Neeld is not the problem

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

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.

Liked this post a lot

sad thing is it won't happen

[DemonOX 8,800]

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

Roos is my preferred choice S but if its Chocco, Eade, Harvey or Ayres I wouldnt be too dissapointed. I am wanting an experienced coach which is what we should have had 6 years ago.

If it is Roos, he has the runs on the board and would be sure the results would change. (Maybe not in wins but the way the boys play) I listen where I can to Roos and his comentary imo is very good, I dont think he has lost anything since being out of the game.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

Neeld chose fringe players and a forward over midfielders so therefore it is his fault.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

You answered your own statements there.

Our possessions are so down because we cant string any chains together because of our deplorable skills - we hand the ball back way too quickly.

I think the skills argument is an interesting one. I think that it is noticeable that when our defensive effort is ok, the perception of our skill level lifts as well. If we aren't getting any easy outside ball, then our skill level is going to look a hell of a lot worse than it actually is. I'm not claiming that our skills don't need a lot of work but I don't think that is the number 1 priority. Pressuring the opposition and spread are our two biggest issues.

As an aside, does anybody know where we rank in terms of turnovers? Does Nutbean's assumption that we're giving the ball away too much/too easily stack up?

I'm genuinely interested if anyone knows of a stats site?

Edited May 28, 2013 by WAClark

[damon the demon 57]

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

Apologies, the point I was trying to make was that there is no point having 3 gun forwards without having a midfield to kick it to them. Regarding Blease, I understand your point on his lack of a defensive game. A problem with picking players who can all defend well might mean we lack players who can attack well. I would prefer a balance, try to get Blease to defend but show some leniency in this area when picking the team for him, as his attack and flair is something this team needs.

[Soidee 1,496]

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.

Nah nah nah! Comparison with Clarko is way off beam. As Healy said, this is the worst midfield and it is Neelds midfield, the one he has put together.

[nutbean 8,838]

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.

I would assume that "they" being the club would be sounding out who is and who isnt available.

As to the players being sounded out by Roos ???

Can you understand what you are saying - we have a senior coach who is in place and yet you would accept senior players talking to another coach about the prospect of him coaching the club ?? Players are put into a leadership roles because of their supposed integrity and values. Exactly what does it say about the players but more importantly I cannot for a minute suggest that Roos would want "future" players talking to him about a new role whilst Neeld was still coaching and I could not imagine a club putting players in that position.

It is a completely different story if the coach is fired tomorrow, there is a caretaker in place and a perspective new coach wants to hear from the leadership core but not whilst a contracted coach is still in place.

[frankie_d 1,471]

Actually it's not daylight, it's four points, one win would fix that daylight

Brand, schmand, did you read Nineteen's post, 23 signed on again last night, so the brand can't be that damaged, agree it is a small number, but the numbers add up

So what is your suggestion, get rid of Neeld and install who?.....a interim coach like Todd Viney till the end of the season, no offence to Tood but his previous record isn't great, install one of the assistant coaches, if so which one? or are they tarnished as well

Are we going to get rid of Neil Craig and the assistants, if so we will have to pay out at least six contracts, what money will that leave for hiring a new Coach, or do you think Roos will work for free?

Is the playing list going to be sacked and a new 46 come in next week?, agreed with a new coach with the attached euphoria, we may snag a win, but these are the same players who everybody is bagging, you expect immediate change do you?

Healy is the next cab of the rank of media pundits who have put their two bob's worth in, if he knows something I hope we are going to remove his brother from the Board immediately for leaking confidential information

Enough with the selective misquotes

what he actually said:

"there is daylight between us and the others, in terms of how our brand is perceived."

what you said:

"Actually it's not daylight, it's four points, one win would fix that daylight"

4 points wont fix the gap in "how our brand is perceived" - that is what the daylight was "in terms of" (to quote accurately)

can't trust anything you quote - always have to back to the primary post to see what was really said.

[drdrake 3,187]

Neeld chose fringe players and a forward over midfielders so therefore it is his fault.

Really, we drafted Toumpas, Viney, M Jones, Kent and Terlich, plus Barry, to me that is 5 mids and a running half back, add this to 2 key forwards in Hogan and Dawes, these players add or will add quality to our team, Pederson, Bynres and Rodan where drafted to be gap fillers so we can develop the younger players and not distroy them.

[jazza 1,323]

Really, we drafted Toumpas, Viney, M Jones, Kent and Terlich, plus Barry, to me that is 5 mids and a running half back, add this to 2 key forwards in Hogan and Dawes, these players add or will add quality to our team, Pederson, Bynres and Rodan where drafted to be gap fillers so we can develop the younger players and not distroy them.

dead right mate

clark dawes size dont come on the open market often, thats why they were snaffled

midfeild was rubbish and a champion wouldnt have fixed it this year

so protect and teach , fill out new boys in ressies until 2014

draft will be mids this year after the filled out bodies of rodan and others carried can for 2013

i personally was on the understanding that this year was all about that and neeld either lied or confirmed this in his statement last week

biggest disapointment the prez should have made this statement publicy himself, so dees fans knew what the season was about, and you would hope it was explained to the list, but something tells me in the silence. hes GONE

[P-man 13,366]

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.

The two that stand out in most people's memories are the Gold Coast loss, and the Freo game. The first two rounds were obviously also very hard to take.

However, upon reflection I think we are underrating the teams that are giving us these beltings. Firstly, the Gold Coast. They have now beaten all four teams that are also in a rebuilding phase (GWS, Melb, Dogs, Saints) and pushed the premiership favourites only to go down by just over 4 goals. Upon reflection, do I think we were favourites for that game based on a list comparison....hell no. Our experienced senior players do not hold a light to there collective group of Ablett, Bock, Brennan, Rischetelli, Brown and even Hunt (in terms of approach to the game). Secondly, our young developing players do not compare to their group.

Now onto Freo. Going into this game, they had just drawn with Sydney on the SCG while undermanned, they had also just beaten Collingwood by just under 5 goals with a depleted side, and sat 4th on ladder despite all their injuries. In short, they are a bloody good side. A top 4 side now, and probably for the rest of the season. So should we be surprised they belted us...probably not.

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. Originally Neeld said the club was 3 years behind the level of fitness required to play AFL football. Here's a simple thought; if a player is not fit enough to play against other AFL players, they are not going to catch them in a chase, they are not going to be able to run out games, and their skills will not be at the same level for as long as the fatigue earlier.

I just noticed this article about our good mate Cale Morton about his time at West Coast so far (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-27/cale-morton). If anything, it highlights how right Neeld was with his comments about the fitness of our players, and the lack of leadership within the player group. Leadership that obviously wasn't coming from the senior players like Moloney and Rivers, who were present when Neeld came into the club.

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.

Now, some people seem to think that this can be fixed within 18 months. I think that is unrealistic. We have a team bereft of leadership, which is why we have two of the youngest captains in the history of the game. We have also said goodbye to some senior players during the last offseason and gotten younger again. We are now in a position where we have the 2nd least experienced team in the league.

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. Clarke and Dawes have been recruited to provide us with the most promising Key Forward combo this club has seen since the Neitz and Schwartz years. Players have been recruited to fill roles, and some good mature age recruits have been brought in to bolster the ranks (Pederson, Magner, Terlich, Couch, M Jones). All the while, some seriously promising young talent has been recruited (Toumpas, Hogan, Viney) while games have been poured into our developing list. Some players have also shown a new level of consistency not previously seen (N Jones, Sylvia (some may disagree on this one), Garland, Grimes) under previous coaches.

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

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. Those changes are currently being made, and I believe that we will not see the improvement we are all craving, until next year. And when I say improvement, I simply mean that we will jump over the Saints and Bulldogs on the ladder while holding off a developing GWS. But we shouldn't expect much more than that, because that's just not where we are at with our list.

Many on here will disagree, and many will say, BUT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!. It may not be good enough for where we WANT this club to be. But we are where we are for a reason and I do not believe that the big improvement will come until next year, and the year following. For me, the benchmarks of our progress for the remainder of this season should be when we play St Kilda and the Bulldogs, two clubs I believe to be in a similar transition period to us, but with a better group of experienced leaders.

Those are just my thoughts on where we are, agree or disagree I don't care.

A very reasonable post again and a welcome contribution. You certainly don't give off the impression of someone purely sticking to principles on this subject, and have clearly thought it through. Kudos. A few points which come to mind:

- I doubt anyone is claiming that Neeld took over a picnic. I am however of the opinion that the situation has worsened, significantly, since Neeld took over, through poor decisions both on and off field. Clearly there were issues to which you have alluded, not least of which was the dearth in leadership. This in itself is something for which there is no easy fix, though your post seems to assume that the captaincy appointment was the only move that could have been made. I doubt many could honestly say that the Trengove appointment has been shown to be a correct decision. Quite the opposite. It would appear no-one has benefited from it, least of all Jack himself. And I don't for one minute buy into Neeld essentially washing his hands off it by claiming it was put to a vote. He's the coach for heaven's sake. Selecting the CAPTAIN is one of his most important decisions of which he must take ownership.

- The loss of Rivers and Moloney - a huge chunk of games experience walking out the door. For what reason? Both have provided a pretty clear indication it was due to an inability to play for Neeld. His defenders on this site will point to this as a positive, citing Moloney and Rviers as being representative of a poor culture that preceded Neeld. In the scheme of things, this is irrelevant. They are human beings, and they have talent. A good senior coach would have been able to achieve their buy in as SENIOR players, no question. Neeld had the opposite effect, resulting in both seeing their only option being to walk. Moloney in particular is certainly not free from blame, but both his and Rivers' absence has hurt us, and for that, Neeld must be held accountable (note I am not disregarding the impact of the J Mac decision under Bailey, which was a stinker).

- I think to attribute the form of Garland and Jones to Neeld is a little too convenient. I'm not discounting it, but the form of the vast majority of the list points towards it being more likely that these players are simply coming into their prime, Jones in particular.

- To single out the Freo and Gold Coast games is essentially washing over other performances which have, on the whole, been completely unacceptable at AFL level. Granted, Gold Coast showed against the Hawks that they are a much better side than they were last year, but this does not absolve the team from the disgusting lack of effort in that match. Which leads to the next point which you raise...who is to blame for this absence of the fundamentals?

- I am not for one minute saying all for this is Neeld's fault. Clearly the playing group have to take an equally large degree of responsibility for what is happening. But the buck stops with Neeld for good reason. As senior coach he is the one providing the instruction and motivation, which on the footy being produced has been a monumental fail on both counts. Players look lost, constinually second guessing themselves, and simply unable to move the ball on quickly which is so important in the modern game. Over the weekend I witnessed players simply not running in the first quarter. The FIRST quarter. It was almost unbelievable to witness, and it is inexcusable because it can not possibly be a fitness issue. It is either a misunderstanding of the gameplan and not knowing where to run, or a basic unwillingness to try. After 18 months at the helm, this to me can not be defended because this MUST come down to Neeld. We're not asking for miracles here. We're asking for something remotely resembling a cohesive, competitive side. He may be an absolute gun coach for a developed side, but for a developing side, he clearly is not.

- If Neeld is somehow able to retain his job after the Bye, following thrashings at the hands of Hawks and Pies, am I to assume that your view will be altered if we are put to the slaughter by St Kilda and the Bulldogs? Having watched both of those teams a fair bit, I can't see us getting close to either one. I just want to be sure that I understand you when you say those matches will be "the benchmarks of our progress", because I know there are some posters for whom no loss will be too great to covnince them, or at least to admit, that we've got the wrong bloke leading us out of this hole. You seem a reasonable guy, so am I understandfing you correctly that failure of these tests would see an alteration in your view on Neeld?

- We all know the lines being fed to the footy world. "We're in a rebuild of a rebuild". "It is what it is". Right now, we are accepting of the state we're in because we have to wait it out while the players build up games' experience. That's what we're told. We have to accept being legitimately and statistically compared with Fitzroy on its last legs, having our brand massacred and mocked by the entire country. Reduced to complete and utter irrelevance. We have to accept it, because "it is what it is". I say that's crap. It doesn't have to be this way. No club has to be brought to its knees like this in the name of a rebuild. The time for a statement has come, and that statement is we do no accept the football being produced, and we will move heaven and heart to bring the person or persons to this club who are capable of restoring it to where it once was, and utilising the talent on our list to its full potential, of which are are only seeing a shred.

Edited May 28, 2013 by P_Man

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Neeld chose fringe players and a forward over midfielders so therefore it is his fault.

This kind of small minded thinking is why we are where we are today

G Ablett the best mid in the game started as a small forward. the way footy is played today - all small have to be mids - some will specilise in crumbing etc like a Ben Macglyn from Sydney etc (should have looked up his name haha poor effort at spelling)

Also the MFC in 2012 was crying out for a decent small forward with big guyst such as Clark and Dawes as targets in 2013. No one expected the MFC to have as much difficulty as they have getting their hands on the ball in 2013 - we all knew there were holes in the list but not many would have predicted this outcome

Making pot shots at the coach isnt going to solve any of our problems

Edited May 28, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[dee-luded 2,959]

Can't say but very reliable source

hmmn, caretaker again.

.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

thats what I was worried may happen last week.

our players are out of sink with one another, as being responsible for your opponent is foreign to us, so some try to be more defensive minded than others, culminating in the team playing way out of tune.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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

Has Roos already been tied up then?

& to Whom?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Nah nah nah! Comparison with Clarko is way off beam. As Healy said, this is the worst midfield and it is Neelds midfield, the one he has put together.

i think you mean it is the one he is hoping to develop...

big difference in the tone of your assertion.

Neelds midfield is just beginning...

Clarko grew his, for years, before it became what it is.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

A very reasonable post again and a welcome contribution. You certainly don't give off the impression of someone purely sticking to principles on this subject, and have clearly thought it through. Kudos. A few points which come to mind:

- I doubt anyone is claiming that Neeld took over a picnic. I am however of the opinion that the situation has worsened, significantly, since Neeld took over, through basically poor decisions both on and off field. Clearly there were issues to which you have alluded, not least of which was the dearth in leadership. This in itself is something for which there is no easy fix, though your post seems to assume that the captaincy appointment was the only move that could have been made. I doubt many could honestly say that the Trengove appointment has been shown to be a correct decision. Quite the opposite. It would appear no-one has benefited from it, least of all Jack himself. And I don't for one minute buy into Neeld essentially washing his hands off it by claimng it was put to a vote. He's the coach for heaven's sake. Selecting the CAPTAIN is one of his most important decisions of which he must take ownership.

- The loss of Rivers and Moloney - a huge chunk of games experience walking out the door. For what reason? Both have provided a pretty clear indication it is due to an inability to play for Neeld. His defenders on this site will point to this as a positive, citing Moloney and Rviers as being representative of a poor culture that preceded Neeld. In the scheme of things, this is irrelevant. They are human beings, and they have talent. A good senior coach would have been able to achieve their buy in as SENIOR players, no question. Neeld had the complete opposite effect, resulting in both seeing their only option being to walk. Moloney in particular is certainly not free from blame, but both his and River's absence has hurt us, and for that, Neeld must be held accountable (note I am not disregarding the obvious impact of the J Mac decision under Bailey, which was an asbolute stinker).

- I think to attribute the form of Garland and Jones to Neeld is a little too convenient. I'm not discounting it, but the form of the vast majority of the list points towards it being far more likely that these players are simply coming into their prime, Jones in particular.

- To single out the Freo and Gold Coast games is essentially washing over other performances which have, on the whole, been completely unacceptable at AFL level. Granted, Gold Coast showed against the Hawks that they are a legitimiately far better side than they were last year, but this does not absolve the team from the disgusting lack of effort in that match. Which leads to the next point which you raise...who is to blame for this absence of the fundamentals?

- I am not for one minute saying all for this is Neeld's fault. Clearly the playing group have to take an equally large degree of responsibility for what is happening. But the buck stops with Neeld for good reason. As senior coach he is the one providing the instruction and motivation, which on the footy being produced has been a monumental fail on both counts. Players look lost, constantly second guessing themselves, and simply unable to move the ball on quickly which is so important in the modern game. Over the weekend I witnessed players simply not running in the first quarter. The FIRST quarter. It was almost unbelievable to witness, and it is inexcusable because it can not possibly be a fitness issue. It is either a misunderstanding of the gameplan and not knowing where to run, or a basic unwillingness to try. After 18 months at the helm, this to me can not be defended because this MUST come down to Neeld. We're not asking for miracles here. We're asking for something remotely resembling a cohesive, competitive side. He may be an absolute gun coach for a developed side, but for a developing side, he clearly is not.

- If Neeld is somehow able to retain his job after the Bye, following thrashings at the hands of Hawks and Pies, am I to assume that your view will be altered if we are put to the slaughter by St Kilda and the Bulldogs? Honestly, having watched both of those teams a fair bit, I can't see us getting close to either one. I just want to be sure that I understand you when you say those matches will be "the benchmarks of our progress", because I know there are some posters for whom no loss will be too great to covnince them, or at least to admit, that we've got the wrong bloke leading us out of this hole. You seem a reasonable guy, so am I understandfing you correctly that failure of these tests would see an alteration in your view on Neeld?

- We all know the lines being fed to the footy world. "We're in a rebuild of a rebuild". "It is what it is". Right now, we are accepting of the state we're in because we have to wait it out while the players build up games' experience. That's what we're told. We have to accept being legitimately and statistically compared with Fitzroy on its last legs, and having our brand massacred and mocked by the entire country. Reduced to complete and utter irrelevance. We have to accept that because "it is what it is". I say [censored]. It doesn't have to be this way. No club has to be brought to its knees like this in the name of a rebuild. The time for a statement has come, and that statement is we do no accept the football being produced, and we will move heaven and heart to bring the person or persons to this club who are capable of restoring it to where it once was, and utilising the talent on our list to its full potential, of which are are only seeing a shred.

Well said. Thanks, I share your views.

[angrydee 842]

A very reasonable post again and a welcome contribution. You certainly don't give off the impression of someone purely sticking to principles on this subject, and have clearly thought it through. Kudos. A few points which come to mind:

- I doubt anyone is claiming that Neeld took over a picnic. I am however of the opinion thatw the situation has worsened, significantly, since Neeld took over, through basically poor decisions both on and off field. Clearly there were issues to which you have alluded, not least of which was the dearth in leadership. This in itself is something for which there is no easy fix, though your post seems to assume that the captaincy appointment was the only move that could have been made. I doubt many could honestly say that the Trengove appointment has been shown to be a correct decision. Quite the opposite. It would appear no-one has benefited from it, least of all Jack himself. And I don't for one minute buy into Neeld essentially washing his hands off it by claimng it was put to a vote. He's the coach for heaven's sake. Selecting the CAPTAIN is one of his most important decisions of which he must take ownership.

- The loss of Rivers and Moloney - a huge chunk of games experience walking out the door. For what reason? Both have provided a pretty clear indication it is due to an inability to play for Neeld. His defenders on this site will point to this as a positive, citing Moloney and Rviers as being representative of a poor culture that preceded Neeld. In the scheme of things, this is irrelevant. They are human beings, and they have talent. A good senior coach would have been able to achieve their buy in as SENIOR players, no question. Neeld had the complete opposite effect, resulting in both seeing their only option being to walk. Moloney in particular is certainly not free from blame, but both his and River's absence has hurt us, and for that, Neeld must be held accountable (note I am not disregarding the obvious impact of the J Mac decision under Bailey, which was an asbolute stinker).

- I think to attribute the form of Garland and Jones to Neeld is a little too convenient. I'm not discounting it, but the form of the vast majority of the list points towards it being far more likely that these players are simply coming into their prime, Jones in particular.

- To single out the Freo and Gold Coast games is essentially washing over other performances which have, on the whole, been completely unacceptable at AFL level. Granted, Gold Coast showed against the Hawks that they are a legitimiately far better side than they were last year, but this does not absolve the team from the disgusting lack of effort in that match. Which leads to the next point which you raise...who is to blame for this absence of the fundamentals?

- I am not for one minute saying all for this is Neeld's fault. Clearly the playing group have to take an equally large degree of responsibility for what is happening. But the buck stops with Neeld for good reason. As senior coach he is the one providing the instruction and motivation, which on the footy being produced has been a monumental fail on both counts. Players look lost, constantly second guessing themselves, and simply unable to move the ball on quickly which is so important in the modern game. Over the weekend I witnessed players simply not running in the first quarter. The FIRST quarter. It was almost unbelievable to witness, and it is inexcusable because it can not possibly be a fitness issue. It is either a misunderstanding of the gameplan and not knowing where to run, or a basic unwillingness to try. After 18 months at the helm, this to me can not be defended because this MUST come down to Neeld. We're not asking for miracles here. We're asking for something remotely resembling a cohesive, competitive side. He may be an absolute gun coach for a developed side, but for a developing side, he clearly is not.

- If Neeld is somehow able to retain his job after the Bye, following thrashings at the hands of Hawks and Pies, am I to assume that your view will be altered if we are put to the slaughter by St Kilda and the Bulldogs? Honestly, having watched both of those teams a fair bit, I can't see us getting close to either one. I just want to be sure that I understand you when you say those matches will be "the benchmarks of our progress", because I know there are some posters for whom no loss will be too great to covnince them, or at least to admit, that we've got the wrong bloke leading us out of this hole. You seem a reasonable guy, so am I understandfing you correctly that failure of these tests would see an alteration in your view on Neeld?

- We all know the lines being fed to the footy world. "We're in a rebuild of a rebuild". "It is what it is". Right now, we are accepting of the state we're in because we have to wait it out while the players build up games' experience. That's what we're told. We have to accept being legitimately and statistically compared with Fitzroy on its last legs, and having our brand massacred and mocked by the entire country. Reduced to complete and utter irrelevance. We have to accept that because "it is what it is". I say [censored]. It doesn't have to be this way. No club has to be brought to its knees like this in the name of a rebuild. The time for a statement has come, and that statement is we do no accept the football being produced, and we will move heaven and heart to bring the person or persons to this club who are capable of restoring it to where it once was, and utilising the talent on our list to its full potential, of which are are only seeing a shred.

Excellent post.

The problems facing the club are multilayered, but the purpose of a football club's existence is to win games of football.

We all understand that we are rebuilding. The signs that a coach is successfully implementing the build is incremental improvement (eg. WB, GC, Richmond). We saw it fleetingly between 2009-2010, before internal dissension and other factors saw it crash and burn very quickly.

Under this coach we have seen a dramatic decline

in form and a steady drop in effort and performance.

He has asked fir another 12 months. If we had seen ANY improvement from last year, it could be thought about - but we haven't.

Re how the team plays, I agree the buck stops with inept - and there appears no option but to stamp his papers and send him on his way.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

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?

To your first 'error' - which mid did you want us to chase last year? Was there one out there who, as a midfielder, was worth the money we had in the same way Dawes is?

Not only do I believe that taking a key forward like Dawes was a good move in terms of shoring up our forward line, I also believe it was a good move in terms of bringing in a premiership player with leadership skills, media skills, strength, focus and endeavour. He's shown his leadership skills already, and with time and match fitness he'll hopefully show why we need him on the park.

To your second 'error' - no team ever plays 22 kids. Also you've picked one of the better of that group.

Without Byrnes and Rodan, and with two more kids, thats 250-odd games of experience off our list, not present at training etc., not there to take some of the heat of these losses which do nothing for us. As we start to rebuild, we will be able to transition away from having a team with all four, to three, to two, to one, to none of them. That's the way this is going to work.

At the very least, Pedersen is beginning to show form at Casey, which hopefully he can bring to Melbourne. Meanwhile Blease can't get a kick down there. I'd rather see someone a year or two older with less talent giving his all to get a crack, so hopefully that kind of attitude rubs off on Sam.

[stueyspencer no12 73]

I get the feeling you want to say something Stuey Spencer

I know my opinion is not the popular opinion - I know Neeld has dug his own hole, but I also firmly believe Neeld is out to change this culture and turn this club around - It hasn't happened in the first 18 months - we are playing a lot of inexperienced players or kids, this is going to take time, we have a soft draw for the last 10 games - that will answer for me if Neeld can coach or not.

The board have inside information and know the direction, we already know 2013 is a write off - What I want from this club now is a CLEAR direction. Fixing this starts at the board level they need to decide if Neeld is the man, they need to support their blue print for this club or fire Neeld..... and when they fire Neeld we should fire them for putting this club in this position...

Sorry mate, many distractions!

I disagree on several counts. First, we were not a basket case at the end of 2011. Faults yes--especially in defense. But do you really believe the culture was bad? I was close then to several players, and I knew nothing of bad culture. They were gutted by he disaster at Geelong, but they were largely young and inexperienced. Remember Sheedy lost a match by 160 odd in his 2nd year.

Were we unfit?

The 2012 admin would say we were, but the 2010/11 results really wouldn't support the proposition. Remember that while the team was winning 8.5 games each year we were knocking off a large debt. Especially at the end of 2010 the club was in decent shape. But we were awfully inexperienced.

So why sweep in and downgrade the 3 previous winners of the Bluey? Watching Green in some of the 2011 games I don't think he was gone. Moloney after an indiscretion early in 2011, played a great season. Davey was more problematic, but I would have tried to get maximum leadership from these 3. I simply don't understand his actions at the beginning or the end of 2011.or his decision to get rid of Moloney, Martin, Petterd and Gysberts at the end of 2012

He seemed to realize he'd gone too far and then panicked, picking 5 players,all of whom had played 2nds in R 21 of 2012. 3 had barely played in the 1s. All year! And he offered these strugglers long contracts. 3 years for Pederson! For heavens' sake!

Now morale is awful. Players were [censored] off with the treatment of Moloney who (privately I believe) suggested to N that the gameplan was not right for the Dees list, and was publicly humiliated and given a number of games at Casey for his trouble

Now do you disagree with what I've said here? Or that the attitude amongst our followers is the worst ever?

Why not accept that coaching appointments can go wrong, ie Watson at StK. no recriminations necessary, let's just move on. I believe the Board knows and accepts this. Personally I would appoint Craig, experienced, successful I would definitely NOT appoint Viney. The last thing we need now is a rookie coach.

All the best mate!

[Soidee 1,496]

A very reasonable post again and a welcome contribution. You certainly don't give off the impression of someone purely sticking to principles on this subject, and have clearly thought it through. Kudos. A few points which come to mind:

- I doubt anyone is claiming that Neeld took over a picnic. I am however of the opinion that the situation has worsened, significantly, since Neeld took over, through poor decisions both on and off field. Clearly there were issues to which you have alluded, not least of which was the dearth in leadership. This in itself is something for which there is no easy fix, though your post seems to assume that the captaincy appointment was the only move that could have been made. I doubt many could honestly say that the Trengove appointment has been shown to be a correct decision. Quite the opposite. It would appear no-one has benefited from it, least of all Jack himself. And I don't for one minute buy into Neeld essentially washing his hands off it by claiming it was put to a vote. He's the coach for heaven's sake. Selecting the CAPTAIN is one of his most important decisions of which he must take ownership.

- The loss of Rivers and Moloney - a huge chunk of games experience walking out the door. For what reason? Both have provided a pretty clear indication it was due to an inability to play for Neeld. His defenders on this site will point to this as a positive, citing Moloney and Rviers as being representative of a poor culture that preceded Neeld. In the scheme of things, this is irrelevant. They are human beings, and they have talent. A good senior coach would have been able to achieve their buy in as SENIOR players, no question. Neeld had the opposite effect, resulting in both seeing their only option being to walk. Moloney in particular is certainly not free from blame, but both his and Rivers' absence has hurt us, and for that, Neeld must be held accountable (note I am not disregarding the impact of the J Mac decision under Bailey, which was a stinker).

- I think to attribute the form of Garland and Jones to Neeld is a little too convenient. I'm not discounting it, but the form of the vast majority of the list points towards it being more likely that these players are simply coming into their prime, Jones in particular.

- To single out the Freo and Gold Coast games is essentially washing over other performances which have, on the whole, been completely unacceptable at AFL level. Granted, Gold Coast showed against the Hawks that they are a much better side than they were last year, but this does not absolve the team from the disgusting lack of effort in that match. Which leads to the next point which you raise...who is to blame for this absence of the fundamentals?

- I am not for one minute saying all for this is Neeld's fault. Clearly the playing group have to take an equally large degree of responsibility for what is happening. But the buck stops with Neeld for good reason. As senior coach he is the one providing the instruction and motivation, which on the footy being produced has been a monumental fail on both counts. Players look lost, constinually second guessing themselves, and simply unable to move the ball on quickly which is so important in the modern game. Over the weekend I witnessed players simply not running in the first quarter. The FIRST quarter. It was almost unbelievable to witness, and it is inexcusable because it can not possibly be a fitness issue. It is either a misunderstanding of the gameplan and not knowing where to run, or a basic unwillingness to try. After 18 months at the helm, this to me can not be defended because this MUST come down to Neeld. We're not asking for miracles here. We're asking for something remotely resembling a cohesive, competitive side. He may be an absolute gun coach for a developed side, but for a developing side, he clearly is not.

- If Neeld is somehow able to retain his job after the Bye, following thrashings at the hands of Hawks and Pies, am I to assume that your view will be altered if we are put to the slaughter by St Kilda and the Bulldogs? Having watched both of those teams a fair bit, I can't see us getting close to either one. I just want to be sure that I understand you when you say those matches will be "the benchmarks of our progress", because I know there are some posters for whom no loss will be too great to covnince them, or at least to admit, that we've got the wrong bloke leading us out of this hole. You seem a reasonable guy, so am I understandfing you correctly that failure of these tests would see an alteration in your view on Neeld?

- We all know the lines being fed to the footy world. "We're in a rebuild of a rebuild". "It is what it is". Right now, we are accepting of the state we're in because we have to wait it out while the players build up games' experience. That's what we're told. We have to accept being legitimately and statistically compared with Fitzroy on its last legs, having our brand massacred and mocked by the entire country. Reduced to complete and utter irrelevance. We have to accept it, because "it is what it is". I say that's crap. It doesn't have to be this way. No club has to be brought to its knees like this in the name of a rebuild. The time for a statement has come, and that statement is we do no accept the football being produced, and we will move heaven and heart to bring the person or persons to this club who are capable of restoring it to where it once was, and utilising the talent on our list to its full potential, of which are are only seeing a shred.

An absolute excellent post. It is time! Time the club made a statement. Well said on all counts.

[stueyspencer no12 73]

To your first 'error' - which mid did you want us to chase last year? Was there one out there who, as a midfielder, was worth the money we had in the same way Dawes is?

Not only do I believe that taking a key forward like Dawes was a good move in terms of shoring up our forward line, I also believe it was a good move in terms of bringing in a premiership player with leadership skills, media skills, strength, focus and endeavour. He's shown his leadership skills already, and with time and match fitness he'll hopefully show why we need him on the park.

To your second 'error' - no team ever plays 22 kids. Also you've picked one of the better of that group.

Without Byrnes and Rodan, and with two more kids, thats 250-odd games of experience off our list, not present at training etc., not there to take some of the heat of these losses which do nothing for us. As we start to rebuild, we will be able to transition away from having a team with all four, to three, to two, to one, to none of them. That's the way this is going to work.

At the very least, Pedersen is beginning to show form at Casey, which hopefully he can bring to Melbourne. Meanwhile Blease can't get a kick down there. I'd rather see someone a year or two older with less talent giving his all to get a crack, so hopefully that kind of attitude rubs off on Sam.

Look I understand a bit of this. But if you decide you need experienced fill ins you have to pick fellows who can get a game. Don't you?

Ask the Cats supporters their view of Gillies? 2 weeks ago Boomer Harvey was on the ABC and another commentator said Pederson played some good games at North didn't he? There was a silence. Rodan!! His selection provoked mirth everywhere, in the meantime the Woods grabbed Russell from the Blues. Wouldn't that have made more sense? Isn't Byrnes a fringe player in a good team? Is that what we needed. More value to us than Moloney? Don't think so! Simon Buckley was on offer. Couldn't he have offered something as a mid? If he wasn't better value than Rodan I'll go he. And you mention Blease who's struggling. But he showed a lot last year. What the hell,is happening that he can't get a game?

Sorry, some flaws in your reasoning I think.

[stueyspencer no12 73]

I get the feeling you want to say something Stuey Spencer

I know my opinion is not the popular opinion - I know Neeld has dug his own hole, but I also firmly believe Neeld is out to change this culture and turn this club around - It hasn't happened in the first 18 months - we are playing a lot of inexperienced players or kids, this is going to take time, we have a soft draw for the last 10 games - that will answer for me if Neeld can coach or not.

The board have inside information and know the direction, we already know 2013 is a write off - What I want from this club now is a CLEAR direction. Fixing this starts at the board level they need to decide if Neeld is the man, they need to support their blue print for this club or fire Neeld..... and when they fire Neeld we should fire them for putting this club in this position...

Sorry mate, many distractions!

I disagree on several counts. First, we were not a basket case at the end of 2011. Faults yes--especially in defense. But do you really believe the culture was bad? I was close then to several players, and I knew nothing of bad culture. They were gutted by he disaster at Geelong, but they were largely young and inexperienced. Remember Sheedy lost a match by 160 odd in his 2nd year.

Were we unfit?

The 2012 admin would say we were, but the 2010/11 results really wouldn't support the proposition. Remember that while the team was winning 8.5 games each year we were knocking off a large debt. Especially at the end of 2010 the club was in decent shape. But we were awfully inexperienced.

So why sweep in and downgrade the 3 previous winners of the Bluey? Watching Green in some of the 2011 games I don't think he was gone. Moloney after an indiscretion early in 2011, played a great season. Davey was more problematic, but I would have tried to get maximum leadership from these 3. I simply don't understand his actions at the beginning or the end of 2011.or his decision to get rid of Moloney, Martin, Petterd and Gysberts at the end of 2012

He seemed to realize he'd gone too far and then panicked, picking 5 players,all of whom had played 2nds in R 21 of 2012. 3 had barely played in the 1s. All year! And he offered these strugglers long contracts. 3 years for Pederson! For heavens' sake!

Now morale is awful. Players were [censored] off with the treatment of Moloney who (privately I believe) suggested to N that the gameplan was not right for the Dees list, and was publicly humiliated and given a number of games at Casey for his trouble

Now do you disagree with what I've said here? Or that the attitude amongst our followers is the worst ever?

Why not accept that coaching appointments can go wrong, ie Watson at StK. no recriminations necessary, let's just move on. I believe the Board knows and accepts this. Personally I would appoint Craig, experienced, successful I would definitely NOT appoint Viney. The last thing we need now is a rookie coach.

All the best mate!

[tonatopia 278]

And who agreed to 3 yr contracts for Jamar, Pederson and McKenzie.

Who recruited Gillies, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson and failed to leave a spot on the list for Jack Hannath.

The Coach.

Not to mention getting rid of moloney, rivers, petered and not fighting hard enough for wona and Jurrah.

He broke our spirit by coaching against instinct, teaching our layers to second guess themselves, disregarding our deadly attacking game under Bailey, basically telling us all we are a b-grade club with b-grade players and a b-grade culture. As a result, he bred b-grade results and no-one respects him. Yet he wouldn't change a thing. What a [censored]!

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Look I understand a bit of this. But if you decide you need experienced fill ins you have to pick fellows who can get a game. Don't you?

Ask the Cats supporters their view of Gillies? 2 weeks ago Boomer Harvey was on the ABC and another commentator said Pederson played some good games at North didn't he? There was a silence. Rodan!! His selection provoked mirth everywhere, in the meantime the Woods grabbed Russell from the Blues. Wouldn't that have made more sense? Isn't Byrnes a fringe player in a good team? Is that what we needed. More value to us than Moloney? Don't think so! Simon Buckley was on offer. Couldn't he have offered something as a mid? If he wasn't better value than Rodan I'll go he. And you mention Blease who's struggling. But he showed a lot last year. What the hell,is happening that he can't get a game?

Sorry, some flaws in your reasoning I think.

Cats supporters either said Gillies was a good player squeezed out of a good side, or didn't know much about him because he never played. He never played because Geelong's back line is star-studded. Pedersen did play good games for North Melbourne, and the same deal goes with him. Rodan's selection did not 'provoke mirth everywhere', that's untrue, but to the extent that people questioned it, that questioning was met with the fact that he was taken at 88 (i.e. no cost at all) and was brought down as much for his harder body and training standards than anything else. The same deal goes with Byrnes.

Saying Moloney is better than Byrnes and therefore we made a mistake there overlooks the fact that Moloney wanted out of the club (for whatever reason) and we were powerless to stop him once he'd made that decision to due FA. It wasn't a decision of 'Byrnes or Moloney, who is better?'. It was a decision of 'can Byrnes add to Melbourne?', which was made independently of Moloney.

I won't make fun of you for suggesting we should have taken Jordan Russell. Or Simon Buckley. But I really want to.

As to Blease, he did not show 'a lot' last year, he showed flashes in amongst inconsistency and periods of lethargy and ineffectiveness. Nothing's changed. He is an inconsistent lazy player who doesn't work hard enough to build on what appears to be some talent, and until he does, he doesn't deserve to play AFL level football. That's what's happening.