Dr. Gonzo, on 24 Apr 2013 - 12:27, said:

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.

I said don't waste time referring to the Bailey era!

Other than that, do you have any idea what you are saying Dr?

All teams are running harder than ever and we have the rotation issue to deal with as well.

I don't see any evidence to suggest Neeld is trying to 'implement a modern game style' (but then, perhaps you could enlighten us all on what ever you think that may be)!

I said don't waste time referring to the Bailey era!

Other than that, do you have any idea what you are saying Dr?

All teams are running harder than ever and we have the rotation issue to deal with as well.

I don't see any evidence to suggest Neeld is trying to 'implement a modern game style' (but then, perhaps you could enlighten us all on what ever you think that may be)!

The post of yours I responded to was comparing the players fitness under Bailey to the players under fitness Neeld so there's no point saying don't bring up Bailey - you're the one that did so in the first place.

I already explained how he's trying to implement a modern game style - at its very basic it's having every player on the ground able to run hard in 5 minute bursts up and down the field, coming off for a minute or two, then going back out to do the same again. Yes every team is doing it but as our fitness base was so poor when Neeld inherited the side we are finding it difficult to maintain/keep up.

The rest of your post indicates either you have no idea or you're being purposefully obtuse (I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume it's the latter).

Now, you previously said "stats clearly showed the players were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld" - what stats were you referring to?

The post of yours I responded to was comparing the players fitness under Bailey to the players under fitness Neeld so there's no point saying don't bring up Bailey - you're the one that did so in the first place.

I already explained how he's trying to implement a modern game style - at its very basic it's having every player on the ground able to run hard in 5 minute bursts up and down the field, coming off for a minute or two, then going back out to do the same again. Yes every team is doing it but as our fitness base was so poor when Neeld inherited the side we are finding it difficult to maintain/keep up.

The rest of your post indicates either you have no idea or you're being purposefully obtuse (I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume it's the latter).

Now, you previously said "stats clearly showed the players were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld" - what stats were you referring to?

My original post you are referring to was that I was not inferring we should have kept Bailey.

The fitness issue was raised and dealt with by another poster - do your own homework.

Your comment on Neeld's game style is simplistic and only related to fitness - I expected more.

I'm happy to be positive - I believe any modern day coach should model their 'game style' on Geelong - keep it simple, but skills training is crucial.

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.

Please compare the available cattle each one had.

If we are going to compare at least compare apples with apples.

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.

I think in the end this is what it comes to RP. If the players truly believe in and have faith in the Neeld mantra, strategy and style then they'll show it more often and will fight games out to their last breath when behind and bury teams when they get on top of them and can.

If they don't they wont and Neeld (or pretty much anyone that coaches them) is toast given enough carp dished up from the playing group and enough time.

All Neeld (and the board/club) can do is set up the environment, facilities, culture and training program (which hopefully is TRULY elite or so close to it it doesn't matter) then the rest is up to the present player list and their efforts or lack thereof during every minute of every game. The coach can make some sort of difference there's no doubt, even on game day with match ups and pre match at the selection table. Even off the field with what he seeks from the trade table as well as how he (and others charged with doing so within the FD) develop each player individually.

My one worry is the level of turnovers and some of the poor disposal efficiency that is still present in many minutes/quarters with some improvement in the 2nd half of the GWS match albeit against a below par opponent. If Neeld & crew are running an elite program it's awefully hard to tell when watching some of the woeful disposal/skill levels in most of the matches this year. I guess the only option (if it persists and they aren't improving over a reasonable time) is to keep rolling through the list and bring in further recruits who can to replace those who aren't able to cut the mustard.

Ultimately though, if most aspects of the club's FD are very highly comptetitive with the top liners of the league (and assuming we recruit/develop quite well comparatively too), then surely success or otherwise will come down to the players and their own attitude/desire/want to better themselves as individuals and as a team.

Where there's a will there's a way. All you have to do is watch the Cats in pretty much any game and it's on show. They never rest even when playing a high level of football and are always willing to do the 1 percenters as well as run both ways and close down space on their opponent to pressure him into a turnover or steal the ball themselves. They then have complete faith in each other, put 2nd and 3rd efforts in running forward/lateral once they win possession or think they're about to, demanding the next possession (even if they've just given it off). Their game style is fairly simple but what isn't simple is their massive desire and their will which they impose on each and every contest to try and outplay and compete/beat their opponent one on one.

I realise our list is a million miles away from the Cats at this point, but if we show the same intent/desire and effort every minute of every game as the Cats do and as we did in much of the last quarter on Sunday, then i think Neeld (and any coach for that matter) is more than likely going to stay the journey.

Where there's a will there's a way. All you have to do is watch the Cats in pretty much any game and it's on show. They never rest even when playing a high level of football and are always willing to do the 1 percenters as well as run both ways and close down space on their opponent to pressure him into a turnover or steal the ball themselves. They then have complete faith in each other, put 2nd and 3rd efforts in running forward/lateral once they win possession or think they're about to, demanding the next possession (even if they've just given it off). Their game style is fairly simple but what isn't simple is their massive desire and their will which they impose on each and every contest to try and outplay and compete/beat their opponent one on one.

I have selectively quoted you Rusty, because I think this passage says a lot. I would add one more feature - skills, skills, skills...

You have said it very well.

Please compare the available cattle each one had.

If we are going to compare at least compare apples with apples.

T-34, I take your point but I was commenting on the inference that Daniher was not a successful/ good coach. What I can clearly say is that there were teams during that period with considerable and greater talent that did not have the finals appearances and relative success that we had.

Please compare the available cattle each one had.

If we are going to compare at least compare apples with apples.

Can we please not refer to players as 'cattle' - I'm not being precious here - I do believe it is a demeaning term.

Having said that, I believe our playing group when Neeld took over was loaded with potential - to a large extent it still is, but Neeld has lost a few players that would have been of benefit with good coaching.

I'm also not suggesting sacking Neeld at this stage but, all things considered, The Reverend would have this team better organized and motivated than what we have seen over the last year and a bit. There can be no doubt about that surely.

My original post you are referring to was that I was not inferring we should have kept Bailey.The fitness issue was raised and dealt with by another poster - do your own homework.

You compared the fitness levels under Bailey to those under Neeld. You stated that "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey an went backwards under Neeld". I have no desire to go sifting through pages of posts to look for something that may not exist. You made the assertion, you back it up or I'll just assume you're being deceitful. The only post I read in this thread which indicated this may be the case used a simplistic method of comparing our average last quarter scores which is ridiculous considering so many other factors would be impacting this. If you have data relating to training time trials or game day GPS data you may have some evidence but short of this I fail to see what specific "stats" you could be referring to.

Your comment on Neeld's game style is simplistic and only related to fitness - I expected more.I'm happy to be positive - I believe any modern day coach should model their 'game style' on Geelong - keep it simple, but skills training is crucial.

The conversation was all about fitness - it was simplistic because that's all it required. I was t talking about game plans but rather tactics such as the forward press, spreading from contests, defensive zones, getting to stoppages and outnumbering opponents around the ball etc. eivery team tries to do this but due to our poor fitness base when Neeld took over we are behind the 8 ball and will be until Misson has completed his program to get us up to speed.

The lack of fitness of our players is self-evident particularly in Baileys last two years when the players could not or would not run hard to create options for their teammates, spread from contests, could not go with their opponents running back to defend or chasing etc

All I want you to provide in response to this is the "stats" you referred to in your original post which stated "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld."

I have selectively quoted you Rusty, because I think this passage says a lot. I would add one more feature - skills, skills, skills...

You have said it very well.

Cheers HN.

Yep, they sure have it in spades mate. And they're so damn good at executing, in some cases both sides of the body too!

In addition they make sure they've usually got at least 2 or 3 fast/or evasive outside runners (i say outside but they're also willing to take the game on through the guts at times) to receive and move the ball/break lines (in order to create mayhem/uncertainty/and defend by all out attacking play). Unfortunately they appear to have uncovered yet another one of these in young Motlop. Selwood was pretty amazing on the weekend but Motlop's ability to run/burn off an opponent through a change of pace and lateral movement, then execute lace out passes & fairly accurate kicks for goal after all that work is something to behold atm. Add a fit Varcoe back into the mix and look out. As if they aren't a handfull already lol. Stokes is pretty good at evasion up forward as well.

Hopefully Byrnes is passing a whole lot of this good stuff on to the younger boys, well actually most of the boys lol! Really enjoying his work and hoping he can stay fit.

Oh, one other thing, i think the skill level with some players will improve somewhat now that they appear to have found some belief on the field. I think many of them would have been playing in fear or for their career which can do weird things to people. With belief will come confidence and more attackiing flair (i hope!). Although i realise it will take more than one solid quarter against GWS to grow the belief/confidence factor. Going to be interesting to see if this is the case this weekend.

You compared the fitness levels under Bailey to those under Neeld. You stated that "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey an went backwards under Neeld". I have no desire to go sifting through pages of posts to look for something that may not exist. You made the assertion, you back it up or I'll just assume you're being deceitful. The only post I read in this thread which indicated this may be the case used a simplistic method of comparing our average last quarter scores which is ridiculous considering so many other factors would be impacting this. If you have data relating to training time trials or game day GPS data you may have some evidence but short of this I fail to see what specific "stats" you could be referring to.

The conversation was all about fitness - it was simplistic because that's all it required. I was t talking about game plans but rather tactics such as the forward press, spreading from contests, defensive zones, getting to stoppages and outnumbering opponents around the ball etc. eivery team tries to do this but due to our poor fitness base when Neeld took over we are behind the 8 ball and will be until Misson has completed his program to get us up to speed.

The lack of fitness of our players is self-evident particularly in Baileys last two years when the players could not or would not run hard to create options for their teammates, spread from contests, could not go with their opponents running back to defend or chasing etc

All I want you to provide in response to this is the "stats" you referred to in your original post which stated "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld."

I'm glad you finally did your homework, but I'm sorry you chose to dismiss it so lightly - that's an all too common MFC fault.

Why not consider the comments from some other posters who can see the issue - there is no easy solution, but lessons can be learned by observation.

Cheers HN.

Yep, they sure have it in spades mate. And they're so damn good at executing, in some cases both sides of the body too!

In addition they make sure they've usually got at least 2 or 3 fast/or evasive outside runners (i say outside but they're also willing to take the game on through the guts at times) to receive and move the ball/break lines (in order to create mayhem/uncertainty/and defend by all out attacking play). Unfortunately they appear to have uncovered yet another one of these in young Motlop. Selwood was pretty amazing on the weekend but Motlop's ability to run/burn off an opponent through a change of pace and lateral movement, then execute lace out passes & fairly accurate kicks for goal after all that work is something to behold atm. Add a fit Varcoe back into the mix and look out. As if they aren't a handfull already lol. Stokes is pretty good at evasion up forward as well.

Hopefully Byrnes is passing a whole lot of this good stuff on to the younger boys, well actually most of the boys lol! Really enjoying his work and hoping he can stay fit.

Oh, one other thing, i think the skill level with some players will improve somewhat now that they appear to have found some belief on the field. I think many of them would have been playing in fear or for their career which can do weird things to people. With belief will come confidence and more attackiing flair (i hope!). Although i realise it will take more than one solid quarter against GWS to grow the belief/confidence factor. Going to be interesting to see if this is the case this weekend.

Cheers RN.

I would only add one comment to your post - training needs to include skills over and over and over - I'm sure Byrnes would agree based on his experience.

I'm glad you finally did your homework, but I'm sorry you chose to dismiss it so lightly - that's an all too common MFC fault.Why not consider the comments from some other posters who can see the issue - there is no easy solution, but lessons can be learned by observation.

So that's the sum of your "proof" that we were fitter under Bailey than under Neeld? That we averaged higher last quarter scores? Its laughable, of course I dismiss it unless you're willing to consider other factors then it is irrelevant. I already outlined what some of those other factors are for you but you appear incapable of applying reason to this subject as it may contradict some of your pre-conceived beliefs.

I don't necessarily believe Neeld is the right man for the job (though I would argue for giving him more time) but if he goes down it should at least be on his own merits and not due to false accusations backed by no evidence.

Fitness is always a hard one to quantify from the outside. In reality it is about how fit you are compared to the rest of the comp. I think the main complicating issue here comes down to the use of supplements. We just don't know if any fall off in our fitness levels in comparison to the rest of the comp was due to us not being as willing as other teams to go right to the boundaries of staying within the rules. I just think supplement use may have exploded a few years back and we didn't go with it until fairly recently. Was that a good or bad thing? I just hate the idea that success could come down to pharmacy labs, just because fitness is such a vital part of our game.

...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.

What a strange little statement. What more would you have them do? Be ten goals up at halftime against WC or kick 15 goals in the last against GWS?

And to those questioning the validity of the whole 'fitness' thing, surely hearing it from the players' mouths might lend some weight to the issue? Unless they're just liars...

From the AFL web site - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-25/neeld-better-than-ever

Seems to be some unity from the playing group.despite the speculation.

Look I agree with the Neeld doubters that Neeld has to keep the team competitive - losing every week by 100 pts is not acceptable..... But lets not make decisions on emotion,

If by this time nex year no progress has been made I will be on the sack Neeld bandwagon - but until then lets give the boys some support

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.

Great to go every second year!

You are spot on - he kept us competitive, and not only got us into a premership, but also gave us september footy!

From the AFL web site - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-25/neeld-better-than-ever

Seems to be some unity from the playing group.despite the speculation.

Look I agree with the Neeld doubters that Neeld has to keep the team competitive - losing every week by 100 pts is not acceptable..... But lets not make decisions on emotion,

If by this time nex year no progress has been made I will be on the sack Neeld bandwagon - but until then lets give the boys some support

Hi Mark and welcome to Demonland. Good luck against the Lions this weekend mate!

Last year we were terrible but I was willing to give the FD the benefit of the doubt that it was "the recession we had to have", but I was looking forward to incremental improvement this year and so was Mark Neeld with his suggestion at the Commencement Dinner that we could anticipate improvement. Come Round 1 and we were worse than last year - worse than terrible - Neeld didn't see it coming and has no idea why. He persisted with his plan in R2 and we went even worse - worse than worse than terrible. Since then v West Coast and GWS he has abandoned his game plan and gone man-on-man and asked the player to play with more freedom - yes we weren't as shocking against them for at least part of both games but both of them are struggling in their own way. He said his primary aim was to nurture the players and then promptly mishandled Jack Watts - a monotonously continuing theme of his coaching. We're paying for this bloke's education with big losses.

"He's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play".

Soooooo what was he doing before this?

Sounds like a complete abandonment of his gameplan. My natural instinct is to be positive but I'm worried.

I wish my boss would "take the shackles off". I'd loosen the tie, beers for breakfast, introduce some more colourful language to my lessons. My classes might even become fun!

Hi Mark and welcome to Demonland. Good luck against the Lions this weekend mate!

Thanks Rusty I will try my best......

Haha silly me using facts to argue an argument

Come Round 1 and we were worse than last year - worse than terrible - Neeld didn't see it coming and has no idea why. He persisted with his plan in R2 and we went even worse - worse than worse than terrible. Since then v West Coast and GWS he has abandoned his game plan and gone man-on-man and asked the player to play with more freedom - yes we weren't as shocking against them for at least part of both games but both of them are struggling in their own way. He said his primary aim was to nurture the players and then promptly mishandled Jack Watts - a monotonously continuing theme of his coaching. We're paying for this bloke's education with big losses.

Sounds like a complete abandonment of his gameplan. My natural instinct is to be positive but I'm worried.

I wish my boss would "take the shackles off". I'd loosen the tie, beers for breakfast, introduce some more colourful language to my lessons. My classes might even become fun!

I am not defending getting flogged in the first 3 weeks becuase that is un-acceptable

What i've kept in both of your posts is the argument Player ability vs coaching..... Mark Neeld has changed his coaching style, you say Neeld has no idea - others say it's a sign of a clever coach.

Let's see what happens in the next few weeks to see if improvement continues or the players and coaches are not up to it

"He's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play".

This furphy is getting to be yet another Demonland reality that has no basis in fact. Not directed at you per se, but what the players, coaches and staff have repeatedly said, is that we've been training and aiming to play the same way over the whole pre-season and into the season. Nothing has changed.

Garland's comment above is in regards to Neeld (and the other FD staff) sheltering them from the external stresses, so that they could just concentrate on playing. It has nothing to do with a change in directives to the players or the game plan.

So that's the sum of your "proof" that we were fitter under Bailey than under Neeld? That we averaged higher last quarter scores? Its laughable, of course I dismiss it unless you're willing to consider other factors then it is irrelevant. I already outlined what some of those other factors are for you but you appear incapable of applying reason to this subject as it may contradict some of your pre-conceived beliefs.

I don't necessarily believe Neeld is the right man for the job (though I would argue for giving him more time) but if he goes down it should at least be on his own merits and not due to false accusations backed by no evidence.

So good Dr - let's summarise:

I think we both agree that fitness is important, but I suspect we disagree on how to obtain that fitness and probably on the type of fitness.

You claim Neeld is trying to introduce a modern game plan - I say it is too complicated and has only been used by one club (where Neeld came from) and even there it is being changed.

I offer the Geelong style as a much more simple, effective and proven plan, but it does require very good skills - shouldn't Neeld be emphasising skills anyway?

In the end it's all about scores - the team with the higher score on the day wins - isn't that what our game is all about and isn't that a reasonable measure of where the two teams on the day are at, in a relative sense, and including fitness, skills, coaching etc?

Also, I don't have preconceived views, my position is based on observation and the last 18 months or so haven't given me any confidence in MFC.

I think you can now see why I don't rate Neeld.