does that mean bailey had the players running second to the ball

and neeld got them in first for the ball?

Not if you look at the MASSIVE difference in disposal averages.

We average less disposals, we let our opposition have more disposals, but we average less tackles now.

rubbish, port were in a genuine rebuild under primus and they have the cattle through the midfield that is bound to make them competitive, anyone who thinks it was hinkley that came and built the culture has no idea about football, it was already started and if primus got one more year which he was obviously hoping for the results would have been the same.

Do you actually believe it has nothing to do with the coach? If so I am gob smacked at that statement. Anyone that has played sport at a high level would strongly disagree with you. It's as clear as day to see a well coached/structured team vs a poorly coached/steuctured team. A qaulity coach will play players in their correct position and also structure plays around a teams strength. It is MN job to incorporate a playing style to meet the players on the list that can compete. If you keen playing players out of position they become completely ineffective and become frustrated!.

At the moment our coach cannot develop or implement a game plan that these players can play.

The message it sends to players that started playing for us between 2008 and 2010 is that if things stay the way they are now, there's a good chance that you'll not play finals with us throughout your whole career.

And it begs the question of whether any other coach could do better than this.

Yes, an actual AFL coach could do much better than what we've had to put up with since Neale left.

Even then, it was Danihers first gig, how about we get an actual AFL coach in - instead of these first year coaches who clearly can't coach.

Records speak for themselves.

It is just the wrong message to send out to the public and the players.

A 5 year window says to a lot of players that there is no need trying to get better because we are just too faraway and your best is not good enough anyway.

Shocking message for a qualified teacher to give out.

Do you actually believe it has nothing to do with the coach? If so I am gob smacked at that statement. Anyone that has played sport at a high level would strongly disagree with you. It's as clear as day to see a well coached/structured team vs a poorly coached/steuctured team. A qaulity coach will play players in their correct position and also structure plays around a teams strength. It is MN job to incorporate a playing style to meet the players on the list that can compete. If you keen playing players out of position they become completely ineffective and become frustrated!.

At the moment our coach cannot develop or implement a game plan that these players can play.

Midfield:

Kane Cornes: 253 games

Dominic Cassisi : 207 games

Travis Boak: 116 games

Matthew Broadbent: 63 games

Matt Thomas: 83 games

Brad Ebert: 106 games

Hamish Hartlett: 54 games

add the first or second season players on top of that list and Angus Monfries, well that is a pretty good set up

compare that to what we are working with?

am i saying ken hinkley is not a good coach? no! the point is primus started the rebuild, primus built the list, he recruited the midfield stocks to be competitive and yes, now they have oliver wines who is playing well, but it is because of who he has around him that he can play.

the point was he stated that port adelaide rebuilt in a year, but that is completely wrong, it takes a few years and this is what will happen.

Melbournes midfield is 3-5 seasons, which is 3-5 preseasons, which is 60-100 games away from being a top line midfield. do i think if we had mick malthouse or paul roos coaching us right now we would be in the same position? absolutely, how anyone can say that a coach will make a 30 game midfielder play like a 120 game midfielder, get serious.

in your opinion who is being played out of position? because i think everyone is playing where they should be played, we just need games experience and that takes time

Midfield:

Kane Cornes: 253 games

Dominic Cassisi : 207 games

Travis Boak: 116 games

Matthew Broadbent: 63 games

Matt Thomas: 83 games

Brad Ebert: 106 games

Hamish Hartlett: 54 games

add the first or second season players on top of that list and Angus Monfries, well that is a pretty good set up

compare that to what we are working with?

am i saying ken hinkley is not a good coach? no! the point is primus started the rebuild, primus built the list, he recruited the midfield stocks to be competitive and yes, now they have oliver wines who is playing well, but it is because of who he has around him that he can play.

the point was he stated that port adelaide rebuilt in a year, but that is completely wrong, it takes a few years and this is what will happen.

Melbournes midfield is 3-5 seasons, which is 3-5 preseasons, which is 60-100 games away from being a top line midfield. do i think if we had mick malthouse or paul roos coaching us right now we would be in the same position? absolutely, how anyone can say that a coach will make a 30 game midfielder play like a 120 game midfielder, get serious.

in your opinion who is being played out of position? because i think everyone is playing where they should be played, we just need games experience and that takes time

great post

but if you look at the pages dedicated to sacking mark neeld, your case smacks of common sense and understanding

these are qualities not espoused on this site

melbourne supporters want action and they want it NOW

and lets sack somebody until that happens

I dont think he wants to be here next year, otherwise he wouldnt have said something so stupid.

Midfield:

Kane Cornes: 253 games

Dominic Cassisi : 207 games

Travis Boak: 116 games

Matthew Broadbent: 63 games

Matt Thomas: 83 games

Brad Ebert: 106 games

Hamish Hartlett: 54 games

add the first or second season players on top of that list and Angus Monfries, well that is a pretty good set up

compare that to what we are working with?

am i saying ken hinkley is not a good coach? no! the point is primus started the rebuild, primus built the list, he recruited the midfield stocks to be competitive and yes, now they have oliver wines who is playing well, but it is because of who he has around him that he can play.

the point was he stated that port adelaide rebuilt in a year, but that is completely wrong, it takes a few years and this is what will happen.

Melbournes midfield is 3-5 seasons, which is 3-5 preseasons, which is 60-100 games away from being a top line midfield. do i think if we had mick malthouse or paul roos coaching us right now we would be in the same position? absolutely, how anyone can say that a coach will make a 30 game midfielder play like a 120 game midfielder, get serious.

in your opinion who is being played out of position? because i think everyone is playing where they should be played, we just need games experience and that takes time

I disagree if Malthouse or Roos were coaching us we would not be in this position. For one they would not of allowed Scully, Beamer and Rivers to leave without a suitable replacement. I still don't believe if Primus was coaching Port that they would be where Port are now. That was my point

I disagree if Malthouse or Roos were coaching us we would not be in this position. For one they would not of allowed Scully, Beamer and Rivers to leave without a suitable replacement. I still don't believe if Primus was coaching Port that they would be where Port are now. That was my point

This is absolutely right, Primus was a dud, Neeld is a dud... Hinkley comes in and after one pre season they look like a Top 8 team, maybe our list isn't as good as theirs in some area's but is it really so far behind that we can't compete at AFL level? keeping in mind they couldn't last year.

I disagree if Malthouse or Roos were coaching us we would not be in this position. For one they would not of allowed Scully, Beamer and Rivers to leave without a suitable replacement. I still don't believe if Primus was coaching Port that they would be where Port are now. That was my point

Agreed.

Malthouse or Roos may have inherited a B grade list but I believe either coach would have shown the senior players more respect and got them on side and re contracted. They would also make Melbourne an attractive option for potential FA players or guys looking to "come home".

Agreed.

Malthouse or Roos may have inherited a B grade list but I believe either coach would have shown the senior players more respect and got them on side and re contracted. They would also make Melbourne an attractive option for potential FA players or guys looking to "come home".

I honestly think our imagine would change a heap just by one of those two saying " the list is not as bad as people might think"

I disagree if Malthouse or Roos were coaching us we would not be in this position. For one they would not of allowed Scully, Beamer and Rivers to leave without a suitable replacement. I still don't believe if Primus was coaching Port that they would be where Port are now. That was my point

for tom scully we got what geelong got for gary ablett, so i am pretty sure we did have the right idea.

primus identified the rebuild and created the list for which hinkley took on, so personally i disagree that hinkley has come and made them play how they are playing.

This is absolutely right, Primus was a dud, Neeld is a dud... Hinkley comes in and after one pre season they look like a Top 8 team, maybe our list isn't as good as theirs in some area's but is it really so far behind that we can't compete at AFL level? keeping in mind they couldn't last year.

you are an absolute goon, although port have played well it in not due to one pre season, it is due to multiple pre seasons, a team is not built in a day, and at the end of the day, neeld made the hard calls which were needed to further the list, if melbourne continue to get beat by 100 points every week he will not stay, but at the end of the day, if melbournes list begins to play structured football and get games into the midfielders then how will he have been doing the wrong thing?

Agreed.

Malthouse or Roos may have inherited a B grade list but I believe either coach would have shown the senior players more respect and got them on side and re contracted. They would also make Melbourne an attractive option for potential FA players or guys looking to "come home".

sure, roos and malthouse have a name that neeld doesnt have, but at the end of the day rivers realised he had limited time left and wanted to play finals and knew melbourne would not be in the immediate future. moloney is the only one who has left who could have been of value to our team, but in reality he had a limited time frame at the club to with the need to get games into the younger mids.

This is absolutely right, Primus was a dud, Neeld is a dud... Hinkley comes in and after one pre season they look like a Top 8 team, maybe our list isn't as good as theirs in some area's but is it really so far behind that we can't compete at AFL level? keeping in mind they couldn't last year.

Yes it is

I honestly think our imagine would change a heap just by one of those two saying " the list is not as bad as people might think"

Perhaps the reason they have not said it is because they believe it is that bad.

Have you considered that option?

I would like to believe Neeld can turn this squad into genuine contenders and 5 years is what he needs to get it done but based on what I've seen it really doesn't seem likely.

Before the game yesterday they showed how the MFC ranked from Rounds 1-7...

Clearances: 16th
Marks: 16th
Goals: 17th
Contested Possessions: 18th
Disposals: 18th
Inside 50's: 18th
Tackles: 18th

Way worse than unacceptable, that's embarrassing. Even moreso when overly willing to show Moloney the door while keeping Magner on the rookie list.

Over a year into the 5 year plan, the progress and scope for improvement is decisively elusive.

I won't!!

Neeld is clinging to inexperience like a drowning man to flotsam and it is a legitimate reason for inconsistent performance. He's focussing on games inexperience which is fair enough but that's not the entire story of our list. We've got a lot of players who for injury or late start reasons have less games than players their age would have. These players should be more mentally and physically mature and should be able to play at consistent AFL level faster than say Jimmy Toumpas. Players like Strauss, Blease, Pedersen, Magner, Nicholson, Gillies, Sellar, Grimes, Evans, Tapscott, Gawn, Howe, Jetta, Spencer, Bail, M.Jones, Terlich have all played less than their age allows - they drag the games average down, while they do have greater maturity. We should be able to improve quickly.

I would like to believe Neeld can turn this squad into genuine contenders and 5 years is what he needs to get it done but based on what I've seen it really doesn't seem likely.

Before the game yesterday they showed how the MFC ranked from Rounds 1-7...

Clearances: 16th

Marks: 16th

Goals: 17th

Contested Possessions: 18th

Disposals: 18th

Inside 50's: 18th

Tackles: 18th

Way worse than unacceptable, that's embarrassing. Even moreso when overly willing to show Moloney the door while keeping Magner on the rookie list.

Over a year into the 5 year plan, the progress and scope for improvement is decisively elusive.

thought most posters on here thought stats were useless

Can't be;believe this topic is still going, can't believe some of the posters really think it is going to take 5 years, and think Neeld doesn't want it to change this week, although that being said it is the normal whingers and whiners putting their two bob's worth in with the occasional rejoinder from the likes of myself

These stats are an average for the year....we were pathetic in our first two games, didnt touch the ball against Essendon.

Id say we would have improved alot since then. Id like to see these stats round by round.

Perhaps the reason they have not said it is because they believe it is that bad.

Have you considered that option?

No, i choose to believe it's confidence playing a part rather than someone waving a magic wand and making undeniable talent disappear

Neeld is clinging to inexperience like a drowning man to flotsam and it is a legitimate reason for inconsistent performance. He's focussing on games inexperience which is fair enough but that's not the entire story of our list. We've got a lot of players who for injury or late start reasons have less games than players their age would have. These players should be more mentally and physically mature and should be able to play at consistent AFL level faster than say Jimmy Toumpas. Players like Strauss, Blease, Pedersen, Magner, Nicholson, Gillies, Sellar, Grimes, Evans, Tapscott, Gawn, Howe, Jetta, Spencer, Bail, M.Jones, Terlich have all played less than their age allows - they drag the games average down, while they do have greater maturity. We should be able to improve quickly.

Absolutely spot on 55, was saying exactly the same thing to a mate the other day.

I reckon Neeld is being a little disingenuous with his comments about inexperience as historically few mature aged recruits came into the system so that for a player getting to the oft quoted key 60-80 games mark they would be 23-24 years old. Whilst of course experience playing AFL is super important in terms of performance i would argue of equal importance is that by 23-24 a players is physically ready to endure the demands of AFL footy, can take the punishment and has the core strength to compete week in week out. Look at Wines, good player but of course he's going to taper as the physical demands hit. When he gets to 23-24 he won't taper so much and will be a much more valuable player (again of course because of his experience but also his physical strength).

As you have noted the older players will be able to play at a consistent AFL level faster than younger guys, which is obviously is a key reason Neeld drafted a bunch of older players. Terlich is a good example.

If Neeld was being a little bit more transparent/honest he would also talk about average age of the side. A different story would emerge and it would be one that wouldn't give the same cover or excuse for where we are at that the average/total games provides.

Perhaps Mark needs to get a lot better at saying nothing - like Allan Jeans.

Some of what Mark Neeld has said ...

"We will be the hardest team to play against"

"I will give you a game plan"

"Success may come a lot quicker that we think"

"Don't worry about the negative headlines, just focus on the club"

"You can expect these boys to be seriously competitive for longer this year"

"We didn't see that coming"

"Any of you people in the media got any ideas?"

"The players will need 3 or 4 years to learn the game plan"

"The players will need 3 full pre-seasons to get fit"

''Our aim is to be competitive for as long as we possibly can and that's where we're at,''

"It will take 3-5 years to get this team up to a competitive level"

"It will take up to 5 years to rebuild"

"We are at GWS level"

Gold, Macca.

Gold, Macca.

Gee you are easily pleased

Absolutely spot on 55, was saying exactly the same thing to a mate the other day.

I reckon Neeld is being a little disingenuous with his comments about inexperience as historically few mature aged recruits came into the system so that for a player getting to the oft quoted key 60-80 games mark they would be 23-24 years old. Whilst of course experience playing AFL is super important in terms of performance i would argue of equal importance is that by 23-24 a players is physically ready to endure the demands of AFL footy, can take the punishment and has the core strength to compete week in week out. Look at Wines, good player but of course he's going to taper as the physical demands hit. When he gets to 23-24 he won't taper so much and will be a much more valuable player (again of course because of his experience but also his physical strength).

As you have noted the older players will be able to play at a consistent AFL level faster than younger guys, which is obviously is a key reason Neeld drafted a bunch of older players. Terlich is a good example.

If Neeld was being a little bit more transparent/honest he would also talk about average age of the side. A different story would emerge and it would be one that wouldn't give the same cover or excuse for where we are at that the average/total games provides.

Or we can have a more nuanced discussion about how many games Jones and Magner need to be considered in the 'prime' as AFL footballers. Because that is what he is alluding to - when players can be expected to be able to play their best consistently.

When we talk about AFL players reaching their prime we use arbitrary numbers of games and years played to reach physical maturity but also maturity when it comes to decision making, skills execution, and performing under pressure.

So a better measurement would be one for the teenagers that are drafted (IMO: 4 years in system and 70+ games played) and a sliding scale for the mature age players that are picked up:

Picked up at:

20 - 3 years and 60+ games

21 - 3 years and 50+ games

22 - 2 years and 40+ games

23 - 2 years and 30+ games

24 - 1 year and 20+ games

25 - 1 year and 10+ games

How is that?

And would the the bulk of supporter go cross-eyed if Neeld started talking about that the fact that the even this sliding scale has not been met by many of the players we have.

Or we can have a more nuanced discussion about how many games Jones and Magner need to be considered in the 'prime' as AFL footballers. Because that is what he is alluding to - when players can be expected to be able to play their best consistently.

When we talk about AFL players reaching their prime we use arbitrary numbers of games and years played to reach physical maturity but also maturity when it comes to decision making, skills execution, and performing under pressure.

So a better measurement would be one for the teenagers that are drafted (IMO: 4 years in system and 70+ games played) and a sliding scale for the mature age players that are picked up:

Picked up at:

20 - 3 years and 60+ games

21 - 3 years and 50+ games

22 - 2 years and 40+ games

23 - 2 years and 30+ games

24 - 1 year and 20+ games

25 - 1 year and 10+ games

How is that?

And would the the bulk of supporter go cross-eyed if Neeld started talking about that the fact that the even this sliding scale has not been met by many of the players we have.

Good post. Yes even using that scale we are a ways off, but not as far as he seems to be suggesting if they get the development right i would have thought.

As for supporters not understanding a nuanced analysis of the list, experience age etc why not just stop saying anything about it? Perhaps he could simply say we are teaching the boys to win. And as a starting point we will try to win as many contests and quarters as possible