Neeld is not the problem

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

That is a confidence issue and that can be rectified over a summer.

It is inertia. Inertia when players are worried about 'their' man more than getting the ball for their team.

When some on here think that all we need to do is 'worry about your bloke' and declare that 'we don't let our bloke get the footy' we are tacitly ceding any attack and adventure to the opposition.

The next coach has to rebuild the confidence of the players to run and be selfless - in both directions.

It is the one area that you can have some swift and satisfying reward in. It will reduce the margin of losses and it can be implemented rather quickly.

We will still be mauled out of the middle and from stoppages but we shoudl be able to encourage more dare and boldness and run over a summer.

Assuming we can all deal with the increase of mistakes that happens...

This is the deal: you would prefer a player get it 20 times a game and make 5 clangers than get it 10 times and make no clangers. Some of you might disagree but it is a failure to understand modern footy - the players willing to run and get those ten extra possies, even if they screw up half of them, is what drives teams from defence into attack.

Good post RPFC. Instilling that self belief is the key and right now we just don't have any semblance of it.

Edited May 28, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[McQueen 17,863]

I have and not one of the current players has told me they hate him, but if you want to be that way, feel free

What makes you so special to actually say that? I understand from your postings you make the effort to talk to players at training but if you're not a family member or a best mate and confidant of the players do you honestly believe you would be told such delicate emotions and opinions?

[Bossdog 2,002]

Can't say but very reliable source

Absolute crap.....I have it on a very reliable source that Paul Roos will NEVER coach the MFC...

[DemonOX 8,530]

I have it on good authority that Paul Roos has already spoken to a number of Melbourne's leadership group over the last week. Stay tuned!

I am happy to take you on your word dbj1983 unlike some on here.

Hope you are right.

[rpfc 27,472]

I am happy to take you on your word dbj1983 unlike some on here.

Hope you are right.

So you are happy that your club is allowing senior players to talk to a prospective coach that isn't at the club?

Not only is it unlikely in the extreme, if it were true it would naive and stupid in the extreme.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

I've been as frustrated as the rest of you with the performances this year, but after each big loss which at the time seems unexpected, I find it useful to sit back, remove emotion from the equation and consider the lists and clubs who have handed us the latest belting.

1. But the reality is, that it's the perceived "lack of effort" that is killing us as supporters, and making our team harder and harder to watch. But is the lack of effort of Neeld's doing??? The more I read, the more I listen to what the players are saying, the less I believe it is.

2. So let me paint a picture of what Neeld took on when he accepted the head coaching position. When Neeld took over this club after Bailey's tenure, he took on a list that had kicked out it's best leader, Jnr McDonald, and said goodbye to good clubmen like Yze, Miller, Robertson, and Bruce; lost Tom Scully due to financial incentives and (if Scully is to be believed) concerns around the leadership of the veterans on the club list; had training standards and fitness levels that would take 3 years to fix; had a core group of young inexperienced players that had never experienced an environment with real AFL level standards before; and a history of poor drafting and insufficient investment of funds into player development; but he took it on with an aim to turning the club around to become "the hardest team to play against" within 3-5 years.

3. However, the foundations are there for change. Veteran players recognised as good clubmen, who are recognised for their attitude to training, as well as some seriously talented Key Position talent, have been recruited. Byrnes and Rodan were two such players recognised as good club men, who were brought into to help mentor the player group.

4. There are a number of positives, to go along with the negatives. Some say blame Neeld, some say don't, blame the players instead.

5. I say, the problems lie largely in the past, and have contributed to the poor practices that our current player group have displayed. Why, because when you look at everything that has happened, our club was a basket case before Neeld took over and changes were needed to turn it around.

I can see that this is a good post from the accolades, and I agree that it's an emotionally charged issue for all of us who passionately support MFC each week. Below are just some thoughts on the above lines in the post.

My own view after watching them for 8 weeks (I didn’t see the Freo game) is that Neeld is not the ONLY problem. But I do have doubts about him being the coach with the solutions that are necessary going forward.

Watching Footy Classified last night, maybe I was dreaming but when the discussion got onto Alastair Clarkson, I found myself wondering how the year would have panned out so far if we were coached by Clarkson or Malthouse or Roos for instance. Or even Gary Ayres. The thing that is missing from the coaching in all the games I’ve watched is defensive pressure and the structures that bring that (and go a long way to preventing huge thumpings). That is a coaching issue which all the sides coached by Clarkson, Malthouse, Roos and Ayres have as foundation strategies.

1. Lack of effort. Can Neeld motivate this group? On the evidence, there are doubts. Fitness? Maybe more it’s an issue of young bodies, but then for 25 years we’ve always been the weaker bodied side, up against the giants of the comp. But we were told that Neeld’s pre-season had worked wonders.
2. No disagreement that Neeld (or Clarkson or whoever else had taken over) inherited a totally dysfunctional set-up.
3. I question whether Byrnes and Rodan will contribute much to the necessary solutions. The cultural issues are deep-seated and I agree that Neeld has had the guts to begin to tackle them. Other hard changes within the club and its recruiting unit are essential and will happen because it’s now clear they must.
4. Yes the players share some blame, but the reality is these are the players we’ve got going into the future, more or less. Wholesale changes aren’t possible, so we need to coach the absolute best out of them, and build game experience and competitive structures into them. Plus motivate them. Jobs for the coach who will be part of the solution.
5. Yes the problems are largely in the past, but the solutions lie ahead. And is Neeld the coach with the solutions? Probably not on the evidence we’ve got before us. And we absolutely cannot risk keeping going down a path that does not contain the solutions.

Your post is thought provoking and a good basis for dialogue, whether we agree in total or in part. Thanks for the cool-headed thinking.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

What makes you so special to actually say that? I understand from your postings you make the effort to talk to players at training but if you're not a family member or a best mate and confidant of the players do you honestly believe you would be told such delicate emotions and opinions?

Er yes, because I actually talk to them in other situations as well, I just don't publicize it coz I ge accused of big noting myself by the less self confident poster on here

So you are best mates with who?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Satyriconhome

[binman 38,091]

I've said it before and i'll say it again. It does not matter a jot whether people think Neeld should go or stay. Their are sound arguments for him to go ASAP, end of the year and to see out his contract- and these have all been thrashed out on DL. But none of them matter, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong in terms of Neeld staying or leaving.

Football history is crystal clear. Coaches who have such a disastrous run of performances (not just losing games, but losses in combination with a lack of basic competitiveness and the occasional thrashing) over an extended period get the chop. Every time.

He was on notice after the Essendon game and had his cards stamped against GC. He needs a miracle win against Hawthorn but the players are too beaten down so that's not going to happen. It's a sad situation but footy history says Neeld will likely go post Magpies.

[Pipefitter 2,016]

There is more chance of us beating hawthorn by 20 goals this weekend than Roos coaching melbourne.

[Soidee 1,496]

The title of this thread is redundant. He is gone.

[pm24 451]

I have it on good authority that Paul Roos has already spoken to a number of Melbourne's leadership group over the last week. Stay tuned!

Cool, what was he talking to them about....the weather??

I don't think we need to get unnecessarily excited about Roos possibly coaching the club based on him having a conversation with senior players. I mean Malthouse has been having conversations with guys like Watts and Davey, so surely that meant he was going to take over from Neeld at some point.

Unless there is more information about what they actually talked about, the fact that Roos who is in the MEDIA spoke to Melbourne players, means little to me. If it means anything, it could mean that he is preparing a piece where he will respond to all the rumours which he has already responded to just because people won't listen when he says he has no desire to coach AFL at the moment.

[McQueen 17,863]

Er yes, because I actually talk to them in other situations as well, I just don't publicize it coz I ge accused of big noting myself by the less self confident poster on here

So you are best mates with who?

I was just asking the question.

I don't know any of the players at a personal level but even if I did I would doubt they'd disclose that level of resentment to me unless I was a family member or best mate.

As you are neither, I doubt you've been told the truth.

[Cards13 9,117]

I have it on good authority that Paul Roos has already spoken to a number of Melbourne's leadership group over the last week. Stay tuned!

"I'm not coaching you rabble now get out of my back yard!"

[pm24 451]

I can see that this is a good post from the accolades, and I agree that it's an emotionally charged issue for all of us who passionately support MFC each week. Below are just some thoughts on the above lines in the post.

My own view after watching them for 8 weeks (I didn’t see the Freo game) is that Neeld is not the ONLY problem. But I do have doubts about him being the coach with the solutions that are necessary going forward.

Watching Footy Classified last night, maybe I was dreaming but when the discussion got onto Alastair Clarkson, I found myself wondering how the year would have panned out so far if we were coached by Clarkson or Malthouse or Roos for instance. Or even Gary Ayres. The thing that is missing from the coaching in all the games I’ve watched is defensive pressure and the structures that bring that (and go a long way to preventing huge thumpings). That is a coaching issue which all the sides coached by Clarkson, Malthouse, Roos and Ayres have as foundation strategies.

1. Lack of effort. Can Neeld motivate this group? On the evidence, there are doubts. Fitness? Maybe more it’s an issue of young bodies, but then for 25 years we’ve always been the weaker bodied side, up against the giants of the comp. But we were told that Neeld’s pre-season had worked wonders.
2. No disagreement that Neeld (or Clarkson or whoever else had taken over) inherited a totally dysfunctional set-up.
3. I question whether Byrnes and Rodan will contribute much to the necessary solutions. The cultural issues are deep-seated and I agree that Neeld has had the guts to begin to tackle them. Other hard changes within the club and its recruiting unit are essential and will happen because it’s now clear they must.
4. Yes the players share some blame, but the reality is these are the players we’ve got going into the future, more or less. Wholesale changes aren’t possible, so we need to coach the absolute best out of them, and build game experience and competitive structures into them. Plus motivate them. Jobs for the coach who will be part of the solution.
5. Yes the problems are largely in the past, but the solutions lie ahead. And is Neeld the coach with the solutions? Probably not on the evidence we’ve got before us. And we absolutely cannot risk keeping going down a path that does not contain the solutions.

Your post is thought provoking and a good basis for dialogue, whether we agree in total or in part. Thanks for the cool-headed thinking.

I think when looking at coaches like Clarkson, who rebuilt the Hawks, is to remember that people were calling for his head midway through his first contract, but the club stuck by him and look what happened. Now I'm not saying that the same outcome is guaranteed with Neeld at the helm. Only suggesting that things take time and given the problems the club seems to have, it'll probably take longer than it would for a team with a strong core group of experienced veterans, and a stronger culture than what we have.

As for your response to comment 1, I recall the message from the preseason was that it was much better than the previous year but still only 66% of the way to where it needs to be. So, the preseason was probably the best this club has experienced in recent years (which is more obvious when considering Morton's statements), but still not where it needs to be. That may only come with one more preseason.

[nutbean 8,837]

So you are happy that your club is allowing senior players to talk to a prospective coach that isn't at the club?

Not only is it unlikely in the extreme, if it were true it would naive and stupid in the extreme.

Not to mention disrespectful.

I have no problem with clubs doing the sounding out and even negotiating for new staff/coaches behind the scenes - that is accepted practice - but to allow them to talk to players ...ummm no.

[DemonOX 8,530]

So you are happy that your club is allowing senior players to talk to a prospective coach that isn't at the club?

Not only is it unlikely in the extreme, if it were true it would naive and stupid in the extreme.

If it helps getting Roos to our club then YES.

We are in such dire straights rpfc that extreme times calls for extreme measures.

[McQueen 17,863]

If it helps getting Roos to our club then YES.

We are in such dire straights rpfc that extreme times calls for extreme measures.

Let's get Mark Knopfler as coach then..

[nutbean 8,837]

If it helps getting Roos to our club then YES.

We are in such dire straights rpfc that extreme times calls for extreme measures.

1/ I could not imagine Roos asking to speak to players as an experienced ex coach - given how he would have viewed that same situation as the Swans coach

2/ I could not imagine the MFC allowing it - would blow up in our faces big time.

If desperate times call for desperate measures then fire the poor bastard but to even give a seconds credence to this sort of disrespect is disgraceful ( and quite frankly not to be believed). We talk about culture and sure we will go behind our coaches back and talk to perspective alternatives but to think that our club would allow a perspective new coach to talk to players whilst Neeld is still is in place... just wow

[on the outer 19]

Sure it would seem to be bad form for Roos to be 'talking to' the leadership group, but not if he has already been offered the job and is sounding out the players on their opinion of him before making a final decision. I reckon this would be a very sensible approach.

[chookrat 3,776]

I'll say it again, as much as some would like to paint a picture of the MFC's current situation as being somehow unique, we can no longer be afforded the luxury of time to fix a brand that is so severely tarnished, it has become almost worthless.

Peter Jackson is not in the CEO's chair simply to make sure of the day to day running of the business, he has been put there, due to the severity of our situation and the urgency to get something done.

We can debate as much as we like, as to who is at fault, which players we should have kept and which we should have let go. We can talk about how inexperienced we are or whether our fitness levels are up to scratch - not withstanding Neeld has now had 2 pre-seasons to improve the fitness levels and not all that long ago, spoke volumes as to just how fit we are supposed to be.

While we currently sit 2nd last on the table, with only GWS below us, there is daylight between us and the others, in terms of how our brand is perceived. You can ridicule journalists like Barrett, Robinson, Smith et al, but they cannot be all wrong. Healy said what he said last night, because he knows something. These guys are in the jobs they have, because they have the ears of people within the industry who are in the know. We are in diabolical trouble and the time for action is upon us. While in an ideal world it may be more desirable to let Neeld serve out his term, the MFC simply does not have the time.

We must act sooner rather than later, otherwise the consequences of our inaction will be far worse than the alternative of taking action.

The journalists are chasing headlines and sacking a coach makes for a better story than the process of a multi year rebuild. As supporters a say the media can GAGF to their calls to further destabilise our club. I say we show unity, get behind our team and let Peter Jackson assess what changes need to be made.

[damon the demon 57]

Neeld has in made a couple of grave errors which will cost him his job:

Spending big (cash and draft picks) on key forwards instead of midfielders. Should never have bought Dawes, should have bought a decent mid. It is bad luck Clarke can't get on the ground, but if Dawes, Clarke and Hogan are all fit then that's one big forward line with no to kick it to them. Bad thinking. Think we needed Wines or trade pick 3 for another mid.

Saying we are 5 years from being competitive then refusing to play the 'future' particulary Blease and Strauss. It's bad enough to say we are rebuilding the rebuild, but if you do that then at least play the kids. Why play Byrnes at all?

[DemonOX 8,530]

Let's get Mark Knopfler as coach then..

Very good McQueen.

[DemonOX 8,530]

1/ I could not imagine Roos asking to speak to players as an experienced ex coach - given how he would have viewed that same situation as the Swans coach

2/ I could not imagine the MFC allowing it - would blow up in our faces big time.

If desperate times call for desperate measures then fire the poor [censored] but to even give a seconds credence to this sort of disrespect is disgraceful ( and quite frankly not to be believed). We talk about culture and sure we will go behind our coaches back and talk to perspective alternatives but to think that our club would allow a perspective new coach to talk to players whilst Neeld is still is in place... just wow

I would be amazed if they werent talking to other coaches. If they want to talk to the leaders of the club for what ever reason then why would you say no if it meant getting Roos.

The fact is we do not know what is happening behind the scenes and I was simply replying to a post which I hope is true and take it at face value.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

If it helps getting Roos to our club then YES.

We are in such dire straights rpfc that extreme times calls for extreme measures.

2 part question

So assume that if Neeld is released in the next two weeks or so and it is not Roos, what will your reaction be and how long will you give whoever it is

Or

If it is Roos and the results stay the same until the end of the season, what will your reaction be and how long will you give Roos

Given that whoever it is, and unless we are going to do a Ross Lyon, will have been out of senior coaching for at least a year, and the game has changed again in that time

Edited May 28, 2013 by Satyriconhome

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

Neeld has in made a couple of grave errors which will cost him his job:

Spending big (cash and draft picks) on key forwards instead of midfielders. Should never have bought Dawes, should have bought a decent mid. It is bad luck Clarke can't get on the ground, but if Dawes, Clarke and Hogan are all fit then that's one big forward line with no to kick it to them. Bad thinking. Think we needed Wines or trade pick 3 for another mid.

Saying we are 5 years from being competitive then refusing to play the 'future' particulary Blease and Strauss. It's bad enough to say we are rebuilding the rebuild, but if you do that then at least play the kids. Why play Byrnes at all?

Have you watched Blease lately, unfortunately he has the same malaise as others, doesn't run both ways, Strauss has been playing, but went with a taller line last weekend

You contradicted yourself, you have the forward line as Clark, Dawes and Hogan, then complain about mids, if the young guys are allowed time to develop, we will have a midfield that can compete