On 30/04/2013 at 08:00, Ben-Hur said:

You clearly don't understand that he doesn't have the playing group's support. If you don't have that you have nothing.

Schwarz may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he understands footy clubs and players; and when he acknowledges that the coach doesn't have the players it's a massive issue. In fact, in his second year it's untenable. When you combine all the dumb things he's done it adds up to a club on its knees.

Once you understand the significance of that you'll better appreciate those who want change at year's end, or sooner.

Maybe it's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.......Can you inform me as to which players Neeld has lost and provide evidence of that......And not just the way we are playing......As regards Ox....he has had one meeting with the president......The only contact he has had with the club........Did Clarkson lose his players when they were a crap side and had the line in the sand moment.....Did Thompson lose his players when he was almost sacked because they were a crap side?????....Just asking......No need for insults in reply....

EDIT....Spelling

  On 30/04/2013 at 07:12, Unleash Hell said:

So if we can't get any worse - why bother sacking the coach?

I am against sacking him at this stage but having said that if it continues 1 reason would be and I am not saying we have a potential Paul Roos in our coaching staff but consider when Eade was sacked from Sydney and Roos stepped in to coach till the end of the season, when Terry Wallace was to become coach.

Roos formed a bond with the players and results, the leadership group and other factors meant Roos was installed as full time head coach for 2003

  On 30/04/2013 at 07:12, Unleash Hell said:

So if we can't get any worse - why bother sacking the coach?

We don't want to stay bad and continue to ingrain bad attitudes and practices in the players approach.

  On 30/04/2013 at 07:36, Ben-Hur said:

I was in favour of shedding Moloney, but it was mainly due to how he played under Neeld. Yes, he's a flat track bully, yes he's no star, but he was a strong bodied clearance player that wasn't managed properly. He may have had one trick, but it was better than most of our mids who have no tricks. Neeld shoved Moloney out the door. It started when he convinced Moloney that due to the umpire balling up at stoppages in 4 seconds and not the 11 it previously took that he couldn't set up in time. Neeld enunciated this to supporters at a meet and greet day at AAMI. And clearly he ruined his 2012 with such negativity. Put simply, it's the coaches job to get the best out of each player. It's the coaches job to not only notice a player's weakness, but to learn how to best facilitate their strengths. Playing Moloney at Casey for 5 or 6 weeks is hardly what I call good management. And this was on the back of trying to turn him into a defensive half-forward. He was never going to play well in that role.

And for posters on here to insinuate that Moloney was a poor leader and even toxic around the club is amateurish self-serving guesswork to support a weak position. If you're outside the club how would you know ? I looked at the players after the match, such as Davey, Grimes and Jones pay him warm respect. He wouldn't have got into the leadership group in the first place if he was a terrible teammate. He took it upon himself to conduct preseason boxing clinics for the young players at Warrnambool for many years. But it's far too easy to pot him now, isn't it ? He wasn't perfect, but he'd be our second best mid and make life far easier for Jones ...

I said last week that Neeld has fractured the playing group and it's patently obvious he has. They don't play for him. They don't put in an effort as a collective for him. They don't run, chase, contest, or harass. They don't do the fundamentals. Players even constantly talk of "buying in". Yet I'm asked by luminaries on here, "why do you think that" ? How could you not ? After 27 games I've never seen worse buy in, or a more dispirited group. A poster on another site put it best when he said "They might play for Neeld intellectually (there's a scary thought) but they don't play for him emotionally.

Well said Ben. Moloney is another Neeld stuff up.

I have never seen a more soulless and spiritless group of footballers.

There is no doubt that the players don't play for the coach and few players have improved under Neeld. Many have gone backwards. A number of required players have been dispatched poorly from the Club.

Neeld needs to be cut immediately. And the process to move forward with a competent experienced coach recruited through a disciplined and sensible recruitment plan enacted likewise. And no Garry Lyon involved thanks.

  On 30/04/2013 at 07:50, demon3165 said:

if only people could take the emotion out of their thinking and try to understand the process they would come to the same conclusion as you.

Take the emotion out of thinking and you stop being a human. Know your emotions and know your thinking and know how they interact is the way the mature human opperates.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:12, robbiefrom13 said:

um. who's wasting whose? Both of us I suppose.

If you check you'll see that I didn't say another coach would necessarily be better, or worse - just inevitably different, and therefore presumably likely to be either better or worse.

I appreciate your thoguhts on what would be likely to happen; I can't answer your questions, not being a coach or a football administrator. I only really commented on the logical flaws in your post. You may be right in many of the points made here, but your earlier post was "argument by assertion" and therefore to be rebutted, even by an interested ignoramus like me.

Somebody says the trouble with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubt, the stupid people full of confidence; to argue by assertion is to look like you are one of the stupid. Which I admit, in light of your previous posts and this one, was probably pretty wrong and stupid of me. Thing is, I like Demonland, come here to learn, but boy do I get frustrated by some of the bar-style presentation of opinions.

I'll try to avoid wasting more of your time - though, why you'd be on Demonland if the views of others strikes you as a waste of your time, I don't know. Thought about running a blog? Sorry - don't answer - that IS a time-wasting observation...

No hard feelings mate - it has been a long day for myself and I tend to get defensive

Appreciate the feed back - apologies for the aggressive rebuttal, a lot of the conversation on here goes around and around in circles, it's hard to know when you're having a decent discussion or not

I am undecided on Neeld - i guess my position is, is there any point rushing in to the coaching decision with so long of the season left?? A new coach will bring a fresh approach and maybe some benefit - but will it really be beneficial long term?

Do we not trust the FD to develop the players or is just Neeld as a coach who has to go?

  On 30/04/2013 at 07:42, stuie said:

We should be improving, not getting worse though.

Scoring/Disposals Comparison

2012

Ranked last in disposals

Ave losing margin 50

Percentage 67.49

2013

Ranked last in disposals

Aver losing margin 87.25

Percentage 57.16%

Neeld's "hardest team to play against" 2013

Ranked last in contested possessions

Ranked second last in clearances

Ranked last in team vs opponent contested possessions

Ranked 14th in tackles per game

Stuie as I have said in other posts I am undecided on Neeld's fate at this stage but leaning very much to him having to move on

However throughout this thread and others you continually refer to stats, well Stats are [censored] put up an argument without referring to stats. Ben Hur like me was sold by Neelds talk last season and I still believe change was needed, but in hindsight a more gradual approach probably would have been better, than steaming in like a bull in a china shop.

BH'S post #1038 pretty much sums up the situation without stats, you can make them work either way. This midfield of ours would not have been as bad had Junior been afforded two years to provide leadership in 2011/12, Maloney shown some respect and the 2009 list management decision seen us lose Mclean and probably be no chance to recruit Luke Ball. That midfield whilst having little speed would not have been smashed at the clearances and would have provided much needed leadership to our young mids.

The transition from young recruit to 3rd/4th season player would have been better without having to carry the load.

So if you take offence to my post well to bad but offer more than stats, just a suggestion

  On 30/04/2013 at 06:21, rpfc said:

Can those that want immediate removal of Neeld please tell me why we would be so set back by not giving him another, say, three months?

I am in two minds about this.

On the one hand, having a caretaker coach for more than 3/4 of a season is damaging.

On the other hand, with each passing week this club suffers more. Confidence gets lower amongst players and supporters, game plan is shot to sh*t, players are unhappy. We need change, and we need it quickly.

If I thought there was any chance in hell that Neeld could get the players to win a good handful of games this season, if I thought he was any good at galvanizing a team, I'd be happy to leave him be until the end of the season knowing that W-L ratios are not so important when we are clearly a developing team. But I'm scared, I'm scared of just how much worse things can get on the field, and therefore off the field.

The way we let Bailey go was a disgrace, especially given that up to that point we had won more games in the one season than under Neeld combined. So now we've gone the other way and are trying not to be too reactive, which makes sense. Whether this hurts us more in the long term though, is a real possibility.

I'll leave you with just a few key elements which have suffered badly under Neeld already: membership, player development and player confidence (and possibly morale, but we can't know that for sure). These things take time to recover, and the time to start the recovery should be sooner rather than later.

Having said all that, it's an impossible position for the club to be in because the cons add up as much as the pros do for either scenario.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:18, Pennant St Dee said:

I am against sacking him at this stage but having said that if it continues 1 reason would be and I am not saying we have a potential Paul Roos in our coaching staff but consider when Eade was sacked from Sydney and Roos stepped in to coach till the end of the season, when Terry Wallace was to become coach.

Roos formed a bond with the players and results, the leadership group and other factors meant Roos was installed as full time head coach for 2003

That is not bad logic Pennant

I can only hope the club makes an informed decision before making any changes

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:31, Pennant St Dee said:

throughout this thread and others you continually refer to stats, well Stats are [censored] put up an argument without referring to stats.

Why would I? The stats I put up speak for themselves. Why would I argue just by stating opinion and hearsay when I have stats to show the lack of improvement?

There's enough opinion here, I was just trying to add some actual facts.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:24, Rhino Richards said:

Well said Ben. Moloney is another Neeld stuff up.

I have never seen a more soulless and spiritless group of footballers.

There is no doubt that the players don't play for the coach and few players have improved under Neeld. Many have gone backwards. A number of required players have been dispatched poorly from the Club.

Neeld needs to be cut immediately. And the process to move forward with a competent experienced coach recruited through a disciplined and sensible recruitment plan enacted likewise. And no Garry Lyon involved thanks.

This question if for Ben-Hur and Rhino

So 'if' Neeld has lost the players - and I am assuming that statement is correct

Then do we have to replace the heads of the FD as well? - surely the current FD including Mission and Craig who implement the development would also have lost the faith of the board if Neeld is sacked?

Or is it all Neelds fault?

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:20, Harrisonrules said:

We don't want to stay bad and continue to ingrain bad attitudes and practices in the players approach.

I don't buy this line

If Neeld goes - the same FD will be there - the same developemtn more or less is going to happen

Meh whats the point....

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:18, Pennant St Dee said:

I am against sacking him at this stage but having said that if it continues 1 reason would be and I am not saying we have a potential Paul Roos in our coaching staff but consider when Eade was sacked from Sydney and Roos stepped in to coach till the end of the season, when Terry Wallace was to become coach.

Roos formed a bond with the players and results, the leadership group and other factors meant Roos was installed as full time head coach for 2003

For every interim coach who goes onto success, there's the majority of them who don't. Sure, it worked with Roos, but look at, for example, Primus at Port. Also, Eade had been there, what 7 or 8 years, and they were going backwards from being finalists, which isn't exactly the case at Melbourne. But then, who do we have in the wings, the closest to your Roos example would be Leigh Brown.

The only advantage of getting in an interim coach, is that it enables you to start looking for a permanent coach a little earlier. But you even lose that advantage if the coaches that are being considered are already working and contracted till the end of the season (or finals).

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:36, Unleash Hell said:

This question if for Ben-Hur and Rhino

So 'if' Neeld has lost the players - and I am assuming that statement is correct

Then do we have to replace the heads of the FD as well? - surely the current FD including Mission and Craig who implement the development would also have lost the faith of the board if Neeld is sacked?

Or is it all Neelds fault?

Should we drop all 22 players if 1 plays badly in a loss?

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:14, Bossdog said:

Maybe it's time the tail stopped wagging the dog......

I HATE when supporters say "well who cares about the players, they need a good kick up the arse".

That's exactly like if your boss said "I don't give a crap if you're unhappy at work and you hate me, that's what you get for working for a terribly under performing company"

When you work for someone you don't like, let alone don't respect, especially when your job demands so much of you physically and mentally, it's going to show.

Just look at how Essendon play for Hird and tell me that 'buy in' is not half the battle. Essendon's list is no better than a lot of other clubs', but they have that intangible difference of having a coach they would die for. I reckon half our players would struggle to stay awake during Neeld's addresses, let alone go out and bleed for him.

We are so fractured internally, that it has killed all natural talent.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:36, Unleash Hell said:

So 'if' Neeld has lost the players - ...

That's THE big if, or at least A big if.

The best summary of our current position, and from inside the playing group, was the Chris Dawes' article. You would be really stretching it to see in that that Neeld had lost the playing group.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:47, bing181 said:

That's THE big if, or at least A big if.

The best summary of our current position, and from inside the playing group, was the Chris Dawes' article. You would be really stretching it to see in that that Neeld had lost the playing group.

The Ox (who recently met with the club) might have something to say about that...

(and his opinion doesn't effect his employment at MFC)

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:39, Jaded said:

I HATE when supporters say "well who cares about the players, they need a good kick up the arse".

That's exactly like if your boss said "I don't give a crap if you're unhappy at work and you hate me, that's what you get for working for a terribly under performing company"

When you work for someone you don't like, let alone don't respect, especially when your job demands so much of you physically and mentally, it's going to show.

Just look at how Essendon play for Hird and tell me that 'buy in' is not half the battle. Essendon's list is no better than a lot of other clubs', but they have that intangible difference of having a coach they would die for. I reckon half our players would struggle to stay awake during Neeld's addresses, let alone go out and bleed for him.

We are so fractured internally, that it has killed all natural talent.

And performance enhancing drugs.

Those guys are tanks! No injuries, they feel no pain, brush opponents off like flies.

They're so chemically fvcked, they don't know if they're coming or going.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:48, stuie said:

The Ox (who recently met with the club) might have something to say about that...

(and his opinion doesn't effect his employment at MFC)

"I can only see what I can see on the field'

He doesn't know anything, he hasn't heard anything, he hasn't spoken to any players. He's just guessing, based on what's going on on the field. Same as everyone around here.

Happy to stick with Dawes' version for the moment.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:48, stuie said:

The Ox (who recently met with the club) might have something to say about that...

(and his opinion doesn't effect his employment at MFC)

Ox said it looks like from the outstde Neeld has lost the players - lets get our facts right

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:27, Harrisonrules said:

Take the emotion out of thinking and you stop being a human. Know your emotions and know your thinking and know how they interact is the way the mature human opperates.

and you think that happens here..........lol but I don't agree entirely with your first part, but we are all made different I suppose.

I have just had the chance to catch up with the posts - it took some time!

I have always believed in the KISS principle.

Neeld has to go now - yes it's a risk and one I would not normally advocate, but the circumstances demand MFC takes this risk.

Craig has to go with Neeld - not the sort of coaching manner we need in a young club and carrying too much baggage from his last few years coaching.

Let the interim coach decide who he wants to remain with him, but don't put another ex-coach in place looking over his shoulder.

Maybe the interim coach will be a candidate for the top job next year - all I ask at this time is that the interim coach does the best he can with what we have got now and that he demands a simple playing style which will allow the players to show what they have got one on one, and maybe more.

As for the hierarchy, let the football department do its job under the interim coach.

Then, let's all have another look in 3 months time.

Gee sack the coach, sack the football department, sack the board, drop Watts, trade Frawley, sack Trengrove and Grimes. If the club took any notice of half the crap people post we would be really in the sh$$t. The one thing the club needs to do is consolidate it's position and continue to review all areas. Establish where the problems are and fix what is not working. If MFC, ha the upheaval that so many on this site wants, then be prepared for deeper problems. Players like Toumpas, Hogan, Watts & Frawley will want out as early as they can, and who could blame them? The one thing the football department can do this year is to play the kids. Throw them in. Fitzy, Tynan, Taggert, Barry, Kent & co. what can we lose? At the very least, they will know if the guys can cut it. We have too many list cloggers that won't get better. FFS Spencer has played less than a dozen games in four years and we let him rot at Casey. At the end of this year, Dunne, Davis, Fitzy, Tynan, Taggert, Magner and Couch will not have been given their chance. Surely, each of these will give us more than Rodan, Pederson, Gillies, Davey etc.

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:39, bing181 said:

For every interim coach who goes onto success, there's the majority of them who don't. Sure, it worked with Roos, but look at, for example, Primus at Port. Also, Eade had been there, what 7 or 8 years, and they were going backwards from being finalists, which isn't exactly the case at Melbourne. But then, who do we have in the wings, the closest to your Roos example would be Leigh Brown.

The only advantage of getting in an interim coach, is that it enables you to start looking for a permanent coach a little earlier. But you even lose that advantage if the coaches that are being considered are already working and contracted till the end of the season (or finals).

  On 30/04/2013 at 10:30, Dynamic Demon said:

  On 30/04/2013 at 08:39, bing181 said:

For every interim coach who goes onto success, there's the majority of them who don't. Sure, it worked with Roos, but look at, for example, Primus at Port. Also, Eade had been there, what 7 or 8 years, and they were going backwards from being finalists, which isn't exactly the case at Melbourne. But then, who do we have in the wings, the closest to your Roos example would be Leigh Brown.

The only advantage of getting in an interim coach, is that it enables you to start looking for a permanent coach a little earlier. But you even lose that advantage if the coaches that are being considered are already working and contracted till the end of the season (or finals).