Purely from memory, but weren't Brown, Crosisca, Watson and Rocca at the end of their careers anyway (or wanting other careers)?

Williams went to Sydney successfully and Michael went to Brisbane successfully?

The others were also rans?

The Collingwood list wasn't full of young talent, so the comparison with MFC is not really there.

The end result is that Collingwood lost yet again, until they got lucky in 2010.

Please correct me if necessary - I admit I haven't checked the detail and my memory isn't perfect!

Despite all this, I think Malthouse did a pretty good job for many years with a very average group of players - the odd star excepted of course!

Your first three 'points' have question marks in front of them, your forth point is not researched at all (where was their talent - they were pretty good two years later...), your fifth point is pretty blase about making GFs (you suck Daniher!), and your sixth point is a complete wash of the previous five - warning the reader that it is unchecked information and just the casual throwing together of faint memory, vague asides, and the desire to 'win' an argument you don't realise has already been lost.

Argument: Malthouse would have not drastically turned over a list, he would have worked with what he had.

Counter-argument: Reality.

Argument defeated.

Your first three 'points' have question marks in front of them, your forth point is not researched at all (where was their talent - they were pretty good two years later...), your fifth point is pretty blase about making GFs (you suck Daniher!), and your sixth point is a complete wash of the previous five - warning the reader that it is unchecked information and just the casual throwing together of faint memory, vague asides, and the desire to 'win' an argument you don't realise has already been lost.

Argument: Malthouse would have not drastically turned over a list, he would have worked with what he had.

Counter-argument: Reality.

Argument defeated.

My comments were an attempt at discussion - not aiming to 'win' points - hence the ? (which are at the end of the statements, not the beginning) BTW.

Where's the relevance to Daniher - I didn't raise it.

Collingwood make F/GFs regularly and lose - that's why we love them!

You haven't addressed the real discussion point which is that Malthouse (hypothetically) at MFC would have had a much better young list to start development.

Why the venom in the response - this is meant to be a discussion forum, not someone's personal views or defences rammed down everyone's throats until they profess 'belief'!

Mate, heaps of venom thrown at anyone who questions neeld.

It is a little disturbing, especially considering his unacceptable results.

I suppose some people need a messiah, and to question their messiah results in violent and often degenerate personal attacks. I just hope their beliefs in their 'new' messiah are based on more than just wonder lust.

It is hard to be in a herd of sheep that are being led to stale pastures by an unenlightened Shephard. It is enough to make a black sheep out of me. But once there are enough black sheep, the new Shephard will emerge.

Mate, heaps of venom thrown at anyone who questions neeld.

It is a little disturbing, especially considering his unacceptable results.

There is no venom thrown at posters who question Neeld. There are plenty of questions, reason & logic put towards muppets who believe we are somehow better than complete [censored]. There is frustration directed at people who can not articulate a sensible critique of Neeld's coaching methods & advocate the irrational position of sacking a first year coach based on their own set of unrealistic expectations & assumptions. Not to mention further frustration when said cabal of nuffies deflect reason & logic, are called out on it & then accuse their opponents of being Neeld lovers who can't accept criticism (as though they have no agenda & are fighting some heroic holy war against a bunch of sheep & their false idol). Patience gets tested to the limit when said group of nuffies can't agree to disagree & hijack every single thread or clog up the main board with their own stupid threads on this pox agenda. Some of this numbskullery includes: - "We won 8.5 games last year"

- "Neeld said he would make us the hardest team to play against & it hasn't happened yet!"

- "What is it you like about Neeld as a coach? He's proven nothing!"

- "We should sack Neeld & appoint Malthouse!"

- "Herp de derp, der tiddly derp, der herp de derp de dum!"

I suppose some people need a messiah, and to question their messiah results in violent and often degenerate personal attacks. I just hope their beliefs in their 'new' messiah are based on more than just wonder lust.

Oh noes! People aren't all calling for a first year coach with a [censored] list to be sacked. What a bunch of extremists!

It is hard to be in a herd of sheep that are being led to stale pastures by an unenlightened Shephard. It is enough to make a black sheep out of me. But once there are enough black sheep, the new Shephard will emerge.

I suspect from this garbage you're not operating on the full 3 bags. At least you've admitted to being a sheep though.

Edited August 9, 201212 yr by Jimmi C

In short, I have a lot more confidence in the direction, structure and approach of the playing list now than I did 12 months ago.

To my mind, that says it all really. 2011 was an absolute disaster - and the trend was getting worse, not better.

8.5 wins in 2011 v 3 wins this far in 2012, without proper analysis, is a meaningless comparison.

The reality is we were absolutely pathetic last year. We've been absolutely pathetic this year too - but the margins of the losses are smaller and are trending in the right direction - and this is despite an extensive injury list and events off field that have been literally horrendous.

I have every confidence in Neeld - and its because of his psychopathic focus on the fundamentals and executing them effectively.

The days of the saccharin idealism of the Bailey years are well and truly over. It's an elite competition and, to succeed these days, it's clear clubs need elite discipline and focus - something that wasn't always readily apparent at the MFC previously.

I think we'll start to see some of the hardness (to which Neeld referred upon his appointment) start to emerge in round 1 of the NAB Cup next year.

BTW, some very good posts on this thread - interesting to read.

2011 was an absolute disaster - and the trend was getting worse, not better.

8.5 wins in 2011 v 3 wins this far in 2012, without proper analysis, is a meaningless comparison.

The reality is we were absolutely pathetic last year. We've been absolutely pathetic this year too - but the margins of the losses are smaller and are trending in the right direction - and this is despite an extensive injury list and events off field that have been literally horrendous.

I have every confidence in Neeld - and its because of his psychopathic focus on the fundamentals and executing them effectively.

The reality is that we are even worse this year. We have beaten no one this year. GWS and GC cub scout teams and Essendon took a night off against us. And we have Mitch Clark and we have more development coaches. Bailey's position was untenable in 2011 but his W/L record stands. Bailey was lambasted for his poor W/L record. Neeld is on track to out do Bailey.

You have bought into Neeld and thats fine but your efforts to justify the train wreck of this year is selective at best.

Its good metric that the hardness being spoken about is visible Rnd 1 of the NAB cup. If we are still performing like vintage 2012 after the 2013 QBW then Neeld's position will be under scrutiny. And so should those that have appointed him.

I hope he swings the ship around. He has started with Green's retirement. And he should cut deep into the playing list.

There are already some things clear about his methods, and some things that may not be entirely clear yet but which must be worth discussing.

He wants contested footy, played around the edges of the oval rather than the middle, and he apparently isn't interested in a player's forward work until he first sees their defensive work. He favours strong bodies and toughness. He has an authoritarian style, using the word "compliance" quite a bit early in his appointment. He is not protective of his players, stating publicly that players not measuring up to his requirements would not be playing (fair enough view, but I wonder at his stating it publicly - what was he intending by that?), publicly criticising individuals (including some pretty young and more recently he has publicly spoken about a big clean-out at the end of the year.

As to whether he is overall effective in this aspect of his player development, it's not clear yet, but it certainly seems that he is pursuing his agenda of getting players to play the game his way or else.

On the evidence of those close to him, we continue to hear players referring to the need for players to buy into Neeldy's approach - which can only mean that this remains an incomplete process.

A footy club is not necessarily going to improve when restructured onto a military model, with a bullying drill sergeant there to crush out individuality and instil mindless obedience. That approach may cost the footy club some of its real capital.

I worked for a number of years at a place that got in a new boss. The new guy came in with "new broom" policies, made big statements, and then began his micro-management - he moved all our desks to where he thought they should be, next to who he wanted us to sit next to, and so on. Lots of new rules, no regard for what existed. We were all told to take all our stuff home, and he got rid of the filing cabinets. Very quickly the experienced staff all got out. Gratified, I suspect, he imported young staff who complied gladly. The place has gone downhill.

So, I am watching with real concern. If Neeld's methods cost us what I value in creativity and skill, and replace it with compliance and football-by-numbers, in an atmosphere of authoritarian bullying, I will be disappointed. Not even sure I'd be that excited over a flag even, if Jurrah and Watts and Green and so on had all been discarded as not quite what Neeld wanted.

The good teams at the moment have players who are prepared to play roles. Look at the Pies. Anyone coming in to that side knows exactly what role they have. Even Simon Buckley gets a game there!

Neeld is trying to build a team where players play roles and can rely on what their teamates will do. Your workplace example might raise bells for you but its not a true team performance and is wrong to compare it with such.

If players don't do their roles they get dropped or ultimately de-listed. I have no problem with that. The buck stops with the coach and if you were in charge you would do the same thing.

Baileys problem was that he was coaching to instructions and never had complete autonomy over the decisions. At least that's what the aftermath of 186 and the Andrews report says to me. Neeld won't die wondering and I am very happy about that.

As for your bolded comment above. FFS what is that about??

Purely from memory, but weren't Brown, Crosisca, Watson and Rocca at the end of their careers anyway (or wanting other careers)?

Williams went to Sydney successfully and Michael went to Brisbane successfully?

The others were also rans?

The Collingwood list wasn't full of young talent, so the comparison with MFC is not really there.

The end result is that Collingwood lost yet again, until they got lucky in 2010.

Please correct me if necessary - I admit I haven't checked the detail and my memory isn't perfect!

Despite all this, I think Malthouse did a pretty good job for many years with a very average group of players - the odd star excepted of course!

When you said, "Malthouse referred to the ability of a coach to gain the most from a list - not replace it completely - to achieve success. Personally, I wish we had a coach with that approach to the job." you were making a clear inference. Your inference was that you wished you had a coach, like Malthouse, that would get the most out of the list they'd inherited and that they wouldn't cut a swathe through it. I pointed out that after Malthouse's first year at Collingwood through various means he turned over a third of the list. Obviously the point I was making was that the coach you flagged as a standard bearer of how to manage a list, in fact, had probably the greatest turnover of a list in the last 15 years. And he did it after his first 12 months.

I don't need to go into every Collingwood trade, or retirement, as I was merely rebutting your assertion that Malthouse would handle list management differently. I've proven he's done the exact same thing you're being critical of. But unless you're stupid, and I won't rule that out, you know the point I was making. So instead of trying to query each case of the 13 players 'turned over' you simply needed to say, "gee, he did turn over a lot, didn't he ?" "I wasn't aware of that." But no, you take the disingenuous path.

Mass retirements and trades of seemingly good players (Michael, Williams and Rocca) after a coaches first year are rarely coincidental. You don't turn over a third of your list by accident.

Btw, I hope we're in a position to lose a grand final "yet again". I'm looking forward to once again being "in the game". Aren't you ?

Mate, heaps of venom thrown at anyone who questions neeld.

It is a little disturbing, especially considering his unacceptable results.

I suppose some people need a messiah, and to question their messiah results in violent and often degenerate personal attacks. I just hope their beliefs in their 'new' messiah are based on more than just wonder lust.

It is hard to be in a herd of sheep that are being led to stale pastures by an unenlightened Shephard. It is enough to make a black sheep out of me. But once there are enough black sheep, the new Shephard will emerge.

Look, I don't know if Neeld is going to be the man to change our fortunes. I have no way of knowing what is going on at the club. I have no idea what the grand plan entails. All I know is that it's just plain silly to be talking about plunging us back into the black hole of nothingness that the act of sacking a new coach would bring. At present I'm happy enough to put some faith in Neeld based on the rhetoric which is now starting to be supported by action. The fact that we are not negotiating new contracts with eleven players untill we've had a look at what else is available is a clear sign that significant change is taking place. I'm ambivalent about Green's retirement and I hope it won't come back to bite us in the same way Junior's did, but at least it showshe has an understanding of where the club is heading. His comments about players 'buying in' were significant. Neeld is makiing it clear that only those who are prepared to buy in will survive. No more list-cloggers.

Neeld has a three year contract. Let him see it out and then we can make a call on his success. Three years is not long in terms of achieving culture change in an organisation. It's usually a five year process so let's at least give him a chance to make an impact. I'd rather suffer the pain of losing now than to be going through the false hope of 8.5 wins against ordinary teams that we had last year. 'No pain - no gain' might be a cliche but there is some truth to it in this case.

It's not about messiah's - it's about supporting the club as it goes about the process of redressing fifty years of failure. I want a long term solution and that can only come through a change in culture.

Edited August 10, 201212 yr by Crawf52

As for your bolded comment above. FFS what is that about??

Wandered into the bar and heard the conversation, thought I could offer an opinion and found out that I was not as likeminded as you'd need to be to join in. My mistake. Look like a moron, because for me there are things more important than winning, and more important even than football. Wrong thing to say, wrong place to say it.

Wandered into the bar and heard the conversation, thought I could offer an opinion and found out that I was not as likeminded as you'd need to be to join in. My mistake. Look like a moron, because for me there are things more important than winning, and more important even than football. Wrong thing to say, wrong place to say it.

We wouldn't be killing those players you hypothtically say we should never trade/delist even for a flag.

Moloney was discarded by Geelong respectfully and with integrity and he got to go to his boyhood club and Geelong got a couple of flags.

Do you think the equivalent Robbiefrom13 at CatsLand has the opinion that the flags they won aren't as important as keeping a great kid around?

Edited August 10, 201212 yr by rpfc

Rumours started to swirl on Sunday that club bosses had met the night previous to discuss Neeld's future.

Another dhead who got roped in by the fake Caroline Wilson Twitter account.

No, I didn't imagine we are going to kill them.

I can't answer your point about Moloney - it's true, everything may work for the best. But isn't it pointless to have any opinions about anything, if we adopt that view? I'm not sure about fate, so I still think about things on the basis of what I consider fair and right.

It seems very likely that you are right about your hypothetical cats supporter. Maybe I'll still be there, and be caught up in it too, when we win something. All the same, from where I sit now, the team that I barrack for and have stuck with is made up of players, who in my mind are people of individual personalities and skill-sets rather than players of roles made up by an all-powerful strings-puller of a coach. (Exaggeration, I know - just trying to make myself clear.) What I can see in Neeld is a series of decisions that suggest a possible trend, which trend if continued would sooner or later reveal Neeld as an authoritarian puppeteer. If that eventuated, and I hope it doesn't, everything in me would insist I get out of town.

I'm only telling you because you asked.

Jurrah will be the litmus test, I suspect. Firstly because of the enormously important issues about what AFL football is in Jurrah's life, way beyond football, and therefore because of the wider significance of sticking fat with him (quite apart from the football merits of his case); it's like I was very against questioning Stynes' tenure early this year, because I considered it unconscionable to abandon support for him when he was so sick. Secondly, and more narrowly, because Jurrah more dramatically than anyone else on the list challenges the picture of Neeld that I am afraid might be emerging. A control-freak coach intent on his own authority would not tolerate the inspirational brilliance of a Jurrah.

I repeat, I am not convinced; just watching. Hope like hell I'm wrong. Again, I feel very much the hostility of the bar.

Again, the word 'afraid' bobs in an anti-Neeld post. Lots of worry and fear among you blokes isn't there.

I think it's patently obvious Melbourne needs an authoritarian figurehead moving forward. The buddy-buddy stuff got us nowhere. 30 wins from 130 games and all that.

The club has shown every indication that it will 'stick fat' with Liam Jurrah through his court case. Which they should. But as far as his football is concerned, it will be up to him to adhere to the coach's dictums. If that "challenges his picture" of how things should be, well that's his problem.

The ltmus test is for Jurrah. Not the other way around.

What I can see in Neeld is a series of decisions that suggest a possible trend, which trend if continued would sooner or later reveal Neeld as an authoritarian puppeteer.

A control-freak coach intent on his own authority would not tolerate the inspirational brilliance of a Jurrah.

You're at it again but you left out "bed-wetter, jack-booted toe-cutter and baby-eating cannibal".

When you said, "Malthouse referred to the ability of a coach to gain the most from a list - not replace it completely - to achieve success. Personally, I wish we had a coach with that approach to the job." you were making a clear inference. Your inference was that you wished you had a coach, like Malthouse, that would get the most out of the list they'd inherited and that they wouldn't cut a swathe through it. I pointed out that after Malthouse's first year at Collingwood through various means he turned over a third of the list. Obviously the point I was making was that the coach you flagged as a standard bearer of how to manage a list, in fact, had probably the greatest turnover of a list in the last 15 years. And he did it after his first 12 months.

I don't need to go into every Collingwood trade, or retirement, as I was merely rebutting your assertion that Malthouse would handle list management differently. I've proven he's done the exact same thing you're being critical of. But unless you're stupid, and I won't rule that out, you know the point I was making. So instead of trying to query each case of the 13 players 'turned over' you simply needed to say, "gee, he did turn over a lot, didn't he ?" "I wasn't aware of that." But no, you take the disingenuous path.

Mass retirements and trades of seemingly good players (Michael, Williams and Rocca) after a coaches first year are rarely coincidental. You don't turn over a third of your list by accident.

Btw, I hope we're in a position to lose a grand final "yet again". I'm looking forward to once again being "in the game". Aren't you ?

You should have looked at the 13 players you referred to BH, given you assert that they were part of a massive turn over.

Brown, Crosisca, Watson, and I think Patterson, were normal and not unexpected retirements.

In terms of games and years Orchard (45/4), Wasley (23/3), Jacotine (16/2), Oborne (5/2), Baynes (1/1) and Smith (1/1) don't exactly qualify as 'turn overs' - more likely players at the bottom of the list.

Michael, Williams and Rocca all went on to very successful careers (I underestimated Rocca in my earlier post).

The detail certainly puts paid to your turn over theory, and in fact, it may support the opposite given the loss of the last 3 players, that is, did MM make a mistake in letting these three go? (Of course, there may have been good reasons on either side as to why they went - that's another issue.)

You should have looked at the 13 players you referred to BH, given you assert that they were part of a massive turn over.

Brown, Crosisca, Watson, and I think Patterson, were normal and not unexpected retirements.

In terms of games and years Orchard (45/4), Wasley (23/3), Jacotine (16/2), Oborne (5/2), Baynes (1/1) and Smith (1/1) don't exactly qualify as 'turn overs' - more likely players at the bottom of the list.

Michael, Williams and Rocca all went on to very successful careers (I underestimated Rocca in my earlier post).

The detail certainly puts paid to your turn over theory, and in fact, it may support the opposite given the loss of the last 3 players, that is, did MM make a mistake in letting these three go? (Of course, there may have been good reasons on either side as to why they went - that's another issue.)

Your research further defeats your argument.

MM retired players, got rid of untried youth, players with only a couple years experience and experienced players. All things Neeld is about to do.

Your research further defeats your argument.

MM retired players, got rid of untried youth, players with only a couple years experience and experienced players. All things Neeld is about to do.

Exactly right.

Someone has taken a certain path.

Your research further defeats your argument.

MM retired players, got rid of untried youth, players with only a couple years experience and experienced players. All things Neeld is about to do.

Research and history can often be interpreted in different ways, as has been shown here, which was precisely my point!

Research and history can often be interpreted in different ways, as has been shown here, which was precisely my point!

lol

No it isn't.

You are so tiresome.

Arguing with you is like trying to capture smoke with your bare hands.

lol

No it isn't.

You are so tiresome.

Arguing with you is like trying to capture smoke wipe your bum with your bare hands.

Very interesting thread with the occaisonal outbreak of personal invective due to frustration.

Again I have run out of likes

Its probably all reflective of following the dees but as an involved observer I dont really see the need to refer to someone with a different perspective or interpretation (even if it is wrong) as a Nuffie, idiot, stupid etc usually it is pretty obvious and the impact of the point is diminished with the outburst.

BUT

there obviously is some disagreement

but I prefer the many more points of agreement within the arguments and there has been some interesting detail revealed.

I didnt realise MM let go 13 didnt think you could make that drastic a change to a list so there may be some greater scope for change than I had imagined. While it may be unfortunate to see that many go there is no doubt something has to give . The appointmeny of Neeld was only the begginning.

I have said before that I dont see Neeld as the only factor in culture change and we may not even need a total culture change.

I have been re-reading some of MArtin Flannigans articles on the club Hes got to be one if the best journo/ authors around and I think he has identified many of the aspects of culture that are good and great about MFC

Certainly debate and issue raising will help identify the change and confirm what we need to embrace.

I think undoubtably the major factor which Neeld does have direct responsibility for is that we need to win (I am also sure that the culture of the club is not that we lose all the time) we have had our share of defeat it is now time to win The players need to know that and when that part of the culture is restored we can see how we measure against some of the other features of our culture.

Sorry to take up so much time and space with my inane ramblings but I have been inspired by the richness of the debate.

3 points in the first quarter... You are totally useless Neeld. You haven't been able to impart skill or confidence within the team.

Your days are numbered

Edited August 11, 201212 yr by bandicoot

8 goals in the last.

Give that man an extension!!

Demonland Rule #3 - Don't post during games.