What happens if we lose to GWS?

[P-man 13,353]

GWS and GC have taken the cream for the past few years, and sooner or later, that cream is going to come to the top. It's not going to be just us that they go past.

bing, fer christ's sake.

Do you really stand by a justification that we should be behind GWS and GC in our development? Please don't spit in my coffee and call it sweetener.

[TheoX 1,218]

Watts - enough said.

Sylvia, poor pick in a poor draft year.

Morton over Dangerfield, Masten, Rioli

Gysberts over Talia, Lewis Jetta, Fyfe.

Our recruiting team couldn't pick its nose.

I wouldn't be slashing any wrists over not picking Masten

[TheoX 1,218]

We failed to develop Cook to the extent that no one even rookied him and he is playing VFL seconds. On his first training run with us he cried. In his first Casey practice match, he gibbed a ball pick up so badly, my son said "this guy will never play a game of AFL." He was right, off one incident. How long did the worst recruiter in AFL history BP spend looking at Cook? Every other recruiter laughed at us when we took him.

Look at our midfield, we don't have one.

Yes blame our development. Of course, we should have developed the sub standard players we drafted and made them good.

BP has killed us. I would sue him for return of his salary.

He should be sued for emotional and psychological pain too.

[drdrake 3,066]

I wouldn't be slashing any wrists over not picking Masten

Is this the same bloke that killed us yesterday. I tired of reading about Moloney, Rivers and the other players we let go last year, our players were bone lazy and unfortunately for Neeld and co they didnt realize this until the start of preseason when they took over. We read Moloney bleed red and blue, crap he only cared for him and when he was asked to be a team player he sooked up.

The club has decided that we completely stuffed up under Bailey, our recruitment and player development has caused us to reassess our expectations, we are in 2009 again, funny comparison but that is where we are at, to think 2008 draft we selected a key forward with our first pick, 2012 trading we also used our first pick on a key forward an he dominated at Casey yesterday.

[What 18,810]

i long for the days of Neale Daniher

that guy took us into 6 finals series

oh the good times

Edited April 13, 2013 by hogans_heroes

[praha 10,575]

We will [censored] GWS.

If we don't the club will have earnt the honours of being one of the AFL worst teams if all time, if it hasn't already.

[dees189227 11,327]

If we win the medai will say they only beat GWS if we lose well the media will say it wasnt unexpected. I will be shattered if we lose to them. Surely we have the biggers bodies and class. Well Id like to think so.

It would just be nice to see the new players, i doubt toumpas would play but Viney to experience a win and form him to belt out the song. Plus the media would be off our backs for a week.

Edited April 14, 2013 by dees189227

[Theo 263]

I wouldn't be slashing any wrists over not picking Masten

Masten had more kicks yesterday that jetta, Davey, Sellar, Jamar and Pederson combined. At least Masten works hard boy ways,not like these blokes.

If you watch Jetta closely like I did yesterday, he gets to contests late and then just jogs up and down the ground without any real sense of purpose. Always waiting for the loose ball without going in for it himself.

[Strafford 182]

In many ways I agree with your post.

It's impossible to get this many draft picks wrong. Many of our picks were taken close enough to where they were meant to be taken. The recruiters all had Morton at 3 or 4. Watts at 1 or 2. Trengove at 1 or 2. Etc etc. There is still hope for a couple of our high pick draftees but we need to start seeing evidence soon enough.

Paul Roos has stated on a few occasions that a club has 3-5 years to develop an 18yo. He reckons once they get to 21-23 that's it. The player at that later age remains at that 'developed' level for the rest of his career. I took it as a general comment as there are always exceptions to the rule.

It really isn't an either or, development is a vital part of the recruiting process. Although mistakes are made.

With Roos for example, the Swans took Veszpremi, even though for all his natural ability the kid had problems with work ethic and looking after his body, their culture didn't help there. We took Morton even though his main knocks were very outside and skinny as. We probably did take Gysberts a bit high as well, but the struggles of others we have taken was unlikely to have been forseen by many at the time.

Hawthorn supposedly the masters of list management burned two pick sixes on Thorpe and Dowler.

[tonatopia 278]

Adam are you a school teacher correcting me on spelling

Who the bloody hell do you think took the young players down to warrnambool every year and organized a boxing session over a couple of days.

Neeld got rid of a heart and soul player for the Dees because he couldn't get the best out of him.

A good coach gets the best out of his players and doesn't destroy young talent and [censored] off all the core senior players because of his autoractic leadership style

Here here

[Strafford 182]

Watts - enough said.

Sylvia, poor pick in a poor draft year.

Morton over Dangerfield, Masten, Rioli

Gysberts over Talia, Lewis Jetta, Fyfe.

Our recruiting team couldn't pick its nose.

I can't remember anyone saying Watts wasn't going to be good player. You can't blame a poor draft year on recruiters. I agree with Morton he did divide a few, because although rated as the best kick in the draft he was also thought of as soft and very outside. Gysberts was probably taken a bit high.

[CHAMP 347]

Here here

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1489/why-do-people-say-hear-hear

[Binmans PA 26,766]

Adam are you a school teacher correcting me on spelling

Who the bloody hell do you think took the young players down to warrnambool every year and organized a boxing session over a couple of days.

Neeld got rid of a heart and soul player for the Dees because he couldn't get the best out of him.

A good coach gets the best out of his players and doesn't destroy young talent and [censored] off all the core senior players because of his autoractic leadership style

I'm not a school teacher. I just prefer to spell things correctly.

And his boxing sessions were about emasculating the younger players, just as it was for Brock McLean.

Moloney made his own call. If he hadn't been lazy and egotistical, he'd have played a role for the team. It's not about any one individual.

I agree a good coach gets the best out of his players, but what Bailey got out of him was not the best and if it was it's not worth it. Moloney was endemic of the Bailey era. If we were playing an interstate team at the 'G he'd turn up. He rarely got it down against good opposition.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

we won't lose.

[Strafford 182]

Is this the same bloke that killed us yesterday. I tired of reading about Moloney, Rivers and the other players we let go last year, our players were bone lazy and unfortunately for Neeld and co they didnt realize this until the start of preseason when they took over. We read Moloney bleed red and blue, crap he only cared for him and when he was asked to be a team player he sooked up.

The club has decided that we completely stuffed up under Bailey, our recruitment and player development has caused us to reassess our expectations, we are in 2009 again, funny comparison but that is where we are at, to think 2008 draft we selected a key forward with our first pick, 2012 trading we also used our first pick on a key forward an he dominated at Casey yesterday.

To me this is part of the problem. I read an article (which also may be part of our problem as a fan base lol) in which it stated that Neeld looked up to Blight and it compared his actions in dumping our guys from the leadership group to what Blight did when he first arrived at Adelaide, but.... Blight cut four leaders from the Crows, but the difference is they were done as players and more importantly they were let go immediately. By doing what we did in my view we had two outcomes. The guys buckled down and supported the kids as leaders and embraced change, thus in fact ironically showing good leadership. Or if they were problem children, undermining the kids authority at every opportunity and not buying into the new team culture. If you don't value guys remove them from the club don't allow things to fester. There just to me seemed too much bull at a gate stuff. A year of settling in rather than drastic changes in my view would have been a better approach.

[Macca 16,174]

It really isn't an either or, development is a vital part of the recruiting process. Although mistakes are made.

With Roos for example, the Swans took Veszpremi, even though for all his natural ability the kid had problems with work ethic and looking after his body, their culture didn't help there. We took Morton even though his main knocks were very outside and skinny as. We probably did take Gysberts a bit high as well, but the struggles of others we have taken was unlikely to have been forseen by many at the time.

Hawthorn supposedly the masters of list management burned two pick sixes on Thorpe and Dowler.

On an overall basis, we as a club, are poor developers of young players. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't be bothered going into details Strafford. It's right before our eyes so breaking it down player by player is not needed.

One area is worth pointing out though. Our senior players and the example they set at training and in games. And we don't have any stars. That's all part of an 18yo's development. Imagine being an 18 year old going into the Sydney or the Geelong system?

We needed to bring in 2 or 3 decent free agents last season and many of us were advocating that late last year. We got none. If you're going to spend 9 or 10 million on players, you may as well be paying good players. How you attract decent free agents to our club is whole different story. Money talks but we need to offer a lot more than just straight cash.

.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Macca

[The heart beats true 16,736]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-13/nature-v-nurture-infographic

For those of us turning this into a development vs drafting thread I thought this was interesting. Makes you wonder about the management of the club in terms of both off field drama, and more importantly older player management.

[jackaub 1,402]

The pressure on the Board will be enormous. Do they stare the media down or do they accept that the truth of the matter is the media are right. I hate the muck-rakers being right so I'm prepared to stare them down like Hird did (to date). Neeld gets the year!

McLady is already gone Expect an annoncement early next week

Freeman has been annointed. Thanks Don Welcome the new board

[Deecisive 1,674]

you have to ask how much good Neeld can do if he continues, as well as how much damage could he do. If players are getting [censored] at him and the club then he could do some serious damage to their confidence and desire to continue in the red and blue, as once he has lost them there is probably no coming back. While people talk about other coaches having horrific runs and coming back, have they started out with as much talent as we thought we had? have the hit the lows we have mind you we dont know if we have hit bottom yet, the next few weeks will tell with GWS and GCS lined up. We loose here then you have ask what is the benefit of continuing to go with Neelds game plan, approach or Neeld himself.

For a coach who espoused defensive pressure, how could we be so off target.

[Strafford 182]

On an overall basis, we as a club, are poor developers of young players. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't be bothered going into details Strafford. It's right before our eyes so breaking it down player by player is not needed.

One area is worth pointing out though. Our senior players and the example they set at training and in games. And we don't have any stars. That's all part of an 18yo's development. Imagine being an 18 year old going into the Sydney or the Geelong system?

We needed to bring in 2 or 3 decent free agents last season and many of us were advocating that late last year. We got none. If you're going to spend 9 or 10 million on players, you may as well be paying good players. How you attract decent free agents to our club is whole different story. Money talks but we need to offer a lot more than just straight cash.

I was actually just making a few observations rather than arguing we were great developers of talent. I just think a few inaccuracies creep in during discussions. I certainly agree we need another FA or two, but they do need to be the right guys. It can't just be the best names out there. Will they be good leaders? Will they suit our system? For all the rules these negotiations with FA's start early and we aren't even sure who our coach will be. If we poach a player from a big club, how will a player cope not playing in front of huge crowds? Some players really feed off that energy. I agree we need to do it, but gee it's a risk especially as we will have to spend big.

On your sydney point they have been great lately with their kids, but not so long ago the only chance they had at senior experience was in the preseason games. Veszpremi, Meridith, Johnson, Currie all not developed by their culture. For a few years it was black hole time. I'm not sure Roos was a great believer in the draft.

.

[Macca 16,174]

I wasn't really disputing what you said previously, Strafford. I was just adding to the discussion with some other random thoughts

I do have an issue with paying our current list 9 or 10 million dollars for what they bring to the table. If it was a performance based thing then we'd have a lot of money spare in the salary cap. A real lot !

The fact is that you have to pay at least 95% of your cap. If we were paying 1.2 mil each to Ablett, Pendlebury and say Goodes and then divvy up the rest would that be a problem? Obviously it can't happen right now but we need stars and to get them, we'll have to pay over the odds.

Or we just keep what we've got and keep on 'developing'. Or not developing.

.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,958]

Adam are you a school teacher correcting me on spelling

Who the bloody hell do you think took the young players down to warrnambool every year and organized a boxing session over a couple of days.

Neeld got rid of a heart and soul player for the Dees because he couldn't get the best out of him.

A good coach gets the best out of his players and doesn't destroy young talent and [censored] off all the core senior players because of his autoractic leadership style

Sounds like your describing a young Barassi... a disciplinarian.

[Roost It 1,434]

We need 3 midfielders and we need them as of next year. With Hogan coming in I'd trade one of Frawley or Watts for a top line mid. We'll never compete without them.

[What 18,810]

McLady is already gone Expect an annoncement early next week

Freeman has been annointed. Thanks Don Welcome the new board

\

Anointed by who?

I dont remember being allowed to vote

[praha 10,575]

What's Neeld's average losing margin? Must be 60+.

I feel the club is trying to remain stable even in the face of needed change.

They play awful, awful football. The team shows absolutely NO promise. I am just bewildered as to how a young, finals-fringe side from 2010, 2011, can break down so badly.

Need says they're building the club from the ground up. It seems like they've turned the ignition off but are struggling to get it going again.

Is Neeld driving the cultural changes at the club? We really need to start scrutinising his vision rather than just sit back and take it as the gospel.

It's just astonishing that a team falls so far below AFL standard. Neither GC nor GWS are as convincingly smashed in certain important areas.

Melbourne hasn't lost this man consecutive quarters for 99 years.

It's suffered it's worse loss at he MCG in its history.

I'm sorry, but "rebuild" should not equate to accepted ineptness.

You don't maintain stability when said stability doesn't exist.

The club is trying to justify its stubbornness by talking a lot of garbage about stability. It's a get-out-jail-free card for Neeld and the board.

I am happy to give Neeld the year...but not with a consistent stream of 100-point beatings and records. No rebuild, no established club, no competitive environment - as minnow as said competitive environment at the club might be - can justify the brand of football this club is playing.

Its vision is bold and ambitious. And I get that. But my family has been going to the MCG for half a century. I'm a very competitive individual, and I can handle losses -- "we succeed because we fail," as Michael Jordan famously said -- but such ineptness, excused as the downtime before a promised period of "sustained success" does not sit well with me.

No club that loses games by 186, 140 points turns it around in less than a decade to win a flag.

We thought the club culture was toxic? It's the losing culture that fuels it.

Neeld wants to change this club, but he's regressing it back further than its ever been in the process. I am seriously concerned about this club's welfare.