Five is just one more than last season. I don't think that would be seen as a sensible and responsible target by the fans, or the club. Given the fixture, it's realistic.

My expectations are for improvement across the board and approx. 9 wins. More would be a decent result.

Fifty-5's thread highlighted Champion data rankings according to stats. What it doesn't show in that link was what was reported in the H-Sun paper that same day (not on-line). There was a table highlighting rankings and averages for the age of lists and the level of experience. GWS and GC were ranked the lowest in terms of age and experience. That would be obvious. Melbourne were the next youngest and in terms of experience the least of experience outside of the two new teams.

Although the list has changed in personnel (14-15 changes), there's been no significant change from 2010-11-12 seasons in regard to average age and experience on our list. We're still ranked the lowest of the established.

So in 2013, our club is entering the season with - if anything - a different looking list. As timD pointed out back on page ~2 of this thread, the midfield is the key. And we'll enter 2013 with some changes that will effect the dynamic. I agree with timD that we have one of the worst midfields, but I'm a bit in the unknown as to the influence of newcomers Toumpas and Viney. After all, we can't rely on them being their first year, even if Viney appears as a definite 'plug'n play' type.

The changes in the midfield and the forward line with Dawes coming in, means there is work to be done. Cohesiveness being one. Things such as setting about changing or improving the culture, and 9 day Darwin camps are invaluable for aspects like leadership and cohesiveness. This along with some exciting new talent will be where the improvement comes from.

Very good comment H_T I think you have covered our situation well.

There is a very long way to go

5-7 wins is a realistic, sensible and responsible target for next year.

The club will not magically start winning games every second week.

You are easily pleased. If they cant scrap at least seven wins with the better list and easy draw then we have not moved forward.

If we win 9 and take it right up to a number of top 4 teams and see real development in discipline, progression in our kids and consider that the improvement will be on an incline then I will be reasonably satisfied, especially if there are no or very few blowouts.

That would be good given the current disposition of our midfield.

If we do that we will also have a potentially harder draw in 2014 on the back of limited success this year.

I say this every year and I know it annoys but I will say it again - wins and losses and ladder position is an irrelevant measure for our situation. They are legislatively important but useless measures for anyone not a chance for the top 4, and to a lesser extent, the top 8.

I expect us to get better with our abysmal uncontested possession and Inside 50 rate, and begin to push into the positive in our contested possessions and clearance rates.

And, yes, if we do that consistently we will win games, but more importantly we will not be humiliated against the better teams.

Because at the end of the day, who cares about a couple of wins against middling teams if you are a source of mirth and sick enjoyment of the teams that matter, and will matter, for the next few years.

I expect us to get better with our abysmal uncontested possession and Inside 50 rate, and begin to push into the positive in our contested possessions and clearance rates.

And if we do that then its reasonable to expect that we should be competitive and better than a number of fellow cellar dwellers.

I think to look at the games won in isolation is naive. But to ignore our disposition relative to other Clubs after the complete season would be foolhardy in the extreme.

And given the crud MFC supporters had to live through last year and the underwhelming performance for the past five years, they should be more than entitled to measure improvement in terms of games won/lost. Quoting a plethora of stats when our win loss record is no better than last year is going to be unconvincing and hollow.

Its already been said why we should be better prepared and resourced under Neeld than before. It would be extremely disappointing if this wasnt reflected on the scoreboard.

And if we do that then its reasonable to expect that we should be competitive and better than a number of fellow cellar dwellers.

I think to look at the games won in isolation is naive. But to ignore our disposition relative to other Clubs after the complete season would be foolhardy in the extreme.

And given the crud MFC supporters had to live through last year and the underwhelming performance for the past five years, they should be more than entitled to measure improvement in terms of games won/lost. Quoting a plethora of stats when our win loss record is no better than last year is going to be unconvincing and hollow.

Its already been said why we should be better prepared and resourced under Neeld than before. It would be extremely disappointing if this wasnt reflected on the scoreboard.

Me too RR

We needs wins for a mutitude of reasons

Remember when run and carry was brought in and was strongly against it, but people such as Fan argued it was "modern football"? Nowadays teams are doing the things I was calling for, long kicking to forwards in the forward line in particular helped Geelong win a flag last year.

The Bailey and Daniher years were the worst tactically in the modern era, I could see it but the cheerleaders couldn't.

Geelong won flags with run and carry. Everyone kicks long to a forward when they are in range.

A percentage above 100

Me too RR

We needs wins for a mutitude of reasons

I can't see the tackle count excited supporters or the media if we are 0-5 or some other bad WL position. And I can't see m'ships selling with a poor WL outcome.

According to Neeld in the second half of the season we broke even on I50s (I must admit I couldn't find that stat anywhere though)

If correct and I assume it is then our increased fwd line firepower, fitness levels and hardness should translate into a significantly improved performance. Now, you have to improve to stay the same in this game but given we have a very easy draw we should be expecting 7-10 wins without any issue at all.

Edited December 18, 201212 yr by jnrmac

I'm not defensive, I'm sick of the thoughtless responses to serious ideas. On this thread it is being argued that wins are not a reasonable way to measure performance. This site has gone so far into itself that posters are actually arguing that wins don't count.

Mark Neeld coached one of the most insipid teams I have ever seen. One of the least competitive teams I have ever seen. And posters are suggesting that Bailey somehow winning 10 or so games is less impressive that Neeld effectively winning one. Now, I'm all for a nuanced understanding of team style and needing to go backwards to go forwards but i'd also like to win a game. Neeld needs to see us win quite a few this year to show that he knows what he is doing.

Get with the program Tim, we're here to delude ourselves.

Five is just one more than last season. I don't think that would be seen as a sensible and responsible target by the fans, or the club. Given the fixture, it's realistic.

My expectations are for improvement across the board and approx. 9 wins. More would be a decent result.

Fifty-5's thread highlighted Champion data rankings according to stats. What it doesn't show in that link was what was reported in the H-Sun paper that same day (not on-line). There was a table highlighting rankings and averages for the age of lists and the level of experience. GWS and GC were ranked the lowest in terms of age and experience. That would be obvious. Melbourne were the next youngest and in terms of experience the least of experience outside of the two new teams.

Although the list has changed in personnel (14-15 changes), there's been no significant change from 2010-11-12 seasons in regard to average age and experience on our list. We're still ranked the lowest of the established.

So in 2013, our club is entering the season with - if anything - a different looking list. As timD pointed out back on page ~2 of this thread, the midfield is the key. And we'll enter 2013 with some changes that will effect the dynamic. I agree with timD that we have one of the worst midfields, but I'm a bit in the unknown as to the influence of newcomers Toumpas and Viney. After all, we can't rely on them being their first year, even if Viney appears as a definite 'plug'n play' type.

The changes in the midfield and the forward line with Dawes coming in, means there is work to be done. Cohesiveness being one. Things such as setting about changing or improving the culture, and 9 day Darwin camps are invaluable for aspects like leadership and cohesiveness. This along with some exciting new talent will be where the improvement comes from.

Good post H_T and yes we are still in the youngest quartile for age and experience. But that only tells part of the story because things like the talent and list balance can have a significant impact. I've said repeatedly that it's our 2 - 5 year experienced players where the major improvement can come from. Also important is the age and experience of your best (say) 25.

Bailey got his results being in the bottom 2 or 3 of age and experience and it's why I think his achievements are underrated and his vilification is so unwarranted. What I think is also significantly underrated is the loss of our leaders like Bruce, Junior, Green, Davey and this year Rivers and Moloney. They weren't much good but they were better than talented 2 and 3 year kids.

It's interesting to look at how Neeld matured during last year. Post Brissy he was spitting chips at the players calling them "them" and publicly scorning them. Toward the end of the year he'd jumped on board the "age" and "experience" train and could find positives in the most insipid of performances. That was so much better.

We need wins.

Neeld needs wins.

The players need to win .

I dont care how pretty they are

just win.

We've had so many years slipping back that we deserve to shoot forward a bit beyond the modest .

Lets just get on a roll and see what we can do.

Keep positive .

The darkest days are surely over .

I cant see any 12 goal beltings next year.

It all depends on what Misson has done .

If we can have a tiny injury list for a long time things might happen .

If things go to plan, and we play some good footy i don't see why we can't get on top of teams like north, carlton, essendon, richmond, dogs and lions. 3 big fwds (clarke dawes and pederson) will make a hell of a difference (while clarke was injured there were many games where we had more inside 50's than the other team, just no one to kick it to). The other changes around the ground should also make the world of difference.

We play finals next year or it's another failure. It's as simple as that everyone. We shouldn't stand for mediocre results, and the club will die if it sits down the bottom of the ladder forever.

The only thing we've got to go on at the moment is the pre season form, the recruitment of some experienced players and the seemingly better attitude of the playing group, unntil they play their first game, however, we will have no idea how it will all gel, or if it will, so all we can do is assume.

All supporters, from all clubs, will be looking for improvement next year and we have the furtherest to go, apart from the expansion clubs, so if we can win 10 games I will consider it a pass but not a gold pass by any means. Neeld has laid his nuts on the line here, he has let some club favourites go along with some club whipping boys and if it doesn't work out, the hounds will be baying.

Last year we started of disastrously and couldn't get our hands on the ball, our combined possession count was 260 less than our opposition in two early games, but this was getting back on track towards the end of the year. This year if we can start off well who knows where we will finish up, but we must win games that we are expected to win and if another club is performing poorly we must beat them. I'm sick of seeing a club lose 6 or 7 in a row then come out and beat us.

Geelong won flags with run and carry. Everyone kicks long to a forward when they are in range.

No they didn't, West Coast did.

It's interesting to look at how Neeld matured during last year. Post Brissy he was spitting chips at the players calling them "them" and publicly scorning them. Toward the end of the year he'd jumped on board the "age" and "experience" train and could find positives in the most insipid of performances. That was so much better.

They were also not as disappointing and soul destroying 'toward the end of the year' as they were in that game...

And to be blunt - F___ the players.

They have been coddled for years and 2011 showed them for what they were.

If he gave them some home truths and let it be known publicly - good!

At least they will know where they are at:

"Will the same 22 travel to Perth? Not on your life," Neeld said as he vowed changes for the Dees' clash with West Coast next weekend.

"Am I going to go down a similar road and continue to put blind faith in players? No way. Absolutely, no way.

"This industry, it's accountable. I'm accountable. So I should be. So are these blokes (players)."

And that is as bad as it got - if this was a public scorning - we are being a bit precious.

Looking at replays of this years games shows how bad we are, we basically had no structure once we lost Mitch. Our forwards were useless and half the time pushing so far up the ground to help get the ball which just resulted in us kicking it to badly out numbered forwards. Defensive pressure was good at times at other times we had no run or chase. We gave away soft frees the Westcoast game particularly sticks in my mind and our tackling was poor. We got it together in a few games last year for a quarter or two and probably one game the essendon game.

Neeld has essentially replaced half of our team with guys who will help address most of these deficiencies. This will make us more competitive, it will allow us to score more and it will result in us winning games. I would see winning 8 games as a fail given our easy draw. 10 would be my bare pass mark and 12 games a decent score.

I just want value for money next year.

That equates to wins & singing the dam song.

The End.

2013 realistic expectations ?

Who knows we have never seen this team play befor, with so many changes to the list it make this exercise difficult to say the least lets just hope for a surprise. A good one that is, I am just so sick of that feeling you know the one.

I just want value for money next year.

That equates to wins & singing the dam song.

The End.

Well, I rest my case...

Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now.

Therein lies the problem in this argument. First up, there's the assumption that Bailey was winning against "better teams", which is just not true. Adelaide at the MCG in 2011 was as easy as it got. West Coast and Richmond in 2010 were woeful. With one or two exceptions, which a few people here still want to take as some kind of norm, we only ever won against the "easy" teams, and were roundly thrashed by the better ones. For where we really were, have a look at our results against a mid-range team like North in 2010 - 2011. Lost every game.

Secondly, the list was worse under Bailey? Not in reality. How many of Bailey's wins came with Garland and Rivers in the forward line, and Spencer as first ruck? Many of the players who performed well for Bailey's wins were unavailable or out of form and heading for the chopper under Neeld. Where were our leading goal kickers from 2010 and 2011 (for example)? Gysberts, Sylvia, Martin, Jamar, Watts, Petterd, Jurrah etc. were all solid (or important) contributors to those Bailey wins, but all were injured or paying the price for being injured for long periods in 2012. Throw in others effectively missing or out of form, e.g. Green (getting to be passed it in 2012), Moloney (lost and confused) and even Scully (useful in 2010) how did Neeld have a better team? Or, to put it another way: if Neeld's list was so much better than Baileys, how come we let a third of them leave??

As for the rest of your post ... it's possible, in a discussion, to hold a certain view, without automatically negating the opposing view. Saying that Bailey's team and wins were poor, isn't necessarily saying that in 2012 everything was hunky dory.

Edited December 18, 201212 yr by bing181

Fan is making a simple point. He must write in a language other than english I reckon.

Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now. If Neeld cannot win more games now than Bailey would have then the club is going backwards and we are being sold a line.

What other metric, other than wins, do people want to use to assess the team's performance? Maybe the site should invent a 'feelgood' stat and everyone rates how happy they feel and we use that to tell us how we are going. Let's just ignore objective reality.

Nothing is wrong. everything is working. Just like we were told last time.

Perhaps moreso a simplistic analysis that has conveniently overlooked the following point.

The reality is that, by the time the the infamous 186 point thrashing occurred at the Cattery, Bailey had had almost 4 years with the list. They were his players, it was his game plan, he controlled the leadership group and, importantly therefore, the culture and attitude of the player group.

Clearly, it was busted. Badly. Very, very badly.

Neeld, by the time of the equivalent game in 2012, had had less than a year with the list - and, relevantly, with the overwhelming majority of the list still being Bailey's list.

The changes in this off season are there for all to see.

Not sure if the change in approach will work or not, but you simply cannot ignore these material facts in any meaningful comparison.

There's so much shallow thought from posters like Fan and Timd I'm genuinely surprised.

Using Bailey's win/loss as a measure for Neeld's pass mark is a very poor way of analysing data. Each year the competition changes, the strength of varying teams change, gameplans change, fitness changes, science changes, list ages change, injury ramifications, the fixture, etc. For example, comparing 2009 to 2012 is futile even though it's only 3 years apart. In 2009 10.5 wins got you into the eight, while in 2012 you needed 14 wins to make the 8.

Bailey's record can't be used as any meaningful data to measure Neeld's expected output. Neeld has to be measured against the competition at the time. Bailey is now irrelevent, as is 2010.

I base my expectations on the list changes, the maturation of certain players, player availability, the draw, our new fitness levels, changing culture, and familiarity with how Neeld wants them to play. As stated, Bailey's exploits are now completely irrelevent.

My expectation is that we will win 10+ games. If not, then Neeld will be on very uncertain ground - I believe the supporters will not put up with another disappointing season and we will ask Paul Roos to coach in 2014.

The Club's business plan of mining the supporter base each year to balance the books is unsustainable without some on field success.