On 17/04/2013 at 12:19, jumbo returns said:

Just heard on AFL 360 that the Dees (that came from Dwayne Russell on 3AW) have had a 'what if' meeting with Todd Viney....

The discussion centred around a possible loss on Sunday....

Drayne Pussell has as much credability as Denham and Wilson.........NONE, he's a toerag

Wow so a coach should have the ability to install self belief in to a player should he? what a load of hog wash. Self belief must come from one self you can't teach some one to believe in themselves. You provide them with the skills the training and opportunity its up to the individual to take the last step. Having confidence with ones ability comes when you see the training and work paying off on the field. Having a positive first half gives the players the taste of confidence and self belief. Maintaining that for the whole games has improved from the Essendon game. In the Essendon game our players self belief was shattered by a team that kept its foot on the necks of our boys all game and would not let them up. West Coast blew us away in the third quarter but there were signs of trying to get up, dusting off and having a go in the fourth. The ability to learn from the negative and reinforce the positives is what MN is doing and I think he is well suited to it. The boys will improve it will just take some time.

  On 17/04/2013 at 17:25, FerdDaDee said:

Wow so a coach should have the ability to install self belief in to a player should he? what a load of hog wash. Self belief must come from one self you can't teach some one to believe in themselves. You provide them with the skills the training and opportunity its up to the individual to take the last step. Having confidence with ones ability comes when you see the training and work paying off on the field. Having a positive first half gives the players the taste of confidence and self belief. Maintaining that for the whole games has improved from the Essendon game. In the Essendon game our players self belief was shattered by a team that kept its foot on the necks of our boys all game and would not let them up. West Coast blew us away in the third quarter but there were signs of trying to get up, dusting off and having a go in the fourth. The ability to learn from the negative and reinforce the positives is what MN is doing and I think he is well suited to it. The boys will improve it will just take some time.

Ok, self belief comes from within the player himself. Yep - thing is, they all had it...

I say self belief can be destroyed by others, and this is what I suspect has been going on at Melbourne for some time.

Look at the loss of self belief in grown-up victims of child sex abuse. And please don't trash this board by swooping in triumphantly declaring "he calls Neeld a pedophile!" - I don't. I use the extreme example to establish the connection between abuse or long-term denigration and a loss of self belief, and simply say that the loss of self belief in our players since the 2011 (2010?) Sydney game, or after half time last Saturday, may well be because they have been in effect being undermined for some time. Abuse can erode self belief.

Here is my speculative reconstruction, in an attempt to fit the visible with the scraps of explanation that can be gleaned at present:

We know that the interfering Schwab and coach Bailey were diametrically opposed to each other over something to do with the players' performances. Bailey no doubt was too nice to the players - and Schwab had some very different ideas to Bailey. The players were pretty resentful of Schwab's interference and went out on a limb criticising (when asked), only to find themselves stranded out there. The 186 loss ensued, costing Bailey his job. Why were the players so pathetic that day against Geelong?

I suspect the real issue undermining the players' focus that day was to do with the way they had exposed themselves to risk by speaking up when asked just a few days before. The timing is too suggestive to ignore. So what exactly was it that Schwab was doing or saying to them?

The question in my mind is whether Schwab was making comments designed to push the players towards training properly and showing accountability on match day, or whether he was making personal comments about their characters (along the lines of a lot of the frustration aired on this forum), which came across to the players as undermining negativity directed in a personal way at them. If the latter, Schwab was directing at the players what he really meant to direct at the coach - was using the players to get at the coach, and it would be seriously undermining. And I suspect this must have been what was going on - I doubt that senior players like Brad Green would have shirked a proper training regime, or imagined that they could "dob in" (when asked) a CEO insisting they should develop proper fitness levels and show accountability on match-day. But, after the players spoke, the scale of the political forces at work sunk in with every day of silence about what they had said. What could they have been expected to believe about what they had done when they spoke up?

If this reconstruction is anything like what did happen, then Neeld in effect picked up where Schwab left off. With Schwab removed from interfering, Neeld came in with his sterner approach to coaching the team (necessary for them to be competitive, no question), but in doing so he took on already fearful players and simply replaced the undermining effect of Schwab with the undermining effect of Neeld.

Special circumstances, post-186, and requiring careful handling.

Only that Neeld with admirable determination set about the rebuild, relying on all he had ever learned in other places - none of which had ever had the sort of problems Melbourne had when he arrived. Perhaps the tone of voice he used, and the up-front personal remarks he made to the media - and presumably in private too - hit on raw nerves. He spent months chatting with Brad Green about his impending retirement. It seems likely to me that the players recognised that Neeld and Schwab were on a wave-length - especially when Neeld was so publicly disrespectful of Bailey, and as time went on the Schwab-dobbing players one by one steadily disappeared.

Today, the players appear scared... "lacking self belief"!

Maybe from their point of view they still are in a war zone, with everyone outside pretending it isn't so: maybe what is needed above all else is for them to be convinced that they are on "our" side. Surely in the coach v CEO war, with the club swinging in its support now to one side, now the other, and dragging the players into it, the players must have wondered what their role was meant to be. At the end of last year, I suggested a big "clean-out" would be far too destructive of player morale. You could dispute the connection I claimed, but you could hardly doubt the subsequent collapse of morale. Yelling at the players now, and threatening more player sackings ASAP, or demanded they grow up and fix their self belief - I wonder if that isn't just reprising the preparation for that Geelong game...

  On 17/04/2013 at 18:49, robbiefrom13 said:

Ok, self belief comes from within the player himself. Yep - thing is, they all had it...

Well, sometimes, and when it suited them, mainly against the easybeats or when they were prepared to be "on".

As for the rest ... well, maybe. I don't know, but then, neither do you (just saying, not criticising). I think post #308 earlier sums up what was really going on, and what's in part behind where we are, including who was/wasn't part of the the turnover last year.

We can throw all this around as much as we like. We can even sack the coach. But sooner or later the players (and the club) need to put this behind us/them and move forward.

So what's the deal with Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes, Mitch Clark, Nathan Jones, Matt Jones, Rohan Bail, Jeremy Howe and all the others whose self-confidence seems fine. Maybe they're the only ones who have actually got the right mindset to succeed under the guidance of a real AFL coach. The other guys have been mollycoddled for so long that their ability to respond to criticism and instruction has been (perhaps irrevocably) destroyed.

Self-confidence is great, but people who don't take criticism are actually not confident people. They only give the illusion of confidence until such time as their delusions are broken. This is what I think has happened to a few of our players.

  On 17/04/2013 at 15:02, olisik said:

I hope so,Viney showed more coaching flare in a handful of games then Neeld has in a year and a half.

Viney Vacume anyone?

No. He is not an experienced coach. His relationship with his son wil be difficult. This needs an"old hand". Someone who,s been there before and worked a team out of a crisis, that's why I greatly prefer Craig

  On 17/04/2013 at 14:20, AdamFarr said:

I watched him watch and walk at one stage the other day, while Viney chased after two Eagles on his own. Talk about a low base.

That's a cheap shot, AF.

The guy's played 3 games???

You're a bit harsh there.....

what do you guys think about neale daniher? i know he left the list in a bit of a state but he seemed to be held in a pretty high regard by players and he could coach wins. turned the side around pretty quick in 98 . perhaps he could come in as head of football department?

  On 02/04/2013 at 13:28, tonatopia said:

Hardnut, thaipantsman and a couple of others knew neeld was a dud after the first handful of games. Now people are waking up such as our friend rangerover. It was very obvious very early on in 2012. It was easy to blame the players as it still is. But the players will vote with their attitude towards Saturday nights game. A lack of effort will demonstrate that neeld must be removed immediately. The positive of all this is that the players are very fit. I think they need to just go out and play some freestyle footy for a couple of weeks. Let them get back to the basics like backing their own judgements and using basic instincts and smarts. Moloney wasn't the brightest player in the bunch, but him and jamar were the best clearance duo in the afl.

Neeld should have understood the importance of having wonamirri and Jurrah on our list. Those 2 blokes were the most exciting players we have had since jacovich. He could have been a little more understanding of their background and culture. I am dirty for loosing them.

Really, the only good thing neeld has done is drafted Clarke and got us fitter. The bad things have already been mentioned previously.

I am excited for life without neeld. I love good footy.

Are we blaming Neeld for Jurrah and Wonaemirri now?

  On 17/04/2013 at 08:45, Hardnut said:

What are you saying - I'm certainly not Gen Y!

didn't realise you were a player hardnut

  On 17/04/2013 at 18:49, robbiefrom13 said:

Ok, self belief comes from within the player himself. Yep - thing is, they all had it...

I say self belief can be destroyed by others, and this is what I suspect has been going on at Melbourne for some time.

Look at the loss of self belief in grown-up victims of child sex abuse. And please don't trash this board by swooping in triumphantly declaring "he calls Neeld a pedophile!" - I don't. I use the extreme example to establish the connection between abuse or long-term denigration and a loss of self belief, and simply say that the loss of self belief in our players since the 2011 (2010?) Sydney game, or after half time last Saturday, may well be because they have been in effect being undermined for some time. Abuse can erode self belief.

Here is my speculative reconstruction, in an attempt to fit the visible with the scraps of explanation that can be gleaned at present:

We know that the interfering Schwab and coach Bailey were diametrically opposed to each other over something to do with the players' performances. Bailey no doubt was too nice to the players - and Schwab had some very different ideas to Bailey. The players were pretty resentful of Schwab's interference and went out on a limb criticising (when asked), only to find themselves stranded out there. The 186 loss ensued, costing Bailey his job. Why were the players so pathetic that day against Geelong?

I suspect the real issue undermining the players' focus that day was to do with the way they had exposed themselves to risk by speaking up when asked just a few days before. The timing is too suggestive to ignore. So what exactly was it that Schwab was doing or saying to them?

The question in my mind is whether Schwab was making comments designed to push the players towards training properly and showing accountability on match day, or whether he was making personal comments about their characters (along the lines of a lot of the frustration aired on this forum), which came across to the players as undermining negativity directed in a personal way at them. If the latter, Schwab was directing at the players what he really meant to direct at the coach - was using the players to get at the coach, and it would be seriously undermining. And I suspect this must have been what was going on - I doubt that senior players like Brad Green would have shirked a proper training regime, or imagined that they could "dob in" (when asked) a CEO insisting they should develop proper fitness levels and show accountability on match-day. But, after the players spoke, the scale of the political forces at work sunk in with every day of silence about what they had said. What could they have been expected to believe about what they had done when they spoke up?

If this reconstruction is anything like what did happen, then Neeld in effect picked up where Schwab left off. With Schwab removed from interfering, Neeld came in with his sterner approach to coaching the team (necessary for them to be competitive, no question), but in doing so he took on already fearful players and simply replaced the undermining effect of Schwab with the undermining effect of Neeld.

Special circumstances, post-186, and requiring careful handling.

Only that Neeld with admirable determination set about the rebuild, relying on all he had ever learned in other places - none of which had ever had the sort of problems Melbourne had when he arrived. Perhaps the tone of voice he used, and the up-front personal remarks he made to the media - and presumably in private too - hit on raw nerves. He spent months chatting with Brad Green about his impending retirement. It seems likely to me that the players recognised that Neeld and Schwab were on a wave-length - especially when Neeld was so publicly disrespectful of Bailey, and as time went on the Schwab-dobbing players one by one steadily disappeared.

Today, the players appear scared... "lacking self belief"!

Maybe from their point of view they still are in a war zone, with everyone outside pretending it isn't so: maybe what is needed above all else is for them to be convinced that they are on "our" side. Surely in the coach v CEO war, with the club swinging in its support now to one side, now the other, and dragging the players into it, the players must have wondered what their role was meant to be. At the end of last year, I suggested a big "clean-out" would be far too destructive of player morale. You could dispute the connection I claimed, but you could hardly doubt the subsequent collapse of morale. Yelling at the players now, and threatening more player sackings ASAP, or demanded they grow up and fix their self belief - I wonder if that isn't just reprising the preparation for that Geelong game...

I was told by a player at the commencment dinner that there will be another clean out at the end of the year, so there must be a few players that are fearful of their furure if that's the case. If one player knows it I'm sure that they all do; it would be hard to put in every week if you knew your head was possibly on the chopping block.

We all like certainty and if you are facing the unknown it must affect performance.

  On 17/04/2013 at 22:24, Roost It said:

Are we blaming Neeld for Jurrah and Wonaemirri now?

Neeld shoved them out the door as quick as he could.

No understanding of their positions in life.

I remember G.Lyon flying all the way to Perth to convince Farmer to rejoin the club. Thats the kinda passion we need.

Neeld just told them to Fcuk off. Those 2 boys were electrifying, and sorely missed by supporters. They could have been great ambassadors of the club, especially with our entry into Darwin.

Get rid of Neeld, replace him with Craig, even if we beat GWS.

  On 17/04/2013 at 22:11, jumbo returns said:

That's a cheap shot, AF.

The guy's played 3 games???

You're a bit harsh there.....

I don't think it's a cheap shot, JR. If the mail is Jones sets an incredibly high standard and is the difference between us implementing cultural change or continuing on like we have, then I think it's a worry. What he didn't do in that passage of play is what any one of us on Demonland could have done. That is chase and put some effort in. That's got nothing to do with experience. I was really disappointed with him. It was right in front of the members wing. I thought he should have been dragged for it. It was darn lazy.

  On 17/04/2013 at 10:23, Lordweaver said:

Dees need to hang in there, stay the course, Christ it's only round 4

I get that, but for many of us it's round 7 (years) x 22 (or whatever games / year) = round 154... and that's pretty say and demoralising. We've stayed the course, supported the club, turned up, haven't lack backbone, haven't panicked, don't thinkg the sky is falling in, yes the sun will come up...

But those of us who have been around for a time are pretty tired of failure, and that's what this club is now (past glories finished in '64, 2 GF since) - we are a monumental failure.

We also have a messianic complex - we will find the "saviour" - started with Diamond Jim Tilbrook, Big Carl, Moore and Templeton, Bring Back Barassi, Gutnick, High Draft Picks... there is no saviour - only hard work and good decision making

The first of these (hard work) may or may not have been undertaken, but the second (good decision making) is completely absent...

It's all a bit sad, really

  On 17/04/2013 at 13:44, stueyspencer no12 said:

. I

I absolutely agree. And 2 more disasters as bad as R1 have proven your point.

A couple of other points.I have had the opportunity to speak informally with several players. The suggestion that they are not trying is absurd. They are perplexed, confused, surprised how far off the pace they are but they are trying as hard as they can. Incidentally in our discussions there was no hint of disloyalty to Neeld.

Secondly there is an increasing realization that the team is much worse than under Bailey. Why have the attacking aspects of the Bailey gameplan been lost?

The distinctive feature--and perhaps the only positive-- is that within the ranks there is an experienced, successful coach in Neil Craig. Until his last year at Adelaide he was extremely successful. I believe he has said he won't coach. I would move heaven and earth to get him to--personally I would offer him until the end of 2014.

The decision to appoint Neeld was not bad or stupid. Recriminations are of no use. But occasionally an appointment doesn't work. Look at TIm Watson at St K. But I now believe that with our list we need someone who doesn't need to prove himself, who doesn't need to suggest that the list he inherited was bad (although I like Neeld personally I'm disgusted at his insinuation that the previous admin was/is responsible for the club's plight--it isn't) and who can exert a mature influence over a list which can play. When much less experienced it won significant games.

We have 18 rounds to go after this week. Make the move now. It's sad but must happen

I also truly believe Neil Craig is the short term answer, and possibly the long term answer. I don't read anything into him publically saying he is not interested. Seriously what else is he going to say? If he says he is interested or says nothing when asked, he is suddenly undermining Neeld and is suddenly part of the problem rather than the solution. Graig saying he is not interested means nothing.

Unless there is a miracle (which I hope there is), Neeld is a dead man walking. No doubt a transition plan is either being worked on or has already been established by the board. The question is when, not if.

  On 18/04/2013 at 00:50, AdamFarr said:

I don't think it's a cheap shot, JR. If the mail is Jones sets an incredibly high standard and is the difference between us implementing cultural change or continuing on like we have, then I think it's a worry. What he didn't do in that passage of play is what any one of us on Demonland could have done. That is chase and put some effort in. That's got nothing to do with experience. I was really disappointed with him. It was right in front of the members wing. I thought he should have been dragged for it. It was darn lazy.

Most of our players haven't chased all year.

He's had 3 games and one pre - season. He needs to build elite fitness.

The change is cultural and desire, rather than 'I've arrived and I don't need to listen....'

  On 17/04/2013 at 12:19, robbiefrom13 said:

how superior of you!

I don't think anyone is suggesting sacking Neeld would "magically solve all the problems."

What I think is, if the orchestra cannot play together, and the conductor says he has no idea why, and he's had a go at changing the personnel, but still they cannot do the basics together, then persevering with the embarrassment of dreadful gigs is neither sensible nor economically viable, and the conductor clearly isn't able to fix things. You need to look for a different conductor who has different ideas, and who can try something different, to get everyone in tune and playing together. Neeld appears to me to have his eyes fixed too far above the basics, and is imposing a repertoire that does not suit these players. He also belittles them - a bit like the way you have sneered at his detractors. Not calculated to win anyone around - that'd be right, wouldn't it?

The fact is, things like tackling, shepherding and running to make a lead - these are not superstar acts. They are not failings due to the players lacking talent. You and I could have a go at those things. If the coach cannot get those things happening, for whatever reason, he is not able to do his job.

How long it will take to repair the mess - who knows? The question at the moment is, do we have any reason to believe Neeld is going to be able to do it? If not, based on the evidence, then the second question to ask is, how long can we afford to run the place down this way? Because these thrashings are destructive and corrosive; left for long enough, they must end up terminal.

I can't see Neeld making progress on the basics, or on the big picture (game-plan). No identifiable good results. I can see disorganised and demoralised players, trying to hold on, endlessly reiterating how much they are behind Neeldy (like all last year's talk about "buying in"), but not keeping their heads up. Lots of inarguable evidence there - the whole football world is beginning to feel awkward about Melbourne. I'm not supposing anything magic is going to happen, no matter what we do. But I really would like what is happening now to stop. I don't think we can justify letting it continue.

To start off - Get over yourself mate - How often do you read Demonland?? - a lot of opinion on here is based on emotions with very little fact. There are some good debats but you don't have to look too far to see a lot of emotion based opinon which is why I made my comment

Back to your points

I agree with what you are saying - The Dees this seasons have showed very little in terms of progress..... They lack a lot of basic fundementals in their game (tackling, ability to win 1 v 1 contests and decision making have all been very disturbing)

What you've haven't read of my prior posts is I am asking how much can be put simply down to Neeld's fault - and how much can be put back on to the players with lack of leadership, experience and work rate to match it with quality teams

Can you say with zero doubt that experienced and highly rated men in Craig and Mission have no idea what they are doing (Development coaches and assistants). It's hard to implement a game plane when the cattle isn't up to the task.

People on here argue Neeld threw out our leaders - give me a list of leaders who left the club??? I can only think of James McDonald and Rivers (and Rivers choose to leave the club)

What you fail to acknowledge in your argument is that you don't go to training, you don't know what the club/Neeld are focusing on, you don't know who is putting in and who isn't. You don't know what the instructions are, you don't know anything about the inner working

It's easy to just simply blame the coach for all the wrongs, replace him and expect all the problems to disappear. What you lack in your argument is a lot of facts. Your fact are based on obesrvations from the outside.

I sure know from reading training reports that combative 1 v 1 training and tacking was a focus - why is it failing on field now??

There are no easy answeres here - Neeld or whoever is in charge will not have an easy task. How long will it take to clean up this mess? Surely longer then 18 months - what if the new coach fails to produce in a year - does he get fired too???

You have a nice theory - but a lot of theories don't work in practice - maybe you should have that converstion with Neeld

  On 17/04/2013 at 23:50, tonatopia said:

Neeld shoved them out the door as quick as he could.

No understanding of their positions in life.

I remember G.Lyon flying all the way to Perth to convince Farmer to rejoin the club. Thats the kinda passion we need.

Neeld just told them to Fcuk off. Those 2 boys were electrifying, and sorely missed by supporters. They could have been great ambassadors of the club, especially with our entry into Darwin.

Get rid of Neeld, replace him with Craig, even if we beat GWS.

Exhibit A - emotional posting

No offence meant to you Tona - I know your a passionate Dees man but I don't have to agree with your opinion

You seem upset and just want eveyone fired

  On 18/04/2013 at 00:01, robbiefrom13 said:

they both were rare talents. they both had quite difficult personal circumstances that put a lot of pressure on their continuation at the club.

The question is whether the club provided the best possible support, understanding and encouragement to value their football, to these guys, at the time when their world was upended? It was exceptional circumstances, necessitating exceptional measures. Do we suppose Neeld was really good - like the sick Jimmy, for example, was - in such a situation? If he wasn't, he may have failed to do things that another person might have done.

At the end of the day, he could not keep them. If somebody else could have (unlikely we can ever really know, but...), then yes, Neeld's limits have contributed to the loss of these guys.

It's all about whether the coach has what's needed to get the best out of his players. And in the case of Jurrah, it's reasonable to wonder whether Neeld really wanted to - it's no great leap to say that Jurrah did not fit Neeld's mould, or that Neeld was not interested in modifying his mould to incorporatethe sort of things Jurrah brought to the team. It's reasonable to have real doubts about Jurrah in trouble feeling that Neeld is 100% for him, ready to stretch the boundaries with understanding and support.

Think Farmer and Lyon, Jurrah and Stynes, etc. - some people are looked to, naturally, and they help strengthen the club by having that whatever-it-is. Neeld is good at discipline, demanding compliance etc., but I don't think he was an obvious enthusiast for the indigenous talents. And I think, surely as things panned out, these indigenous guys would have needed him to be one, for them to have survived their dramas and stayed on our list. Huge losses, for lots of reasons.

This I find disturbing:

"The question is whether the club provided the best possible support, understanding and encouragement to value their football, to these guys, at the time when their world was upended? It was exceptional circumstances, necessitating exceptional measures. Do we suppose Neeld was really good - like the sick Jimmy, for example, was - in such a situation? If he wasn't, he may have failed to do things that another person might have done.

At the end of the day, he could not keep them. If somebody else could have (unlikely we can ever really know, but...), then yes, Neeld's limits have contributed to the loss of these guys."

I am sure Craig Lees who used to look after player welfare and Josh Mahoney both would be totally disgusted by what you have written there, you have no idea what occurred, I have a bit more information than you certainly do, and what you have written above and including Mark Neeld is total rubbish

And this I hope Mark Neeld sues you for:

"Neeld is good at discipline, demanding compliance etc., but I don't think he was an obvious enthusiast for the indigenous talents. And I think, surely as things panned out, these indigenous guys would have needed him to be one, for them to have survived their dramas and stayed on our list. Huge losses, for lots of reasons.

As a point to crap on one of your points above, Neeld was the driving force to make sure we got Dom Barry to the club, I know because I asked Dom Barry

  On 18/04/2013 at 02:39, Unleash Hell said:

To start off - Get over yourself mate - How often do you read Demonland?? - a lot of opinion on here is based on emotions with very little fact. There are some good debats but you don't have to look too far to see a lot of emotion based opinon which is why I made my comment

Back to your points

I agree with what you are saying - The Dees this seasons have showed very little in terms of progress..... They lack a lot of basic fundementals in their game (tackling, ability to win 1 v 1 contests and decision making have all been very disturbing)

What you've haven't read of my prior posts is I am asking how much can be put simply down to Neeld's fault - and how much can be put back on to the players with lack of leadership, experience and work rate to match it with quality teams

Can you say with zero doubt that experienced and highly rated men in Craig and Mission have no idea what they are doing (Development coaches and assistants). It's hard to implement a game plane when the cattle isn't up to the task.

Sorry to upset you. I do not have the facts you speak of. Just looking on.

Can't agree with you, but I have deleted my rubbish post. Not sure that Neeld could or would have sued me, all the same.

My view is that the central fact was we lost valuable players, and that at a time when on non-football issues I'd have hoped we would be extending everything to support them. Prior to their leaving, and prior to the disasters that overtook them, I did not like what I saw of their treatment. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I'm wrong now. If so, as you suggest, then I withdraw unreservedly.

  On 17/04/2013 at 22:19, Munga said:

what do you guys think about neale daniher? i know he left the list in a bit of a state but he seemed to be held in a pretty high regard by players and he could coach wins. turned the side around pretty quick in 98 . perhaps he could come in as head of football department?

no thanks.

  On 17/04/2013 at 23:50, tonatopia said:

Neeld shoved them out the door as quick as he could.

No understanding of their positions in life.

I remember G.Lyon flying all the way to Perth to convince Farmer to rejoin the club. Thats the kinda passion we need.

Neeld just told them to Fcuk off. Those 2 boys were electrifying, and sorely missed by supporters. They could have been great ambassadors of the club, especially with our entry into Darwin.

Get rid of Neeld, replace him with Craig, even if we beat GWS.

Really dumb post mate.

Try using facts instead of emotional opinions. Both players were delisted AFTER walking out on the club.

It is disappointing that MFC supporters will draw on any bow to make someone a scapegoat for their frustration with the teams performance.

Melbournes woes on the footy field have pre-dated Neeld's arrival by about 4 decades. The recent low point began 6 years ago, however rather than looking at these long term and medium terms issues and how Neeld has set about righting them the "scapegoat supporters" can only see the shortest of short term.

This miopia is one of the medium term issues that has lead us into this hole in the first place, and certainly won't lead up out.

The problems left for Neeld to fix...(Prior to Neeld - what Neeld has done - result so far)

• The team was not elite in it's fitness and physical preparation - Neeld brought in Misson and Craig to address this - hard to gauge result, but anecdotally good.
• The team lacked a forward structure - Neeld recruited Clark, Dawe, and Hogan - anyone who isn't looking forward to our forward set up in 2014 needs their head read.
• The team lacked leaders especially successful and experienced ones - Neeld recruited Clark and Dawes, turned over the leadership group making the best young leaders at the club captains (who would want Moloney captain? really!) - Grimes and Trengove have been OK under very trying times, turn of the wheel and they will flourish.
• The teams midfield was weak and one dimensional - Neeld recruited Viney, Toumpass, Barry, Jones (M), etc... - needs time and more experienced player in there.
• The team had a weak or indulgent culture - Neeld axed and traded players after a year who he thought were not bought in, soft or physically underdeveloped and surplus to our needs - of the players who left who would have been playing in our next premiership? and how many would have contributed to the culture change required to scale that mountain. He recruited several players with premiership experience (Dawes and Byrnes) and all new recruits are recognised for their professional approach to training.
• etc...

That, three matches into his second season in charge, the miopic scapegoat supporters are calling for his head only highlights how little they understand the issues the MFC faces in building a premiership team and club.

  On 18/04/2013 at 03:45, PaulRB said:

That, three matches into his second season in charge, the miopic scapegoat supporters are calling for his head only highlights how little they understand the issues the MFC faces in building a premiership team and club.

Usually when you're trying to build a "premiership team" you get BETTER in the second season, not worse, and certainly not by an average losing margin of 107 points...

  On 18/04/2013 at 03:28, robbiefrom13 said:

Sorry to upset you. I do not have the facts you speak of. Just looking on.

Can't agree with you, but I have deleted my rubbish post. Not sure that Neeld could or would have sued me, all the same.

My view is that the central fact was we lost valuable players, and that at a time when on non-football issues I'd have hoped we would be extending everything to support them. Prior to their leaving, and prior to the disasters that overtook them, I did not like what I saw of their treatment. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I'm wrong now. If so, as you suggest, then I withdraw unreservedly.

If you don't think he could sue.........I am waiting for the first test case to hit the courts soon, people are getting sick of being bashed on social media

"Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]"