Why the sudden rash of posts defending Neeld (King Cuthbertson, DemonDan, belzebub59)?

The MFC/Bailey relationship is history and no-one is suggesting otherwise.

A few posters are rightly pointing out Neeld's current, and possible future position, if something doesn't improve. They have also rightly highlighted the Board's responsibility.

So what's the problem? Could it be Carlton's position has rattled a few cages - they are ruthless, to say the least!

Whoops, sorry I think I accidentally pressed the 'report' button instead of 'quote'..

Anyway, umm, our situation has nothing to do with Carlton. Brett Ratten has been the senior coach of Carlton since July 2007. So, by my estimation that's a tad over 5 years. Mark Neeld is yet to complete his first season in charge, and the vultures are already circling. It blows my mind. There's no comparison whatsoever with the Carlton situation.

Neeld inherited a mess of a football club. We were 2 years behind where most other clubs were at when he took over... there is massive upheaval going on at the club to make a side that other AFL clubs actually respect. I outlined a number of valid reasons why this is going to take time.. So, I just don't understand why some of you think that these things can be achieved almost instantaneously..

Edited August 27, 201212 yr by King Cuthbertson

Not if we had Clark.

I reckon that's about a 5:1 against, based on the fact that getting him was instigated by the new FD and heavily involved Jade Rawlings. Clarke would most likely be kicking 6 or 7 against us this weekend.

I don't think you fully appreciate the task that Mark Neeld has been given. For Chris Scott, his task was to take a dual premiership team choc full of talent and experience, and tweak their fitness training and to get them playing less down the corridor.

Mark Neeld in contrast, has had to spend his first preseason giving the players a training programme that will 'GET US' to AFL standards of fitness in 2 years. That's coming from Dave Misson, one of the most highly credentialed fitness trainers in this country...

He has had to actually teach the playing group 'defensive principles' that have been ingrained in other playing groups for YEARS.

Due to the fact the playing groups level of fitness was not AFL standard, and getting this aspect on track was given priority, time normally spent on 'teaching structures' and 'gameplan' was neglected until the start of the season.

He has inherited an extremely unbalanced and inexperienced playing list, with senior players who have been found wanting under a tougher regime, and youngsters who have not been properly developed previously.

The group of players 25 years+ are widely regarded as the worst in the competiton with the least effective leadership of any AFL club. The fact we appointed a 20 year old as a captain should illustrate this point if it wasn't already obvious.

Players are clearly playing 'tired' because most of them are still adjusting to the spike in expectations required from a fitness perspective, and this seems to have had an adverse affect on performance in games to some extent.

Aside from these hurdles, Mark Neeld has been charged with changing the ENTIRE culture of the football club.

I've heard from various sources that opposition perception of the 'Bailey gameplan', was that it was good for 8-10 wins a season, but wouldn't hold up to being a 'finals football' gameplan. We could smack teams off the park when they weren't switched on with one-way flair heavy football, but when sides structured up well against us, and didn't allow us the time and space to operate, we had absolutely no counter. So essentially, it was a gameplan ineffective against good sides, which is surprising considering our 'giant killing' status between 2008-2011.

You are being unrealistic.

So WHY was Neeld going nuts at the round 1 press conference?? Was he surprised at how poor we were?? But wasn't he supposed to be in shock when he got there that the players were not AFL fit nor did they have a defensive game plan etc??

It doesn't gel for me. He was genuinely shocked at what he saw. This isn't someone who knew what he was in for when he took the job.

And it isn't someone who has taken training all summer and KNEW his players were underdone and couldn't string a competent game together. It smacks of someone who didn't know what he was doing and is now looking to shift blame and say 'the previous regime left us in tatters'.

I think this season has been a stuff up from October last year. Sure he's got a big job to do but me thinks he made his job a whole lot more difficult because of his approach and inexperience.

This summer will be our most important in 50 years.

You are actually arguing my position legend. Neeld has 12 months to turn the ship.

Kepp up the good work Bub

Nice try.. Im not arguing your case at all. That he would be accountable for any non-imrovement is a statement of the bleeding obvious

Your stance which you are evading now in argument , is that he is soley responsible for the quality of play currently exhibited. i.e Its his fault ....( and he better bloody do something ..brrr brr etc )

You seem to have little idea of process

i give up.

I don't know what sort of masochist would be willing to take over in 2014 if Neeld is scapegoated like some of you appear to want.

Edited August 27, 201212 yr by King Cuthbertson

That he would be accountable for any non-imrovement is a statement of the bleeding obvious

And why you needed to state it when its alreasy been stated is for your benefit only. Get over yourself Bub.

Are we still talking about Bailey?

And why you needed to state it when its alreasy been stated is for your benefit only. Get over yourself Bub.

because you did yourself you sanctimonios buffoon.

Dont deflect now Rhino . Wheres your argument gone ?

You have none. You pontificate and deride others but god forbid someone call you to task.

Many can see through it.

Bailey had 4 years though in fairness the first two were to list manage. Some of us thought he managed that well but it just turns out he was crap and couldnt win anyway.

The second 2 Years he infected the team so badly that his successor has to go to drastic lengths in order to establish any reference of ability and attitude of his charges.

Baileys successor has to all but start again.

Neeld has to undo Baileys efforts and still manage Some demonstrative turnaround inside 2 years to be seen by many as being the "goods".

But you seem to think its all his doing that we're rubbish.

No. Hes simply identifying the rubbish to make it easier to get rid of.

We will only get to understand the benefits of this process during the latter half of 2013 id suggest by which time the new talent is starting to work in together with general cohesiveness and ability of all to play their roles week in week out.

Its well possible that by then the momentum has swung back in ohr favour having eradicated the hangover effects of the "Bailey Years ".

Those that engaged Neeld new the mess we were in and understood it would take at least 2 seasons to get back on track.

Its amazing, and yet not, how many fail to grasp this and bemoan no instant pancea.

Truth is ... Neeld needs five years to turn this thing around.

That's how crap Bailey was and that's how poorly we recruited under Prendergast.

A knee-jerk sacking of Neeld next year would almost be the death of the club.

Neeld's year has been so bad that he cant afford to shred the MFC brand any further with development which is clearly needed. Next season he needs to coach with a short term horizon and a not a long term view if he is to survive. We have alot of younger players that still need time to mature. You cant rush it.

This is the scariest part of our predicament. We should be taking a long-term view and relying on the 'Demetriou put' for our survival. Paying obsene money/high draft picks for average or older players at other clubs is not the answer.

Truth is ... Neeld needs five years to turn this thing around.

That's how crap Bailey was and that's how poorly we recruited under Prendergast.

A knee-jerk sacking of Neeld next year would almost be the death of the club.

I dont think you need five years to see improvement. I would not be unhappy with Hardwick's progress as long as the Tiges improve again next year and play finals.

I am sure you try hard Bub but you just come out out looking shallow. And by the way its time for a new keyboard there were about 8 typos. That was the most interesting aspect of your post.

Its too hard for some pants.

If you're going to talk about other posters typos, then you might want to have a look at your grammar. Specifically, the use of the comma.

I don't think you fully appreciate the task that Mark Neeld has been given. For Chris Scott, his task was to take a dual premiership team choc full of talent and experience, and tweak their fitness training and to get them playing less down the corridor.

Mark Neeld in contrast, has had to spend his first preseason giving the players a training programme that will 'GET US' to AFL standards of fitness in 2 years. That's coming from Dave Misson, one of the most highly credentialed fitness trainers in this country...

He has had to actually teach the playing group 'defensive principles' that have been ingrained in other playing groups for YEARS.

Due to the fact the playing groups level of fitness was not AFL standard, and getting this aspect on track was given priority, time normally spent on 'teaching structures' and 'gameplan' was neglected until the start of the season.

He has inherited an extremely unbalanced and inexperienced playing list, with senior players who have been found wanting under a tougher regime, and youngsters who have not been properly developed previously.

The group of players 25 years+ are widely regarded as the worst in the competiton with the least effective leadership of any AFL club. The fact we appointed a 20 year old as a captain should illustrate this point if it wasn't already obvious.

Players are clearly playing 'tired' because most of them are still adjusting to the spike in expectations required from a fitness perspective, and this seems to have had an adverse affect on performance in games to some extent.

Aside from these hurdles, Mark Neeld has been charged with changing the ENTIRE culture of the football club.

I've heard from various sources that opposition perception of the 'Bailey gameplan', was that it was good for 8-10 wins a season, but wouldn't hold up to being a 'finals football' gameplan. We could smack teams off the park when they weren't switched on with one-way flair heavy football, but when sides structured up well against us, and didn't allow us the time and space to operate, we had absolutely no counter. So essentially, it was a gameplan ineffective against good sides, which is surprising considering our 'giant killing' status between 2008-2011.

You are being unrealistic.

Fantastic post. Well played.

I dont think you need five years to see improvement. I would not be unhappy with Hardwick's progress as long as the Tiges improve again next year and play finals.

Then why does malthouse get such praise on here after 10 failed years at Collingwood?

Clearly Sheedy was lucky to have continuity at Essendon.

If our coach get us one in 6 years i will be a happy man.

Yes RR there had better be some improvement by July 2013 or the hounds will be baying for blood.

the hounds like RR and old dee will be leading the pack by the sound of it.

Surely Neeld has the MFC supporters best interests at heart. "Hard and aggressive" that is how I want Melbourne to play also Neeldy. We just need the players to jump on board, EVERYBODY CHEER UP ! :-) Imagine the roar as Jack Viney runs onto the MCG round 1 and Mitch Clark kicks the first goal.

Everyone will say how much the players let him down in 2012. Trengove in for a huge year, and expect big scalps...Hawthorn, Sydney, Collingwood.

the hounds like RR and old dee will be leading the pack by the sound of it.

Not sure how you deduce that from my comments monoccular.

I was agreeing that the hounds would be out for blood if there was no improvement.

I don't believe I have said one negative word about Neeld.

I have said on numerous occasions that we have a poor list and it is going to take a long time to change that problem.

I have critised numerous players and others at the MFC but Neeld has been there for such a short time who would know.

I have said on a number of occasions that I have no idea if Neeld is a good coach or not.

In fact I have also said I don't believe that 99% of the people on Demonland have any idea either.

So please don't label me as being a hound looking for neeld's blood it is not true.

Edited August 28, 201212 yr by old dee

the hounds like RR and old dee will be leading the pack by the sound of it.

Concur with OldDee above Monoccular. Don't know why you'd think I'll be leading that pack.

I'm fully supportive of what Neeld is trying to do. But I fully expect not be anywhere near the eight next year.

Concur with OldDee above Monoccular. Don't know why you'd think I'll be leading that pack.

I'm fully supportive of what Neeld is trying to do. But I fully expect not be anywhere near the eight next year.

The RR he was referring to was Rhino mate.

So you are not to blame.

I don't think you fully appreciate the task that Mark Neeld has been given. For Chris Scott, his task was to take a dual premiership team choc full of talent and experience, and tweak their fitness training and to get them playing less down the corridor.

Mark Neeld in contrast, has had to spend his first preseason giving the players a training programme that will 'GET US' to AFL standards of fitness in 2 years. That's coming from Dave Misson, one of the most highly credentialed fitness trainers in this country...

He has had to actually teach the playing group 'defensive principles' that have been ingrained in other playing groups for YEARS.

Due to the fact the playing groups level of fitness was not AFL standard, and getting this aspect on track was given priority, time normally spent on 'teaching structures' and 'gameplan' was neglected until the start of the season.

He has inherited an extremely unbalanced and inexperienced playing list, with senior players who have been found wanting under a tougher regime, and youngsters who have not been properly developed previously.

The group of players 25 years+ are widely regarded as the worst in the competiton with the least effective leadership of any AFL club. The fact we appointed a 20 year old as a captain should illustrate this point if it wasn't already obvious.

Players are clearly playing 'tired' because most of them are still adjusting to the spike in expectations required from a fitness perspective, and this seems to have had an adverse affect on performance in games to some extent.

Aside from these hurdles, Mark Neeld has been charged with changing the ENTIRE culture of the football club.

I've heard from various sources that opposition perception of the 'Bailey gameplan', was that it was good for 8-10 wins a season, but wouldn't hold up to being a 'finals football' gameplan. We could smack teams off the park when they weren't switched on with one-way flair heavy football, but when sides structured up well against us, and didn't allow us the time and space to operate, we had absolutely no counter. So essentially, it was a gameplan ineffective against good sides, which is surprising considering our 'giant killing' status between 2008-2011.

You are being unrealistic.

To take a more positve approach to this comment: Neeld had a clean slate to work with including low expectations, and after 12 months, where are we?

It is often harder to take over a successful business and improve it further ...

To take a more positve approach to this comment: Neeld had a clean slate to work with including low expectations, and after 12 months, where are we?

It is often harder to take over a successful business and improve it further ...

I cant quite see how you see it as a clean slate. He had essentialy for the most part what he was handed. He got to make a couple of changes but hardly goes to 'clean slate'

This coming EOS he has a chance to wipe it a bit cleaner and draw his own picture

Edited August 28, 201212 yr by belzebub59

To take a more positve approach to this comment: Neeld had a clean slate to work with including low expectations, and after 12 months, where are we?

It is often harder to take over a successful business and improve it further ...

How can you say he has a clean slate when Dean Bailey was given 4 years? If Neeld has a clean slate, then what did Bailey have?

How can you say he has a clean slate when Dean Bailey was given 4 years?

He can and he will ... because he's Hardnut!

To take a more positve approach to this comment: Neeld had a clean slate to work with including low expectations, and after 12 months, where are we?

It is often harder to take over a successful business and improve it further ...

So what you're saying is, that Chris Scott actually had a tougher task than Neeld?

Now i've heard it all...

Mark Neeld started his tenure at Melbourne with a clean slate? Get real!!

The slate was littered with troubles. He has had to plough through it all.

After the next draft the slate is much closer to being somewhat clean.