Lets look at what we have and forget those who left.

Whose idea was it to recruit Pederson, Byrnes and Rodan they contributed NOTHING? Whose idea was it to make Jack Trengove captain, the kid is struggling big time? Tommy Mac is being isolated down back by opposition clubs and has a horrible 2 weeks and Bleese and Mckenzie may as well not have been there. The footy dept has a lot to answer for and for Neeld to say he thought a 5 goal loss was OK makes me sick. They had nearly 40 shots at goal God help us if they had kicked straight

One of the signs I look for in terms of where Melb is at, is the performance of our Casey team. Are they winning? are our boys getting the right workout at Casey? are the MFC Casey players putting real pressure on the first 22?

So it's good to see us undefeated, with a good contingent of MFC player pushing for spots. Liked that the Casey Coach is aligned with Neeld and is implementing at Casey the game plan Neeld wants the boys to play when they come up to the firsts. Indicates that there is a clear plan on how to build depth and develop our younger players.

Just another one of the foundations that Neeld has put in place, that will bear fruit in time.

I think this^^^^^^show your complete lack of understanding about where this footy club is and where its going.......We hired Neeld to construct a football side that can play the modern game......We hired a football dept to completely rebuild and change a terrible culture which had presided for the past 6 years.

These things do not happen overnight......I appreciate that supporters want instant success but I think we are at last heading in the right direction......To sack Neeld now would be irresponsible and dangerous

While I tend to agree with you, we must remember that Melbourne failed to get near a Premiership despite the fact that the Sandringham Zebras went back to back to back. We did however make the finals during those years, which would be nice to experience again.

Good to see at least some seeing some positives, where so many just want to can coaches and players alike. I think that the current Casey arrangement is largely designed to help develop MFC: we don't have the likes of Sauntner stifling development of our young forwards (nor Fev any more).

No you're not... you're an impatient "supporter" who is lacking in any kind of foresight and who seemingly has no qualms about destroying what little confidence remains following years of a lack of direction at the club. The players that were delisted, in most cases had been given ample time to show something (Cook, Morton, Bennell, Martin etc) and those that walked, either walked because they did not like the fact that they were suddenly required to make an effort (Beamer) or because they were in the twilight of their career and were hoping to taste some sort of success sooner rather than later (Rivers).

Such a great decision to get rid of Beamer wasn't it? Bloody Neeld is clueless. Moloney has friggin destroyed us today. Clearly the difference between the two sides out there.

Letting Moloney go was a massive, massive, massive, coaching error!

Moloney showed, once again, that he loves playing against inferior midfields - how will he go / has he gone vs Hawks, Cats?

Do you seriously believe our current culture is an improvement on the past? Do you seriously believe the Neeld culture is the way ahead?

Our old culture accepted the attitudes of 'Team 2nd' players like Moloney. This one doesn't.

Is that one or two eyes shut 'mono'?

And we certainly have rewarded Trengove......

Trengove displays the personal characteristics that Neeld feels the club should aspire to. So he is held up as a leader. Hence, captaincy.

How could Moloney ever tell a team mate to do something when the team mate knew that Moloney wouldn't do it himself? That's the sort of culture that you are advocating.

Our old culture accepted the attitudes of 'Team 2nd' players like Moloney. This one doesn't.

So our new culture just accepts losing and blaming it on the players - that's a step ahead!

Trengove displays the personal characteristics that Neeld feels the club should aspire to. So he is held up as a leader. Hence, captaincy.

How could Moloney ever tell a team mate to do something when the team mate knew that Moloney wouldn't do it himself? That's the sort of culture that you are advocating.

Trengove is a good player - it was poor coaching to burden such a young player with the (joint) captaincy.

Trengove is a good player - it was poor coaching to burden such a young player with the (joint) captaincy.

Why?

So our new culture just accepts losing and blaming it on the players - that's a step ahead!

The culture is about accepting responsibility for your own actions, be you player, coach, waterboy. The players are accountable, just as the coach is.

You are unable to do anything except simplistic, mindless blaming of the coach simply because the game is too confusing for you. You are incapable of seeing the many different things that go together to make the whole, so you look for the 'magic bullet' approach of simply lumping the blame at the feet of the coach. You are willing to absolve the players of any blame, which is strange.

That's why you cannot deal in specifics, but rather the motherhood statements and then falling back on the very broad measure of the win-loss column.

So our new culture just accepts losing and blaming it on the players - that's a step ahead!

Who accepts losing?

It was a great idea by Neeld to let Zorko and Moloney run around virtually unchecked today.

It really worked for him, well coached Mark.

It was a great idea by Neeld to let Zorko and Moloney run around virtually unchecked today.

Really?

Watch the replay again and tell me where McKenzie was.

Really?

Watch the replay again and tell me where McKenzie was.

Moloney had the ball 36 times and McKenzie laid 2 tackles..

Moloney had the ball 36 times and McKenzie laid 2 tackles..

Congratulations on finding the stats sheet.

But the question I asked was "Where was McKenzie?"

Congratulations on finding the stats sheet.

But the question I asked was "Where was McKenzie?"

Where was he? Obviously no where near Moloney.

He sure as hell wasn't near Zorko, no-one was, he tore us a new one.

I don't know what your point is, but Moloney and Zorko rolled around basically unchecked and McKenzie was insipid, I barely sighted him.

Where was he? Obviously no where near Moloney.

He sure as hell wasn't near Zorko, no-one was, he tore us a new one.

I don't know what your point is, but Moloney and Zorko rolled around basically unchecked and McKenzie was insipid, I barely sighted him.

You said

It was a great idea by Neeld to let Zorko and Moloney run around virtually unchecked today.

I was simply pointing out (mainly to other posters) that you weren't qualified to make that comment because you had no idea what Neeld did. The fact that you couldn't even tell me who the opponent of our main run with player was shows me (and other posters) that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Don't worry, you no longer need to answer the question since you've already shown my point.

Edited April 28, 201312 yr by Axis of Bob

McKenzie was on Zorko and followed him down to the forward line in the 3rd quarter which shat me no end.

Well, I don't know why I'm going to bother amongst the maelstrom of impatient knobjockeys whose response to any crisis is to sack anyone whose name they can think of, but I'm just going to mention that I thought Matt Jones was excellent today, that Terlich will be a great player once he calms down a little and cleans up his decision making, and that all of the blokes on here criticising whoever they can think of will be making post in two years time about how "they always knew" that Bail and Evans were going to be gun players and that they "always had faith".

Anyway... carry on.

I still question why Neeld felt the need to scrap everything that came before him and start his planning from scratch, taking us into a sub re-building phase and stripping us of any attacking flare that had given us the ability to compete on occasions with the big boys. Without doubt, we were a better, more competitive team under Bailey, which just goes to show how bad things have become. Rather than build on the positive elements that clearly existed within the group, we've gone backwards at a rate of knots. The complete opposite of what Ken Hinkley has been able to manufacture at Port, and what Sanderson did with the Crows last year. I'm a glass half full man, but I can't see him being able to turn things around.

Why?

The culture is about accepting responsibility for your own actions, be you player, coach, waterboy. The players are accountable, just as the coach is.

You are unable to do anything except simplistic, mindless blaming of the coach simply because the game is too confusing for you. You are incapable of seeing the many different things that go together to make the whole, so you look for the 'magic bullet' approach of simply lumping the blame at the feet of the coach. You are willing to absolve the players of any blame, which is strange.

That's why you cannot deal in specifics, but rather the motherhood statements and then falling back on the very broad measure of the win-loss column.

If I only blame the coach as you say, then why do you find it 'strange' that I don't blame the players - you appear confused Bob.

Ignoring that, I'm glad you have just told me all about myself - considering you don't know me, that's some achievement - oh, and of course, you are wrong!

Who accepts losing?

Like your attitude Bing - my comment was sarcastic of course!

You said

I was simply pointing out (mainly to other posters) that you weren't qualified to make that comment because you had no idea what Neeld did. The fact that you couldn't even tell me who the opponent of our main run with player was shows me (and other posters) that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Don't worry, you no longer need to answer the question since you've already shown my point.

Zorko and Moloney rolled around today virtually unchecked.

If you think otherwise, good on you.

Moloney had 36.

Zorko had 29, kicked 3 and had 7 scoring shots.

McKenzie laid a massive 2 tackles.

I still question why Neeld felt the need to scrap everything that came before him and start his planning from scratch, taking us into a sub re-building phase and stripping us of any attacking flare that had given us the ability to compete on occasions with the big boys. Without doubt, we were a better, more competitive team under Bailey, which just goes to show how bad things have become. Rather than build on the positive elements that clearly existed within the group, we've gone backwards at a rate of knots. The complete opposite of what Ken Hinkley has been able to manufacture at Port, and what Sanderson did with the Crows last year. I'm a glass half full man, but I can't see him being able to turn things around.

+1 SN

I hope the powers that be are holding a meeting right now about Neeld's future with MFC - the longer this goes on, the greater the long-term damage to MFC.

Zorko and Moloney rolled around today virtually unchecked.

""We sent a few players to Brent but couldn’t stop him"

If I only blame the coach as you say, then why do you find it 'strange' that I don't blame the players - you appear confused Bob.

Ignoring that, I'm glad you have just told me all about myself - considering you don't know me, that's some achievement - oh, and of course, you are wrong!

Your posts tell me all I needed to know on your posting style and football knowledge.

I also note that you, again, avoided the specifics of the argument. My educated guess is because you do not have enough inner faith in your argument to test the specifics of it, or because you don't have faith in your ability to argue it with me.

As for why I find your stance strange, it's because usually when someone doesn't understand the complexities of a subject they usually just react to whatever manifests in front of them unthinkingly. You, however, are willing to treat one part of that with complete, unabashed faith while blaming the other part entirely. It's almost religious. So what does this say? Hmmmm, it's almost like there is something else affecting it behind the scenes that you are unwilling to talk about. Maybe it's player hero worship. Maybe you have a relationship with someone who you trust in the football scene who once told you something. My guess is that you are just arguing based on someone else's opinion that you trust, but you don't fully understand that opinion nor why you should have it. I find it strange because someone who knows as little as you do about the game is arguing very strongly on a specific point (and only that point), while being completely oblivious to absolutely everything else.