So Many Demons Elsewhere.....

[binman 42,704]

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.

In a nutshell this is where we differ. I only care how his selections go, not his rejects. If his selections go well then great, if they go poorly then i think it is fair enough to mark him (and the recruiting staff) down on that.

I really don't care how the rejects go - well that's not entirely true i hope they go well, particularly Bater who gave his all for the dees. Still, if they go great for my money i still don't see this reflects poorly on Neeld and the recruiting team.

You're right that the win loss is not the only indicator (though i assume we can agree the most important one). How he develops the new recruits (partic the rookies and later picks) and players like Blease, Clark, Tynan, Taggert, Watts, Tappy, Nicho, Bail and perhaps most of all Sylvia will also give us an indication of his ability to develop players.

Another indicator to evaluate his ability to choose and develop players will be the ones that were borderline to be cut but he elected to keep. In that group i would have Jetta, Davis, Evans, Macdonald, Couch and perhaps even Spencer. All these players were discussed on DL as possible trade bait yet all were kept on, in large part due to their approach to training and general attitude i suspect. Lets see how these boys go - if they earn their spots on the list for the 2014 season then for me that's a big tick for Neeld and the FD.

Edited December 12, 2012 by binman

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

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

My choice and my reasons. Admin knows why and that's all that matters.

[H_T 3,043]

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 ............. 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.

This is all true. Other factors would include "net gain" and you would judge that on a number of factors such as the following: -

* Leadership

* Output;application (results)

* Longevity

* Influence (good/poor)

* Mentoring

* Games played

I'm sure there are other aspects or KPI's to help determine this. And as WJ alluded to this will take some time and IMO it would take longer than the conclusion of 2013.

Would you agree?

As an aside may I remind "everyone" in this thread, and I mean everyone to play the ball and not the man.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

This is all true. Other factors would include "net gain" and you would judge that on a number of factors such as the following: -

* Leadership

* Output;application (results)

* Longevity

* Influence (good/poor)

* Mentoring

* Games played

I'm sure there are other aspects or KPI's to help determine this. And as WJ alluded to this will take some time and IMO it would take longer than the conclusion of 2013.

Would you agree?

As an aside may I remind "everyone" in this thread, and I mean everyone to play the ball and not the man.

Exactly..

If what we have gained is greater and of more value to us than what we have discharged then we are stronger.

Simplistic?...it doesn't need to be complicated.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

I thought talent identification was in the hands of the recruiter. Yes Neeld indentifies talent within the list and he makes decisions on culling and retaining players, but I think the more important factor Neeld is currently addressing is players ability to play his game (style/plan)

I see players moving clubs as a separate issue to the current FD as a player may thrive in a different environment, and that does not mean he would produce the same out put if he stayed llat the club.

The direction Fan is taking in this thread is akin to 'I love you, BUT. It's a back handed compliment!! That was always designed as a way of putting you down

[Dee Fan 3,247]

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.

Neeld has let go players that he doesn't think, or knows won't fit in to his game plan, I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

If they fit in to another team and its game plan that doesn't mean he's made the wrong decision and that he can't spot talent he simply believes those he's replaced them with are better suited. If Collingwood win a flag this year and Lynch helps them, would you criticize Buckley if Dawes wins our B&F.

It's a bit rich to come out and hedge your bets with a statement like I fully support what he's done but will wait to see if he's done the right thing. To suggest that he's let go potential talent or that its his job to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is stupid.

[jnrmac 20,055]

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.

Winning football games among other things is the ability to identify and nurture talent. You don't get the pick of the list of draftees each year you only get your hands on a very small sample. You need to make the very most of the talent you lay your hands on.

I don't worry about how the discards go for their own sake but I am interested in their performance in as much as it allows an evaluation of Neeld as an identifier and developer of talent.

We are an under resourced club, we have to make every post a winner. Our recruiting department is not as well resourced as other clubs and the only way we will win is by having better intellectual property. A coach is judged on many things. His ability to lead and inspire, his gameplan, his tactical nous, his management of players, team selection and other things. One of the most important characteristics is his ability to get the best out of the talent at his disposal.

I understand it's Christmas, we've got a whole new bunch of presents under the tree and we hold great hopes for what's in them. It's fantastic there is such support for the club after such a shocking year. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking at ways to evaluate performance.

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.

Pfftt. WHo have we got rid of in the past 10 yrs that has bitten us on the bum??

[Whispering_Jack 29,825]

Pfftt. WHo have we got rid of in the past 10 yrs that has bitten us on the bum??

In the last decade?

Nobody unless you assess the departure of Scott Thompson to Adelaide as being a case of getting rid of someone. I believe that we didn't want him to leave although it was said by some that Thompson hadn't felt comfortable at Neale Daniher's treatment of him during his stay at the club.

I'm not convinced that it would necessarily reflect badly on Mark Neeld and the football department if one or two players who have gone end up having good seasons at their new clubs next year. Some players getting a second chance elsewhere do thrive under different conditions in a new environment having received their wake up call.

The main thing from Neeld's perspective is that he wants team members who he believes are able to perform to the standards he imposes on them and that they are capable of doing so. In that regard, the best way to judge our key personnel like coaches, medical and fitness staff etc. is internally and not by what happens outside the club which, whilst it might be a factor to consider, is IMO really only secondary to this issue at best.

[Whispering_Jack 29,825]

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.

No offence taken but the point you're trying to make in the OP wasn't about evaluating the overall performance of key individuals in the club but rather on one discrete aspect of Mark Neeld's action in making a substantial overhaul of the list and his judgement in carrying out the decision to do so and that is what I was commenting upon.

[Redleg 40,858]

It seems to me that the reality is that players leave clubs for a multitude of reasons and some will succeed at their new clubs and some won't. Just because someone we give away does well elsewhere doesn't mean we made a mistake and likewise nor does it mean that someone who comes to us and does well, doesn't mean the original club made a mistake.

It is now just the nature of AFL football that more players will change clubs.

[rpfc 28,270]

Again, I am happy for those that were taken Pre-Neeld to judge that era and the one we are currently in.

So far the Pre-Neeld era looks terrible with ND4, ND11, and ND12 abject failures so far in their careers. If Morton, Gysberts, and Cook don't amount to anything then the Pre-Neeld era can be strongly condemned.

[Hobbits's 17]

I'm on record of being in total support of just about all list management decisions this year and whilst I disagree with some I'm please that Neeld has made these decisions and is backing his judgement. It's something I think didn't happen enough under Bailey.

Next year will be fascinating because we will be able to judge Neeld's judgement as we will have so many of our past players playing for other clubs. To my knowledge the following are in action:

Morton WC

Bennell WC

Gysberts NM

Martin Bris

Moloney Bris

Petterd Rich

Rivers Geel

It must almost be a record for a club to have so many players playing at other clubs in the following year.

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.

correction on the title: So Many former Demons elsewhere

Morton - ask yourself, when was the last time he played a good game in the seniors. why was he predominantly at Casey? decision to cut him warranted; poor selection; plenty of development time.

Bennell - in and out like a revolving door for a number of years. what did he offer? how accountable was he? how much influence had he shown? decision warranted.

Gysberts - jury is out, but when you look at our midfield he couldn't get a look in. enter toumpas, viney, possibly taggert. his pace puts him further back in the pecking order. decision most likely warranted. could possibly be a bargain for the Roos long term, but short term unlikely.

Martin - with dawes in, clark available looks as though we have surplus with spencer, gawn and fitzpatrick up. A back up ruck sometimes fill in forward with not much presence. decision to trade warranted. although didn't get much in return - telling sign.

moloney - poor influence and poor year after an ok season winning the b&f no thanks to Jamar. lacks accountability defensively, is strong, but not a leaders backside. would have found it difficult to compete with viney and the like who need time in the middle. result traded - warranted.

petterd - i'll miss him a touch. but he just couldn't get on the park, too many interruptions and too many in front of him now to get a look in. I am pleased he has been picked up to be given a chance. warranted.

Rivers - Hoped he would have stuck around, but it was ultimately his decision. every rihgt to explore Free Agency options and has landed at a good club. hope he does well at geelong. irrelevant to this discussion because it wasn't Neeld's decision or judgement.

this threads focus on Neeld's judgement next year in relation to former players at other clubs won't matter much, because in the greater picture it's really either the individual players inability to conform or reach the standards necessary for a good period of time AND/OR poor recruiting well before Neeld's time that will ultimately be the focus.

the real focus or judgement will be on our new young and old recruits go and seeing how a Dawes and Clark forward combination work with a new look midfield.

[Hannibal 5,814]

My guess is that the club was happy enough to keep Gysberts, but to prize away the contracted Pedersen it had to move on Gysberts. From a structural point of view Pedersen's importance was clearly greater.

[Left Field 313]

My guess is that the club was happy enough to keep Gysberts, but to prize away the contracted Pedersen it had to move on Gysberts. From a structural point of view Pedersen's importance was clearly greater.

Yep Gysberts would be about 9 on the depth chart while Pederson probably fits in at about 3 or 4.

[rpfc 28,270]

My guess is that the club was happy enough to keep Gysberts, but to prize away the contracted Pedersen it had to move on Gysberts. From a structural point of view Pedersen's importance was clearly greater.

I think they were happy enough to see him go.

Life is easier for an FD when the projects that need the most work are not in the top 30 players at the club, and would never be in the top 10.

The time spent on Morton, Gysberts, Cook, and Martin can now be allocated to far more important pieces (Watts, Trengove, Viney, et al.)

[old55 23,436]

I think Fan is making a very valid point - if a significant proprtion of the players that Neeld cut make it at a successful club then he's ditched talent that could be developed - it's that simple. There's always a risk that one or two will out of so many and that's not conclusive, but if a number do then that's cause for concern. On the other hand if they don't make a mark then kudos to him. That's simple logic to me.

IMO the only "agenda" going on in this thread is anti-Fan agenda.

[McQueen 17,864]

I think Fan is making a very valid point - if a significant proprtion of the players that Neeld cut make it at a successful club then he's ditched talent that could be developed - it's that simple. There's always a risk that one or two will out of so many and that's not conclusive, but if a number do then that's cause for concern. On the other hand if they don't make a mark then kudos to him. That's simple logic to me.IMO the only "agenda" going on in this thread is anti-Fan agenda.

As long as you measure that proportionately against what he drafted in then I would consider it valid.

Too much concern about what we've lost as opposed to what we've gained.

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

It's a bit rich to come out and hedge your bets with a statement like I fully support what he's done but will wait to see if he's done the right thing. To suggest that he's let go potential talent or that its his job to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is stupid.

Is it that you genuinely haven't understood the arguments here or is it that you're just trying to misrepresent me?

I support the moves. Got it? If he gets it wrong then I get it wrong. Got it?

The difference is he's a professional and paid to get it right and I'm not. If he's got it wrong we are worse off. I don't think he has and if he (and I'm) right I'm sure you'll be on here telling me that my attempt to undermine him has failed. How amusing that a thread basically in support of Neeld is causing such a response.

I'm sure you're a nice bloke Robbie but you really are struggling. There's no (hidden) agenda here, stop looking under pillows.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

My issue is whether one can claim Neeld has got it wrong if a few of the cast offs become better players elsewhere. Surely, you need to look at the overall result of the changes and not a few individuals?

Let's say Petterd kicks 50 goals next year at Richmond and wins their goalkicking in a team that makes the final eight while Dawes kicks 60 at Melbourne and Petersen 35 in a team that also makes the final eight?

Is Neeld a failure because he gave away a 50 goal a year player who was unlikely to fit into Neeld's game plan and therefore not get any games under him?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Apocalypse XXXI

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Is it that you genuinely haven't understood the arguments here or is it that you're just trying to misrepresent me?

I support the moves. Got it? If he gets it wrong then I get it wrong. Got it?

The difference is he's a professional and paid to get it right and I'm not. If he's got it wrong we are worse off. I don't think he has and if he (and I'm) right I'm sure you'll be on here telling me that my attempt to undermine him has failed. How amusing that a thread basically in support of Neeld is causing such a response.

I'm sure you're a nice bloke Robbie but you really are struggling. There's no (hidden) agenda here, stop looking under pillows.

I think that's because most that have responded just don't see it that way and probably can't see any reason for this thread in the first place. You have set yourself up as a troll in the eyes of some on this site following your glowing praise of Wilson so I guess after that every time you put up a thread it will be viewed with suspicion.

It's a bit like TGR on Ology who likes to throw out some curve balls and if they come off he revisits them if they don't he lets them fade in to oblivion.

As has been pointed out on here you have to give a little to get a little and if some of these players do ok where they are now good luck to them, they didn't fit in to Neeld's game plan and it's the form of their replacements that's of more importance to the MFC.

[bing181 9,197]

I think Fan is making a very valid point - if a significant proprtion of the players that Neeld cut make it at a successful club then he's ditched talent that could be developed - it's that simple.

No it's not. What you omitted from that is "ditched talent that could be developed ... at another club after having been ditched by Melbourne".

There's no guarantee that they could have equalled that development at Melbourne.

As an Exhibit A go over to one of the North Boards, and see what Gysberts said about training at North ... he was surprised it was so demanding. So maybe finally the penny will drop for Jordie G. Pity he had to change clubs to realise that you have to work hard to succeed.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Is it that you genuinely haven't understood the arguments here or is it that you're just trying to misrepresent me?

I support the moves. Got it? If he gets it wrong then I get it wrong. Got it?

The difference is he's a professional and paid to get it right and I'm not. If he's got it wrong we are worse off. I don't think he has and if he (and I'm) right I'm sure you'll be on here telling me that my attempt to undermine him has failed. How amusing that a thread basically in support of Neeld is causing such a response.

I'm sure you're a nice bloke Robbie but you really are struggling. There's no (hidden) agenda here, stop looking under pillows.

You've become the site's Darth Vadar. The original good guy now considered an evil force that belongs on the Darkside. : )

[Slartibartfast 17,222]

You've become the site's Darth Vadar. The original good guy now considered an evil force that belongs on the Darkside. : )

Whoever would have thought!!

[deejammin' 2,370]

My guess is that the club was happy enough to keep Gysberts, but to prize away the contracted Pedersen it had to move on Gysberts. From a structural point of view Pedersen's importance was clearly greater.

I am somewhat suprised that this is the first mention of structure and roles in this thread. It is a common occurence in the AFL for clubs to have to move on players as they have a surplus of one type and not enough of a different type of player for a different role. In our case I think the following players were too similar:Morton, Bennell, Petterd, they are all relatively skinny not quite forwards, not quite mids, who never had a clear role they owned, had potential but were in and out of the side due to form and injury. Gysberts also fulfills all these criteria except that he is a pure mid, nonetheless, he wasn't ready to fill any of the roles our "ins" will. The fact is we had a surplus of this type of player and some clubs may have a dearth and need of what they provide, but I don't think these players performing elsewhere in a role we have filled means anything about Neeld. If anything it says alot about how the list was structured under Bailey, taking too many of one type and one age with not enough of a view towards having a balanced list.

For example if Dawes has a stellar year at Melbourne next year and Lynch has an average year but plays his role with the pies winning the flag I doubt anyone will consider Dawes a failure on Bucks part.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

:Morton, Bennell, Petterd, they are all relatively skinny not quite forwards, not quite mids, who never had a clear role they owned, had potential but were in and out of the side due to form and injury. Gysberts also fulfills all these criteria except that he is a pure mid, nonetheless, he wasn't ready to fill any of the roles our "ins" will.

That phrase alone characterises our recruiting failures. We recruited players physically incapabale of playing a clear role.