You're saying the side that lost to Sydney by 101 would beat the side that beat the same side by 73.

The side that beat Sydney by 73 couldn't beat Sydney at all the following year. 2010 was a bit of a smoke and mirrors season, and in retrospect, most of us seem to be able to see through that. Most of us.

You have got to be joking Curry and Beer.

Our approach under Bailey was idealistic. Our approach under Neeld is pragmatic and realistic. This is reflected in the approach to player recruitment.

IMO the game plan, and the structure of the lists, between 2010 and now illustrate this. In short, I reckon the 2013 Demons would thump the 2010 version more times than the other way around.

You seem to be very selective in identifying certain wins and then basing an entire argument on it - ironic really, given that we've not even made the eight since 2006. Inductive reasoning at its best.

Using your 'logic', do you think the 2010 Demons would have beaten the 2012 Swans in this year's Grand Final simply because they got a run on in ONE game at the MCG in 2010? And is not the 2010 Demons side essentially the same team that got humiliated by 186 points in an AFL game in 2011?!

Further, 2012 is not the fair comparison IMO. In large part, it was still Bailey's list.

2013 would be slightly fairer comparison as it has much more Neeld influence on it.

And I'd back the new list every day - even on a bad day, there's no way this group would ever get thumped by 186 points. Not ever. They just wouldn't allow it to happen.

IMO the game plan, and the structure of the lists, between 2010 and now illustrate this. In short, I reckon the 2013 Demons would thump the 2010 version more times than the other way around.

I don't know about the 2013 Demons - it's still in a transitional stage - but the 2014 Demon would badly hurt the 2010 side, They'd be too big, too strong, too fit and too aggressive for the 2010 side. About half way through the second quarter the 2010 team would have gone to pieces. We saw that happen again and again in 2011 once other sides had identified that we didn't like it tough, and that we only ran hard one way.

It'd been worked out by everyone, and it wasn't going to get better without us making some massive changes. I know it, you know it, most of Demonand knows it. C&B can't see it.

The Bailey years vs the Neeld year is a non argument. Different coaches with different game plans/philosophies. Yet both (coaches) have yet, or did not make a mark on the game consistently.

People tend to think that a Bio with older -players with height to weight ratio is enough to get rid of the tag of Bruise Free football. Intent and the way they hunt the ball is more important than a Bio. The ability to win the ball and/or use the ball with precision hurts more than a bump without the ball, and the club has yet to do either consistently for a long time under any coach.

I can't remember season 2012. It has all faded...

Floating down an Asian River, hydrating whilst in an inner tube, can have that effect they tell me.

Everyone on here who says that we are pathetic and Neeld is going knowhere, has a point.

Everyone on here who says that they love how Neeld is going about it, also has a point and thats fair.

Only time will tell what will be the end result of Neeld's grand plan. Although it seems to be crystal clear and quite logical, we do not know what our players will produce and that is something that will give doubt into our minds, as all us Melbourne supporters have seen nothing but disgraceful rubbish for the years on end.

Picking up experienced or middle aged talls is a certain tactic, so is getting young gun midfielders with an older supporting cast is also a certain tactic.

No one knows if itll work for the MFC, lets hope..

Great post Grimesyisgod.

We can only hope and have faith. I worry the club goes in too many directions and has to over compensate with change due to previous Admins/Footy Depts seemingly radical approach in their own change from previous years.

Everyone on here who says that we are pathetic and Neeld is going knowhere, has a point.

Everyone on here who says that they love how Neeld is going about it, also has a point and thats fair.

I have zero idea if Neeld is on the right track or not. There seems to be a good energy around the place but... that doesn't mean a hell of a lot really. Only results do. What I do know is that the Bailey way was broken. We had a team that went to water under pressure, and who thought that games under the belt equalled success.

Neeld may well build a highly motivated team that can't execute a game plan (seen that before, haven't we?), and that finishes bottom 4 every year of his reign, but I'd put a months pay on it beating Bailey's side each time because the side Bailey wanted to build had no heart and had no balls, and by the end everyone knew it.

I honestly think there is far too much intelligence and footy knowledge within the current football department that they will bring a dud game plan and fail to develop players.

The improvement next season will be astonishing.

Grimseyisgod is right - at this point in time, no one knows how successful Neeld will ultimately be at the MFC.

That said, the original point I was trying to make in this thread is that the soft approach that this club has become so synonymous with is over.

You can see that on so many different levels. In fact, I would've thought seeking to argue against that point is simply being deliberately contrarian.

most of Demonand knows it. C&B can't see it.

sounds like the 'it' you are referring to is everybody's DESPERATE need to believe that this time we are actually building something real. There is pretty much zero evidence that this is occurring. I'm not saying I don't have faith in it, but to talk about it as if we have already done something is just plain silly. Let's say things go well this year and we finish on 8.5 wins. The exact same people who are acting like they knew 2010 was a false dawn will be pumping us up exactly the same way. Then in 2 years if we are back down the bottom they will be singing the i-knew-2012-was-a-false-dawn tune. It's all fairly embarrassing really.

And I'd back the new list every day - even on a bad day, there's no way this group would ever get thumped by 186 points. Not ever. They just wouldn't allow it to happen.

statements based on nothing exhibit A

sounds like the 'it' you are referring to is everybody's DESPERATE need to believe that this time we are actually building something real. There is pretty much zero evidence that this is occurring. I'm not saying I don't have faith in it, but to talk about it as if we have already done something is just plain silly. Let's say things go well this year and we finish on 8.5 wins. The exact same people who are acting like they knew 2010 was a false dawn will be pumping us up exactly the same way. Then in 2 years if we are back down the bottom they will be singing the i-knew-2012-was-a-false-dawn tune. It's all fairly embarrassing really.

I get what you are saying 'Curry', nothing has been proven yet but at least we have taken some steps that at this stage look positive. I know at this time last year I was really excited about the year ahead with the new FD in place only to be left flat before the NAB cup was finished.

I'm not sure many saw 2010 as a false dawn with expectation for a big 2011 but the subsequent poor performance despite the wins gave more than warning signs that things weren't right at the MFC, 2012 was proof.

I am excited to see what 2013 brings, to see if we may be on the right track this time. It won't be the wins but it will be how we go about it that will be the measuring stick for me. The NAB cup will again start to show the story, I reckon I will have a pretty good handle on where we are by March 2013.

Everyone on here who says that we are pathetic and Neeld is going knowhere, has a point.

I disagree, they have an opinion but theres no actual 'point' to the comment. its just negative rubbish really. The sort of thing thats manifesto amongst the MFCSS. To utter anythig remotely along those lines is to observe with closed eyes id suggest.

Everyone on here who says that they love how Neeld is going about it, also has a point and thats fair.

Again this only really goes to the 'impression' of some. In itself as vacuous as the first.

Now this isnt a critique of your post GiG, just allowing that many I feel just dont seem to portray their views with much logic or reason.

No one can say right now that Neeld will be ultimately successful. That in itself is not down to him alone. What i do feel though is reasonable to assert is that he ( MN) is indeed taking us down a path that whilst leads to where success lays is not a guarantee of such.

It to me is foolhardy and plain obfuscating for any to harp on about us going nowhere when all around us is such change that even of itself is having gone somewhere.

Prior to his arrival many of the markers of a successful club/team were missing. We hadnt the expertise either in depth or scope to back our players. We do now.. That folks is change i;e weve done something about a poor situation and got somewhere by doing so. The make up and qualities of the team list was as many had observed wrong. it was bedded down in false hopes of a 'new age' dawning on the back of developing kids. It was either hit or miss, or hope and prayer; take your pick.

The FD has taken to this sheet with not just erasers but scissors.I cant remember ( ever) such wholesale and widespread change to a Melbourne list.

A player list that read like a supermarket novel was pared back to the essential talents, then added to. But not in some adhoc darts at the draftboard style but a concerted effort to address the inherent wrongs of age spread and any meaningful pulse that could be utilsed. Boys , or the 'too many of' , were replaced by more seasoned men, and football players to boot ( pi ) , not more of those experimental types.

Weve gone from a list who seemed lost in the wilderness to a team who will line up at the start' somewhere we were never even close to for years.

Weve morphed from a place where 'other teams players' just gave a wide berth to to a club where players ( new) and draftees and beaming with the sense of chance and opportunity , let alone the suggestion that finals are now realistic prize.

And some still suggest weve gone nowhere ??

Some cant see change, some just dont want to see it. Then again some wouldnt realise it if it bit them on the bum !!

go Dees

Grimseyisgod is right - at this point in time, no one knows how successful Neeld will ultimately be at the MFC.

That said, the original point I was trying to make in this thread is that the soft approach that this club has become so synonymous with is over.

You can see that on so many different levels. In fact, I would've thought seeking to argue against that point is simply being deliberately contrarian.

Lets not paper over the cracks Ron B. Lets make sure the job is 'fixed properly',,, or not at all.

pretending its gone, when we know its just brushed under the corner of the carpet, isn't fixing it.

Only time will show/prove its been cut out.

There are some who want to paint an Image od all is well re our 'Bruise Free status'.

Its the 'status' word here that really damages us!

Some think 'status' is everything.

Its the quest for status, that distracts us from Real Success.

Real status is not won, its received from others as a gift. You can't win it, because it rests in the hearts & minds of others, & is not transferable.

It is, respect, & is a momentary thing like the refresh rate on your monitor.

Admiration.

So lets just humbly go our way about learning how to win, & to achieve our desires, rather than things not in our hands.

This status thing is maybe what caused us to be so 'impotent' in the first place, wanting to be squeaky clean, so we can point the finger at others from on high, accusing them of foul play, etc.

We try for the high moral ground each time.

Lets get down, get dirty, & play the game in the mud like it was designed for, like every other club does, & should.

I like to be conservative with these things but the improvement to our footy side should see a marked improvement this season.

List is improved outta sight, game plan is a year older, fitness should be better. A fit list should see us win at least 8 and maybe 12.

A fundamental problem that we had was we had to many light bodied (awaiting the bulk) type players who simply got knocked around. Neeld has sought to inject the team with a serious dose ofABLE bodies cap

able of playing a "harder' style of game.

i have little doubt we'll see a more no-nonsense approach taken upon the field

sounds like the 'it' you are referring to is everybody's DESPERATE need to believe that this time we are actually building something real. There is pretty much zero evidence that this is occurring. I'm not saying I don't have faith in it, but to talk about it as if we have already done something is just plain silly. Let's say things go well this year and we finish on 8.5 wins. The exact same people who are acting like they knew 2010 was a false dawn will be pumping us up exactly the same way. Then in 2 years if we are back down the bottom they will be singing the i-knew-2012-was-a-false-dawn tune. It's all fairly embarrassing really.

Huh? Zero evidence? There seems to be quite a bit from where I sit. We've turned over the list in no uncertain terms. We've recruited players to fill key roles. We've drafted good young talent. Training intensity seems to have been stepped up and from all reports the players are responding. This is clear evidence that Neeld is building something real. If you mean that there is no evidence in terms of results, well, no sh!t Sherlock. It's November. We are building a team to win games and instilling a new culture of professionalism. This takes time but surely you can see the evidence of it taking place?

A fundamental problem that we had was we had to many light bodied (awaiting the bulk) type players who simply got knocked around. Neeld has sought to inject the team with a serious dose ofABLE bodies cap

able of playing a "harder' style of game.

i have little doubt we'll see a more no-nonsense approach taken upon the field

B59, I'm not going to complain too much about the list that Neeld inherited (except for the senior players' attitude). The kids that we took with our many early picks were picked with a certain game style in mind. I admire the fact tha tBailey had an idea of where he wanted to take the game, creating his own path, rather than following the leaders. That's why Bomber Thompson nearly fell on his own sword - he was creating a beast that AFL footy hadn't seen, and until it worked 100%, he was in the firing line. I have no doubt that the beast Bailey was trying to develop was proudly on display against the Swans in 2010. The biggest problem was that DB didn't/couldn't change the attitude/culture of the players under him, and this was an epic fail. There was just no consistency in how the Bailey team played, which was probably a mental thing that was in place even in the Daniher days. If they could get it right, would it be a game style that could win finals/flags? No-one knows, but we al lknow that contested footy is what wins flags, which is where Geelong were such a great team - played the free flowing, attacking footy in the H&A games, then could play contested footy in finals. I'm doubtful we had the players that could make that change.

Now that Neeld has come in, he has obviously gone grunt, which is great for finals, and gives me every confidence that we could actually win a final or two, three, however many required. The biggest concern I have is winning enough games in the H&A season to get there. Even Collingwood, Hawthorn and Sydeny, the teams I consider to be the best contested teams in the league, can, when required, play attacking, exciting footy, similar to that brand we played in "that" Swans game of 2010. The thing is that a lot of our players that were drafted with that style in mind are now gone (Gysberts, Morton, Scully, even Jurrah/Wona), so hopefully the players that Neeld has brought in over the past 12 months or so can fill those spots. Time will tell if this happens.

The one thing that I keep replaying in my mind is the comment made by Neeld (on Robbo's The Coach's Office I think). Neeld said that he had told the entire group that what we do really well is attack, but we get let down by our ability to defend. So, as Neeld said, he wanted all players to keep that great attacking footy that we can play to one side, and we will return to that, but initially, he wants to focus on making contested footy our strength. This to me indicates that we just may see some of that exciting, attacking footy that we can play, but not yet. But hopefully the work we do in the first phase of Neeld's coaching stint, ie increase fitness, will see us playing more consistently when our game is better all around.

I have said it a number of times, and will continue to do so, and it has probably been confirmed with the recent departures of some high draft picks, Neeld will be the next Melbourne Football Club premiership coach, or he will go down as the last Melbourne Football Club coach. If he gets this right, it will be something special, and a bronze statue will be erected (along with many other things!). If he gets it wrong, it will go close to ruining this Club.

If anyone calls that MFCSS, I will take great pleasure in stabbing them in the eye.

Huh? Zero evidence? There seems to be quite a bit from where I sit. We've turned over the list in no uncertain terms. We've recruited players to fill key roles. We've drafted good young talent. Training intensity seems to have been stepped up and from all reports the players are responding. This is clear evidence that Neeld is building something real. If you mean that there is no evidence in terms of results, well, no sh!t Sherlock. It's November. We are building a team to win games and instilling a new culture of professionalism. This takes time but surely you can see the evidence of it taking place?

firstly, i don't know how anyone can take even the slightest interest in what is being said about training/preseason, every single club every single year says the same rubbish. What else are they going to say? I agree by and large with all the trading and drafting we've done but it's all just on paper at the moment. It remains to be seen whether or not we will be a better side without Rivers, Moloney and Jurrah who have swapped out for Dawes, Pederson, Rodan and Byrnes. Let's not kid ourselves that the 4 players just mentioned are superstars. We would be foolish to think Viney and Toumpas are going to have a tangeable impact straight up. All I am saying is nothing at all has been achieved yet... and apparently even a good showing of 8.5 wins in 2012 does not mean any further improvement in 2013. Long way to go. A subject title like "The end of 'bruise free' football at the MFC" should appear when have consistent tough performances and wins on the board, when we have earnt it.

sounds like the 'it' you are referring to is everybody's DESPERATE need to believe that this time we are actually building something real. There is pretty much zero evidence that this is occurring. I'm not saying I don't have faith in it, but to talk about it as if we have already done something is just plain silly. Let's say things go well this year and we finish on 8.5 wins. The exact same people who are acting like they knew 2010 was a false dawn will be pumping us up exactly the same way. Then in 2 years if we are back down the bottom they will be singing the i-knew-2012-was-a-false-dawn tune. It's all fairly embarrassing really.

Aren't you the bloke that posted in Ology that we only needed to get games into young players and we would be contenders for the flag?? That Stakka bloke?? Sounds familiar....

statements based on nothing exhibit A

As I've said before C&B, it's a very convenient stance you're taking here. Given that Neeld was only appointed at the end of season 2011, he is really only now able to restructure this list, and that he is doing. So it's not as though we could actually have any meaningful comparison just yet.

I am just basing my observations on his actions to date. And they have been very deliberate and very clear and, to my mind, very convincing.

I have no doubt that we will see a different MFC side next year. I do not believe we're finals bound, as it's still an inexperienced player group, but I think we'll be more consistent and, importantly, we'll be harder and more competitive.

However, you seem pretty confident about your position - so, name your price.

We'll have a wager that the team we field against Geelong next year at Kardinia Park (round 13, Sat Jul 13 at 2.10pm) will be a lot more competitive than the team we fielded in round 19, Sat Jul 30 at 2.10pm in 2011 that lost by a margin of 186 points - 37.11.233 to 7.5.47. That's not that long ago to be fair - almost identical games, both Sat arvo at Kardinia Park.

I'm not going to propose 186 points as the margin, because, despite your clever Exhibit A comment, I think you actually know that no team coached by Mark Neeld will get flogged by 186 points.

So, how about a margin of 86? That's a lazy discount of 100 points on 2011.

A lot of varying comments.

I'll add one more.

The recruiting we have done over the past year has been done with a considered PLAN.

Not the scattergun approach of the past several years.

When I look at the body types we have recruited along with the experienced players (also with strong body types)

I can't help but feel that we have recruited with one purpose in mind to become really hard at the ball all over the ground.

Yes we still have a couple "Wide Receivers" to quote another code, or outside runners to quote the AFL.

But that is needed to break open the play.

It remains to be seen whether the players can pull it off, but the type of player is definitely right.

I pity the team that comes out and says we are Soft C**ks this year.

We have gone out and got A-grade young talent which isn't necessarily hard but we targetted Hogan, aggressively recruited and traded for Viney in the second round, and seemingly fell into Toumpas. So there are your blue-chip kids that we weare always going to get.

The recruitment of experienced leaders in Byrnes, Rodan, and Dawes is promising and welcome, but that is not where the really pleasing aspect of Neeld's tenure lies (remember we can only judge list management at this stage) - it is in the recruitment of Gillies (22), Pedersen (25), Matt Jones (25), Terlich (22), and Magner (25).

All these players (to varying levels) take the pressure off the players that we have asked to carry us in our next flag tilt.

Add those names to Jones, Clark, Frawley, Garland, Sylvia, Jamar, and Grimes, and suddenly those 21 and under are not asked to carry what their counterparts at other clubs are not asked to carry.

Neeld has invested in our youth, as evidenced by the fact that he traded Pick 3 for a younger player, but he knows that you can't just throw kids out there and let them at it, because other teams will continue to let them have it.