Some fans may have given up hope, but players haven't

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

To Dawes's credit, he's done a sterling job at attempting to defend the indefensible.

But I'm sorry Chris, the very idea of professional athletes being taught how to try at the expense of learning a gameplan, in Round 8 of a coach's second season, is one that is best not said aloud.

It's pretty damning on everyone at the club that a player has to come out and say that in fthe first place, not just daming the coach.

It's a really tough question - Who's fault is it? - players are meant to be professional as well as the coach.... It's simply not good enough no matther which side you support - the players or Neeld.

It's [censored] childish and unprecedented in the AFL.....Am going to rant now P Man, am not having a crack at you

First it was Schwabs fault - when 186 happened, now it's Neelds fault - 2013 season - when does this [censored] end? Who is going to take responsibility?

There is very little from anyone at the club taking responsibility - I also find it damning on this club it's taken so long to get a Jackon in to this club. There were clear problems at the club and nothing was done.

I don't see Neeld in the job past May 13 but in his defence at least he is having a crack at fixing years of wrongs

Edited May 15, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Pitchy 196]

There are two camps here; individualist and structuralist. Extreme individualists think that all is required is more effort from the players (Chris Dawes' view). Pure structuralists think that the problem stems from failing coaching and administration. For structuralists, the current crop of individuals would thrive in better environment (egs given are Ross Lyon at Fremantle).

Under normal circumstances we know that combining self driven effort with structural efficiency and inspiration ends up turbo charging development. This is what Geelong has: a solid FD head in Balme, a tough yet clear minded coach, a sensational captain. In this set up their talent thrives.

We have problems at every level, but there is no need to give up hope. We just need to encourage the right decisions to be made across the entirety of the club. From CEO down to the latest rookie listed player.

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

So you're saying these blokes just happened to stumble upon a career of playing AFL-level football?

What a load of crap.

Once again, this playing group SHOULD NOT have to have emphasised to it how important effort is at any level of football, yet they seem too dumb to realise that. How this is Neeld's fault is beyond me. Seeing this, it's no surprise they can't grasp Neeld's gameplan. They can't even comprehend the basics of Australian Rules football.

It's the players.

No, that is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that effort is not solely a player thing. A coach can have a big influence on effort.

If you have a player who refuses to put in any effort no matter what then obviously there's not much a coach can do. But I don't think many AFL players fall into this category. Most players try hard and put effort in.

A good coach can extract that extra effort from his players. Again I point to Ross Lyon coached teams. It's not often a Ross Lyon coached team is accused of a lack of effort. Yet at Melbourne we've already heard that our effort has been an issue against Port, Essendon, West Coast (second half) and Gold Coast.

The reason for this IMO is not because Melbourne has a team of players who are predisposed to a lack of effort while Fremantle has a team of players predisposed to giving maximum effort. One of the reasons for the effort discrepancy IMO is that the Melbourne players lack belief and confidence in what they're doing while the Freo players are totally committed to Ross Lyon's game style. As I said Freo's list has not changed significantly since Mark Harvey yet Lyon has completely eradicated their flaky nature and those typical Freo performances when they don't turn up.

Of course the players are a part of the problem and I'm not in any way excusing them. Neeld is severely limited by the playing list at his disposal and in particular the lack of a midfield. Even with the best coach going around we would still be a struggling team.

But what I do believe is that a great coach like Ross Lyon would extract more effort out of our players than what Neeld is currently getting.

Anyway back to my point - How much can be blamed to Neeld and how much the players??? I say it's 50/50 blame and here is why.

No one is saying it's just Neeld. The main reason for our current predicament is insipid drafting and even worse player development. I feel sorry for Neeld as he is working with a really poor list and absolutely no midfield.

This thread was about lack of effort and Chris Dawes' comment that it's solely a player thing. It is my view that a coach has a role to play in extracting effort out of his squad. Ross Lyon has proved this at two different clubs.

[old55 23,687]

The players have been drinking Neeld's Kool Aid that they're no good, unfit, too inexperienced, can't carry out instructions and have therefore been delivering on his message. One day they're gonna wake up from the nightmare and wonder how they got where they are.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

I disagree with the idea that effort is not coach driven.

Have a look at the way Fremantle attack and harass the opposition under Ross Lyon and compare that to how they were under Mark Harvey. Most of them are the same group of players.

A great coach gets his team believing in him and in his game plan. Fremantle players have bought in to the Lyon style and game because they know it works. Melbourne on the other hand play like they don't believe in the coach's game style. They might say that they do in public but they don't play as though they believe. This naturally affects a player's effort levels.

To try to masquerade our problems by highlighting effort as the only or main issue is just failing to recognise the bigger issues. We were not thrashed by Gold Coast in the first quarter purely because of a lack of effort. We were thrashed because our blokes had no idea what to do (either offensively or defensively) out on the ground, because they have no confidence or belief in the message and because of skill errors and poor decision making.

I don't blame Neeld for the basis skill errors but I do blame him for the confusion of the players and their lack of confidence and belief.

To say it's just effort and that effort is solely a player driven thing is completely wrong in my opinion and is just more spin. It's like the comment that 'we showed a lot of improvement in the last three weeks' (prior to the Gold Coast game). Being three goals down at ¾ time to GWS at the MCG and getting walloped in general play by Brisbane is not what I would term improvement.

.

best post ever.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

No one is saying it's just Neeld. The main reason for our current predicament is insipid drafting and even worse player development. I feel sorry for Neeld as he is working with a really poor list and absolutely no midfield.

This thread was about lack of effort and Chris Dawes' comment that it's solely a player thing. It is my view that a coach has a role to play in extracting effort out of his squad. Ross Lyon has proved this at two different clubs.

That is untrue

Your second point is fair enough

[titan_uranus 25,043]

There are a few interesting things to note in all of this.

The first is that what Dawes said is entirely correct. Effort shouldn't need to be coached. Neeld shouldn't need to teach how to put in an effort, and the fact that many are baying for his head because he can't get an effort out of the players speaks volumes of many people's lack of understanding of that point.

However, it's clearly one thing to say what Dawes, in effect, is saying, which is 'if we put in the effort, we'll get there'. That is easy to say, but, from the body language and mentality being shown weekly by the players, it's much harder for this group to actually do it. The more we keep saying it, the more we keep focusing on it, the more we will keep failing to do it.

I'm a big fan of Dawes, both for what he brings to us on the field, and off it. I'm also in favour of this article, and I agree that, whilst Neeld is really struggling in game day coaching, it shouldn't be completely up to him and the coaches to get the players to do some of the basics. I also like that we have players being honest in the media.

Some have whinged about the 'we didn't see it coming' rhetoric, but we haven't heard that this week. Garland and Dawes have spoken honestly. Note the lack of an apology - Dawes doesn't say 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry'. He simply acknowledges that the players aren't trying hard enough, and that that is a pathetic state of affairs reflecting poorly on the players more than the coaches. That's a fair assessment.

[old dee 23,872]

The players have been drinking Neeld's Kool Aid that they're no good, unfit, too inexperienced, can't carry out instructions and have therefore been delivering on his message. One day they're gonna wake up from the nightmare and wonder how they got where they are.

Mate if they are not awake now I suggest we have 40+ players who are suffering chronic fatigue

[binman 43,762]

There are a few interesting things to note in all of this.

The first is that what Dawes said is entirely correct. Effort shouldn't need to be coached. Neeld shouldn't need to teach how to put in an effort, and the fact that many are baying for his head because he can't get an effort out of the players speaks volumes of many people's lack of understanding of that point.

However, it's clearly one thing to say what Dawes, in effect, is saying, which is 'if we put in the effort, we'll get there'. That is easy to say, but, from the body language and mentality being shown weekly by the players, it's much harder for this group to actually do it. The more we keep saying it, the more we keep focusing on it, the more we will keep failing to do it.

I'm a big fan of Dawes, both for what he brings to us on the field, and off it. I'm also in favour of this article, and I agree that, whilst Neeld is really struggling in game day coaching, it shouldn't be completely up to him and the coaches to get the players to do some of the basics. I also like that we have players being honest in the media.

Some have whinged about the 'we didn't see it coming' rhetoric, but we haven't heard that this week. Garland and Dawes have spoken honestly. Note the lack of an apology - Dawes doesn't say 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry'. He simply acknowledges that the players aren't trying hard enough, and that that is a pathetic state of affairs reflecting poorly on the players more than the coaches. That's a fair assessment.

You might be right about this Titan, however one thing i'd say is that perhaps the lack of effort is a subconscious (or even deliberate) protest by the players against the coach or even the club as a whole. If they are unhappy what other avenues do they have to tell the club? Remember the last time they collectively indicated they were unhappy with stuff happening at the club was prior to 186 and they saw how that turned out. They're not likely to volunteer their opinion now.

[bing181 9,328]

My reading is the FD have trained these guys to lose. ..... He's been telling the world, and I imagine the players, we can't expect to win against more experienced teams.

This was specifically addressed by Craig a couple of weeks back, when he made it clear that the players were not being given any excuses. In Garland's interview, he says on a couple of occasions that the focus on preparation is to win "this is what we need to do to win" (or words to that effect .... check it if you want), and Royal spoke about winning in his team selection chat with Matt Burgan last week.

[Suzanna 72]

I like the article and am happy these things are coming out of the club. While I think players always stick up for the coaching staff when asked during interviews regardless of their actual position, writing it in an article and putting your name on it is different.

What interested me most was the GPS numbers comment. Neeld referred to our running and GPS numbers in the press conference last Sunday too. Personally from watching I don't think we run hard enough when we don't have the ball, and possibly don't chase hard enough either.

If others have the same observations as me, but the GPS numbers say we are on par, I'm wondering if we're running hard at the wrong times? Are we doing more work in another part of the game than we should?

This may be the zone many people are complaining about, or something else.

What do people think? I certainly don't think our forward lead and double back and lead against. Etc as hard as other teams, and I certainly don't think our mids spread as fast or as far as other teams.

I don't think GPS measures how hard you run, but how far. So a nice little jog around the G would get the numbers up. In all honesty, there was a lot of that going on on Sunday, it seemed like players jogging around aimlessly, not knowing where to position themselves. Isn't this a skill taught at Auskick? You stick to your man, and run hard if he does. There hasn't been much of that happening this year, and that is a big part of our problem unfortunately. I guess sticking to your man and playing hard is not part of the game plan.

[Pates 9,660]

I don't think GPS measures how hard you run, but how far.

That's where I think this GPS data can be deceptive, and also why it shouldn't be shared with the players. The coaches should use that data in their own assessments, but anyone new to the game would be able to tell straight off the bat that there wasn't any hard gut running by just about anyone.

Compare the sort of running that we did to the sort of running in the Cats v Dons match on Friday and are galaxies apart. Yes were are not as experienced and well drilled as them, but if our players are fit, and we keep hearing from Dawes and Byrnes that what they are doing at training now is comparable to the likes of Collingwood and Geelong, then you shouldn't need to be trained to run your ass off to chase down your man if you've left them free or you shouldn't need to be trained to run hard to create an option or even just space for others to run into. Looking at the two team on the weekend, one was on their bikes as soon as they won the ball while the other team jogged.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Pates

[bing181 9,328]

I don't think GPS measures how hard you run, but how far.

How far and how fast. Also includes acceleration data, as well as heart rate and other metrics if required.

[Trisul 664]

GPS data just needs to be parsed to get the various effort groupings. At a base level though the simple numbers can tell enough of the story to identify areas for improvement / focus (as mentioned in previous posts).

[deanox 9,989]

I don't think GPS measures how hard you run, but how far. So a nice little jog around the G would get the numbers up.

Not exactly Suzanna, the GPS data shown on chan 7 or on a run keeper ap might just show distanca but the software on the GPS the players and coaches use would track speed and distance with time. It would give info like top speed, acceleration rates, number of "efforts" over a predetermined threshold (which may be max speed, or acceleration rate, or length at a certain speed). The whole running game of each player will be there to see.

The reason the players get this is because it is very illustrative: you only hit top speed 4 times or in the last quarter your acceleration is noticeably slower, or you ran at top speed for a total of 10 sprints in the first, 8 in the second, 6 in the third and 3 in the last. They get very useful and detailed information.

I can't believe that Need, Mission, Craig, the assistant coaches or the players are so unintelligent that they would equate distance with performance. Whatever we think of them as coaches at the MFC they are expert sport scientists and coaches, they have a basic understanding of this sort of stuff!

I do however agree with both Pates and you in your suggestions that it doesn't feel like we are running hard enough, into space for our teammates. Given we can't we see the running, either the coaches are lying to the players (and us), the coaches are wrong in their assessment that our running numbers are the same as other teams, or we are running in the wrong areas at the wrong times.

My suggestion is that we must be running and exhibiting efforts at the wrong times. Is it because we are late to the ball? I'm not sure but an explanation of this would go a long way to assisting supporters understand what is going on.

[P-man 13,366]

titan - being pedantic, but I assume "this week" doesn't include post-match, because "we didn't see it coming" is a direct quote out of the presser, only this time it came from Nate Jones.

Maybe next week Jonesy can remind everyone that we're in a development phase and that Richmond were more experienced. If he ticks off those two points, Neeld won't even need to attend.

Edited May 15, 2013 by P_Man

[Goodvibes 3,596]

"If we can remember to be vigorous and determined"

Did he really just end his article with this?

I'm proposing a Woewodin-like policy across the entire team whereby everyone writes the word "EFFORT" in big black writing on the back of each hand to remind them to try.

Wow. It's hard to stay positive.

[Strafford 182]

He looks like he would be a good choice for FD boss or CEO in waiting, what we need him to be is a gun forward. That's what he is being paid well for.

We also need blokes with a brain who can help organise structures and set ups onfield. So that situations such as Trent McKenzie being able to waltz into goal unmarked because of a poor stoppage set up are less likely to happen. Just look at the good sides and you can see just how important onfield leaders are. His articles show that he has a brain, but you are right in that he has to translate that into onfield performance, but that performance is multi faceted.

[deanox 9,989]

We also need blokes with a brain who can help organise structures and set ups onfield. So that situations such as Trent McKenzie being able to waltz into goal unmarked because of a poor stoppage set up are less likely to happen. Just look at the good sides and you can see just how important onfield leaders are. His articles show that he has a brain, but you are right in that he has to translate that into onfield performance, but that performance is multi faceted.

Dawes and Clark on the park together will be good for this. They will control what others around them are doing and where they need to go. A clear advantage of bringing in an experienced midfielder into the team through FA or through aggressive trading, or both, is that we will add this direction to the midfield as well. Jones is a good player but he isn't a director of traffic.

[Pitchy 196]

Not exactly Suzanna, the GPS data shown on chan 7 or on a run keeper ap might just show distanca but the software on the GPS the players and coaches use would track speed and distance with time. It would give info like top speed, acceleration rates, number of "efforts" over a predetermined threshold (which may be max speed, or acceleration rate, or length at a certain speed). The whole running game of each player will be there to see.

The reason the players get this is because it is very illustrative: you only hit top speed 4 times or in the last quarter your acceleration is noticeably slower, or you ran at top speed for a total of 10 sprints in the first, 8 in the second, 6 in the third and 3 in the last. They get very useful and detailed information.

I can't believe that Need, Mission, Craig, the assistant coaches or the players are so unintelligent that they would equate distance with performance. Whatever we think of them as coaches at the MFC they are expert sport scientists and coaches, they have a basic understanding of this sort of stuff!

I do however agree with both Pates and you in your suggestions that it doesn't feel like we are running hard enough, into space for our teammates. Given we can't we see the running, either the coaches are lying to the players (and us), the coaches are wrong in their assessment that our running numbers are the same as other teams, or we are running in the wrong areas at the wrong times.

My suggestion is that we must be running and exhibiting efforts at the wrong times. Is it because we are late to the ball? I'm not sure but an explanation of this would go a long way to assisting supporters understand what is going on.

The value of GPS data analysis is completely overrated by our coaches. It definitely is informative about some things as you outline above but it should never be mentioned in a post match press conference or in pre season or anywhere. It is practically useless as a macro tool of game analysis. MFC coaches should never be allowed to mention GPS in public again. Here are some areas to talk about in it's stead... initiative, inspiration, class, skill, grace, flow, spirit.

GOALS!! There is a key piece of data. Who can kick goals? What Neeld misses while his nose is buried in unimportant data, is that some players have the ability to MAKE GOALS HAPPEN! Take "Green vest" Davey for example. The guy is 2nd leading goal kicker and he has played about 20% of game time this year. You want more goals for Melbourne? Put Aaron Davey in the forward fifty from the first bounce and leave him there. Shut up about GPS and dropping players on that basis, and start looking at deftness and grace. In soccer, no team scores without a touch that has a sense of the magical. This is becoming the same in AFL. Some players have rare traits and they need to be supported and developed.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

It does sound like Dawes is worried about neeld getting the sack

desperation is required. Like their lives depend on every moment.

[bush demon 2,062]

Dawes' article sounds like he is paying the bills. Compare his article to Bob Murphy's excellent piece.http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-dream-that-never-dies-20130515-2jmx6.html

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Hats off to all contributors to this thread. There's an absence of the '[censored] for tat' stuff - just genuine debate from different perspectives. Good to read.

Personally, I don't know what to think anymore. But a 10 goal loss to the Suns at the G did it for me - absolutely unacceptable IMO.

I'm pleased/relieved with the appointment of Peter Jackson. However it's clear to me that the football department needs to be reviewed, and quite urgently.

The only untouchables for me in that department are Todd Viney and Dave Misson.

I didn't expect a top 8 finish this year, but I definitely thought we were going to be quite competitive throughout the year - after all, that's why we recruited some mature players, 'moneyball style', wasn't it?

So I literally hated hearing that we were 'out muscled' against the Suns, particularly in the context that Rivers was not retained and is now in Geelong's best 21, and Brent Moloney was let go and is now running through brick walls at the Lions - both players with the MFC in their DNA.

I expect Neeld knows how to coach, but he does not know how to motivate players who don't conform to a certain personality type.

And not all about coaching is science based - it's people based too. In this context, Scoop Junior's just got to be right on this - the coach is also responsible for the 'effort' displayed on the field each week.

Perhaps worth reading this article - it's about Moyes giving a lecture to uni students at Cambridge University about coaching, taking on the Man U role etc - in it, he comments on dealing with players: "They teach you a lot at these universities," he said. "But they do not teach you how to walk into a dressing room and deal with Paul Gascoigne, Duncan Ferguson and David Ginola."

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/moyes-passes-first-test-with-honours-20130515-2jm3m.html#ixzz2TP0dgY9k

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Dawes' article sounds like he is paying the bills. Compare his article to Bob Murphy's excellent piece.http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-dream-that-never-dies-20130515-2jmx6.html

Great article. The irony, however, is that the Melbourne Demons would be the closest equivalents to the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs in the entire league - not the Western Bulldogs. Very similar DNA as clubs - essentially old school and unsuccessful/unlucky.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Great article. The irony, however, is that the Melbourne Demons would be the closest equivalents to the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs in the entire league - not the Western Bulldogs. Very similar DNA as clubs - essentially old school and unsuccessful/unlucky.

Agreed rod, I follow the Cubs and I wouldn't be sure who the MFC resemble out of those 2. Both great call clubs with a rich history both have been long time losers.

Go Cubbies!