Am I correct in hearing Neeld say during the press conference 'I can coach now' in relation to the discussion that the effort showed by the players this week was much better than last week.

I'm happy to be corrected as I couldn't quite make out all the chatter, but if that is correct then I think that is an absolutely astonishing thing to say.

Despite what Dawes might say, effort is not solely a reflection of the players and the coach must accept at least some of the responsibility if the players don't show the required effort.

Neeld's comment that 'I can coach now' sounds like he is trying to absolve himself from blame for the insipid effort against GC (and other previous similar efforts).

It would also be contradictory to his comments last week that he would have to focus on coaching 'effort' during the week. If you previously couldn't coach due to a lack of effort and that lack of effort was entirely the players' fault, how can you then say you will coach 'effort' during the week. Being able to coach effort means that you can influence it!

I hope I'm wrong (and I may well be as I couldn't quite hear the press conference clearly) as if I'm not this would have to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard a coach say.

I just completely disagree. See comments.

Neeld is the coach - for good or bad. having 4 months of caretaker means you take the fear of having a 'lame duck' coach and merely confirm it. No a 4 month coach could possibly end up with the main gig. Look at Roos. The point of having a caretaker for such a long period of time is to essentially give them a extended interview and at the same time allow the greatest possible opportunity to nail the best coach available. It would be a significant head start on other teams.

I am intrigued to see how this group goes in the next three months. I know they are not going to win many games but there are about 15 players playing for their careers and I would prefer they do it with a coach that is a chance to be coaching them next year.

Craig, Viney, or Rawlings as caretaker is a waste for 5 games. If we are doing it for 12 games it becomes nuclear waste. I simply disagree, we are going backwards, Neeld is not our man. There is no point in keeping someone once you know there not the one. Maybe Craig, Viney, or Rawlings can develop some confidence inside. Once confidence return we will realise are players are not as poorly skilled as currently displays suggest.

No, I don't think that yesterday will save Neeld, but effort like that for the next 4 months will give him a chance. Surely this is not good enough. This is not the public service.

He is not a cancer and he is not cause of our off-field issues (he is only subjected to them and suffering from them). He is head coach he is ultimately responsible for everything on field, its a train wreck. He is responsible.

Agian, we have the bulk of the list we had before Neeld got here and ALL the good young players that are the future. Most are playing without confidence and without a midfield. Simply untrue, over half the list (26) have been brought in since Neelds arrival. They are his hand picked troops.

Neeld will own their lack of confidence and their effort - but I won't put our midfield at his shoes and that is why we are at where we are at. Everyone knows the main problem is our mid-field. So why did Neeld waste so many picks on KP rather than mid-fielders. The loss of Moloney is 100% Neeld. Sorry Neeld is head coach, recruiting is his responsibility, he does own the mid-field

QUOTING gnf "Let me remind you in late 2011 when we were looking for a new coach, so were 3 other teams. It was widely considered that of the four, Melbourne had the best young list and was the most advanced in any rebuild"

So what?

We were widely seen as the best young list? And that would be by the same people - the football media - who regarded us as the best positioned Victorian team to succeed in the 2007 season.

That is right old boy. They really rated us after the '06 finals series and we were the next big thing. And that's your authority.

As far as I am concerned widely seen means sfa.

(Apologies for weird presentation but the quote did not show up accurately)

Mere speculation on my behalf but i believe Neeld has had a long discussion with his manager and they have decided that the Rebuild of a Rebuild, 5 year plan is the best way to buy time.

Neeld never spoke like this when he started, he was hard as nails, now he is soft as a chocolate mousse.

Dawes was on the money last night. Have never seen a coach get over ruled like that before.

FCS let Dawes coach for the rest of the year* - at least he know what is acceptable and what is not.

I cannot tolerate acceptance of garbage any more. Sure the loss was less than many may have expected....but, wasn't it a loss?

*only kidding, but I tend to laugh when depressed.

:-)))((()))(((

Sure the loss was less than many may have expected....but, wasn't it a loss?

probable Neeld response: we won't know if in fact it was a loss until we have time to properly analyse the data and KPIs, but a preliminary scan indicates that on most metrics it was a win

probable Neeld response: we won't know if in fact it was a loss until we have time to properly analyse the data and KPIs, but a preliminary scan indicates that on most metrics it was a win

Love it binman you have made my day

I just completely disagree. See comments.

Just to say, if you quote within a quote, then those replying with a quote only get what you see above.

And ... you completely undermine your arguments, such as they are, with factual inaccuracies such as "Everyone knows the main problem is our mid-field. So why did Neeld waste so many picks on KP rather than mid-fielders. "

We turned over 14 players. How many of the players that came in were KP players. Two. Dawes and Pedersen. Perhaps Gillies (depth defender). The vast majority of the players who came in are out and out midfielders, or "run through the middle" types.

The other great fallacy in the above is the idea that we somehow have to tread water with an interim coach for the majority of the season to "allow the greatest possible opportunity to nail the best coach available"

a) There's nothing to stop us speaking (discretely) now or at any point to potential coaches

b) Interim coaches basically NEVER go on to be successful permanent coaches, Roos being the exception that establishes the rule. The "extended interview" idea is just a furphy.

c) If you, like so many around here, think that we should be going for an experienced coach, all of the available experienced coaches are employed up until the end of the season, and there will be no movement from then until then.

d) Teams do not benefit or gain in any way from mid-season coach changes. Never have, never will, and back at page whatever-it-was on this thread, information from a study was posted to that effect.

I for one believe that Neeld should be given the support he needs, at least till the latter part of the season. There's nothing in any of what you say that convinces me otherwise.

Am I correct in hearing Neeld say during the press conference 'I can coach now' in relation to the discussion that the effort showed by the players this week was much better than last week.

.....

I hope I'm wrong (and I may well be as I couldn't quite hear the press conference clearly) as if I'm not this would have to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard a coach say.

Why oh why ...

His point is that if the players are going to do what they need to do to and at least perform to a minimal level, then he and the rest of the FD can concentrating on what they should be concentrating on, which is ... "coaching". As opposed to going back to square one and having to spend their time focusing on the (very) basics. This is the point that Dawes backed him up on, that the coach shouldn't have to be spending his time on the basics like "effort" etc.

There was some great info over on a Richmond board last week, discussing Melb v Richmond, as to where we are, they were etc. etc. Someone commented that early in Hardwick's term, he'd been at a kind of "inner-circle" presentation, where Hardwick had said that with the backs, he was just concentrating on teaching them to punch effectively - and that perhaps in the second year, they'd be able to look at marking.

I do not believe this statement.

Like many here I have my connections inside the club. I am certain the board was not of the view that we needed a complete re-build when Neeld took over in 2011. If you believe this you are falling for Neelds spin. In 2011 the board believed we needed to harden up and needed to be more defensive and accountable. They did not want our kids to develop without accountability and believed a tougher coach would be better in developing our young, early draft picks. I agree with this. Unfortunately the board chose the wrong coach. They did not expect this level of redundancy, no one expected our team to deliver this level of ineptness. The red flags appeared for me from the very first press conference. The problem is that until now the board has had its hands tied. Simply you can't dump a new coach without giving him an opportunity. Most of us saw what was going on and have gasped, and have chosen to look away or put our head in the sand, wanting, wishing ,willing that the board was right, that the Neeld experiment would work. That Neeld knew what he was doing and positive results would soon be seen. What we have instead is a complete, utter and absolute train wreck. Pretending it is anything else is denying blatant reality.

Let me remind you in late 2011 when we were looking for a new coach, so were 3 other teams. It was widely considered that of the four, Melbourne had the best young list and was the most advanced in any re-build. We were 4 years into a re-build, our list was full of young 1st and 2nd round draft picks and numerous top 5 picks completed with a smothering of older experienced players with finals experiance. We had won 8.5 games for the previous two seasons, with some tinkering we were set to continue our progress up the ladder.

What has happened, the performances that we have now become accustomed to, are a result of poor coaching at every level. From developing an appropriate on-field game plan that matches the strengths and weaknesses of the list, to developing confidence and self belief, to recruiting and list management. Ultimately everything on-field is the responsibility of the head coach. Neeld has failed terribly at all performance indicators. The results are there for everyone to see. This disaster is of Neelds doing. It is time for those who still have their head in the sand and have blind faith to wake up. Our club is at the cross roads. Make no mistake if we are this pathetic in 3 years time the AFL will look to merge or relocate us in time for the next broadcast deal. Neeld saying the club is 5 years away from finals may well be true, but its true because Neeld has lead us into the abyss. The game against Richmond has again highlighted to all the horror story Neeld has developed and how far backwards we have gone since he became head coach. It is now a good performance to only lose by 7 goals to a mid-tier team who only two years ago, before Neeld s appointment was considered in a very similar position and stage of development to Melbourne. Neeld has literally driven us over a cliff and if he does not go soon he will drive us to extinction.

The board is no longer in a position that they must give Neeld a go before firing him. The writing is well and truly on the wall for all to see. They must take responsibility and accountability for their poor decision. It is now time the board do what they must do and rid us of this cancer. As I have said now for over 12 months, appointing Neeld is the single biggest mistake since sacking Norm Smith.

some people just love their own bathwater...........

A 6 goal loss is considered a positive because we at least showed effort, surely Craig, Viney or Rawlings couldn't do any worse?

Last week we didn't show any effort.

This week we showed effort.

Therefore, there has been an improvement (given that "showing effort" when previously there was none, is an improvement)

Therefore, it's a positive.

Q.E.D.

Last week we didn't show any effort.

This week we showed effort.

Therefore, there has been an improvement (given that "showing effort" when previously there was none, is an improvement)

Therefore, it's a positive.

Q.E.D.

My point being we have fallen so far where we can't even count on the players putting in effort, Bailey had us in the hunt for finals when he got sacked so how has Neeld managed to hang on this long?

My point being we have fallen so far where we can't even count on the players putting in effort, Bailey had us in the hunt for finals when he got sacked so how has Neeld managed to hang on this long?

Players providing adequate effort:

1. Garland
2. N Jones
3. Trelich
4. Evans
5. M Jones
6. Grimes
7. Trengrove (might be slow from injury but still putting in effort)
8. Spencer (watching him behind the play it amazes me how he is often one of our quickest players and how he goes that extra bit more than Jamar)
9. Dawes
10. Clark
11. Viney

Feel free to add/debate

I didn't include Silvia. Whilst he is playing consistant footy, I dont think he is providing enough leadership/effort

I do not believe this statement.

Like many here I have my connections inside the club. I am certain the board was not of the view that we needed a complete re-build when Neeld took over in 2011. If you believe this you are falling for Neelds spin. In 2011 the board believed we needed to harden up and needed to be more defensive and accountable. They did not want our kids to develop without accountability and believed a tougher coach would be better in developing our young, early draft picks. I agree with this. Unfortunately the board chose the wrong coach. They did not expect this level of redundancy, no one expected our team to deliver this level of ineptness. The red flags appeared for me from the very first press conference. The problem is that until now the board has had its hands tied. Simply you can't dump a new coach without giving him an opportunity. Most of us saw what was going on and have gasped, and have chosen to look away or put our head in the sand, wanting, wishing ,willing that the board was right, that the Neeld experiment would work. That Neeld knew what he was doing and positive results would soon be seen. What we have instead is a complete, utter and absolute train wreck. Pretending it is anything else is denying blatant reality.

Let me remind you in late 2011 when we were looking for a new coach, so were 3 other teams. It was widely considered that of the four, Melbourne had the best young list and was the most advanced in any re-build. We were 4 years into a re-build, our list was full of young 1st and 2nd round draft picks and numerous top 5 picks completed with a smothering of older experienced players with finals experiance. We had won 8.5 games for the previous two seasons, with some tinkering we were set to continue our progress up the ladder.

What has happened, the performances that we have now become accustomed to, are a result of poor coaching at every level. From developing an appropriate on-field game plan that matches the strengths and weaknesses of the list, to developing confidence and self belief, to recruiting and list management. Ultimately everything on-field is the responsibility of the head coach. Neeld has failed terribly at all performance indicators. The results are there for everyone to see. This disaster is of Neelds doing. It is time for those who still have their head in the sand and have blind faith to wake up. Our club is at the cross roads. Make no mistake if we are this pathetic in 3 years time the AFL will look to merge or relocate us in time for the next broadcast deal. Neeld saying the club is 5 years away from finals may well be true, but its true because Neeld has lead us into the abyss. The game against Richmond has again highlighted to all the horror story Neeld has developed and how far backwards we have gone since he became head coach. It is now a good performance to only lose by 7 goals to a mid-tier team who only two years ago, before Neeld s appointment was considered in a very similar position and stage of development to Melbourne. Neeld has literally driven us over a cliff and if he does not go soon he will drive us to extinction.

The board is no longer in a position that they must give Neeld a go before firing him. The writing is well and truly on the wall for all to see. They must take responsibility and accountability for their poor decision. It is now time the board do what they must do and rid us of this cancer. As I have said now for over 12 months, appointing Neeld is the single biggest mistake since sacking Norm Smith.

I actually think Neelds done pretty well here - there are some arguable recruits but overall it hasn't been too bad (hogan, VIney, Toumpas, Byrnes Clark, Terlich etc) - or are you going to waste my time with Rodan etc?

That last statement makes me think you rant more then you know - why hasn't the board acted if they believe this? In relation to the middle statement what happened??? Surely the board has looked in to this and dealt with it (fire Neeld) - so why haven't they?? Why has the board failed the members if what you say is true?? You have the inside info so please inform us to why no action has been taken?

I don't think you have a bad argument or disbelieve you GNF i do think it sounds like fear mongering and you're trying to gain support on the sack Neeld argument - Why haven't the board dealt with this if it is such a big issue? It makes no sense

And GNF if you listen to the Dawes and Neeld post match conference I think you'll find that they don't think the first 8 rounds has been acceptable either

Also did the board disagree with the delisting of Cook and Gysberts?? Afterall they were training the house down.... Are they credited to super list that the MFC had acquired?

Is it possible that finals were the goal in 2012 & 13 but after [censored] poor performances on field those expectations had to be reassessed??? Is it at all possible the MFC over rated it's own list when Neeld was hired. Is it all possible GNF that with solid development and education in 2013 and some good pick ups in the 2013 off season that the club might actually turn this around??? Or was Mark Neeld really just sent here to ruin his and everyone elses careers and sink the MFC??

Don't go quoting MN press conferences either - your the one claiming you have inside info - you tell us what the club is doing........ And no I am not intimidated by players leaving (it happens to every club) as long as we are compensated I don't care. Remember $cully - we got Hogan out of that probably Viney as well....

My point being we have fallen so far where we can't even count on the players putting in effort, Bailey had us in the hunt for finals when he got sacked so how has Neeld managed to hang on this long?

186 was putting us in the hunt for finals?

186 was putting us in the hunt for finals?

I was wondering the same thing Reverend.

And GNF if you listen to the Dawes and Neeld post match conference I think you'll find that they don't think the first 8 rounds has been acceptable either

Also did the board disagree with the delisting of Cook and Gysberts?? Afterall they were training the house down.... Are they credited to super list that the MFC had acquired?

Is it possible that finals were the goal in 2012 & 13 but after [censored] poor performances on field those expectations had to be reassessed??? Is it at all possible the MFC over rated it's own list when Neeld was hired. Is it all possible GNF that with solid development and education in 2013 and some good pick ups in the 2013 off season that the club might actually turn this around??? Or was Mark Neeld really just sent here to ruin his and everyone elses careers and sink the MFC??

Don't go quoting MN press conferences either - your the one claiming you have inside info - you tell us what the club is doing........ And no I am not intimidated by players leaving (it happens to every club) as long as we are compensated I don't care. Remember $cully - we got Hogan out of that probably Viney as well....

oh and you forgot to say that the board was so in control that when Jackson came on board he described the football department as dysfunctional, think the board have finally got the wake up call it needed and realise they how far back we were.

186 was putting us in the hunt for finals?

But we now know that loss might have been a player driven thing. Our team hasn't played much better since. Not necessarily sticking up for Dean, just looking for fairness. I was not a Bailey fan.

It would be nice to know the actual truth behind what happened that day. If we knew for sure, it might explain our current day happenings. I reckon many of us have drawn our own conclusions though. I've definitely mellowed in my stance on Dean.

In this thread, not all the blame was apportioned to Dean ...

... Dean Bailey has been sacked

Sorry, GNF. You have not convinced me that getting rid of Neeld now is better than in August.

I still maintain it would be worse. Especially with the spectre of Roos hovering over the caretaker. I don't think Roos will come but his shadow will stay until he rebuffs us out of season.

An audition is laughable. It's an audition if you can win games and turn around our fortunes in a matter of weeks. And you surely don't think that is a possibility here do you?

A caretaker is a waste of time - that is my primary point and without sounding arrogant or dismissive - I think that Jackson, in charge for all of 20 days, would agree with me that for the nex three months it is Neelds job to save.

186 was putting us in the hunt for finals?

well we did win 7 games at that stage, had an easy draw coming up and were playing well, 186 was one game but there was a whole season around that.

we have won what 7 games total since Neeld took over inc Nab cub? and maybe 1 or 2 against non expansion teams..

To many mixed messages coming from Neeld, seems he is in survival mode.

Give him to the end of the year to show he is capable of doing something with this team.

Sorry, GNF. You have not convinced me that getting rid of Neeld now is better than in August.

I still maintain it would be worse. Especially with the spectre of Roos hovering over the caretaker. I don't think Roos will come but his shadow will stay until he rebuffs us out of season.

An audition is laughable. It's an audition if you can win games and turn around our fortunes in a matter of weeks. And you surely don't think that is a possibility here do you?

A caretaker is a waste of time - that is my primary point and without sounding arrogant or dismissive - I think that Jackson, in charge for all of 20 days, would agree with me that for the nex three months it is Neelds job to save.

I just don't think we have anyone to audition anyway. Unless someone like Roos or Eade take the gig now or we have some massive blowouts I can't see any change either until the end of the season but stranger things have happened.

But we now know that loss might have been a player driven thing. Our team hasn't played much better since. Not necessarily sticking up for Dean, just looking for fairness. I was not a Bailey fan.

It would be nice to know the actual truth behind what happened that day. If we knew for sure, it might explain our current day happenings. I reckon many of us have drawn our own conclusions though. I've definitely mellowed in my stance on Dean.

In this thread, not all the blame was apportioned to Dean ...

... Dean Bailey has been sacked

Agree 'Macca'

The truth behind 186 would indeed be interesting to hear - but that issue is now history and only time will tell.

At the end of 2011 it was not only the media who thought MFC was a good group for a coach to take over - otherwise why would any applicants have shown any interest, if there were any other applicants?

It appears that Garry Lyon has a lot to answer for and he is now apparently trying to avoid any flak.

oh and you forgot to say that the board was so in control that when Jackson came on board he described the football department as dysfunctional, think the board have finally got the wake up call it needed and realise they how far back we were.

Although that is correct I think you forget or neglect to mention Jackson was talking about the structure and reporting of the FD - not the perfomance. Thats the way I understood it from what Jackson said in interviews, am happy to be corrected

I don't believe for a second Neeld isn't on notice though - everyone at the club should be.