I'm not really interested in shiny new coaches, and I'm not interested in rusting old coaches either. RPFC wants an argument why to get rid of Royal and some have made relevant points. I would like to hear an argument on why he should be kept. I dont care what he has done at other clubs. The argument needs to be with what he has done at our club.

Jones and Grimes have come off career best seasons in the midfield.

What does that tell you?

I don't know, but it sure doesn't mean that you can delineate who is to blame for what, and who can be credited for what.

Grimes was average but the main thing IMO was getting on the park for a full season. He disposable is not in the same leagues as top 4 sides, but I agree it was movemet in theright direction.

I've already stated why I think Jones was a relevation last year. Royal can take some sredit for this, but at the end of the day our midfield stats based against 17 other teams is very poor.

Sorry RPFC, the stats coming from the AFL present a compelling argument as to why Royal isnt making enough of an influence. The argument regarding cattle only emphasises that he is unable to develop at a rate other coaches can.

Look what Ratten did in one year at the club

Grimes was average but the main thing IMO was getting on the park for a full season. He disposable is not in the same leagues as top 4 sides, but I agree it was movemet in theright direction.

I've already stated why I think Jones was a relevation last year. Royal can take some sredit for this, but at the end of the day our midfield stats based against 17 other teams is very poor.

Sorry RPFC, the stats coming from the AFL present a compelling argument as to why Royal isnt making enough of an influence. The argument regarding cattle only emphasises that he is unable to develop at a rate other coaches can.

Look what Ratten did in one year at the club

You don't have to tell me of the stats...

Frankly, if Royal is a failure because of our KPIs then so is everyone. The Neeld era right now is an abject failure and promising list changes aside, we have not made any ground at all.

You don't have to tell me of the stats...

Frankly, if Royal is a failure because of our KPIs then so is everyone. The Neeld era right now is an abject failure and promising list changes aside, we have not made any ground at all.

Is a med student an abject failure because he hasn't yet cured cancer? Give it some time.

Every coaching panel needs a whipping boy and Royal is ours. Not sure why. Lets face it we did not exactly had the fittest or most talented players before Neeld, Craig, Misson & Associates arrived.

You don't have to tell me of the stats...

Frankly, if Royal is a failure because of our KPIs then so is everyone. The Neeld era right now is an abject failure and promising list changes aside, we have not made any ground at all.

The Neeld era is 1 year in duration the Royal is 4.

I think some of the criticism is unfair, but at the end of the day someone needs to be responsible for the failings of our generally low draft picks in the midfield. Yes Jones has come on, but Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, Gysberts and Tapscott are currently behind where they all should be on the natural growth curve of an AFL player. These mids Geelong keep drafting aren't just great late picks they're coached well. Any of Horlin-Smith, Christensen, Duncan, Smedts, Burbery, Murdoch would all step into our starting midfield and 2 would arguably be close to our best player.

If I keep butchering my job, questions get asked..

Dean got his orders it's only natural that Brian's name would be raised when your midfield is constantly the worst.

Is a med student an abject failure because he hasn't yet cured cancer. Give it some time.

Chook, with the utmost respect, I don't think that's a great analogy.

I think it is a slightly bigger ask for a medical student (let alone a team of highly professional and experienced medical researchers with massive financial backing) to develop a cure for cancer than for Brian Royal to improve the MFC midfield.

if a med student could improve the standard of the MFC, then perhaps that option could be investigated? And Mr Royal could work on the cancer cure.

Edited March 4, 201312 yr by bingers

The Neeld era is 1 year in duration the Royal is 4.

I think some of the criticism is unfair, but at the end of the day someone needs to be responsible for the failings of our generally low draft picks in the midfield. Yes Jones has come on, but Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, Gysberts and Tapscott are currently behind where they all should be on the natural growth curve of an AFL player. These mids Geelong keep drafting aren't just great late picks they're coached well. Any of Horlin-Smith, Christensen, Duncan, Smedts, Burbery, Murdoch would all step into our starting midfield and 2 would arguably be close to our best player.

If I keep butchering my job, questions get asked..

Dean got his orders it's only natural that Brian's name would be raised when your midfield is constantly the worst.

Let's not forget that Royal has only been at the MFC this stint sine the end of the 2010 season, making 2011 his first one back. In his first year, he was our backline coach, so we can't really blame the lack of development from "that" group of first round draft picks, as 2012, last season, was his first with the midfield group.

That said, what I want to know is why the backline performed a lot worse in 2011. When Wellman was AC, our backline was in my view in the top 3 in the league. Wellman had Frawley at AA standard, and had Warnock and a young Garland as well. Enter 2011, and they just lost it. They didn't work as a team, they did more finger pointing than anything else.

Then, in 2012, we saw our midfield play as a group of individuals. There was no blocking, no teamwork, and as we saw far too often, a lot of basic skill errors that should never happen, regardless of what grade you play in.

We hear talk of Jones and Grimes having good 2012, well, so they bloody should! 1 is a captain, the other is a true leader. Grimes played his first full season (well, minus 1 game), and has been in the system long enough to start showing that potential that he showed when we picked him up. The game style that Neeld has introduced was always going to suit NJ, due to the type of person NJ is, and how serious he takes his football.

Then we have a look at the footage from Darwin, and in particular, the trek through Kakadu. The backline has got their mojo back, that tight unit that worked bloody hard together, and let nothing stop them from winning. Sure, it was only a bush walk, but that's how they were onfield in 2010, and thank Christ they have found it again.

Can Royal do this with the midfield group?

The Neeld era is 1 year in duration the Royal is 4.

I think some of the criticism is unfair, but at the end of the day someone needs to be responsible for the failings of our generally low draft picks in the midfield. Yes Jones has come on, but Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, Gysberts and Tapscott are currently behind where they all should be on the natural growth curve of an AFL player. These mids Geelong keep drafting aren't just great late picks they're coached well. Any of Horlin-Smith, Christensen, Duncan, Smedts, Burbery, Murdoch would all step into our starting midfield and 2 would arguably be close to our best player.

If I keep butchering my job, questions get asked..

Dean got his orders it's only natural that Brian's name would be raised when your midfield is constantly the worst.

As Billy said - Royal has been here since 2011 when he 'butchered' the backline. Like Neeld - he is in Year 2 of The Quest to Build a Midfield.

I don't want to defend anyone, especially when we were so poor last year. But that does not mean that blame can be so concentrated on to one human.

My objection is to the belief that 'new' is better, and 'old' is staid and lifeless. If you are looking for a scapegoat then Royal is easy, if you are looking for real answers as to why are midfield is Third World - look deeper.

Otherwise, we will remove the scapegoat and pass along the poisoned chalice to the 'next young thing' we expect to work miracles.

As Billy said - Royal has been here since 2011 when he 'butchered' the backline. Like Neeld - he is in Year 2 of The Quest to Build a Midfield.

I don't want to defend anyone, especially when we were so poor last year. But that does not mean that blame can be so concentrated on to one human.

My objection is to the belief that 'new' is better, and 'old' is staid and lifeless. If you are looking for a scapegoat then Royal is easy, if you are looking for real answers as to why are midfield is Third World - look deeper.

Otherwise, we will remove the scapegoat and pass along the poisoned chalice to the 'next young thing' we expect to work miracles.

2 things RP;

1. Are you saying Royal butchered the backline in 2011?

and

2. Have you made up this "shiny and new" thing, or has someone come out and named names? The only 2 names on this thread that I have seen suggested are Robert Harvey (hardly what I'd call "shiny and new"), and Cameron Ling (who has expressed an interest to be an assistant coach, and is coming from the most successful club in the past decade). Even Malthouse was "shiny and new" at some stage.

2 things RP;

1. Are you saying Royal butchered the backline in 2011?

and

2. Have you made up this "shiny and new" thing, or has someone come out and named names? The only 2 names on this thread that I have seen suggested are Robert Harvey (hardly what I'd call "shiny and new"), and Cameron Ling (who has expressed an interest to be an assistant coach, and is coming from the most successful club in the past decade). Even Malthouse was "shiny and new" at some stage.

No, I don't believe he butchered the backline - but he most definitely 'butchered' the backline (an easy scapegoat is Royal).

Bring on the names (Harvey, Ling, et al) - but it won't change the names on the magnet board.

No, I don't believe he butchered the backline - but he most definitely 'butchered' the backline (an easy scapegoat is Royal).

Bring on the names (Harvey, Ling, et al) - but it won't change the names on the magnet board.

It's not the names on the board that is the issue, its what those names are doing on the field.

It's not the names on the board that is the issue, its what those names are doing on the field.

What are you saying Osilik? Are you saying that the names make up a finals calibre midfield, or is that these bad players have bad habits and structures?

If you think the names are good enough that is your prerogative but it will be a seminal moment.

If you think we have the players in our midfield to play finals then that will dictate a great number of decisions from here.

The Neeld Era is more of a failure than I thought if we have the midfield of a finals team that performed the way they did last year.

And as for the bad habits and structures - at what point do we just say 'the cattle is not up to it?'