So Many Demons Elsewhere.....

[binman 42,703]

If in three years we finish 4th and Gysberts is a recognized gun mid and Morton and Bennell are good players in a winning GF team Neeld's decisions will be in question.

I don't think this will happen but the point I'm trying to make, amongst others, is we are in a rare position to judge seeing so many other clubs see a position for what we have discarded.

Fan, sorry but that's bollocks. Gysberts and Bennel playing well in a winning GF team will say absolutely nothing about Neelds decision to axe them this year. Now is the time to judge if we made the right move axing the players we did. If you take DL as a straw poll the only players that consistently people were worried about losing is Rivers and that was his call. As for the rest there has been very few people arguing that we have erred in axing any of them (perhaps a few for Gysberts).

The other thing that is relevant is that as can clearly be seen by who we have recruited Neeld is focused on building a physically strong, in and under team of fanatical trainers that suit his game style and philosophy (as articulated in the mantras of being the hardest team to play against and the need for elite preparation). It is no coincidence at all that the players he axed did not fit that template (skinny or poor trainers or questionable courage - in some cases all 3). Perhaps they will suit another clubs template better, and if so good luck to them but that would in no way indicate we erred in letting them go.

I'd also add that by concluding that a player who goes onto be a successful player at another club is an indicator of a poor decision by Neeld then logically the opposite must be true. That's to say if none of the players we axed (not the FA's who left) end up being any good at other clubs this indicates Neeld made a sound decision in axing them. This scenario is much more likely that any of them being stars in GF winning side however for mine that is not proof Neeld made the right call.

As i have said the only evidence that is worth anything in terms of decisions on players is our win loss ratio. If we finish 4th in three years time the path Neeld has chosen in terms of player choice will have been well and truly vindicated.

Fan, to be honest it is hard not to see agendas in the stuff you write, and perhaps this is another example of gentle trolling but your arguments in this case seem quite illogical. You seem to be setting up a criteria for bagging Neeld. Perhaps i'm wrong. However if the players we axe do end up being also ran AFL players (which to be honest i think is highly likely) i can't see you coming on DL and saying that this is proof of Neeld's sound decision making.

Edited December 12, 2012 by binman

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I don't care if you can't see this. I think others probably can.

Patronising response, and you seem to be on your own again.

And as usual you did not address the content in my post. Ah well, others can have a read.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dandeeman

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

Fan, sorry but that's bollocks.

I'd also add that by concluding that a player who goes onto be a successful player at another club is an indicator of a poor decision by Neeld then logically the opposite must be true. That's to say if none of the players we axed (not the FA's who left) end up being any good at other clubs this indicates Neeld made a sound decision in axing them. This scenario is much more likely that any of them being stars in GF winning side however for mine that is not proof Neeld made the right call.

As i have said the only evidence that is worth anything in terms of decisions on players is our win loss ratio.

Fan, to be honest it is hard not to see agendas in the stuff you write, and perhaps this is another example of gentle trolling but your arguments in this case seem quite illogical. You seem to be setting up a criteria for bagging Neeld. Perhaps i'm wrong. However if the players we axe do end up being also ran AFL players (which to be honest i think is highly likely) i can't see you coming on DL and saying that this is proof of Neeld's sound decision making.

Oh for heavens sake's.

I started in my first line of the OP saying I supported what Neeld has done and it was much better than Bailey. I've said that a number of times. I wouldn't change any list management decision he's made. I've already praised Neeld and you say you can't see me coming on DL and saying it's proof of Neeld's sound decision making. Sorry, I've already done it!

And now is NOT the time to judge whether we've made the right moves, the future will tell us that. That we largely agree is to say our judgement is the same, not that it's good. I rate Gysberts, Neeld doesn't, the future will tell. I'd back Neeld by the way but I'll stay true to what I believe.

And I'm not setting up a criteria to bag Neeld, I'm setting up a criteria to evaluate his performance.

I'll praise Neeld if I think he does something well and criticise if I think he does something bad and I'll apply the same principle to the whole club.

I reckon you're better than falling for this agenda stuff.

Dandy if you want me to answer some questions send me a PM. I'm not going to bore others or ruin this thread by derailing it with political agendas.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Fan

[H_T 3,043]

Here's a list of delisted and traded players 2006-2011 (retirees not included):

Daniel Bell

Shannon Motlop

Chris Johnson

Byron Pickett

Matthew Warnock

Michael Newton

Simon Buckley

Jace Bode

Isaac Weetra

Austin Wonaeamirri

Shane Valenti

Addam Maric

John Meesen

Tom McNamara

Paul Johnson

Kyle Cheney

Ryan Ferguson

Brad Miller

Simon Godfrey

Nick Smith

Nathan Carroll

Brock McLean

How many would you have kept?

What makes you think players this year will be any greater loss?

No answer?

I think that is interesting.

[rpfc 28,270]

lol

If Fan wants to play this game he can; as these rejects go so goes the judgement of the Neeld and Pre-Neeld eras of the Demons.

If Bennell, Morton, Gysberts, Martin, Petterd, Cook, et al become what the Pre-Neeld Era thought they would be then Neeld moved on talent that shouldn't have been moved on.

If that group become nothing more than glorified depth and failures then the Pre-Neeld Era was an abject failure when it came to recruitment and development.

Which way will it go? Can Bennell develop a desire for the contest? Can Morton? Can Cook develop a presence on the field? Can Gysberts develop muscle and store fat?

Who knows?

It's not like we had these blokes on our list for years and know they're failures...

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

Sorry Maurie I missed this.

Of that list I think 6 or 7 have played at other clubs.

We delisted 12 from our PL (I think).

2 retired

2 left for FA but we didn't fight for them.

1 was a reasonably unique situation in Jurrah.

Of the remaining only 2 didn't get another go at another club (Bate and Cook).

I haven't got time at the moment but have a look at Richmond who made 11 changes. How many of their players were given second opportunities. I support the changes but it does give a reasonably unique opportunity to evaluate our decisions.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I wouldn't change any list management decision he's made.

I'm on record of being in total support of just about all list management decisions this year and whilst I disagree with some ...

My only major regret in that lot is Gysberts and to a lesser degree Rivers, but I'm glad he has a chance to play meaningful footy after 6 years of crud.

dis·in·gen·u·ous

/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/

Adjective

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Synonyms

insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted

[Freddy Fuschia 740]

Sorry Maurie I missed this.

Of that list I think 6 or 7 have played at other clubs.

We delisted 12 from our PL (I think).

2 retired

2 left for FA but we didn't fight for them.

1 was a reasonably unique situation in Jurrah.

Of the remaining only 2 didn't get another go at another club (Bate and Cook).

I haven't got time at the moment but have a look at Richmond who made 11 changes. How many of their players were given second opportunities. I support the changes but it does give a reasonably unique opportunity to evaluate our decisions.

However, you can't make a direct comparison with Richmond whose coach has been around for a few seasons now. Of their 11 changes included 3 or 4 rookies and a number of out and out spuds. The only player who got a second chance was Angus Graham.

What I find strange is that a number of commentators remarked that Melbourne had adopted a mysterious "scattergun" approach and picking up 4 recycled players didn't make sense. However, when Richmond does the same thing, its called clever recruiting.

Go figure?

[daisycutter 29,605]

they seek him here

they seek him there

there are demons everywhere

Edited December 12, 2012 by daisycutter

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

dis·in·gen·u·ous

/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/

Adjective

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Synonyms

insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted

Can you look up axe grinder and chip on their shoulder while you are running hot?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Can you look up axe grinder and chip on their shoulder while you are running hot?

Aha there he is, not addressing arguments and name calling. Address the thread or the hypocrisy in Fan's posts.

Look up Modus Operandi.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dandeeman

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Aha there he is, not addressing arguments and name calling. Address the thread or the hypocrisy in Fan's posts.

Address the thread?? On current form you would miss your own irony in preaching that. And stop stalking Fan's posts for a petty point score.

Its witless, thoughtless and boring. Look those up if you're not sure.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Address the thread?? On current form you would miss your own irony in preaching that. And stop stalking Fan's posts for a petty point score.

Its witless, thoughtless and boring. Look those up if you're not sure.

Again, I have been addressing the thread, try reading it

Address the argument, address the thread and stop flaming. I find the name calling and your attitude inappropriate and sadly typical.

I also find your attempt at bullying sad and slightly amusing. Surely what you are doing breaches the spririt of the site.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dandeeman

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Again, I have been addressing the thread, try reading it

You havent. You have been trailing Fan in a number of threads in a pathetic hangdog manner.

His contributions have been thought through.

And by the way I have read the thread and noted posts #57 and others. Churlish and petty would sum it up.

And I wouldnt pump up your content either.....nothing to sell there.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

You havent. You have been trailing Fan in a number of threads in a pathetic hangdog manner.

His contributions have been thought through.

And by the way I have read the thread and noted posts #57 and others. Churlish and petty would sum it up.

And I wouldnt pump up your content either.....nothing to sell there.

Still nothing, more name calling. Addressing nothing......

Why are you in this thread?

[binman 42,703]

Oh for heavens sake's.

I started in my first line of the OP saying I supported what Neeld has done and it was much better than Bailey. I've said that a number of times. I wouldn't change any list management decision he's made. I've already praised Neeld and you say you can't see me coming on DL and saying it's proof of Neeld's sound decision making. Sorry, I've already done it!

And I'm not setting up a criteria to bag Neeld, I'm setting up a criteria to evaluate his performance.

I'll praise Neeld if I think he does something well and criticise if I think he does something bad and I'll apply the same principle to the whole club.

Ok, fair call.

What i was really trying to get at (in an long winded way) was that how players who have been axed performs at other clubs is not a useful or relevant KPI to evaluate Neelds performance on. How Pederrson, Dawes, Rodan and Byrnes perform (and how they contribute to the club culture) will be a much better measure given their respective clubs let them go (though Bynres was a FA).

But really the only reliable measure is the win loss ratio. It will go up nest year. If it doesn't, well he will be marked hard.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Still nothing, more name calling. Addressing nothing......

Why are you in this thread?

It's what he does best. Never expect an answer to a question.

Neeld has rid the club of the last remnants of the most destructive era we've had in modern times. Sometimes you have to throw the baby (Rivers/Moloney) with the bathwater because you need to start again. I don't care if Petterd plays 5 or 10 games next year and gets brownlow votes I'm more concerned with the performance of Dawes in the 22 games he will play.

What some fail to realise is that we have lost a few players over the last 6 or so years and some have done ok but none have had sustained success, probably no more than they would have if they stayed with us. Miller would have played his 10 games a year and there would still be fans who reckon he'll come good soon same with Cheney he would continue to show promise.

Bennell will still get 7 classy possessions per game and wet the appetite of the Wet Toast supporters but it will never go any further than that and nor will the balance of the other players we delisted. Fan thinks it's the job of the incoming coach to turn the players that he's inherited in to AFL players, well some of them simply aren't and fortunately Neeld knows that and in a couple of years Fan will too.

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

Ok, fair call.

What i was really trying to get at (in an long winded way) was that how players who have been axed performs at other clubs is not a useful or relevant KPI to evaluate Neelds performance on. How Pederrson, Dawes, Rodan and Byrnes perform (and how they contribute to the club culture) will be a much better measure given their respective clubs let them go (though Bynres was a FA).

But really the only reliable measure is the win loss ratio. It will go up nest year. If it doesn't, well he will be marked hard.

Just as Prendergast was judged on the performance of the players he selected I think the FD can be judged on the performance of the players they rejected. It's not all encompassing but it's an indicator.

How would you feel if his selection do wonderfully and his rejects do nothing? I'd feel good. If it was the opposite I'll feel bad. One will reflected well and the other poorly. I also fully accept that players can thrive in one environment and fail in another so that must be taken into account. The point I was trying to make, besides bring down the club with my political agenda by raising this point, was that we are in a unique position to do this given that only two of the PL players we delisted/traded/FA (excluding those that retired and Jurrah) were not picked up.

And I also don't agree that the only reliable measure is win loss ratio. I think the draw, injuries and other factors influence this.

Dandy I'm not going to play your game but I'm happy to debate by PM. I note to date you've not taken that option so spare us all this petty stalking and name calling. As Binman has shown, it can be done.

[timD 994]

It's what he does best. Never expect an answer to a question.

Neeld has rid the club of the last remnants of the most destructive era we've had in modern times. Sometimes you have to throw the baby (Rivers/Moloney) with the bathwater because you need to start again. I don't care if Petterd plays 5 or 10 games next year and gets brownlow votes I'm more concerned with the performance of Dawes in the 22 games he will play.

What some fail to realise is that we have lost a few players over the last 6 or so years and some have done ok but none have had sustained success, probably no more than they would have if they stayed with us. Miller would have played his 10 games a year and there would still be fans who reckon he'll come good soon same with Cheney he would continue to show promise.

Bennell will still get 7 classy possessions per game and wet the appetite of the Wet Toast supporters but it will never go any further than that and nor will the balance of the other players we delisted. Fan thinks it's the job of the incoming coach to turn the players that he's inherited in to AFL players, well some of them simply aren't and fortunately Neeld knows that and in a couple of years Fan will too.

Try reading what he wrote Robbie. Fan clearly argued that it was neeld's job to spot talent, not turn every player into a star. I'm amazed at how poor many are at actually understanding what words actually mean - Fan has to go to the depths of pointing out again and again what he has actually written, rather than the nonsense that so many think he has written. It should be embarrassing to binman, you and dandeeman. It won't be, but it should.

One of a senior coach's key skills is talent management - seeing it, moving players whom you cannot develop and developing those you can. Bailey failed on this count - prendergast helped disproportionately. So If neeld lets 5 blokes go that can really play and they really play well, then we've lost talent. Quite frankly, we don't have much we can afford to lose. So getting that call right is important and helps us all figure out if the bloke can coach. To say it doesn't matter is like disregarding the 'loss' section of a balance sheet.

FWIW, I'm rapt that he is making calls and turning the list over. That we should see how well he does it does not mean that he shouldn't.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Dandy I'm not going to play your game but I'm happy to debate by PM. I note to date you've not taken that option so spare us all this petty stalking and name calling. As Binman has shown, it can be done.

What game was that...... the one where people discussed the subject of the thread within the thread?

Where is this name calling? There is none... just an adjective used to describe your post. I leave the name calling to you and Rhino. I do my best to avoid that stuff and argue the content, which again you have failed to address.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dandeeman

[Whispering_Jack 29,825]

It's a simplistic view that will suit many. It avoids the harder question of trying to evaluate performance of key individuals in the club.

Call it simplistic if you like but all I'm doing is expressing my opinion on the fact of the changes in personnel which is that, like you, I support of the majority of the list management decisions made by the club this year.

I'm not avoiding or ignoring the question of evaluating the performance of key individuals at the club in respect to the decisions made recently to offload certain players. That happens to be a separate matter that will become more clear in time and it's not something about which I'm going to obsess about at the moment other than to say I believe Neeld & co have been true to their stated objectives as expressed at the start of the current recruiting period.

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

Fan, on 12 Dec 2012 - 13:42, said:

I wouldn't change any list management decision he's made.

Fan, on 11 Dec 2012 - 11:58, said:

I'm on record of being in total support of just about all list management decisions this year and whilst I disagree with some ...

My only major regret in that lot is Gysberts and to a lesser degree Rivers, but I'm glad he has a chance to play meaningful footy after 6 years of crud.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Try reading what he wrote Robbie. Fan clearly argued that it was neeld's job to spot talent, not turn every player into a star. I'm amazed at how poor many are at actually understanding what words actually mean - Fan has to go to the depths of pointing out again and again what he has actually written, rather than the nonsense that so many think he has written. It should be embarrassing to binman, you and dandeeman. It won't be, but it should.

One of a senior coach's key skills is talent management - seeing it, moving players whom you cannot develop and developing those you can. Bailey failed on this count - prendergast helped disproportionately. So If neeld lets 5 blokes go that can really play and they really play well, then we've lost talent. Quite frankly, we don't have much we can afford to lose. So getting that call right is important and helps us all figure out if the bloke can coach. To say it doesn't matter is like disregarding the 'loss' section of a balance sheet.

FWIW, I'm rapt that he is making calls and turning the list over. That we should see how well he does it does not mean that he shouldn't.

Not sure where we disagree TimD..maybe on the definition of doing "very well".

In the highy unlikely that 5/5 players go to other clubs and do "very well" I would consider that the failure of Bailey and Prendergast greater than I do currently and consider that it was unfortunate that Neeld was unable to get these blokes performing.

It is a moot point, 5/5 is not going to happen.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dandeeman

[Mono 455]

Rhino: show some dignity for an admin

Fan: when did you get delisted from the admin group? And why?

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

I'm not avoiding or ignoring the question of evaluating the performance of key individuals at the club in respect to the decisions made recently to offload certain players. That happens to be a separate matter that will become more clear in time and it's not something about which I'm going to obsess about at the moment other than to say I believe Neeld & co have been true to their stated objectives as expressed at the start of the current recruiting period.

It's that separate matter that was the point of the OP hence just looking at the players we have brought in, in the light of the purpose of the OP, is simplistic and why I responded the way I did. Apologies if I caused offence, there was none intended.