Make no bones about it though Deanox. I truly believe that once CS got into that process, he did find someone who ticked all his boxes (i.e. a bloke who would lay down the 'law', play more defensively etc). As Rjay said, Neeld said everything Gaz and CS wanted to hear.

Let's not also forget the role Garry played in a lot of this. I would suggest that he single handedly saved CS's job (at least that's the way Jimmy put it in his book).

The more I read these posts the more I believe CS and Gaz were looking more for a pliable Drill Sargent of a coach such as newby Neeld than they were for an established senior coach such as Clarkson or Lyon. Neeld duly came in with a set of orders to deal with the recalcitrant senior players who had objected to CS and his influence. Add to the conspiracy when we learn from PJ that everyone was reporting thru CS! Classic control freak, micro managing stuff that will paralyse any department. When Clarkson says he wasn't

Approached but Gaz says he was, I start to wonder who I should believe. Even Sheedy said when interviewed for the Bailey job that there were too many conditions for his liking! Was CS on that panel?

The more I read these posts the more I believe CS and Gaz were looking more for a pliable Drill Sargent of a coach such as newby Neeld than they were for an established senior coach such as Clarkson or Lyon. Neeld duly came in with a set of orders to deal with the recalcitrant senior players who had objected to CS and his influence. Add to the conspiracy when we learn from PJ that everyone was reporting thru CS! Classic control freak, micro managing stuff that will paralyse any department. When Clarkson says he wasn't

Approached but Gaz says he was, I start to wonder who I should believe. Even Sheedy said when interviewed for the Bailey job that there were too many conditions for his liking! Was CS on that panel?

No, he was at Fremantle at the time but nevertheless, I agree with you that he should cop the blame for the appointment.

I think you may be reading a little bit too much into things there. Do you have any evidence to back it up or is it a classic conspiracy theory?

As for Neeld, I think he was a very highly credentialed and highly rated coach, had served a good apprenticeship under Malthouse who remains one of the premier coaches of our generation, and promised to improve the level of professionalism at all levels of the FD. Nobody can deny that this is an area in which we were falling well behind the pack. Even if he is sacked in the next few weeks he will have raised the bar in this area and for that we need to be grateful.

Oh Please,

Do YOU have any evidence to back up this statement? Or are you just regurgitating what MN and his young impressionable puppet captains have said in the media about the so called 'elite' standards. I can give you ALL the evidence you need to PROVE that it is NOT WORKING....just look at what happens to the numbers on the scoreboard when the MFC take to the football field on any weekend.

Personally I don't blame NM or DB for the situations they found and left (will leave) the club in.

They both came in with a clear plan and have tried to execute to the best of their abilities.

DB clearly had a longer term vision regarding the compromised drafts, getting draft picks beforehand, taking the path that Bomber Thompson and Alistair Clarkson did regarding the 'youth policy' and attacking game styles. He did what was necessary to try and achieve his vision; secured early draft picks and used them to recruit young talented players who had good awareness and running ability.

MN has come to the club with a polar opposite game plan. Defend and create stoppages. Don't take risks. Play the percentages. He is basing this on what worked for a more mature and experience Collingwood team. For this you need big bodied players who are prepared to do the defensive things first even if it means kerbing their natural attacking game in the process. The playing list he inherited was and is still insufficient to carry out his vision.

He also in my opinion acted unprofessionally by publicising what he believes were shortcomings within the football department and playing group, left by his predecessor, for no other reason (it seems) than to gain some quick 'credibility' regarding his decisions. Unfortunately he has yet to provide any hard evidence that this was actually the case.

The problems created by these two appointments were created by the sub-committee that selected them and the board that ratified their selections.

As for that I still can't fathom how someone with Garry Lyon's football acumen (who was a big part in both appointments) could not have foreseen, especially in MN case, the effect changing a game plan, and personality type for that matter, so dramatically would have on game day. Perhaps he was compromised by his relationship with the 'Old Boys' that had recently returned to position of power at the club?

Unfortunately for MN our club doesn't have the time to give him to see if his game plan will actually stand up once he believes he has the players.

I personally don't think much of it, or him, and don't want to see more talented young players moved on and replaced with players older but not better than them because of it. This tactic is simply shortening any possible window for success should it finally arrive.

Looking back to the Premiership he was involved in at Collingwood, how they won it and how they played that year answers a lot of these questions for me.

They were way ahead of the pack with regards to using the extended interchange bench and subsequently trained players to be repeat sprinters not middle distance runners as other clubs were at the time.

They DID'T win the Premiership convincingly either. They drew the first week.

And finally the most successful team against them in that Premiership year was the MFC. Two games. One draw and one, one point loss against one of the youngest most inexperienced teams in the competition!

The competition has now caught onto and up with the training and rotations used at Collingwood since that period. And it now appears that once again a more attacking game style but played by mature bodies is preferable.

I sincerely hope that our next coach has a good 'balanced' game plan and can see the benefits of both the youth and experience (even if it might not show itself as 'leadership') within our current playing list.

My preference would be for someone who has already had AFL senior coaching experience.

i think regardless of if/when Neeld is shown the door it wont have been a knee jerk reaction. Knee jerk raction would have been to sack him straight after the gold coast game.

As for the dignity part of things, this is the MFC, who knows what they'll do.....

I think it would have been knee jerk reaction after Round 1. After Round 2, well, I wouldn't have complained. You just simply cannot have 21 rounds go by under an interim coach. That said, if I was being ruthless I would have installed Craig as interim post Essendon.

As for that I still can't fathom how someone with Garry Lyon's football acumen (who was a big part in both appointments) could not have foreseen, especially in MN case, the effect changing a game plan, and personality type for that matter, so dramatically would have on game day. Perhaps he was compromised by his relationship with the 'Old Boys' that had recently returned to position of power at the club?

I'm not so sure about the acumen, in fact I think Garry is better placed as a light entertainer on the footy show than any serious analysis. He seems to be a very reactive thinker to me and that's why we ended up with Neeld.