Next week as we all Know MFC plays GWS

I believe we are a chance to beat them , previously we would have said a shoe in but that's not the point anyway

On the other hand Carlton plays West Coast in Perth

North Melbourne on the other hand plays Brisbane in Melbourne

GWS is also winless at this stage

So my question is

If Melbourne does beat GWS

Carlton looses to West Coast

Or North fails to beat Brisbane

What then ??

The ladder will be GWS, CARLTON or possibly NORTH Winless after 4 rounds !!

If this played out this way who do you think the MEDIA spotlight would turn too??

Would it stay on Melbourne ?

Or Would it switch to either Carlton or Nth???

What would it mean as a club to have the pressure off ?

The week after we Play Brisbane in Brisbane who have also only won one game so far

Football is neither life nor death , but rather a passion that needs feeding each week.

We need to get a new perspective on this, and were Melbourne actually stands, the only way Melbourne will continue to Fail is if we Fail this week, because the pressure will remain and nothing will have changed

It is essential that this does not happen !

This is their best chance to turn it around so far this season, this must be drummed into the players,

If it isn't then it is a failure of the coaching team to do so.

There will be no place for anyone to hide should we fail again this week.

personally i think your on the right track,a freind of mine close to neeld said that his first preseason he was shocked at the lack of fitness and would be lucky to win a game after flogging the players on the track. now after bringing the players through a second preseason he reckons the results will be seen NEXT year.most of us cant wait and would prefer a ratten mark williams combo, but if the clubs sticks it will be interesting what happens 2014.so onto the now. beat gws and go to brizzy and we are 2/3 the tone of the posts will change, chin up be positive

Carlton and North aren't playing badly, it's just that they're not winning (a bit like the Greg Chappell Syndrome).

The spotlight would still be fixed on the range and extent of the beltings which the club has suffered, even with a GWS win.

The Dees have shortened slightly to $1.72 but it's sure no lay-down misere.

personally i think your on the right track,a freind of mine close to neeld said that his first preseason he was shocked at the lack of fitness and would be lucky to win a game after flogging the players on the track. now after bringing the players through a second preseason he reckons the results will be seen NEXT year.most of us cant wait and would prefer a ratten mark williams combo, but if the clubs sticks it will be interesting what happens 2014.so onto the now. beat gws and go to brizzy and we are 2/3 the tone of the posts will change, chin up be positive

Even Misson was shocked, but it seems most posters don't understand how bad our football department was, Neeld had a lot of work to do to get it operating the way it should be.

a freind of mine close to neeld said that he was shocked at our preseason level of fitness compared to collingwood. he was quoted as saying this is 40% lower in base level to magpies pre . i can only take my nephews word as he is close to the coach

Even Misson was shocked, but it seems most posters don't understand how bad our football department was, Neeld had a lot of work to do to get it operating the way it should be.

Edited April 15, 201312 yr by jazza

The point is that under bailey we still managed to win 8 and a half games and play attractive football. Why not tread slowly in a new club and build the fitness base and take 3 years to weed out the slackers. Bailey deliberately didn't over train as he had a list of 18 year olds whose bodies it was deemed would not stand the rigors and adjustments were made. Luke Ball when he first started at St Kilda developed OP when Grant Thomas insisted he do a full pre season, note Jack Trengove was so fatigued last year he could hardly run. Don't overlook why the fitness base was low, as that was part of the longer term plan. Why did MN sack the leadership group, why install 2 rookie captains, why sack all the coaches (except Royal ) and the leadership group then ignore or discard all the footy intellect accumulated and start afresh?

It was arrogant, naive and in retrospect a massive error to rebuild again. If it was just about fitness I could accept the changes but it is also about man management, management style, game plan and vision. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done at Port and how he achieved it. They too were not fit enough but all their out of contract players have stayed on. MN does it by the numbers and is so full of himself he casts of those who don't do it his way and for that he will pay the price.

Edited April 15, 201312 yr by Older demon

I'm happy to defer to Dave Misson's expertise when it comes to AFL player fitness.

I expect many of the keyboard experts here couldn't even do 10 push ups.

true, but hes here and we have to support him. lets give him his 3 years and then look, because rotating the sackings has been getting us nowhere

The point is that under bailey we still managed to win 8 and a half games and play attractive football. Why not tread slowly in a new club and build the fitness base and take 3 years to weed out the slackers. Bailey deliberately didn't over train as he had a list of 18 year olds whose bodies it was deemed would not stand the rigors and adjustments were made. Luke Ball when he first started at St Kilda developed OP when Grant Thomas insisted he do a full pre season, note Jack Trengove was so fatigued last year he could hardly run. Don't overlook why the fitness base was low, as that was part of the longer term plan. Why did MN sack the leadership group, why install 2 rookie captains, why sack all the coaches (except Royal ) and the leadership group then ignore or discard all the footy intellect accumulated and start afresh?

It was arrogant, naive and in retrospect a massive error to rebuild again. If it was just about fitness I could accept the changes but it is also about man management, management style, game plan and vision. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done at Port and how he achieved it. They too were not fit enough but all their out of contract players have stayed on. MN does it by the numbers and is so full of himself he casts of those who don't do it his way and for that he will pay the price.

The point is that under bailey we still managed to win 8 and a half games and play attractive football. Why not tread slowly in a new club and build the fitness base and take 3 years to weed out the slackers. Bailey deliberately didn't over train as he had a list of 18 year olds whose bodies it was deemed would not stand the rigors and adjustments were made. Luke Ball when he first started at St Kilda developed OP when Grant Thomas insisted he do a full pre season, note Jack Trengove was so fatigued last year he could hardly run. Don't overlook why the fitness base was low, as that was part of the longer term plan. Why did MN sack the leadership group, why install 2 rookie captains, why sack all the coaches (except Royal ) and the leadership group then ignore or discard all the footy intellect accumulated and start afresh?

It was arrogant, naive and in retrospect a massive error to rebuild again. If it was just about fitness I could accept the changes but it is also about man management, management style, game plan and vision. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done at Port and how he achieved it. They too were not fit enough but all their out of contract players have stayed on. MN does it by the numbers and is so full of himself he casts of those who don't do it his way and for that he will pay the price.

Bailey also 'retired' most of our senior players prematurely and gave free games to these underdeveloped 18 year olds. Why did he do that, particularly if they weren't fit/hard enough?!

He completely lost me when he forced Junior McDonald to retire a year early.

His approach to the development of young talent was IMO naive in the extreme. Let's not now get revisionistic about things.

Nice bloke - but it seems to me that he completely stuffed our list. It was all way out of balance when Neeld arrived and was wholly lacking in many of the fundamentals (ie, leadership, fitness, culture).

The whole world knows this - surely.

Edit - iPad typo.

Edited April 15, 201312 yr by Ron Burgundy

The point is that under bailey we still managed to win 8 and a half games and play attractive football. Why not tread slowly in a new club and build the fitness base and take 3 years to weed out the slackers. Bailey deliberately didn't over train as he had a list of 18 year olds whose bodies it was deemed would not stand the rigors and adjustments were made. Luke Ball when he first started at St Kilda developed OP when Grant Thomas insisted he do a full pre season, note Jack Trengove was so fatigued last year he could hardly run. Don't overlook why the fitness base was low, as that was part of the longer term plan. Why did MN sack the leadership group, why install 2 rookie captains, why sack all the coaches (except Royal ) and the leadership group then ignore or discard all the footy intellect accumulated and start afresh?

It was arrogant, naive and in retrospect a massive error to rebuild again. If it was just about fitness I could accept the changes but it is also about man management, management style, game plan and vision. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done at Port and how he achieved it. They too were not fit enough but all their out of contract players have stayed on. MN does it by the numbers and is so full of himself he casts of those who don't do it his way and for that he will pay the price.

I am sure these are all things that keep Mark up at night.

Personally, I think the troubles we are having now would be comparable to the problems we would be having if we still had Moloney, Martin, et al. and if we didn't remove Green, Moloney, and Rivers from the LG in 2012.

The leadership at our club is young and that is why we are at where we are at.

Junior McDonald should have played 2011 and 2012 with the Demons as Captain and this would have been mitigated slightly but I am not so naive to think that we wouldn't be having the pain we are having.

We have some talented kids and we need to make sure we are developing them right - this is how we get out of this mess.

Toumpas, Kent, Barry, Hogan, Taggert, Tynan, and Stark need to be played under the right conditions after establishing themselves at Casey.

I appluad(ed) the recruitment of Terlich, Jones, Magner, Rodan, Byrnes, Pedersen, and Gillies in lieu of speculative kids because we don't need more talented kids - we need to develop the ones we do have the right way. And having bigger bodies take the brunt of this nonsense is better for our future.

I am sure these are all things that keep Mark up at night.

Personally, I think the troubles we are having now would be comparable to the problems we would be having if we still had Moloney, Martin, et al. and if we didn't remove Green, Moloney, and Rivers from the LG in 2012.

The leadership at our club is young and that is why we are at where we are at.

Junior McDonald should have played 2011 and 2012 with the Demons as Captain and this would have been mitigated slightly but I am not so naive to think that we wouldn't be having the pain we are having.

We have some talented kids and we need to make sure we are developing them right - this is how we get out of this mess.

Toumpas, Kent, Barry, Hogan, Taggert, Tynan, and Stark need to be played under the right conditions after establishing themselves at Casey.

I appluad(ed) the recruitment of Terlich, Jones, Magner, Rodan, Byrnes, Pedersen, and Gillies in lieu of speculative kids because we don't need more talented kids - we need to develop the ones we do have the right way. And having bigger bodies take the brunt of this nonsense is better for our future.

How dare you say something that makes sense it's not the demonland thing to do. But I do agree with you!!

How dare you say something that makes sense it's not the demonland thing to do. But I do agree with you!!

rpfc always does and yes I agree as well

Last year after we beat the dons in round 9 i thought we were much better after that, if we can get off the duck i think we will improve alot in not very long.

Can't see us losing to GWS if we play like we did in the first half against west coast,

Bring in Dawes and Gawn, slow the player turnover and build cohesion and confidence and we'll find another gear.

The pressure on Neeld will be enormous if we go down to the Giants, and the sad thing is that it isn't out of the realms of possibility.

I don't care what win/loss record other teams have- we are playing despicable football and it seems nothing short of a massive shake-up can remedy it. Make no mistake, we lose this match we will not win 1 for the season- such will be our confidence levels.

Unless a miriacle happens overnight something has to change or we die a slow and public death. A major decision will have to be made on the coach and we must, for the sake of our sustainability, pull the trigger on a PROVEN AFL coach. One that can bring out the best in our players and get them out of this funk. We must find them and we must get them. We must be viciously proactive.

Like I said, only a miracle will save Neeld. I don't believe in miracles.

I'm happy to defer to Dave Misson's expertise when it comes to AFL player fitness.

I expect many of the keyboard experts here couldn't even do 10 push ups.

Much less 15 wpm.

Next week as we all Know MFC plays GWS

I believe we are a chance to beat them , previously we would have said a shoe in but that's not the point anyway

On the other hand Carlton plays West Coast in Perth

North Melbourne on the other hand plays Brisbane in Melbourne

GWS is also winless at this stage

So my question is

If Melbourne does beat GWS

Carlton looses to West Coast

Or North fails to beat Brisbane

What then ??

The ladder will be GWS, CARLTON or possibly NORTH Winless after 4 rounds !!

If this played out this way who do you think the MEDIA spotlight would turn too??

Would it stay on Melbourne ?

Or Would it switch to either Carlton or Nth???

What would it mean as a club to have the pressure off ?

The week after we Play Brisbane in Brisbane who have also only won one game so far

Football is neither life nor death , but rather a passion that needs feeding each week.

We need to get a new perspective on this, and were Melbourne actually stands, the only way Melbourne will continue to Fail is if we Fail this week, because the pressure will remain and nothing will have changed

It is essential that this does not happen !

This is their best chance to turn it around so far this season, this must be drummed into the players,

If it isn't then it is a failure of the coaching team to do so.

There will be no place for anyone to hide should we fail again this week.

It's one thing to lose games and another to be completely uncompetitive.

I don't see any correlation between our plight and these other teams.

The point is that under bailey we still managed to win 8 and a half games and play attractive football. Why not tread slowly in a new club and build the fitness base and take 3 years to weed out the slackers. Bailey deliberately didn't over train as he had a list of 18 year olds whose bodies it was deemed would not stand the rigors and adjustments were made. Luke Ball when he first started at St Kilda developed OP when Grant Thomas insisted he do a full pre season, note Jack Trengove was so fatigued last year he could hardly run. Don't overlook why the fitness base was low, as that was part of the longer term plan. Why did MN sack the leadership group, why install 2 rookie captains, why sack all the coaches (except Royal ) and the leadership group then ignore or discard all the footy intellect accumulated and start afresh?

It was arrogant, naive and in retrospect a massive error to rebuild again. If it was just about fitness I could accept the changes but it is also about man management, management style, game plan and vision. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done at Port and how he achieved it. They too were not fit enough but all their out of contract players have stayed on. MN does it by the numbers and is so full of himself he casts of those who don't do it his way and for that he will pay the price.

Nicely written garbage

The pressure on Neeld will be enormous if we go down to the Giants, and the sad thing is that it isn't out of the realms of possibility.

I don't care what win/loss record other teams have- we are playing despicable football and it seems nothing short of a massive shake-up can remedy it. Make no mistake, we lose this match we will not win 1 for the season- such will be our confidence levels.

Unless a miriacle happens overnight something has to change or we die a slow and public death. A major decision will have to be made on the coach and we must, for the sake of our sustainability, pull the trigger on a PROVEN AFL coach. One that can bring out the best in our players and get them out of this funk. We must find them and we must get them. We must be viciously proactive.

Like I said, only a miracle will save Neeld. I don't believe in miracles.

And if the board did sack Neeld then they will show how gutless they are (I don't think they will ) they have been told how bad the football department was and what is needed to fix it, they then agreed and signed off on it so as I have said I don't think they will.

I'm happy to defer to Dave Misson's expertise when it comes to AFL player fitness.

I expect many of the keyboard experts here couldn't even do 10 push ups.

2007 Division 1 premiership player, thankyouverymuch.

all the other teams that may be 0-4 this weekend are competitive with bright presents and futures

We are a basket case

2007 Division 1 premiership player, thankyouverymuch.

How many push ups?

all the other teams that may be 0-4 this weekend are competitive with bright presents and futures

We are a basket case

Another well thought out post, HH?

Another well thought out post, HH?

Not really, but can you argue with anything i said in it?

Not really, but can you argue with anything i said in it?

No, you go first.

Then we can have a debate, if you're up to it.