I'd hate to be a coach. If he has a long term plan to fix a weak club with a poor culture which will involve major changes and pain along the way, then he gets belted here for not winning. But if he puts in certain players who might help win the next game, but maybe are not part of his long-term development plan, it is because he's only interested in a short-term win to keep his job.

Most, probably all, calling for MN's head accepted we were in an unprofessional mess by the end of 2011 and needed a major change of direction. You can't expect rapid improvement. Indeed if things were that bad, you shouldn't be surprised to go backwards at first. You might hope for rapid improvement, but you have to lump it when it does not happen as quickly as you would like. Of course it may not happen at all - that's when you start sacking coaches etc. But not so soon.

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working.

Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

Well said my good man.

I'd hate to be a coach. If he has a long term plan to fix a weak club with a poor culture which will involve major changes and pain along the way, then he gets belted here for not winning. But if he puts in certain players who might help win the next game, but maybe are not part of his long-term development plan, it is because he's only interested in a short-term win to keep his job.

Most, probably all, calling for MN's head accepted we were in an unprofessional mess by the end of 2011 and needed a major change of direction. You can't expect rapid improvement. Indeed if things were that bad, you shouldn't be surprised to go backwards at first. You might hope for rapid improvement, but you have to lump it when it does not happen as quickly as you would like. Of course it may not happen at all - that's when you start sacking coaches etc. But not so soon.

It's all about instant gratification apparently. People aren't willing to be patient, but with MFC supporters it's understandable that we might be a bit impatient, it has been a while.

What I think should happen: all talk about this should be shut down for the duration season and Neeld should be left to his job for the rest of the year. It can be reviewed at years end (by which time I believe he will have made some good progress) but any move on his spot during the season will only set the club back further. There have been some promising signs even though the first few weeks have been hard.

Sacking Neeld and bringing in someone else won't change the fact that our list is poop and needs a bit of time to develop. A lot of people here expect young kids to be stars straight away and it just doesn't make sense.

When things get seriously out of hand its time to do something.

I dont know for sure if player managers are talking to other clubs, but its my opinion the drums are beating.

If players were doing deals I believe it is this time of the year they shake hands on it.

For example I would think Daisy Thomas would be negotiating right now not after the season ends. He is free like Sylvia.

it was this time of the year that many believed Judd shook hands. Maybe not and maybe Scully just decided when he flew up to GWS on the day. But I dont believe it.

Its worse if a player is out of contract but wants to go.

Add this possible player revolt against the coach with now making excuses for future losses against Gold Coast. Its not like we would lose Winston Churchill.

I had previously thought Neeld's path would succeed eventually...

When I changed my mind, and he started feeble excuses it seemed he had lost the players totally.

So should we wait untill round 16/17 before a change? I think we should consider what further damage we may escape if he goes sooner than later.

I'd hate to be a coach. If he has a long term plan to fix a weak club with a poor culture which will involve major changes and pain along the way, then he gets belted here for not winning. But if he puts in certain players who might help win the next game, but maybe are not part of his long-term development plan, it is because he's only interested in a short-term win to keep his job.

Most, probably all, calling for MN's head accepted we were in an unprofessional mess by the end of 2011 and needed a major change of direction. You can't expect rapid improvement. Indeed if things were that bad, you shouldn't be surprised to go backwards at first. You might hope for rapid improvement, but you have to lump it when it does not happen as quickly as you would like. Of course it may not happen at all - that's when you start sacking coaches etc. But not so soon.

I would have thought given that the Club had been through a rocky 5 years beforehand and the fact that Neeld has only a 3 year contract he would have surely realised that a Coach needs to start delivering in his 2 year in order to fulfil a 3 year contract and to get an extension.

Neeld would have understood this and after a carp 1st year Neeld needed to show evidence that there was some improvement. His whole pre season had been focused on that. At the major pre season dinner and in the pre season pressed he create the expectation for some improvement. What we have got has been the complete opposite. After the each of the first two games We are worse than we were last year and last year was worse than 2011.

No has been setting the standard for "rapid" improvement from Neeld. But he has shown little to date that suggests MFC are barely competitive. His 5 wins out of 28 consist of 3 wins against a schoolboys 18, GCS and a peptides Essendon last year. He is nearly 50% of the way through his contract and has had 2 of his 3 pre seasons already and this side is a basket case. There is no on field evidence that he has brought the club further forward either in team or individual player performance. In fact many have gone backwards. There is also a number of personnel decisions that are questionable and raise concerns about the wisdom of getting an untried coach through a flawed and inept coaching appointment process.

Keeping Neeld is prolonging the problems that he brings to MFC and delays the ability for the Club (hopefully the AFL) to find a competent and experienced coach to move us forward. And given the basket case MFC is on and off the field I would hope the AFL heavy support would assist mitigating the unattractiveness of the Club ATM.

For the good of the game and to prevent the stagnation and disintegration of the supporter and sponsor base, the AFL need to take control and rid MFC of this coaching disaster as an important early step in the rejuvenating the oldest club in the land.

Absolutely, I could never figure out what was going on with our forward line in those early days and I expressed my concern about him as a coach then. I never thought much of him as a coach but believed that he needed time to prove himself even with that 1/12 record in 2009. I also believed that it was the proper thing for the club to do at the time to give him an extension. In hindsight of course, it was a blunder but at least we didn't behave like the Richmond of the last couple of decades which we are now in grave danger of becoming.

I was always concerned with his man management - the dealings with Chris Johnson, James McDonald and Brad Miller leaving at the club were appalling. Then I became concerned when we constantly failed against teams that employed the press in 2011 and by the time we played the Bulldogs on 1 July 2011, I thought he was a lame duck coach who had to go sooner rather than later. He lasted a month after that.

Jack what do you consider to be Neeld's three best achievements?

It is humorous to read when certain Posters on here say that others are impatient get off the bottom of the ladder.

Most other teams talk about promising players, enjoying a win, or even better 3 wins in a row.

Remember that!!

Bottom line is if we lose too many more games Mark Neeld will sack himself.

Don't blame me. 18 months is long enough to make a judgement on a man's career prospects.

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working.

Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

I agree with you regarding the process & I have faith in the current footy dept..

In fact, I have More faith in this footy dept than I have had since the mid 80's.... & I can see the similarities of what Ray Jordan & that footy dept achieved while Barass battled with the Senior Group trying to instill Professionalism & Discipline.

We Are at an equivalent state of development, as the 1985/1986 MelbourneFC list. but we lost last year, as a look&see year... list sorting... what we found last year was a Jones, Sylvia, Howe, Grimes, TMac & to a lesser extent, LDunn.

this year we see further from Jones, Sylvia, Howe, Grimes, & some who are still injured,,, plus some more popping up.... Evans, Tapscott, Garland, MJones, Jetta, Gawn, Spencil, Fitzpatrick, Davis, Strauss, Kent, et al....

lots off improving going on, & coming thru.

.

.

Keeping Neeld is prolonging the problems that he brings to MFC and delays the ability for the Club (hopefully the AFL) to find a competent and experienced coach to move us forward.

What competent and experienced coach would be available before the end of the season?

(apart from Roos, who has apparently ruled himself out ...)

It is humorous to read when certain Posters on here say that others are impatient get off the bottom of the ladder.

Most other teams talk about promising players, enjoying a win, or even better 3 wins in a row.

Remember that!!

Bottom line is if we lose too many more games Mark Neeld will sack himself.

Don't blame me. 18 months is long enough to make a judgement on a man's career prospects.

Why should he? He's got a 3 year contract and that's where he's at.

He has a goal, he has a vision.

What competent and experienced coach would be available before the end of the season?

(apart from Roos, who has apparently ruled himself out ...)

Mark Neeld.

Sundays a big day for Neeld, Huge amount of pressure added if we lose, not much comes off if we win, because we should

pm24, your posts are well written and understandably well received. I do wonder if your call for cool heads would be as well received if you were to call for them at three quarter time on match day, when everything has inevitably turned to a pile of puss, but you do raise some fine points. A few I would contest however:

- each week we are seeing considerably less of the ball than our opponent. Mags is cosistently leading the possessions in the twos and knows how to give his team first use. Simply put, you make room for someone who can bring that sort of immediate presence to the midfield that we are still lacking. If we must prescribe to your "like for like", then you conveniently omitted McKenzie's name from the list of possible outs. Of course, as someone who met Neeld's checklist for "leaders" (apparently playing ability wasnt a criterion), we're probably stuck with Jordie, but he would be ideal if you don't view Magner as a suitable swap for Trengove.

- I'm of the view that consistent effort should be rewarded, and for Fitzy to kick 13 goals in 4 games and still not get a call to the bench, with Jamar out, is at the very least a point for discussion. I still believe he deserved a nod ahead of Sellar and that hasn't changed.

- Jetta not coming in for Nicholson is just bizarre. Jetta has been one of the shining lights so far. For some reason, in a rare winnable game, he spends another week on the sideline.

- quoting the fact we were 0-10 as opposed to about to be 2-5 (not here yet y the way) is seriously clutching at straws given the obvious fact we had not played the expansion teams by this stage yet. Comparing this year to last is akin to comparing a bucket of mud to a bucket of dirt. One is slightly less sloppy but that's where the difference ends (incidentally, our skills have worsened this year to my eyes, making this year the mud)

- in terms of what you are seeing as improvement in competitiveness, granted, the first half against West Coast showed some promising signs of at least looking like we can compete at AFL level, a low benchmark. The stark reality is we lost the game by 100 points and when the opposition lifted a gear, we were powerless to stop them. You saw alot more in the Brisbane match than I did. I witnessed a depleted (no Rich or Black), possibly bottom four side treat our midfield with utter disdain, waltzing through the middle at will, and putting together chain after chain of possession. When we did get our hands on the ball ourselves, we continually misused it and demonstrated all the same signs of a team, not just young and inexperienced as Neeld likes to mention to the point of obsession, but desperately low on confidence. As for Carlton, there were improved signs of effort, but only one quarter in which we looked like we were genuinely in the contest. The reality once again is that Carlton, missing several big names, went a half tilt and won by 10 goals. In short, if the signs of improvement are there, they are very small, and few and far between. When you speak to opposition fans, their reaction as to how bad we are is one of shock.

I don't enjoy seeing my team struggle every week like this. I absolutely hate it. But I'm not going to put my hands over my eyes and pretend everything is alright when the evidence on the field, where it counts, is that it clearly isn't. I will give this FD props when it has earned them. Right now, Neeld is a man in a results driven industry who is keeping his job by peddling his pissy excuses for the weekly thrashings his team receives.

As for this week, I'd like to say that only a win is acceptable. Given the state we're now in, a realistic goal is a four quarter effort and a respectable margin. Anything less and my views will remain unchanged.

P=Man

2 points - who would u take out to put Magner in, he is too similar to Jones and Viney to carry 3, we have speed in instead, coz everybody keeps crying out for it, but Mat Jones, Evans and Bail need games, and we were only 2 down in the clearances against Carlton, why McKenzie, try watching what he does in close... we just don't have the experience or composure to use the ball well each time we have it

Jetta - I am his biggest fan, but he was suspended for a stupid late hit, let's build a culture, let's bring him straight back in, no he has to earn his spot back

This topic is full of contradictory rubbish like this

Actually no 3 points Sellar can play fwd and back and ruck, perfect tall on bench, GC have three tall fwds, Fitzy has had three games back, another couple of consistent performances and they will have to pick him, earn your spot, and Sellar was excellent for Casey last week

If you hate seeing your team struggle, pay your membership if you want, but stay home, and stop whingeing on here

What competent and experienced coach would be available before the end of the season?

(apart from Roos, who has apparently ruled himself out ...)

Coaches that fulfil that requirement are either:

A) in their last year of their current contract; or

B) not in contract ATM.

Now is the time to be looking to do that search to make their important appointment by season end. And that can't be done effectively while we have a contracted incumbent. It's not a good look to prospective coaches and it would not be fair to Neeld to do that search while he is technically in that role. The Board (AFL) need to determine where they stand now on Neeld.

Amazing number of posts in less than 6 months Satyriconhome - do you have another working life?

Amazing number of posts in less than 6 months Satyriconhome - do you have another working life?

Yes darling, thank you for asking, have a fulltime job , but Australian Army taught me to speed read and touch type, and job entails running reports on ERP system which take forever and a day, but then completely no responsibilities after work, which is great.....someone has to keep the Demonland Orcs under control

Coaches that fulfil that requirement are either:

A) in their last year of their current contract; or

B) not in contract ATM.

Now is the time to be looking to do that search to make their important appointment by season end. And that can't be done effectively while we have a contracted incumbent. It's not a good look to prospective coaches and it would not be fair to Neeld to do that search while he is technically in that role. The Board (AFL) need to determine where they stand now on Neeld.

I think at the moment the Board stand alongside Neeld along with the majority of the 30000 members, some on this board only requirement for a coach would be not Neeld and breathing

Amazing number of posts in less than 6 months Satyriconhome - do you have another working life?

Nowhere near the record.. point not withstanding.

"If you hate seeing your team struggle, pay your membership if you want, but stay home, and stop whingeing on here"

^^ Really is good mental health advice imo. Maybe not the best strident supporter / enabler / disabler pacifier.

Nowhere near the record.. point not withstanding.

"If you hate seeing your team struggle, pay your membership if you want, but stay home, and stop whingeing on here"

^^ Really is good mental health advice imo. Maybe not the best strident supporter / enabler / disabler pacifier.

Who cares, supposedly all heroic on here, so should be able to stand it, bored with the whiners

Rooster, you and Stuie slugging it out is a match made in heaven. Two absolute titans that could not be split on points. Like a couple of well meaning bookends.

There is no slugging it out. You made that up like most of your dribble. I've replied to just one of his posts. it's hardly slugging it out.

Now run off and go pick on a schoolkid. That seems to be more your style.

I'm guessing you're in your 50's, not very intelligent, a lawyer maybe. You've got few friends, are single and take out your frustrations and inadequate life right here on Demonland. Enjoy your Friday night Big Fella!

I very rarely post but enjoy reading most of the stuff on this site except for all of the c**p that has been written, by so called supporters, particularly on this topic.

At last someone has articulated what is going on in the Football Dept. I support these comments 100%. I believe we are well and truely on the right track.

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway.

Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions??

The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line.

All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me.

I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working.

Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

There is no slugging it out. You made that up like most of your dribble. I've replied to just one of his posts. it's hardly slugging it out.

Now run off and go pick on a schoolkid. That seems to be more your style.

I'm guessing you're in your 50's, not very intelligent, a lawyer maybe. You've got few friends, are single and take out your frustrations and inadequate life right here on Demonland. Enjoy your Friday night Big Fella!

Keep fantasising rooster. At least you can get you're rocks off on that.

Yes darling, thank you for asking, have a fulltime job , but Australian Army taught me to speed read and touch type, and job entails running reports on ERP system which take forever and a day, but then completely no responsibilities after work, which is great.....someone has to keep the Demonland Orcs under control

A secretary can do that - an analyst would tell you that your behaviour is out of the ordinary for a new poster - D/L has seen that before!

Keep fantasising rooster. At least you can get you're rocks off on that.

So tell me I'm wrong

How old are you?

Are you a lawyer?

C'mon open up RR, Demonland is here to help