Time to go Mark Neeld

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

BB -

Peter Jackson coming in will not solve any problems short term

People need to get their heads out of the clouds - Sacking Neeld will not solve our problems.......... FWIW I don't say that in supporting Neeld to stay - it's just a fact that we are no better then a bottom 4 side

I don't agree. This list is underperforming significantly. The removal of the poor coach and replacement of a good coach could make a world of difference. We might even win some quarters but more importantly we may become at least more competitive.

Can't you see the sentiment on here? Nobody wants to go to the footy, we are shyting ourselves about Sunday - I'm no different. A new coach with a simple message can do wonders. Look at Hinkley, look at what Roos did when he took over from Eade.

There is no hope (optimism) with Neeld. You can't get worse than that so any change is good.

BTW, Jackson will act. I'd be worried if I was an employee without an important role in the club and was doing it well.

[frankie_d 1,471]

That Hinkley's doing well is not a surprise to many - he's always enjoyed an extremely good reputation, but the cattle he's working with aren't irrelevant. For instance, I don't expect he could coach the Scotch College Firsts to beat WCE.

True, but if he ventured across Gardiner's Creek, he might find a mob up to the challenge...

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Maybe so, but in my humble opinion, we're better than what is on display at the present time. I reckon anyone on here; most MFC supporters in fact, can handle the losses. What we cannot abide is the way we lose at the present time.

You're right, Jackson will make recommendations and I would suggest those recommendations will not make good reading for some current key people at the club.

I reckon MFC supporter are moron's - look at our performances how can you justify that statement? It's illogical, we've been a bottom 4 club for the last 4 - 5 years (bAR 2011, but even then we got spanked by good sides), how can you say that?

It's mind boggling that you actually believe that

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I don't agree. This list is underperforming significantly. The removal of the poor coach and replacement of a good coach could make a world of difference. We might even win some quarters but more importantly we may become at least more competitive.

Can't you see the sentiment on here? Nobody wants to go to the footy, we are shyting ourselves about Sunday - I'm no different. A new coach with a simple message can do wonders. Look at Hinkley, look at what Roos did when he took over from Eade.

There is no hope (optimism) with Neeld. You can't get worse than that so any change is good.

BTW, Jackson will act. I'd be worried if I was an employee without an important role in the club and was doing it well.

I'll say it again - nothing will change, we will get beaten a lot with or without Neeld

Accept it

I want a competitive team as well. Peter Jackson has nothing to do with this

We are not playing Suburban footy, teams will not donate us wins. You can change the coach and structure all you want I gaurentee you that our average losing margins will be 10 goals. We are fielding teams with the experience and talent level of GWS and GC

A lot have argued and would be right that at the moment GWS and GC have more scope for development with the higher and better picks in the Draft

The only way out of this is hard work and MFC supporters don't have the stomach to do it. I don't care if it is Neeld or whoever, someone needs to show some balls and do it

Edited May 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

It's mind boggling that you actually believe that

On the contrary, it's mind boggling you can't see we are better than we're playing.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

On the contrary, it's mind boggling you can't see we are better than we're playing.

Haha fair enough - Where are 5 additional goals per game going to come from offensively?And then how do we stop teams smashing us in the center clearances defensively? With the majority of the team hat has 30 - 40 games experience

Then go tell Neeld and co, because your analysis is clearly superior to theirs

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

I'll say it again - nothing will change, we will get beaten a lot with or without Neeld

Accept it

I want a competitive team as well. Peter Jackson has nothing to do with this

We are not playing Suburban footy, teams will not donate us wins. You can change the coach and structure all you want I gaurentee you that our average losing margins will be 10 goals

I don't agree with you. Our situation is because under this administration the FD that have been employed aren't AFL best practice. Prendergast was appointed under the Gardner Board and extended under McLardy. Neeld was appointed under McLardy. The footy department blokes aren't independent of the CEO, they are because of him. They don't appoint themselves.

Peter Jackson has everything to do with improving this club. He can appoint a new coach, he can change spending pattern in the club giving more or less money to various departments. In short, he can allocate our resources as he sees fit. He's the CEO put in by the AFL to fix us. Don't think he will do nothing other than make recommendations. He's there on a mission to fix us.

Bailey and his game plan had a list that was more unfit and not as good as this winning 8 games a season. We are so much better than 87 point average losses, but not under this FD.

I'll take my view over yours but each to their own.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

Haha fair enough - Where are 5 additional goals per game going to come from offensively?And then how do we stop teams smashing us in the center clearances defensively? With the majority of the team hat has 30 - 40 games experience

Then go tell Neeld and co, because your analysis is clearly superior to theirs

You're just being silly now. I'm not an AFL coach and don't pretend to be. But I can look at the performance of AFL coaches across the AFL and historically and make a judgement that Neeld is a poor coach.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I don't agree with you. Our situation is because under this administration the FD that have been employed aren't AFL best practice. Prendergast was appointed under the Gardner Board and extended under McLardy. Neeld was appointed under McLardy. The footy department blokes aren't independent of the CEO, they are because of him. They don't appoint themselves.

Peter Jackson has everything to do with improving this club. He can appoint a new coach, he can change spending pattern in the club giving more or less money to various departments. In short, he can allocate our resources as he sees fit. He's the CEO put in by the AFL to fix us. Don't think he will do nothing other than make recommendations. He's there on a mission to fix us.

Bailey and his game plan had a list that was more unfit and not as good as this winning 8 games a season. We are so much better than 87 point average losses, but not under this FD.

I'll take my view over yours but each to their own.

You're just being silly now. I'm not an AFL coach and don't pretend to be. But I can look at the performance of AFL coaches across the AFL and historically and make a judgement that Neeld is a poor coach.

How then in post 1476 can you then pass judgment on Neeld?

I like your reasoning in the above post - but again you form your opinion on our list and Neeld but admit to not knowing anything about the list.

It makes no sense - you just attribute sacking Neeld to better predominance with no real rational to why you think we are under preforming list

I'm not having a go at you BB - a lot of the argument on here has been ratiionised to support the sacking of Neeld.

I've said all along I don't think it is that simple

Edited May 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Bossdog 2,002]

You're just being silly now. I'm not an AFL coach and don't pretend to be. But I can look at the performance of AFL coaches across the AFL and historically and make a judgement that Neeld is a poor coach.

So on that basis.......Thompson and Clarkson are bad coaches??????

[stuie 7,374]

Stuie without using stats tell me how we are worse than last year, I'm not saying we are or are not just want to see the argument provided either way without using stats. As I said before stats can work any way you wish.

I heard ealrier today only 4 teams have improved defensivley this season Port, Dogs, Essendon & can't recall the other of the top of my head may have been North but it was not one of the top sides. Just putting it out there

Without using stats I'm just listing observations and opinions, so I'll preface that by saying this is all just my thoughts:

-We look lost out there. I didn't like our boundary game plan last year, but this year there doesn't really seem to be a game plan.

-The zone either isn't working or the players have no idea where they're supposed to be and what they're supposed to do (ie- when to chase etc)

-There seems to be a distinct lack of spirit and effort. That's not something you can find a stat for, but there doesn't seem to be any enthusiastic unity.

-The list seems very "vanilla" to me. You always need depth players, but we seem to have nearly a whole list of them. (Pedo, Sellar, Gillies, Rodan etc)

-The defeatist attitude, ie- losing by 5 goals interstate is apparently a decent effort. We (well Neeld at least) seems happy with picking out one stat, or one quarter etc just like Bailey used to.

-Last year we braced ourselves for pain early on because we understood it was a time to find out about players and get used to a new coach and his way of doing things, this year I think most of us expected some improvement, if only a minimal amount.

-More experienced players are out of form under Neeld this year. We will lose a few this offseason, which is usual, but we will seemingly lose more players who previously had been good to very good players for us.

Just my thoughts. The stats are what I tend to look at more, we're ranked last or near last in every important major category, but the lack of hope and general resignation is what I find the most deflating this year.

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

I like your reasoning in the above post - but again you form your opinion on our list and Neeld but admit to not knowing anything about the list.

I didn't say I know nothing about the list, I said that I'm not an AFL coach and couldn't tell a new coach what to do.

I can compare this list on how it's performing with last year and the Bailey years and make a judgement. If you don't like that judgement so be it. Others can make their own decisions.

[Redleg 40,925]

It will help, if he is in fact the problem. That said, I don't know if he is.

- Sacking Neeld will not solve our problems..........

[P-man 13,366]

I reckon MFC supporter are moron's - look at our performances how can you justify that statement? It's illogical, we've been a bottom 4 club for the last 4 - 5 years (bAR 2011, but even then we got spanked by good sides), how can you say that?

It's mind boggling that you actually believe that

Logic absolutely dictates we are better than the crap we're putting out. Frawley is half the player he was a few years ago and frankly looks disinterested. T Mac is unrecognisable at the moment. Watts' apparent mismanagement with "not a key defender, not quite a forward". Trengove, Blease...the list goes on of players not playing anywhere close to what we know they're capable of.

You then combine that with the complete confusion we see on the field, where opposition players coast through the corridor at will, and where we apparently aren't playing a zone defence but can still leave 3 or 4 free targets with acres of space, even in the first half where we haven't run out of steam. It's hardly mind boggling to think we can play better. Alot better.

[stuie 7,374]

Lose by 120 points and Neeld says, yeah but we were good for the first 10 minutes.

Sorry buddy, this is an elite sports industry and you aren't getting results.

Nah, I reckon he'll say "well we thought losing by 20 goals in an away game was a good result...."

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

It will help, if he is in fact the problem. That said, I don't know if he is.

I don't think anyone can definitely say it's Neelds fault - and that's what I'm trying to say. In saying all that I don't foresee Neeld staying until years end, but when Neeld does go I still don't expect this team to play significantly better

I didn't say I know nothing about the list, I said that I'm not an AFL coach and couldn't tell a new coach what to do.

I can compare this list on how it's performing with last year and the Bailey years and make a judgement. If you don't like that judgement so be it. Others can make their own decisions.

BB we will probably go around in circles all day - Bailey had 2 almost 3 years - in the 3rd we started to see some results

I don't see why Neeld doesn't get the same chance. (Unless the team gets smashed each and every week)

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Logic absolutely dictates we are better than the crap we're putting out. Frawley is half the player he was a few years ago and frankly looks disinterested. T Mac is unrecognisable at the moment. Watts' apparent mismanagement with "not a key defender, not quite a forward". Trengove, Blease...the list goes on of players not playing anywhere close to what we know they're capable of.

You then combine that with the complete confusion we see on the field, where opposition players coast through the corridor at will, and where we apparently aren't playing a zone defence but can still leave 3 or 4 free targets with acres of space, even in the first half where we haven't run out of steam. It's hardly mind boggling to think we can play better. Alot better.

I've got to go mate but to quickly answer

Watts was mis managed before Neeld got here - so I don't accept that at all

Frawley is under preforming I won't argue that

T Mac is out of form and still only 21 with 20 games??? C'mon lets not expect too much

Defensive and offensive collusion takes years to develop - I agree some showings of this side have been [censored] poor - but how much is Neeld and how much is the experience of the team?? Just have a look at how many guys in the seniors are under 30 - 40 games

With or without Neeld this rebuild is going to last longer then 2013 - I bet you that more then 50% of this board expected Viney and Toumpas to come in to this side and dominate from day 1

Edited May 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[P-man 13,366]

Nah, I reckon he'll say "well we thought losing by 20 goals in an away game was a good result...."

I might see what sort of odds I can get on him saying the words "development phase" within the first 30 seconds.

[rjay 24,928]

You missed my point.

Moloney DID change in 2012, because Moloney felt he got burnt when he was dropped from the leadership team and proceeded to play extremely poor footy. It was his own making and fault.

You're using an extremely bias example, and the only reason why you cant use another player is because no one else who was drafted off has played

"Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, McKenzie, Strauss, Blease, Garland are no better than when he arrived and in some cases significantly worse"

Trengrove - Improved, but last few games performance has dropped

Grimes - Improved

Watts - didnt improve under Bailey or MN and the moment MN was going to play him in the forward he gets injured

Frawley - improved. Had to tag the best forwards in every team, including two undefeated clubs.

Strauss - come off it, he broke his leg and had a shoulder reconstruction, how is MN supposed to improve a play who hasnt been able to play footy for the last 2 years

Blease - improved. Played some great footy last year, setting the majority of his pb's such as 5 goals, 29 disposals ect.

Garland - most improved player out of them all this year

The biggest improvement from 2011 (Bailey) and 2012 (Neeld) is that we averaged 3 more goals per game... another improvement would be better use/improvement from our rookie list, trimming the fat off the list and drafting in better players (such as Byrnes) for once (none under Bailey).

If you dislike MN because we aren't winning games - just say it.

I'm not disappointed that Moloney moved on at the end of last year, I've not been a fan of his game. Drafting in better players such as Byrnes, well he is the only one who has shown anything of the experienced ones we have drafted in from other clubs. Pederson, Roden and Gillies have been a disappointment so far.

...but on your list you can't be saying that Trengove has improved. He has gone backwards at a rate of knots from his first couple of seasons. Grimes has played more games but I'm not sure he has realised the promise shown earlier in his career.

Garland has improved this year on last year but he was playing this level or better footy a few years back.

Blease still hot and cold, cold at the moment.

Frawley is nowhere near the player he was a few seasons back.

Look, I'm not saying Bailey was great or Neeld has to go but we have a bunch of players with talent who are struggling for what ever reason. I can't stand watching a kid like Trengove, who is a great kid and potential A grader playing as he is, it's just a shame to see.

[P-man 13,366]

I've got to go mate but to quickly answer

Watts was mis managed before Neeld got here - so I don't accept that at all

Frawley is under preforming I won't argue that

T Mac is out of form and still only 21 with 20 games??? C'mon lets not expect too much

Defensive and offensive collusion takes years to develop - I agree some showings of this side have been [censored] poor - but how much is Neeld and how much is the experience of the team?? Just have a look at how many guys in the seniors are under 30 - 40 games

With or without Neeld this rebuild is going to last longer then 2013

I agree it is still a long road ahead. I definitely disagree that this team is capable of nothing more than absolute beltings week to week.

[stuie 7,374]

You missed my point.

Moloney DID change in 2012, because Moloney felt he got burnt when he was dropped from the leadership team and proceeded to play extremely poor footy. It was his own making and fault.

You're using an extremely bias example, and the only reason why you cant use another player is because no one else who was drafted off has played

"Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, McKenzie, Strauss, Blease, Garland are no better than when he arrived and in some cases significantly worse"

Trengrove - Improved, but last few games performance has dropped

Grimes - Improved

Watts - didnt improve under Bailey or MN and the moment MN was going to play him in the forward he gets injured

Frawley - improved. Had to tag the best forwards in every team, including two undefeated clubs.

Strauss - come off it, he broke his leg and had a shoulder reconstruction, how is MN supposed to improve a play who hasnt been able to play footy for the last 2 years

Blease - improved. Played some great footy last year, setting the majority of his pb's such as 5 goals, 29 disposals ect.

Garland - most improved player out of them all this year

The biggest improvement from 2011 (Bailey) and 2012 (Neeld) is that we averaged 3 more goals per game... another improvement would be better use/improvement from our rookie list, trimming the fat off the list and drafting in better players (such as Byrnes) for once (none under Bailey).

If you dislike MN because we aren't winning games - just say it.

That is just ridiculous PJ. let's re-look at that list:

Trengrove - Improved, but last few games performance has dropped. No. His year last year was very average, at best you would say he's the same.

Grimes - Improved How can you say "don't blame Neeld for Strauss but then say Grimes has improved because of Neeld? Convenient way of looking at injuries.

Watts - didnt improve under Bailey or MN and the moment MN was going to play him in the forward he gets injured Same as Trengove. hardly think you can say "MN was going to play him forward" just because he did it in a half in a losing game.

Frawley - improved. Had to tag the best forwards in every team, including two undefeated clubs. Improved??! WTF??! He was an All-Australian and is our most talked about out of form player this year. Bad call.

Strauss - come off it, he broke his leg and had a shoulder reconstruction, how is MN supposed to improve a play who hasnt been able to play footy for the last 2 years Agree.

Blease - improved. Played some great footy last year, setting the majority of his pb's such as 5 goals, 29 disposals ect. Ummm... don't you think it's fair to apply the Strauss rule here?

Garland - most improved player out of them all this year He may seem to have improved this year due to playing at the other end most of last year, but he's no better now than under Bailey.

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

I'm not disappointed that Moloney moved on at the end of last year, I've not been a fan of his game. Drafting in better players such as Byrnes, well he is the only one who has shown anything of the experienced ones we have drafted in from other clubs. Pederson, Roden and Gillies have been a disappointment so far.

...but on your list you can't be saying that Trengove has improved. He has gone backwards at a rate of knots from his first couple of seasons. Grimes has played more games but I'm not sure he has realised the promise shown earlier in his career.

Garland has improved this year on last year but he was playing this level or better footy a few years back.

Blease still hot and cold, cold at the moment.

Frawley is nowhere near the player he was a few seasons back.

Look, I'm not saying Bailey was great or Neeld has to go but we have a bunch of players with talent who are struggling for what ever reason. I can't stand watching a kid like Trengove, who is a great kid and potential A grader playing as he is, it's just a shame to see.

Agree with most of this, but Jack Trengove deserves a full pre season and to be injury free before we judge him, his defensive efforts are good,

he has only played 64 games so i'm sure he will be that A grade mid you're hoping for, but he like everyone else deserves time

[The Reverend 1,736]

These are good points BB, although i am inclined to give him until after the bye to try and extract something out of the list but in general i agree.

It is very clear that we have gone backwards under Neeld but DB & CS have to answer for the greatest f**kup at our club which was forcing Junior out too soon.

It exposed our derth of leadership and caused us to loose Bruce who would have been a more natural captain as oposed to Green who was awkward as captain.

We need a coach who inspires our young list to play better not someone who treats them like misbehaving 2 year olds.

I'm intrigued about the evidence to support this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong but I just wonder why people are saying this.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Crawf52

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

That is just ridiculous PJ. let's re-look at that list:

Trengrove - Improved, but last few games performance has dropped. No. His year last year was very average, at best you would say he's the same.

Grimes - Improved How can you say "don't blame Neeld for Strauss but then say Grimes has improved because of Neeld? Convenient way of looking at injuries.

Watts - didnt improve under Bailey or MN and the moment MN was going to play him in the forward he gets injured Same as Trengove. hardly think you can say "MN was going to play him forward" just because he did it in a half in a losing game.

Frawley - improved. Had to tag the best forwards in every team, including two undefeated clubs. Improved??! WTF??! He was an All-Australian and is our most talked about out of form player this year. Bad call.

Strauss - come off it, he broke his leg and had a shoulder reconstruction, how is MN supposed to improve a play who hasnt been able to play footy for the last 2 years Agree.

Blease - improved. Played some great footy last year, setting the majority of his pb's such as 5 goals, 29 disposals ect. Ummm... don't you think it's fair to apply the Strauss rule here?

Garland - most improved player out of them all this year He may seem to have improved this year due to playing at the other end most of last year, but he's no better now than under Bailey.

Nathan Jones.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

I reckon MFC supporter are moron's - look at our performances how can you justify that statement? It's illogical, we've been a bottom 4 club for the last 4 - 5 years (bAR 2011, but even then we got spanked by good sides), how can you say that?

It's mind boggling that you actually believe that

How can I say that? Because I am obviously one of those morons. You can be as condescending as you like, but no Board, which operates in a competitive business environment, would tolerate such a low grade performance. To do so would be to abrogate their due diligence and be contrary to good corporate governance. In fact, they would be "morons" if they let it happen under their watch.

On the footy side, it was not all that long ago, we flogged Paul Roos' Swans, dissected Brisbane and annihilated Adelaide. Short memory!!!!!! Like I said in my previous post, most of us have the brains - contrary to your misguided opinion - to understand the losses. But what cannot be tolerated is the way we lose at the moment.

And just a word of advice, if your response to a robust debate is to enter into throwing insults, then I suggest you go to your local bar and try it on there. There is no place for that here.

Edited May 3, 2013 by iv'a worn smith