Time to go Mark Neeld

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

Part of me thinks it would be great not to sack Mark Neeld just to stick it up the journos who keep reporting it as a fait accompli.

[Yossarian 1,820]

Going by facebook comments, it's only the overemotional idiots who want him sacked right now ("before he destroys our once great club!!1!" etc).

I'm in the basket of "whatevs man, only way is up probably." As I have no idea how to run a footy club. Hopefully Peter Jackson does.

[Hardnut 327]

Looks like MFC can't win - they can't afford to sack MN and they can't afford to keep him and let the damage continue!

I guess that's what happens when a Board keeps making wrong decisions.

[binman 42,629]

Looks like MFC can't win - they can't afford to sack MN and they can't afford to keep him and let the damage continue!

I guess that's what happens when a Board keeps making wrong decisions.

I have to say Baghdad Bob has been very disciplined - the temptation to to loudly chant nah nah nah nah nah must be strong. Haven't heard much either from his foil RobbieF about the high standards of the current board or accusing Fanbob of wild imaginings and agendas.

[Hero1 74]

Couldn't we just win a game or 2? It's like the mid 60s- mid 80s all over again. I'm so sad!

[Deestar3 167]

So let me get this right......the media got it horribly wrong & acted in an extremely distasteful & immoral manner.......yes? But now they rationalise it all by saying ......well he would have been sacked ...but the club can't afford it. And of course a lot of our anti-neeld 'landers swallow this tasty morsel & are now parroting it as the "new gospel" according to our illustrious media contingent. Surely it wouldn't be this scenario...neeld & his football dept are queried & maybe in a more in-depth manner (it was p.jackson's 1st board meeting) about the state of the list etc. in fact exactly as neeld states the meeting was conducted. He & his fellow coaches would certainly be aware ...as would all of the football dept.....because Jackson stated that everyone is on notice so they are under no illusion about that. Now (god forbid) that the team does actually improve in the second part of the season as our players get more games under their belts & senior players return. Imagine if the players actually do rate & like neeld & would rather sign contracts with him at he helm than not........I mean wouldn't it be amazing if some of those players that have played under 10 games or so & who some of you are already rating as average, B graders or plain,old,workhorses actually surprise us as they get closer to the magic 50 plus game mark. But we wouldn't want all that to happen because then that would mean neeld might stay & then who would you direct all your vitriol & negativity at. Then & only then you might realise that no-one is going to magically get games into players, extra pre-seasons into to match harden young bodies & injured players back on track in record time. Maybe he might not be the man in the long run but I have no problem in going the journey with him.

[Harrisonrules 273]

So let me get this right......the media got it horribly wrong & acted in an extremely distasteful & immoral manner.......yes? But now they rationalise it all by saying ......well he would have been sacked ...but the club can't afford it. And of course a lot of our anti-neeld 'landers swallow this tasty morsel & are now parroting it as the "new gospel" according to our illustrious media contingent. Surely it wouldn't be this scenario...neeld & his football dept are queried & maybe in a more in-depth manner (it was p.jackson's 1st board meeting) about the state of the list etc. in fact exactly as neeld states the meeting was conducted. He & his fellow coaches would certainly be aware ...as would all of the football dept.....because Jackson stated that everyone is on notice so they are under no illusion about that. Now (god forbid) that the team does actually improve in the second part of the season as our players get more games under their belts & senior players return. Imagine if the players actually do rate & like neeld & would rather sign contracts with him at he helm than not........I mean wouldn't it be amazing if some of those players that have played under 10 games or so & who some of you are already rating as average, B graders or plain,old,workhorses actually surprise us as they get closer to the magic 50 plus game mark. But we wouldn't want all that to happen because then that would mean neeld might stay & then who would you direct all your vitriol & negativity at. Then & only then you might realise that no-one is going to magically get games into players, extra pre-seasons into to match harden young bodies & injured players back on track in record time. Maybe he might not be the man in the long run but I have no problem in going the journey with him.

Wow...an awful lot of imagination in this reflection. ...and vitriol.

[robbiefrom13 887]

"Coach" came into most European languages in the 16th Century, from the name of a Hungarian town where they had developed a new kind of carriage that all of Europe saw as the next great thing. The verb coach derives from the noun. So that a coach is an improved way of travelling, a faciltating of the intention; and to coach someone is to carry them forward in their endeavour.

That's the origin of the word, and the concept.

The coach is not, etymologically at least, anything like the captain, the judge, or the one determining the agenda. Coaching students sitting exams came before athletic coaching; the idea was always an extension of the idea of conveying them more effectively to where they were going.

Not done with an axe, or by belittling people, or from any position of power.

Applying this to football, the coach coaches the team. The team are the main event. According to the language, anyway. This is what the rednecks on this site don't get, and sadly it appears Neeld spent a long time damaging the players' ownership of their endeavours before (if he ever did) grasping the essential relationship that a coach must have to the initiative, confidence, purpose and commitment of the players to what they are there for. Work with them - that's the core concept, supporting them and bringing them things they can add to their stock.

So sad, to see the mess we are in, and the abuse of our players, and the amount of focus here and (apparently) at Board level on Neeld first.

Language evolves, of course, and the historical understanding of "coach" may be changing. People may point at earlier successful coaches to argue that the word changed its meaning long ago. But I suggest that no successful coach would disregard belief and individuality and psychology the way Neeld has; successful coaches have to rate their players and their talents - that's what they come to work with.

[CHAMP 347]

Coaching: The NASA Df: "a two-way dialogue":

http://ohcm.gsfc.nasa.gov/career/csa5.htm

[bing181 9,193]

So sad, to see the mess we are in, and the abuse of our players ...

And you started off so well.

Baseless assumptions and hyperbole.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

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.

Can't believe he forgot to mention Nathan Jones.

And, even though he was at a different club previously, Mitch Clark.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Going by facebook comments, it's only the overemotional idiots who want him sacked right now ("before he destroys our once great club!!1!" etc).

I'm in the basket of "whatevs man, only way is up probably." As I have no idea how to run a footy club. Hopefully Peter Jackson does.

You've obviously read Catch 22 Yossarian. You will therefore get the irony of the almost violent criticisms expressed by some of the most passionate (and patronising) posters here.

You just have to laugh. It's too frustrating otherwise ...

[McQueen 17,864]

"Coach" came into most European languages in the 16th Century, from the name of a Hungarian town where they had developed a new kind of carriage that all of Europe saw as the next great thing. The verb coach derives from the noun. So that a coach is an improved way of travelling, a faciltating of the intention; and to coach someone is to carry them forward in their endeavour.

That's the origin of the word, and the concept.

The coach is not, etymologically at least, anything like the captain, the judge, or the one determining the agenda. Coaching students sitting exams came before athletic coaching; the idea was always an extension of the idea of conveying them more effectively to where they were going.

Not done with an axe, or by belittling people, or from any position of power.

Applying this to football, the coach coaches the team. The team are the main event. According to the language, anyway. This is what the rednecks on this site don't get, and sadly it appears Neeld spent a long time damaging the players' ownership of their endeavours before (if he ever did) grasping the essential relationship that a coach must have to the initiative, confidence, purpose and commitment of the players to what they are there for. Work with them - that's the core concept, supporting them and bringing them things they can add to their stock.

So sad, to see the mess we are in, and the abuse of our players, and the amount of focus here and (apparently) at Board level on Neeld first.

Language evolves, of course, and the historical understanding of "coach" may be changing. People may point at earlier successful coaches to argue that the word changed its meaning long ago. But I suggest that no successful coach would disregard belief and individuality and psychology the way Neeld has; successful coaches have to rate their players and their talents - that's what they come to work with.

To effectively change behaviours you first need to connect with individuals at an emotional level. Neeld has failed to do this and I can't see him making ground in this area.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

"Coach" came into most European languages in the 16th Century, from the name of a Hungarian town where they had developed a new kind of carriage that all of Europe saw as the next great thing. The verb coach derives from the noun. So that a coach is an improved way of travelling, a faciltating of the intention; and to coach someone is to carry them forward in their endeavour.

That's the origin of the word, and the concept.

The coach is not, etymologically at least, anything like the captain, the judge, or the one determining the agenda. Coaching students sitting exams came before athletic coaching; the idea was always an extension of the idea of conveying them more effectively to where they were going.

Not done with an axe, or by belittling people, or from any position of power.

Applying this to football, the coach coaches the team. The team are the main event. According to the language, anyway. This is what the rednecks on this site don't get, and sadly it appears Neeld spent a long time damaging the players' ownership of their endeavours before (if he ever did) grasping the essential relationship that a coach must have to the initiative, confidence, purpose and commitment of the players to what they are there for. Work with them - that's the core concept, supporting them and bringing them things they can add to their stock.

So sad, to see the mess we are in, and the abuse of our players, and the amount of focus here and (apparently) at Board level on Neeld first.

Language evolves, of course, and the historical understanding of "coach" may be changing. People may point at earlier successful coaches to argue that the word changed its meaning long ago. But I suggest that no successful coach would disregard belief and individuality and psychology the way Neeld has; successful coaches have to rate their players and their talents - that's what they come to work with.

A point well made. It's interesting in this context that soccer, at least at the elite levels, has developed the role of manager. Maybe we're hanging onto the old word when we actually expect the head coach to be doing much the same job as a manager. Managers are seen as having more or less complete control over the destiny of the team, which makes them easy to sack when things go wrong. The grey area between the old idea of coach and the evolving responsibilities the head coach has as a manager of an AFL team might have something to do with confusion about how logical it seems to sack or to retain Neeld.

I know that I remain entirely confused about it.

[robbiefrom13 887]

Maybe Jackson will address these functions in a way that makes roles clearer. Certainly, I think our players (and supporters) would benefit if the club installed a coach who performed the traditional role of a coach.

[chookrat 4,247]

Statements like the above are made assuming the anti-Neeld posting here are representative of typical supporters. But posters here are clearly not typical. I'm confident there is a groundswell of disappointment amongst all supporters, but it's not so clear there is a groundswell of opinion on how to solve the problem.

In any case, I would expect PJ to make a better decision than anyone posting here or any groundswell detected elsewhere. So I'm happy if he ignores any groundswell. Yes, we pay our membership; so what. I pay my taxes, but I don't expect to tell the army who should be the next chief of staff.

PJ might just have some facts and inside knowledge on which to base his decisions rather than the mixture of media speculation and frustration expressed on this forum.

Sue - this post is far to sensible for a Time to go mark neeld thread.

[Weedster 174]

I don't think anyone wants people sacked in any walk of life.

Bottom line for me though is that we have gone backwards at a remarkable rate on MN's watch. We have not been close to a win bar the one we fluked against Essendon to start their downward spiral, and games against the expansion teams .. not once can we even claim a so-called "honourable loss" ..60+ point losses are now the norm - it is, by any reasonable measure, unacceptable.

[jazza 1,323]

quote of the week by david king neeld must be sacked hes just not up to it

no evidence

no reason

no damaging rumuor

[Hannibal 5,814]

Can't believe he forgot to mention Nathan Jones.

And, even though he was at a different club previously, Mitch Clark.

I suspect he was speaking of the young developing players, whereas Jones was considered part of the senior group - albeit a youngish member.

From what I've seen of Neeld and his development of players I'd consider it folly to suggest he had any impact in Jones improvement. Jones is the hardest trainer at the club and I'd put any improvement down to his work ethic. I'd certainly not laud the nutjob for Jones' performances.

[jazza 1,323]

I suspect he was speaking of the young developing players, whereas Jones was considered part of the senior group - albeit a youngish member.

From what I've seen of Neeld and his development of players I'd consider it folly to suggest he had any impact in Jones improvement. Jones is the hardest trainer at the club and I'd put any improvement down to his work ethic. I'd certainly not laud the nutjob for Jones' performances.

hang on lets get this straight , if a player improves its not neelds coaching?

if a player has gone backwards its neelds coaching?

[PJ_12345 1,098]

I suspect he was speaking of the young developing players, whereas Jones was considered part of the senior group - albeit a youngish member.

From what I've seen of Neeld and his development of players I'd consider it folly to suggest he had any impact in Jones improvement. Jones is the hardest trainer at the club and I'd put any improvement down to his work ethic. I'd certainly not laud the nutjob for Jones' performances.

I'm starting to anti-Neeld supporter's logic:

1. Blame lack of improvement on Neeld
2. Blame improvement on anything but Neeld

Edited June 5, 2013 by PJ_12345

[jazza 1,323]

I'm starting to anti-Neeld supporter's logic:

1. Blame lack of improvement on Neeld
2. Blame improvement on anything but Neeld

it would be better if you started a thread about collingwood and see how long it takes to turn into an anti neeld thread

[Weedster 174]

hang on lets get this straight , if a player improves its not neelds coaching?

if a player has gone backwards its neelds coaching?

Improvement has be neglible at any level. I would have expected natural improvement in players like Nathan jones - they've been in the system for long enough. But please, where is the improvement in Blease, Strauss, McKenzie, Trengove, Watts, or Fitzpatrick ?? Not to mention Tynan, Taggart, Davis

[nutbean 8,838]

I think you can lay some criticism that not enough players have improved under Neeld but I think it is disengenuous to damn him for little improvement in not enough players and then suggest that players that have improved cannot be attributed to him at all.

Edit - if people want to speculate that " Jones was always going to improve because he is such a hard trainer and committed to the task then by extension you can comment that Watts was never going to improve under any coach because he is lazy and not prepared to work hard enough"

Edited June 5, 2013 by nutbean

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Improvement has be neglible at any level. I would have expected natural improvement in players like Nathan jones - they've been in the system for long enough. But please, where is the improvement in Blease, Strauss, McKenzie, Trengove, Watts, or Fitzpatrick ?? Not to mention Tynan, Taggart, Davis

N Jones - only started playing good footy in 2011 2012 under Neeld. [thank you to stuie]

Blease - hasnt improved

Strauss - has been injured (shoulder reco/broken leg) not a fair assesment on improvement as no original benchmark. Hasn't been playing too badly, biggest issue is consistently gives away frees.

McKenzie - I don't mean to be rude but Jordie isn't really AFL material. Plays with gutts, gets touches but the AFL level skills just aren''t there and probably wont be. Happy to be proved wrong.

Trengrove - injured foot not a fair assesment on performance so far this season. Needs more time to recover

Watts - has played his best footy under Neeld

Fitzpatrick - hard to determine. Development player. Needs to play more games to assess.

Tynan - see above

Taggart - hasnt improved & yet to debut

Davis - injured last year (thyriod issue)

There are clearly players that have improved under MN (Jones, Garland, Grimes, Watts), players that have developed well under MN (Terlich, M Jones, Tappy, Gawn, possibly Kent), players that are yet to be determined (Fitzpatrick, Strauss, Trengrove), players that haven't improved/developed under MN (Jamar, Pederson, Blease, Taggart, McKenzie, Bail ect.)

If you're going to scrutinise MN and if players have developed/improved or not then you need to have a look at the whole list, not just pick and choose those that suit you're argument - particularly players that have been injured (Strauss) and players that under any other circumstance wouldnt be on our list (McKenzie).

Clearly improvement hasnt been negligible at any level, and people are taking Jone's current form for granted - he did not always play like this well dispite being in the system for long enough.

Edited June 5, 2013 by PJ_12345