A little thing called reality tempers my pleasure with the win!

I honestly don't know why. The reality is that a week ago we were a team that many were saying was the worst team in the comp and that they would not be surprised to see losing to GWS. The reality is that in that last quarter, we kicked the highest final quarter score in the MFC's entire history (the oldest club). The reality is that despite the fact they are relatively inexperienced and young, GWS boasts how many top 10 draft picks? Why should a team that has so many talented and fit young players, many of whom have had a couple of full pre-seasons and a full season in the AFL, be allowed the excuse that they simply ran out of steam?

Yes, it was just GWS, but let's not down-play our performance... for that last quarter we were very very good and if Neeld can extract that kind of performance out of them on a more regular basis, then we will start to win more than we lose.

I have never put this on a forum as I really don't know of its relevance. But it irks me nonetheless. I have baracked for the demons my entire life born in 64. Previously I have met two players from Melbourne that have created an impression. The great Robbie Flower and the interesting (if nothing else Jacko). I found myself doing security at skilled stadium up until last year. Prior to the game I was posted at the entrance where the opposition players came in, during the game in the opposition players race and game end I would mind the dressing room door and then exit when they loaded the team bus. Of the three years I did this it saddens me to say that the most arrogant team in their demeanour by far was Melbourne. Admittedly the powerhouse sides didn't often go to Geelong so it may be a little unfair. Apart from Steve Johnson, I never had a single incident where a Geelong player didn't give you a nod, a g'day mate when they went past and this was when they were at their top. Apart from the helpers around the demon clubroom who were awesome, the players quite different. Said g'day to Brad Green once as he went past, not even a grunt. It just really makes me wonder about the culture of this club sometimes.

If it's any consolation demondays, a current Geelong player told me that they didn't rate Green at all and couldn't believe he was an AFL Captain.

Perhaps harsh, but that was definitely the view expressed.

As a supporter, I liked Green FWIW.

Haha yes the past is well and truley gone - wright or wrong Bailey and his game style is gone, no point rehashing

Indeed lets hope we dont fall behind again - Personally I think the fundemantal to all game plans is winning the ball - that is one thing the MFC has lacked a lot recently

Winning the ball is the easy part - knowing what to do with it is harder - that's why I referred to Geelong and why MFC is where it is at the moment!

oh dear. Please don't go there

Oh Shyte.... poor choice on my part!

If it's any consolation demondays, a current Geelong player told me that they didn't rate Green at all and couldn't believe he was an AFL Captain.

Perhaps harsh, but that was definitely the view expressed.

As a supporter, I liked Green FWIW.

Odd.

Cam Mooney reckons that he would have easily been in the best 22 at Geelong. He added that he thought he would have kicked 70+ goals a year for them.

I believe the issue of 'fitness' was dealt with in another post where stats clearly showed the players were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld - it was also indicated that training under Neeld was not helping 'game' fitness. (No, I am not inferring Bailey should still be at MFC, so don't waste posts on that line.) Reality check is that we had a welcome win, but I'm not convinced Neeld had much to do with it.

What stats? Training time-trial records? GPS data? Or was it just a basic "we scored more in the last quarter under Bailey therefore fitter"?

Neeld is trying to implement a modern game style which requires far more running at higher speeds for longer periods. This means that the players may appear to tire quicker but that is only because they are being forced to run both ways, to run back to set up defensive structures, to run forward to create options and to spread when we have the ball. Under Bailey all we really did was sit across full-back/half-back and burst-run forward of the ball when we won possession across the backline. When we had the ball via a mark/free kick there was virtually no run to create options whatsoever and when we had the ball on the run everyone ran to the same spots in straight lines instead of spreading to create options and spread the defense.

Now clearly we are not on top of this yet and not able to implement the game style completely yet which means there is still plenty of occasions where you'll see the entire team stagnant with only one player moving to create an option however overall if you were able to analyse the teams GPS data I think you'd find they were certainly running further during games and at greater speed for longer periods than they were previously under Bailey.

Dawes' article in The Age also highlights that the MFC is now training and being prepared to the required elite level.

It may take a couple of years at this level for it to become fully evident, but it appears to be going in the right direction.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by PaulRB

Maybe its time for us to keep a coach.

Stick with Neeldy and lets back the game plan and start to get a settled team that can play over 100 games together.

If we get someone else and change the message and game plan again, i think its the worst thing we can do.

The players seem to back him in, so do i.

The players seem to back him in, so do i.

Funny you say that, because they will decide his fate.

If they back him, then they should show it. If they show it, he will keep his job.

Maybe its time for us to keep a coach.

Stick with Neeldy and lets back the game plan and start to get a settled team that can play over 100 games together.

If we get someone else and change the message and game plan again, i think its the worst thing we can do.

The players seem to back him in, so do i.

Funny how polarised opinion is on this point.

On one hand he has "fractured the playing group" and "the players don't warm to him".

On the other, "The players seem to back him in".

Maybe its time for us to keep a coach.

Stick with Neeldy and lets back the game plan and start to get a settled team that can play over 100 games together.

If we get someone else and change the message and game plan again, i think its the worst thing we can do.

The players seem to back him in, so do i.

We've only had 6 coaches (not counting brief care-takers in transition) in 30 years - Barassi, Northey, Balme, Daniher, Bailey, Neeld - and only 3 in the last 15 years.

R1 provided sufficient evidence for me that the job is beyond Neeld and I haven't seen anything, including the first half against WC and the last quarter against GWS, to change my mind. With Jackson not starting until 1 May I accept there won't be any sudden changes until he has had time to analyse the situation.

We've only had 6 coaches (not counting brief care-takers in transition) in 30 years - Barassi, Northey, Balme, Daniher, Bailey, Neeld - and only 3 in the last 15 years.

Daniher was the longest serving coach to never get a premership.

Apart from him no coach has lasted more than 5 years since the 1964 premership.

Since 1975 we have had 9 coach, Neeld is our 10th, his predecessor (Bailey) was coach for 2 years

Over the same period:

Collingwood has had 7, Buckley is their 8th, his predecessor (Malthouse) was coach for 11 years

Geelong has had 7, Scott is their 8th, his predecessor (Thompson) was coach for 10 years

North Melbourne has had 7, Scott is their 8th, his predecessor (Laidley) was coach for 6 years

The only other club to have more coaches than us is St. Kilda with 12

I think its important to keep Neeld. High turnover in any industry isnt good for a number of factors. Particulary culture.

Football is a strategy oriented game - its important to give the right people the right time to let their strategy come to fruition or fail - axe crazy this early isnt a logical timeframe.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

We've only had 6 coaches (not counting brief care-takers in transition) in 30 years - Barassi, Northey, Balme, Daniher, Bailey, Neeld - and only 3 in the last 15 years.

R1 provided sufficient evidence for me that the job is beyond Neeld and I haven't seen anything, including the first half against WC and the last quarter against GWS, to change my mind. With Jackson not starting until 1 May I accept there won't be any sudden changes until he has had time to analyse the situation.

So your happy to start all over again?

Interesting number in Jay Clark's anti Neeld rant in the Hun.

Melbourne players average skinfolds when Neeld, Craig and Misson arrived - 60.

Average players skinfolds they were used to at Collingwood, Adelaide and St Kilda - 50.

Hardtack everything I've read and heard says that out fitness levels were simply not competitive under Bailey. Most recently from Colin Garland.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by demoniac

It's interesting that there are 8 clubs on one win at the moment and that three of those clubs ( MFC aside) are coached by second year coaches who were all boom appointments last year. Sanderson, McCartney and Watters were all perceived to be doing a good job but at the moment I'd bet that the fans of Adelaide, Bulldogs and St Kildare are getting restless.

Sanderson was looked on as a bit of a revelation with what looked like a real chance of a flag but Tippett less they are struggling a bit, TaylorW isn't looking so good now he's the main man.

Bulldogs looked the real deal in the first round until we realized how bad Brisbane are and now they've been exposed as pretty ordinary.

Saints are really not much chop and I reckon they will really struggle this year.

First and second year coaches are learning on the job and if you've got a lot of money and a lot of support you can go the distance but we don't have that luxury so I think if we do replace Neeld it will have to be with a senior former coach like Matthews or Roos etc.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by RobbieF

So your happy to start all over again?

"happy" is not the description I associate with MFC at present

Interesting number in Jay Clark's anti Neeld rant in the Hun.

Melbourne players average skinfolds when Neeld, Craig and Misson arrived - 60.

Average players skinfolds they were used to at Collingwood, Adelaide and St Kilda - 50.

Hardtack everything I've read and heard says that out fitness levels were simply not competitive under Bailey. Most recently from Colin Garland.

Maybe age is overtaking me and my memory is failing me, but what posting of mine were you referring to with that comment? (the quote function is quite useful - it aids the elderly).

It's an old saying but a goodie Hardnut -'It's easy to run forward with the ball - it's a lot harder to run the other way.'. So I don't like your arguement at all Hardnut

Under Bailey 2 things didn't happen - Tacking pressure and running the other way

Although the Tigers are playing really good footy (Bailey esq) at the moment I'd rather play like the Pies then the Tigers - At the MCG saturday is a prime example. Another lame saying for you flair wins games - defence wins titles, and that can be applied to a lot of sports

ease up on Bailey, it gives supporters the impression this attitude was caused by Bailey & It Was Not.

it was already at the club for 6 or 7 years before Bailey. & the laziness was there even longer.

# ('It's easy to run forward with the ball') this was the daniher game plan in a nutshell... when the Roos changed the AFL gamestyle at the Swans, we never caught up to it because of our lazy soft culture of lazy class players who won't Go.

.. welcome to the danners melbourne.

"happy" is not the description I associate with MFC at present

Let me rephrase.

Do you think it is the right think to do right now, in sacking the coach, searching for another coach and starting all over again, with yet another rebuild?

We've only had 6 coaches (not counting brief care-takers in transition) in 30 years - Barassi, Northey, Balme, Daniher, Bailey, Neeld - and only 3 in the last 15 years.

R1 provided sufficient evidence for me that the job is beyond Neeld and I haven't seen anything, including the first half against WC and the last quarter against GWS, to change my mind. With Jackson not starting until 1 May I accept there won't be any sudden changes until he has had time to analyse the situation.

I dunno - I can understand what those who want Neeld gonna are saying; on the other hand I don't think you can get a guy in and give him a mandate to change the entire culture of the club/FD and then sack him 18 months later after a couple of uncompetitive losses. I think we'd be better served by honouring our contract with Neeld or at least waiting until the end of the year to determine whether we think he's the guy to go forward with or not. Look at the list he took over, how it had been developed, how he's changed it and invested in the future (Hogan) - he's made mistakes, sure, but you can't expect him to have fixed the club in a little over one season.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by Dr. Gonzo

I dunno - I can understand what those who want Neeld gonna are saying; on the other hand I don't think you can get a guy in and give him a mandate to change the entire culture of the club/FD and then sack him 18 months later after a couple of uncompetitive losses. I think we'd be better served by honouring our contract with Neeld or at least waiting until the end of the year to determine whether we think he's the guy to go forward with or not. Look at the list he took over, how it had been developed, how he's changed it and invested in the future (Hogan) - he's made mistakes, sure, but you can't expect him to have fixed the club in a little over one season.

I disagree with that sentence Dr

Can you change it please or have you completely forgotten about 14 games last year.

Other wise you make a good case.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by old dee

Daniher was the longest serving coach to never get a premership.

Apart from him no coach has lasted more than 5 years since the 1964 premership.

Since 1975 we have had 9 coach, Neeld is our 10th, his predecessor (Bailey) was coach for 2 years

Over the same period:

Collingwood has had 7, Buckley is their 8th, his predecessor (Malthouse) was coach for 11 years

Geelong has had 7, Scott is their 8th, his predecessor (Thompson) was coach for 10 years

North Melbourne has had 7, Scott is their 8th, his predecessor (Laidley) was coach for 6 years

The only other club to have more coaches than us is St. Kilda with 12

I think its important to keep Neeld. High turnover in any industry isnt good for a number of factors. Particulary culture.

Football is a strategy oriented game - its important to give the right people the right time to let their strategy come to fruition or fail - axe crazy this early isnt a logical timeframe.

I'd take the Daniher period in a heartbeat. A great communicator. If you want to list faults, everybody's got one but bloody hell, we were ultra competitive for a long period of time and more often than not it was great to go to the footy.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by Return to Glory

I'd take the Daniher period in a heartbeat. A great communicator. If you want to list faults, everybody's got one but bloody hell, we were ultra competitive for a long period of time and more often than not it was great to go to the footy. Footy revisionists give me the shits.

+1 RtG

Return to Glory, on 24 Apr 2013 - 18:46, said:

I'd take the Daniher period in a heartbeat. A great communicator. If you want to list faults, everybody's got one but bloody hell, we were ultra competitive for a long period of time and more often than not it was great to go to the footy.

+1 RTG, but with an emphasis that it was in a different era (just in case anyone tries a direct comparison!).

Let me rephrase.

Do you think it is the right think to do right now, in sacking the coach, searching for another coach and starting all over again, with yet another rebuild?

Neeld deserves until the end of the season to show his craft, we gave him 3yrs, the least the MFC can do is give him 2 seasons, if we sack him now they will struggle to find a decent candidate.