reality getting in the way of a good story - if only it was that simple!

How about an alternative analysis - Sanderson has people skills and can get his straightforward, logical message across (look at his interviews) - Neeld struggles to get his message across because it is illogical, unnecessarily complicated, and he isn't a good communicator (look at his interviews).

But life couldn't be that simple could it!

The fact you don't get his interiews says more about you than it does Neeld, whilst he may not be the messiah, he is what the club needs and in fact needed his type in 2007, to lay down the law and stop the tail wagging the dog. Sheedy would have been good but needed a rest

You don't have an agenda, are you serious, you've had it going all year.

If we were the same this time next year you would have a right to carry on as you have!