after yesterday i still donjt know what the answer is

appointing anybody and letting the players play with freedom will see a different attitude and preasure release

but yesterday i left the ground with my coaches hat on and looking at the record came to the conclusion every player tried and gave close to his best

unfortunately after digesting the list , most werent up to the level of a bottom 6 list player at every other club ive seen this year

the did try with everything they had, but what will a new coach give them, new speed, taller bodies, better skills, better decision making?

after yesterday i still donjt know what the answer is

appointing anybody and letting the players play with freedom will see a different attitude and preasure release

but yesterday i left the ground with my coaches hat on and looking at the record came to the conclusion every player tried and gave close to his best

unfortunately after digesting the list , most werent up to the level of a bottom 6 list player at every other club ive seen this year

the did try with everything they had, but what will a new coach give them, new speed, taller bodies, better skills, better decision making?

Maybe confidence? Not scared to play intuitively? A sense of release when a new voice actually tells them there is nothing wrong with enjoying your footy?

The list may not be up to it, in terms of a level we would like to see, but I can only repeat, we're better than having an average losing margin of 12 goals.

A few weeks ago on radio 3AW:

Mike Sheahan: "what young players have improved since you've been coach ?"

Mark Neeld: (stuttering and stammering) "Jeremy Howe and Sam Blease."

There's probably no greater indictment on Neeld's tenure than the fact that virtually no players have improved. And Blease is wallowing at Casey in his 5th year. Young players need a quality senior group around them so one can't lay all of the blame at Neeld's feet. Those charged with running footy at this club have made some horrible decisions over the last few years.

There has to be a definitive statement on Neeld's future at today's board meeting, either he's sacked or he's guaranteed until at least the end of the year when a review will be conducted. Anything else would be madness - although it is the MFC - Madness Football Club... As buck points out, I think people should consider the possibility that he's retained.

But nobody will believe in a guarantee. Neeld is a dead man walking and the players know it.

We need an interim coach to instil a bit of confidence and experiment with our list.

There has to be a definitive statement on Neeld's future at today's board meeting, either he's sacked or he's guaranteed until at least the end of the year when a review will be conducted. Anything else would be madness - although it is the MFC - Madness Football Club... As buck points out, I think people should consider the possibility that he's retained.

I 100% agree old. As i've said on more than a few occasions (DLBRS - demonland broken record syndrome) history suggest he won't survive with the sort of results and performances we have seen. But if they decide to give him more time they absolutely have to give him full board support until seasons end, if for no other reason than to ensure the players have some certainty.

In a funny way coming and being strong and bucking history might also galvanise the players and club, GNF well articulated fears of players leaving notwithstanding. Agree or diagree if they are strong in their support at leaset you'd have to give the board some points for showing some guts and courage of conviction.

A few weeks ago on radio 3AW:

Mike Sheahan: "what young players have improved since you've been coach ?"

Mark Neeld: (stuttering and stammering) "Jeremy Howe and Sam Blease."

There's probably no greater indictment on Neeld's tenure than the fact that virtually no players have improved. And Blease is wallowing at Casey in his 5th year. Young players need a quality senior group around them so one can't lay all of the blame at Neeld's feet. Those charged with running footy at this club have made some horrible decisions over the last few years.

Mark Neeld is learning how to deal with the media. Mike Sheahan feels it's his duty to be 'hard - hitting' and 'controversial'...he's neither.

To pick an extraordinary, isolated case like Blease is quite mischievous on your part. His break was very, very serious and I have it on good authority that there's still some residual pain in Sam's leg.

Strauss has just recovered now.

I agree that horrible decisions were made...but the debate continues.

There has to be a definitive statement on Neeld's future at today's board meeting, either he's sacked or he's guaranteed until at least the end of the year when a review will be conducted. Anything else would be madness - although it is the MFC - Madness Football Club... As buck points out, I think people should consider the possibility that he's retained.

You are right to say that he may stay but in my opinion if MN stays its for one of two reasons:

1. The board is incompentant, or
2. The MFC can not afford to get rid of him yet.

However what ever decision is made by the Board atleast the members know what is happening, or until they change their minds again, if the orginal decision is for him to stay (see point 1).

B)

What an idiotic post.,

You have to be a moron to think we wouldn't be more competitive and win games with Roos or Choco as the coach.

Not much more ... We STILL do not have the cattle... Without the players we won't be any better !! I am not a Neeld fan , but he doesn't have a lot to work with and when another coach is appointed he WILL NOT be working with exactly the same list or he too will be doomed !!! NO coach would do a lot better with the current crop... !! We will never be able to say "well he is much better than Neeld" because he will attract/be given most likely a new mid field etc. So trying to compare and condemning MN for the past would be a complete waste of time...Many may be blaming MN for helping to recruit some of the current list and they may have a case there BUT he cannot do any more ... The only thing that will improve this list is experience and that only comes with games , games and more games !! therefoer Neeld will probably be given his marching orders because nobody is prepared to wait for the players to get more games into their legs.. so Farewell to another Doomed Demons Coach !! Next please... AND Calling posters a "moron' because they have a different opinion than yours is in itself Moronic !!! You may be wrong !!! B)

after yesterday i still donjt know what the answer is

appointing anybody and letting the players play with freedom will see a different attitude and preasure release

but yesterday i left the ground with my coaches hat on and looking at the record came to the conclusion every player tried and gave close to his best

unfortunately after digesting the list , most werent up to the level of a bottom 6 list player at every other club ive seen this year

the did try with everything they had, but what will a new coach give them, new speed, taller bodies, better skills, better decision making?

Mzungu, Spurr, Ballantyne, Barlow, Hannath were mature aged recruits who weren't originally deemed good enough.

Dawson, Clancy Pearce, De Boer, Sutcliff, Crozier are presently no world beaters. There's eleven players there. Half Freo's team.

Barlow, Fyfe, Pavlich, Duffield, Mayne, Mzungu, Johnson, Griffin, Ibbotson, Hill, Crowley, McPharlin, Zac Clarke, Pearce, De Boer all played in the team that lost to Melbourne by 89 points two years ago.

It's amazing what a good coach with great structures and game-plan can do when the players believe and work for their coach. Conversely, the opposite can be true - and dire.

There has to be a definitive statement on Neeld's future at today's board meeting, either he's sacked or he's guaranteed until at least the end of the year when a review will be conducted. Anything else would be madness - although it is the MFC - Madness Football Club... As buck points out, I think people should consider the possibility that he's retained.

I agree Fifty-5. At a personal level, I'd hate to be in Mark Neeld's shoes right now. He's had to endure an enormous amount during his short tenure as a senior coach, and while I know footy is a tough business, his current humiliation / execution by the media is over-the-top to the point of being in poor taste imo. Mark seems to be toughing it out reasonably well, but his wife and school age kids are unlikely to be quite so resilient, and for their sake alone, it's well and truly time for our footy club to clear the air.

Mark Neeld is learning how to deal with the media. Mike Sheahan feels it's his duty to be 'hard - hitting' and 'controversial'...he's neither.

To pick an extraordinary, isolated case like Blease is quite mischievous on your part. His break was very, very serious and I have it on good authority that there's still some residual pain in Sam's leg.

Strauss has just recovered now.

I agree that horrible decisions were made...but the debate continues.

Are you obtuse ?

I'm giving you the question and the answer. Neeld's answer, not mine. Although I really can't disagree terribly much with his answer, i.e. virtually no-one has improved under Neeld. And they haven't improved because the playing group don't believe in him, or what he's articulating. The worst football results in 30 years make this clear.

Unless, of course, you're a nong.

Probably only 3 hours left in the job.

I give Neeld kudos for getting Dawes ,who is improving as a player .

He deserves the credit for getting David Misson here and getting the fitness levels up .

Ditto Mitch Clark.

He also made the players think about defensive football-rightly or wrongly ,and tried to make them accountable .

Pretty hard job and he gave it his all .

Maybe confidence? Not scared to play intuitively? A sense of release when a new voice actually tells them there is nothing wrong with enjoying your footy?

The list may not be up to it, in terms of a level we would like to see, but I can only repeat, we're better than having an average losing margin of 12 goals.

I cannot see HOW we are better than an average losing margin of 12 goals..at least the TEAM we put on the field yesterday... With players like Clark, Hogan (hopefully) added to the forward line Grimes, Viney,,maybe Toumpas one or two NEW midfielders, one new ruckman, (Please NOT Spencer) and a few more games playing together would definitely improve this team .. We have the backbone of a good backline with Frawley, Garland, Terlich and to a lesser extent Pedersen and even Joel McDonald , who was honest yesterday... Kent looks ok... Fitzpatrick is the best potentialled Ruckman I have seen in our side this year and at only 21 he must be persevered with.. Rodan was a much better player yesterday... throw in Watts ,Howe,N.Jones,Trengove, and our hopes are not TOTALLY diminished.... But... as I said THE TEAM WE PUT ON THE FIELD yesterday will continue to lose by an average of 12 goals..I think.....

Mzungu, Spurr, Ballantyne, Barlow, Hannath were mature aged recruits who weren't originally deemed good enough.

Dawson, Clancy Pearce, De Boer, Sutcliff, Crozier are presently no world beaters. There's eleven players there. Half Freo's team.

Barlow, Fyfe, Pavlich, Duffield, Mayne, Mzungu, Johnson, Griffin, Ibbotson, Hill, Crowley, McPharlin, Zac Clarke, Pearce, De Boer all played in the team that lost to Melbourne by 89 points two years ago.

It's amazing what a good coach with great structures and game-plan can do when the players believe and work for their coach. Conversely, the opposite can be true - and dire.

That is just a gorgeous post

Mzungu, Spurr, Ballantyne, Barlow, Hannath were mature aged recruits who weren't originally deemed good enough.

Dawson, Clancy Pearce, De Boer, Sutcliff, Crozier are presently no world beaters. There's eleven players there. Half Freo's team.

Barlow, Fyfe, Pavlich, Duffield, Mayne, Mzungu, Johnson, Griffin, Ibbotson, Hill, Crowley, McPharlin, Zac Clarke, Pearce, De Boer all played in the team that lost to Melbourne by 89 points two years ago.

It's amazing what a good coach with great structures and game-plan can do when the players believe and work for their coach. Conversely, the opposite can be true - and dire.

True. Freo were instantly a better team as soon as Ross Lyon walked in the door. I can't quite swallow that there would be no improvement from our team under a proven coach. I might just be that Neeld doesn't have what it takes to be a capable AFL coach, and the disastrous results surely provide some evidence towards that. If a 95 point loss is considered some sort of positive then surely the alarm bells are now taking over!

Mzungu, Spurr, Ballantyne, Barlow, Hannath were mature aged recruits who weren't originally deemed good enough.

Dawson, Clancy Pearce, De Boer, Sutcliff, Crozier are presently no world beaters. There's eleven players there. Half Freo's team.

Barlow, Fyfe, Pavlich, Duffield, Mayne, Mzungu, Johnson, Griffin, Ibbotson, Hill, Crowley, McPharlin, Zac Clarke, Pearce, De Boer all played in the team that lost to Melbourne by 89 points two years ago.

It's amazing what a good coach with great structures and game-plan can do when the players believe and work for their coach. Conversely, the opposite can be true - and dire.

I actually didn't realise there was that many of the current crop playing against us in 2011. I had memories of it being very much a second string Freo side. That is quite a damning reflection on how the two teams have progressed since.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-03/dees-meet-rolling-coverage

With all the media hype and posts on demonland can u imagine if Neeld doesn't get the sack at this avos board meeting.

Demonland will go into overdrive and possibly self combust a lot like the media will do I would think.

The tension builds.

Are you obtuse ?

I'm giving you the question and the answer. Neeld's answer, not mine. Although I really can't disagree terribly much with his answer, i.e. virtually no-one has improved under Neeld. And they haven't improved because the playing group don't believe in him, or what he's articulating. The worst football results in 30 years make this clear.

Unless, of course, you're a nong.

This would have to be (overall) the worst LIST in 30 years !! Who says the "playing group don't believe in him" ??? Still haven't heard any evidence from the mouth of any player or indeed any one directly connected to the Club ??? Many people who really have no real idea have intimated this BUT no one in authority at the MFC ?? Who ,do you think should have improved under Neeld and bear in mind , they have to be capable of improvement and NOT those that are not and will never be AFL Senior standard players ?? Be careful who you name.. Many players improve with just pure, simple experience as do we all in most things in life don't we ? There is not a lot of experience in many of the players on our current list.. and those like Frawley, Sylvia, Garland, Davey, Dawes,Clark,N.Jones,Grimes etc .,etc. shouldn't be named among the "should have improved"

Are you obtuse ?

I'm giving you the question and the answer. Neeld's answer, not mine. Although I really can't disagree terribly much with his answer, i.e. virtually no-one has improved under Neeld. And they haven't improved because the playing group don't believe in him, or what he's articulating. The worst football results in 30 years make this clear.

Unless, of course, you're a nong.

Putting insults aside, you still chose Blease for your point of discussion.

Further, Lyon came into a list that has had 2 - 3 years to develop.

Some on our list have less that 20 games.

But that's okay - you keep spruiking your anti - Neeld sentiments and insulting other posters.

Probably only 3 hours left in the job.

I give Neeld kudos for getting Dawes ,who is improving as a player .

He deserves the credit for getting David Misson here and getting the fitness levels up .

Ditto Mitch Clark.

He also made the players think about defensive football-rightly or wrongly ,and tried to make them accountable .

Pretty hard job and he gave it his all .

Misson was already on his way to Melbourne before Neeld was. You cannot credit Neeld for that. I'd say Misson was under the illusion that Lyon was coming to Melbourne. Particularly as the day before Neeld was announced as coach, Lyon was announced as coach to the Melbourne players.

he is still there ha ha hah ah hahaha haha ha ha ha ha!

he is stil there ha ha ha ha ha hhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Putting insults aside, you still chose Blease for your point of discussion.

What ? How can you so completely miss the point ? Neeld mentioned Blease, not me. The fact that he can't get a game in the worst team in 30 years doesn't speak volumes for his present form, but I happen to like Blease.

Neeld could have said Howe and Tom McDonald. The second name didn't matter, it just happened to be that he mentioned Blease. The POINT is no-one improves under this clown. That's the POINT, not what you think of Blease.

What ? How can you so completely miss the point ? Neeld mentioned Blease, not me. The fact that he can't get a game in the worst team in 30 years doesn't speak volumes for his present form, but I happen to like Blease.

Neeld could have said Howe and Tom McDonald. The second name didn't matter, it just happened to be that he mentioned Blease. The POINT is no-one improves under this clown. That's the POINT, not what you think of Blease.

Yes, but you didn't need to harp on the point that he's wallowing in the twos - there was clearly an anti Neeld sub text there.

You gave no context or reason, just a remark to satisfy your end - Blease needs to learn the game and he's coming off a career threatening injury.

No - one improves under this clown? Garland, Joneses, Howe, Evans, Grimes, Terlich, Frawley all say hi.