On 04/05/2013 at 10:37, bing181 said:

Don't know about that. Think of it a bit like catching up with an ex-girlfriend/wife.

On the other hand, Davey will be gone in any case, and Jamar is signed. Sylvia ... has started to play with a bit more intensity, and at least he's not doing what Moloney did around this time last year, which was to have his agent start calling round to remind everyone that he was "available".

Actually agree with most of what you say bing - just leave out the Moloney comment.

You two should get a room.

  On 04/05/2013 at 10:52, dee-luded said:

Rodan is doing exactly what he was recruited for.

as is Byrnes.

Pederson needs the big guns around to allow him to do his job.

Dawes hasn't fired a shot yet?

Hogan is coming along.

Fitz' is deeveloping.

dunn, strauss, kent, terlich, taggert, davis, spencer, gawn, jones, sylvia,

...good 'evans, wats goin on, our kids are startin to play! howes viney?

B)

Bynes, Dawes, Pederson and Rodan were not worth picking IMO, especially if MN is taking a long term view.

  On 04/05/2013 at 10:27, jumbo returns said:

More like thanks to BM, Hardnut.

Both parties moved on.

Having said that, Jamar, Sylvia and Davey met BM for a drink afterwards - these latter names will be the next to go.

Culture will change.

There were others who went because they didn't fit with the hierarchy Jumbo, but we've been down that path before!

So Rodan was recruited to play for Casey & sit in the Grandstand.

Great glad we got that sorted.

Other AFL sides try to improve each year.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:07, Hardnut said:

There were others who went because they didn't fit with the hierarchy Jumbo, but we've been down that path before!

We have, HN, we have.

I have no tears for the exits.

And I'll have no tears for those who get cut at the end of this year.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:07, why you little said:

So Rodan was recruited to play for Casey & sit in the Grandstand.

Great glad we got that sorted.

Other AFL sides try to improve each year.

I would have more respect for Neeld if he played the kids over the hacks, we now have Gillies seemingly permanent at Casey, Rodan well on the way and Pederson almost ready to join in. There is no future at the MFC for these players and Byrnes is a very short term proposition.

They are taking up spots on the list we could have used for Hannath, Magner update and possibly another speculative kid.

The idea that our players need a couple of delisted players to show them how to train is ludicrous.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:19, RobbieF said:

I would have more respect for Neeld if he played the kids over the hacks, we now have Gillies seemingly permanent at Casey, Rodan well on the way and Pederson almost ready to join in. There is no future at the MFC for these players and Byrnes is a very short term proposition.

They are taking up spots on the list we could have used for Hannath, Magner update and possibly another speculative kid.

The idea that our players need a couple of delisted players to show them how to train is ludicrous.

??????

How can not securing Hannath be Neeld's fault?? Freo had a pick before us.

Why is Magner lauded as Barassi?? Slower than slow with ordinary skills.

Ffs.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:19, RobbieF said:

I would have more respect for Neeld if he played the kids over the hacks, we now have Gillies seemingly permanent at Casey, Rodan well on the way and Pederson almost ready to join in. There is no future at the MFC for these players and Byrnes is a very short term proposition.

They are taking up spots on the list we could have used for Hannath, Magner update and possibly another speculative kid.

The idea that our players need a couple of delisted players to show them how to train is ludicrous.

i hate it when Greg Denham is right!!

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:02, Hardnut said:

Bynes, Dawes, Pederson and Rodan were not worth picking IMO, especially if MN is taking a long term view.

I posted earlier in this thread about Hudson and Russell for the pies. In and out of their side. The Pies are a big powerful club, why didn't they pick up the likes of Goddard. Because there are 18 clubs and only so much talent. Some coaches back themselves in with regards to fringe players, sometimes they don't work out, even at the big clubs. The only aspect of long term view with regards to Byrnes and Rodan is that hopefully some of their experience/knowledge would/will rub off. Who should we have picked up?? He has already got two big forwards, Clarke was the biggest name to move two years ago. Not a lot happened last year .

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:23, jumbo returns said:

??????

How can not securing Hannath be Neeld's fault?? Freo had a pick before us.

Why is Magner lauded as Barassi?? Slower than slow with ordinary skills.

Ffs.

We could have picked up Hannath in the draft if we had a pick left, Freo picked him up in the pre season draft, we had no picks in the PSD because we had a full compliment of players.

Magner is not the long term answer but he sure as hell could show a few of the others how to get in and get the ball.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:19, RobbieF said:

I would have more respect for Neeld if he played the kids over the hacks, we now have Gillies seemingly permanent at Casey, Rodan well on the way and Pederson almost ready to join in. There is no future at the MFC for these players and Byrnes is a very short term proposition.

They are taking up spots on the list we could have used for Hannath, Magner update and possibly another speculative kid.

The idea that our players need a couple of delisted players to show them how to train is ludicrous.

I find all this quite damning really. Damning of our vision and any implementation of interim ( bridging ) developments.

Is this seriously what weve done, recruited experienced hands to play Magoo-Ball !! Whats the point of that ?

I thought part of their job description was to provide onfield ( in game ) mentorship/leadership/calm . Yes its unlikely theyd all be there ( 1sts ) at the same time often but to see any of this supposed value just awash down the gurgler furthers my thinking that the brains trust arent that strong suited on brains.

Im seriously struglling to discern a logical path that this club might be taking to go forward.

Why is so much going wrong ( at Melbourne ) and a lot going right at other clubs? why are we inevitably continually coming back to this question ?

By way of , what I though an interesting ( almost ) parallel I watched a program the other night on the Desert Wars. Tobtuk -El Alamein etc. The allies were toing and froing for many a battle here. Rommel was getting the upper hand more often than not. The Allies in the end came under criticism for having an essentially ineffectuall higher command . It was making poor and slow decisions. . Its was wasteful of itss resources. This unfortunately in war means lives. . Men , let alone weapons were being wasted because the people high up who needed to make clear and hard decisions in a very timely manner werent. it was shown that many of these commanders were products of the old school of British officialdom...A bit too much ra-ra and less getting on with it.

Churchill arrived at the front and was livid, furious that we were unable to get the job done. The team was good but the leaderhsip wanting. He changed it. In Montgomery out Auchinleck.

Montgomery was a hard nut. He didnt quite like the notion of backward stepping unless it was a very temporary thing done whilst working out a better way forward. He was a fitness nut. The troops instead of resting were put to extra pt.

Montgomery took the very same troops that were being hounded and beaten onto victory.

anyone else see a curious parallel here ?

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:33, Al said:

I posted earlier in this thread about Hudson and Russell for the pies. In and out of their side. The Pies are a big powerful club, why didn't they pick up the likes of Goddard. Because there are 18 clubs and only so much talent. Some coaches back themselves in with regards to fringe players, sometimes they don't work out, even at the big clubs. The only aspect of long term view with regards to Byrnes and Rodan is that hopefully some of their experience/knowledge would/will rub off. Who should we have picked up?? He has already got two big forwards, Clarke was the biggest name to move two years ago. Not a lot happened last year .

We don't have the luxury of having a couple of players that we can keep on the list for specific games.

I think the the drafting since Neeld came on board has been solid give the challenges of getting both youth and experience while turning over a stagnant and under-performing list.

Clark, Hogan, Viney, Toumpass, Dawes, Terlich, M Jones, Byrnes have all been good pick ups (too early to call on a couple), and all recruits have fully engaged in lifting the fitness level (according to pre-season reports). And have got Casey firing such that there is real pressure on places in the MFC team.

If you intend to be a hard team you need to recruit and develop hard players. Losing Morton, Gysberts, Martin, Cook and replacing them with the above boys can only improve us.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:42, RobbieF said:

We could have picked up Hannath in the draft if we had a pick left, Freo picked him up in the pre season draft, we had no picks in the PSD because we had a full compliment of players.

Magner is not the long term answer but he sure as hell could show a few of the others how to get in and get the ball.

I'm surprised that you pick on this mistake after SEVEN LONG YEARS of [censored] recruiting.

Please be more objective.

drafting inst down to Neeld, this is a straw argument really. Theres a whole dept charged with drafting. ALl Neeld did was to highlight the nature of the holes on our list..the Recruiting dept did the rest. Mindyou blind freddy ( and indeed most of us here ) knoew the nature of the difficiencies of our then list.

the good or bad of Neelds coaching is team play and scoreboard. Both woeful

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:47, belzebub59 said:

I find all this quite damning really. Damning of our vision and any implementation of interim ( bridging ) developments.

Is this seriously what weve done, recruited experienced hands to play Magoo-Ball !! Whats the point of that ?

I thought part of their job description was to provide onfield ( in game ) mentorship/leadership/calm . Yes its unlikely theyd all be there ( 1sts ) at the same time often but to see any of this supposed value just awash down the gurgler furthers my thinking that the brains trust arent that strong suited on brains.

Im seriously struglling to discern a logical path that this club might be taking to go forward.

Why is so much going wrong ( at Melbourne ) and a lot going right at other clubs? why are we inevitably continually coming back to this question ?

By way of , what I though an interesting ( almost ) parallel I watched a program the other night on the Desert Wars. Tobtuk -El Alamein etc. The allies were toing and froing for many a battle here. Rommel was getting the upper hand more often than not. The Allies in the end came under criticism for having an essentially ineffectuall higher command . It was making poor and slow decisions. . Its was wasteful of itss resources. This unfortunately in war means lives. . Men , let alone weapons were being wasted because the people high up who needed to make clear and hard decisions in a very timely manner werent. it was shown that many of these commanders were products of the old school of British officialdom...A bit too much ra-ra and less getting on with it.

Churchill arrived at the front and was livid, furious that we were unable to get the job done. The team was good but the leaderhsip wanting. He changed it. In Montgomery out Auchinleck.

Montgomery was a hard nut. He didnt quite like the notion of backward stepping unless it was a very temporary thing done whilst working out a better way forward. He was a fitness nut. The troops instead of resting were put to extra pt.

Montgomery took the very same troops that were being hounded and beaten onto victory.

anyone else see a curious parallel here ?

BB59, it's AFL footy. No one dies. Settle down.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:47, belzebub59 said:

I find all this quite damning really. Damning of our vision and any implementation of interim ( bridging ) developments.

Is this seriously what weve done, recruited experienced hands to play Magoo-Ball !! Whats the point of that ?

I thought part of their job description was to provide onfield ( in game ) mentorship/leadership/calm . Yes its unlikely theyd all be there ( 1sts ) at the same time often but to see any of this supposed value just awash down the gurgler furthers my thinking that the brains trust arent that strong suited on brains.

Im seriously struglling to discern a logical path that this club might be taking to go forward.

Why is so much going wrong ( at Melbourne ) and a lot going right at other clubs? why are we inevitably continually coming back to this question ?

By way of , what I though an interesting ( almost ) parallel I watched a program the other night on the Desert Wars. Tobtuk -El Alamein etc. The allies were toing and froing for many a battle here. Rommel was getting the upper hand more often than not. The Allies in the end came under criticism for having an essentially ineffectuall higher command . It was making poor and slow decisions. . Its was wasteful of itss resources. This unfortunately in war means lives. . Men , let alone weapons were being wasted because the people high up who needed to make clear and hard decisions in a very timely manner werent. it was shown that many of these commanders were products of the old school of British officialdom...A bit too much ra-ra and less getting on with it.

Churchill arrived at the front and was livid, furious that we were unable to get the job done. The team was good but the leaderhsip wanting. He changed it. In Montgomery out Auchinleck.

Montgomery was a hard nut. He didnt quite like the notion of backward stepping unless it was a very temporary thing done whilst working out a better way forward. He was a fitness nut. The troops instead of resting were put to extra pt.

Montgomery took the very same troops that were being hounded and beaten onto victory.

anyone else see a curious parallel here ?

I recall driving home after one game where the commentators were astonished that all 4 were being played, they felt that they were depth at best and it was ridiculous that they were all in the side. I cannot but agree; if thees guys are the best we can do, short term or long term, we are in big trouble.

I felt at the time that it was a mistake and now I'm convinced that it was.

Why is this argument still going?

If this continues we will make a change.

The end.

Move on, and come back to this when one of two things happen:

1. Neeld manages to save his job.

2. We continue the way we have been and he is removed in July/August.

There are ostensible facts that are hard to refute:

We have shown little. Our effort is non-existent. 4 months of caretaker is worthless. He will get at least half of his contract to turn it around.

Can we just leave it alone for a while?

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:54, jumbo returns said:

BB59, it's AFL footy. No one dies. Settle down.

the point is over there >>>>>>>> go find it...seems to alluded you.

Im very calm these days.. I realy dont give a stuff anymore. The team bores me, the club disaapoints me, losing has become so normal its like a familiar coat. Im not sure what its like not to wear it.

I do enjoy the odd discussion but this will end after this weekends likely debacle of a showing with Carlton...and might...might resurrect should any real life signs emit from Red and Blue land.

My reference to Monty et al was that a given circumstance was turned on its head through the simple implementation of a change of command. The troops werent the problems the commanders were. This to me sounds awfully familiar.

Those making the high up decisions are making bad ones, resulting in flow down callamaties.

Lookiing at things dispassionately I observe:

On paper the list has improved. INS seem to tick boxes. Retained players have more games/experience

Football Dept has grown and resources at hand developed and expanded

Training levels and fitness is supposedly up on previous year ( strangely not 100% convinced of this )

Many holes plugged ( in theory )

also

we have won one game against minnows and ony just really

We have become record making partners ( for other clubs )

We cant play out a game with any real effect

players seem more concerned about dancing to a tune they dont really understand than deferring to the primal notions of the game...i.e effort and accountability

we are playing WORSE than last year ( by all discernable benchmarks )

The Coach ( commander ) determined to make us the hardest team to play has actually created the easiest team to play

If people in poistions of decision making make ( and continue to make ) poor decisions then bad things happen, and continue to happen.

Sounds like Melbourne to me

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:52, jumbo returns said:

I'm surprised that you pick on this mistake after SEVEN LONG YEARS of [censored] recruiting.

Please be more objective.

I've been a vocal critic, perhaps the strongest on here, for quite a long time now and this is just the straw that broke the Camel's back. It was an appalling decision to pick up the scraps that fell off other teams plates.

  On 04/05/2013 at 12:17, belzebub59 said:

the point is over there >>>>>>>> go find it...seems to alluded you.

Im very calm these days.. I realy dont give a stuff anymore. The team bores me, the club disaapoints me, losing has become so normal its like a familiar coat. Im not sure what its like not to wear it.

I do enjoy the odd discussion but this will end after this weekends likely debacle of a showing with Carlton...and might...might resurrect should any real life signs emit from Red and Blue land.

My reference to Monty et al was that a given circumstance was turned on its head through the simple implementation of a change of command. The troops werent the problems the commanders were. This to me sounds awfully familiar.

Those making the high up decisions are making bad ones, resulting in flow down callamaties.

Lookiing at things dispassionately I observe:

On paper the list has improved. INS seem to tick boxes. Retained players have more games/experience

Football Dept has grown and resources at hand developed and expanded

Training levels and fitness is supposedly up on previous year ( strangely not 100% convinced of this )

Many holes plugged ( in theory )

also

we have won one game against minnows and ony just really

We have become record making partners ( for other clubs )

We cant play out a game with any real effect

players seem more concerned about dancing to a tune they dont really understand than deferring to the primal notions of the game...i.e effort and accountability

we are playing WORSE than last year ( by all discernable benchmarks )

The Coach ( commander ) determined to make us the hardest team to play has actually created the easiest team to play

If people in poistions of decision making make ( and continue to make ) poor decisions then bad things happen, and continue to happen.

Sounds like Melbourne to me

I can't be stuffed going tomorrow instead my wife and I are taking my son out to lunch for his birthday; I have never done that before (on a match day) but I just can't be bothered watching us get pounded again and again.

I'm not trying to make it about me I'm just expressing the feeling that many other MFC supporters currently have.

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:47, belzebub59 said:

I find all this quite damning really. Damning of our vision and any implementation of interim ( bridging ) developments.

Is this seriously what weve done, recruited experienced hands to play Magoo-Ball !! Whats the point of that ?

I thought part of their job description was to provide onfield ( in game ) mentorship/leadership/calm . Yes its unlikely theyd all be there ( 1sts ) at the same time often but to see any of this supposed value just awash down the gurgler furthers my thinking that the brains trust arent that strong suited on brains.

Im seriously struglling to discern a logical path that this club might be taking to go forward.

Why is so much going wrong ( at Melbourne ) and a lot going right at other clubs? why are we inevitably continually coming back to this question ?

By way of , what I though an interesting ( almost ) parallel I watched a program the other night on the Desert Wars. Tobtuk -El Alamein etc. The allies were toing and froing for many a battle here. Rommel was getting the upper hand more often than not. The Allies in the end came under criticism for having an essentially ineffectuall higher command . It was making poor and slow decisions. . Its was wasteful of itss resources. This unfortunately in war means lives. . Men , let alone weapons were being wasted because the people high up who needed to make clear and hard decisions in a very timely manner werent. it was shown that many of these commanders were products of the old school of British officialdom...A bit too much ra-ra and less getting on with it.

Churchill arrived at the front and was livid, furious that we were unable to get the job done. The team was good but the leaderhsip wanting. He changed it. In Montgomery out Auchinleck.

Montgomery was a hard nut. He didnt quite like the notion of backward stepping unless it was a very temporary thing done whilst working out a better way forward. He was a fitness nut. The troops instead of resting were put to extra pt.

Montgomery took the very same troops that were being hounded and beaten onto victory.

anyone else see a curious parallel here ?

Throw in a yank called Paton and we'd have a winning coaching team!

Seriously, just finished watching Geelong/Richmond - Geelong are truly an unbelievable side - I do think they can rightfully claim to be the greatest team of all, ahead of Brisbane, Collingwood and MFC. It hurts to say that, but the facts are pretty clear, especially when I think back to where we were in the mid 2000s cf Geelong and where both of us are now!<br />

  On 04/05/2013 at 11:33, Al said:

I posted earlier in this thread about Hudson and Russell for the pies. In and out of their side. The Pies are a big powerful club, why didn't they pick up the likes of Goddard. Because there are 18 clubs and only so much talent. Some coaches back themselves in with regards to fringe players, sometimes they don't work out, even at the big clubs. The only aspect of long term view with regards to Byrnes and Rodan is that hopefully some of their experience/knowledge would/will rub off. Who should we have picked up?? He has already got two big forwards, Clarke was the biggest name to move two years ago. Not a lot happened last year .

A few points here 'Al'. On Goddard, the Pies didn't have the salary cap space to have a go at him. Cloke took up a big wack of that and coming on the back of Pendles & Swan they were sellers rather than buyers.

They are in a different position to us in that they are a premiership chance, Hudson is insurance for Jolly whilst they wait for Witts and Grundy. On last nights form Witts looked pretty good and maybe further advanced than they thought. Russell was part of the plan to get O'Brien out of the back half and up on to a wing. He, Russell had a bad one last week and got dropped.

If you are looking to pick up players to turn careers around then you should be looking at 22-24yo who have shown they can play but are struggling to make it in really good sides. You can break them free with opportunity and a bit of cash.This is more the Sydney model with Kennedy, McGlinn, Mumford, Richards and the like. We picked up a few past their use by dates and a couple of others who couldn't get a game at their previous clubs because they weren't good enough.

If the guys we picked up were for depth then with almost a full list in round one you need to ask why 4 depth players got a game.