The pressure will be on Buckley this year, particularly if they don't make final 4. The Malthouse decision will not be far from the mind of the supporters and media.

Watters is getting some heat as is Voss.

Hadwick will cop a lot more this year, I think his match day coaching is poor but he does have good personal relationships with the media so the blow torch is not turned up. Won't be too long though.

Neeld, well..no, this chart shows nothing. We were supposed to be a team on the rise and we are going nowhere.

We are on the move and not going nowhere! But unfortunitely its all down hill for the MFC.

Collingwood's Ass coaches don't look as hot now as three years back.

The Ladder Differential metric is far from 'clear'. It's nothing like 'apples to apples'.

There is a good deal more scope to be measured as failure at the upper reaches and mid-range of the table than at the arse-end.

I suppose resigning Denis Jones is out of the question then

I don't get the constant bagging and lampooning of Dennis Jones around this place. From memory, he took over a club which had ruptured towards the end of Bobby Skilton's tenure and only got to coach the club for a year with the familiar epithet of 'elite standards' helping to sink him. And from Demonwiki:

http://demonwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=Dennis+Jones

As a player he was a champion of the club, playing in a premiership side and enjoying - as a player - a win/loss ratio with the club of 76%. Injuries brought an end to a solid career as a servant of his club.

Dumbest thread of all time.

We could have only gotten one spot worse, so it's a pretty limited measurement.

The max we could drop is 5, we dropped 4.

Dumbest thread of all time.

We could have only gotten one spot worse, so it's a pretty limited measurement.

The max we could drop is 5, we dropped 4.

What makes you capable of judging the dumbest thread of all time?

Oh wait-carry on.

The more I watch GC the less I'm inclined to defend Neeld.

They've been coached to do the defensive side well but the young players are also given a license to attack and run forward of the footy.

The more I watch GC the less I'm inclined to defend Neeld.

They've been coached to do the defensive side well but the young players are also given a license to attack and run forward of the footy.

Interestingly, GC had 75 fewer disposals, 13 fewer clearances, 27 fewer inside 50s, 21 fewer contested possessions, and 8 fewer tackles.

Those kind of numbers would get people on Demonland riled up (and did so when we lost to Brisbane).

I'm not trying to say we're as good as they are, or anything like that. I think it's interesting, though, that statistically things aren't too different between them and us, and I feel the difference is they have more class at the top (Ablett, Bennell, Prestia, Swallow, O'Meara) than we do.

Over time, if we keep tracking the same way they are, and we start to develop the top-end talent on our list, maybe we'll look better despite losing the statistics the way they did today. Just a thought.

Interesting.

But when we played them we had 57 less kicks 44 less handballs 32 less tackles 14 less inside 50s and lost by 10 goals.

I agree that a few top class mids would make us look a whole lot better. But we've gone no where in the last 18 months - and I don't think that had to be the case.

Interesting.

But when we played them we had 57 less kicks 44 less handballs 32 less tackles 14 less inside 50s and lost by 10 goals.

I agree that a few top class mids would make us look a whole lot better. But we've gone no where in the last 18 months - and I don't think that had to be the case.

I'm not sure how relevant it is that they pantsed us in those statistics, but to the extent that you're saying they're doing better than us, I clearly agree.

I just found it interesting that they looked pretty good today despite clearly getting beaten in many KPIs and statistics. The same thing is happening to us, we just don't look as good as they do in getting beaten in those areas, and I think that the lack of that A-grade talent means that, when you go down in those areas like that, you get thrashed. For GC, they also go down in those areas, but they are much more able to make the most of their chances, and as such, those kinds of discrepancies aren't as damaging to them as they are to us.

What makes you capable of judging the dumbest thread of all time?

Oh wait-carry on.

That rehab was good for you Biff - quickly back to form.

Um.... There was not a lot of room for Neeld to make us fall.

It's the difference between falling off a log onto your arse, in the mud, versus slipping a few branches while leaping around in a jungle canopy.

With our percentage shrinking back towards under 50, I'm sad to say I'm washing my hands of making any effort about 'solidarity' and backing the plan.

Um.... There was not a lot of room for Neeld to make us fall.

It's the difference between falling off a log onto your arse, in the mud, versus slipping a few branches while leaping around in a jungle canopy.

With our percentage shrinking back towards under 50, I'm sad to say I'm washing my hands of making any effort about 'solidarity' and backing the plan.

Um.... There was not a lot of room for Neeld to make us fall.

It's the difference between falling off a log onto your arse, in the mud, versus slipping a few branches while leaping around in a jungle canopy.

With our percentage shrinking back towards under 50, I'm sad to say I'm washing my hands of making any effort about 'solidarity' and backing the plan.

Um.... There was not a lot of room for Neeld to make us fall.

It's the difference between falling off a log onto your arse, in the mud, versus slipping a few branches while leaping around in a jungle canopy.

With our percentage shrinking back towards under 50, I'm sad to say I'm washing my hands of making any effort about 'solidarity' and backing the plan.

A clear metric on Coach performance would be how far up (or down) the ladder he's taken his team since arriving...

Which has Neeld as 5th worst performed coach after Watters, Buckley, McCartney, Voss (equal result by 4.5 years to achieve it). 

Not saying -4 is an acceptable result, simply that it's not exceptional, not the worst, and our "Skys are Falling" hysteria is the only thing that makes it any different than the decline Buckley's enduring at the Pie's, Watters at the Saints, etc...

hahahahhaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The Cats or the Hawks never played dispirited, structureless football that resulted in consistent 15 goal defeats. I like you as a poster Paul, but the stats and argument you've mounted here are desperate beyond belief. Stats can tell part of the picture (ie look at all the stats that are against us at the moment), but really all you need to see is gameday, week in, week out for over a season. Nothing has changed. In fact, I'd argue it's getting worse, as any potential light at the end of the tunnel has been systematically extinguished and I'd argue the dull flicker was stubbed out during the second quarter against Essendon in Round 2.

I'm not sure how relevant it is that they pantsed us in those statistics, but to the extent that you're saying they're doing better than us, I clearly agree.

I just found it interesting that they looked pretty good today despite clearly getting beaten in many KPIs and statistics. The same thing is happening to us, we just don't look as good as they do in getting beaten in those areas, and I think that the lack of that A-grade talent means that, when you go down in those areas like that, you get thrashed. For GC, they also go down in those areas, but they are much more able to make the most of their chances, and as such, those kinds of discrepancies aren't as damaging to them as they are to us.

Ball usage

A clear metric on Coach performance would be how far up (or down) the ladder he's taken his team since arriving...

Which has Neeld as 5th worst performed coach after Watters, Buckley, McCartney, Voss (equal result by 4.5 years to achieve it). 

Not saying -4 is an acceptable result, simply that it's not exceptional, not the worst, and our "Skys are Falling" hysteria is the only thing that makes it any different than the decline Buckley's enduring at the Pie's, Watters at the Saints, etc...

Spare everybody the damn academia, the world would come to a grinding halt if we all spent our time on this bull shyte .

I love working with dodgy stats and false logic.

Using the same idea, I reckon Bailey was judged harshly given most of the time he was coach we were playing teams above us on the ladder. (Include here spurious claim that the AFL is against us, too, for constructing the draw in a way that we always seem to be playing teams above us on the ladder).

And, similarly, if the Hawks lose, Clarkson's a dud because Hawthorn will be losing to a team below them on the ladder. (But if it's going to happen, please make it this week).