It is interesting you say this (see below). On FC last night Lloyd made a point of saying how Collingwoods zone game plan worked against the Cats as the Cats try and run it down the ground with handballs and under manic pressure and the zone Collingwood trapped them.

However against the Swans they were all at sea with their zone (and drop in manic pressure) as the Swans just kicked over the top of it and ran it down the ground with little pressure. Sound familiar? I wonder if teams have worked out the Magpie zone based game plan, a plan that relies on a combination of players playing their assigned 'role', an emphasis on super fitness (and effort, Lloyd seemed to suggest this had dropped in the team and mentioned Swan in this context) and applying maximum pressure to the ball carrier. If any of these elements fall away the game plan suffers.

I suspect Neeld has tried to implement this plan, one that is perhaps already outdated with a team that can not put the elements noted above together.

If Neeld must coach this weekend, he has to be told to change his approach. We can't be expected to turn up to watch the slaughter that will occur if our players are told to 'guard space' against an efficient kicking team.

Stynes, the one who got us 5m out of debt?

Along with you and I, of course.

His illness and retraction from the every day workings of the club were the reasons we started going down hill.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly.

Firstly, he is partly responsible for reinstating Schwab. No surprise there.

Secondly, Stynes was a demanding individual, and those sorts of people work wonders for charity organisations. The club benefitted by taking advantage of a man who had normally received charity for depressed children. I was always uncomfortable that a man that had dedicated is life to helping young people was helping gather millions and millions of dollars for a club fractured by its own ineptness. On one side you have charity for people that genuinely need it: on the other you have a basket case delinquent of a club begging people for cash to prop up its elitist factions from within the bellows of the MCC.

Stynes was a great man for this club but what he did was a bandaid solution. A quick fix. The fact the club has buried itself into what will eventually become just as big a deficient as there was when Stynes arrives demonstrates how much of an indictment the club as a whole is on the league, not to mentioned the professionalism bestowed upon the club by the parents of the young men it drafts.

Would Stynes being around last year have saved it from winning 4 games (1 if you discount GWS and GC)? Would he have led the club to more wins this season? If I remember correctly, he was President during 2 wooden spoons, and eventually oversaw a failed rebuild. Remember, he was around when 186 happened, and he was around at the start of 2012: the start of the SECOND rebuild in five years.

Stynes, for all the great he did, is also part of what will be one of the darkest periods in the club's history. His contributions should not dilute the error of judgement he made in rehiring Schwab, and in putting the trust in people that clearly don't want anything to do with the club (Lyon). His vision was one of desperation. It always was.

He couldn't have done anymore, though. But he hardly saved this club. You could have said that three years ago. Not anymore. McLardy and Schwab and co. merely continued on what Stynes started.

IMO the club would be in the same dire situation now if he was still with us.

Edited May 28, 201312 yr by Cudi_420

I suspect Neeld has tried to implement this plan, one that is perhaps already outdated with a team that can not put the elements noted above together.

Ross Lyon implementateda similar plan at Freo and it worked the previous week to obtain a draw against Sydney while they were undermanned too. So not sure that the zone doesn't work, but if the pressure isn't high enough for long enough even Collingwood end up looking like Melbourne.

Interesting take Cudi. You maybe on the money. Whatever the answers they are not going to be pretty.

The realization that this club is back in heavy debt only 2 years after Jim died whilst we have not moved ladder position tells me that the wrong people are in power.

They were chosen to work under Jimmy, not to make ultimate decisions.

Ross Lyon implementateda similar plan at Freo and it worked the previous week to obtain a draw against Sydney while they were undermanned too. So not sure that the zone doesn't work, but if the pressure isn't high enough for long enough even Collingwood end up looking like Melbourne.

I think Lyon uses more of a press than a zone but yes it also relies on constant manic pressure, which i think is a flaw in both game plans because it is so difficult to maintain that sort of intensity over a season, little lone a 3-4 year period.

This is one reason i reckon why the Saints (with Lyons infamous bubble) didn't win a flag under Lyon and why the Maggies could not turn their 2010 dominance (where they were by far the best team and had the perfect spread of players in terms of age,talent and experience) into a a dynasty like Geelongs.

This need for constant pressure also in part explains the situation the dees are in because clearly (and for what ever reason) we have been unable to play wit the sort of consistent intensity the game plan requires and if the pressure is not there teams can be taken apart.

It is interesting you say this (see below). On FC last night Lloyd made a point of saying how Collingwoods zone game plan worked against the Cats as the Cats try and run it down the ground with handballs and under manic pressure and the zone Collingwood trapped them.

However against the Swans they were all at sea with their zone (and drop in manic pressure) as the Swans just kicked over the top of it and ran it down the ground with little pressure. Sound familiar? I wonder if teams have worked out the Magpie zone based game plan, a plan that relies on a combination of players playing their assigned 'role', an emphasis on super fitness (and effort, Lloyd seemed to suggest this had dropped in the team and mentioned Swan in this context) and applying maximum pressure to the ball carrier. If any of these elements fall away the game plan suffers.

I suspect Neeld has tried to implement this plan, one that is perhaps already outdated with a team that can not put the elements noted above together.

If your implication is that we'll beat Geelong later this year, I look forward to it!

(please note this is clearly tongue in cheek)

What do you mean by this?

Is there any source for this? If so, what is the argument - that players will walk mid-season? At end of year?

Sorry, you misunderstood my post.

It was a summary of the key points made on OTC and FC.

The reference to Watts and others readying to go came from FC as in end of year.

Is it right? I don't know but there's lots of talk about it.

Edited May 28, 201312 yr by pitmaster

I think Lyon uses more of a press than a zone but yes it also relies on constant manic pressure, which i think is a flaw in both game plans because it is so difficult to maintain that sort of intensity over a season, little lone a 3-4 year period.

This is one reason i reckon why the Saints (with Lyons infamous bubble) didn't win a flag under Lyon and why the Maggies could not turn their 2010 dominance (where they were by far the best team and had the perfect spread of players in terms of age,talent and experience) into a dynasty like Geelongs.

Constant manic pressure? Sydney, 2012.

I reckon you'll be right about the dynasty though.

Back to Monday night! I thought that there was an interesting reference to the recruiting of Chris Dawes "On the Couch" and why with such a poor midfield group we went for another tall forward. Healy suggested that this was the cause of the conflict between Neeld and Viney with the latter thinking we didn't need another tall forward and that Neeld had exerted an unwanted influence on the recruiters to get Dawes and give away high draft picks and a huge contract. I am sure I heard Healy say that this decision is one that will cost Neeld his job.

Older Demon I think I heard this on FC as well. Why take Dawes when we need a mid field! however when I think back what established midfielders were up for grabs? I don't think there were many. What we should have done of course is draft Wines at 4 and not Jim T. We drafted for the future with Hogan and Barry. Wines was ready to go with man's body whereas Jimmy needs time. I hope he turns out to be a gem but MFC does not have time, we need results, we need to be competive now! Wines is also a competitive beast, it is not as if we don't need this type in spades!

As if Wines would change our fortunes...

We need to stop thinking that kids will save us. They need 4 years and we need to be competitive now. More Matt Jones' and Dean Terlichs' if you want to get better in 2014.

Older Demon I think I heard this on FC as well. Why take Dawes when we need a mid field! however when I think back what established midfielders were up for grabs? I don't think there were many. What we should have done of course is draft Wines at 4 and not Jim T. We drafted for the future with Hogan and Barry. Wines was ready to go with man's body whereas Jimmy needs time. I hope he turns out to be a gem but MFC does not have time, we need results, we need to be competive now! Wines is also a competitive beast, it is not as if we don't need this type in spades!

Just a point - have you noticed how Port Adelaide has lost four in a row, with Wines struggling to influence games like he did earlier?

And have you noticed that, simultaneously, Hamish Hartlett is being tagged out of games and Ebert, Cornes and Boak are down on output and form compared to their five wins?

My point - Wines was playing in a midfield with performing A-grade talent, making his job easy, but when that midfield is down (which is to be expected of a young midfield not yet in its prime fully), the heat is back on and the possessions aren't as easy to come by.

Meanwhile, Toumpas has had to play in an F-grade midfield with no support or leadership.

I wondering that myself...

Smells like Range Rover-type nonsense...

And I am afraid the floggings will continue post Neeld.

Just a warning.

Just so we're clear, your solution is what exactly?

You seem so happy to sit on your hands and do nothing. Well sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something.

Just because you've made a mistake in the past doesn't mean you'll continue to make the same mistakes in the future.

A new coach won't bring about magical change and won't create an A grade midfield from a pile of horse sh!t, but he might bring a better game plan, better player development, and most importantly hope. Internally as much as externally.

When there is no hope, there is nothing.

Just so we're clear, your solution is what exactly?

You seem so happy to sit on your hands and do nothing. Well sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something.

Just because you've made a mistake in the past doesn't mean you'll continue to make the same mistakes in the future.

A new coach won't bring about magical change and won't create an A grade midfield from a pile of horse [censored], but he might bring a better game plan, better player development, and most importantly hope. Internally as much as externally.

When there is no hope, there is nothing.

As for 'What to do?!?!?!' - I would wait to restructure the FD and remove Neeld in one swoop. I don't like bleeding out. Cut the arm off at once.

Know what you are going to do and then do that whole thing.

What will end up happening in my view is Neeld will go and then we will have a caretaker and then we will flag the restructuring of the roles of Craig and Viney during the season and then the removal of Harrington and Mahoney.

Do it all at once. And know that your caretaker's position will still exist once the restructure is done if the caretaker is Viney or Craig. The fact that we are 'in-season' is just happenstance to me - if a team can lose a head coach in-season then they can restructure the FD in-season.

Just do it all at once is what I would say. And I don't think Jackson has had enough time to get it all done at once.

As for the hope:

Hope outside of reality is pointless.

We can get better, it is not the 5 years of wilderness that most took Neeld to mean - we can rebound quickly into mid table mediocrity but it will not happen under a caretaker and it will not happen this season.

We are in for more pain and hopefully this Spring/Summer brings us an established coach, some key re-signings, some key signings, and some instilled confidence.

And there is your hope.