If he didnt understand the game plan why didnt he ask for clarrification

If he didnt understand the game plan why didnt he ask for clarrification

I guess he thought it was a pile of dog poo

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.

No disagreement here. The only player I would have thought Magner could have been swapped in for was McKenzie. But McKenzie is our main tagger, and Magner does not have the same defensive abilities as McKenzie. Yes Magner might get the ball more, but would those positions have more of an impact on team performance? I don't know the answer, but I still think that McKenzie brings things to the team that are needed. He and Dunn are both turning into very solid run with players.

- 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.

The club has clearly said (through the chat with Brian Royal) that Sellar was brought in as a defender, while Fitzpatrick was competing with Dawes to fill a forward line spot. Obviously, Dawes won that battle. Yes Fitzpatrick does deserve a senior game, but I wouldn't put him in ahead of Dawes or Gawn for that matter given he would have to play one of those roles.

- 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.

Again, I agree that it would have been great to see Jetta in for Nicholson. In the team changes thread I was actually suggesting that Nicholson and Bail should be dropped, and Jetta is one I think could play the role that Nicholson does. I'm only guessing, but it could have been an issue of conditioning? Again I don't know.

- 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)

You need to take that entire section of my post and consider what I said, not just the comparison of win-loss. Also I actually noted that we could "possibly" be 2-5. I wasn't getting ahead of myself. Our fixture at the start of the last year was certainly a lot tougher than it has been to start this year, no doubt. I think our skills are behind where they were last year, and that's understandable given the loss of Green, Rivers (massive loss IMO) and to an extent Moloney and Petterd. But, I never saw Moloney provide repeat efforts chasing players. I hear what you are saying, but I guess it's just about individual perceptions. It all comes down to what we are looking for as signs as "improvement", and for me a lot of it is about attitude, and willingness to get to a contest, to work for the benefit of the team and not just for the the individual.

- 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.

Again, I guess it comes down to what you are looking for as signs of improvement.

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.

Usually excuses can be seen through as having little basis in fact. Though the results aren't there, and I also hate seeing the club struggle again, Neeld is a guy who I believe is high on integrity. He tries to be very transparent and realistic about where the club is at. I don't think he is making excuses, rather he is explaining that we have got a long way to go. As i said in another post, we have rebooted and we need to at least acknowledge that we are at a similar stage as a team, as teams like the bulldogs, Gold Coast and GWS.

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.

Fair enough.

Jared Rivers says he has loved Geelong and says they have a load of talent but also all down to earth

​Said this on 3aw. Interesting that last sentence. What did the melbourne players get big heads about something else because they certainly couldnt get ahead of themselves.

Also said this.

Jared Rivers says Melbourne probably haven't helped Jack Watts by playing him in different positions & should play him in 1 spot for 6 weeks

​So Neeld will wake up tomorrow with someone else having a go at him.

This was off big footy form someone who heard the interview

Jared Rivers was on SEN prior to the Essendon vs. Geelong game tonight. I highly recommend that all Dees supporters have a listen, and I will endeavor to post a link as soon as it is loaded up. Jared explained how cut up both he and Moloney were after being removed from the leadership group by Neeld upon his entry into the club. He really felt disenchanted that as an older player he was so easily disregarded in place of youth, especially since neither was given an opportunity to prove themselves. He also suggested that Moloney was a great leader at the club, and did a lot of work with the younger players outside training. I don't want to paraphrase any more, but please have a listen if you want a real insight into the club from the perspective of a highly respected senior player. Mark Neeld's decision to demote senior players like Moloney and Rivers was as bad as Bailey's decision to move on Junior.

​Didnt the players choose the leadership group?

Jared Rivers says he has loved Geelong and says they have a load of talent but also all down to earth

​Said this on 3aw. Interesting that last sentence. What did the melbourne players get big heads about something else because they certainly couldnt get ahead of themselves.

Also said this.

Jared Rivers says Melbourne probably haven't helped Jack Watts by playing him in different positions & should play him in 1 spot for 6 weeks

​So Neeld will wake up tomorrow with someone else having a go at him.

I don't think he cares and neither will we when we start winning games under Neeld

Yep I thought it was the players that were meant to have selected the leadership group...

Another perspective to consider. A colleague at my work is heavily involved in the fundraising for the club, including the match day raffle. He is regularly in the rooms.

I mentioned to him about some of the comments suggesting that Neeld did not have the support of the player group.

He laughed it off and then commented that (i'm paraphrasing) the team now, seems more united and in better spirits then it has for years. He indicated that their is genuine positive energy among the player group and a belief in the path that they are on.

Many on here have suggested that the presser's where players express their thoughts/opinions can't be believed, but I think this perspective from someone who is in and around the club regularly, including in the rooms pre and post match provides a valuable insight. Take it however you want.

But to me, it suggested that the players have bought into the Neeld and Co way of doing things. Listen to the press conference with Dawes and I think that positive attitude really comes through, and he's only been in the club for about 7 months.

The other night I met a member of the coterie who is regularly in the rooms as well. He also laughed off the talk of player discontent. Said he spends alot of time around the club and had not heard or seen any signs of the demonland notion of Neeld having lost the players.

A. The players chose the leadership group after Neeld had cut all the old group and HE decided who HE wanted as captains. So disappointing to hear the effect Neeld has had on the playing group

B. Geelong had 10 players tonight with under 50 games. Smedts 20 games, Schroeder 1 games, Guthrie 22 games, Horlin-Smith 7 games, Thurlow 1, Blicavs 6, Taylor-Hunt 47, Christensen 42, Motlop 33, West 47. So much for have a young inexperienced team being the reason other teams beat us.

A. The players chose the leadership group after Neeld had cut all the old group and HE decided who HE wanted as captains. So disappointing to hear the effect Neeld has had on the playing group

B. Geelong had 10 players tonight with under 50 games. Smedts 20 games, Schroeder 1 games, Guthrie 22 games, Horlin-Smith 7 games, Thurlow 1, Blicavs 6, Taylor-Hunt 47, Christensen 42, Motlop 33, West 47. So much for have a young inexperienced team being the reason other teams beat us.

Are you serious

Geelong also had Selwood and the rest to lead these guys

B. Geelong had 10 players tonight with under 50 games. Smedts 20 games, Schroeder 1 games, Guthrie 22 games, Horlin-Smith 7 games, Thurlow 1, Blicavs 6, Taylor-Hunt 47, Christensen 42, Motlop 33, West 47. So much for have a young inexperienced team being the reason other teams beat us.

But unfortunately OD we don't have the other players around to make these 10 players look good like the cats do.

That makes a huge difference.

We look worse because our best aren't fit or are injured and we lack a midfield

Look at Richmond. Cotchin, Martin, Deledio and Riewoldt might just be able to drag a very ordinary bunch into the finals.

Imagine if they had Frawley, Howe, Viney, Clark, Dawes, Grimes, Trengove, Blease, Garland, McDonald, Evans and Jones, hopefully Toumpas. Do you see my point now. We're 3 or 4 short of a finals time

In the team that played Carlton last week Roost (including emergencies) we'd have about 8 players that might make the grade at other AFL clubs (outside the 2 expansion teams).

The ones you mentioned (highlighted) are yet to prove themselves as being AFL standard. Given enough games and time they may, but that could be said of many start out players in many clubs.

Of those 8 players that could make other AFL lists, apart from maybe Clark and Howe, i would argue the rest will probably never be A graders. And yes i realise most other clubs don't have an endless list of A graders either. And I agree with you we might be only 4 players (or a few more) short of being competitive.

However, where i beg to differ is due to the quality of those 8 players (and the rest of our list!). I would think from those additional 4 players (or so), at least 2 would need to be super star type players that could potentially turn some matches off their own efforts and the other 2 (or so) would need to be pretty damn good as well. We'll just dead cat bounce for the next decade otherwise.

Fair enough.

An actual discussion free from insults. You're a breath of fresh air mate.

Jared Rivers says he has loved Geelong and says they have a load of talent but also all down to earth

​Said this on 3aw. Interesting that last sentence. What did the melbourne players get big heads about something else because they certainly couldnt get ahead of themselves.

​

Only chinese whispers but i also heard this from a source who has connections to a new player at the club. Stated that he noticed there were some players who pranced about as if they were king pins and wasn't overly praising of the general culture amongst some of the players.

Said he couldn't understand the attitude given where we were on the ladder.

Could be absolute rubbish and not sure how such a young player with little club experience could judge anyway, but FWIW that's what i heard.

I find it interesting that the Daniher/Gardner cheersquad always blamed the players for not implementing Daniher's poor game plan but now they blame Neeld, not the players.

they did, blame the players. they blamed the likes of godfrey & Jnr & others who chased hard.. but they wanted more skill but forgot about the hardball & the chasing & the pressuring & the contested marking & putting the head over the ball.

they wanted more davies, & more bruces, & more greens, & less of the team 1%ers. & obviously no hardworking getting muddy styled culture.

But gradually the danners gameplan, of running along the wings carrying the ball, looking for space & players playing ahead of the footy, but no physical presence was doomed & then no chase coming back the other way, with no fitness as well? = a holiday camp... culture was shot to pieces.

Only chinese whispers but i also heard this from a source who has connections to a new player at the club. Stated that he noticed there were some players who pranced about as if they were king pins and wasn't overly praising of the general culture amongst some of the players.

Said he couldn't understand the attitude given where we were on the ladder.

Could be absolute rubbish and not sure how such a young player with little club experience could judge anyway, but FWIW that's what i heard.

the quicker we get the club a Training Ground & Office/SocialHub out away from the winter shadows of the 'G', the sooner we'll have a long lasting culture & player development.

.

B. Geelong had 10 players tonight with under 50 games. Smedts 20 games, Schroeder 1 games, Guthrie 22 games, Horlin-Smith 7 games, Thurlow 1, Blicavs 6, Taylor-Hunt 47, Christensen 42, Motlop 33, West 47. So much for have a young inexperienced team being the reason other teams beat us.

Serious? Every team has young players, that's not what it's about. It's about the lack of experience at the other end. We have no (i.e. zero) players with over 150 games this weekend, and our newly elected vice-captain in Garland has just over 80. When you look at the Geelongs, Hawthorns, Swans, they have a LOT more players up around and over 200 games, and that's where the experience is and is needed.

Seeing you mentioned Geelong, apart from the younger players you mentioned they also had 8 players with more games than our maximum-game player (I'm taking the liberty here of discounting Rodan and Davey, given they're no longer, it seems, first 22). And not just a few more either, plenty of those have 50 - 100 more. Throw in Selwood (at 142, just 2 games less than Sylvia), and Rivers when he's fit ... it's a completely, completely different story.

To put it another way, it'll take us 4-5 years to match the experience that Geelong had out there.

Yep I thought it was the players that were meant to have selected the leadership group...

Another perspective to consider. A colleague at my work is heavily involved in the fundraising for the club, including the match day raffle. He is regularly in the rooms.

I mentioned to him about some of the comments suggesting that Neeld did not have the support of the player group.

He laughed it off and then commented that (i'm paraphrasing) the team now, seems more united and in better spirits then it has for years. He indicated that their is genuine positive energy among the player group and a belief in the path that they are on.

Many on here have suggested that the presser's where players express their thoughts/opinions can't be believed, but I think this perspective from someone who is in and around the club regularly, including in the rooms pre and post match provides a valuable insight. Take it however you want.

But to me, it suggested that the players have bought into the Neeld and Co way of doing things. Listen to the press conference with Dawes and I think that positive attitude really comes through, and he's only been in the club for about 7 months.

Yes i'm getting that vibe too PM. I think if we can hang on to one ray of hope it is that the players might be in the early stages of finding that belief. My only worry is that they've lost so many games now, and that Neeld has told them we are developing and not to expect much, that they've forgotten how to guts out a win against most teams unless they're up against another easy beat club (at present) like GWS or GCS. I'm not sure you can just click your fingers and start winning games of footy and become competitive.

And as yet, Neeld's given no indication of when that point might arrive and neither has the President/Board given any indications of their expectations of Neeld during his 3 year contract. The president, the board, Neeld & the FD all give the impression that they're ok to just keep bouncing along the bottom at this point without any pressing time line.

Rivers and Moloney are heroes of our club and were shunted aside by a stupid and arrogant young coach. Moloney loved our footy club through and through who was cast aside by a new coach who deep down despises the MFC.

Neeld hates Melbourne! Has shown nothing but disrespect for the club and culture since he arrived. Just believes in his own 'premiership' model (haha!) and backs himself to apply it anywhere - even a sub-AFL club (his words not mine) like Melbourne.

"I am going to make Melbourne AFL standard!" So he brings in Sellar, Rodan etc. Beamer Moloney gave him a taste AFL standard two weeks ago.

BYE BYE NEELD!!!

...... Jared explained how cut up both he and Moloney were after being removed from the leadership group by Neeld upon his entry into the club. He really felt disenchanted that as an older player he was so easily disregarded in place of youth, especially since neither was given an opportunity to prove themselves. He also suggested that Moloney was a great leader at the club, and did a lot of work with the younger players outside training. I don't want to paraphrase any more, but please have a listen if you want a real insight into the club from the perspective of a highly respected senior player. Mark Neeld's decision to demote senior players like Moloney and Rivers was as bad as Bailey's decision to move on Junior.

I don't think it takes a lot to work out what happened and why.....

The Green-Moloney- Rivers leadership group went to the Board on the eve of 186 and asked them to sack CS. When CS - and his mate, Gary Lyon - starting talking to possible replacements the first thing they said was that the leadership group had rebelled and that they expected the new coach to pull it apart and start afresh. The day CS prevailed over Bailey was the day the leaders effectively lost their jobs. We are kidding ourselves if we think that Neeld started assessing the leaders with a clean sheet of paper.

Neeld may have irretrievably "lost" the players with his tough initial stance - but I'm not sure that would have been entirely his fault.I'm prepared to give him the rest of the season to demonstrate progress ................ but I reserve the right to change my mind if we get thrashed this week!!

In the team that played Carlton last week Roost (including emergencies) we'd have about 8 players that might make the grade at other AFL clubs (outside the 2 expansion teams).

The ones you mentioned (highlighted) are yet to prove themselves as being AFL standard. Given enough games and time they may, but that could be said of many start out players in many clubs.

Of those 8 players that could make other AFL lists, apart from maybe Clark and Howe, i would argue the rest will probably never be A graders. And yes i realise most other clubs don't have an endless list of A graders either. And I agree with you we might be only 4 players (or a few more) short of being competitive.

However, where i beg to differ is due to the quality of those 8 players (and the rest of our list!). I would think from those additional 4 players (or so), at least 2 would need to be super star type players that could potentially turn some matches off their own efforts and the other 2 (or so) would need to be pretty damn good as well. We'll just dead cat bounce for the next decade otherwise.

Grimes has proved himself and Trengove hasn't? Give me a break. I'd prefer the ball in the hands of Trengove over Grimes every day of the week. Though ultimately I deem them both to be "AFL standard", just nowhere near where we want them to be eventually.

Just a quick side point too. It gives me the shits that Neeld refers to JT as "Trengrove". Get it right. You coach the kid and appointed him captain for crying out loud. Take a listen to the Neeld/Dawes press conference.

My only worry is that they've lost so many games now, and that Neeld has told them we are developing and not to expect much

That's not what they've been told. In fact, what they've been told is completely the opposite of that.

There's an interesting article in today's Geelong Advertiser by Paul Chapman about the relationships of players within the team environment - Footy relationships are tested at times.

We need to realise that football teams are not a single homogenous group and that the views of individuals like Moloney and Rivers might not necessarily be reflective of the rest of the group. In my discussions with some of the (younger) members of the playing group, some of the older brigade at the time of Neeld's arrival were more self-absorbed than team oriented and Neeld, Craig and the football dept saw that. If they were the right quality for team leadership they would have been considered favourably. Their behaviours indicated otherwise and they spat the dummy.

It hurt the club in the short run for it to be bereft in mature leadership but Moloney and Rivers weren't worthy contenders. Let Riv say what he likes and it will be accepted for what it's worth but I'll always remember him as one of many at this club and in this era who never lived up to his potential and he is hardly the one to speak about his own leadership credentials.

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

hah - bingo! Australian Army...

Freddy

I loved and respected Rivers as a player; he was one of our best every year and a courageous leader in the back line.

I'd give what he says a lot of credibility.

Neeld was an arrogant ponce for coming in and getting players like that off-side. Surely one of the basic tenets of leading any sort of organization is to capitalize upon what strengths you do have. The appointment of Grimes and Trenners was the first of many mistakes brought about by Neelds lack of footy smarts.

Cheers

Is he paraphrasing Garry Lyon's article?

What didn't he like?

The professional training? The new expectations? The demanding of accountability? Transparency? Senior players? What senior players? Moloney, Martin, Morton, Gysberts, Bennell?

Dumb comments by Rivers.

deny everything! I'm right, I am!!