Neeld is absolutely useless and will be gone by mid 2013.

He does not know how to stop this train wreck of a football club.

He doesn't have the players on side, has a game plan that involves kicking to packs and still can't formulate a kick out strategy after 18 rounds.

Doesnt anyone else see how dire the situation is?

The future of the Melbourne football club is on the line.

There is a distinct possibility that this club will fold in the near future if we don't start producing results

  On 29/07/2012 at 00:17, bandicoot said:

Neeld is absolutely useless and will be gone by mid 2013.

He does not know how to stop this train wreck of a football club.

He doesn't have the players on side, has a game plan that involves kicking to packs and still can't formulate a kick out strategy after 18 rounds.

Doesnt anyone else see how dire the situation is?

The future of the Melbourne football club is on the line.

There is a distinct possibility that this club will fold in the near future if we don't start producing results

i rest my case

To have faith in a Neeld future I think you must have confidence that his long around the boundary, defensive game plan provides us with the best chance of winning a premiership. Watching the way Hawthorn are playing, it would be a brave person to say that the future of football is not a style which puts a greater premium of retaining possession and encourages risk taking through the corridor. To my mind the quality of football is only going to improve, so this is even more likely to be the method to win premierships in the future. Neeld has not adapted his thinking and we are still sticking to the same approach used by Collingwood to win the 2010 flag. This is my key concern and all the other issues with Neeld are just side issues IMO.

Comments will be put forward that this will come later in our development and that we do not have the players yet to adopt this approach. However, I doubt any coach in their right mind would be so discouraging of taking risks and then do a complete reversal and advocate it. The recruitment of players such as Magner and Couch also indicates Neeld’s thinking on the future of the game.

  On 28/07/2012 at 14:55, bing181 said:

We are bad, because we don't have enough players who play good.

... slightly different. Same outcome though.

semantics.. Players who play good are good players by definition..

  On 29/07/2012 at 00:17, bandicoot said:

Neeld is absolutely useless and will be gone by mid 2013.

He does not know how to stop this train wreck of a football club.

He doesn't have the players on side, has a game plan that involves kicking to packs and still can't formulate a kick out strategy after 18 rounds.

Doesnt anyone else see how dire the situation is?

The future of the Melbourne football club is on the line.

There is a distinct possibility that this club will fold in the near future if we don't start producing results

Yes i think you have made your point already.

  On 29/07/2012 at 00:17, bandicoot said:

Neeld is absolutely useless and will be gone by mid 2013.

He does not know how to stop this train wreck of a football club.

He doesn't have the players on side, has a game plan that involves kicking to packs and still can't formulate a kick out strategy after 18 rounds.

Doesnt anyone else see how dire the situation is?

The future of the Melbourne football club is on the line.

There is a distinct possibility that this club will fold in the near future if we don't start producing results

Yep stay off the green cordial young fella.

Personally I gave up on about a third of the list over the last 2 years.

I am pretty sure Neeld and the rest of the coaches know who is dead wood and will be already oiling the chainsaw.

If I don't see a solid clean out, some good drafting and us on the attack in trade week I will then seriously question Neeld but until then I'll reserve judgement.

For those who are already calling for his sacking take a look at our current 22, we are where we should be on the ladder

If we stay on 2 wins for the remainder of the year and people still think Neeld is the one you need medical attention. We shouldn't be this bad.

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:36, Pipefitter said:

If we stay on 2 wins for the remainder of the year and people still think Neeld is the one you need medical attention. We shouldn't be this bad.

The question you need to answer following that statement is this ....

How do bad footballers suddenly morph into quality footballers? Is there a secret switch in the box that Neeld hasn't been told about? All he has to do is flick it and voila?

Yes we will likely not win another game save for this weekend but it will have nothing to do with Mark Neeld.

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:26, Roost It said:

Personally I gave up on about a third of the list over the last 2 years.

I am pretty sure Neeld and the rest of the coaches know who is dead wood and will be already oiling the chainsaw.

If I don't see a solid clean out, some good drafting and us on the attack in trade week I will then seriously question Neeld but until then I'll reserve judgement.

For those who are already calling for his sacking take a look at our current 22, we are where we should be on the ladder

I believe Neeld certainly needs more time but the general body language and energy from the players including players not destined for the chop with one or two exceptions is not good and has been consistently bad since the middle of 2010. He does not come across as a leader that can motivate or inspire. Restoration of confidence in particular after 186 should have been of primary importance to kickstart improvement this season. Rather confidence has gotten worse. This is a huge negative for him IMO even though he may not be entirely at fault.

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:41, Range Rover said:

The question you need to answer following that statement is this ....

How do bad footballers suddenly morph into quality footballers? Is there a secret switch in the box that Neeld hasn't been told about? All he has to do is flick it and voila?

Yes we will likely not win another game save for this weekend but it will have nothing to do with Mark Neeld.

How did a team that was good enough to win 8 games last year end up on 2 this year? Blame bailey yeah?

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:48, Pipefitter said:

How did a team that was good enough to win 8 games last year end up on 2 this year? Blame bailey yeah?

This is what happens when you overhaul an unaccountable, front-running, fall-to-pieces-at-the-slightest-hint-of-pressure playing ethos into one that we hope may one day be capable of standing up in finals.

You need a proper understanding of the game to comprehend this so I won't extrapolate.

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:48, Pipefitter said:

How did a team that was good enough to win 8 games last year end up on 2 this year? Blame bailey yeah?

Has Neeld lost a game by 186 points?

Lets blame Neeld for that game too.

I will form my full opinion by mid next year.

At the moment I think he has lost the players.

  On 29/07/2012 at 00:26, Fat Tony said:

To have faith in a Neeld future I think you must have confidence that his long around the boundary, defensive game plan provides us with the best chance of winning a premiership. Watching the way Hawthorn are playing, it would be a brave person to say that the future of football is not a style which puts a greater premium of retaining possession and encourages risk taking through the corridor. To my mind the quality of football is only going to improve, so this is even more likely to be the method to win premierships in the future. Neeld has not adapted his thinking and we are still sticking to the same approach used by Collingwood to win the 2010 flag. This is my key concern and all the other issues with Neeld are just side issues IMO.

Comments will be put forward that this will come later in our development and that we do not have the players yet to adopt this approach. However, I doubt any coach in their right mind would be so discouraging of taking risks and then do a complete reversal and advocate it. The recruitment of players such as Magner and Couch also indicates Neeld’s thinking on the future of the game.

I think this is what is really scaring me. Its not the " rebuild of the failed rebuild" or the prospect of waiting another few years. Its wondering if we're even headed in the right direction. I DO like the way we can muscle it up with teams now. I dont like the way we cant use the ball quickly, dont seem to have a ball use plan and only get running free on a turn over. Its exactly the opposite of what I used to like and dislike under Bailey. Football is changing fast and ongoingly now. We got caught out recruiting players like Morton and Fitzpatrick and perhaps Blease ( jurys out) when it seemed like it was all about Geelong and the focus on speed. Scully is also in that model I think ( and we're lucky we got out of that) My concern is come this SUPER critical draft if we go recruiting for the magpie model of 2010 we're in for a world of pain. Hawthorn has changed the game again in 2012.

  On 29/07/2012 at 02:06, Range Rover said:

This is what happens when you overhaul an unaccountable, front-running, fall-to-pieces-at-the-slightest-hint-of-pressure playing ethos into one that we hope may one day be capable of standing up in finals.

You need a proper understanding of the game to comprehend this so I won't extrapolate.

I apologize, I had no idea who I was talking to.

Baileys was no good. Neeld is no better. That's my opinion. Taking a team that was unaccountable and making them more unaccountable. That's a talent.

While I think that Neeld hasnt really been given a chance, he must wear the fact that there are at least 12 players on our list that clearly are never going to get there - either lacking drive, lacking the ability to play a role, lacking the ability to develop their weaknesses, and many that just lack the basics.

Its rumoured that he now regrets keeping the faith in many on our list but that's all well and good, but he did show the faith. That being said, Im sure he has already learned a lot about our list, our capability and where we need to improve.

So ultimately I think Neeld's direction is the right way. He is turning a club that could potentially finish 12-10 and making it a firm finals hope. Its annoying that we have gone so far backwards this season and some would argue this is so we can make bigger strides in the future once Misson's fitness regime kicks in, and time will tell. But it is true that many promising players have been poor this year for what ever reason - whether its the effects of the heavy training load or what ever.

Whether Neeld is a good coach and the right man for the job has more to do with what happens in tradeweek, draft, preseason and our first 8 games in 2013. Having Craig on board gives me a lot of confidence.

Does anyone have the stats etc about when Mission took over at St Kilda? Were they noticeably slower in the first year? Just interested to see if it's just a byproduct of the training program that the players struggle at first.

Would add some sense to this discussion I feel.

The more I see of the club the more I firmly believe we are going to be spending serious cash in the off season.

It's a system built on results and the clubs supporters won't tolerate another youth policy rebuild. Neeld isn't stupid (besides what some here believe). He knows he's going to be judged on his record more so in year 2.

I firmly believe that the most influential thing we'll do in 2012 is wreak havoc in October. That includes cutting expensive wood and shopping for genuine talent.

The Mitch Clark experiment has proven the coaching staff right about our list. Expect big changes, and then let's judge more in the middle of 2013.

  On 29/07/2012 at 00:06, Range Rover said:

You can't polish a turd. In the off season Neeld will flush this one and start anew.

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

  On 29/07/2012 at 01:48, tonatopia said:

And how do good players morph into bad players. It's the coach, stupid.

I can't beleive it took 36 posts for this.

  On 29/07/2012 at 04:47, Mgdee said:

I can't beleive it took 36 posts for this.

Perhaps there's a reason why the preceding 35 posts failed to bring it up ...

We as demon supporters all know the true problems that have plagued this club for the best part of a decade. To my mind the most pressing of these is that our playing group lacks character . Character is perhaps the most essential quality of a successful player. It can turn an ordinary player into a good player and a talented player into a great of the game It is infectious within a group and can lift an entire team, a case in point is Sydney. Naturally it goes without saying that the opposite apply for teams that lack character. With that lack of character comes a lack of good role models who in turn can act as mentors and help develop both the skill set and character of our youth. Without these positive role models around the club our young players learn the wrong things and sometimes appear to progressing backwards in their development. We have all seen players arrive at the club full of potential and yet that potential is never realised and they in turn become poor role models and so the cycle continues. This has been the cancerous core that year after year has held this club back. Neeld is now in the process of attempting to cut out this cancer. It will be a slow and painful recovery but one we must endure.

I don't know if Neeld is the messiah of AFL coaching or not, but I can see the enormity of the task that lays ahead and I can see what he is attempting to do. Right now he is testing the character of the playing group and seeing where this cancer lurks. He appears to be isolating some younger player at Casey in the hope that they don't learn the same bad cancerous habits that exist in many of our senior list . Best of luck Mark Neeld. Get this right and you will become an immortal of this club.

  On 28/07/2012 at 14:34, Deano74 said:

We are bad, cause we dont have enough good players. Its simple really.

We won 8 games last year. Repeat three times before blaming the players exclusively.

Thank you RalphiusMaximus, Fat Tony and Wells 11 for your thoughtful contributions re: "structures" and game plan. I share these concerns and was relieved to learn that I am not alone.

I remember at the start of the season that all we seemed to be doing was kicking it along the boundary to contests, but I reassured myself that Neeld was simply laying the foundations and teaching the players how to play accountable contested football. I had my concerns that this was merely a graft of the Collingwood plan, that it did not demonstrate any creativity or originality from Neeld, that it did not suit our list and that he was throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of our attacking game. But, like a lot of posters on here, I felt that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and that eventually, Neeld would add "layers" to his game plan, particularly in offensive terms. But with every week that goes by, my hopes for Neeld fade as I see no evidence that there is anything more to his plan than a "monkey see monkey do" implementation of Collingwood 2010 (but not as good and without the right players obviously). The other layers still have not eventuated.

The best coaches are creative. They can adapt their plans to the "meta" of the competition and to the strengths of their squad. They are leaders, not followers, of the tactical evolution of the AFL. They will sometimes implement styles of play that are original or that have at least not been seen for many years. If they seek to implement an existing style of football, they will at least add their own twists. This is why I think Clarkson is the best coach in the AFL and why I have serious doubts about Neeld.

As for the Neeld cheer squad, I get your rhetoric about laying foundations, having to take a step back so we can go forward etc. and as you can see form this post, I am sympathetic to this thinking to an extent. What I would like to know is what it is exactly that you have seen on field that justifies your faith in Neeld and what criteria we can use to judge his performance into the future. For what it's worth, I can think of two positives so far - he has shown a willingness to experiment with player positions such as putting Garland up forward or using Manger as a defensive forward (albeit with mixed results) and he seems to have shown a propensity to make players "earn" their spot in the seniors and drop even very talented players who don't meet his expectations.