Sorry Iva toe fingers and typing don't mix. I thought changes were a foot this week in the footy dept but nothin seems to have happened is what I meant to say.

No, I said there would be a meeting this week --- which there was and the changes will follow soon after. i did not put a date on it.

He had nothing to build incremental improvement on Iv'a. Instead, he has chosen to tear it all down and start again. We have no reason to get rid of Neeld without giving him his full tenure UNLESS we, as a supporter base, stop paying for memberships and going to games. It's our choice. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.

Personally, my gut feel is that we achieve nothing by moving another coach on, especially at such an early stage - but I know many here disagree.

So, a basic incremental improvement of manning up is too much to expect? An inability to meet even the most fundamental skills benchmarks is too much to expect? As with PM and RM, I will buy my membership regardless, but I cannot guarantee others will. Nobody can. Simple fact is, in the modern era, an average losing margin of 12 goals is unparalleled.

It would appear that out of an 18 team competition, some on here would suggest our situation is unique. It is not and we should not flatter ourselves or take comfort from a perception that no other AFL club has had to face issues of inexperience, player development and dud draft picks to the extent we have. Those failures do not diminish character or commitment.

None of us may like it, but there will be change, because we cannot continue to damage the AFL brand to the extent we have to this point in time. This is not even about 2014, it goes beyond that.

I'm afraid that due to where we sit right now, the decision to make changes has been taken out of our hands, whether we like it or not. That is simply reality.

Edited May 30, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

No worries I'va.

No, I said there would be a meeting this week --- which there was and the changes will follow soon after. i did not put a date on it.

With respect, that's rubbish. I think the vast majority of the supporter base, myself included, wrote off last year and afforded Neeld some time to see who would form part of his future plans. Who displayed defensive work-rates and who didn't etc. That was reasonable. It was disappointing only winning four games, but it was a season for experiment and enacting Neeld's game plan.

When the 2013 season rolled around many of us were not expecting finals, but we were looking for any sign of improvement. Instead, the work rate and skills for the entire year (save one quarter against GWS) have been reminiscent of 186. Over and over again. I was there on that fateful day in Geelong and I've attended every game in Victoria this year. It's comparable. Bailey rightly lost his job over that game. Neeld should have lost his job 6 or 7 times over this season. The only reason he hasn't is that we're waiting on PJ's report.

If you watch Neeld's press conferences this year, they are markedly different from last. He continually focuses on experience and mere competitiveness, never simply on winning. Neeld is the coaching problem. I think the drafting under him has been pretty solid, although it's still tough to call some of them. His problem is he's not a senior coach at AFL level. As simple as that. Get rid of him.

I'm certain my statement doesn't apply to all, but I think it does apply to some on here.

Answer me this, when a team gets younger and less experienced in an offseason, do you expect it to improve or get worse?

I'm interested in your response, because our team got even younger and even less experienced during the offseason, yet many on here still think that we should have some more positive improvement despite this, which to me is nonsensical.

I'm certain my statement doesn't apply to all, but I think it does apply to some on here.

Answer me this, when a team gets younger and less experienced in an offseason, do you expect it to improve or get worse?

I'm interested in your response, because our team got even younger and even less experienced during the offseason, yet many on here still think that we should have some more positive improvement despite this, which to me is nonsensical.

So based on your assertion, we're the only AFL team in that boat?

So based on your assertion, we're the only AFL team in that boat?

I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying? I simply linked my general question to our current situation.

I'm asking a general question. If a playing list looses experienced veteran players, and then becomes a more inexperienced playing list, would that list be expected to improve it's results or would it generally be expected that some regression would take place.

I'll ask some more questions to emphasise my point.

When the bulldogs lost players like Brad Johnson, Barry Hall, Jason Akermanis, Scott West, Luke Darcy and others, did they improve the next year?? Have they even improved this year compared to last?

When the power lost players like Warren Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Brendon Lade, and Shaun Burgoyne, did they improve or regress??

My point is, people have made a number of comments about how we should be seeing improvement but either fail to consider or dismiss as irrelevant, the fact that our list is even younger and less experienced than last year, and that currently we even have some of our more experienced and mature players out who might be in a better position to cope with the rigours of AFL football (Sylvia, Grimes and even Joel Macdonald).

We are not the only team in rebuild mode. There are other teams in the same position, but how many of them have teams less experienced than ours?

I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying? I simply linked my general question to our current situation.

I'm asking a general question. If a playing list looses experienced veteran players, and then becomes a more inexperienced playing list, would that list be expected to improve it's results or would it generally be expected that some regression would take place.

I'll ask some more questions to emphasise my point.

When the bulldogs lost players like Brad Johnson, Barry Hall, Jason Akermanis, Scott West, Luke Darcy and others, did they improve the next year?? Have they even improved this year compared to last?

When the power lost players like Warren Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Brendon Lade, and Shaun Burgoyne, did they improve or regress??

My point is, people have made a number of comments about how we should be seeing improvement but either fail to consider or dismiss as irrelevant, the fact that our list is even younger and less experienced than last year, and that currently we even have some of our more experienced and mature players out who might be in a better position to cope with the rigours of AFL football (Sylvia, Grimes and even Joel Macdonald).

We are not the only team in rebuild mode. There are other teams in the same position, but how many of them have teams less experienced than ours?

If our players were at least having a decent dip every week, if there looked liked there was a hint of a game plan, if they played like they were busting a nut we would all probably shut up.

Instead we have had insipid performances nearly every single week and have been embarrassed in 4 of those games and just flogged in the others. Hell if the tigers kicked straight it would have been a flogging, if we did not pull 1 great quarter out of our arse we would probably be winless.

Just some excellent discussion these last few pages, save for a few posts...

I think it has come to a critical mass already but there are compelling reasons to take any number of actions when it comes to the coach this season...

Let's hope we can make the right decision for the right reasons.

Screw the reasons - let's just make the right decision!

You've just proven my point. You have decided Neeld is the problem based on what you see on tv and you resort to name calling because you are unable to have a rational discussion or actually discuss why you feel that way.

I understand the arguments for keeping Neeld. My opinion is that we probably need to move him on because I think when a group is so demoralised it will be difficult to ever get that confidence back. I'm not sure when he should move on, but I do have faith that Peter Jackson will make the correct decision at the correct time. But I'm not willing to make outrageous claims about issues I have no idea about such as players hating him, without any knowledge. And I think that if someone who works there full time hasn't decided to sack Neeld in a full month, there could be no reason why anyone on this forum would know better.

And no-one here had that knowledge , which is why instead off having a discussion people resort to name calling.

You wouldn't have these sorts of conversations at work, you'd get sacked for bullying, so why talk to people like that online? Try having a reasonable discussion, it will get you further.

I think Deelerious may have been taking the pizz in regards to the insult deanox.

I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying? I simply linked my general question to our current situation.

I'm asking a general question. If a playing list looses experienced veteran players, and then becomes a more inexperienced playing list, would that list be expected to improve it's results or would it generally be expected that some regression would take place.

I'll ask some more questions to emphasise my point.

When the bulldogs lost players like Brad Johnson, Barry Hall, Jason Akermanis, Scott West, Luke Darcy and others, did they improve the next year?? Have they even improved this year compared to last?

When the power lost players like Warren Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Brendon Lade, and Shaun Burgoyne, did they improve or regress??

My point is, people have made a number of comments about how we should be seeing improvement but either fail to consider or dismiss as irrelevant, the fact that our list is even younger and less experienced than last year, and that currently we even have some of our more experienced and mature players out who might be in a better position to cope with the rigours of AFL football (Sylvia, Grimes and even Joel Macdonald).

We are not the only team in rebuild mode. There are other teams in the same position, but how many of them have teams less experienced than ours?

What ever their decline, it pales into insignificance compared to ours. 9 rounds in and a 12 goal + average losing margin. That is simply indefensible.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

What ever their decline, it pales into insignificance compared to ours. 9 rounds in and a 12 goal + average losing margin. That is simply indefensible.

Just wondering where you got those stats from regarding the average losing margin. Do we have the 2nd worst losing margin in the league? I'm guessing GWS has a worse losing margin than ours. Given they are the only team less experienced than us, that would make sense.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by pm24

Just wondering where you got those stats from regarding the average losing margin. Do we have the 2nd worst losing margin in the league? I'm guessing GWS has a worse losing margin than ours. Given they are the only team less experienced than us, that would make sense.

You get them from the match results which are easily obtainable. It is ludicrous to compare our losing margin with that of GWS. They are an "expansion" team, in hostile territory, with a bunch of kids, who have been thrown together via the draft. Their improvement will be greatly accelerated and be far quicker than ours, if we keep treading water.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

We are a rebuilding list that has the second least amount of experience in the league. You are only suggesting it is ludicrous to compare our place with theirs because it doesn't support your argument. If you're argument re gws held substance then the gold coast shouldn't have won 4 games this season because they are an expansion team in a hostile environment, with a bunch of kids who have been thrown together via the draft.

The Freo team that tore us a fresh one was a year older on average and had 17 games per man more experience.

We're way more than a season away from Freo's level of performance. That's what is concerning.

The Dockers have a Coach in his second year.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by CHAMP

If our players were at least having a decent dip every week, if there looked liked there was a hint of a game plan, if they played like they were busting a nut we would all probably shut up.

Instead we have had insipid performances nearly every single week and have been embarrassed in 4 of those games and just flogged in the others. Hell if the tigers kicked straight it would have been a flogging, if we did not pull 1 great quarter out of our arse we would probably be winless.

I hear what you are saying but think you need to look at with about more realism. The bulk of the players are still acclimatising to afl football, and and still learning what is required to play at that level.

To me, though the performance of the team has been abysmal and heartbreaking, I can understand why we have been so inconsistent given our lists experience and age profile. Do I want to see improvement over the year. Yes. Do I think we will see it? Yes.

The Freo team that tore us a fresh one was a year older on average and had 17 games per man more experience.

We're way more than a season away from Freo's level of performance. That's what is concerning.

The Dockers have a Coach in his second year.

Fair point but is reckon they'd have a better culture and core group of experienced veteran players to help with the development of players. Something we have lacked.

Fair point but is reckon they'd have a better culture and core group of experienced veteran players to help with the development of players. Something we have lacked.

I think we'll have to agree though that Neeld's efforts to modify the culture have not been a great success and neither has his introduction of a select Veteran Core been terribly fruitful from a development (or any) POV.

I'm certain my statement doesn't apply to all, but I think it does apply to some on here.

Answer me this, when a team gets younger and less experienced in an offseason, do you expect it to improve or get worse?

I'm interested in your response, because our team got even younger and even less experienced during the offseason, yet many on here still think that we should have some more positive improvement despite this, which to me is nonsensical.

I expect to see work rate. This is not intrinsically linked with experience. Our players fail to show work rate after ten minutes of football. I expect to see improvement in our skills. They've stagnated. It isn't merely a lack of experience. I've watched a bit of GWS this year. Our work rate is so often miles below theirs as our first three quarters against them can attest.

Our midfield is clearly an issue. It lacks experience, class and spread. But not one of the players (many of whom were there last year) seems to have any idea how to play this gameplan. I'll tell you how I know. We don't play as a team. If you look at our starting 18 this week, three weren't there last year or playing AFL level and we've since added the experience of Dawes and Rodan. If you're not playing the inexperienced card, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of our starting 18, Neeld has had over a year with them. During this time Jones, Howe and McDonald have improved. How much this can be attributed to Neeld we'll never know, but let's say that those three are blossoming under him. I think I could name about fifteen players who have gone backwards under him.

In over a year, Neeld has failed to implement a game plan, even successfully, more than once. Only THREE players have shown marked improvement. If ever there was an indictment on a coach, it is these two failures. Even Bailey, who was a dreadful coach, oversaw more improvement from his squad.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by AdamFarr

Thats what 186 was all about. A bunch of petulant kids and a few petulant older players.....

RM, firstly let me say, I am not trying to buy into an argument here. However, let's just say, for the sake of the debate, your premise is the correct one.

What you put forward is a "mutiny" of sorts, propagated by a bunch of petulant kids.

lots of talk about experience, you can have bad experienced players, there's plenty of guys running around in the 2's who are experienced. experience is a factor but that doesn't effect work rate

It can affect aerobic intensity around the contest though, Lord. But I agree. Our starting 18 reflects enough experience.

I forgot to mention the mfc are big excuse makers.

Making excuses is the easiest way to defer accountability and responsibility. Excuses like;

Experience

Fitness base

New game plan

Players

Lack of leadership

Culture

In regard to these excuses, how do you explain that Bailey won 8 and a half games with a lesser player list, less experience, less of a game plan, a worse culture, less coaching staff and supposedly a horrid fitness base.

It defies logic. But I'm sure there will be an elaborate excuse to explain this. Always is.

I expect to see work rate. This is not intrinsically linked with experience. Our players fail to show work rate after ten minutes of football. I expect to see improvement in our skills. They've stagnated. It isn't merely a lack of experience. I've watched a bit of GWS this year. Our work rate is so often miles below theirs as our first three quarters against them can attest.

Our midfield is clearly an issue. It lacks experience, class and spread. But not one of the players (many of whom were there last year) seems to have any idea how to play this gameplan. I'll tell you how I know. We don't play as a team. If you look at our starting 18 this week, three weren't there last year or playing AFL level and we've since added the experience of Dawes and Rodan. If you're not playing the inexperienced card, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of our starting 18, Neeld has had over a year with them. During this time Jones, Howe and McDonald have improved. How much this can be attributed to Neeld we'll never know, but let's say that those three are blossoming under him. I think I could name about fifteen players who have gone backwards under him.

In over a year, Neeld has failed to implement a game plan, even successfully, more than once. Only THREE players have shown marked improvement. If ever there was an indictment on a coach, it is these two failures. Even Bailey, who was a dreadful coach, oversaw more improvement from his squad.

What are your coaching credentials. We have a pretty credentialed coaching panel. Given, neeld is a first year coach ....but was a very experienced assistant coach .......can we really aspire to "armchair" coach better? Sometimes what we see on field .....which is extremely disappointing doesn't reflect what is going on behind the scenes. Why would we pay out probably close to a million dollars to get rid of the coach & assistants for a caretaker just to appease mainly a voracious media & the usual disgruntled supporters. I don't necessarily think neeld is the best person but am prepared to let him at least finish the year if not his tenure. History shows us that there will always be someone down the bottom & subject to ridicule etc. Agreed, melb has been there for awhile. However they are my team ...I will support them & I tend to believe that the players do support him & would be quite surprised if any leave. Steps have been taken by people far more experienced & attuned to what is happening than us. Let's give them time to implement them & let's stop bagging our club. Essendon have systematically injected their players with a cocktail of drugs (illegal or legal is a moot point) but their behaviour towards their players has been reprehensible .....however their supporter base has never been stronger. Our team is performing as most critics & indeed neeld warned us it would .....& we act as if it is a massive surprise. Come back to me when neeld is two years into HIS rebuild & I bet there will be a massive turnaround in supporter opinion.

A good coach is able to motivate his charges and instill a winning spirit, aswell as creating a strong gameplan and hard nosed approach.

Neeld is unable to do that, and even worse, he dosnt believe in it. His philosophy is flawed, and as a result, he is doomed to failure.

Don't take my word for it, just watch us play. Limp and lifeless. We need a priest to bless our souls. We are spiritually dead.