D/L has had a year of posters defending Neeld by blaming Bailey and the players. I don't believe either N or B were suitable choices as senior coaches and have said so before. I also believe we are in a worse state now than we were a year ago on a player and supporter basis, and as a fractured club in no small part due to Neeld. The good part is that at least our finances seem OK.

Yes you have made this statement before, round about 1000 times, but let me ask you a question before you do it again, which I'm sure you will, what qualifications do you have that enable you to determine that Neeld can't coach? You coached at the highest level yourself? Or is it just your old fashioned gut feel that he's no good?

HTF do you know, after one experimental year, that Neeld can't coach? You do understand that we have a very poor list don't you, one that copped the second biggest hiding in AFL/VFL history last year?

You just don't get it do you?

probably?

And Freo shows they can learn new game plans within half a season.

Luckily its all Baleys fault, so we'll be ok with the Schoolteacher

I know you like to troll, but are you even aware that Bailey was also a schoolteacher?

As was Alistair Clarkson, Brendan McCartney, John Kennedy Sr, Neil Craig and many other coaches?

Yes you have made this statement before, round about 1000 times, but let me ask you a question before you do it again, which I'm sure you will, what qualifications do you have that enable you to determine that Neeld can't coach? You coached at the highest level yourself? Or is it just your old fashioned gut feel that he's no good?

HTF do you know, after one experimental year, that Neeld can't coach? You do understand that we have a very poor list don't you, one that copped the second biggest hiding in AFL/VFL history last year?

You just don't get it do you?

The sad part is I do get it, but you don't want to see it RobbieF!

If the qualification for making comments on coaches was that the commentator had to have been a coach at the highest level, then very few people would be able to comment - that includes former players, media personalities, in fact most people, even demonlanders. Is that what you are really saying? Your premise doesn't stand up in any walk of life!

Your comment that we have a very poor list is also not correct - in fact, you are just making excuses - there are many who know that the list has a quite reasonable and competitive base, which could have been even better if some players hadn't been lost over the last few years.

Step back from your own bias and take a good look at what has happened - it didn't need to be this way.

PS: A bit of trivia - Kyle Cheney is an emergency for the Hawks in a Grand Final and we let him go?

The sad part is I do get it, but you don't want to see it RobbieF!

If the qualification for making comments on coaches was that the commentator had to have been a coach at the highest level, then very few people would be able to comment - that includes former players, media personalities, in fact most people, even demonlanders. Is that what you are really saying? Your premise doesn't stand up in any walk of life!

Your comment that we have a very poor list is also not correct - in fact, you are just making excuses - there are many who know that the list has a quite reasonable and competitive base, which could have been even better if some players hadn't been lost over the last few years.

Step back from your own bias and take a good look at what has happened - it didn't need to be this way.

PS: A bit of trivia - Kyle Cheney is an emergency for the Hawks in a Grand Final and we let him go?

Who are these many you refer to? Are they just as ill informed as you or do they have any knowledge of the game?

Give me the names of a couple of commentators that have said we have a good list, even one. Leigh Mathews, when asked a week or so ago, said we had nothing, you reckon you know more than him?

You live in some kind of wonderland if you think we have a good list; why do you think we are going after some talent in this draft?

It never ceases to amaze me that you hang your hat on Beamer as one of the players we should keep; just look up his stats in the half he played against Geelong in the 186 game. Not one possession in a half of disgraceful football, if that wasn't a wake up to you it was to the club.

You've dismissed Neeld after one year and that in itself tells me you wouldn't have a clue. As I said what qualifies you to pass judgement on him?

Give us a reason why we should respect your opinion, tell us what involvement you've had in football over the years.

No [censored] just the facts what are your credentials.

Ah yes, the wonderful 2010 season where we managed a mighty 12th and 8 wonderful wins. How have we slipped so far from that lofty position? If only we'd known that we had it so good.

Who are these many you refer to? Are they just as ill informed as you or do they have any knowledge of the game?

Give me the names of a couple of commentators that have said we have a good list, even one. Leigh Mathews, when asked a week or so ago, said we had nothing, you reckon you know more than him?

You live in some kind of wonderland if you think we have a good list; why do you think we are going after some talent in this draft?

It never ceases to amaze me that you hang your hat on Beamer as one of the players we should keep; just look up his stats in the half he played against Geelong in the 186 game. Not one possession in a half of disgraceful football, if that wasn't a wake up to you it was to the club.

You've dismissed Neeld after one year and that in itself tells me you wouldn't have a clue. As I said what qualifies you to pass judgement on him?

Give us a reason why we should respect your opinion, tell us what involvement you've had in football over the years.

No [censored] just the facts what are your credentials.

I have not mentioned Beamer - don't know where you got that one from RobbieF.

If you opened your eyes and ears to comments on our list you would realise how wrong you are, but your Neeld bias obviously prevails.

What you are really saying is I haven't got a clue because I don't agree with you.

I could ask what are your credentials, but you clearly didn't understand my point on commentators.

Please feel free to continue believing what you wish - I remember 1965!

Leigh Mathews, when asked a week or so ago, said we had nothing, you reckon you know more than him?

Is that the same Leigh Mathews who said Clark was not a good pick up and Hudson would be way better?

Is that the same Leigh Mathews who said Clark was not a good pick up and Hudson would be way better?

No one on the panel disagreed with him.

I have not mentioned Beamer - don't know where you got that one from RobbieF.

If you opened your eyes and ears to comments on our list you would realise how wrong you are, but your Neeld bias obviously prevails.

What you are really saying is I haven't got a clue because I don't agree with you.

I could ask what are your credentials, but you clearly didn't understand my point on commentators.

Please feel free to continue believing what you wish - I remember 1965!

So you respond to my post by avoiding the questions I asked you; that tells me you don't have any credentials and it's just pure speculation on your part. But you just keep on telling every one that he can't coach even though you don't know why and can't offer any reasoning.

There is a political/economic comparison that can be made to the Dean Bailey era at Melbourne and that is of the United States Presidency of George W. Bush.

1) Bush inherited an economy that facing a downturn after the dot.com bubble and the negative impact of 9/11 and tried to stimulate the economy with 'tax cuts' (though I must say rather disingenuously). The short term created massive deficits but few jobs/Bailey inherited an aging list with few newcomers and tried to pump it up with draft picks. The short term created some woeful performances but a few youngsters who showed promise.

2) After the initial firestorm, the economy recovered somewhat and GDP started to grow. Deficits were still a problem but unemployment had gotten to an even keel. A bigger problem was the insane risks financial institutions were taking with sub-prime mortgages and credit defaults swaps. Bush however lets these institutions call the shots /After a few years of pain, the club looked to be getting back on an even keel but massive losses to top four sides and a lack of fight is a problem. An even bigger problem (not known at the time) is the in house war taking place between the coaching and football department and Bailey taking the side of the playing group and in some cases kowtowing to their whims (i.e. cancelling fitness trials).

3) The stock market crash that caused the GFC. Thousands of points wiped off the stock market.Thousands more lose their homes. Large investment banks go under (Bear Stearns, AIG). This one day of carnage sets the tone for 3 years of economic pain to come/186 happens. Players show no fight and are absolutely pantsed making a mockery of their 'support' for Bailey. Bailey is sacked, Schwab reprimanded. Demons get flogged in subsequent game and win one more game for the year against Gold Coast, an expansion team.

Like the Great Recession, the seeds of it's cause were found somewhere in steps one and two: plans that were myopic and narrow sighted (playing exclusively high draft picks and shedding experience/cutting corporate tax rates) and an inability to stand up to those who could make the most difference (Bailey cozying up to the players to use in his game against Schwab and therefore giving them the whip hand/Bush playing havoc with the amount of leverage available to financial institutions and not once creating policy that might go against their perceived 'interest'). We still feel the negative blow back of 186 today in the form of the performances given. The 'successful' lead up of 2010/11 was merely masking the inherent weaknesses of that playing list. Neeld is our Barack Obama to some extent (not in his personal charisma but in regards to the mess he inherited). And like Obama, the jury is out if he can actually turn it around. I hope for his sake that he does. I guess unlike Obama he has stood up to some of the causes of the Meltdown but like Obama, he has yet to provide real results.

*Also kind of ironic both of these incidents both involved the GFC.

There is a political/economic comparison that can be made to the Dean Bailey era at Melbourne and that is of the United States Presidency of George W. Bush.

Lost me.

Lost me.

And here come the usual threads where people refuse to read the whole post and begin devaluing it. God, I love the 'land.

Lost me.

What else is new.

And here come the usual threads where people refuse to read the whole post and begin devaluing it. God, I love the 'land.

I read it but I also happen to be a US political junkie.

Comparing the MFC under Bailey and the US under Bush isn't comparing Apples and Oranges - it's comparing apples with the US under Bush...

Deregulation, housing bubble, dodgy loans, dodgy people, unfunded wars, unpaid medicaid expansion, massive tax cuts for the wealthy - these things caused US decline.

Don't see the parallels with the MFC under Bailey.

Great. Comparing the MFC to the U.S.A of the last 10 years.

That means we really are [censored]. No more finals GF's or Cups.

Thanks.

Great. Comparing the MFC to the U.S.A of the last 10 years.

That means we really are [censored]. No more finals GF's or Cups.

Thanks.

I guess the bright side is that things can be fixed... Can't they?

I guess the bright side is that things can be fixed... Can't they?

i doubt the USA will be fixed if thats what you mean!!

Been there a few times. Scratch the surface and it is going down.

i doubt the USA will be fixed if thats what you mean!!

Been there a few times. Scratch the surface and it is going down.

I hope both can be fixed but to be honest, I think the MFC is a better chance to recover than the US. My last girlfriend was American and from what I can tell, they have a naively optimistic way of thinking and an inability to confront reality (though that wasn't garnered from her personally!)

Yes you have made this statement before, round about 1000 times, but let me ask you a question before you do it again, which I'm sure you will, what qualifications do you have that enable you to determine.....

You just don't get it do you?

Interestingly there wasn't a person on our coaching selection panel who had coached an AFL game.

I take your point.

Who are these many you refer to? Are they just as ill informed as you or do they have any knowledge of the game?

Give me the names of a couple of commentators that have said we have a good list, even one. Leigh Mathews, when asked a week or so ago, said we had nothing, you reckon you know more than him?

You live in some kind of wonderland if you think we have a good list; why do you think we are going after some talent in this draft?

It never ceases to amaze me that you hang your hat on Beamer as one of the players we should keep; just look up his stats in the half he played against Geelong in the 186 game. Not one possession in a half of disgraceful football, if that wasn't a wake up to you it was to the club.

You've dismissed Neeld after one year and that in itself tells me you wouldn't have a clue. As I said what qualifies you to pass judgement on him?

You're aware Robbie that Moloney was ill in the lead up to the game and was actually out cold in the rooms during the second half of the game? Even from the standing room on the terraces at Kardinia Park you could tell he wasn't right and shouldn't have been out there. I'm not sure how his game was a "wake up to the club"? He did with the B+F.

As a point of interest, we actually fielded a younger team that day against Geelong than we did when we smashed the Swans 12 months earlier.

I'm amazed that people think there isn't (or wasn't given the delistings/trades) quality on our list - after all the top picks we've had over recent years there simply has to be quality on the list. There's 800 players in the AFL and not a single one makes it anywhere near an AFL list without a decent amount of ability. There were plenty of coaches and commentators ready to anoint MFC as the next big thing in 2010 - Michael Voss was one - so since then we've slipped to a team that essentially won one game in 2012. Even Neeld's comments about being the "hardest team to play against" suggest that he thought there was a bit there to work with.

2012 is going to be a season that will always divide opinion - realistically by mid-season of 2013 there should be a large improvement shown, in what is essentially year 6 of the rebuild. By that point we'll have a better idea of whether Neeld is the right man for the job.

Is it really only a couple of years since we thrashed the Swannies by 73 points ( Roos greatest ever coaching loss ) and last season had that draw at the SCG in round one ? The 2012 contrast between the sides is breathtaking . At least West Coast and Adelaide have shown that sides CAN rebound quickly .

And neither the Neeld or Bailey's demons were even close to the side that Daniher led into a grand final in 2000 - so what is your point??

A guy at my work thinks a good analogy for the MFC is an old, lame, feral dog that wanders around a town needing to be put down but no one has the time to waste a bullet. A little harsh but probably closer than the US...

A guy at my work thinks a good analogy for the MFC is an old, lame, feral dog that wanders around a town needing to be put down but no one has the time to waste a bullet. A little harsh but probably closer than the US...

Your colleague deserves a punch in the face.

Metaphorically of course...

And neither playing group permitted a loss of 186.

The playing group which you so support produced one of the wretched performances in AFL/VFL history. BEFORE neeld, not after. They played weak, unacountable footy all that year and only beat teams when the opposition was at a low ebb. I'm glad you embraced such a shameful set of performances produced by that group. I'm rapt that you 'back' the playing group - a group that is rumoured to have had half of its members not complete Dave Misson's fitness program before pre-season commenced. A group whose members have spoken alomst openly about not buying in to the new coach's plans for part if not all of the season.

Be proud Hardnut. The group has done a wonderful job under adversity.

I reckon I saw a worse result Melb and Fitzroy years ago which didnt seem to receive the same constant reference

AM I correct

What was the fallout / ramifications of that loss