Neeld is not the problem

[Return to Glory 8,447]

Everyone has the capacity to change BUT Neeld did himself no favors early on when he made comments about the team that appeared at odds with them all being on the same bus so to speak. I don't really think he recovered from that.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

It's not an ellipsis, it's an aposiopesis.

Pedantry!

Ah ha! But aposiopesis can be used by using an ellipsis, ergo back to my original statement that should only have three dot points!

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

Every one knows six is better than three!!!!!!

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Ha ha I always do as it pisses my wife off so now it's a ingrained habit.......

Haha I only mentioned it because my mate has the same habit... one also pronounces hyperbole not as hy-per-bo-le but as hyper-bole.

Can't tell you how many times I have pronounced it wrong because of him.

[PaulRB 6,411]

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking in the front door.

Hey Ben,

Since Neeld arrived and asserted his view on our club our recruiting has shifted for the discernibly better.

The early draft picks you bemoan him having no time for in Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Pettard have been replaced by Hogan, Viney, Toumpass, M Jones and Terlich. Which group of players do you believe will reap greater dividends for the MFC from an investment in their development?

The older statesmen that Neeld "off sided", who have left the club Moloney and to a less extent Rivers have been replaced by Clark and Dawes. Again which group of players do you believe will reap greater dividends for the MFC?

Neeld has taken us backward only if you apply the Rose coloured glasses to those players we've lost, and don't acknowledge the gains we are making.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Ah ha! But aposiopesis can be used by using an ellipsis, ergo back to my original statement that should only have three dot points!

You mean the elision marks?

We could go on forever.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Hey Ben,

Since Neeld arrived and asserted his view on our club our recruiting has shifted for the discernibly better.

The early draft picks you bemoan him having no time for in Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Pettard have been replaced by Hogan, Viney, Toumpass, M Jones and Terlich. Which group of players do you believe will reap greater dividends for the MFC from an investment in their development?

It didn't have to be either/or.

[PaulRB 6,411]

Which 4 players would you have preferred we traded/didn't get to keep Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Pettard? I.e. Pedersen, Rodan, etc... and would it have made any real difference?

I think those players were victims of the MFC being behind the trend in development and understanding the game direction (more solid bodies, increased impact), and were also not overly self motivated...

[Redleg 41,409]

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

Good post.

Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd or Byrnes, Rodan, Gillies and Pedersen ( 3 year contract ). I know which group I would rather have. That doesn't mean the group I keep will get us a flag either, it's just that the former group has more upside.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Redleg

[Hannibal 5,814]

Which 4 players would you have preferred we traded/didn't get to keep Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Pettard? I.e. Pedersen, Rodan, etc... and would it have made any real difference?

I think those players were victims of the MFC being behind the trend in development and understanding the game direction (more solid bodies, increased impact), and were also not overly self motivated...

You're getting bogged down in minutiae. I'm theorising about his philosophical approach. Which in my view was disastrous.

[Strafford 182]

yeh yeh yeh I understand it's all about how we lose

You idiots - you are all talk about concepts and where the club should be without providing any solid discussion about why we aren't in that position

So your not talking about wins and losses your talking about how the team loses. Talk about petty and you don't even acknowledge where the team is at from a development stand point because it doesn't suit your argument

You Talk about me missing the point, when the whole point of this thread is to discuss issues other THEN NEELD himself

Keep telling me stories and logic about how the MFC should be represente by proud traditions and we shouldn't be in this position after 150 odd yers of existence - I'll deal with reality each week and the reality is on Monday 8 - 10 blokes will take the field with 0 - 40 games and you expect a consistent team performance

Thanks for being mind numbing

Neeld said this before he was a senior coach " When you get mature age recruits you want them to participate straight away. You want them to add value to your side"

Neeld's obsession with games played, for all that it does have some validity, would have more credence if we were playing a bunch of 17,18,19 year old kids. Or even if that age group made up the bulk of our recruits, but it just isn't so.

Byrnes into his 10th season, Gillies 23 and into his 4th season, Matt Jones 25, Pederson a recycled mature age recruit into his 3rd season, Rodan 11th season, Terlich 23 spent a season on the Swans list, Chris Dawes 6th season, even Clisby is 23.

Last seasons recruits as they are now. Magner 25, Couch 24, Mitch 25 into his 8th season and Seller into his 6th season.

At least half the guys we have brought in and more than half of our recruits that have played just aren't kids. The expectations that we hold as a club for them should be different to the guys coming out of the underage comp.

Neeld said last season during an insight into matchday against Gold Coast that us being more experienced than Gold Coast "Guaranteed us nothing" "It just meant we were in the contest" Do you see the implications there, given subsequent events both for team confidence and consistency of message.

Given this criteria for, being in the contest,we have had four games this season that probably qualify. Port were both younger and less experienced as were GWS. Both Brisbane and GWS were younger teams, but both were marginally more experienced. A couple of games difference. In two of those games we were flogged. In one we were a little better, but if the Lions had kicked straighter the scoreboard would have looked just as sick. Against GWS we blew them apart in the last and our defensive structures looked good for periods especially in the first.

I can't remember a coach more into the experience mantra. As I said it does have some validity especially when coupled with being really young, but if you keep on saying you are failing because you aren't experienced enough, don't be surprised if your players believe you.

[Little Richard 6,265]

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

Really well thought out post. It makes me wonder what Neeld was like at Ocean Grove and Collingwood - has he put on this hard act because that's what he was told was required by the board? Or has he always been this way? Surely he had some kind of nurturing ability at the other clubs.

[chookrat 4,268]

Some of the petty arguing in this thread is just ridiculous. What I guess it goes to show is how divisive Neeld is, which, whether he's a good coach or not, and whether you think he's the right man for the job or not, is not a good thing for this club right now.

Personally, the argument that we've gone backwards from last year and therefore Neeld is doing a poor job of coaching is simplistic and wrong. The idea of a J-curve is well known - sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. Maybe we all expected our 'backwards' period to last one year, and maybe now we're realising that, in fact, the position this club was in pre-2011 required more than 12 months turning around.

That doesn't necessarily I believe Neeld is the man for the job. But I don't agree with the argument that we necessarily needed to become better in 2013.

Imagine if one of Neelds KPIs was the degree to which he divides opinion on Demonland

[stueyspencer no12 73]

the gameplan has nothing to do with poor performance

lookaway handballs are something the harlem globetrotters do, i was disgusted with this behavior yesterday

jamar and frawley just dont try when the going gets tough, this was evident last year and this

j howe looks to have improved and gone from a high marking bit player ,fitness looks better and skills are improving

the gameplan becomes irrelevent when the fd is now looking at what we have and what we dont have,

clearly we have senoir players who dont work hard enough on the field to set examples, thier giving themselves and the club

nothing . a poor showing to the young men on this list.

Frawley and Jamar not trying? I can't believe you could say this, Frawley played a hell of a game and smashed Buddy. Jamr tried his heart out, dominated the ruck and this time he tried something I've looked for for ages--smashed the ball forward occasionally.

I wish you could talk to some sponsors, to hear just how hard their "sponsorees" are trying, how hard everyone is trying, how miserable they are at the thrashings they are getting

[jnrmac 20,154]

100 percent correct. We are broke.

Not altogether true. We cant sack coaches at will and expect replacements will line up for a job with that kind of track record.

I think Neeld should go but on our timetable not the media's. Lets have a plan in place before he goes. We will find the money of the right coach is found.

On any measure Neeld cannot have possibly met any KPIs

[Choko 493]

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

You say yourself that almost every list management decision he has made you agree with.

Maybe Neeld is a teacher and nurturer... Of those with the behaviours he believes can be persevered with to take us forward. Maybe he is truly honest, unlike Bailey who gave no feedback and Daniher who just spoke to a select few. Maybe some players simply don't like what they are hearing. Maybe when Neeld looks for the right attributes, the cupboard is bare.

The fixation on Neeld is like focusing on a dripping tap during a tsunami. It may or may not be an issue, but it sure as hell is not the issue.

[titan_uranus 25,042]

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

This reads really nicely, but it's based on mainly speculation and assumptions.

You don't know what he said or didn't say to Gysberts. You don't know that he didn't come in in 2011 and say 'I think you have talent', but was more than underwhelmed at his laziness, for example. I'm not saying that's the case, but you can't say that anything you've said is true, aside from snipes taken from a clearly bitter Moloney.

Also, your statement that Gysberts is top 25 at North Melbourne is utter crap. He's hardly top 30, he can't get a game despite them having had injuries/suspensions.

Good post.

Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd or Byrnes, Rodan, Gillies and Pedersen ( 3 year contract ). I know which group I would rather have. That doesn't mean the group I keep will get us a flag either, it's just that the former group has more upside.

Well that's nice. Until you realise that you've arbitrarily picked two groups of four players to make a point.

What would you say if I said 'Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd or Toumpas, Viney, Terlich, Hogan'? I'll pre-empt your 'but Morton was for Rodan' criticism and allow you to put Rodan instead of Hogan into the latter group. The latter group still wins, by a country mile.

The only proper way to analyse list management is holistically.

[Strafford 182]

You say yourself that almost every list management decision he has made you agree with.

Maybe Neeld is a teacher and nurturer... Of those with the behaviours he believes can be persevered with to take us forward. Maybe he is truly honest, unlike Bailey who gave no feedback and Daniher who just spoke to a select few. Maybe some players simply don't like what they are hearing. Maybe when Neeld looks for the right attributes, the cupboard is bare.

The fixation on Neeld is like focusing on a dripping tap during a tsunami. It may or may not be an issue, but it sure as hell is not the issue.

I am very much of the view that it is not all Neelds fault and I certainly believe he was given a mandate, but I do find the recent Davey article an interesting read where he mentions having dinner with Neeld and his family. Some people perform better when resentful, angry, with a drive to prove people wrong, most respond well to being valued.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Strafford

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Talk about quality contributions. Quote [you idiots]. You then say the whole point of the thread is to discuss issues other then (sic) Neeld himself. The title of the topic is "Neeld is not the problem".

And mate, I never spoke about the so-called "proud traditions" Quite the contrary, I spoke about the business of modern day elite football.

Your correct, my mind is certainly numb and you are the cause. Give me strength please

I will apologise for the lack of tact in my posts but you have offered nothing to this conversation - the circle work is frustrating

All i hear from yourself and Scoop is Neeld is bad - yet you won't articulate why or address this thread title that it's not all Neeld fault - you just hang your hat on that Neeld is the problem

articulate it otherwise it's a waste of tme

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Yeah, calling people idiots then using "then" instead of "than" in two consecutive posts......

Quality.

Thanks professor i'll take that on board

[dee-luded 2,959]

Are you sure about that....

GWS had a % of 46.2% at the end of last year.

GC was 56.2% in their first year.

GC lost by an average of 58 points last season (I've only done the calcs for this one), probably more the previous season. GWS probably more last season and this season given their % is lower than ours is for both years.

IMO supporters have had our hopes pegged to the fortunes of GCS & GWS since around 2009/10.... a bit like the Kiwi dollar was pegged to the $AUS.

[stuie 7,374]

Just because we have lots of problems doesn't mean Neeld isn't one of them.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Neeld said this before he was a senior coach " When you get mature age recruits you want them to participate straight away. You want them to add value to your side"

Neeld's obsession with games played, for all that it does have some validity, would have more credence if we were playing a bunch of 17,18,19 year old kids. Or even if that age group made up the bulk of our recruits, but it just isn't so.

Byrnes into his 10th season, Gillies 23 and into his 4th season, Matt Jones 25, Pederson a recycled mature age recruit into his 3rd season, Rodan 11th season, Terlich 23 spent a season on the Swans list, Chris Dawes 6th season, even Clisby is 23.

Last seasons recruits as they are now. Magner 25, Couch 24, Mitch 25 into his 8th season and Seller into his 6th season.

At least half the guys we have brought in and more than half of our recruits that have played just aren't kids. The expectations that we hold as a club for them should be different to the guys coming out of the underage comp.

Neeld said last season during an insight into matchday against Gold Coast that us being more experienced than Gold Coast "Guaranteed us nothing" "It just meant we were in the contest" Do you see the implications there, given subsequent events both for team confidence and consistency of message.

Given this criteria for, being in the contest,we have had four games this season that probably qualify. Port were both younger and less experienced as were GWS. Both Brisbane and GWS were younger teams, but both were marginally more experienced. A couple of games difference. In two of those games we were flogged. In one we were a little better, but if the Lions had kicked straighter the scoreboard would have looked just as sick. Against GWS we blew them apart in the last and our defensive structures looked good for periods especially in the first.

I can't remember a coach more into the experience mantra. As I said it does have some validity especially when coupled with being really young, but if you keep on saying you are failing because you aren't experienced enough, don't be surprised if your players believe you.

Sorry I didn't initially read your post properly on my first reply - (I shouldn't rush )

What more can I say then we are rebuilding - Mature age recruits may be physically ready but are they 100% AFL ready??

I am not gonig to argue with you as I don't know what Neelds intentions are with recruiting these players - we can only guess.... I assume we are rebuilding and he wanted mature bodies to help provide a contest and a chop out so the 18 yo kids have a chance to develop

Some have failed some look good and that's AFL footy

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

No, I am saying you can't compare a start up teams, fully underwritten by the AFL, and made up by and large with a bunch of kids and clearly very early into their history.

The comparison is that among our ranks, we have 2 former all Australians, the likes of Sylvia, Watts, Garland, Howe, Tapscott, Grimes, Trengove, Clark and Dawes, all with a significant amount of footy behind them. Whether you consider their up to it or not now, it another matter, but they came as credentialed footballers and have been at senior level considerably longer than the bulk of the lists at GCS and GWS.

So by your theory 9 of the 18 on the field that are good AFL footballers is enough for us to beat Hawthorn last week?

You might think that is a harsh opinion and it is - but just pointing out how you refuse to see the reality of the situation that the other 9 bloke have played 0 - 40 games.

Thanks for playing

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Good post.

Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd or Byrnes, Rodan, Gillies and Pedersen ( 3 year contract ). I know which group I would rather have. That doesn't mean the group I keep will get us a flag either, it's just that the former group has more upside.

I am not going to knock your opinion on this as I actually think you are right - the fisrt 4 probably do have more upside then the last 4

Where the arguement falls down and is out of context is that all 8 players have had 0 Zero nil none impact in an AFL side in 2013 - 4 players on a list will not will not change our fortunes one way or another long term

I honestly assume the first 4 were not up to standard (none are playing AFL so not sure how strongly you feel at disagreeing) and the last 4 were added as a chop out to 18 - 19 y/o kids so they could develop and giving us a chance at being competitive.

It's a fine line between development and competitiveness - I assume Neeld knew he had to be competitive and has failed

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell