It seems as though a select few just keep posting any s#^t on this thread just to keep it at the top of the page.....

Just sayin' is all :-)

What I would like to know is - after all these posts, insults, arguments and vented spleens - has anyone changed their original stance on Neeld's coaching?

Re-posted

Mark Neeld has appeared to have correctly identified the appalling long term lack of appropriate "culture" at Melbourne and is dealing with it as his major priority as senior coach.

Melbourne has not had real leaders (or indeed leaders amongst its senior players) since the early days of the Daniher era. Daniher oversaw the change of senior players from Lyon, Tingay, G & B Lovitt, Viney, Stynes, Walsh, Ward, N. Brown, M & S Febey, Leoncelli and Ingerson amongst others

to

such as Bruce, Green, Wheelan, James McDonald, Robertson, Neitz, Johnstone, White and Yze.

Of the latter group I would only put Wheelan, Neitz and McDonald as being worthy successors but am of the view that Neitz and McDonald did not have the personality to impose themselves on the playing group and while they were terrific footballers who gave their all for the Club, could not translate this to ensuring that those young recruits who followed learnt to give what they gave as footballers. As a result of the overall lack of strong personalities the playing list became lazy and self-centered.

I am not convinced that anything like the splendid "culture" existing at Geelong and Sydney could become part of the Melbourne ethos, or that Neeld's approach is the correct one to bring it about. However, the steps he is taking appear to be logical and realistic. I am certain that if this remedial work is not performed, this Club is going to remain about where it is until it folds for lack of interest.

If whose who scream for the immediate appointment of a new coach are successful I accept that in the short term we may win a few more games over the next couple of years, however, without the change in culture it is currently undergoing, the Club is doomed to mediocrity. Unfortunately, this cannot be brought about in a few weeks, or even one season.

Of those who were delisted last year, I noted real gnashing of teeth by supporters over only Rivers, Gysbert and Moloney. To suggest that Melbourne had a greater hold over Rivers than for example St. Kilda had over Goddard is not realistic. Rivers has taken the opportunity to play with a team with a famous culture, discipline and which has real hopes of immediate success. All strength to him. Stan Alves and Greg Wells did the same with varying success decades ago. Gysbert was sadly a victim of the Club's lack of ability to develop young players of promise, which is in part the immediate problem Neeld is attempting to deal with. While our drafting may appear extremely moderate over recent years, how many of those chosen who have not realized their full potential would have succeeded at other clubs? Moloney to my mind is one of those at fault in continuing the toxic culture and if we are to improve long term, he had to go.

Brock McLean is an example of the point I am trying to make. At Melbourne he became noted for doing wheelies in the car park and getting into fights outside drinking venue's. I was delighted when he left. It has taken some years and it now pains me greatly to admit that he is playing excellent disciplined football. It would simply not have happened in the team he left.

Further to the suggestion trumpeted by his critics that this is Neeld's team, therefore he must take all the blame, it remains the fact that 25 listed melbourne players at the start of 2011 are now on the senior list. It will be much closer to being his team after the draft this year, if he remains in power. He has however recruited a number of players from other clubs who are now roundly ciriticised. I believe this is criticism without consideration to the real reason for the drafting of many of them.

Clark is probably the AFL recruiting coup of the last two years. He provides real on and off field leadership. A perfect mentor for such as Jesse Hogan.

Dawes is an intelligent and articulate leader coming from a strong club. His excellent article in the Age set out his understanding of Neeld's focus. Again he is a leader on and off the field (I say that having followed his career with interest at Collingwood). In his one NAB appearance the whole forward line seemed much better structured.

Byrnes is a (multiple?) best clubman winner at Geelong. Again he brings his experience to the club and in my view has also provided good leadership on the ground.

Roden is also an excellent trainer and apparently a personality about the Club. He is there to teach because there are not many others who can (and hopefully play a bit).

Each of the above were picked up for far more than their football ability.

Of the others, Sellar was probably a Neil Craig pick and has played some solid games in defence. Gillies comes from a team with a great attitude and was good enough to play 13 games for Geelong (although I haven't yet seen why) and Pedersen also comes as a senior player with experience at another Club (although again his on field performance has been underwhelming). Only Clarke of this list may be/become an A grader, however, each of them do far more for the Club in the terms of what they bring on and off the training track than a few young late numbered draft picks who would quickly become culture victims (or retaining Moloney, Gysbert, Morton Bennell et al). They have mostly been chosen for the short term in their own careers, but for the long term good of the Club.

Without their potential influence I would despair (even more) about the future of potential stars such as Toumpas and Hogan.

If all Neeld does as our senior coach is to bring about enormous and vital changes in attitude at Melbourne, he will to my mind have been a success. He must be given at least to the end of this year and probably to the end of the next to cement changes, otherwise I fear we are doomed to spend the rest of its existance supporting a team at the bottom quarter of the AFL ladder.

finally someone who knows what it takes to rebuild the club, the Culture, & the lacking development tools.... the environment around the club, the attitude about the club, & the 'leadership abilities' of the more mature players.

this Is Why our youth push came unstuck, & we haven't really been very successful at developing young recruits over the last 20 years, & certainly since the turn of this century.

... after about 2002, our culture went very South.

This thread keeps going because those who support MN, those who do not believe in MN's approach, and those who are newbies to the thread, all show that there is a strong spirit of support for MFC - the club is greater than the individual - the posters may not all agree (sometimes quite strongly!), but they do care and they are prepared to spend a lot of time expressing their support, one way or another!

finally someone who knows what it takes to rebuild the club, the Culture, & the lacking development tools.... the environment around the club, the attitude about the club, & the 'leadership abilities' of the more mature players.

this Is Why our youth push came unstuck, & we haven't really been very successful at developing young recruits over the last 20 years, & certainly since the turn of this century.

... after about 2002, our culture went very South.

Bimbo's post has some merit dee-luded, but if it was broken down in detail there would be much to debate. My view is that the MFC culture changed drastically in 1965 and has been struggling ever since. Along the way, there have been highs and mostly lows. So, where does that leave us now? IMO we are in a bigger mess than ever - those at the top are largely at fault, but MN is not the coach we need at the coalface at this time. It is a risk, but MFC needs to bite the bullet and make changes now, not just MN, but also at the top, however I'm not expecting any voluntary resignations!

Just posting to keep the thread at the top

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’.

Brilliant post.

Brilliant post.

I think you mean short sighted, reactionary and impulsive. Just what the club doesn't need at the moment.

Re-posted

Mark Neeld has appeared to have correctly identified the appalling long term lack of appropriate "culture" at Melbourne and is dealing with it as his major priority as senior coach.

Melbourne has not had real leaders (or indeed leaders amongst its senior players) since the early days of the Daniher era. Daniher oversaw the change of senior players from Lyon, Tingay, G & B Lovitt, Viney, Stynes, Walsh, Ward, N. Brown, M & S Febey, Leoncelli and Ingerson amongst others

to

such as Bruce, Green, Wheelan, James McDonald, Robertson, Neitz, Johnstone, White and Yze.

Of the latter group I would only put Wheelan, Neitz and McDonald as being worthy successors but am of the view that Neitz and McDonald did not have the personality to impose themselves on the playing group and while they were terrific footballers who gave their all for the Club, could not translate this to ensuring that those young recruits who followed learnt to give what they gave as footballers. As a result of the overall lack of strong personalities the playing list became lazy and self-centered.

I am not convinced that anything like the splendid "culture" existing at Geelong and Sydney could become part of the Melbourne ethos, or that Neeld's approach is the correct one to bring it about. However, the steps he is taking appear to be logical and realistic. I am certain that if this remedial work is not performed, this Club is going to remain about where it is until it folds for lack of interest.

If whose who scream for the immediate appointment of a new coach are successful I accept that in the short term we may win a few more games over the next couple of years, however, without the change in culture it is currently undergoing, the Club is doomed to mediocrity. Unfortunately, this cannot be brought about in a few weeks, or even one season.

Of those who were delisted last year, I noted real gnashing of teeth by supporters over only Rivers, Gysbert and Moloney. To suggest that Melbourne had a greater hold over Rivers than for example St. Kilda had over Goddard is not realistic. Rivers has taken the opportunity to play with a team with a famous culture, discipline and which has real hopes of immediate success. All strength to him. Stan Alves and Greg Wells did the same with varying success decades ago. Gysbert was sadly a victim of the Club's lack of ability to develop young players of promise, which is in part the immediate problem Neeld is attempting to deal with. While our drafting may appear extremely moderate over recent years, how many of those chosen who have not realized their full potential would have succeeded at other clubs? Moloney to my mind is one of those at fault in continuing the toxic culture and if we are to improve long term, he had to go.

Brock McLean is an example of the point I am trying to make. At Melbourne he became noted for doing wheelies in the car park and getting into fights outside drinking venue's. I was delighted when he left. It has taken some years and it now pains me greatly to admit that he is playing excellent disciplined football. It would simply not have happened in the team he left.

Further to the suggestion trumpeted by his critics that this is Neeld's team, therefore he must take all the blame, it remains the fact that 25 listed melbourne players at the start of 2011 are now on the senior list. It will be much closer to being his team after the draft this year, if he remains in power. He has however recruited a number of players from other clubs who are now roundly ciriticised. I believe this is criticism without consideration to the real reason for the drafting of many of them.

Clark is probably the AFL recruiting coup of the last two years. He provides real on and off field leadership. A perfect mentor for such as Jesse Hogan.

Dawes is an intelligent and articulate leader coming from a strong club. His excellent article in the Age set out his understanding of Neeld's focus. Again he is a leader on and off the field (I say that having followed his career with interest at Collingwood). In his one NAB appearance the whole forward line seemed much better structured.

Byrnes is a (multiple?) best clubman winner at Geelong. Again he brings his experience to the club and in my view has also provided good leadership on the ground.

Roden is also an excellent trainer and apparently a personality about the Club. He is there to teach because there are not many others who can (and hopefully play a bit).

Each of the above were picked up for far more than their football ability.

Of the others, Sellar was probably a Neil Craig pick and has played some solid games in defence. Gillies comes from a team with a great attitude and was good enough to play 13 games for Geelong (although I haven't yet seen why) and Pedersen also comes as a senior player with experience at another Club (although again his on field performance has been underwhelming). Only Clarke of this list may be/become an A grader, however, each of them do far more for the Club in the terms of what they bring on and off the training track than a few young late numbered draft picks who would quickly become culture victims (or retaining Moloney, Gysbert, Morton Bennell et al). They have mostly been chosen for the short term in their own careers, but for the long term good of the Club.

Without their potential influence I would despair (even more) about the future of potential stars such as Toumpas and Hogan.

If all Neeld does as our senior coach is to bring about enormous and vital changes in attitude at Melbourne, he will to my mind have been a success. He must be given at least to the end of this year and probably to the end of the next to cement changes, otherwise I fear we are doomed to spend the rest of its existance supporting a team at the bottom quarter of the AFL ladder.

This exactly.

Brilliant post.

Really?!

What are we all arguing about again? I forget...

What are we all arguing about again? I forget...

A muscle bound picture which produces moving pictures - great contribution!

Sack Neeld... How have we not won a flag since his arrival. Its not like he had much to change at the club. Because its a given that the next coach will turn this all around.

Edited May 7, 201312 yr by Benson

A muscle bound picture which produces moving pictures - great contribution!

The Song Formerly Known As, on 07 May 2013 - 21:26, said:

Hardnut, on 07 May 2013 - 21:21, said:

Nothing! Is that what you mean - you could use words, but then that might be a contribution - oh no!

Edited May 7, 201312 yr by Hardnut

I missed the "bimbo" article ..... Let me say .....one of the most measured and articulate statements I have read. It has restored my faith that there are some supporters who have foresight. I agree wholeheartedly with all the sentiments that were written. Let's not look for instant gratification as is synonymous with today's society & have a bit of faith !

Nothing!

Sack Neeld... How have we not won a flag since his arrival. Its not like he had much to change at the club. Because its a given that the next coach will turn this all around.

Who knows what the next coach may or may not do, but at least we know what MN can't do!

If you had to make a choice between Neeld and Frawley for example, who would you choose?

I think this opens up a valid argument about the priorities we need to look at when we are talking about coaching changes.

Nothing!

Wasn't this the hero guy who claimed an incident on a plane wouldn't have occurred if he was on board! At least he now knows he should stick to acting!

If you had to make a choice between Neeld and Frawley for example, who would you choose?

I think this opens up a valid argument about the priorities we need to look at when we are talking about coaching changes.

I assume you are talking about coach and player (rather than uncle) - I'd keep Frawley the player.

If you had to make a choice between Neeld and Frawley for example, who would you choose?

I think this opens up a valid argument about the priorities we need to look at when we are talking about coaching changes.

I choose life, Jaded. I choose life.

Honestly, I didn't know that it was a matter of Neeld not being sacked and us losing Frawley.

Because, you are right, when it comes to the crunch you should always attempt to keep your 6th best player (Clark, Jones, Viney, Howe, McDonald) happy even if it means firing the coach.

I choose life, Jaded. I choose life.

Honestly, I didn't know that it was a matter of Neeld not being sacked and us losing Frawley.

Because, you are right, when it comes to the crunch you should always attempt to keep your 6th best player (Clark, Jones, Viney, Howe, McDonald) happy even if it means firing the coach.

6th best player. Lol.

So you'd keep a known commodity, a rare one, over a speculative coach with an appalling record??

I'm not suggesting we sack Neeld right now, but the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group. So you can try to devalue Frawley all you like, but you know full well that if players of his quality (of which we have so few) walk out, we go back 5 years.

6th best player. Lol.

So you'd keep a known commodity, a rare one, over a speculative coach with an appalling record??

I'm not suggesting we sack Neeld right now, but the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group. So you can try to devalue Frawley all you like, but you know full well that if players of his quality (of which we have so few) walk out, we go back 5 years.

Give me an argument he is better than those five. He would be lower if we were talking about 'most important.'

I am not the one making ultimatums here, and neither is James. You are making them on his behalf and I don't think he would appreciate the excuse for his form you are tacitly giving him as I know he is a proud individual.

You can dress it up how you like but you don't know whether getting rid of Neeld will help or hinder player retention (or whether it will matter at all).

Nothing!

TSFKA - please don't take this the wrong way, but the gifs are losing their impact and it's getting to the point that pages take ages to load. If you are who I think you are I've supported your gif talent elsewhere but overload takes its toll. (this is not a bump)