On 02/04/2013 at 01:47, G&D said:

It's a bit hard to assess whether Neeld can "coach" when we rarely get a fair dinkum effort from the players. The one time we did was against Essendon last year so he "coached" well that night.

The real question is whether he can "motivate". Again it's hard to judge because we have players who refuse to be motivated to go beyond their comfort zone regardless of who coaches them. Such as James Frawley and Colin Garland who now barely ever get out of a jog (they sometimes might put in an effort if they are playing on a big name opponent but seem to think they don't need to try on the lesser names and then get towelled up), Colin Sylvia who seems totally disinterested for the 99.9% of the game when the ball isn't in his hands, Mark Jamar who seems to assess very early when a contest is over switches off and just cruises around for the remainder.

We have plenty of players who aren't up to it but when players are up to it but won't go above and beyond then that isn't the coach that is all on them.

I get the feeling they are just waiting for the end of 2013 so they can do a "Rivers" and get to a decent Football club.

I can completely understand why some posters don't think that Neeld is the problem, but I can't say that I agree. Unfortunately, a host of players didn't "buy in" to his plans and visions in his first year. This is clear, because it was stated by players at the best and fairest during their speeches and it was a regular theme when players were interviewed. I was hoping with the list turnover that the recalcitrant element had been weeded out, but it's clear to me that the players just don't play for this guy and nor do they understand his direction. Half of them were scared when they first met him, which I enjoyed at the time, but it's got him nowhere.

From afar it looks like "Professor" Neeld has over coached this group. He's filtered out any creative bones in their body. They second guess what they're meant to be doing. They appear to have zero enjoyment with their football. They don't understand what is required of them. I'm not a Bailey fan, because the team played with zero defence and ran only one way, but I acknowledge that they played with flair and I acknowledge that they played for their coach. 186 was a combination of many things, but it wasn't due to the relationship between player and coach. It was the ramifications of a fractured club. A seemingly still fractured club.

One only has to look at the Dogs, Port, Adelaide and others to know that this coach is not getting the same buy in or effort from his players. So while I understand that many have a natural inclination to support the coach I put it to you that you're simply not taking note of the overwhelming evidence before you.

It's the coach, I'm afraid.

  On 01/04/2013 at 22:07, CBDees said:

Neeld is not the only coach to take a player off immediately after they kick a goal. To me, it is the craziest trend in modern football and seems counter-productive in the extreme. i would like to know the rationale because the benefit to the team eludes me.

First of all, I want to say that our problems run much deeper than the head coach. The Board, the Administration, the Football Dept. and all the coaches and all the players need to share the blame for the predicament the club is in.

But in answer to your post CBDees, here goes ...

Let's not confuse taking off your only real goal kicking forward with anyone else on the ground who might kick a goal. This one was different and it seemed like it was a pre-planned thing. It was a jackass decision and typical of the poor way the team is coached in general.

There is no way that you take off your full forward who has just kicked 2 goals in 2 minutes. He didn't need a rest - the ball had hardly been in our forward line and Clark hadn't ventured past the half forward line. It was the 20 minute mark of the 1st quarter !! You don't need to have played the game to know how poor a move it was. When a forward is hot you have to leave him on the ground.

It was a ludicrous, idiotic and utterly stupid decision. I don't care that other coaches or clubs do it. In the situation we were in at the time, the game was on the line. Do we bow to processes, structures, systems and rotations over actually trying to win the game??

The reason I'm zeroing in on this one is because it's an easily identifiable coaching decision where there is no grey area. We can lay the blame directly with the coaching staff. Or more importantly, the head honcho.

Another example of poor coaching was the handling of Sylvia for the centre bounces. Sylvia was in there for nearly every one of these bounce downs yet on nearly all occasions he was caught behind his man. He was effectively the 4th, 5th or 6th person in line to win the clearance. He got 1 ineffective clearance for all the time he was in there. Neeld should have pulled him out of there but he did nothing - nothing ! That is poor coaching.

Here is a perfect example of Sylvia being caught behind at a centre square ball-up - courtesy of 'ucanchoose' (post #7 of 'The Centre Square' thread. In that photo, check out the 2 Port players coming in from opposite wings - with Demon players trailing behind. We don't play in front and therefore, we're constantly 2nd to the ball. The same thing happened under Bailey. It's a fundamental of the sport and a coach has to demand that it is adhered to.

I could give you another 100 instances of how we're poorly coached but I haven't the time to write a 100 page essay. This all started in the 1st game last year against Brisbane with our stupid boundary hugging style and it hasn't gotten any better.

By the way, I haven't listened to Neeld talk in nearly a year (apart from the odd news grab) He doesn't need to coach me so what's the point of listening to anything he says? Don't watch press conferences - they are pointless to supporters. I've said this before but I simply judge the coach on how the team plays on the weekend. It's the best way to judge - no bias. Maybe if we were winning I'd listen to him talk but the 'reverse' coach speak would probably kick in.

He wins games or he is in deep trouble. That's the reality of being a head coach of any sporting club. It's always been about the 'wins' and that will never change. Bailey was a poor coach as well - we can sure pick 'em.

  On 01/04/2013 at 10:06, Macca said:

Who is ultimately responsible for taking Clark off at the 20 minute mark of the 1st Quarter?

In the first 20 minutes we'd hardly had the ball in our forward line and we hadn't employed the flood. Had Clark even set foot past the half forward line?

The few times we did get the ball down there Clark kicked 2 goals. The 2nd of which came at the 20 minute mark of the quarter. His 1st goal came at the 18 minute mark. Then he had to sprint to the wing for a 3 or 4 minute rest. Utterly ridiculous decision to take him off. Nonsensical.

The bloke was hot, he'd kicked 2 goals in 2 minutes and then he's benched. He didn't need a rest. The score at the time was 3.2 to 2.1. As soon as he was taken off I thought, who is going to take a mark if we pump it forward.

Might seem like a small thing now, but we'd just gotten back in the game on the back of Clark's efforts and then we take him off?

Yes, yes and yes, seven days of the week. Clark on, Neeld off. It's the tail wagging the dog.

  On 01/04/2013 at 08:24, stuie said:

Watch him and our captain in the post-match presser from yesterday and you'll see the dynamics at work, was like watching a teacher and a naughty boy at parent teacher night.

I don't buy that, stuie.

Grimes was absolutley embarrassed to be sitting there. He was in total disbelief as to what had just happened.

Let's wait for them to be sitting there after a win (please) and you'll see a completely different dynamic again.

You're convinced something is there to support your current disposition.

  On 02/04/2013 at 04:34, McQueen said:

I don't buy that, stuie.

Grimes was absolutley embarrassed to be sitting there. He was in total disbelief as to what had just happened.

Let's wait for them to be sitting there after a win (please) and you'll see a completely different dynamic again.

You're convinced something is there to support your current disposition.

You don't think that the dynamic between Neeld and the players is that like a teacher and scolded students?

All we've heard from Neeld is tough talk, alienating senior players, and right now it seems like he has no connection with the playing group.

I don't know this as fact, so could be wrong of course, it's just my observations, especially comparing it to other coach/player dynamics, for instance the Scott brothers, they seem to have the discipline and respect AS WELL as the "play for me" type of dynamic. I envy that.

  On 01/04/2013 at 09:35, why you little said:

not yet. This is Neelds list. He deserves more than one game.

That is not to say he is now under some heat.

Not really all his list, still many of the recycled non goers from Last year but it was not possible to throw them all out. Frawley and Garland for example are too slow both in pace and in thinking. No peripheral vision. Don't need to go through the whole list of those not up to this level but we have a few more and a couple that could make it but not hungry enough such as Sylvia, Dunn and Watts,

  On 02/04/2013 at 04:39, stuie said:

You don't think that the dynamic between Neeld and the players is that like a teacher and scolded students?

All we've heard from Neeld is tough talk, alienating senior players, and right now it seems like he has no connection with the playing group.

I don't know this as fact, so could be wrong of course, it's just my observations, especially comparing it to other coach/player dynamics, for instance the Scott brothers, they seem to have the discipline and respect AS WELL as the "play for me" type of dynamic. I envy that.

No, I don't see that at all. I thought he was crystal clear about what he was conveying - whether it made sense to some of the playing group is the $64 question..

You have to remember the level of capability in the group. It's low and maybe what Neeld is trying to translate is too difficult to execute. The only thing that will aid this transistion is repetition. We can't just give Neeld the 24 H&A games to create some continuity. He needs more than that. At the same time though, he needs to put a stop to these hidings.

Hold on to your seat, stuie. We're in for another rough ride this year. Let's hope come rd 23 we've got more wins on the board than last year and the new members players have got their act together.

  On 02/04/2013 at 04:56, McQueen said:

No, I don't see that at all. I thought he was crystal clear about what he was conveying - whether it made sense to some of the playing group is the $64 question..

You have to remember the level of capability in the group. It's low and maybe what Neeld is trying to translate is too difficult to execute. The only thing that will aid this transistion is repetition. We can't just give Neeld the 24 H&A games to create some continuity. He needs more than that. At the same time though, he needs to put a stop to these hidings.

Hold on to your seat, stuie. We're in for another rough ride this year. Let's hope come rd 23 we've got more wins on the board than last year and the new members players have got their act together.

That is one of the main problems McQueen.

You cannot pull up your socks if you don't have any on.

The list had about 8 AFL standard players in 2012

It now has about 10.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:51, Macca said:

Here is a perfect example of Sylvia being caught behind at a centre square ball-up - courtesy of 'ucanchoose' (post #7 of 'The Centre Square' thread. In that photo, check out the 2 Port players coming in from opposite wings - with Demon players trailing behind. We don't play in front and therefore, we're constantly 2nd to the ball. The same thing happened under Bailey. It's a fundamental of the sport and a coach has to demand that it is adhered to.

I disagree on this one. Players seem to be in appropriate spots. Sylvia is sweeping and is therefore on the defensive side of his opponent but making body coontact. Jones was probably the option if Jamar won the tap, again it would be a tap backwards to the wrong side for a right footer but he's not in a bad spot. It looks like Viney and Boak were both trying to read the ball and that Boak will get their first. Not so much a set up problem but an execution problem and what comes next will be the Port midfielders win the ball and spread way quicker and more effectively than we do. At half back Dunn is trailing Schultz but that is a reasonable place to be he's not too far behind. Up forward Byrnes is in front. They've got an extra man back so Pederson is playing between players.

No we can't actually see the wings but yes I bet the melbourne players aren't in the right spots there. As to why their lose man comes into the bounce whilst ours sits back well that is a question for the coach.

  On 02/04/2013 at 05:35, the master said:

I disagree on this one. Players seem to be in appropriate spots. Sylvia is sweeping and is therefore on the defensive side of his opponent but making body coontact. Jones was probably the option if Jamar won the tap, again it would be a tap backwards to the wrong side for a right footer but he's not in a bad spot. It looks like Viney and Boak were both trying to read the ball and that Boak will get their first. Not so much a set up problem but an execution problem and what comes next will be the Port midfielders win the ball and spread way quicker and more effectively than we do. At half back Dunn is trailing Schultz but that is a reasonable place to be he's not too far behind. Up forward Byrnes is in front. They've got an extra man back so Pederson is playing between players.

No we can't actually see the wings but yes I bet the melbourne players aren't in the right spots there. As to why their lose man comes into the bounce whilst ours sits back well that is a question for the coach.

That photo was an example but the main thrust of my argument was of an overall basis. Jamar taps it at his own feet or with not much yardage. Sylvia could get the ball from a quick handpass over the top but by the time it lands in his arms he'd probably be tackled anyway. If he was on the move it might be different but he wasn't (all day). He played from behind most of the day and was flat footed (at the centre bounces) He allowed his opponent to take the front position - ignoring a basic fundamental of the game that any junior footballer should know.

He was caught behind his man on nearly every occasion and the result = 1 ineffective clearance from the centre bounces. Proof was in the pudding and you cannot ignore data and facts. Who's fault - Sylvia and Neeld but more so Neeld. He should have moved him out of there but he didn't. Sylvia got the ball around the ground but not at the centre bounces (where the game starts)

In the whole scheme of things it might seem small potatoes, but all these fundamental errors add up. We've been making the same mistakes for years - it's not just about Sunday's game.

And it's not all Colin's fault by any means. Our players all make fundamental errors. Sylvia's centre clearance (non) work is just an example. I could give you more than a 100 other examples of basic fundamentals not being adhered to, but my typing finger would scream for mercy !!

  On 02/04/2013 at 05:24, old dee said:

That is one of the main problems McQueen.

You cannot pull up your socks if you don't have any on.

The list had about 8 AFL standard players in 2012

It now has about 10.

The main difference is between 'capable' and 'competent.'