Time to go Mark Neeld

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

RR, I think there are some on here that believe to suggest it might be time to move Mark Neeld on, is akin to a personal attach. Far from. As you put it, we want a successful MFC. That's all we want and the right foundations need to be set down. Sadly, they are not there at present.

Agree that is all we want, but some of us are actually from the planet Earth and can hear what the plan for going forward is, and that the foundations are going to be set down.

Unfortunately unlike some of the more adventurous posters on here, we aren't part of the Club everyday, we don't know the full story, so therefore the only alternative is to actually believe what is being said, tempered by the fact that it is only footy and there are so many variables the plan may actually take some time to implement

Whereas the more adventurous can listen to all the rumour/gossip/innuendo/commentarypoor journalism and fill 92 pages on this board with the next bit of rubbish that has popped it's head over the parapet (a fine example being the Roos 'story' from the other day)

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

Young whipper snappers. Back in my day we'd keep coaches for three years, now they don't get to see out two years of a contract. Oh wait, Daniher, a coach serving during the early Gen Y days, is the longest serving MFC coach. I wonder if instead this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of a broad subsection of the MFC supporter base? Nah, it's just short-sighted Gen Ys.

Anyway, I get it. You're disappointed your life has passed you by, you've probably bought yourself a flashy new car, a leather jacket or motorbike, so be happy with that, but there's no way you'll convince me this has anything to do with Gen Y.

I'm offended by that, I had actually moved out of home at 17, unlike today, and had worked for 4 years and at 19 bought myself a Triumph Bonneville 650, and a rather nice set of bright orange leathers......unfortunately at 19 and half , a rather slow moving furniture removals van turning out of a side street had rendered my bike and my leathers to the scrap heap........but my life continued apace

There is not a broad section of the MFC support base dissatisfied......there are a few led by the cloud wearers on here who prefer to believe Caroline Swillson and Damian Ferrett rather than the Club

[jumbo returns 6,593]

Lol. Too funny Jumbo. So you're saying, if given the opportunity today, you would overlook a Greg Williams type in favour of say McKenzie?

Not comparing Magner to any of those in terms of what he's acheived or likely to mate. The fact that you managed to garner that into your feable response shows that you don't have a good grasp on the game. None of these players have amazing burst speed as you claim. They might have strength through the core and legs and be able to break tackles and find their way through a tackle or 2 into space but certainly not fleet of foot.

Magner is a minnow, having played in most cases about 8 seasons less in experience to these guys. So it's definitely not an attempt to compare him to them as we have no basis upon which to do so over such a lengthy period. To make it easier for you, Magner and others like him who don't have great leg or burst speed have the capability of playing at the highest level and either being 'ok' at it, 'good' at it or in some cases even great at it. We might also find, given enough opportunity on the park, that he is woeful at it. But the difference between the way I see the game and the way you see it is chalk and cheese.

You believe an ordinary footballer like McKenzie deserves to hold his place before giving the likes of Magner, who may also prove to be ordinary, a go. You also probably have the same view on other ordinary footballers lile Bail and Strauss. Whereas I see it along the lines that if someone showes decent form weeks on end at Casey and the role/opportunity arises for him to be given a chance (and it has) and he's earned it plus he is needed (and he is as part of inside mid rotations with Grimes and Trengove out) then he should be given that opportunity to prove he can replicate something like his VFL form at AFL level.

Some people are beyond foresight/vision and logic though so I'm not expecting you to change your narrow view.

Fair enough.

Important though, we talk footy. My response to you was not sprinkled with belittling comments and a sarcastic undertone.

Magner is a rookie and a rookie for a reason - apart from a big body, he offers little else.

Bail is a fleet footed player who's courageous and does all the hard stuff - in time, Strauss will prove to be a very handy backman who breaks lines.

We have a big bodied mid fielder atm in Sylvia, who's improving week by week and has sublime skills.

We have enough ordinary players on our list, we don't need another on the park.

[Whispering_Jack 28,096]

Neeld managed to hit the wall earlier against Port Adelaide and Essendon. That was his 186.

I would have thought the obstacle of playing for draft picks was a significant obstacle in itself. And our ineptitude at managing it has been made plain to see.

Bailey was never close to getting another 2 year contract in 2011.

And just because Bailey got longer than he should because the Board had little idea of what happening in the FD ( Groundhog Day) is no basis to suggest Neeld is strangely entitled to that.

The bottom line is that the Clubs performances have gone backwards even further since they sacked Bailey.

We must be the only Club around that argues that Neeld should run his term when he has a W/L % sub 20%. It's a remarkable culture we have at MFC.

Well actually, Bailey's first 186 was the first game he coached. His second was the second at which point he'd coached twice for an average losing margin of over 100 points and I couldn't work out what he was doing there as a coach. Of course, the board at the time had no idea either.

You're right.

He should have been sacked there and then.

[pm24 451]

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working.

Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

Edited May 10, 2013 by pm24

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working.

Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

Well said, I asked about Magner, basically seen as backup for Nathan Jones, which god forbid won't happen this season

[The Reverend 1,718]

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Look at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team??

Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner.

This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

What the hell do you think you're doing pm24? There's no room on here for people who go about scurrilously making sense in the face of all the clear-thinking naysayers. Be off with you and don't you dare try to enlighten these dull surrounds with that sort of intelligent analysis ever again. It won't be tolerated. Mods - do something about this upstart.

[old55 21,770]

Agree that is all we want, but some of us are actually from the planet Earth and can hear what the plan for going forward is, and that the foundations are going to be set down.

Unfortunately unlike some of the more adventurous posters on here, we aren't part of the Club everyday, we don't know the full story, so therefore the only alternative is to actually believe what is being said, tempered by the fact that it is only footy and there are so many variables the plan may actually take some time to implement

Whereas the more adventurous can listen to all the rumour/gossip/innuendo/commentarypoor journalism and fill 92 pages on this board with the next bit of rubbish that has popped it's head over the parapet (a fine example being the Roos 'story' from the other day)

First of all Neeld "didn't see that coming" now he's reverted to running up the white flag and playing the youth card which existed when he couldn't see it coming. He's got no real explanation for what's going wrong but I have. Yes there is inexperience and lack of talent in the midfield and apparently they're fatal but the coach didn't realise this pre-season, it's only dawned on him now and he's clinging to it like an upturned lifeboat in a storm.

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

First of all Neeld "didn't see that coming" now he's reverted to running up the white flag and playing the youth card which existed when he couldn't see it coming. He's got no real explanation for what's going wrong but I have. Yes there is inexperience and lack of talent in the midfield and apparently they're fatal but the coach didn't realise this pre-season, it's only dawned on him now and he's clinging to it like an upturned lifeboat in a storm.

I think what he envisaged in the preseason was Clark and Dawes in the forward line together, Trengove completing a full preseason, a couple of others holding their form.......but hey hindsight........notice you didn't reply to the point I made in my post, but then again posters like yourself never do

[DeeSpencer 23,553]

Mark Neeld in playing action now on fox footy along with Hinkey, Hird and Leigh Tudor (gun assistant). Worth watching to get a glimpse of Neeld the player

[Elwood 3184 1,268]

Mark Neeld in playing action now on fox footy along with Hinkey, Hird and Leigh Tudor (gun assistant). Worth watching to get a glimpse of Neeld the player

Heard he gets bowled over by a Bomber player and when he wakes up says, "I didn't see that coming".

[pm24 451]

What the hell do you think you're doing pm24? There's no room on here for people who go about scurrilously making sense in the face of all the clear-thinking naysayers. Be off with you and don't you dare try to enlighten these dull surrounds with that sort of intelligent analysis ever again. It won't be tolerated. Mods - do something about this upstart.

My apologies, I should know better.

I will now go into a corner and repeat to myself 100 times...."there is no place for rational and logical thought on this forum", "there is no place for rational and logical thought on this forum".....

Edited May 10, 2013 by pm24

[nutbean 8,837]

whilst I am a swinging voter - the gloss has come of Neeld a little for me because last year he ran the line that we are younger, not physically developed and not as experienced but that is not a reason not to have a red hot crack and produce unacceptable results.

This season he seems to be using the first part being younger, underdeveloped and inexperienced as an excuse for the second part - like a disclaimer.

He wasnt making excuses last year - this year he seems to be.

I heard excuses under Bailey and didnt like it and I dont like Neeld doing it this year. I dont want to hear it .

[pm24 451]

First of all Neeld "didn't see that coming" now he's reverted to running up the white flag and playing the youth card which existed when he couldn't see it coming. He's got no real explanation for what's going wrong but I have. Yes there is inexperience and lack of talent in the midfield and apparently they're fatal but the coach didn't realise this pre-season, it's only dawned on him now and he's clinging to it like an upturned lifeboat in a storm.

Just to clarify, your view of Neeld is based on a statement made after round 1, where Neeld was surprised by the performance of the club against Port when all the key indicators throughout the preseason and the NAB cup pointed to something else.......like the team playing with greater competitiveness. They would have gone into the game knowing that the experience levels of our team vs port adelaide wouldn't have been too far apart, but it was the way in which the players competed that surprised them.

And Neeld and Co have always, since taking over, highlighted how far back the club was in its training standards and other areas of development. They have always maintained a line that this is a journey and that it would take time.....

Maybe you should be analysing your own posts and try and recognise the faults in them before posting, because you're obviously quite skilled at applying such an approach to anything Neeld or the club say.

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

Heard he gets bowled over by a Bomber player and when he wakes up says, "I didn't see that coming".

Wow my keyboard rattled with laughter at that one....NOT

[Scipio 5,900]

Wow my keyboard rattled with laughter at that one....NOT

Such a hater bro!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Of course, the board at the time had no idea either.

You're right.

He should have been sacked there and then.

I am sure you made your views loud and clear at the time.

It's noteworthy that the current board took a further 3.5 years to draw it to a close and then could not work out whether they sacked the coach and the CEO at the time.

At least they have sacked the CEO now so it won't be as confusing when they start to work out what is happening onfield. I mean they have so busy working out what we actually doing in the supplements area

[Scoop Junior 3,093]

Neeld has been banging on recently about games experience like it is the only important thing in footy and that it is the sole factor in determining a team's fortunes.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned earlier in this thread but other than it being totally infuriating hearing the same thing over and over again (which I guess is understandable given it's probably the only excuse he can offer up), how does it sit with his decision to appoint two captains with less than 50 games of experience each?

If we take him at his word that games experience is so vitally important, why on earth would he appoint captains who lack what he considers to be the most important ingredient for a player and for a team – games experience?

This is not at all to question the captains but rather is just to illustrate the inconsistency in his message and his misreading of where the team is at.

And that's what has been concerning to me. There is little doubt Neeld expected big improvement from the team this year. He has not got it so far (in fact we have gone backwards) so he is grasping onto a convenient excuse, games experience.

One of the worst thing a coach can do is overestimate their list as they make decisions on where they think they are at rather than where they are actually at.

For me Neeld is guilty of this.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

whilst I am a swinging voter - the gloss has come of Neeld a little for me because last year he ran the line that we are younger, not physically developed and not as experienced but that is not a reason not to have a red hot crack and produce unacceptable results.

This season he seems to be using the first part being younger, underdeveloped and inexperienced as an excuse for the second part - like a disclaimer.

He wasnt making excuses last year - this year he seems to be.

I heard excuses under Bailey and didnt like it and I dont like Neeld doing it this year. I dont want to hear it .

It's worse when those excuses are apparent half truths that when further investigated are indeed cheap excuses.

His best press I/V was after the Port game. It was brutal and he was honest...He did not have a glue why we did not fire a shot in the game after allegedly 5 solid months of pre season

[bing181 8,300]

"... it can take up to five years for young players to learn the vagaries of playing in the AFL."

Brendan McCartney

"it's somewhere near three years for a young player to be confident in what's expected of them"

Bomber Thompson

Looks like our Mark isn't the only coach trying to shift the blame and dampen expectations.

[pm24 451]

If we take him at his word that games experience is so vitally important, why on earth would he appoint captains who lack what he considers to be the most important ingredient for a player and for a team – games experience?

And that's what has been concerning to me. There is little doubt Neeld expected big improvement from the team this year. He has not got it so far (in fact we have gone backwards) so he is grasping onto a convenient excuse, games experience.

If you listen to yesterdays presser involving Dawes, Neeld is quite clear on why Trenners and Grimes were selected as captains. Because after the internal peer review process, which involved the players, they were ranked the top 2 in leadership ability. Jones was no.3.

It was quite refreshing to see Neeld have a go at one of the Journo's who then followed up by asking why Jones wasn't considered. He basically said, "because Trengove and Grimes were ranked as the top 2 leaders. Jone's was third. Why would the 3rd ranked leader be selected against the top 2 ranked leaders??"

It's pretty obvious that they have a list of attributes that players are measured against when determining leadership. This is why they were selected, despite their age. Because they are the best leaders in the club. Obviously in Neelds view, having the right leadership attributes was more important than the games experience when it comes to leading a team.

As for going backwards as a team, explain to me how a team that started 0-10 last season has gone backwards when we are possibly going to be 2-5 after this week.....Not to mention that this team is less experienced than the one that one we fielded last year. Aside from the first few weeks, I think the team is ahead of where it was last season. The last three weeks have seen the team play with a greater level of competitiveness than we saw for most of last season.

The first two weeks in particluar were atrocious. We then played one good half against West Coast before winning (as expected) against GWS. The game against Brisbane was competitive, and though we lost to a team that isn't all that crash hot, the team never gave up and plugged away until the final siren. In that case, it was the third quarter that killed us.

Then, against carlton last week the intent was there to pressure, the desire to compete, but the execution of skills failed. Given last season, with a more experienced team, we still had a 0-10 start, and failed to show much all season, I think this season we are progressing better than last. Particularly when you factor in that we have only had clark for about 3 weeks, and that we have had only a make shift forward line for most of the season. We haven't seen how this team would be with Dawes and Clark both fit yet, and that is important to our ability to score.

All in all, I think the team is showing an end to the bruise free football it has played in the past, is getting fitter and better as playing as a team, which lays a solid foundation for the rest of the season and beyond.

[pm24 451]

Sorry, I realise I've just reverted back to logical and rational thought....back to the corner I go.

[jumbo returns 6,593]

Sorry, I realise I've just reverted back to logical and rational thought....back to the corner I go.

Lift your game!

[demon3165 2,190]

"... it can take up to five years for young players to learn the vagaries of playing in the AFL."

Brendan McCartney

"it's somewhere near three years for a young player to be confident in what's expected of them"

Bomber Thompson

Looks like our Mark isn't the only coach trying to shift the blame and dampen expectations.

Heard that interview with McCartney this morning, wish they had have podcast on SEN, it was very interesting and along similar lines to what we are doing.

[Whispering_Jack 28,096]

I am sure you made your views loud and clear at the time.

Absolutely, I could never figure out what was going on with our forward line in those early days and I expressed my concern about him as a coach then. I never thought much of him as a coach but believed that he needed time to prove himself even with that 1/12 record in 2009. I also believed that it was the proper thing for the club to do at the time to give him an extension. In hindsight of course, it was a blunder but at least we didn't behave like the Richmond of the last couple of decades which we are now in grave danger of becoming.

I was always concerned with his man management - the dealings with Chris Johnson, James McDonald and Brad Miller leaving at the club were appalling. Then I became concerned when we constantly failed against teams that employed the press in 2011 and by the time we played the Bulldogs on 1 July 2011, I thought he was a lame duck coach who had to go sooner rather than later. He lasted a month after that.