On 31/03/2013 at 07:41, stuie said:

Rubbish. Bailey had the same list but got more wins from it. Simple as that. Neeld has proved NOTHING thus far.

Your one-eyed hatred for Neeld is clouding your judgment.

It's not a way to say 'leave Neeld alone', because he deserves to cop plenty of flak. But Bailey's time at the club led to us having an unfit list of C-graders. There's only so much you can do to a list like that in 18 months.

Like I said, though, there is plenty Neeld can do, and he's not doing those things.

  On 31/03/2013 at 07:48, titan_uranus said:

Your one-eyed hatred for Neeld is clouding your judgment.

It's not a way to say 'leave Neeld alone', because he deserves to cop plenty of flak. But Bailey's time at the club led to us having an unfit list of C-graders. There's only so much you can do to a list like that in 18 months.

Like I said, though, there is plenty Neeld can do, and he's not doing those things.

I don't hate Neeld. I like what he says, but I've got serious doubts about his coaching.

You say Bailey gave us a list of "unfit C-graders", what do you think we have now? Sellar, Pederson, Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies....

I'm willing to give him at least 5 games with this new look team to show some SERIOUS competitiveness before I think about sharpening the knives.

But jesus, I don't know what he was thinking with a couple of these 'senior' recruits. Wowee.

He certainly hasn't instilled any confidence in the team yet, which is so important. The amount of times we punched instead of marking? Awful. Got to go for the marks boys.

Some of the players looked confused about a lot of things today, when to kick, when to handball, when to zone, when to man up, when to 'V' switch (which for a team of our kicking skills should be never). Our defensive 50 zoning was deplorable.

If we have another start like last year we might need to sniff around.

  On 31/03/2013 at 07:48, titan_uranus said:

It's not a way to say 'leave Neeld alone', because he deserves to cop plenty of flak. But Bailey's time at the club led to us having an unfit list of C-graders. There's only so much you can do to a list like that in 18 months.

Like I said, though, there is plenty Neeld can do, and he's not doing those things.

Titan I reckon if you asked anyone about Port's list that Ken Hinkley inherited they'd say it was awful, in fact there were a number of media expert who described Port's list as the worst in football when they were searching for a coach late last year. In the same way Brendan McCartney inherited an ageing list that plenty of people thought was in really bad shape too. I bring up those two not because both teams won substantially in Round 1 but because one is 1 game in to a regeneration of a Club and the other is 23 games in, the same amount of time Neeld is.

What we can clearly see at Port and at the Dogs is the direction their clubs are taking. They focus on winning contested ball and moving the ball quickly forward. They are holes in their list that are being plugged by young developing players for the most part, but they are both clearly moving in the right direction.

Can we say the same about us?

Neeld has said our game plan will take "3-4 years" to learn. Those clubs are showing that within 6 months in Port's case and 18 months in the Dogs case, they've clearly picked up significant amounts of what their Coaches are teaching them. I'd argue both inherited significantly worse lists than ours - Neeld inherited a team that was in the Top 8 halfway through the 2011 season, while Port were second bottom of the ladder and the Dogs were at the end of an era and in the bottom 6.

So what is so complicated about our game plan? We move the ball around the boundary or we switch the ball to the other side of the ground and do the same. Defensively we play man on man and if a spare opposition player gets out into space then we let him go because our players are being told to stop their man at all costs. It was this attitude that was evident in Brent Moloney's play last year, when he went from being one of the best Clearance players in the AFL to having one of the worst years of his career, spending every stoppage standing next to his man and not trying to win the ball. Time and again today we saw our players stay with their man instead of covering a teammates man when needed. That's not natural instinct, that's clearly coming from instruction.

I'm by no means an expert when it comes to footy but these things seem pretty clear cut - and what it means is that we have a very very big problem with our choice of Coach.

  On 31/03/2013 at 08:32, dee_star said:

Titan I reckon if you asked anyone about Port's list that Ken Hinkley inherited they'd say it was awful, in fact there were a number of media expert who described Port's list as the worst in football when they were searching for a coach late last year. In the same way Brendan McCartney inherited an ageing list that plenty of people thought was in really bad shape too. I bring up those two not because both teams won substantially in Round 1 but because one is 1 game in to a regeneration of a Club and the other is 23 games in, the same amount of time Neeld is.

What we can clearly see at Port and at the Dogs is the direction their clubs are taking. They focus on winning contested ball and moving the ball quickly forward. They are holes in their list that are being plugged by young developing players for the most part, but they are both clearly moving in the right direction.

Can we say the same about us?

Neeld has said our game plan will take "3-4 years" to learn. Those clubs are showing that within 6 months in Port's case and 18 months in the Dogs case, they've clearly picked up significant amounts of what their Coaches are teaching them. I'd argue both inherited significantly worse lists than ours - Neeld inherited a team that was in the Top 8 halfway through the 2011 season, while Port were second bottom of the ladder and the Dogs were at the end of an era and in the bottom 6.

So what is so complicated about our game plan? We move the ball around the boundary or we switch the ball to the other side of the ground and do the same. Defensively we play man on man and if a spare opposition player gets out into space then we let him go because our players are being told to stop their man at all costs. It was this attitude that was evident in Brent Moloney's play last year, when he went from being one of the best Clearance players in the AFL to having one of the worst years of his career, spending every stoppage standing next to his man and not trying to win the ball. Time and again today we saw our players stay with their man instead of covering a teammates man when needed. That's not natural instinct, that's clearly coming from instruction.

I'm by no means an expert when it comes to footy but these things seem pretty clear cut - and what it means is that we have a very very big problem with our choice of Coach.

Which is why I said that there are plenty of things Neeld is doing wrongly.

I just saw some highlights. In almost all of them, I saw a player with his back to the play, just following his opponent. It reeks to me of players following instructions without thinking about the game.

I think it's unfair on Neeld to say 'hey, look at the Dogs and Port, they won big this week, so therefore we're behind them'. We can't make that kind of assessment until the year is up.

All up, though, there are clearly a lot of areas Neeld is struggling in. Whatever his game plan is, he can't get his players to execute it properly. He can't get his charges fired up, and he can't seem to get his leaders to lead. Those are things he can work on over the coming weeks/months, and who knows, maybe we'll get better. Of course, we're just as likely to see 2013 go down just like 2012, in which case Neeld is going to be in serious trouble.

I posted elsewhere during the game that my attention was now swinging to Neeld.. Obviously manyof the players are just fraudelent in their collection of pay-checks but I wanted to see how Neeld would react . A good general mightnt have the best weapons or troops to call upon but he will rethink and cast a stratgegy to utilise what he DOES have to BEST effect.

I saw none of that. This worries me.

My curiosity going into this season was can Neeld actually coach ? Im not sure he can. I thought , having looked at his history he could. Maybe hes out of his depth. I still dont really know. Im know not confident...and I was.

  On 31/03/2013 at 09:27, belzebub59 said:

I posted elsewhere during the game that my attention was now swinging to Neeld.. Obviously manyof the players are just fraudelent in their collection of pay-checks but I wanted to see how Neeld would react . A good general mightnt have the best weapons or troops to call upon but he will rethink and cast a stratgegy to utilise what he DOES have to BEST effect.

I saw none of that. This worries me.

My curiosity going into this season was can Neeld actually coach ? Im not sure he can. I thought , having looked at his history he could. Maybe hes out of his depth. I still dont really know. Im know not confident...and I was.

Is this list the most un coachable list we have ever seen? It is so hard to determine between a bad gameplan and bad players. I am like you I don't know if neeld can coach because the lack of effort from the players is astonishing.

I would love to see you guys who are bagging Neeld to do the same to the playing group for once. Go to training and games and give the playing gourp a good serve. As i mentioned previously we have one of the best coaching panels in the league and you're bagging the head coach. we have NO ON FIELD LEADERSHIP WHAT SO EVER, we have the worst playing group and the league with no upsides besides a few first gamers (lucky us). We ended up with Neeld not jesus guys!. i am so over certain posters obsessions when Shite hits the fan to sack the coach!. look over history at what happens to every time a coached has been sacked Danniher to Bailey we went backwards, Bailey to Neeld Backwards. Get a grip, if by round 22 we're like this then by all means start these threads until then we are stuck with who we have unfortunately

I understand why people keep referring to the players because that's the end result that we see on the field but think about it logically - there are around 800 players in the AFL, they would make up 800 of the best 1000 footballers in the country. Even the youngest or least knowledgable AFL players understand more about the game and how to play it than any of us could imagine. None of them go out there to put it little effort or deliberately miss kicks or drop marks. It has to come back to how they are Coached and instructed.

Again I refer to Port and the Bulldogs, even the Crows from last year - clubs that changed Coaches and within the first 6-18 months have shown clear direction to what they are doing and what they are focusing on. Whether Port and the Dogs win 5 games or 20 games this year, their players, their supporters, their members can sit there and see the path that they are on.

Can we say the same? I don't think so

I have never seen an AFL list which is 'uncoachable' - most players work their guts out for success and accept good coaching advice. I have seen the odd individual AFL player who could be classed as uncoachable (including a few former MFC players). However, it is the coach's responsibility to implement a good game plan and bring the players with him - Neeld is not doing this and there are other relatively new coaches who are, so for me the answer is obvious.

  On 31/03/2013 at 10:51, BrisbaneDemon said:

As i mentioned previously we have one of the best coaching panels in the league and you're bagging the head coach.

Staggering comment. What are you basing that on?

Won't state a case for why me may be a good coach, fact is it is still too early to tell. But I will say this; if we don't give him the full 3 years it will just set us back even more. He is trying to break a moral fabric that has been so entrench in the club it's in our core.

No point in even contemplating getting rid of him, like it or not he will be coach at the end of 2013 and I would be shocked if he isn't at least given half of next season.

  On 31/03/2013 at 05:58, Jaded said:

He was an All Australian in a garbage team two years ago.

Neeld came in and took away his natural game and his natural instincts. It's not as if the ball was coming down the backline less under Bailey.

I wouldn't blame him for wanting out. He is a wasted talent and he could be winning flags with Hawthorn or Collingwood or Carlton.

If we lost Frawley, make no mistake about it, it would be up there in terms of disasters than it we lost Clark.

If Frawley follows Moloney, Rivers and possibly Sylvia, It will confirm what many have been saying about Neelds methodology. He is a desk clerk, not an AFL coach.

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:00, P_Man said:

Staggering comment. What are you basing that on?

Have a look at who we have in the coaches box champ..... its not rocket science

The players were so pathetic today, they obviously arent listening to or arent respecting Neeld.

He won 4 games last year , and this year we look even worse.

If we continue like this he will be gone mid year.

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:00, Pates said:

Won't state a case for why me may be a good coach, fact is it is still too early to tell. But I will say this; if we don't give him the full 3 years it will just set us back even more. He is trying to break a moral fabric that has been so entrench in the club it's in our core.

No point in even contemplating getting rid of him, like it or not he will be coach at the end of 2013 and I would be shocked if he isn't at least given half of next season.

So you can't say why he may be a good coach, but you ignore the evidence of two preseasons and drafts, the turnover of players last year, the expressions of disillusionment from former players, and the dismal game plan and onfield performance!

  On 31/03/2013 at 07:44, Forest Demon said:

I heard that exact sentence wheeled out so many times before, just replace the name 'Dean Bailey' with 'Neale Daniher', and then replace 'Mark Neeld' with ' Dean Bailey'.

Forest, some people just will not learn.

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:03, BrisbaneDemon said:

Have a look at who we have in the coaches box champ..... its not rocket science

So who are the rocket scientists in the coaches' box!

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:03, BrisbaneDemon said:

Have a look at who we have in the coaches box champ..... its not rocket science

That answer tells me absolutely nothing. Again, can you provide specifics on why you think it's one of the best coaching panels in the league?

  On 31/03/2013 at 10:51, BrisbaneDemon said:

I would love to see you guys who are bagging Neeld to do the same to the playing group for once. Go to training and games and give the playing gourp a good serve. As i mentioned previously we have one of the best coaching panels in the league and you're bagging the head coach. we have NO ON FIELD LEADERSHIP WHAT SO EVER, we have the worst playing group and the league with no upsides besides a few first gamers (lucky us). We ended up with Neeld not jesus guys!. i am so over certain posters obsessions when Shite hits the fan to sack the coach!. look over history at what happens to every time a coached has been sacked Danniher to Bailey we went backwards, Bailey to Neeld Backwards. Get a grip, if by round 22 we're like this then by all means start these threads until then we are stuck with who we have unfortunately

This is now Neelds list. He's made some big decisions. Second grade cast offs. Cut experience. If you blame the players it involves Neeld. You cann't separate the two.

The indictment on Neeld is that over the off-season Port, the Suns, the Dogs and even the Giants have assembled sides that can at the very least play well-drilled, confident footy.

We remain a dispirited rabble.

They being the case I can't defend the coach anymore and concede we got it wrong. Neeld is out of his depth and must be replaced before the damage becomes irreversible. It may already well be.

  On 31/03/2013 at 08:36, titan_uranus said:

Which is why I said that there are plenty of things Neeld is doing wrongly.

I just saw some highlights. In almost all of them, I saw a player with his back to the play, just following his opponent. It reeks to me of players following instructions without thinking about the game.

I think it's unfair on Neeld to say 'hey, look at the Dogs and Port, they won big this week, so therefore we're behind them'. We can't make that kind of assessment until the year is up.

All up, though, there are clearly a lot of areas Neeld is struggling in. Whatever his game plan is, he can't get his players to execute it properly. He can't get his charges fired up, and he can't seem to get his leaders to lead. Those are things he can work on over the coming weeks/months, and who knows, maybe we'll get better. Of course, we're just as likely to see 2013 go down just like 2012, in which case Neeld is going to be in serious trouble.

Neeld IS in serious trouble.

Wait till the bombers game and especially if we get beaten by the 2 new clubs.

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:12, P_Man said:

That answer tells me absolutely nothing. Again, can you provide specifics on why you think it's one of the best coaching panels in the league?

Brian Royal makes me want to cry. Didn't he screw out back line last year or the year before, he is now killing the midfield.

  On 31/03/2013 at 11:00, Pates said:

Won't state a case for why me may be a good coach, fact is it is still too early to tell. But I will say this; if we don't give him the full 3 years it will just set us back even more. He is trying to break a moral fabric that has been so entrench in the club it's in our core.

No point in even contemplating getting rid of him, like it or not he will be coach at the end of 2013 and I would be shocked if he isn't at least given half of next season.

break a moral fabric, or break our spirit?

Dangerous waters Pates, this aint the army. These are skilled determined athletes with flair. Neeld is killing them.

I honestly believe we do not have a sensible game plan that our players can execute. The zone is a farce, our players stand around waving their hands in the air protecting a patch of dirt while the opposition players run into space. You cannot give AFL players in any team 5 meters headstart. You cannot cover every man when you have a man short. These are coaching decisions. We play an extra man in defense who used to get some easy kicks, but the oppositions teams free player often did far more damage than ours all the way down the ground eventually kicking over our spare man in defense. So what was the value of the spare man in defense today, how many goals did he stop? best form of defense is attack, which seems to be something the demons have forgotten how to do.