Time to go Mark Neeld

[Dee Fan 3,247]

no feelings about the ceo, why do you ask?

just dont understand peoples feelings about fd

mainly i think most hang onto chit arguments and dont know anything about how a football club works

maybe the club should go into sales business and then you can get on the board

So you do?

Maybe you should ring the club and offer your services so we can get some wins on the board, you seem to think you know more than anyone else on here. You keep giving others advice, perhaps you should take your own advice and get on the phone, give them a call.

Edited May 7, 2013 by RobbieF

[Fat Tony 4,422]

I want Neeld sacked because he has made so many bad decisions in such a short time.

Principally, my key issue with Neeld is that his overall philosophy of football is far too defensive and too ridged. This is reflected by his game plan which does not suit our list. We have a team of inferior talent, and therefore we should be encouraged more to roll the dice/take risks. Neeld’s current ‘risk free’ approach is anything but and is highly predictable and flawed (as demonstrated by the results). I also think it is nonsensical for a coach to be fixed on a game style given how quickly the game evolves, especially given how far away we are from a position to win a flag. Who knows, AFL could be a 16 a side game by that stage. A flexible approach is the only way to go.

I also highly suspect Neeld has disenfranchised a number of key players. The decision to demote and denigrate the previous leadership group and openly criticise players in the media before even meeting them was divisive and hasn’t paid off. We are playing with little confidence at the moment and IMO this likely stems from Neeld’s initial foray into the club and his ‘robotic’ game plan.

With the list, I have issues with the decisions give Jamar and McKenzie three-year contracts, letting Moloney and Martin go, recruiting Dawes (given the price, both draft picks and salary, and given the number of other key forwards on our list), Byrnes (given the price, two year contract and his age), as well as Rodan, Pederson and Gilles, who are too old/not up to it. The retentions of Troy Davis and Tom Couch were also errors in my view. (While Couch may be seen as unimportant given he is a rookie, it meant that we were forced to take mature agers Terlich and Matt Jones in the National Draft. Effectively Couch’s retention cost us pick 53.) While I could understand one or two errors in terms of list management, 10 is just too many IMO.

His bad decisions extend to team selection/game day positioning. This is highlighted by his use of Rivers, Garland, Moloney and Magner as forwards for much of last year. Jack Watts is clearly not a small defender and should be showing more than he is currently.

I am under no illusion that MFC’s current position is largely due to the lack of talent on our list. However, the coach needs to be measured on his ability to get the most out of the team and IMO he has badly failed to date on this score.

The reasons for moving early are to give a caretaker a chance to prove his worth and to help in player retention for next year. Waiting to sack him later in the year is just delaying the inevitable and we would be better off letting our players play a more instinctual game. Einstein summed up MFC’s current position when he said ‘Insanity is doing the same things again and again expecting different results’.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

And that's the whole point. We are trying to build a culture that will put us in that position. Yes things have been pitiful in the past and don't look much brighter now, but we need to go through this pain if we are ever going to be any good. Hopefully in ten years time, we will be able to hold our heads high and point to the strong culture of success that has been born from this excruciating period.

As an aside, I think the way the game is played now makes blowout losses for bottom sides a little more likely than in the past.

Agree. The point is, there is no discernible foundation stone upon which to build the culture we seek to emulate. However, a good starting point would be to instil some belief in the current playing group. Even if many of them are not there in 12 months time, you can set the ground work now, for future players to inherit. I see nothing of this at the moment.

[Slartibartfast 15,799]

I am looking in the longer term to you. I am looking at Neeld and wondering about whether he is moulding a team that can be successful long term. At the moment I am neither here nor there, but I do know that those advocating for an immediate sacking are not necessarily thinking about anything past their own nose (and emotions).

And many of us are looking in the longer term. It's interesting you're neither "here or there" because with your analytical approach I thought you may have reached an outcome or conclusion or at least be leaning one way or the other. When you're charged with responsibility to manage you don't have that luxury, you have to make decisions based on judgement and that is what the footy club must do and that is what many on here are debating - what they should do.

Whilst I don't want to get into a semantic argument I suspect there are irreversible outcomes from Neeld's coaching and I'd look to players like Watts, Moloney and Rivers as examples. I've seen a person unable to handle personal situations well, unable to utilize players skill sets and he makes what I consider to be poor decisions. Jack x 2 as captain for example. I think this has probably irreversibly impacted their careers. It's an opinion and I believe if he has a history of making bad decisions there is a strong possibility he will continue to make poor decisions.

I think the support for the club by many has waned which will impact on revenues which in turn will impact on our ability to perform on field. I suspect we are not a great brand to be associated with as a result of our performances which again will effect sponsorship. I suspect young kids won't be lining up to support us. All of these things will hurt us irreversibly in the longer term because we will never get those younger supporters back and we will never receive the funding.

In the end it comes down to whether you think Neeld should coach in the long term. If "yes" then keep going on the path we are on now. If "no" when do you get rid of him.

Where do you stand?

[djr 1,067]

I fail to understand the benefit of holding onto someone when you know they are not the one. You break up with your girlfriend when you realise she is not the one, even if life is pretty good. Well life at MFC is not pretty good, we know Neeld does not have the skill set required for our situation. The players continue to go backwards, confidence and self belief are not improving, overall play remains shocking.

Why would you keep him any longer? Why not try someone new, on a trial basis til seasons end. There is simply nothing to lose. Surley with a high degree of probability a new coach will get better perfomances than Neeld.

I like Baghdad saw very concerning signs almost from day one. Neeld needed to be sent to management school before being given the job as he is no natural manager. Many of his mistakes are text book and something you woudl expect in the 2nd division of a country league. People will write studies in future years about this....... as what not to do.

GNF, your posts can be so tiresome. These are just your personal opinions yet you make out they are based on fact. I suggest you have no idea as to what is going on within confines of the club or know what the players think about Neeld. I suggest you have no idea as to whether he's a natural manager or not. You basically have no idea about anything. You are just commentating from the cheap seats. Just my opinion.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

GNF, your posts can be so tiresome. These are just your personal opinions yet you make out they are based on fact. I suggest you have no idea as to what is going on within confines of the club or know what the players think about Neeld. I suggest you have no idea as to whether he's a natural manager or not. You basically have no idea about anything. You are just commentating from the cheap seats. Just my opinion.

I would have thought that a web forum is just that - based on opinion. No other opinion carries any more veracity than another. In terms of making comments from what you term "cheap seats", I have two eyes and see what transpires on the footy field. That is what is becoming tiresome.

Edited May 7, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[jumbo returns 6,488]

I want Neeld sacked because he has made so many bad decisions in such a short time.

Principally, my key issue with Neeld is that his overall philosophy of football is far too defensive and too ridged. This is reflected by his game plan which does not suit our list. We have a team of inferior talent, and therefore we should be encouraged more to roll the dice/take risks. Neeld’s current ‘risk free’ approach is anything but and is highly predictable and flawed (as demonstrated by the results). I also think it is nonsensical for a coach to be fixed on a game style given how quickly the game evolves, especially given how far away we are from a position to win a flag. Who knows, AFL could be a 16 a side game by that stage. A flexible approach is the only way to go.

I also highly suspect Neeld has disenfranchised a number of key players. The decision to demote and denigrate the previous leadership group and openly criticise players in the media before even meeting them was divisive and hasn’t paid off. We are playing with little confidence at the moment and IMO this likely stems from Neeld’s initial foray into the club and his ‘robotic’ game plan.

With the list, I have issues with the decisions give Jamar and McKenzie three-year contracts, letting Moloney and Martin go, recruiting Dawes (given the price, both draft picks and salary, and given the number of other key forwards on our list), Byrnes (given the price, two year contract and his age), as well as Rodan, Pederson and Gilles, who are too old/not up to it. The retentions of Troy Davis and Tom Couch were also errors in my view. (While Couch may be seen as unimportant given he is a rookie, it meant that we were forced to take mature agers Terlich and Matt Jones in the National Draft. Effectively Couch’s retention cost us pick 53.) While I could understand one or two errors in terms of list management, 10 is just too many IMO.

His bad decisions extend to team selection/game day positioning. This is highlighted by his use of Rivers, Garland, Moloney and Magner as forwards for much of last year. Jack Watts is clearly not a small defender and should be showing more than he is currently.

I am under no illusion that MFC’s current position is largely due to the lack of talent on our list. However, the coach needs to be measured on his ability to get the most out of the team and IMO he has badly failed to date on this score.

The reasons for moving early are to give a caretaker a chance to prove his worth and to help in player retention for next year. Waiting to sack him later in the year is just delaying the inevitable and we would be better off letting our players play a more instinctual game. Einstein summed up MFC’s current position when he said ‘Insanity is doing the same things again and again expecting different results’.

Okay, so let's not teach our players any defensive part of their game.

Let's allow players to run around unchecked, unfit, ill disciplined and petulant.

Let's keep the NQRs that have been clogging our list for 5, 6 or 7 years.

Let's ignore that our draft selections have been pathetic.

Let's keep outdated training methods and snare a big win every now and then to keep the 'chaps' and the Redlegs happy.

You have no vision.

[old55 21,355]

I think there's two possible reasons for moving on Neeld immediately or soon

Immediately: Neeld is permanently damaging the relationship between important players and the club and they'll leave at the end of the year - this, if true, is a reason for moving on him immediately. There's a lot of rumour around this point and some extrapolation but there's not much hard evidence. Only those inside the club really know. Moloney has recently been the poster boy for this but again no-one really knows whether he was redeemable and how hard Neeld tried. It seems Neeld had his moments with Davey, but I reckon Davey has delivered to his maximum capability this year. Rivers is a less convincing example - he left like Goddard did - for much greater opportunities. Martin, Gysberts, Bennell, Morton, Petterd - there's no evidence one way or another whether Neeld made the right call on these players. Watts is the likely example of mismanagement - the sub, drop, emergency, recall saga did not play out well in my opinion but again no-one has provided hard evidence that Watts is terminally disenfranchised, and indeed opinion is quite split on whether this really matters. There's been speculation about other important players wanting out but no evidence. Overall in this area Neeld got Clark to the club and Clark has been nothing but positive - that's a big credit to burn.

Soon: Neeld is not the coach to lead us forward in the long run and if you've made this decision then we should move on him soon because important list management decisions are made from this time forward and we can pursue an alternative coach and make them with clear air and not waste a year.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Okay, so let's not teach our players any defensive part of their game.

Let's allow players to run around unchecked, unfit, ill disciplined and petulant.

Let's keep the NQRs that have been clogging our list for 5, 6 or 7 years.

Let's ignore that our draft selections have been pathetic.

Let's keep outdated training methods and snare a big win every now and then to keep the 'chaps' and the Redlegs happy.

You have no vision.

I don't see where FT said any of the things you have attempted to attribute to him. Stop trying to "verbal" people

[[email protected] 101]

I want to ask you this. At the end of 2010 did you think we had such a bad list? 8 and a half games won, young but promising was the consensus. Do you agree?

Then, in 2011, was the list all that bad? Same number of wins, 3 by 16 goals. There were problems defensively but we had a gameplan and knew how to attack.

Why then is the list so much worse now?

Why are so many players a shadow of their 2010 selves?

How was it correct to recruit 5 players who couldn't get a game elsewhere?

Why ignore the fact that Petterd had Achilles problems last 2 years but was now better. We KNEW he could play. Ditto Moloney. How inadequate to simply clear him rather than get on top of the issues.

I dispute hat Neeld inherited a bad list, or that they were unfit. (though I haven't checked it, my impression is that Bailey's teams ran out the game better than Neeld's.) I have found his excuses pathetic, demeaning of both himself and his predecessor.

You will indeed find we were finishing many games off very well under Bailey... need did NOT inherit a bad list... He has created it !!

[rpfc 27,483]

I think there's two possible reasons for moving on Neeld immediately or soon

Immediately: Neeld is permanently damaging the relationship between important players and the club and they'll leave at the end of the year - this, if true, is a reason for moving on him immediately. There's a lot of rumour around this point and some extrapolation but there's not much hard evidence. Only those inside the club really know. Moloney has recently been the poster boy for this but again no-one really knows whether he was redeemable and how hard Neeld tried. It seems Neeld had his moments with Davey, but I reckon Davey has delivered to his maximum capability this year. Rivers is a less convincing example - he left like Goddard did - for much greater opportunities. Martin, Gysberts, Bennell, Morton, Petterd - there's no evidence one way or another whether Neeld made the right call on these players. Watts is the likely example of mismanagement - the sub, drop, emergency, recall saga did not play out well in my opinion but again no-one has provided hard evidence that Watts is terminally disenfranchised, and indeed opinion is quite split on whether this really matters. There's been speculation about other important players wanting out but no evidence. Overall in this area Neeld got Clark to the club and Clark has been nothing but positive - that's a big credit to burn.

Soon: Neeld is not the coach to lead us forward in the long run and if you've made this decision then we should move on him soon because important list management decisions are made from this time forward and we can pursue an alternative coach and make them with clear air and not waste a year.

What is your definiton of 'soon' in terms of time?

Whether we move on in May or in July is not going to make a difference to what coaches are out there in the market.

And the implications for personnel retention is a double edged sword - we are all assuming that a Neeld-less MFC will have a better time keeping our oh-so-great list together. But what if the decision to move to 4 months of caretaker leads to more player disillusionment?

I really don't think there is a 'good plan' for removing your coach but I do think there are plenty of 'bad plans' - caretaker for 4 months is a ground I fear to tread.

I don't want that at all.

[jumbo returns 6,488]

I don't see where FT said any of the things you have attempted to attribute to him. Stop trying to "verbal" people

You might need to check again.

[jumbo returns 6,488]

You will indeed find we were finishing many games off very well under Bailey... need did NOT inherit a bad list... He has created it !!

Really??

Please go over our draft selections over the last several years and cite the positives in our top draft picks.

[jazza 1,323]

love your attitude jumbo, please be careful negativity on this thread is catching

we dont need to see the end of your positive thoughts

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

And many of us are looking in the longer term. It's interesting you're neither "here or there" because with your analytical approach I thought you may have reached an outcome or conclusion or at least be leaning one way or the other. When you're charged with responsibility to manage you don't have that luxury, you have to make decisions based on judgement and that is what the footy club must do and that is what many on here are debating - what they should do.

Whilst I don't want to get into a semantic argument I suspect there are irreversible outcomes from Neeld's coaching and I'd look to players like Watts, Moloney and Rivers as examples. I've seen a person unable to handle personal situations well, unable to utilize players skill sets and he makes what I consider to be poor decisions. Jack x 2 as captain for example. I think this has probably irreversibly impacted their careers. It's an opinion and I believe if he has a history of making bad decisions there is a strong possibility he will continue to make poor decisions.

I think the support for the club by many has waned which will impact on revenues which in turn will impact on our ability to perform on field. I suspect we are not a great brand to be associated with as a result of our performances which again will effect sponsorship. I suspect young kids won't be lining up to support us. All of these things will hurt us irreversibly in the longer term because we will never get those younger supporters back and we will never receive the funding.

In the end it comes down to whether you think Neeld should coach in the long term. If "yes" then keep going on the path we are on now. If "no" when do you get rid of him.

Where do you stand?

I wouldn't stand next to you, I think my inability to stifle my laughter at some of your 'thoughts', you might find a bit upsetting

Edited May 7, 2013 by Satyriconhome

[Scoop Junior 2,973]

Okay, so let's not teach our players any defensive part of their game.

Let's allow players to run around unchecked, unfit, ill disciplined and petulant.

Let's keep the NQRs that have been clogging our list for 5, 6 or 7 years.

Let's ignore that our draft selections have been pathetic.

Let's keep outdated training methods and snare a big win every now and then to keep the 'chaps' and the Redlegs happy.

You have no vision.

How do you rate our defensive game at the moment?

I am all for a defensive game plan and a coach that values defence.

But currently we are defending as badly as any Melbourne side I've ever seen. It's all well and good to say that you're a coach that focuses on defence, but if you cannot actually implement that defensive game plan and get your side defending well then what good is it.

Need I mention that we are currently the worst defensive side in the league and haven't even played the top sides like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong yet.

I did think we defended better against Carlton (hard not to after the appalling defensive work we've seen this year and especially against the Lions the week before) and if we can start to dramatically improve this area then I may see some light. But at the moment we are an absolute shambles defensively and if this does not improve I can't see the outcome being too bright for Neeld.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

How do you rate our defensive game at the moment?

I am all for a defensive game plan and a coach that values defence.

But currently we are defending as badly as any Melbourne side I've ever seen. It's all well and good to say that you're a coach that focuses on defence, but if you cannot actually implement that defensive game plan and get your side defending well then what good is it.

Need I mention that we are currently the worst defensive side in the leage and haven't even played the top sides like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong yet.

I did think we defended better against Carlton (hard not to after the appalling defensive work we've seen this year and especially against the Lions the week before) and if we can start to dramatically improve this area then I may see some light. But at the moment we are an absolute shambles defensively and if this does not improve I can't see the outcome being too bright for Neeld.

We defend 'poorly' because we fold under pressure at the moment and turn it over too much, that is what Neeld is trying to eradicate

[jumbo returns 6,488]

We defend 'poorly' because we fold under pressure at the moment and turn it over too much, that is what Neeld is trying to eradicate

+1

[jumbo returns 6,488]

How do you rate our defensive game at the moment?

I am all for a defensive game plan and a coach that values defence.

But currently we are defending as badly as any Melbourne side I've ever seen. It's all well and good to say that you're a coach that focuses on defence, but if you cannot actually implement that defensive game plan and get your side defending well then what good is it.

Need I mention that we are currently the worst defensive side in the leage and haven't even played the top sides like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong yet.

I did think we defended better against Carlton (hard not to after the appalling defensive work we've seen this year and especially against the Lions the week before) and if we can start to dramatically improve this area then I may see some light. But at the moment we are an absolute shambles defensively and if this does not improve I can't see the outcome being too bright for Neeld.

We had players on Saturday doing things that haven't happened for a long, long time.

Col Garland leaving his man to crash a pack to help out Chip.

Dunn negating Judd the ENTIRE game.

JV and MJ helping Nate Jones to become a damaging ball carrier that he is.

Dean Terlich running in a straight line.

Tapscott finding his niche.

And the most exciting? Sylvia is starting to play like the player he can be.

We are getting there.

[jumbo returns 6,488]

love your attitude jumbo, please be careful negativity on this thread is catching

we dont need to see the end of your positive thoughts

Thanks jazza...

I'm not happy either atm, but I can see a change - a change that hasn't occurred for years. Bigger bodies, more discipline, more accountability.

Neeld must stay.

[jazza 1,323]

We had players on Saturday doing things that haven't happened for a long, long time.

Col Garland leaving his man to crash a pack to help out Chip.

Dunn negating Judd the ENTIRE game.

JV and MJ helping Nate Jones to become a damaging ball carrier that he is.

Dean Terlich running in a straight line.

Tapscott finding his niche.

And the most exciting? Sylvia is starting to play like the player he can be.

We are getting there.

im trying to understand the hatred of mn on this site, but everybody who wants him sacked keeps coming up with silly statistics to back thier argument every week and they have now lost sight of the fact he was appointed by a board that employed him to do 3 preseasons and bring the fitness levels to a level set by the BOARD and i think going on reports the fd are doing this

he was also employed to find out who could play where and how. thier doing this.i personally have given up on being a top team for this term of 3 years and count only positives and negatives per game.

i ve come to the conclusion we are seeing good results from the fd that the board employed .

others do have thier own opinions and thats terrefic, but theyve lost sight of the agenda set by OUR board

Edited May 7, 2013 by jazza

[The Reverend 1,704]

I want Neeld sacked because he has made so many bad decisions in such a short time.

Principally, my key issue with Neeld is that his overall philosophy of football is far too defensive and too ridged. This is reflected by his game plan which does not suit our list. We have a team of inferior talent, and therefore we should be encouraged more to roll the dice/take risks. Neeld’s current ‘risk free’ approach is anything but and is highly predictable and flawed (as demonstrated by the results). I also think it is nonsensical for a coach to be fixed on a game style given how quickly the game evolves, especially given how far away we are from a position to win a flag. Who knows, AFL could be a 16 a side game by that stage. A flexible approach is the only way to go.

I also highly suspect Neeld has disenfranchised a number of key players. The decision to demote and denigrate the previous leadership group and openly criticise players in the media before even meeting them was divisive and hasn’t paid off. We are playing with little confidence at the moment and IMO this likely stems from Neeld’s initial foray into the club and his ‘robotic’ game plan.

With the list, I have issues with the decisions give Jamar and McKenzie three-year contracts, letting Moloney and Martin go, recruiting Dawes (given the price, both draft picks and salary, and given the number of other key forwards on our list), Byrnes (given the price, two year contract and his age), as well as Rodan, Pederson and Gilles, who are too old/not up to it. The retentions of Troy Davis and Tom Couch were also errors in my view. (While Couch may be seen as unimportant given he is a rookie, it meant that we were forced to take mature agers Terlich and Matt Jones in the National Draft. Effectively Couch’s retention cost us pick 53.) While I could understand one or two errors in terms of list management, 10 is just too many IMO.

His bad decisions extend to team selection/game day positioning. This is highlighted by his use of Rivers, Garland, Moloney and Magner as forwards for much of last year. Jack Watts is clearly not a small defender and should be showing more than he is currently.

I am under no illusion that MFC’s current position is largely due to the lack of talent on our list. However, the coach needs to be measured on his ability to get the most out of the team and IMO he has badly failed to date on this score.

The reasons for moving early are to give a caretaker a chance to prove his worth and to help in player retention for next year. Waiting to sack him later in the year is just delaying the inevitable and we would be better off letting our players play a more instinctual game. Einstein summed up MFC’s current position when he said ‘Insanity is doing the same things again and again expecting different results’.

Like sacking coaches?

I could be wrong but i'm pretty sure you are wrong on every point you've made. I just can't be bothered reading it all again to make sure. If I can just make one point that is at the heart of this whole debate, and I'm not sure how many times it needs to be made but let's do it one more time.

Neeld was appointed to change the culture of the club and set us up for future success. Unfortunately that means we will suffer some pain for a short while until everything is in place. It just can't be done overnight. If, at the end of his three year contract, there are no signs of improvement I will be happy to lead the march to have him removed but until then let's get off his back and let him do the job he has been given.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

im trying to understand the hatred of mn on this site, but everybody who wants him sacked keeps coming up with silly statistics to back thier argument every week and they have now lost sight of the fact he was appointed by a board that employed him to do 3 preseasons and bring the fitness levels to a level set by the BOARD and i think going on reports the fd are doing this

he was also employed to find out who could play where and how. thier doing this.i personally have given up on being a top team for this term of 3 years and count only positives and negatives per game.

i ve come to the conclusion we are seeing good results from the fd that the board employed .

others do have thier own opinions and thats terrefic, but theyve lost sight of the agenda set by OUR board

Neeld has had two thirds of his pre seasons now, with one to go, and I cannot see any improvement in the way we are playing the game, we are probably a lot worse this year than last. Can you point out one area where we have improved, one area where we are better than last year. Do you really believe that one more pre season will fix all the problems and improve our skills? He showed appalling judgement in recruiting 4 delisted players to top up the list.

If Neeld stays and we get walloped in the first game next year, what will you think?

If we get to the 5th game next year and the floggings continue, will you say it's time for him to go, or will you hold the line and say he should be able to see out his contract?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

You might need to check again.

No, need to check it again. He did not say what you have attributed to him.

[hardtack 10,127]

Neeld has had two thirds of his pre seasons now, with one to go, and I cannot see any improvement in the way we are playing the game, we are probably a lot worse this year than last. Can you point out one area where we have improved, one area where we are better than last year. Do you really believe that one more pre season will fix all the problems and improve our skills? He showed appalling judgement in recruiting 4 delisted players to top up the list.

If Neeld stays and we get walloped in the first game next year, what will you think?

If we get to the 5th game next year and the floggings continue, will you say it's time for him to go, or will you hold the line and say he should be able to see out his contract?

I think we are seeing signs of improvement... the last quarter against GWS, first halves against West Coast and Brisbane, so there has to be hope that with a further pre-season under their belts they will be able to maintain that sort of output for full games. Additionally, we will have the added strength of Hogan up forward and if Neeld and co play their cards right, a couple of experienced and top class mids via free agency. This season has seen half of the rebuild he was aiming for, and it is patently obvious that the midfield is where we are falling down most badly, so I'm quite happy if they give him the chance to complete his work.