This isn't yet another doom and gloom thread.

I just read the AFL.com article that quoted Colin Garland as saying Neeldy is coaching better than he ever has. In particular, Col (Garland, not this one) said that he was impressed at how he let the boys just play instinctive footy and has done a good job in protecting the players from the fall out of the three beltings at the start of the year.

Has Neeldy started to come to the realization that he needs to work with the players, rather than work against them? Has he realized that he can be authoritative as a coach but not authoritarian? Has he discovered that he can have a relationship with the boys but when the time comes he is able to tell them what is and what is not on?

I don't want things to go back to the time of Bailey when players were calling the shots exclusively but I have wanted him to at least become a little more flexible in his approach. What do others think?

I think he has come to this realization but he has come to it pretty late. Whether or not it will save him as a coach remains to be seen.

Coincidentally, the past two weeks have heralded a great turnaround in Garland's intensity and overall form. Perhaps he had somewhat of a falling out with the coach (which has now been rectified). Hell Gates certainly had some bad things to say about Neeld. Perhaps he got some of his info from Colin.

At any rate, it's clear that the longer we give a tough-as-nails footy nut like Neeld, the better he'll get. I mean, the guy has kept every handout he's ever gotten as a coach. Clearly he's motivated to get as good as he can.

Something seemed to change on Sunday - hopefully it is a lasting one.

I just read another article about Neeld's reaction to questions about the players' beards. I think Neeldy also realizes that most of the journos are looking for a headline and will look to spin anything that comes out of the club in a way that will make them look incompetent and sell a paper. If he says that he is happy that Watts shaved his beard off, you can just see a muppet like David King or Sellers MacLure turning up on AFL 360 and spouting off some line of poo whilst scoffing and pffting that Neeldy feels that club discipline has been restored by players shaving off their beards.

Why couldn't we have gotten this version of Mark Neeld earlier in his coaching career? I think he has started to learn some lessons but I'm not sure if the damage done early isn't irreversible or insurmountable. I hope it is cos that line towards the journalists shows this bloke is getting better.

Perhaps Neeld hasn't actually changed, but media hero's and keyboard warriors who have been type casting the coach and assuming his message and game plan was just a copy of Malthouse circa 2010 were actually wrong in their assessment (much of which is not based on any real info).

Just being a devils advocate...

I just read the AFL.com article that quoted Colin Garland as saying Neeldy is coaching better than he ever has. In particular, Col (Garland, not this one) said that he was impressed at how he let the boys just play instinctive footy

Where does he say that he'd let the boys play instinctive footy?

He says nothing of the sort, nor does the article. The point of which is that he's protected them from outside pressures, so that they could just be focused on playing. The shackles he refers to are that of external criticism and pressure.

This isn't yet another doom and gloom thread.

I just read the AFL.com article that quoted Colin Garland as saying Neeldy is coaching better than he ever has. In particular, Col (Garland, not this one) said that he was impressed at how he let the boys just play instinctive footy and has done a good job in protecting the players from the fall out of the three beltings at the start of the year.

Has Neeldy started to come to the realization that he needs to work with the players, rather than work against them? Has he realized that he can be authoritative as a coach but not authoritarian? Has he discovered that he can have a relationship with the boys but when the time comes he is able to tell them what is and what is not on?

I don't want things to go back to the time of Bailey when players were calling the shots exclusively but I have wanted him to at least become a little more flexible in his approach. What do others think?

I think he has come to this realization but he has come to it pretty late. Whether or not it will save him as a coach remains to be seen.

Neeld is not the type of coach that will let he players dominate them. But he might let them play more freely.

Where does he say that he'd let the boys play instinctive footy?

He says nothing of the sort, nor does the article. The point of which is that he's protected them from outside pressures, so that they could just be focused on playing. The shackles he refers to are that of external criticism and pressure.

Gee I love this site. It's the home of the angry ant who wishes to fight first and talk later. A bit like this bloke:

In fact that can sum up a few posters on here who wish to shoot first and ask questions later.

I believe that the phrase Garlo used was:

"In a weird sense he's been better than he ever has been. He's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play,"

This isn't yet another doom and gloom thread.

I just read the AFL.com article that quoted Colin Garland as saying Neeldy is coaching better than he ever has. In particular, Col (Garland, not this one) said that he was impressed at how he let the boys just play instinctive footy and has done a good job in protecting the players from the fall out of the three beltings at the start of the year.

Has Neeldy started to come to the realization that he needs to work with the players, rather than work against them? Has he realized that he can be authoritative as a coach but not authoritarian? Has he discovered that he can have a relationship with the boys but when the time comes he is able to tell them what is and what is not on?

I don't want things to go back to the time of Bailey when players were calling the shots exclusively but I have wanted him to at least become a little more flexible in his approach. What do others think?

I think he has come to this realization but he has come to it pretty late. Whether or not it will save him as a coach remains to be seen.

I think your portraying him negatively again & I wonder why.

the way I read the article was that Neelds allowed & encouraged them to play instinctively since the pre season...

but the players weren't able to let it go.

This would be why the players do not want Neeld to be put on a stake & set alight.

And would be why they are coming out in numerous articles over the last week or so, as the team is slowly getting towards full strength... & the momentum can start to slowly turn.

I think your portraying him negatively again & I wonder why.

the way I read the article was that Neelds allowed & encouraged them to play instinctively since the pre season...

but the players weren't able to let it go.

This would be why the players do not want Neeld to be put on a stake & set alight.

And would be why they are coming out in numerous articles over the last week or so, as the team is slowly getting towards full strength... & the momentum can start to slowly turn.

Actually, I think/hope that this is a positive development. From an outsiders point of view, he was too full of bluster and was too willing to shoot from the hip. When this change started isn't as relevant as the fact that he has started to chill out a bit.

Perhaps Neeld hasn't actually changed, but media hero's and keyboard warriors who have been type casting the coach....

I reckon if you watch the pregame presser from Rd 1 2012 to the tone of how he speaks now you'll see a marked difference. He's learning. Pity it's taken 21 loses to get there. As Henry Matisse said 'Better late than never is poor consultation for the man that's missed the opportunity of a lifetime'. Neeld is in a tough spot now, as everyone's lining up to kick him.

Actually, I think/hope that this is a positive development. From an outsiders point of view, he was too full of bluster and was too willing to shoot from the hip. When this change started isn't as relevant as the fact that he has started to chill out a bit.

yes,,, but some people think he didn't know what he's doing from the start,,, & I'm saying he does & did... he's working to an Important plan.

many do not understand what Is needed. & required. & the wrong way we've done things in the past eras.

It's hard to tell whether or not he's succeeding in terms of a longer term plan. Lets hope so and give him a chance to do so. Having said that, he has never come across terrifically in terms of the capacity to drag players with him.....but there is no way of knowing as a supporter.

It's hard to tell whether or not he's succeeding in terms of a longer term plan. Lets hope so and give him a chance to do so. Having said that, he has never come across terrifically in terms of the capacity to drag players with him.....but there is no way of knowing as a supporter.

Well Clark thought so & this year still thinks So.

Dawes thinks so & has said so in Print.

Now Garland. Grimes has said so. & others, & I'd say that Sylvia's play over the last 12 months speaks well.

As would Jonses form..

but you know what there is no convincing some supporters, who just want blood, & same old same old... change for some is worse than death. & then after the change when things go a tad backwards intitially,,,, those supporters Panick & get scared of the change they agreed to.

Would much rather have a coach who started out hardline and full of non-negotiable items, then gradually accepted more variation as performance requirements were met, than a coach who started as 'player's mate' and slowly realised that you actually need to have fundamental performance requirements.

I'd rather a decent AFL coach than a really good VFL coach.

I believe that the phrase Garlo used was:

"In a weird sense he's been better than he ever has been. He's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play,"

a) He didn't say or use the word "instinctive" as you claim

b) In quoting selectively, you're skewing the original meaning, especially in omitting what followed:

"We have got a lot of external pressures and Mark's really taken the shackles off the playing group. He has probably taken a lot of criticism that the playing group probably deserved ...."

The intent of the article is clear: Neeld has absorbed the external pressures, and in doing so, has enabled the players to focus on playing. Any other reading is wilful misrepresentation.

a) He didn't say or use the word "instinctive" as you claim

B) In quoting selectively, you're skewing the original meaning, especially in omitting what followed:

"We have got a lot of external pressures and Mark's really taken the shackles off the playing group. He has probably taken a lot of criticism that the playing group probably deserved ...."

The intent of the article is clear: Neeld has absorbed the external pressures, and in doing so, has enabled the players to focus on playing. Any other reading is wilful misrepresentation.

Oh sorry. I forgot that what I say here on Demonland is of the utmost importance. Maybe you could get Jonathon Holmes (the Media Watch guy, not the porn star) to devote some time to me on Monday night?

What I said though stands and no matter what you think, the 'he's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play' quote would imply that game plan isn't as important now as what it was.

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by Guest

Oh sorry. I forgot that what I say here on Demonland is of the utmost importance. Maybe you could get Jonathon Holmes (the Media Watch guy, not the porn star) to devote some time to me on Monday night?What I said though stands and no matter what you think, the 'he's given the blokes a licence to just go out and play' quote would imply that game plan isn't as important now as what it was.

I love those blokes that give 110% in the correction of grammar or intent. The Dreamteam must haves of the online world.

Something seemed to change on Sunday - hopefully it is a lasting one.

Watching the last quarter last week, it is astonishing the increase in intensity, the capacity at which the players had to get free, the attack at the ball. Don't tell me "it's only GWS" because that was an uncanny turnaround.

Perhaps Neeld hasn't actually changed, but media hero's and keyboard warriors who have been type casting the coach and assuming his message and game plan was just a copy of Malthouse circa 2010 were actually wrong in their assessment (much of which is not based on any real info).

Just being a devils advocate...

I'm unsure of Neeld and have been for the majority of his tenure.

Just wanted to say that it's good to see you posting deanox vs on the currently viewing list.

Watching the last quarter last week, it is astonishing the increase in intensity, the capacity at which the players had to get free, the attack at the ball. Don't tell me "it's only GWS" because that was an uncanny turnaround.

Ok. It wasn't 'only GWS', it was a team of predominantly 19 year olds.

I liked seeing us kick 12 goals in a quarter but to be honest we REALLY need some quality play put together against a side that forces us to compete. I can't imagine that Neelds defensive coaching style would be built around us having 12 goal quarters. In that regard I find him a fascinating coach. He's been all about defensive pressure yet the only time we've looked like a side this year it's been really attacking.

In that regard I still think easily his most impressive victory was against Essendon last year and oddly enough it's a statistical anomaly in terms of our competitiveness.

I noticed a marked difference in the Mark Neeld who fronted the presser after the West Coke game than the Mark Neeld who I have seen for the past 20 odd months.

Much less intense and much less angry. Much more prepared to have a bit of a laugh and much more, dare I say it... understanding...

Watching him I was filled with hope that he might finally understand that going into pressers and answering "i don't know" when your asked how the team might turn around their poor on field fortunes sends a horrendous message to the players...

That he might finally realise that he must tailor his leadership approach to the people he leads, rather then expecting them to respond to the way he wants to lead.

Time will tell...

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by Allen Jakovich

Ok. It wasn't 'only GWS', it was a team of predominantly 19 year olds.

I liked seeing us kick 12 goals in a quarter but to be honest we REALLY need some quality play put together against a side that forces us to compete. I can't imagine that Neelds defensive coaching style would be built around us having 12 goal quarters. In that regard I find him a fascinating coach. He's been all about defensive pressure yet the only time we've looked like a side this year it's been really attacking.

In that regard I still think easily his most impressive victory was against Essendon last year and oddly enough it's a statistical anomaly in terms of our competitiveness.

Don't you think Neeld spent last year sorting thru the List, & worked with the assistants to help building up the physical base?

And seeing who he could help & who he couldn't, who were coachable & who were a distraction to the newbies?

and starting to instill a workrate & defensive mindset to a club with none.

Nothing has changed just because we smashed GWS in one quarter. Neeld knows this. We have to turn up on Sunday, otherwise it will have all been for nought.

I just read another article about Neeld's reaction to questions about the players' beards. I think Neeldy also realizes that most of the journos are looking for a headline and will look to spin anything that comes out of the club in a way that will make them look incompetent and sell a paper. If he says that he is happy that Watts shaved his beard off, you can just see a muppet like David King or Sellers MacLure turning up on AFL 360 and spouting off some line of poo whilst scoffing and pffting that Neeldy feels that club discipline has been restored by players shaving off their beards.

Why couldn't we have gotten this version of Mark Neeld earlier in his coaching career? I think he has started to learn some lessons but I'm not sure if the damage done early isn't irreversible or insurmountable. I hope it is cos that line towards the journalists shows this bloke is getting better.

A little thing called experience 'Colin' might be the answer to this question. He's only just past his first year as a senior coach and has had a lot to deal with in that time. He may or may not make it but one things for sure he will be a lot wiser when he finishes than when he started.