Time to go Mark Neeld

[pantaloons 2,019]

People say a lot of stuff here, and then seemingly influence others to form quite strong views based on that information. Quite often, I don't trust the underlying information which is reported.

For instance, many seem to contend that Bailey was loved by the players and Neeld is not.

Unless Neeld turns it around in a massive hurry, they'll both go down as two of the worst coaches in VFL/AFL history (something for G. Lyon to put on his resume). I don't play favourites with either of them, disagreed with both of their hirings, and see them as examples of why this club must move forward with an experienced coach who can instantly command the respect of the players.

[Guest]

1. I spoke to Stef Martin at a Debt Demolition Dinner a couple of years ago.

He told me, to my face, that many of the players, including him personally, hated the boring, tedious weekly regime that Bailey imposed on the player group, and that he regarded Viney (as caretaker coach) as a breath of fresh air. Martin said it was like going to a school class room each day under Bailey - it didn't feel like a 'footy club'.

I am curious about this one. Bailey seemed to be on side with all the playing group that mattered (Green, Riv, Moloney) at the time. Perhaps there was a faction, rather than a majority, in the playing group that though it was tedious?

I have also heard another whisper on here that Stef wanted to leave last year because the football club was 'no longer fun'. I guess it's not a case of 'either/or' in regards to Bailey vs. Neeld but that statement would imply that things were 'fun' under the old regime but no longer so.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Guest

[nutbean 8,838]

I think we need to also look at mechanisms around "mass exodus of players who will leave at the end of the season".

We have two players eligible for FA - so they are at risk of leaving.

Players out of contract - ("Carlton are into Watts big time") - sooo once you are out of contract you dont have free choice to go where ever you want. If Watts wants to go to Carlton - if we want him to go - Carlton have to deal something we want for him to be guaranteed to get there. We can tell him to get stuffed and enjoy yourself at GWS as they would probably have first crack at getting him if he goes into the draft. That is the problem that players who are out of contract face.

Players in contract - we have all the say whether they stay or go

The only players we lost last year that we may wanted to have kept were free agency footballers and they didnt work to hard to keep Moloney as I dont think the coach wanted him.

So this nonsense about a mass walk out of players is just that...a nonsense.

Edited May 8, 2013 by nutbean

[Guest]

Players out of contract - ("Carlton are into Watts big time") - sooo once you are out of contract you dont have free choice to go where ever you want. If Watts wants to go to Carlton - if we want him to go - Carlton have to deal something we want for him to be guaranteed to get there. We can tell him to get stuffed and enjoy yourself at GWS as they would probably have first crack at getting him if he goes into the draft. That is the problem that players who are out of contract face.

Players in contract - we have all the say whether they stay or go

It would be interesting to see if Mick would want him and if he took him, how he would handle him. He has had a few digs at Jack over the journey.

[nutbean 8,838]

It would be interesting to see if Mick would want him and if he took him, how he would handle him. He has had a few digs at Jack over the journey.

rephrase - interesting to see if Mick would want him and we let him get to Carlton...( therein lies the problem for any player who is not a free agency wanting to go to a club of their choice other than a bottom of the ladder team)

[binman 42,919]

I have said before that the way the team played in the first 2 rounds were an indication they were not playing for their coach so i would not be surprised if some of the reports on DL about player disenchantment are accurate.

However many of those indicating Neeld does not have the players on board (and some even suggest this will will lead to mass walk outs which as Nutbean rightly says is a nonsense ) seem to imply that this is a static or unchangeable situation with no chance of him winning the players back.

Again as i have said before i have seen some signs that players are playing with the sort of spirit that suggests that they are playing for their coach. Each week is another test of this but if if we see the sort of spirit we saw last game week in week out i will conclude Neeld has the players on side and playing for him.

Surely even his fiercest critics would concede that even if Neeld has 'lost' some of his players (which is of course conjecture and in any case may be an inevitable outcome of trying to rebuild a playing culture from scratch - which by the by is something Hinkley has not had to do so the comparison don't really hold up ) this does not mean it is impossible to win them back.

People can change, learn from their mistakes, alter their approach, develop. Perhaps Neeld is one of these people. Certainly i have seen a change in terms of him being much positive and supportive towards his players (though i wish he would stop reinforcing our inexperience - but i guess he's got a theory as to why he is doing that).

The flame is flickering.

[The Reverend 1,736]

6th best player. Lol.

So you'd keep a known commodity, a rare one, over a speculative coach with an appalling record??

I'm not suggesting we sack Neeld right now, but the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group. So you can try to devalue Frawley all you like, but you know full well that if players of his quality (of which we have so few) walk out, we go back 5 years.

Just once, I'd like someone to support the claim that the players are discontented with Neeld with some evidence rather than speculation and perception.

[Little Richard 6,262]

I have said before that the way the team played in the first 2 rounds were an indication they were not playing for their coach so i would not be surprised if some of the reports on DL about player disenchantment are accurate.

However many of those indicating Neeld does not have the players on board (and some even suggest this will will lead to mass walk outs which as Nutbean rightly says is a nonsense ) seem to imply that this is a static or unchangeable situation with no chance of him winning the players back.

Again as i have said before i have seen some signs that players are playing with the sort of spirit that suggests that they are playing for their coach. Each week is another test of this but if if we see the sort of spirit we saw last game week in week out i will conclude Neeld has the players on side and playing for him.

Surely even his fiercest critics would concede that even if Neeld has 'lost' some of his players (which is of course conjecture and in any case may be an inevitable outcome of trying to rebuild a playing culture from scratch - which by the by is something Hinkley has not had to do so the comparison don't really hold up ) this does not mean it is impossible to win them back.

People can change, learn from their mistakes, alter their approach, develop. Perhaps Neeld is one of these people. Certainly i have seen a change in terms of him being much positive and supportive towards his players (though i wish he would stop reinforcing our inexperience - but i guess he's got a theory as to why he is doing that).

The flame is flickering.

He has to or else he won't last long. People have to remember that he is a first time Senior AFL coach and is going to make mistakes.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

i generally take time to read your posts and i rate what you have to say, but in this case you've discreteted the validity of another poster who has supposedlypassed on information he got from a past player, and then countered it with your own anecdotes of discussions with players?

That's the very reason I posted those anecdotes DemonWA. I'm not intending to criticise any other poster - to the contrary, I want to know the actual underlying evidence about alleged player dissatisfaction/revolt under Neeld. In fact, I generally enjoy reading all posts that contain information passed on by players etc.

Virtually all of what I have read to date on this issue seems to be based on observation and pure speculation only - not direct evidence based on conversations with the players, coaches etc.

And, unlike certain others in the media and here, I am releuctant to form opinions based on matters which seem to be largely unsubstantiated.

[Satyriconhome 10,872]

That's the very reason I posted those anecdotes DemonWA. I'm not intending to criticise any other poster - to the contrary, I want to know the actual underlying evidence about alleged player dissatisfaction/revolt under Neeld. In fact, I generally enjoy reading all posts that contain information passed on by players etc.

Virtually all of what I have read to date on this issue seems to be based on observation and pure speculation only - not direct evidence based on conversations with the players, coaches etc.

And, unlike certain others in the media and here, I am releuctant to form opinions based on matters which seem to be largely unsubstantiated.

Well said Ron, althought it is probably wasted on some on here, Caroline Swillson and Damian Ferrett are taken as gospel

[timmyo64 44]

take a look at footy this year, take a look at the best team..geelong! and look at their game plan, they have gone back to their glory days (which bailey was trying to mimic) and so has the rest of league, and yes i understand we weren't fit enough, but surely that can't be all bailey's fault, from all reports it seems like a blind man could of seen we were not up to scratch, fitness wise. I was told jim even mentioned it in his book, so why did no one pull bailey up on it? with his game plan + the likes of a dave mission, i believe after years of learning it we would be flying right about now. instead we are playing a superseded game plan that is to slow to come near any teams, the positive - if we stick with Neeld for long enough maybe his methods will come in vogue again and that will be our chance. but right now i reckon dean is quietly laughing thinking and thinking to him self "pity the fool"

in a nutshell, this was the season, the footy, the era we had been training/waiting for, for 4 years under bailey.. we all even thought 2013 would be the year we really rise. instead we kept schwabb and got mark.

does this frustrate anyone else?

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

he flame is flickering.

I think it's a completely false to decide whether a coach stays or goes based on whether the players are playing for him.

It should be based on results. Wins/loses, individual player improvement, success of game plan etc.

I spoke with some players after Bailey left. The universal answer was pretty much "if the coach isn't picking you then you don't like him. If he is you do." Just because the players are playing with spirit doesn't mean they are doing it for the coach, they might just be doing it for themselves.

[Satyriconhome 10,872]

take a look at footy this year, take a look at the best team..geelong! and look at their game plan, they have gone back to their glory days (which bailey was trying to mimic) and so has the rest of league, and yes i understand we weren't fit enough, but surely that can't be all bailey's fault, from all reports it seems like a blind man could of seen we were not up to scratch, fitness wise. I was told jim even mentioned it in his book, so why did no one pull bailey up on it? with his game plan + the likes of a dave mission, i believe after years of learning it we would be flying right about now. instead we are playing a superseded game plan that is to slow to come near any teams, the positive - if we stick with Neeld for long enough maybe his methods will come in vogue again and that will be our chance. but right now i reckon dean is quietly laughing thinking and thinking to him self "pity the fool"

in a nutshell, this was the season, the footy, the era we had been training/waiting for, for 4 years under bailey.. we all even thought 2013 would be the year we really rise. instead we kept schwabb and got mark.

does this frustrate anyone else?

Er Bailey was 2 and half years, Misson wasn't at the Club, how do you think the game plan has been superceded, by what?....most game plans are get it down the other end from the one you are defending and kick it through the big sticks....slight variations on a theme

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

8 months ago, we employed a guy with outstanding credentials. He had a great name within the profession, his references were glowing and his previous and demonstrated results, outstanding. We were absolutely rapt we could land a candidate that we thought would have been able to name his own price and get a job with a much larger firm.

Within 4 months of being with us and despite the fact we bent over backwards to vary our practices and processes, he is gone. His productivity was minimal, he had an adverse affect on employee morale, upset a number of clients with his gung ho demeanour and the revenue he generated was well below budget. So what happened? Maybe it was our fault. Maybe we did not provide a working environment to his liking, maybe we didn't provide him with a vision he could share.

That accepted, we believe he just held that his way was the only way. He was not flexible enough to adapt to our way of doing business. That we had to cut him loose, did negatively affect our business, but that was short term.

We are back tracking where we should be. His replacement does not have as high a profile, but their results are 65% better already, than the bloke we thought was a gun. The staff are much happier and our workplace is a much nicer place to be.

Things like this happen and it is regrettable, but we run a business and we had to fix what was an obvious problem. These things happen unfortunately, in spite of our best intentions.

[The Reverend 1,736]

8 months ago, we employed a guy with outstanding credentials. He had a great name within the profession, his references were glowing and his previous and demonstrated results, outstanding. We were absolutely rapt we could land a candidate that we thought would have been able to name his own price and get a job with a much larger firm.

Within 4 months of being with us and despite the fact we bent over backwards to vary our practices and processes, he is gone. His productivity was minimal, he had an adverse affect on employee morale, upset a number of clients with his gung ho demeanour and the revenue he generated was well below budget. So what happened? Maybe it was our fault. Maybe we did not provide a working environment to his liking, maybe we didn't provide him with a vision he could share.

That accepted, we believe he just held that his way was the only way. He was not flexible enough to adapt to our way of doing business. That we had to cut him loose, did negatively affect our business, but that was short term.

We are back tracking where we should be. His replacement does not have as high a profile, but their results are 65% better already, than the bloke we thought was a gun. The staff are much happier and our workplace is a much nicer place to be.

Things like this happen and it is regrettable, but we run a business and we had to fix what was an obvious problem. These things happen unfortunately, in spite of our best intentions.

So how and why is this relevant? Neeld was employed to do a job. He was not employed to continue the culture of adapting his processes to suit the demands of existing personnel. His brief was to shake things up and implement change. It's what the board wanted. It's what the club needed.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

So how and why is this relevant? Neeld was employed to do a job. He was not employed to continue the culture of adapting his processes to suit the demands of existing personnel. His brief was to shake things up and implement change. It's what the board wanted. It's what the club needed.

It's relevant because we had to continue to run a profitable business, take care of all stakeholders, not just one and at the end of the day, ensure our paying clients remained on our books. Just how relevant do you want the point to be?

By any measure, Neeld has failed to reach the brief.

[hardtack 10,537]

It's relevant because we had to continue to run a profitable business, take care of all stakeholders, not just one and at the end of the day, ensure our paying clients remained on our books. Just how relevant do you want the point to be?

By any measure, Neeld has failed to reach the brief.

Just exactly how many paying clients has the MFC lost during Neeld's tenure? Membership numbers appear to be going along at a similar rate to last year, sponsors have come and gone and come again as is perfectly normal.

He was given the brief to fix things and as we all know, he is at the halfway mark of that brief. As I said earlier, by adding a couple of high performing mids at the end of this season, plus possibly one more defender, we will start to look like a real team. Let him complete his brief and then see whether he is up to it or not.

There is NO quick fix when it comes to the issues at the MFC and the fast-food, want-it-now approach will not work. I've been following the Dees for 55 years and am quite prepared to wait for them to get it right this time.

[rpfc 28,406]

I think it's a completely false to decide whether a coach stays or goes based on whether the players are playing for him.

It should be based on results. Wins/loses, individual player improvement, success of game plan etc.

I agree completely.

There is a prevailing mood that Neeld should be turfed right now because some players have issues with him.

Sack him for real reasons - we owe him that much.

[timmyo64 44]

Er Bailey was 2 and half years, Misson wasn't at the Club, how do you think the game plan has been superceded, by what?....most game plans are get it down the other end from the one you are defending and kick it through the big sticks....slight variations on a theme

08, 09, 10, 11 -4 games.

his style of play is not in anymore.. pretty simple. teams dont play the zone, just look at scores between this year and the last few years

[Clark_Kent 315]

I don't really get people saying Neeld has the Pies gameplan from 2010 and the Geelong gameplan is what everyone is following. How do we kow that Neeld is using the exact Pies gameplan. Couldn't he be working on his own gameplan based on attacking the footy and defending hard while also transitioning into attack from winning the ball. This also seems to be what Geelong do well anyway. They defend well and they transition into attack very well. They are experts at their gameplan as they have been working on it for a long time. Most AFL teams have similar plans i.e. contested ball, beat your man, move the ball quickly. The better sides just execute their plan and for longer than the poorer teams.

[binman 42,919]

I think it's a completely false to decide whether a coach stays or goes based on whether the players are playing for him.

It should be based on results. Wins/loses, individual player improvement, success of game plan etc.

I spoke with some players after Bailey left. The universal answer was pretty much "if the coach isn't picking you then you don't like him. If he is you do." Just because the players are playing with spirit doesn't mean they are doing it for the coach, they might just be doing it for themselves.

I 100% agree and certainly i wasn't arguing he should be retained based on signs the players may be on side. Of course a coach should be judged on results and have made that very point before. Put simply the club will not sack Neeld if the results are acceptable and the board will determine the parameters of what is acceptable.

There is no way the board will sack him mid season if the results are acceptable (by their definition), which i'm guessing will be competitive performances (no big blow outs), sustained effort and spirit and the occasional win. Many would disagree no doubt about what is acceptable but it is the the boards call

However what i will say is that if they are not playing for the coach this will be reflected in the results (as i suspect was the case early in the season).

It's funny though because at least 2 posters have argued very strongly that Neeld should be sacked immediately precisely because they believe he has lost the players and and if action is not taken irreparable damage will be done. I am assuming from your comments Bob that you would argue that this is fuzzy logic and not a reasonable reason (in isolation) to sack a coach.

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

t's funny though because at least 2 posters have argued very strongly that Neeld should be sacked immediately precisely because they believe he has lost the players and and if action is not taken irreparable damage will be done. I am assuming from your comments Bob that you would argue that this is fuzzy logic and not a reasonable reason (in isolation) to sack a coach.

I would sack him now because I've made up my mind on him and I think keeping him will further hurt the club. That decision is based on his entire time at MFC.

But Old55 put it very well before. We are making a judgement from the outside which is unsatisfactory/limited. I'm glad Schwab is gone as his job and McLardy's are (were) to some degree linked to Neeld's. If both were still there they would have been tempted to keep him partly to protect themselves. Jackson and others are free of the appointment and can act without self implication. I'm happy to follow Jackson's call and trust his judgement.

IMO a win on Sunday will keep him on life support, a loss and the hand will be moving towards the off button.

[P-man 13,366]

But Old55 put it very well before. We are making a judgement from the outside which is unsatisfactory/limited. I'm glad Schwab is gone as his job and McLardy's are (were) to some degree linked to Neeld's. If both were still there they would have been tempted to keep him partly to protect themselves. Jackson and others are free of the appointment and can act without self implication. I'm happy to follow Jackson's call and trust his judgement.

Agreed.

[binman 42,919]

I would sack him now because I've made up my mind on him and I think keeping him will further hurt the club. That decision is based on his entire time at MFC.

But Old55 put it very well before. We are making a judgement from the outside which is unsatisfactory/limited. I'm glad Schwab is gone as his job and McLardy's are (were) to some degree linked to Neeld's. If both were still there they would have been tempted to keep him partly to protect themselves. Jackson and others are free of the appointment and can act without self implication. I'm happy to follow Jackson's call and trust his judgement.

IMO a win on Sunday will keep him on life support, a loss and the hand will be moving towards the off button.

Fair call i reckon

[frankie_d 1,471]

I don't know whether Neeld should go. It is true that we have become inured to failure; it's extraordinary that a 10 goal loss can be seen as having positives, but the new players do excite me a bit - Kent, Matt Jones, Terlich, Evans

This

"""

During the annual shareholder meeting held on Tuesday in Helsinki, investors took issue with the corporate leadership, particularly CEO Stephen Elop. The Canadian executive is same man who authored the famous “burning platform” memo in 2011, expressing the imminent need for change within the company.

"You're a nice guy…and the leadership team is doing its best, but clearly, it's not enough," shareholder Hannu Virtanen told Elop, according to Reuters. "Are you aware that results are what matter? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Please switch to another road.” - Cyrus Farivar, ars technica

"""

was interesting.