No. Just trying to keep real, bing.

You're not and you know you're not.

There are any number of "real" indicators out there as to how we're tracking. If you were (really) interested. But you're choosing to ignore them, instead preferring to be patronising and dismissive.

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

?

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

We have not "squandered" anything yet.

That judgement will be made around the end of 2014 or 5.

gee the recruits don't get long in your book

Can you at least give him and the recruiters a couple of games.

Edited January 30, 201312 yr by old dee

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

I know others have already pulled you up, but I can't let it go. Irrespective that Barry wasn't drafted with a first round pick in isolation, do you even understand what the word "squander" means ? It means to "waste".

Clarify why you think we've 'wasted" a draft pick on Barry ? I suspect you'll say that we paid too much. If so, then clarify what we paid and why you perceive it to be too much.

Squandered .... Spent

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

If they KNEW what they were doing it cant be deemed squandering.

Barry seems to have already showed more in 0 games than Bennel did in 57. I know I know.,. hardly possible.

My point being by all accounts Dom actually gets into the play as opposed running away from it.

We have not "squandered" anything yet.

That judgement will be made around the end of 2014 or 5.

gee the recruits don't get long in your book

Can you at least give him and the recruiters a couple of games.

I think I used the wrong word by squandered instead of utilised. I consider Barry an astute pick-up.

All the comparison with Bennell. Let us keep in mind the fact that we squandered a fist round draft pick on Barry and I am giving our recruiting division the benefit of knowing what they were doing at the time.

We used a pick that we would have used to get Dawes if we still had it so it doesn't matter - it probably would have meant we kept Pick 45ish that we gave with Pick 20.

And that Hogan deal shouldn't be looked at in isolation like those fools Wallace and Barrett were doing during trade 'week.'

We got Viney at ND27 because of the GWS deal for Hogan and their pressure on GC to keep ND2 for Jack Martin.

So instead of Toumpas, Viney, Dawes (ND13), ND27, and ND45 we got Hogan, Toumpas, Barry, Viney, and Dawes (ND20 & ND45).

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by rpfc

We used a pick that we would have used to get Dawes if we still had it so it doesn't matter - it probably would have meant we kept Pick 45ish that we gave with Pick 20.

And that Hogan deal shouldn't be looked at in isolation like those fools Wallace and Barrett were doing during trade 'week.'

We got Viney at ND27 because of the GWS deal for Hogan and their pressure on GC to keep ND2 for Jack Martin.

So instead of Toumpas, Viney, Dawes (ND13), ND27, and ND45 we got Hogan, Toumpas, Viney, and Dawes (ND20 & ND45).

and Barry!

and Barry!

Whoops, well picked up...

Lol. This joint is choc full of delusional optimists. Welcome to Groundhog Day 2013! A bunch of new kids, some veterans that other clubs discard, others on the slide elsewhere, all 'tearing it up' on the training track. Big year ahead. Heard it all before?

And not a realistic supporter in sight. FFS, at least wait till round 8 or 10 before pumping up our tyres. Lol.

I regard your comments above as lazy in the extreme. You essentially seem to be saying that "the same cheerleaders reckon we'll be great each pre-season, and yet we're useless every year and this year will be no different". Not a particularly compelling approach IMO.

Speaking personally, my optimism is based on the changes to the list and the professional and disciplined approach that the new coaching department has implemented this pre-season (ie, it is based on some discernible evidence, not fanciful wish thinking).

And, relevantly, my optimism is bench marked against a 186 point loss that occurred on 30 July 2011. At no stage have I said we'd win the flag this year, or even make the finals - I just think we may field a team that is consistently competitive and that plays hard, accountable football this year. Given where we've come from, this is the source of some optimism for me.

So - rather than sit on the fence and adopt the flabby approach to this issue, which is tantamount to sitting on the sidelines and throwing spitballs, I'd be grateful if you would please provide clear reasons as to why this pre-season is simply no different to any other pre-season since 2006 and why our expectations shouldn't be adjusted accordingly.

Absent this (ie, some clear analysis as to why this pre-season is no different from others previously), I propose to disregard your comments as fairly baseless, negative claims that aren't rooted in evidence or anything else especially clever.

Here's a report on our pre-season to start with: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-01-29/offseason-report-how-the-dees-are-tracking

Cheers.

And, relevantly, my optimism is bench marked against a 186 point loss that occurred on 30 July 2011.

If you benchmark an expectation against the worst loss most of us have seen (sadly I saw one worse) then you're setting such a low benchmark as to damn the team with one act.

Why, instead, don't you benchmark it against the win against Sydney at the G by in excess of 60 points? I'd imagine it's because it wouldn't give you much pleasure.

Reality is we weren't nearly as bad under Bailey as 186 indicates and we weren't nearly as good as the win against the Swans indicates. But under Bailey we did win 16 games in two years with only one win in that lot against a development team.

I'm optimistic but I also realize that there is a reasonable chance we will be poor again. There is also a chance we will be much better. IMO the suggestion that we won't really know until midseason is an absolutely reasonable one. Moon has history on his side - 6 preseasons of hope usually dashed by disappointment and none more so than last year.

My benchmark is 8 wins given our soft draw. It should be more but I think people underestimate the influence of our mature players in 2010 and 2011 where at times Frawley, Green, Moloney, Davey, Rivers and Jamar played some first class footy, well above the level any younger player has played. One or two remain but Jamar and Davey are shadows of their former selves and Frawley seems to have stagnated. I also believe the current optimism surrounding Davey will evaporate when he is up against genuine opposition pressure and is not "dancing with his sister". I'd love to be wrong.

A loss in round one will devastate many a supporter and hurt the club. I'm very anxious about that game.

Robert Flower

Last played for Melbourne in 1987

Born : August 5, 1955

Playing Height : 183cm

Playing Weight : 75kg

Reality is we weren't nearly as bad under Bailey as 186 indicates and we weren't nearly as good as the win against the Swans indicates. But under Bailey we did win 16 games in two years with only one win in that lot against a development team.

Just to be clear those wins (15 of them) were against: Interstate teams at the G - BL (x2), WCE, Adel (x2), Syd, GC, and Freo, BL at the Gabba, PA (x2) in Darwin, and Ess (x2) and Rich (x2) at the G.

This is juxtaposed against losses of 56, 54, 41, 44, 45, 54, 41, 47, 88, 64, 54, 186, 76, and 48 against varying sides. Not to mention dispiriting losses to PA and WB and the worst loss I have seen against WCE at the G in 2010 (they were terrible and we were pathetic).

Just thought reality could use some clarity.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by rpfc

Just to be clear those wins (15 of them) were against: Interstate teams at the G - BL (x2), WCE, Adel (x2), Syd, GC, and Freo, BL at the Gabba, PA (x2) in Darwin, and Ess (x2) and Rich (x2) at the G.

This is juxtaposed against losses of 56, 54, 41, 44, 45, 54, 41, 47, 88, 64, 54, 186, 76, and 48 against varying sides. Not to mention dispiriting losses to PA and WB and the worst loss I have seen against WCE at the G in 2010 (they were terrible and we were pathetic).

Just thought reality could use some clarity.

For balance why don't you do the same analysis for last year.

If you benchmark an expectation against the worst loss most of us have seen (sadly I saw one worse) then you're setting such a low benchmark as to damn the team with one act.

Why, instead, don't you benchmark it against the win against Sydney at the G by in excess of 60 points? I'd imagine it's because it wouldn't give you much pleasure.

Reality is we weren't nearly as bad under Bailey as 186 indicates and we weren't nearly as good as the win against the Swans indicates. But under Bailey we did win 16 games in two years with only one win in that lot against a development team.

I just can't agree with you on this BB. No decent side gets beaten by 186 points. Anywhere.

I just can't agree with you on this BB. No decent side gets beaten by 186 points. Anywhere.

Then why didn't we get beaten by 186 points every week or are you using the term "benchmarking" differently to that which I understand.

Benchmarked against a 186 point loss last year was a triumph. I didn't see it that way.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Baghdad Bob

For balance why don't you do the same analysis for last year.

Losses of 41, 108, 59, 43, 66, 101, 58, 42, 61, 54, 69 and 61.

Average points against 106. 1 point up from 2011.

I think you confuse my motive - I don't think Neeld has improved the situation. I am just well aware (and this is due to my KPI threads) how bad it was under Bailey.

I think such a comparison is brutally unfair on Neeld (ie, comparing the average losing margin between 2011 and 2012). The methodology is wholly wrong.

In short, you are not comparing like for like.

2011 represented Bailey's fourth year at the club. By this time, it was essentially his list, he was responsible for the preparation of the players (ie, fitness, strength conditioning, mindset), the game plan, the culture, the professionalism etc.

However, Neeld inherited this list at the end of 2011. It was Bailey's list, not his.

Neeld immediately assessed the list, and seemingly formed the view that it lacked quality in the senior ranks, it lacked quality leadership, it lacked a decent game plan, it lacked the requisite fitness base, and it was a black hole in terms of culture - in short, it was not sufficiently competitive to consistently win important games.

And he then embarked on a strategy to introduce a hard, accountable, professional, disciplined approach to the list and the way it performed. He pretty well sacked the entire leadership group, he flamed the senior players, he changed the game plan etc. He did so, he said, because it would ultimately pay dividends and there were no quick and easy ways to achieve sustained success. This was the blue print.

But, importantly, he said this would take time.

However, some of you guys, rather simplistically, seem to think he should've been winning games from round 1, 2012, even though everyone who knows anything knows he was committed to fundamentally changing everything about the list and the culture of the team.

FCS get real.

Edit: I was at work when I posted this, and given that I was in a rush to get to a meeting I accidentally deleted two whole paragraphs, which I've just reinserted, but without which the post doesn't really make sense.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Ron Burgundy

I think such a comparison is brutally unfair on Neeld

You said you were going to "benchmark" our performance against the Geelong loss.

bench·mark

/ˈbenCHˌmärk/

Noun

A standard or point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed.

Verb

Evaluate or check (something) by comparison with a standard: "we are benchmarking our performance against external criteria".

If anything is unfair it is to benchmark against Bailey's worst performance. RPFC brought up the margin of losses, not me.

Anyway others can make up their mind but I reckon you'll be whistling Dixie for a long time Ron, if we lose every game by between 20 and 25 goals you've beaten your benchmark.

High standards eh!

I think such a comparison is brutally unfair on Neeld (ie, comparing the average losing margin between 2011 and 2012). The methodology is wholly wrong.

In short, you are not comparing like for like.

2011 represented Bailey's fourth year at the club. By this time, it was essentially his list, he was responsible for the preparation of the players (ie, fitness, strength conditioning, mindset), the game plan, the culture, the professionalism etc.

And he said this would take time.

But some of you guys, rather simplistically, seem to think he should've been winning games from round 1, 2012, even though everyone who knows anything knows he was committed to fundamentally changing everything about the list and the culture of the team.

FCS get real.

You have my vote RB

I have little idea if Neeld is good or not time will tell but he inherited a mess.

But anyone who know thinks that the Bailey era was anything less than a disaster should take off their blind fold.

After four years he had taken us to 186, the team in disaray, a list of mainly the wrong types to win games in the second decade of the 21st Century and fitness level to a situation where we could not play out the last quarter against any reasonable team.

Get over Bailey he was a poor choice that at best maintained our position as at the end of 2007.

I don't think Neeld has improved the situation. I am just well aware (and this is due to my KPI threads) how bad it was under Bailey.

Well, when I looked at the win/loss ratio and our percentage they looked a lot better under Bailey than Neeld.

BTW, just for reference the wins against WCE, Adelaide, Sydney and Freo were all against sides that finished in the eight last year. I'd settle for that now.

Well, when I looked at the win/loss ratio and our percentage they looked a lot better under Bailey than Neeld.

BTW, just for reference the wins against WCE, Adelaide, Sydney and Freo were all against sides that finished in the eight last year. I'd settle for that now.

just what are you trying to say fan?

you have a strange way of communicating sometimes

are you saying baily was a good coach? he plainly wasn't

are you prepared to rate neeld based on one year versus 4 for baily? surely not

why persist with this silly baily versus neeld nonsense

we'll get an idea if neeld has something to offer by the end of the year

just what are you trying to say fan?

If you benchmark an expectation against the worst loss most of us have seen (sadly I saw one worse) then you're setting such a low benchmark as to damn the team with one act.