On 02/06/2013 at 09:07, Unleash Hell said:

Just shows how [censored] weak this club is

Shows the difference between a Member and a Supporter. For one thing, Member can be used as a synonym for Dick.

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:08, RalphiusMaximus said:

Shows the difference between a Member and a Supporter. For one thing, Member can be used as a synonym for [censored].

True RM.... it's too easy to get frustrated at the moment

Was hoping for some decent feedback but I guess my expectations were set too high.... I bet these blokes dancing on Neelds grave didn't even turn up to the game today

  On 02/06/2013 at 08:46, Unleash Hell said:

Not that it matters but I was at the ground and though the structures were fine

What went wrong is we lost 1 v 1 contests and our young blokes couldn't keep up for the whole game. Costly costly turnovers and poor decision in possession made the hawks look good.

HH please point out tactical errors Neeld made or is the the [censored] comment thread?

[censored] me what a surprise losing to a top 4 side at our developmental stage

I think pushing Watts and Howe back behind the ball was a tactical error. Hawthorn use the ball so well from HB if they are allowed and it wouldn't matter how many you had back you have freed up their defenders to be attackers and they will take you apart and hit targets with ease. The only way to stop this is at the source not the destination, but we took players from there and placed them where they were of little use...somewhere in the area of the destination.

Not a tactical error but one of the game plan is we are reactive and more concerned with DI's than getting the ball, where my philosophy of football is the best DI or act is to have the ball...the man with the ball is king, now if he can also use it then he steps up even further. This was what was encouraging about Kent's game today. With limited opportunity he got the ball and used it well and was involved in most of our goals.

Would the mods please do something about unleash hell and his personal insulting and abusive posts.

He claims others aren't making arguments. His answer to anyone who disagrees with him is to abuse them.

I actually saw Neelds game plan working but it was the younger players who seem to be better at executing it - perhaps that is where we should now focus - get as many gmes into those young players as we can.

Thanks rjay

Agree we fell over there for most of the game and they set up a lot of their attacks and scored too easily on us... In the 2nd and 4th what you've said was really evident, the hawks punished us once we lost the ball

I do wonder how much of that is due to us not being able to half or win 1 v 1 contests? Having to put players behind the ball as we can't win contests and are unable to maintain possession? Can we put this down to team inexperience as there are a lot of young blokes out there or is it a fundamental flaw of Neelds game plan?

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:13, angrydee said:

Would the mods please do something about unleash hell and his personal insulting and abusive posts.

He claims others aren't making arguments. His answer to anyone who disagrees with him is to abuse them.

I shouldn't acknowledge this post but it seems to be fine if you have the popular opinon

Sounds like you should be playing for the club angrydee - happy to talk [censored] not happy to cop it back

Happy to take cheap shots at players and the club... toughen up princess

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:14, machine11 said:

I actually saw Neelds game plan working but it was the younger players who seem to be better at executing it - perhaps that is where we should now focus - get as many gmes into those young players as we can.

I think exactly the same thing machine11 - I saw progress but I also saw the game-plan fall down due to lack of execution and in-experience.... How do we address this? Do we keep playing games to the kids? I have to agree I don't think there is an easy way out of this.... Educating the young blokes is the way to go

Thanks for shearing and not slinging cheap shots

It is a lack of ability - cannot win the ball against bigger bodies - too inexperienced - we were playing the best drilled team in the comp who have much more experience than us and will probably take out the premiership. Hopefully the players learnt something today.

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:13, angrydee said:

Would the mods please do something about unleash hell and his personal insulting and abusive posts.

He claims others aren't making arguments. His answer to anyone who disagrees with him is to abuse them.

Can the mods do something about EVERY thread being turned into "sack neeld" by you, HH, tonotopia and 316?

At least offer something constructive or observational than "neeld sucks". How great do you feel bashing on other demon supporters who obviously saw a 95 point loss today, same as yourselves? You reckon anyone on this forum is happy seeing 28k turn up to our home game against the top team, and lose by 95?

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:19, machine11 said:

It is a lack of ability - cannot win the ball against bigger bodies - too inexperienced - we were playing the best drilled team in the comp who have much more experience than us and will probably take out the premiership. Hopefully the players learnt something today.

Spot on machine11 - i think you've hit the nail on the head... can't disagree with your analysis at all

I was pretty disappointed with the final qtr through after an ok fight back in the 3rd... But I think you're 100% right - the bigger bodied more experienced hawks outclassed us today.... I feel sorry for Neeld as you can see what he is trying to achievebut will most likely be sacked tomorrow

All the made media has been hyped up and 95 points by a top 4 side isn't good but it normally it wouldn't be the end of the world

Putting too many players behind the ball plays into the hands of the good sides - particularly good kicking sides like the hawks. It also destroys the structures that they are trying to implement. It's just defeatist.

Too many times the players kick to a position rather than to where their tea mates are actually running.

Too often they are scared to take responsibility and just give the ball off to get rid of it.

These are fundamentals that a coach is responsible for-to make the players less fearful of making errors.

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:15, Unleash Hell said:

Thanks rjay

Agree we fell over there for most of the game and they set up a lot of their attacks and scored too easily on us... In the 2nd and 4th what you've said was really evident, the hawks punished us once we lost the ball

I do wonder how much of that is due to us not being able to half or win 1 v 1 contests? Having to put players behind the ball as we can't win contests and are unable to maintain possession? Can we put this down to team inexperience as there are a lot of young blokes out there or is it a fundamental flaw of Neelds game plan?

I agree and wasn't disappointed with the effort today it's the skill level that crucifies us, we didn't seem to be out muscled in 1v1s

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:21, Generation dee said:

Can the mods do something about EVERY thread being turned into "sack neeld" by you, HH, tonotopia and 316?

At least offer something constructive or observational than "neeld sucks". How great do you feel bashing on other demon supporters who obviously saw a 95 point loss today, same as yourselves? You reckon anyone on this forum is happy seeing 28k turn up to our home game against the top team, and lose by 95?

Said so much better then I ever could Generaion Dee

  On 02/06/2013 at 08:57, Unleash Hell said:

Who said anyting about Neeld staying

I asked a simple question

Structurally what did Neeld do wrong? I don't believe his coaching was poor today - doesn't mean I think he'll stay as there are too many other factors but once again

Offer a decent opinion or go cry in another thread

Structures are a very small part of being a head AFL coach. Most of the line coaches can set up structures.

As a coach, he has made numerous media gaffes, he has demoralised, crucified and destroyed players. His team selection is often nonsensical. He demanded respect before he had earnt it and cast adrift players without them being given chances and has kept and recruited atrocious ones. He has changed his tune regularly on the status of the list to suit his own purposes and image. Michael Evans, an extremely mediocre player and a player he apparently was angry was promised a berth on the list, is now all of sudden a pawn in his stated-to-the-media youth policy, a policy that doesn't exist and only now verbally exists because it serves him a purpose. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest he is a good coach. We may look back and say he was inportant in clearing the decks and driving change, in much the same way Barassi was pre-Northey. But he is an abysmal runner of the onfield performance of a football club and history will consign him to being one of the AFL and VFL's worst of all time. The players should hang their heads in shame that their effort has waxed and waned during his tenure, but at the end of the day his inability to inspire them is the root cause. He seemingly just does not have the personality or the decision making ability (not just on the ground moves) to be a satisfactory AFL coach.

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:28, angrydee said:

Putting too many players behind the ball plays into the hands of the good sides - particularly good kicking sides like the hawks. It also destroys the structures that they are trying to implement. It's just defeatist.

Too many times the players kick to a position rather than to where their tea mates are actually running.

Too often they are scared to take responsibility and just give the ball off to get rid of it.

These are fundamentals that a coach is responsible for-to make the players less fearful of making errors.

Good points angrydee

And I agree with what you've said..... some aspects of our game are very poor and it makes you wonder what they do teach down there at Gosch's paddock.

But to fire back and for the argument - do you take in to account the experience of the team and the ability to handle the pressure of a well drilled side? As frustrating as it is players need time and experience.

One of the best bits of play I saw all game came from a bloke playing his 3rd game in the 3rd qtr where Kent took a good grab wheeled around straight away and kicked it to Dawes who goaled.... Does that come down to the players ability or is that coaching?

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:29, goodoil said:

Structures are a very small part of being a head AFL coach. Most of the line coaches can set up structures.

As a coach, he has made numerous media gaffes, he has demoralised, crucified and destroyed players. His team selection is often nonsensical. He demanded respect before he had earnt it and cast adrift players without them being given chances and has kept and recruited atrocious ones.

Would that be the players he kept on the list for a full year before cutting so he could have a proper look at them and see if they could play the game his way?

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:15, Unleash Hell said:

Thanks rjay

Agree we fell over there for most of the game and they set up a lot of their attacks and scored too easily on us... In the 2nd and 4th what you've said was really evident, the hawks punished us once we lost the ball

I do wonder how much of that is due to us not being able to half or win 1 v 1 contests? Having to put players behind the ball as we can't win contests and are unable to maintain possession? Can we put this down to team inexperience as there are a lot of young blokes out there or is it a fundamental flaw of Neelds game plan?

I think the fundamental flaw is a mix of a few things, with the emphasis on defence and zones to many of our guys don't put themselves in attacking positions. Experienced opposition know this and don't need to provide the cover they do against better teams. They are then free to set up easily from the back half.

If it's true that players are being restricted to GPS positioning as posted above it's no wonder we are not getting the possession numbers that our opponents are and that our guys seem to be second guessing.

I think this could be part of Trengove's problem, he is not moving naturally. I don't think he will ever be accused of being quick but looking at Selwood and Bartell the other night they are not exactly quick over the ground either. It's how they position themselves, I don't think Scott would be telling them where they should be standing and/or not to move out of a particular area.

This does seem to be a problem of Neeld's making and a new coach may bring some creative sprit back into the team and free up the players a bit. I'm not a big fan of the caretaker approach and would prefer us to appoint a new coach, that would mean either getting a commitment from Roos or more likely poaching Williams or Eade from their current jobs...now. We can't be nice about this, if it upsets Ed or the Tiges so be it.

Neeld has killed this clubs spirit.

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:33, RalphiusMaximus said:

Would that be the players he kept on the list for a full year before cutting so he could have a proper look at them and see if they could play the game his way?

Lucas Cook and Jai Sheahan are examples of delistings whilst Tarrant and Black have finally broken through in their 4th seasons at North. Moloney and some of the other established leaders he besmirched from the get-go. His treatment of Watts and Davey has been disgraceful. He is the first coach in AFL history to prioritise compliance over talent, an idiotic belief system for elite sport.

DO NOT SACK NEELD

AnY of you that think he should go mid term are just as fickle and as laid back and your no different to the non paid footy club presidents and board that just simply 'go with the fuckin flow...' Take a good hard look at what such a move will do to our club mid season...

Let him go The players want him. So what does that do to them?? What does it do to their psyche for the rest of the season, what will it do to us, really will it make a freakin difference? It won't change a freakin thing. Let them go. This is a debate at the end if the season, not now. Lets appreciate where we stand and not add further pressure to an otherwise horrible season

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:29, goodoil said:

Structures are a very small part of being a head AFL coach. Most of the line coaches can set up structures.

As a coach, he has made numerous media gaffes, he has demoralised, crucified and destroyed players. His team selection is often nonsensical. He demanded respect before he had earnt it and cast adrift players without them being given chances and has kept and recruited atrocious ones. He has changed his tune regularly on the status of the list to suit his own purposes and image. Michael Evans, an extremely mediocre player and a player he apparently was angry was promised a berth on the list, is now all of sudden a pawn in his stated-to-the-media youth policy, a policy that doesn't exist and only now verbally exists because it serves him a purpose. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest he is a good coach. We may look back and say he was inportant in clearing the decks and driving change, in much the same way Barassi was pre-Northey. But he is an abysmal runner of the onfield performance of a football club and history will consign him to being one of the AFL and VFL's worst of all time. The players should hang their heads in shame that their effort has waxed and waned during his tenure, but at the end of the day his inability to inspire them is the root cause. He seemingly just does not have the personality or the decision making ability (not just on the ground moves) to be a satisfactory AFL coach.

I don't agree with everything you've said goodoil but you have made some good and damming points. I disagree with your thoughts on Evans as he is young and does make mistakes but given time could be a handy player (but everyone will have different opinions on players)

As for the coaches performance off-field I think your points are pretty spot on and are pretty damming - There are arguments against but at the end of the day what's the point as Neeld has made his own bed - he has to lie in it...

On field results have been super poor no one can argues that - the only question in my mind about Neeld's tenure is do we allow him to coach out the rest of the year? I don't see any point bringing in a caretaker now - all the supporters/players leaving scare mongering are rubbish IMO 2013 is a write off they're going to drop off anyway.... It's about how are we going to get a better performance in the 2nd half of the year - with or without Neeld, who will get the most out of the players???

By being professional and standing by employees - letting Neeld coach out the year is this too impractical or is it as simple as sack him now? Have we as a club not learned that we can't sell out former employees??

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:41, Demon SeaMan said:

DO NOT SACK NEELD

AnY of you that think he should go mid term are just as fickle and as laid back and your no different to the non paid footy club presidents and board that just simply 'go with the fuckin flow...' Take a good hard look at what such a move will do to our club mid season...

Let him go The players want him. So what does that do to them?? What does it do to their psyche for the rest of the season, what will it do to us, really will it make a freakin difference? It won't change a freakin thing. Let them go. This is a debate at the end if the season, not now. Lets appreciate where we stand and not add further pressure to an otherwise horrible season

Mate seriously can I please have some of what you're smoking!!!!

Not sure what people expected from today's match..... We got beaten by the number 1 contenders...... Is anybody surprised by this?

Just because the media want us to sack Neeld.... Doesn't mean we should.... Geez....

  On 02/06/2013 at 09:40, goodoil said:

Lucas Cook and Jai Sheahan are examples of delistings whilst Tarrant and Black have finally broken through in their 4th seasons at North. Moloney and some of the other established leaders he besmirched from the get-go. He is an arrogant and gung-ho coach with no basis to be so.

Are they even on AFL lists???

Do we have that luxury with blokes like Clark, Dawes and Hogan on the list and a poor midfield

Don't think that is a good argument goodoil