Neeld is not the problem

[chookrat 4,247]

I totally agree with RalphusMaximus .......dont sack Neeld now. I believe he has the players .....if you were maybe at the game instead of watching on tv or listening on the radio ......so many of hawthorns goals were from our turnovers & bad decisions . That is caused in part by inexperience & lack of confidence. That turns around quickly with more game time, more time with each other & some of our experienced players back in the side. Replacing neeld may appease the ever voracious media & impatient supporters but will do nothing for the psyche of the players or the finances of the club. Unless someone of the quality of a paul roos or the like turns up tomorrow ....lets just get the off field part of the club right & let the rest of the season unfold. Funny we give coaches like malthouse, Thompson, Clarkson years to win a flag, but the afl is littered with coaches who never got the chance to see what they could do.

I was at the game too and I agree the players worked hard and structured up well, its just that our execution was poor and I also thought Hawthorn's stronger bodies were able to break free at times and execute really well. A mate I was at the game with is mad Hawthorn supporter who remembers when Hawthorn were really poor and he even said it didn't feel like a 95 point flogging and that Melbourne's pressure was good. Another season or two into our young list and some good recruiting could see us with a really strong side.

Things can turn quickly, remember WCE of 2010.

[tonatopia 278]

Did we win 8.5 games in 2011? Would take that any day at the moment. Hey do you reckon bailey is available?

No, but Leigh Matthews might be available.

Imagine,

Schwartz as president, surrounded by a good board of business men and marketing guru's.

Leigh Mathews as coach.

12 month turnaround.

[timD 994]

I'll repeat myself

Name me a top 4 or even 8 side that has let players dictate the direction of the club

Thye don't - they move those players on

That's my personal worry

Don't worry about Neeld - I have no doubt he'll be sacked soon and it may be for the right reasons but it will continue our 60 years of weakness and still going strong... The same board that wanted club culture change hasn't got the balls to see it through

Swans.

[deanox 9,902]

No, but Leigh Matthews might be available.

Imagine,

Schwartz as president, surrounded by a good board of business men and marketing guru's.

Leigh Mathews as coach.

12 month turnaround.

If we end up with Schwartz and Matthews we may as well relocate to Tasmania now.

Schwartz has no credentials to be involved at that level and has shown he struggled to get his own life and finances in order.

Matthews has been out of the game for over 5 years.

[deanox 9,902]

You speak very well pm24. You may even change my opinion tonight.

Having just watched the press conference with Neeld & Dawes it was his most impressive effort this year to the media.

Neeld is a fighter. I believe Chris Dawes should be made Captain this week.

He is a leader. It's all over him.

Grimes & Trengove need to learn. They are too young.

Tomorrow i hope is a long meeting.

Going deep into the night.

If Neeld survives tomorrow i will back the result, but he must make the players more accountable on match day. It IS up to them.

Chris Dawes is a gem. He could become an MFC Legend.

It was a good press conference. I would like them to better explain to the public what they plan is, this would probably help quieten the media and supporter storm.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

It was a good press conference. I would like them to better explain to the public what they plan is, this would probably help quieten the media and supporter storm.

Often, when the inevitable confronts you, there is a sense of calm, knowing there is nothing you can do but to accept the outcome.

[Sir Why You Little 36,990]

It was a good press conference. I would like them to better explain to the public what they plan is, this would probably help quieten the media and supporter storm.

Absolutely...The Club has to let the Members know exactly what the stated criteria was & is..

This is where the fault is...Not enough has been communicated...I firmly believe we will have a new President today.

The rest is 50/50 But i do know one thing, If Chris Dawes told me to do something on the footy field...i would do it.

[P-man 13,366]

It was a good press conference. I would like them to better explain to the public what they plan is, this would probably help quieten the media and supporter storm.

This is part of the problem. The fact you're calling for an explanation of the plan at this stage of his tenure speaks volumes about the state of confusion over our current predicament. Neeld lays claim to consistency of messages but this simply isn't true. The goalposts have noticeably shifted to explain away the weekly thrashings we've received this year, and one can't help attribute some of that to Neeld attempting to save face.

I no longer trust our senior coach. Right now, he screams of a man looking to justify the perilous position he has placed us in, both on and off field. Right now he is pissing on everyone's shoes and claiming it to be raining, and frankly, it angers me as a supporter.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

This is part of the problem. The fact you're calling for an explanation of the plan at this stage of his tenure speaks volumes about the state of confusion over our current predicament. Neeld lays claim to consistency of messages but this simply isn't true. The goalposts have noticeably shifted to explain away the weekly thrashings we've received this year, and one can't help attribute some of that to Neeld attempting to save face.

I no longer trust our senior coach. Right now, he screams of a man looking to justify the perilous position he has placed us in, both on and off field. Right now he is pissing on everyone's shoes and claiming it to be raining, and frankly, it angers me as a supporter.

Agreed - his public persona is poor

But you can't categorically say you know what Neelds expectations were - only the board and FD know that. Because he is forced to explain himself in the media does not mean the direction of the club has changed.... Its pure guess work form you P Man

We'll know if you\re wrong or right tonight though - If the board sack Neeld you're more then likely right - if they don't you're probably wrong.

I still think sacking Neeld right now will show how we are and always will be a weak club. My reasons why have been highlighted in this thread. If Neeld has done wrong by the club he'll be sacked

But if it is to appease the media pressure and supporters etc etc we the MFC will remain a [censored] weak club as no one has the balls to stand up. Strong clubs don't bow to pressure or get dictated to by the media or playing group or supporters.

I won't even start on the environment left when Neeld leaves - surely no one believes good coaches will be looking at the MFC thinking this would be a good opportunity..... Again strong clubs - the MFC is not a strong club and tonight will prove it

[DemonFrog 1,354]

This is part of the problem. The fact you're calling for an explanation of the plan at this stage of his tenure speaks volumes about the state of confusion over our current predicament. Neeld lays claim to consistency of messages but this simply isn't true. The goalposts have noticeably shifted to explain away the weekly thrashings we've received this year, and one can't help attribute some of that to Neeld attempting to save face.

I no longer trust our senior coach. Right now, he screams of a man looking to justify the perilous position he has placed us in, both on and off field. Right now he is pissing on everyone's shoes and claiming it to be raining, and frankly, it angers me as a supporter.

You have my vote to become the next President of the MFC!

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Absolutely...The Club has to let the Members know exactly what the stated criteria was & is..

This is where the fault is...Not enough has been communicated...I firmly believe we will have a new President today.

The rest is 50/50 But i do know one thing, If Chris Dawes told me to do something on the footy field...i would do it.

I tend to agree with what you are saying wyl

Supporters are upset as we don't know the exact direction the MFC is taking - and Neeld has compounded this in his press conferences. Are we rebuilding - i'd pretty firmly say yes - has this changed from 2012 - probably 50/50. I think we were rebuilding but didn't expect a total list overhaul.

I think there will be changes in the board tonight as well. Jackson etc appointed and a few removed. This may see Neeld go but as I've stated it will show that we the MFC are a weak club

These changes won't make us a better club overnight that is for sure - At minimum I hope they can install people who do have the balls to lead this club out of our Dark Days..

[pm24 451]

So, let me get this straight, some people now think Neeld should be dismissed as head coach because some of his messages in the media have been a little inconsistent? That is one of the weakest arguments/reasons I have heard yet. If I was to be sacked for something like that I'd be tempted to lodge an unfair dismissal case against my employer. It's been obvious from the get go that the focus was on rebuilding the club by changing the culture, and embedding elite training standards. Last year we had more experience than we had this year, and Neeld and co used that time to evaluate the current player group. They then went about moving on those not fitting within the plan for the list and brought in young players to begin the rebuild of the list.

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

[P-man 13,366]

UH, it's hardly guessing when I can judge on what is said publicly, and that has switched from things turning around "quicker than people realise" and expectations of surpassing the number of wins from last season (now looking near on impossible), to overemphasis on the "rebuild of a rebuild", 3-5 year projections, and meeting one percenters in 100 point losses. There is no possible way that internal expectations would have been this level of competitiveness at this stage of his tenure, unless the expectation was to be reduced to the same level as Fitzroy.

I differ completely from you in what message I believe will be sent tonight. Parting ways with Neeld would be a statement that we are not in any way accepting of the level to which we have been reduced, which is undeniably rock bottom, and Neeld IS accountable for that. I hate the term "line in the sand", but this is definitely ours.

[P-man 13,366]

So, let me get this straight, some people now think Neeld should be dismissed as head coach because some of his messages in the media have been a little inconsistent? That is one of the weakest arguments/reasons I have heard yet. If I was to be sacked for something like that I'd be tempted to lodge an unfair dismissal case against my employer. It's been obvious from the get go that the focus was on rebuilding the club by changing the culture, and embedding elite training standards. Last year we had more experience than we had this year, and Neeld and co used that time to evaluate the current player group. They then went about moving on those not fitting within the plan for the list and brought in young players to begin the rebuild of the list.

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

Ridiculous post by your standards. It's not the main grounds for his dismissal, but certainly it is part of the picture which adds to the frustration.

[Guest]

What equally makes me sick is that so called supporters wish the downfall of a club employee and rejoce

That is what makes our club a joke to the competition - not the fact Neeld will get fired in due coarse but the fact supporters wish for it

Talk about supporting 60 years of crap and counting

I agree big time UH. You and I are in different camps on one thing. I believe Neeld needs to go now. However, I don't hold grudges against him or wish for him to be publicly tarred and feathered. I really wish that he could turn the club around but I know that won't happen. I will be disappointed when he goes as it clearly hasn't worked for either party and it is a sign that yet again the club has failed in an appointment.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

So, let me get this straight, some people now think Neeld should be dismissed as head coach because some of his messages in the media have been a little inconsistent? That is one of the weakest arguments/reasons I have heard yet. If I was to be sacked for something like that I'd be tempted to lodge an unfair dismissal case against my employer. It's been obvious from the get go that the focus was on rebuilding the club by changing the culture, and embedding elite training standards. Last year we had more experience than we had this year, and Neeld and co used that time to evaluate the current player group. They then went about moving on those not fitting within the plan for the list and brought in young players to begin the rebuild of the list.

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

Bad messages is the reason MN should go, well not at all.

He should go because he has a terrible win/loss record and he is not able to coach at a basic AFL standard.

Under his leadership the playing group has gotten worse, the MFC will be lucky to win two games this year from four the previous year and 8.5 the year before he coached the Club.

Not sure you been watching the games but the MFC is awful (But its the MFC so I will keep watching regardless).

Its a mistake to listen to MN as he only makes the thinking person more upset as he sometimes does not think before he speaks. I still remeber him say how surprised he was after the 148 point loss to Essendon (surely an compedent AFL standard coach should have saw that a flogging was about to happen).

[P-man 13,366]

I agree big time UH. You and I are in different camps on one thing. I believe Neeld needs to go now. However, I don't hold grudges against him or wish for him to be publicly tarred and feathered. I really wish that he could turn the club around but I know that won't happen. I will be disappointed when he goes as it clearly hasn't worked for either party and it is a sign that yet again the club has failed in an appointment.

I doubt anyone wishes for that. Of course it sucks that it has lead to this. His intentions were decent, the plan has just been poorly executed on the whole. I'm sure some of the changes he has made will carry through to any future success, but he has to be moved on and now.

Anyhow, he may still be coach tomorrow. Just don't expect any miracles for the rest of the year if that happens. More thrashings. More lost ticket sales. More lost memberships. More lost time.

[binman 42,715]

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

This is true however surely you concede that we are less experienced than last year because Neeld elected to cut experienced players or not fight to retain Rivers or Moloney, who had a choice to leave (though we could have matched beamers offer). For gods sake it was his call.

Now of course you could argue that that the players you've mentioned were part of some cultural problem at the club and needed to go (as many on DL did at the time) but just as some have said there is no proof players this year are not playing for Neeld, or that he has lost them (despite what i would see as plenty of on field proof - but that's another argument) there is no proof, just scuttlebutt that Pettard, Morton, Rivers, Moloney or Green did not buy in or were poor role models that needed to be cut.

I repeat Neeld chose to cut these players. Strange given he has made it abundantly clear that having players in the 80-150 game range is crucial. Surely given the importance of having this senior core he might have been a bit more pragmatic (and perahps even a bit more conciliatory) and kept a Pettard, Moloney or even Morton. What about try and encourage Green to play on another year? What about a coach who actually can get a player who is not fully buying in or performing to their potential turned around? That's what good coaches do. Instead Neeld tried to take a short cut and draft players in who he thought had the right attitude rather than working with what he had.

Neeld (and you Pm) can't have it both ways.Another of Neeld big calls that if they don't come off have a big downside. And if you live by the sword etc etc.

The other thing i'd point out (and have done previously) is that that using lack of experience as an ecuse is a bit misleading (and dare i say it disingenuous) as the players you mention (Terlich, Matt Jones, Gilles) and others you don't (Sellar, Nicholson, Bail and Pederson - who also bring the average number of games down) are all older players with bodies ready to cope with the physical demand of AFL football. I don't see anyone knocking Barlow for a lack of experience even though he's only played 30 odd games. 10 years ago an inexperienced player was invariably young and not physically ready to match it with mid 20's players.

Edited June 3, 2013 by binman

[pm24 451]

Ridiculous post by your standards. It's not the main grounds for his dismissal, but certainly it is part of the picture which adds to the frustration.

Damn, I didn't realise I had set myself a standard because of my other posts.

I better pick it up quick smart.

[pm24 451]

This is true however surely you concede that we are less experienced than last year because Neeld elected to cut experienced players or not fight to retain Rivers or Moloney, who had a choice (though we could have matched beamers offer). For gods sake it was his call.

Now of course you could argue that that the players you've mentioned were part of some cultural problem at the club and needed to go (as many on DL did at the time) but just as some have said there is no proof players this year are not playing for Neeld, or that he has lost them (despite what i would see as plenty of on field proof - but that's another argument) there is no proof, just scuttlebutt that Pettard, Morton, Rivers, Moloney or Green did not buy in or were poor role models that needed to be cut.

I repeat Neeld chose to cut these players. Strange given he has made it abundantly clear that having players in the 80-150 game range is crucial. Surely given the importance of having this senior core he might have been a bit more pragmatic (and perahps even a bit more conciliatory) and kept a Pettard, Moloney or even Morton. What about try and encourage Green to play on another year? What about a coach who actually can get a player who is not fully buying in or performing to their potential turned around? That's what good coaches do. Instead Neeld tried to take a short cut and draft players in who he thought had the right attitude rather than working with what he had.

Neeld (and you Pm) can't have it both ways.Another of Neeld big calls that if they don't come off have a big downside. And if you live by the sword etc etc.

The other thing i'd point out (and have done previously) is that that using lack of experience as an ecuse is a bit misleading (and dare i say it disingenuous) as the players you mention (Terlich, Matt Jones, Gilles) and others you don't (Sellar, Nicholson, Bail and Pederson - who also bring the average number of games down) are all older players with bodies ready to cope with the physical demand of AFL football. I don't see anyone knocking Barlow for a lack of experience even though he's only played 30 odd games. 10 years ago an inexperienced player was invariably young and not physically ready to match it with mid 20's players.

So you would prefer that we kept Moloney, despite statements already being made about how he moved on because he wasn't named captain, and refused to mentor young players and improve his aerobic fitness for the better of the team. Sorry, I've said multiple times already, if that is what happened, I don't want him even playing in the red and blue, let alone leading the club.

Do we really know that Neeld kicked out Rivers. Rivers was a free agent. This is how free agency works. Player gets an offer from a rival club. Player weighs up that offer against offer from current club. Player decides whether to stay or go. So explain how Neeld cut him from the side? From what was said during the preseason, we had made an offer to Rivers, but just like Bruce a few years earlier, Rivers chose to go to a finals bound team in the last few years of his career. Good on Rivers for making that call, I completely understand it.

I think Green could have gone on for another year, but I'm not going to crucify the coach because of it. Though I do recall Green making a comment in a radio interview after finishing up that players needed to get on board what was happening and not just rely on skill like they have in the past. Doesn't sound like someone who disliked the coach.

Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.

[deanox 9,902]

This is part of the problem. The fact you're calling for an explanation of the plan at this stage of his tenure speaks volumes about the state of confusion over our current predicament. Neeld lays claim to consistency of messages but this simply isn't true. The goalposts have noticeably shifted to explain away the weekly thrashings we've received this year, and one can't help attribute some of that to Neeld attempting to save face.

I no longer trust our senior coach. Right now, he screams of a man looking to justify the perilous position he has placed us in, both on and off field. Right now he is pissing on everyone's shoes and claiming it to be raining, and frankly, it angers me as a supporter.

I don't think it is Neelds responsibility to be passing this information to members, it is up to the board, and they haven't done so.

When Neeld took over I don't think anyone thought it would be like now. No one predicted that Moloney would act like he did. Free agency cost us experience and leadership in Rivers. The me football department certainly wouldn't have envisioned a playing list where players refused to put in the hard yards. On field this has set us back further than we thought.

After a really good preseason I think everyone in the footy department, players and coaches alike were caught up in the hype - it's going better than we thought, we could improve quicker than planned. The reality was that on field we were young and inexperienced and couldn't back up out training performances on game day.

With hind sight, I imagine we would have focussed more on midfielders at the trade table. That being said, talls take longer and its easier to build a midfield than build a spine, and this may have been reflected in the strategy.

Where my problem with communication is that neither the board nor the CEO have been vocal in the position that the new footy department was out in place to bring elite standards to training and club work practice. This may be because over the past 18 months the board and CEO have had their hands full with a lot of other issues and haven't had the luxury to come out and reiterate the plan.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

UH, it's hardly guessing when I can judge on what is said publicly, and that has switched from things turning around "quicker than people realise" and expectations of surpassing the number of wins from last season (now looking near on impossible), to overemphasis on the "rebuild of a rebuild", 3-5 year projections, and meeting one percenters in 100 point losses. There is no possible way that internal expectations would have been this level of competitiveness at this stage of his tenure, unless the expectation was to be reduced to the same level as Fitzroy.

I differ completely from you in what message I believe will be sent tonight. Parting ways with Neeld would be a statement that we are not in any way accepting of the level to which we have been reduced, which is undeniably rock bottom, and Neeld IS accountable for that. I hate the term "line in the sand", but this is definitely ours.

I don't mind that you disagree with me P Man - I have no problems at all

I think you make sense but I think a lot of your opinion is guess work - you and I have very little idea of what the internal expectation are. I agree they wouldn't have expected these results we are seeing now but like the coaching structure and all other things expectations would change as well.

I disagree strongly with your argument and logic on this one.

If Neeld was installed to change the club culture and install elite performance the MFC would be making a huge mistake by making relational decisions.

If Neeld was brought in to the club to win games off the bat from 2012 he has failed and should be fired

Tonight will tell us which is correct - if he's fired simply because of media and supporter pressure I believe strongly this club is WEAK and will remain WEAK

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I agree big time UH. You and I are in different camps on one thing. I believe Neeld needs to go now. However, I don't hold grudges against him or wish for him to be publicly tarred and feathered. I really wish that he could turn the club around but I know that won't happen. I will be disappointed when he goes as it clearly hasn't worked for either party and it is a sign that yet again the club has failed in an appointment.

No problems Colin B - I agree the performance has been [censored] poor - but as I've said to P Man only the club can answer if Neeld is not meeting expectations

And if they fire him due to pressure then we are all stuffed

[[email protected] 101]

today i saw the players have a dip and still lose by 95

why?

Becuase Neeld is the worst coach of all time and has given the players either no game plan or a pile of confusing rubbish he concocted in his head

Neeld is well and truly the problem

He has the worst overall LIST of all time !!!

[deanox 9,902]

...

I repeat Neeld chose to cut these players. Strange given he has made it abundantly clear that having players in the 80-150 game range is crucial. Surely given the importance of having this senior core he might have been a bit more pragmatic (and perahps even a bit more conciliatory) and kept a Pettard, Moloney or even Morton....

Instead Neeld tried to take a short cut...

Binman you can't have it both ways, either you acknowledge that the current footy department is trying to change the culture and set new standards (which means that there was poor culture and poor standards) or you claim that the problem is Neeld, not the previous players.

If you claim the comments regarding culture and behaviour are just rumours (despite comments by robbo this week) and nothing more, then you are justified in saying that Neeld should have kept the players. If you acknowledge we needed a culture change then there are no two ways about it, these players were given 12 months you adapt to new management and when they wouldn't or couldn't change their ways they moved on.

You can't have your cake and eat it too! Players with poor with ethic, poor culture and who are actively working against the coach so not make the team any better, despite how many games they've played. And if Neeld had of kept them we would be back in 2011, looking ok but miles off a flag and treading water.

Neeld didn't take a short cut, he took the long road. They problem is the masses on demonland and in the media aren't willing to wait for the results.

The short cut would have been keeping the senior players who wouldn't buy in to elite performance culture, or changing the game plan or standards to suit those players. We would have had better short term results, Neeld would have prolonged his career but the club would have gone nowhere. We may have made finals, but we wouldn't have gone further than that.

Edited June 3, 2013 by deanox