Time to go Mark Neeld

[robbiefrom13 877]

First up I just want to restate that I don't think our results at the moment are close to good enough, What I want to know from the anti Neeld side is, What disappoints you blokes the most??

For me I still don't know if he is the right coach - results in 2013 are gong to dictate if he stays or not.

I'm anti-Neeld, and for me it is

1. I don't like his attitude/manner. He reminds me of the school-teachers who were involved with school cadets back in the sixties. The kids who ended up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc did not choose to go in the cadets. We only had two AFL-level footballers in my year, and from memory cadets wasn't their thing either. There is an army mentality which is recognisable, and no doubt it has its place, but it's not for everyone. I thought Neeld from the outset had a limited range in terms of the attitudes/mentalities he was prepared to relate to. He seemed to me to be a bit of a cadets officer - he did not appear to be seeking relationships but ratehr obedience and deference; he relied on hard talking and demands for compliance. I'm a teacher, and I don't reckon what appeared to be his way is too smart - crushed compliance was what I feared he would produce, at best, and so far nothing has convinced me my fears were wrong.

2. I also had reservations about his acknowledgement of and alignment within the existing war-zone (as I saw it) that he walked into at the club - and I think in his fixed-mind approach he marginalised some players we couldn't afford to lose. It hadn't been his squabble, and in taking sides as he appeared to do he inevitably alienated people (players) in a way that compromised his job. Was he just on principle opposed to anyone who in any way could be seen to have broken ranks? I thought the players post-186, and post-SchwabvBailey, plus post Jimmy, needed sensitive handling, as well as a raising of standards. Neeld's attitude to what was inevitably the quite extraordinary state of the players was not what I thought we needed. I am currently open to the possibility that perhaps this is changing - posters have cited anecdotal evidence some of which I can see no reason to doubt, and there have been public statements by players...

3. Results. There is too much about Neeld's coaching relationship with the players that I can't know - but results are the proof of the pudding. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that sounds about right to me, at the end of the day.

Though I do admit the argument that he needs time is not easily dismissed: obviously, things were already in a terrible mess when he arrived, and things nothing to do with him made them just get worse and worse. All the same, with your backs to the wall, the coach has a powerful card to play, and clearly he has not played it effectively even if he has tried. Remember that terribly undermanned side we took to Perth a few years ago? So, a little unsure about this third point, I am really in need of some scoreboard encouragement before I will give up my instincts against the guy.

4. too often his picking the team is puzzling to say the least. Roden in and out, in and out; Magner; Watts; Green and Jurrah earlier; a whole lot of criticised selections. If it worked, I'd accept it and learn - but there is no masterstroke revealed, and we just go on getting hammered. If people like Rivers etc didn't say stuff that so mirrored our concerns, perhaps it'd be easier to suspend my disbelief.

5. Neeld is a public figure, yet he seems to be making statements that either contradict earlier statements he made, or that are pre-game excuses/negativity, or that are seemingly baseless predictions about the future. If I am unconvinced by this sort of talk, how must the players feel? Unless Neeld talks differently behind closed doors, I am afraid he lacks the degree of honesty, intelligence and respect for those he speaks to that we need our coach to have. Teachers who cover up, or lie, or billshut, lose the students, at least to some extent. We can't afford to have that happening when everything else is so crap. We need to be able to close ranks very tightly, total trust all round - the players and the coach, anyway, even if it doesn't include supporters. I just wish I could believe he is rock-solid in consistency, integrity, truthfulness, loyalty to players, etc - but at this stage I don't.

[dee-luded 2,958]

A. The players chose the leadership group after Neeld had cut all the old group and HE decided who HE wanted as captains. So disappointing to hear the effect Neeld has had on the playing group

B. Geelong had 10 players tonight with under 50 games. Smedts 20 games, Schroeder 1 games, Guthrie 22 games, Horlin-Smith 7 games, Thurlow 1, Blicavs 6, Taylor-Hunt 47, Christensen 42, Motlop 33, West 47. So much for have a young inexperienced team being the reason other teams beat us.

Nup, this is the problem here > our 5 oldest players

Davey, Aaron 162 29yr

Jamar, Mark 129 29yr

Rodan, David 179 29yr

Byrnes, Shannon 114 29yr

Macdonald, Joel 123 28yr

& sadly, Rodan & Byrnes are important cogs in our list. & leadership.

Mark isn't being strong enough in the leadership stakes. or the contested marking stakes.

& the old ones who went, over the last 2 years were very poor leaders, onfield.... they contributed to a poor soft culture.

Jnr McDonald was the one, We had to keep... the others should have been traded Off.

.

Edited May 11, 2013 by dee-luded

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I'm anti-Neeld, and for me it is

1. I don't like his attitude/manner. He reminds me of the school-teachers who were involved with school cadets back in the sixties. The kids who ended up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc did not choose to go in the cadets. We only had two AFL-level footballers in my year, and from memory cadets wasn't their thing either. There is an army mentality which is recognisable, and no doubt it has its place, but it's not for everyone. I thought Neeld from the outset had a limited range in terms of the attitudes/mentalities he was prepared to relate to. He seemed to me to be a bit of a cadets officer - he did not appear to be seeking relationships but ratehr obedience and deference; he relied on hard talking and demands for compliance. I'm a teacher, and I don't reckon what appeared to be his way is too smart - crushed compliance was what I feared he would produce, at best, and so far nothing has convinced me my fears were wrong.

2. I also had reservations about his acknowledgement of and alignment within the existing war-zone (as I saw it) that he walked into at the club - and I think in his fixed-mind approach he marginalised some players we couldn't afford to lose. It hadn't been his squabble, and in taking sides as he appeared to do he inevitably alienated people (players) in a way that compromised his job. Was he just on principle opposed to anyone who in any way could be seen to have broken ranks? I thought the players post-186, and post-SchwabvBailey, plus post Jimmy, needed sensitive handling, as well as a raising of standards. Neeld's attitude to what was inevitably the quite extraordinary state of the players was not what I thought we needed. I am currently open to the possibility that perhaps this is changing - posters have cited anecdotal evidence some of which I can see no reason to doubt, and there have been public statements by players...

3. Results. There is too much about Neeld's coaching relationship with the players that I can't know - but results are the proof of the pudding. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that sounds about right to me, at the end of the day.

Though I do admit the argument that he needs time is not easily dismissed: obviously, things were already in a terrible mess when he arrived, and things nothing to do with him made them just get worse and worse. All the same, with your backs to the wall, the coach has a powerful card to play, and clearly he has not played it effectively even if he has tried. Remember that terribly undermanned side we took to Perth a few years ago? So, a little unsure about this third point, I am really in need of some scoreboard encouragement before I will give up my instincts against the guy.

4. too often his picking the team is puzzling to say the least. Roden in and out, in and out; Magner; Watts; Green and Jurrah earlier; a whole lot of criticised selections. If it worked, I'd accept it and learn - but there is no masterstroke revealed, and we just go on getting hammered. If people like Rivers etc didn't say stuff that so mirrored our concerns, perhaps it'd be easier to suspend my disbelief.

5. Neeld is a public figure, yet he seems to be making statements that either contradict earlier statements he made, or that are pre-game excuses/negativity, or that are seemingly baseless predictions about the future. If I am unconvinced by this sort of talk, how must the players feel? Unless Neeld talks differently behind closed doors, I am afraid he lacks the degree of honesty, intelligence and respect for those he speaks to that we need our coach to have. Teachers who cover up, or lie, or billshut, lose the students, at least to some extent. We can't afford to have that happening when everything else is so crap. We need to be able to close ranks very tightly, total trust all round - the players and the coach, anyway, even if it doesn't include supporters. I just wish I could believe he is rock-solid in consistency, integrity, truthfulness, loyalty to players, etc - but at this stage I don't.

Very sensible, well reasoned post, Robbie. You make some very compelling points, some of which are undoubtedly concerning.

As an aside, I don't like the Jesus quote particularly, but I expect some in the anti Neeld prayer group will.

[rjay 23,965]

I'm anti-Neeld, and for me it is

1. I don't like his attitude/manner. He reminds me of the school-teachers who were involved with school cadets back in the sixties. The kids who ended up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc did not choose to go in the cadets. We only had two AFL-level footballers in my year, and from memory cadets wasn't their thing either. There is an army mentality which is recognisable, and no doubt it has its place, but it's not for everyone. I thought Neeld from the outset had a limited range in terms of the attitudes/mentalities he was prepared to relate to. He seemed to me to be a bit of a cadets officer - he did not appear to be seeking relationships but ratehr obedience and deference; he relied on hard talking and demands for compliance. I'm a teacher, and I don't reckon what appeared to be his way is too smart - crushed compliance was what I feared he would produce, at best, and so far nothing has convinced me my fears were wrong.

2. I also had reservations about his acknowledgement of and alignment within the existing war-zone (as I saw it) that he walked into at the club - and I think in his fixed-mind approach he marginalised some players we couldn't afford to lose. It hadn't been his squabble, and in taking sides as he appeared to do he inevitably alienated people (players) in a way that compromised his job. Was he just on principle opposed to anyone who in any way could be seen to have broken ranks? I thought the players post-186, and post-SchwabvBailey, plus post Jimmy, needed sensitive handling, as well as a raising of standards. Neeld's attitude to what was inevitably the quite extraordinary state of the players was not what I thought we needed. I am currently open to the possibility that perhaps this is changing - posters have cited anecdotal evidence some of which I can see no reason to doubt, and there have been public statements by players...

3. Results. There is too much about Neeld's coaching relationship with the players that I can't know - but results are the proof of the pudding. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that sounds about right to me, at the end of the day.

Though I do admit the argument that he needs time is not easily dismissed: obviously, things were already in a terrible mess when he arrived, and things nothing to do with him made them just get worse and worse. All the same, with your backs to the wall, the coach has a powerful card to play, and clearly he has not played it effectively even if he has tried. Remember that terribly undermanned side we took to Perth a few years ago? So, a little unsure about this third point, I am really in need of some scoreboard encouragement before I will give up my instincts against the guy.

4. too often his picking the team is puzzling to say the least. Roden in and out, in and out; Magner; Watts; Green and Jurrah earlier; a whole lot of criticised selections. If it worked, I'd accept it and learn - but there is no masterstroke revealed, and we just go on getting hammered. If people like Rivers etc didn't say stuff that so mirrored our concerns, perhaps it'd be easier to suspend my disbelief.

5. Neeld is a public figure, yet he seems to be making statements that either contradict earlier statements he made, or that are pre-game excuses/negativity, or that are seemingly baseless predictions about the future. If I am unconvinced by this sort of talk, how must the players feel? Unless Neeld talks differently behind closed doors, I am afraid he lacks the degree of honesty, intelligence and respect for those he speaks to that we need our coach to have. Teachers who cover up, or lie, or billshut, lose the students, at least to some extent. We can't afford to have that happening when everything else is so crap. We need to be able to close ranks very tightly, total trust all round - the players and the coach, anyway, even if it doesn't include supporters. I just wish I could believe he is rock-solid in consistency, integrity, truthfulness, loyalty to players, etc - but at this stage I don't.

It hadn't been his squabble; that's the crux of it for me, unfortunately it had been the squabble of the ones who gave him the job and he seems to have given them all the answers they wanted and then followed through.

He walked into a divided club that wasn't of his making and has not been able to heal the wounds, his approach has been to cut out what he sees or has been told was the infection. The infection was higher up the chain unfortunately and those that employed him were the carriers, one has been moved on and another so called power broker (don't like the politics he says) has been marginalised. His career as a senior coach is in the balance now and may live and die on the decision to involve himself with the division.

At the time of his appointment we needed a senior coach but those available would not have been so pliable and sucked into the squabble. That bares a lot of thought.

Sorry to focus just on this part of the post 'robbie', I think the whole post is well reasoned and written. I still hold out some hope that Neeld will make it through but it is diminishing by the week, he may well have burned bridges very early and that is a pity for all of us.

[Hardnut 327]

The only thing you are demonstrating is ignorance, according to some of the posters on here, we were nowhere near AFL standard when Bailey was coach, Including me, we needed to do something, yes the wins were good, but we were stagnating, you going against the grain...Neeld did win a premiership at Collingwood , it takes the whole Club and he was part of it

As for driving core talent away, Gysberts can't get a game at Norths, Moloney has had one good game at Brisbane, same with Martin, Jurrah won't even go there unlike you, Rivers was chasing a finals appearance before his knees gave out (injured)

Er you have to be confident as a Coach, what don't you want him to be?

As for bringing in Duds, it is not only what they do on the field, what's wrong not instant enough for you?

Neeld has made mistakes, but not on the scale you are talking about, actually one of them is thinking all MFC supporters are knowledgeable

Please get your grammar and punctuation in order, as they change the meaning of parts of your post.

You are entitled to defend MN and you have been doing so in many posts in a short time, but fortunately many MFC supporters and D/L posters are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for. (Yes, it is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition - even Shakespeare knew that.)

[Hardnut 327]

I don't think it takes a lot to work out what happened and why.....

The Green-Moloney- Rivers leadership group went to the Board on the eve of 186 and asked them to sack CS. When CS - and his mate, Gary Lyon - starting talking to possible replacements the first thing they said was that the leadership group had rebelled and that they expected the new coach to pull it apart and start afresh. The day CS prevailed over Bailey was the day the leaders effectively lost their jobs. We are kidding ourselves if we think that Neeld started assessing the leaders with a clean sheet of paper.

Neeld may have irretrievably "lost" the players with his tough initial stance - but I'm not sure that would have been entirely his fault.I'm prepared to give him the rest of the season to demonstrate progress ................ but I reserve the right to change my mind if we get thrashed this week!!

Your post fits with other comments on this issue, although it is short on detail regarding timing, etc. MN's actions are entirely his own doing - we are all accountable for our own actions.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,539]

They are better than anything over at punt rd and the Tiges will finish ninth

Delusional.

[pitmaster 3,064]

Please get your grammar and punctuation in order, as they change the meaning of parts of your post.

You are entitled to defend MN and you have been doing so in many posts in a short time, but fortunately many MFC supporters and D/L posters are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for. (Yes, it is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition - even Shakespeare knew that.)

Permissable but often undesirable, even ugly. All rules can be broken but only if you know what you're doing so for all our sakes keep it to a minimum.

And can we do likewise with the sack Neeld posts? It's been done to death. If the incremental improvements seen so far continue the second half of the season might actually see some consistent footy from our blokes.

[Clark_Kent 315]

I always loved Rivers, not so much Moloney. But it was obvious to me this club has had issues and I believe they were a part of it. I will never knock the effort they both put in over their years but something had to change with this club. We needed a fresh start with young players who care more about becoming the best players than just "looking good". It's really tough at the moment obviously but we need to ride it out and watch as the new standards and culture takes form in our club. I don't know if Neeld is a good coach yet and I doubt we will know for another year or so but I do think he knows what needs to be done to create a strong side. Whether he is around to enjoy those foundations I don't know but at the moment I'm happy to wait it out.

[Roost It 1,434]

Delusional.

Take out there top 4 and they are total pretenders

Edited May 12, 2013 by Roost It

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

I'm anti-Neeld, and for me it is

1. I don't like his attitude/manner. He reminds me of the school-teachers who were involved with school cadets back in the sixties. The kids who ended up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc did not choose to go in the cadets. We only had two AFL-level footballers in my year, and from memory cadets wasn't their thing either. There is an army mentality which is recognisable, and no doubt it has its place, but it's not for everyone. I thought Neeld from the outset had a limited range in terms of the attitudes/mentalities he was prepared to relate to. He seemed to me to be a bit of a cadets officer - he did not appear to be seeking relationships but ratehr obedience and deference; he relied on hard talking and demands for compliance. I'm a teacher, and I don't reckon what appeared to be his way is too smart - crushed compliance was what I feared he would produce, at best, and so far nothing has convinced me my fears were wrong.

2. I also had reservations about his acknowledgement of and alignment within the existing war-zone (as I saw it) that he walked into at the club - and I think in his fixed-mind approach he marginalised some players we couldn't afford to lose. It hadn't been his squabble, and in taking sides as he appeared to do he inevitably alienated people (players) in a way that compromised his job. Was he just on principle opposed to anyone who in any way could be seen to have broken ranks? I thought the players post-186, and post-SchwabvBailey, plus post Jimmy, needed sensitive handling, as well as a raising of standards. Neeld's attitude to what was inevitably the quite extraordinary state of the players was not what I thought we needed. I am currently open to the possibility that perhaps this is changing - posters have cited anecdotal evidence some of which I can see no reason to doubt, and there have been public statements by players...

3. Results. There is too much about Neeld's coaching relationship with the players that I can't know - but results are the proof of the pudding. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that sounds about right to me, at the end of the day.

Though I do admit the argument that he needs time is not easily dismissed: obviously, things were already in a terrible mess when he arrived, and things nothing to do with him made them just get worse and worse. All the same, with your backs to the wall, the coach has a powerful card to play, and clearly he has not played it effectively even if he has tried. Remember that terribly undermanned side we took to Perth a few years ago? So, a little unsure about this third point, I am really in need of some scoreboard encouragement before I will give up my instincts against the guy.

4. too often his picking the team is puzzling to say the least. Roden in and out, in and out; Magner; Watts; Green and Jurrah earlier; a whole lot of criticised selections. If it worked, I'd accept it and learn - but there is no masterstroke revealed, and we just go on getting hammered. If people like Rivers etc didn't say stuff that so mirrored our concerns, perhaps it'd be easier to suspend my disbelief.

5. Neeld is a public figure, yet he seems to be making statements that either contradict earlier statements he made, or that are pre-game excuses/negativity, or that are seemingly baseless predictions about the future. If I am unconvinced by this sort of talk, how must the players feel? Unless Neeld talks differently behind closed doors, I am afraid he lacks the degree of honesty, intelligence and respect for those he speaks to that we need our coach to have. Teachers who cover up, or lie, or billshut, lose the students, at least to some extent. We can't afford to have that happening when everything else is so crap. We need to be able to close ranks very tightly, total trust all round - the players and the coach, anyway, even if it doesn't include supporters. I just wish I could believe he is rock-solid in consistency, integrity, truthfulness, loyalty to players, etc - but at this stage I don't.

Thanks for the reply robbie was a good read

I will try to respond - so for you it is basically results and you aren't happy with the attitude displayed by Neeld or the players.(my poor summary of your response )

I actually think he gave the playing group a chance to stand up in 2012 (Clearly it failed due to a mixture of what you've stated and senior players couldn't play to the expectations or didn't want to)

I don't think you've said anything wrong robbie I am not trying to argue with you - I am simply moving/looking forward. What's done is done, we need to focus on the future. For me getting angry with Neeld will not help the situation, he get's fired and we are back to 2012 IMO - longer rebuild

I think Neeld in 2013 is going about reconstructing this list - I think he feels currently our players can't play and will continue to cull this list. Neeld lacks some compusre in the Media not going to argue there, but coaches need to grow as do players.

The real question is - is Neeld the right man for this job. And I think he is starting to build a decent list and has a pretty good record of attracting good talent to the list (Hogan, Tomupas, Dawes, Clark etc) Thats a pretty good record for a terrible preforming side. Neeld does need to produce on field in 2013 though - getting blown out should never be acceptable

He has my support on the basis he fully reconstructs this football club and can produce results with the talent he has now. Getting smashed each week is not acceptable for anyone and Neeld will take care of Neeld there.

Mind you if Clarkson or Roos said they want the job I'd be happy for them to step in - But I don't believe in fairy tales, hard work is the only thing that will get this clube to rise. I don't believe a White Knight will save us

Edited May 12, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Scipio 5,868]

Take out there top 4 and they are total pretenders

You could say that about most teams - all of them have a quality top 4 which pushes the other players to perform. The fact is they do have those top four and due to that fact they are a little more than pretenders this year, I'm sad to say.

I wish Melbourne had a really good top four.

[Pitchy 196]

First up I just want to restate that I don't think our results at the moment are close to good enough, What I want to know from the anti Neeld side is, What disappoints you blokes the most?? Are you most angry because

Simply results?

Because Neeld IMO has said these blokes )current list) aren't good enough and has taken up a total rebuild? or you just think he is not good enough as a coach, for whatever reason?

The whole thing disappoints me. I think RobbieF's commentary is spot on for the most part.

I know I come across as a Bailey supporter, and in truth I am a bit. He was good with handling the indig talent (Wona was living at his house the day he got sacked, ie. we may still have Wona let alone Jurrah, Davey was b&f etc.), he had tact, used positive reinforcement in his messages and didn't slag others off. We played some exciting footy, smashing the Swans and Adelaide. We have not played any exciting footy under Neeld. Schwab was the cancer not Bails. Sure we were struggling towards the end of 2011 but I think if Schwab hadn't of knived him we may have made the finals that year. Look at the games post 186, they were all winnable. Our midfield was average and we would get thumped by the best teams. Completely appropriate for where we were at in my book.

Anyway, the days of competing against mid table teams are all in the past. The present is what we have to deal with. 13 goals worse than Port at the MCG. We now have a list dramatically reduced in leadership and talent and a coach that is learning slowly at best on the job. We are getting thumped tremendously by any decent team interstate or not. The future will come together slower now that the list is so weakened. But a new coaching group and two more drafts will see us competing favorably with bottom of the table teams and maybe winning a handful of games by 2015. This year is about harm minimisation and avoiding more player walkouts. We must change the narrative of the club now, and that means a new coach.

[P-man 13,239]

Saying Moloney has had one good game at Brisbane is patently untrue. In fact, he's only had one ordinary game. He's been excellent for them so far this season (I only see Satyr's posts when they are quoted but couldn't let that one slide).

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

The whole thing disappoints me. I think RobbieF's commentary is spot on for the most part.

I know I come across as a Bailey supporter, and in truth I am a bit. He was good with handling the indig talent (Wona was living at his house the day he got sacked, ie. we may still have Wona let alone Jurrah, Davey was b&f etc.), he had tact, used positive reinforcement in his messages and didn't slag others off. We played some exciting footy, smashing the Swans and Adelaide. We have not played any exciting footy under Neeld. Schwab was the cancer not Bails. Sure we were struggling towards the end of 2011 but I think if Schwab hadn't of knived him we may have made the finals that year. Look at the games post 186, they were all winnable. Our midfield was average and we would get thumped by the best teams. Completely appropriate for where we were at in my book.

Anyway, the days of competing against mid table teams are all in the past. The present is what we have to deal with. 13 goals worse than Port at the MCG. We now have a list dramatically reduced in leadership and talent and a coach that is learning slowly at best on the job. We are getting thumped tremendously by any decent team interstate or not. The future will come together slower now that the list is so weakened. But a new coaching group and two more drafts will see us competing favorably with bottom of the table teams and maybe winning a handful of games by 2015. This year is about harm minimisation and avoiding more player walkouts. We must change the narrative of the club now, and that means a new coach.

Great post Demonstrative

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding performance - one thing I will say regarding our leadership on field - apart from Junior Mac I don't think we've had great leaders at this club - but that is just my opinion.... I don't think we've had a leader who blokes can get around and follow since Neitz but anyway

So moving forward - Neeld was asked by G Lyon and co in 2012 to come in and shake up the list - He's done that - so moving forward as supporters has Neeld dome irreparable damage? Do we overlook the good he has done and simply say not good enough??

FWIW I think Jackson speaks very well about our situation

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

Saying Moloney has had one good game at Brisbane is patently untrue. In fact, he's only had one ordinary game. He's been excellent for them so far this season (I only see Satyr's posts when they are quoted but couldn't let that one slide).

He's a good player, but he's no world beater

Would he help us in 2013 - yes. Did he want to? Who knows??

Moloney is now a Lion - who cares what he does (not attacking you P Man - but the Lions aren't setting the world on fire either)

Edited May 12, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[P-man 13,239]

He's a good player, but he's no world beater

Would he help us in 2013 - yes. Did he want to? Who knows??

Moloney is now a Lion - who cares what he does (not attacking you P Man - but the Lions aren't setting the world on fire either)

Agreed mate, just wanted to correct a false statement.

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

Agreed mate, just wanted to correct a false statement.

Haha fair enough - I shouldn't have rudely interrupted, was just on a posting roll

Sorry mate

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I like your posting Ron, but what's the evidence for this?

No good evidence really. My opinion's based largely on his experience prior to coming to the club and my perception of some of the things he has done/said whilst in the role. Principally:

- (Collingwood experience) He strikes me as a technical type coach - it's his soft skills that seem to have let him down to date. As the senior assistant midfield coach at the Pies under Malthouse, he would've been exposed to the latest AFL structures and patterns, and clearly he would've had to have understood them and how to implement them. He would've had access to the best data on player fitness and the like, and would've overseen the implementation of sophisticated processes and training regimes at arguably the competition's most sophisticated and well resourced club etc.

The knock on him from some here is that he has simply imposed the Collingwood formula on a player group that's not good enough to make it work. I don't buy that. I like the fact that he has a clear plan/strategy and he is pathologically focussed on implementing it. I don't accept that the alternative approach (ie, tailor a plan to best suit the players at the club at the time) would work in the medium to long term - it would serve only to mask the deficiencies with the list, even if it may have avoided 'bottoming out' so badly.

I have always thought in ALL football codes (rugby, soccer, league, NFL, AFL) that defence generally wins the big games. And, prior to Neeld coming in, we were downhill skiers in every respect - good to watch occasionally, but ultimately not going to get us deep into the finals each year. The approach needed to change.

- (tweeks to the list) I think the list was a bit unbalanced when Neeld came in - for instance, we needed a taller forward line - he has recruited Clark, Dawes and Hogan. (That Dawes came to us fills me with some confidence that Neeld is not the monster that some here seem to suggest - I don't think we would've been able to secure Dawes, Clark and Byrnes sans Neeld and Craig - ie, under the old football department.)

Clearly our midfield needs work, but he would know that - after all he was the Pies midfield coach in a premiership year. That's why he had a crack at Wellingham, and also recruited Toumpas, Viney, Kent, Matt Jones and Rodan. The surgery to the midfield will take some time though. I don't get why we didn't fight to keep Rivers only to effectively trade him for Gillies - Geelong must be laughing. But otherwise I think all of his recruits/trades made sense, on paper at least - despite what some here and those in the media report.

- (game plan) I have seen some signs in recent games that the zone, the intensity around the ball and stoppages, and the defensive pressure that Neeld is seeking to introduce actually works. The list is very young and inexperienced though, and they can't seem to hold it together for sustained periods. I predict this will change over time - it pretty well always does as players get more experience, particularly with each other. So, in short, I think the approach to the game and the structure of the player group has improved.

That's why I think Neeld gets coaching from a technical perspective - his room for improvement seems to be in player management and talking to the media, both of which I also think he improved thus far this season.

Too early to tell whether he will be a long term coach for us obviously, but I do think what he's doing at the moment will be of significant benefit to this list going forward. Sacking him now would be absolutely senseless IMO.

[Pennant St Dee 11,358]

No good evidence really. My opinion's based largely on his experience prior to coming to the club and my perception of some of the things he has done/said whilst in the role. Principally:

- (Collingwood experience) He strikes me as a technical type coach - it's his soft skills that seem to have let him down to date. As the senior assistant midfield coach at the Pies under Malthouse, he would've been exposed to the latest AFL structures and patterns, and clearly he would've had to have understood them and how to implement them. He would've had access to the best data on player fitness and the like, and would've overseen the implementation of sophisticated processes and training regimes at arguably the competition's most sophisticated and well resourced club etc.

The knock on him from some here is that he has simply imposed the Collingwood formula on a player group that's not good enough to make it work. I don't buy that. I like the fact that he has a clear plan/strategy and he is pathologically focussed on implementing it. I don't accept that the alternative approach (ie, tailor a plan to best suit the players at the club at the time) would work in the medium to long term - it would serve only to mask the deficiencies with the list, even if it may have avoided 'bottoming out' so badly.

I have always thought in ALL football codes (rugby, soccer, league, NFL, AFL) that defence generally wins the big games. And, prior to Neeld coming in, we were downhill skiers in every respect - good to watch occasionally, but ultimately not going to get us deep into the finals each year. The approach needed to change.

- (tweeks to the list) I think the list was a bit unbalanced when Neeld came in - for instance, we needed a taller forward line - he has recruited Clark, Dawes and Hogan. (That Dawes came to us fills me with some confidence that Neeld is not the monster that some here seem to suggest - I don't think we would've been able to secure Dawes, Clark and Byrnes sans Neeld and Craig - ie, under the old football department.)

Clearly our midfield needs work, but he would know that - after all he was the Pies midfield coach in a premiership year. That's why he had a crack at Wellingham, and also recruited Toumpas, Viney, Kent, Matt Jones and Rodan. The surgery to the midfield will take some time though. I don't get why we didn't fight to keep Rivers only to effectively trade him for Gillies - Geelong must be laughing. But otherwise I think all of his recruits/trades made sense, on paper at least - despite what some here and those in the media report.

- (game plan) I have seen some signs in recent games that the zone, the intensity around the ball and stoppages, and the defensive pressure that Neeld is seeking to introduce actually works. The list is very young and inexperienced though, and they can't seem to hold it together for sustained periods. I predict this will change over time - it pretty well always does as players get more experience, particularly with each other. So, in short, I think the approach to the game and the structure of the player group has improved.

That's why I think Neeld gets coaching from a technical perspective - his room for improvement seems to be in player management and talking to the media, both of which I also think he improved thus far this season.

Too early to tell whether he will be a long term coach for us obviously, but I do think what he's doing at the moment will be of significant benefit to this list going forward. Sacking him now would be absolutely senseless IMO.

This is where a Neal Balme type in the footy department managers role would be worth his weight in gold!

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

Old mate has 3 quarters to pull off a miracle or any faith i had in the bloke will be out the window, being young is fine, being made to look stupid by gold coast is unacceptable and every supporter and member deserves better than this.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,078]

Ive defended Neeld in the past but as I said earlier the fact he was surprised about our round 1 loss speaks volumes about whether he is up for the task.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,078]

He is also a very poor communicator. I never really know what he is talking about.

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

If by hardest team to play against he actually meant hardest team to watch, he is a really good coach.

[ucanchoose 1,804]

Worst Coach Ever