Time to go Mark Neeld

[Hardnut 327]

Sure, but I'm saying that perhaps our situation is a little more complex than at other clubs. The tanking issue, the prolonged poor performance, the amateur boys club environment and a whole host of other issues have been working against Mark Neeld. Surely they have made his job a lot tougher, and may go a long way to explaining our worse performance this year.

I understand the issues you raise, but all clubs have their own problems, and the simple fact is that Neeld has not got close to dealing with the problems confronting him and has, in fact, made the situation worse - he simply isn't up to it!

[Chook 14,572]

I understand the issues you raise, but all clubs have their own problems, and the simple fact is that Neeld has not got close to dealing with the problems confronting him and has, in fact, made the situation worse - he simply isn't up to it!

All I can say is that it is not a simple fact. It's a complex fact and just saying that Neeld isn't up to it is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

[Hardnut 327]

All I can say is that it is not a simple fact. It's a complex fact and just saying that Neeld isn't up to it is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

When a new coach says we will be the hardest team to play against and we collapse in a heap.

When the same coach a year later (after a dismal previous year) says we trained well over summer and I don't know why we are where we are!

I think that coach has condemned himself! Enough is enough!

[tonatopia 278]

As Donald once siad "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Having a coach that recognises when he is clueless is not necessarily a hanging offence. It indicates honestly and humility in the face of a situation he is yet to master... and a likelihood that he'l see the answer eventually.

Donald Rumsfeld almost destroyed the USA with his ridiculous warfare strategies. If neeld is like Rumsfeld, he should be sacked immediately.

[Binmans PA 26,232]

As Donald once siad "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Having a coach that recognises when he is clueless is not necessarily a hanging offence. It indicates honestly and humility in the face of a situation he is yet to master... and a likelihood that he'l see the answer eventually.

Fair enough, yet Neeld hasn't shown himself to be a particularly modest coach in the past. He's been utterly arrogant at times. "Hardest team to play against" is one example. The countless times he's blamed it (admittedly rightly) on the previous coaching regime. It's getting to the stage where he has to start taking responsibility for these massive floggings that are under his watch.

As for seeing the answer eventually, perhaps, but as I say, if he doesn't see the answer soon, these floggings will ensure his position is untenable.

Edited April 18, 2013 by AdamFarr

[robbiefrom13 877]

This thread is polarising to the point where when you see who it is posting, you pretty much know what they are going to say. Some of us are entirely for Neeld, and blame the cattle, while others are entirely against Neeld and lament the wasted/undeveloped cattle. There's probably some nuanced positions, but overall we have polarised and neither side is persuading the other.

I wonder what would it take for a poster here to revise their thoughts on this question? What player performance would cause the pro-Neeld posters to see good in the players? (And a fair answer can't be a in terms of one of those broad-brush dismissive remarks like "showing some heart" - I mean something objective and measurable.) What would the anti-Neeld posters think was a coaching pass-mark? (And similarly, not something that is entirely subjective or depends on sustained success). I asked myself, and struggle to get an answer.

Is it possible that either side of this polarised thread will give ground as a result of anything that could happen this weekend?

Edited April 18, 2013 by robbiefrom13

[PaulRB 5,970]

The nub of the argument for me is that Neeld hasn't been given sufficient time, as yet, to demonstrate his ability to turn the team around.

Another game won't change that significantly, but by seasons end I'd expect to know and shift my support if required.

Edited April 18, 2013 by PaulRB

[Ted Lasso 16,855]

The only thing that bugs me is we have stood by Neeld after a 148 point loss, if we had done that with bailey, would we be playing finals football and still have rivers and moloney?

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

Great reply 'leash! Def think this debate is worthwhile, especially considering how precarious it all is at the moment.

Now to your question;

I have strong conviction, not zero doubt. That strong conviction is not purely based on the disgusting on field performances. TBH I didn't like his start - sacking the leadership group and putting two kids in. Alienating the indigenous talent - remember the Misfud affair? Talking with a 'they' message early on. They were the first signs he was motivationally challenged. Also, his gameplan looked made for Collingwood, not our list, our players went backwards and have gone back ever since.

From 8.5 wins in 2011, to winless by mid year 2012, I developed serious doubts about his methods. But I thought maybe it was a learning curve and he could begin to make the most out of our list. Then there was the player walk outs and asking to be traded. Then there was the relentless scapegoating of the 'non AFL fitness' levels of the past regime. This is very disrespectful to a fellow respected professional in Bailey, who, like Neeld had been involved in premierships at Port and Essendon. Then there was the 'dummyball' tactic of bringing in VFL standard players from other clubs. Then there was a fantastical and unbelievable comment that 'we had a good preseason'.

After round 1 he didn't know why it went so wrong on field. He doesn't seem to know why the club has gone backwards under him. To me it is clear, he has been ineffective in his motivation of the current players, he has traded away talent or lost it and he has drafted in spuds.

New coach, new gameplan, new motivation = new hope. We may need to can our next coach too! But maybe not. What I can see though is that this one has to go.

I agree with the majority of those points mate. Some decisions that have gotten players offside seem poor and some decisions have been down righ baffling. We lack any real leadership in this club - None of our senior core from 09 to now have any real leadership abilities (Jame Mac excluded) our team is coming from a very low base

I can't say I agree with everything Neeld has done - I am not even 100% sure he can deliver what has been promised....

But what I will say in his defence (as this is my position at the moment) is, under Neeld we will know who wants to play and who dosen't have what it takes to make the grade. Neeld's been given the task of turning this front running culture in to a hard working combative unit. Some of the players that have left are good players, but they weren't leaders and they dropped their heads when asked to be accounable

Not all players and supporters agree with this method - but I believe a professional club would give him at least to the end of the year to implement his plans.As Hardwick said on the Footy show last night - players and supporters have to stick to the plan, the dividends will come once the hard work has been done.

I don't think this club has the stomach for the Hard Work - i think this club will be happy with 8-10 wins a season and continue to be irrelavent - That why I don't want to see Neeld sacked. Becuase even if he dosen't have the preception as a good coach - with Mission and Craig I reckon with some hard work and getting through the growing pains there is a chance they could build something special.

I am being a little optomistic there - I expect Neeld to be sacked the next time we lose by 100 pts or to GWS or GC. I expect the club administrator will take the easy option and satisfy supporters demands to hire a new coach and when they do I expect Melbourne to remain irrelavent easy beats in the AFL

I think we agree with each other mate - but our views of what will happen when Neeld is sacked are different. You see hope where as I see the same old MFC, always taking the easy option and will remain irrelavent for another 50 years (if we last that long)

Edited April 18, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

When a new coach says we will be the hardest team to play against and we collapse in a heap.

When the same coach a year later (after a dismal previous year) says we trained well over summer and I don't know why we are where we are!

I think that coach has condemned himself! Enough is enough!

A little harsh Hardnut - Neeld said he wanted to coach the hardest team.....

I am equally upset as you with the second statement - Not sure if Neeld is stupid or they really have no answers..... but read my response in 434, i think there is a lot of hard work left to do with this group of players for Neeld & Co and even the new Coach

Do we do the hard work or do we fold under the pressure>??

Edited April 18, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Jack Jack 415]

The only thing that bugs me is we have stood by Neeld after a 148 point loss, if we had done that with bailey, would we be playing finals football and still have rivers and moloney?

Bailey had lost control. It was apparent when news was brought forward that the players were dictating training schedules. This was further emphasised by the apparent shock at our fitness levels when Misson came on board.

But it still remains that Neeld could have maintained the basic gameplan and slowly added defensive structures instead of throwing everything out and starting again. Whether that would have made any difference, I'm not sure. But it was absolutely time for Bailey to go.

[Weedster 174]

The only thing that bugs me is we have stood by Neeld after a 148 point loss, if we had done that with bailey, would we be playing finals football and still have rivers and moloney?

No

[dee_star 63]

From 8.5 wins in 2011, to winless by mid year 2012, I developed serious doubts about his methods. But I thought maybe it was a learning curve and he could begin to make the most out of our list. Then there was the player walk outs and asking to be traded. Then there was the relentless scapegoating of the 'non AFL fitness' levels of the past regime. This is very disrespectful to a fellow respected professional in Bailey, who, like Neeld had been involved in premierships at Port and Essendon. Then there was the 'dummyball' tactic of bringing in VFL standard players from other clubs. Then there was a fantastical and unbelievable comment that 'we had a good preseason'.

After round 1 he didn't know why it went so wrong on field. He doesn't seem to know why the club has gone backwards under him. To me it is clear, he has been ineffective in his motivation of the current players, he has traded away talent or lost it and he has drafted in spuds.

New coach, new gameplan, new motivation = new hope. We may need to can our next coach too! But maybe not. What I can see though is that this one has to go.

The issue of the Fitness Levels is a really interesting one. Just from going to our games I reckon we are far less fit than we were under Bailey, despite the added $1M-$1.5M in resources given to the Football Department, which have primarily been spent on the Development and Fitness areas.

It's a simple stat but looking back at our 3rd and 4th Quarters since 2008 shows that under Bailey from R1 08 until R19 11 we averaged 9 points less than our opposition, and in the 25 games under Neeld we've averaged 27 points less, not scoring as much as we did under Bailey and conceded significantly more.

I have a feeling the talk of the fitness issues (which only surfaced after a poor start to the 2012 season) have been a Mick Malthouse-esqe distraction technique from the issues we've had with the game plan. In both the 2012 and 2013 Pre-Seasons we've heard about how great the fitness is going and recording personal bests and everything, but once the games come around we can't run out games, we're getting smashed and suddenly the fitness is used as an excuse. I'm not buying it.

On a separate note, I'm not sure the references to Geelong and Bomber Thompson are accurate. Under Bomber the Cats played in a Prelim Final in 04, his 5th year in charge. The decision to stick with him at the end of 2006, when they stripped back his responsibilities and brought in Neil Balme to look after the player contracts and run the footy department is completely different from where we are at right now. The Cats had seen improvement under Bomber where they'd invested heavily in recruiting and in the draft, then played the kids and dealt with the hard years before they started to see some results.

If there's a link between the Geelong experience and ours it's that we shouldn't have removed Bailey when we were starting to see the results of the hard years of playing the kids all the time and getting beaten. Even Bailey's biggest critics (and I was one of them) would have to acknowledge that while the gap between our best and worst was too big, we at least saw some high quality football in 2010 and 2011, particularly against teams like Richmond that were building at a similar rate to us, and Collingwood and Sydney who were older bigger bodied teams.

Whether we made a mistake in removing Bailey or not, we've made it far worse by a poor process to select a new Coach, and then added to it with poor List Management and Recruiting decisions. Neeld isn't the only one who needs to go, it's also those in charge of List Management that need to be held accountable for taking us down this path and destroying the rebuilding that we went through from 2008-11.

At the end of 2003 Bomber Thompson's coaching record was 44%, acceptable but hardly world beating. Imagine if that Cats had sacked him and then blown up their rebuild then, where would they be now?

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

For mine there is nothing wrong with comparing Bailey to Neeld

The one issue that does annoy me a little about the Bailey v Neeld debate is I don't think people take in to account how much footy has changed from 2009 to now. The press in 2009 was only implemented by a few top teams, Now in 2013 every team has a press or zone or some variation.of full field pressure

Not sure if people have short memories but in 2009 we struggled against those teams who pressed us then and we are struggling now.... Which again is my argument, do we stick fat with Neeld and give him a chance do the hard work to get better??? or....

Do we fire him take an easy option and hope the new coach get us short term gains??

IMO we need to stick fat and build a success club over time, players need to be educated how to play properly - We were shite in 2009 - 2011 under Bailey playing uncontested footy not a lot has changed. I can't say i agree with every move Neeld and co have done - but this club will remain a basket case unless this group of player can start winning contested footy

And anyone who says they wouldn't take Malthouses or Craig's coaching records for this club at the moment are kidding themselves (in response to people bagging their game styles and coaching history etc)

Edited April 19, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Binmans PA 26,232]

This thread is polarising to the point where when you see who it is posting, you pretty much know what they are going to say. Some of us are entirely for Neeld, and blame the cattle, while others are entirely against Neeld and lament the wasted/undeveloped cattle. There's probably some nuanced positions, but overall we have polarised and neither side is persuading the other.

I wonder what would it take for a poster here to revise their thoughts on this question? What player performance would cause the pro-Neeld posters to see good in the players? (And a fair answer can't be a in terms of one of those broad-brush dismissive remarks like "showing some heart" - I mean something objective and measurable.) What would the anti-Neeld posters think was a coaching pass-mark? (And similarly, not something that is entirely subjective or depends on sustained success). I asked myself, and struggle to get an answer.

Is it possible that either side of this polarised thread will give ground as a result of anything that could happen this weekend?

My position is simply this: if the floggings continue, Neeld's position is untenable. If he can turn the ship around, then I am not so egotistically proud that I cannot change my position on him. But "turning the ship around" means showing some semblance of structure and game plan, not just attitude. The way some players run around absolutely clueless and it seems structureless, is worrying to say the least. Moreover, when the coach comes out and essentially says he doesn't know what happened, you know you're in trouble.

[Grand New Flag 3,226]

The Dank issue has hastened the need for quick transition.

Our managers at the club thought it would be a good idea to be dishonest and unaccountable to the AFL, Members and Public. To me the lack of integrity and incompetence is nothing short of breathtaking. The dishonesty puts into question the statement that it was only vitamin B and C that was injected. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea not to be upfront with the AFL, when specifically asked? The board now has no choice but the sweep through the management of our club or resign. There will be no stability at our club until there is a clean out.

I fundamentally disagree with those who believe Neeld needs more time…... look at the walkouts, look at the performances. It is not like we are simply losing games. Once you realise that your girlfriend is not the one, you have no choice but to breakup. It is the same with a coach, once you realise that the coach is not the one you must part ways, waiting is only wasting time. Our club is facing a mass exit-is of players come seasons end, they do not believe in our coach , our club or themselves. I was told by a recently retired player that many want out. Only change has the potential of saving the day. Only a new coach can install self-belief and reduce the likely run come seasons end. Win or lose this week, our board must clean out the poor performers, they must do it quickly, they must do it over a short period of time.

Imagine being one of our players, knowing that players at MFC had taken jabs from Dent and knowing that the club had not come clean about this. Each week the club asks its players to play ACCOUNTABLE, HONEST football. Yet the managers of the club are setting an example of dishonesty, and no accountability. No wonder our players are having difficulty on the field...... no wonder they want out.

I demand the board gets the broom, start with Neeld, but don't end there, get all the dirty work done quickly. The quicker this is done the quicker we can start healing.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Grand New Flag

[old dee 22,928]

MN must think there is a football God after all.

No one is talking about him, the team or the very real possibility of a loss on Sunday.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The club acceded to all of Neeld's demands when he became coach. A beefed up footy department spend. which included Neil Craig, Misson, line coaches with their own IT person, more dedicated roles in the recruitment department, etc. He was given carte blanche to do what he liked with the list and I doubt the club has second guessed any of his decisions. And 18 months down the track we have a dispirited football team that barely gives a yelp. No quarters of footy won out of 12 (GWS have won 2) and the worst percentage after round 3 since 1985 when the wooden spoon team of that year St. Kilda had the temerity to be on 34% compared to our 35%. Even a quality young player like Trengove has gone backwards, perhaps due to the burden of captaincy before he'd paid his dues.

Since Neeld has been at the club I've never heard so many players talk of "buying in"; the clear inference being that many didn't. Quality leaders get the best out of their organisation and individuals, but even Neeld's most ardent supporters couldn't say this has happened. We're not on the inner sanctum and yes, we all know that our midfield stocks are terribly poor, but there's far too little effort, far too much throwing in the towel when the going gets hard, far too little work ethic, far too little run and spread, and far too little confidence, which means that players aren't trusting their teammates to win contested footy, so they get burnt on the outside while they're caught flatfooted. And each opposition goal makes it that bit easier to give in, that bit easier to stop pushing yourself, to stop committing like you were at the first bounce. Ultimately the coach wears the blame if he can't change the mindset of a group.

And now Neeld states that we're in the same development phase as GWS. How convenient ? Let's just continually lower the expectations of your supporters. These days every time he opens his mouth I feel he's insulting my intelligence. But I have no answers. Getting rid of a coach so early in the year probably isn't the answer and leaving him until round 23 makes me shudder.

Worst of all though, unlike the players I did buy in. What a fool.

[binman 38,485]

The club acceded to all of Neeld's demands when he became coach. A beefed up footy department spend. which included Neil Craig, Misson, line coaches with their own IT person, more dedicated roles in the recruitment department, etc. He was given carte blanche to do what he liked with the list and I doubt the club has second guessed any of his decisions. And 18 months down the track we have a dispirited football team that barely gives a yelp. No quarters of footy won out of 12 (GWS have won 2) and the worst percentage after round 3 since 1985 when the wooden spoon team of that year St. Kilda had the temerity to be on 34% compared to our 35%. Even a quality young player like Trengove has gone backwards, perhaps due to the burden of captaincy before he'd paid his dues.

Since Neeld has been at the club I've never heard so many players talk of "buying in"; the clear inference being that many didn't. Quality leaders get the best out of their organisation and individuals, but even Neeld's most ardent supporters couldn't say this has happened. We're not on the inner sanctum and yes, we all know that our midfield stocks are terribly poor, but there's far too little effort, far too much throwing in the towel when the going gets hard, far too little work ethic, far too little run and spread, and far too little confidence, which means that players aren't trusting their teammates to win contested footy, so they get burnt on the outside while they're caught flatfooted. And each opposition goal makes it that bit easier to give in, that bit easier to stop pushing yourself, to stop committing like you were at the first bounce. Ultimately the coach wears the blame if he can't change the mindset of a group.

And now Neeld states that we're in the same development phase as GWS. How convenient ? Let's just continually lower the expectations of your supporters. These days every time he opens his mouth I feel he's insulting my intelligence. But I have no answers. Getting rid of a coach so early in the year probably isn't the answer and leaving him until round 23 makes me shudder.

Worst of all though, unlike the players I did buy in. What a fool.

Welcome back Ben. Good post and one that i largely concur with. The players have not bought in, despite what they may say in pressers. If Neeld wants to talk KPI's getting the team to play for you is the most crucial for a coach. He has failed in this regard - at least thus far. I could forgive him that last season but he had his chance to build his own team this year and cut those he thought were not on board (or he couldn't get on board).

Good point about his GWS comments. For me he simply does not get that you have to sell hope not despair to fans and more importantly players. How does he expect a team to feel about its own ability when he constantly says in public how far off the mark we are, how we're not 'AFL standard', that we're no further along the path to success than a club in its second season. His focus is so narrow, so much on process he can't instill confidence or god forbid allow players and fans to dream of better times. He is a functionary not a visionary. Perhaps his level is a good assistant coach.

[timD 994]

Worst of all though, unlike the players I did buy in. What a fool.

Who didn't? Who shouldn't have?

The truth, from my point of view, Neeld has failed to manage the people - the most vital, fundamental aspect of coaching.. Now, maybe that was always a big ask given the group, but he has not succeeded. I have no doubt the admin and selection process have a huge role to play in this. But what to do? Sack him now, appoint a caretaker who won't be there long term and hope that inspired the players? Keep him and hope that the damage can be mitigated?

What I am sure about is that the current board will have NFI and they are in charge.

I've followed the Dees for a bit; my three kids are all signed on. Christ, my five year old is telling me how they'll be ok when he gets older (I am guilt of the worst brainwashing and will go to hell despite it not existing). I've never felt worse about the club and I cannot see how this board is going to make any of the right calls under pressure that they need to given their\ track record is sewage.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Who didn't? Who shouldn't have?

The truth, from my point of view, Neeld has failed to manage the people - the most vital, fundamental aspect of coaching.. Now, maybe that was always a big ask given the group, but he has not succeeded. I have no doubt the admin and selection process have a huge role to play in this. But what to do? Sack him now, appoint a caretaker who won't be there long term and hope that inspired the players? Keep him and hope that the damage can be mitigated?

What I am sure about is that the current board will have NFI and they are in charge.

I've followed the Dees for a bit; my three kids are all signed on. Christ, my five year old is telling me how they'll be ok when he gets older (I am guilt of the worst brainwashing and will go to hell despite it not existing). I've never felt worse about the club and I cannot see how this board is going to make any of the right calls under pressure that they need to given their\ track record is sewage.

The crap he's spewing forth is just making it worse. He shifts position to suit. During his speech at the commencement dinner he finished by stating that things will happen on the field quicker than people realise and not to believe the naysayers. A month later he's saying we're at the same stage as GWS.

He's a crackpot.

[Ted Lasso 16,855]

Jackson has come in, now we need a proven coach and get some experienced quality people steering the [censored] back the right way.

Neeld would be a great assistant or senior assistant but our position is too desperate to take the chance he won't come through.

[The Chazz 4,077]

The crap he's spewing forth is just making it worse. He shifts position to suit. During his speech at the commencement dinner he finished by stating that things will happen on the field quicker than people realise and not to believe the naysayers. A month later he's saying we're at the same stage as GWS.

He's a crackpot.

Welcome back Benny.

[Binmans PA 26,232]

Jackson's not in yet. Meanwhile, I'm not sure Neeld would make a good assistant at any old club. I think he worked at Collingwood, because he took orders from Malthouse and thus ultimately their midfielders were singing to Malthouse's tune.

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

The crap he's spewing forth is just making it worse. He shifts position to suit. During his speech at the commencement dinner he finished by stating that things will happen on the field quicker than people realise and not to believe the naysayers. A month later he's saying we're at the same stage as GWS.

He's a crackpot.

Agreed B_H

I can't say i've been happy with the mixed messages I've been hearing from Neeld and the club.

The reality is that Neeld ultimately (right or wrong) will judged by on-field preformances - and they are not good at the moment... Is 18 months long enough to implement real change... IMO no

I really hope that if the club makes the decision to move him on they don't take the easy options to protect themselves..... With or without Neeld our club and it's playing group have a lot of hard work to catch up to even the Dogs & Port let alone the top teams

Edited April 19, 2013 by Unleash Hell