Stuie I have seen Morton playing for East Perth and it is obvious to me why he can't get a game in Meth Coast's injury ravaged early season side, The fact he went pick 4 even that he went Top 20 says that was a bad draft and once again we had lazy recruiters who went on u/18 carnival form. He has no drive, intensity or will to get to a contest. I'm sure those in Victoria can enlighten us on the progress of Gysberts!

Ok, I've explained it to others and I thought you may have read it.

It's not about how good the players are now, it's the fact the so many were picked up because it's a known fact in AFL circles that most MFC players don't reach their potential and are worth a shot in a different culture and coaching environment.

I worry about who else will leave this year with FA. There's no end in sight to this on field nightmare. Why would anyone want to stay?

Neeld has taken a club on its knees and buried it.

Yes he has.

I had a dream last night that on his 2nd day on the job tomorrow, Peter Jackson called Paul Roos and asked him about coaching the MFC.

Roos said hes up for the challenge, but not a word is to be said until the end of the season out of respect to the current coaches.

Heres hoping.

Is Neeld the type of person to step down as coach? If he truly is unable to get the players 'playing for him,' then surely he must respect this as an option?

I recall one of his first quotes, "I certainly won't die trying" or something very similar. Would this mean that he's too stubborn and would need to be forcibly removed?

As he showed last year, he will kick out anyone not playing for him rather than work on them.

I know stats can be used in a myriad of ways. But we do have 5 rounds of data to go by now which is not a robust number in a data analysis sense but it is base minimum, where one can at least begin to garner and discern general direction and look for trends. And things don't look good to say the least. We are bottom quartile in many aspects of the game although there are some positives in the high rankings but mostly to do with hit outs and rebounding out of our and their 50, contested marks is a positive too.

High Rankings

Ranked 1st in Contested Marks Per Game Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game Ranked 1st in least Opponent One Percenters Per Game Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent Contested Marks Per Game Diff. Ranked 2nd in Team to Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game Diff. Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent One Percenters Per Game Diff. Ranked 5th in Hitouts Per Game Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent Hitouts Per Game Diff.

Low Rankings

Ranked 18th in Kicks Per Game Ranked 16th in Handballs Per Game Ranked 18th in Disposals Per Game Ranked 14th in Marks Per Game Ranked 17th in Points Per Game Ranked 14th in Tackles Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Kicks Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Handballs Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Disposals Per Game Ranked 17th in least Opponent Marks Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Points Per Game Ranked 12th in least Opponent Tackles Per Game Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Kicks Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Handballs Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Disposals Per Game Diff. Ranked 17th in Team to Opponent Marks Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Points Per Game Diff. Ranked 12th in Team to Opponent Tackles Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Inside 50s Per Game Ranked 16th in Goal Assists Per Game Ranked 18th in Contested Possessions Per Game Ranked 17th in Uncontested Possessions Per Game Ranked 18th in Effective Disposals Per Game Ranked 16th in Clangers Per Game Ranked 14th in Marks Inside 50 Per Game Ranked 17th in Clearances Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Inside 50s Per Game Ranked 17th in least Opponent Goal Assists Per Game Ranked 15th in least Opponent Contested Possessions Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Uncontested Possessions Per Game Ranked 18th in least Opponent Effective Disposals Per Game Ranked 12th in least Opponent Clangers Per Game Ranked 14th in least Opponent Contested Marks Per Game Ranked 17th in least Opponent Marks Inside 50 Per Game Ranked 17th in least Opponent Clearances Per Game Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Inside 50s Per Game Diff. Ranked 17th in Team to Opponent Goal Assists Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Contested Possessions Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Uncontested Possessions Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Effective Disposals Per Game Diff. Ranked 15th in Team to Opponent Clangers Per Game Diff. Ranked 17th in Team to Opponent Marks Inside 50 Per Game Diff. Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Clearances Per Game Diff.

Stats: Courtesy of Footy Wire

Early days but we are also 10,000 down (on average per match) in attendance numbers versus the average in 2010 (that's approx 27.5%), 7,000 down on 2011 (approx 20%) and 2,000 down on last year's match average (approx 6%). Shouldn't read too much into the attendance numbers until we've reached the half way mark and played the QB round as most matches have so far been against interstate teams.

Our current membership is down approx 8% on 2010's final figure, 17% on 2011's and 13% on last year's. I realise membership wont close for a month or so yet so this may improve somewhat.

I will revisit all these numbers again after QB round and see where we're at.

As he showed last year, he will kick out anyone not playing for him rather than work on them.

Of the players he got rid of, which of them would you have liked to stay? Other than Moloney, and Rivers, who as i just said left because of restricted free agency, I think he did the right thing by getting rid of the others. Petterd had his chances, admittedly had injuries, but I think it was best for him to get a new opportunity, and for us to free up a list spot. Martin, good athlete, average footballer. Bennell and Morton, again, both had plenty of chances. What do you think Neeld could have done differently in working with them?

As he showed last year, he will kick out anyone not playing for him rather than work on them.

This is one of the things that is really bugging me... under Bailey everyone was complaining about how he was too nice and wanted to be friends with the players and that he wasn't hard enough on them, and then when Neeld arrived everyone was rapt in the fact that he was not going to tolerate any player that wasn't prepared to put in and work hard and when he cleaned out the list at the end of last year, everyone cheered... now people are saying Neeld is too hard on the players, too distant in his relationship with the players, too intolerant etc etc Essentially, the things that people now see as his failings are the very things people were praising him for.

Go figure!

Ok, I've explained it to others and I thought you may have read it.

It's not about how good the players are now, it's the fact the so many were picked up because it's a known fact in AFL circles that most MFC players don't reach their potential and are worth a shot in a different culture and coaching environment.

Rubbish.

For example, the only players who have been drafted between 2008 to 2012 that have taken by other clubs has been:

• Tom Scully (GWS)
• Jordan Gysberts (North Melbourne)
• Jamie Bennell (West Coast)

... so thats 3 out of 48

Other drafted players who werent picked up by us in 2008 to 2012, such as Moloney, Rivers and Miller we got them fully developed and they have reached their full potential.

so you don't know the reason why but you take it as gospel, do you believe everything you hear.........

Course it's not gospel; as I said, "there's not much to it". Still think it's a relevant perspective though, especially as they both said the same sort of thing.

"That was Moloney's first good game, they were 1 and 3, Rivers left because he wanted to try and play finals in his last year, Bennell is a rookie in home state, Petterd has been given a role, he is now being caught out in that role, the other two can't get a game... and most on here hated the latter 4 with a passion"

This is rubbish! Moloney's form has been excellent, Rivers would have stayed if not for the fact we are a basket case. Neeld was a factor. Pettard has been ok. Keeps his spot in a finals bound team, but had an average game last week, mind you on current form would be in Melbourne's best dozen. Morton has a long term injury, as has Bennell and have not been seen. I always though the right coach could make Morton. Just too many errors at critical moments.The one you have missed is Martin. You cant tell me that Martin is worse than Sellar or Pederson.

You have an interesting definition of excellent. Moloney has been the usual Moloney. A few clearances but a lot of pointing and not much standing up when they are losing. His greatest help in staying is that he wouldn't have torched us in Brisbane, otherwise I wouldn't worry. Morton is shot, he didn't pick up athletically in the fact he doesn't have elite running or pace that he was projected to bring. After that happened with his up and down skills even if he was tough he was hardly worth it.

I would've loved to keep Petterd but I get the feeling he was jettisoned to send a message to the boxing day rat pack even before boxing day happened.

I can't say Martin isn't better than Sellar or Pedo. I can't say Martin isn't more talented. But I'm still confident Martin was a perfect bloke to trade away. Sellar and Pedersen might never kick the goals he kicked but Martin wasn't ever going to make it as a ruck and could never do the one percenters in terms of contesting and bringing team mates into the game. He was a one man occassional highlight but very often screw up. He was dropped for Sellar at one stage last year because even with Sellar's shakiness he was a more hearty performer. Martin was high maintenance.

The one game we didn't get torched this year Pedersen kicked a couple. Lets see how he goes. And if they ever decide to give Sellar a proper shot as a defender I think he'll be good depth.

Of the players he got rid of, which of them would you have liked to stay? Other than Moloney, and Rivers, who as i just said left because of restricted free agency, I think he did the right thing by getting rid of the others. Petterd had his chances, admittedly had injuries, but I think it was best for him to get a new opportunity, and for us to free up a list spot. Martin, good athlete, average footballer. Bennell and Morton, again, both had plenty of chances. What do you think Neeld could have done differently in working with them?

Tricky question, we suck at clearances so I would have kept Moloney and Gysberts, but only if Neeld wasn't around cos clearly he has no idea how to play them to their strengths.

Definitely would have kept Martin and NOT signed Jamar for 3 years. Martin doesn't work as a ruck/forward, but as just a ruckman he was a better option with the new ruck rules than Jamar IMO. Over their careers Jamar has a better hitouts average but Martin leads in EVERY other category and sometimes manages to actually hit it to someone as opposed to Jamar.

Would have loved Riv to stay, but I can understand him wanting to play some finals.

Petterd, Morton, Bennell, I have no problems with seeing the back of.

IMO Neeld tried to change Moloney as a player when he's only really good at one thing, unfortunately for us that one thing is what we need this year, clearances. Gysberts didn't get anough of a chance I thought. Could have been given a 1 year contract and told it's make or break.

That's all just my opinion though.

This is one of the things that is really bugging me... under Bailey everyone was complaining about how he was too nice and wanted to be friends with the players and that he wasn't hard enough on them, and then when Neeld arrived everyone was rapt in the fact that he was not going to tolerate any player that wasn't prepared to put in and work hard and when he cleaned out the list at the end of last year, everyone cheered... now people are saying Neeld is too hard on the players, too distant in his relationship with the players, too intolerant etc etc Essentially, the things that people now see as his failings are the very things people were praising him for.

Go figure!

Work with them not against them.

Rubbish.

For example, the only players who have been drafted between 2008 to 2012 that have taken by other clubs has been:

• Tom Scully (GWS)
• Jordan Gysberts (North Melbourne)
• Jamie Bennell (West Coast)

... so thats 3 out of 48

Other drafted players who werent picked up by us in 2008 to 2012, such as Moloney, Rivers and Miller we got them fully developed and they have reached their full potential.

Why is it about just draft picks? I never said that. I said players. Don't try and change the argument to suit your needs.

Ok, I've explained it to others and I thought you may have read it.

It's not about how good the players are now, it's the fact the so many were picked up because it's a known fact in AFL circles that most MFC players don't reach their potential and are worth a shot in a different culture and coaching environment.

I disagree entirely the majority picked up by other clubs have played a few games but done very little which I believe will again be the case with the majority of those you listed. I am from the school of thought we pick the wrong players, I have said it many times give me mongrels and a couple of highly talented players who have the attitude to realise their potential

This is one of the things that is really bugging me... under Bailey everyone was complaining about how he was too nice and wanted to be friends with the players and that he wasn't hard enough on them, and then when Neeld arrived everyone was rapt in the fact that he was not going to tolerate any player that wasn't prepared to put in and work hard and when he cleaned out the list at the end of last year, everyone cheered... now people are saying Neeld is too hard on the players, too distant in his relationship with the players, too intolerant etc etc Essentially, the things that people now see as his failings are the very things people were praising him for.

Go figure!

Well not everyone sees things the same way hardtack, so you're being a trifle liberal with the 'Everyone'

In my case I wanted Mark to come in and toughen the list up and get us to play more accountable footy with a much better defensive mindset. So far he has failed at those expectations. In fact, we're playing much worse footy under Neeld than we did under Bailey. And Bailey was not a good coach.

It doesn't seem that the team plays for him nor do they seem to play in spite of him. On the surface of it, it looks like all he does is alienate them. By the way, a few of us raised our concerns about Mark after round 7 and 8 last season ... in this thread ....makes for some interesting reading in hindsight ...

... Everyone Stand Up And Applaud Mark Neeld

Many of the points brought up then are the same points being brought up now. Close enough to one year later.

Tricky question, we suck at clearances so I would have kept Moloney and Gysberts, but only if Neeld wasn't around cos clearly he has no idea how to play them to their strengths.

Definitely would have kept Martin and NOT signed Jamar for 3 years. Martin doesn't work as a ruck/forward, but as just a ruckman he was a better option with the new ruck rules than Jamar IMO. Over their careers Jamar has a better hitouts average but Martin leads in EVERY other category and sometimes manages to actually hit it to someone as opposed to Jamar.

Would have loved Riv to stay, but I can understand him wanting to play some finals.

Petterd, Morton, Bennell, I have no problems with seeing the back of.

IMO Neeld tried to change Moloney as a player when he's only really good at one thing, unfortunately for us that one thing is what we need this year, clearances. Gysberts didn't get anough of a chance I thought. Could have been given a 1 year contract and told it's make or break.

That's all just my opinion though.

In my opinion, Martin was never going to make it with us. He is not good enough to play first ruckmen, which i think put him behind Jamar, Gawn and even Spencer. Could possibly play as a backup ruckman/forward, but i just don't think he is dangerous enough as a forward, which is were he would have played 80% of the game. I think Neeld would have hopes of playing Clark in that role next year when Hogan and Dawes are both in the forward line.

I cannot see Gysberts getting a game at North, and am happy we got rid of him to be honest. Doesn't really have any weapons. Gets a bit of the ball, but isn't effective when he does. Is not quick, has no tank. Yea, we could have kept him for another year and tried to improve his tank and put on a bit of size, but i think Neeld and the other coaches made the right decision. I'll be very surprised if we see him play another AFL game.

Moloney definitely would have helped this year, but i think his form at Brisbane is partly because of having a better midfield around him. We know he can get the ball, it's what he does with it when he gets it that's the problem. And what he does when he doesn't have the ball. I had no issue with Neeld trying him in different roles last season, because he needed to be more versatile. It's disappointing that his time at the club ended the way it did, but i think he has to take as much of the blame as Neeld does.

Work with them not against them.

You know for a fact he is working against them?

Why is it about just draft picks? I never said that. I said players. Don't try and change the argument to suit your needs.

We got the full potential out of mature age players McLean, Rivers, Miller, Maloney, McDonald, Petterd. If you're still on the list by the time you're 26 for any club you can assume that they have got the most potential out of you.

Fine then, let me go back further to the last draft year where the person is still on the current list:

2012: 0/10

2011: 0/7

2010: 0/12

2009: 2/9

2008: 1/10

2007: 4/10

2006: 1/5

2005: 1/8

2004: 1/5

2003: 2/8

2002: 1/12 (When Rivers was drafted)

2001: 2/8 (Jamar: last draftee still on the list)

So that means since 2001 to 2012 only 15 out of 104 players we drafted went to other clubs.

Apparently not as popular when it comes to getting the full potential out of players as you think!

You know for a fact he is working against them?

Nup, not as a fact, I'm not inside the club. I just have the same impression Ox does when watching them play.

We got the full potential out of mature age players McLean, Rivers, Miller, Maloney, McDonald, Petterd. If you're still on the list by the time you're 26 for any club you can assume that they have got the most potential out of you.

Disagree with what you're saying about the age thing as you seem to still not be understanding my point.

It's not about development, it's about their potential compared to how they're being coached and played.

How did Moloney go last year compared to this year? How have our two previous All-Australians been under Neeld?

IMO Neeld is destroying some of our best players with his TOO rigid way of doing things. Sure, we needed discipline and we needed improvement, but as much as he talks it, so far neither have happened under Neeld.

I'm happy to disagree as these are perception things and are very individual in that way, but every week I'm seeing a team more and more disenchanted, unorganized, and unenthused. Not saying Bailey was any good, he needed to go too, but at least we had spirit and enthusiasm under him, and our defence was actually BETTER than it now is under our current "defensive minded" coach.

Nup, not as a fact, I'm not inside the club. I just have the same impression Ox does when watching them play.

It's funny, I don't get that feeling at all. I get the feeling that because we are so badly beaten in the midfield that our players are throwing in the towel too early. That was particularly evident in the first two games and then again in the second half of the West Coast game. The last two games started to show something and even in the Brisbane game they could have been in it but for a couple of very dumb mistakes; and yes, I know they were against weak teams, but there were glimpses of what could be coming.

Rather than the coach working against them, I get the feeling that Neeld may be just as frustrated as the players, as it must be nigh on impossible to coach a team that has virtually no midfield. The defence hasn't been too bad and we have one of the best conversion rates when it gets inside the 50... this is why I'm prepared to cut him some slack and wait until next year when we have a complete and balanced side. Who knows, we may get a glimpse of what could be coming if Magner gets a run in Clark's absence (remember, he was on fore for the first few rounds last year, so he might inject some much needed hardness and ball clearance.

It's funny, I don't get that feeling at all. I get the feeling that because we are so badly beaten in the midfield that our players are throwing in the towel too early. That was particularly evident in the first two games and then again in the second half of the West Coast game. The last two games started to show something and even in the Brisbane game they could have been in it but for a couple of very dumb mistakes; and yes, I know they were against weak teams, but there were glimpses of what could be coming.

Rather than the coach working against them, I get the feeling that Neeld may be just as frustrated as the players, as it must be nigh on impossible to coach a team that has virtually no midfield. The defence hasn't been too bad and we have one of the best conversion rates when it gets inside the 50... this is why I'm prepared to cut him some slack and wait until next year when we have a complete and balanced side. Who knows, we may get a glimpse of what could be coming if Magner gets a run in Clark's absence (remember, he was on fore for the first few rounds last year, so he might inject some much needed hardness and ball clearance.

My short answer is, I don't think Neeld is necessarily a bad coach, he's just not good enough to turn us around in ANY amount of time.

We are WORSE this year than last. If his plan was working surely we would have been better this year, even just slightly, but we are worse or as bad in every category.

Yes he has.

I had a dream last night that on his 2nd day on the job tomorrow, Peter Jackson called Paul Roos and asked him about coaching the MFC.

Roos said hes up for the challenge, but not a word is to be said until the end of the season out of respect to the current coaches.

Heres hoping.

Dream on

Disagree with what you're saying about the age thing as you seem to still not be understanding my point.

It's not about development, it's about their potential compared to how they're being coached and played.

How did Moloney go last year compared to this year? How have our two previous All-Australians been under Neeld?

IMO Neeld is destroying some of our best players with his TOO rigid way of doing things. Sure, we needed discipline and we needed improvement, but as much as he talks it, so far neither have happened under Neeld.

I'm happy to disagree as these are perception things and are very individual in that way, but every week I'm seeing a team more and more disenchanted, unorganized, and unenthused. Not saying Bailey was any good, he needed to go too, but at least we had spirit and enthusiasm under him, and our defence was actually BETTER than it now is under our current "defensive minded" coach.

You're seriously clutching at straws.

Jamar has been playing poor footy before Neeld was coach and, no-offence to him, only got All Australian because of his 1 good year

Frawley played well last year and has been overloaded this year and under the circumstances played well

Moloney played well against us. No denying that.

BIT so far this year Moloney has averaged the same amount of disposals as he did with us in 2009, 2010, 2011.

He is playing well compared to last year because he gave it nothing. You're using an incredibly bias example. You cant really call it improving when he had the same amount of average disposals and last year he basically walked away from the club.

His poor playing was to do with his own ego and being dropped from the leadership team.

Your point was: "it's the fact the so many were picked up because it's a known fact in AFL circles that most MFC players don't reach their potential and are worth a shot in a different culture and coaching environment."

As I have shown from 2001 to 2012 only 15 players out of 104 that were drafted have been picked up from other clubs - not alot of players have been picked up.

The only player to properly improve under another club due to different culture and coaching environment is Brock McLean, and he left in 2009

You're seriously clutching at straws.

Jamar has been playing poor footy before Neeld was coach and, no-offence to him, only got All Australian because of his 1 good year

Frawley played well last year and has been overloaded this year

Moloney played well against us. No denying that.

BIT so far this year Moloney has averaged the same amount of disposals as he did with us in 2009, 2010, 2011.

He is playing well compared to last year because he gave it nothing. You're using an incredibly bias example. You cant really call it improving when he had the same amount of average disposals and last year he basically walked away from the club.

His poor playing was to do with his own ego and being dropped from the leadership team.

Your point was: "it's the fact the so many were picked up because it's a known fact in AFL circles that most MFC players don't reach their potential and are worth a shot in a different culture and coaching environment."

As I have shown from 2001 to 2012 only 15 players out of 104 that were drafted have been picked up from other clubs - not alot of players have been picked up.

The only player to properly improve under another club due to different culture and coaching environment is Brock McLean, and he left in 2009

You're missing my point AGAIN.

I'm not saying all the players picked up by other clubs went on to improve, I'm saying there's a perception around other clubs that our struggling players may do better in a different culture and coaching setup. There was actually an article about it recently, having trouble finding the link, will post when I do.

We need to work on that replacement immediately. And we cant do that while the sub standard incumbent is in place.

And while i wish the replacement to be a good coach he would not have to do much to be better than what Neeld has delivered.

You can observe sue. Weeks 1 and 2 was terrible after Neeld laid expectations that we would be competitive and said we were AFL standard in our pre season. We were terrible on the field and post the games the players are talking about lack of "buy in" . Its a pathetic situation that points to a number of issues but highlights one of the obvious the coach does not have the players and the players dont play for the coach.

Neeld has severed relationships badly with players who have left (eg Moloney, Green) and has failed to get the best out of players at his disposal. Only N Jones and Howe have improved. Many have gone backwards.

He needs to go immediately.

Maybe we are, my bet is with you 'Rhino' that we're not; Carlton, Essendon and Freo certainly were way before anything was known and while the incumbent was busy doing the job he was paid for.

The best thing that's happened this year so far is the change of CEO, other things will start to move from here on. We had been re building on a failed rebuild that was dubious from the start, now we might get some clean air and start moving forward. There will be changes over the next couple of months, whether or not it's the coach who really knows...but 'Satyriconhome' I wouldn't be getting too close to some around HQ, like your other mate a few of them are on the way out.