Certainly

I agree that it's going to take time to become a really quality unit whichever way we go...but the question is, how long is it going to take to produce competitive, desperate efforts for the club and the supporters. Right now our club is being dragged through the mud because of what is being produced on the field.

I am not anti Neeld, but I am with 'Return to Glory' in that I am anti what is being produced on the field at the moment. I can accept that if we are trying to teach our players zones and all these new age things that it might take time (as it did for Clarkson when he began and Worsfold when he made major changes). Our players are producing football that is nowhere near the quality that those clubs were producing even when they were going through their changes.

It really boils down to the effort we see from the players at the moment. And if there is a belief that the players are giving 100% intensity every game and have bought in to the program then surely that would suggest that the program, from a gameplan perspective, is somewhat flawed.

there's no answer to how long..... How long is a piece of string? Who knows......We'll only know when we get to the end....

I agree that what we are producing just isn't good enough.... But again.... I don't think moving Neeld on is going to change this..... It's a thing only time will change.....

Clarkson didn't turn the hawks around in 1.5 years..... More like 4 years (which is really fast).... And we all know that west coast where tanking.....

It must be super hard to change the culture of a club, without the support of the supporters..... Considering that the supporter are the ones that drive the culture..... We have an overly conservative and analytical supporter base, that are he'll bend on keeping the norm.... If we want change, then we need to change..... It's the only way.... Otherwise we'll continue to just make up the numbers until our dyeing day....

I couldn't care less whether we move Neeld on.... But he has my support until we do.....

But the numbers here were quite telling.

As I said, the surveys were in various categories to do with training, preparation etc, how much a player works to get the best of himself. only 2 of the previous leadership group were in the top 15 at the club.

That tells me just how much our leadership at the time stank. Drastic changes needed to be made. Neeld talked about how nervous he was choosing these two and recalled having a conversation with Nathan Buckley who was considering Pendels as captain but wasn't sure he was experienced enough and how Neeld mentioned he had no problems compared to him, as Neeld was looking at co-captains with less than 60 games of experience. I didn't get the impression it was a decision taken lightly or decided by the numbers, but rather a decision forced upon them as they realised that they had to take drastic steps as the leadership there was not leading as they should.

Fair points, but he didn't look at game day leadership. Why not wait until after at least a few of the pre-season games to see how they went about it on matchday?

I often wonder if, in the context of the MFC, there is such a thing as a "normal football supporter".

I'm the norm mate, plumb in the middle of the bell curve. All the rest fall to one side or the other. There you go, I've said it

there's no answer to how long..... How long is a piece of string? Who knows......We'll only know when we get to the end....

I agree that what we are producing just isn't good enough.... But again.... I don't think moving Neeld on is going to change this..... It's a thing only time will change.....

Clarkson didn't turn the hawks around in 1.5 years..... More like 4 years (which is really fast).... And we all know that west coast where tanking.....

It must be super hard to change the culture of a club, without the support of the supporters..... Considering that the supporter are the ones that drive the culture..... We have an overly conservative and analytical supporter base, that are he'll bend on keeping the norm.... If we want change, then we need to change..... It's the only way.... Otherwise we'll continue to just make up the numbers until our dyeing day....

I couldn't care less whether we move Neeld on.... But he has my support until we do.....

I guess my question around 'how long' isn't necessarily in terms of seeing scoreboard results, but more about turning up to the ground and seeing that our players are desperate to fight for our club...I don't believe it's happening at the moment and it's what worries me the most. It is the fundamental element of football and in theory should be the simplest thing to implement. This to me is responsibility A1 of the coaches. I hope they start to turn that aspect around tomorrow, but still don't know why it hasn't been there every week since this coaching regime began.

I agree that it's going to take time to become a really quality unit whichever way we go...but the question is, how long is it going to take to produce competitive, desperate efforts for the club and the supporters. Right now our club is being dragged through the mud because of what is being produced on the field.

I am not anti Neeld, but I am with 'Return to Glory' in that I am anti what is being produced on the field at the moment. I can accept that if we are trying to teach our players zones and all these new age things that it might take time (as it did for Clarkson when he began and Worsfold when he made major changes). Our players are producing football that is nowhere near the quality that those clubs were producing even when they were going through their changes.

It really boils down to the effort we see from the players at the moment. And if there is a belief that the players are giving 100% intensity every game and have bought in to the program then surely that would suggest that the program, from a gameplan perspective, is somewhat flawed.

That is part of the problem as I see it. Our disposal numbers both this year and last are a fair bit off the

pace. Is it really as simplistic as we have just a poor midfield or is it game style as well. To me it is

probably a bit of both. I agree with many who have mentioned in various threads that confidence and self belief is part of our problem. I just wish we shared the love a bit and tossed the pill about a bit more.

I agree that it's going to take time to become a really quality unit whichever way we go...but the question is, how long is it going to take to produce competitive, desperate efforts for the club and the supporters. Right now our club is being dragged through the mud because of what is being produced on the field.

I am not anti Neeld, but I am with 'Return to Glory' in that I am anti what is being produced on the field at the moment. I can accept that if we are trying to teach our players zones and all these new age things that it might take time (as it did for Clarkson when he began and Worsfold when he made major changes). Our players are producing football that is nowhere near the quality that those clubs were producing even when they were going through their changes.

It really boils down to the effort we see from the players at the moment. And if there is a belief that the players are giving 100% intensity every game and have bought in to the program then surely that would suggest that the program, from a gameplan perspective, is somewhat flawed.

I've waited for someone to mention our form in comparison to hawthorn/WCE/collingwood

In each of these teams case, there was an abundance of experienced players with 120-160 games under their belt. Players who weren't necessarily stars or match winners, but players who you could guarantee 100% effort, leadership and commitment. When Richie vandenberg was appointed hawks captain epitomises that. The media called it strange, yet he was exactly what Sam Mitchell, Luke hodge, brad Sewell and Jordan Lewis still showcase to this day- tough, accountable football. West coast in the early 2000's had similar. Ben cousins, for all his flaws, was a terrific mentor and an astute trainer.

Put simply, Melbourne just haven't had that leadership. In no way do I mean any disrespect to yze, Robertson, white or any of those players, we haven't had a expectation of tough, uncompromising leaders to learn off or set the standard for the next generation coming through. I still remember an article on travis Johnstone, when he lived with Paul hopgood, and hopgood would get up Sunday and go for a run, but Johnstone would sit on the couch playing play station and eating cc's (his own words). I just thought that highlighted why we were inconsistent from probably 2000 onwards. It's been until now where we have become aware of our "leaders" not being capable of applying that standard.

Robinson would really know about dropping his head, a cheap shot at a B&F winner, if this is his new role at the MFC he should go back to singing for his supper.

Robertson.

If you're trying to be smart, actually be smart.

Stupid post.

I've waited for someone to mention our form in comparison to hawthorn/WCE/collingwood

In each of these teams case, there was an abundance of experienced players with 120-160 games under their belt. Players who weren't necessarily stars or match winners, but players who you could guarantee 100% effort, leadership and commitment. When Richie vandenberg was appointed hawks captain epitomises that. The media called it strange, yet he was exactly what Sam Mitchell, Luke hodge, brad Sewell and Jordan Lewis still showcase to this day- tough, accountable football. West coast in the early 2000's had similar. Ben cousins, for all his flaws, was a terrific mentor and an astute trainer.

Put simply, Melbourne just haven't had that leadership. In no way do I mean any disrespect to yze, Robertson, white or any of those players, we haven't had a expectation of tough, uncompromising leaders to learn off or set the standard for the next generation coming through. I still remember an article on travis Johnstone, when he lived with Paul hopgood, and hopgood would get up Sunday and go for a run, but Johnstone would sit on the couch playing play station and eating cc's (his own words). I just thought that highlighted why we were inconsistent from probably 2000 onwards. It's been until now where we have become aware of our "leaders" not being capable of applying that standard.

It is interesting isn't it. I imagine the Hawks expected players such as Hodge, Mitchell etc to step up as leaders in the future, but appointed a bridge captain for that time and place. I read somewhere, but can't remember where, that senior West Coast players would show new players examples of gut running and that that was what was expected at the club.

Just shows why junior deserved 1 more year. Also shows why the jacks were appointed, there was such a gulf in leadership, we didn't even have that "stop gap" option. Not one with the same credentials as vandenberg, or even Kane Johnson/Chris Newman.

That reason, that's why I'm comfortable about the long term position on field. We've finally got structures to deal with development and leadership, guys who will build to that expectation of how "elite" teams train and play. Jeez it's frustrating watching now though!

I guess my question around 'how long' isn't necessarily in terms of seeing scoreboard results, but more about turning up to the ground and seeing that our players are desperate to fight for our club...I don't believe it's happening at the moment and it's what worries me the most. It is the fundamental element of football and in theory should be the simplest thing to implement. This to me is responsibility A1 of the coaches. I hope they start to turn that aspect around tomorrow, but still don't know why it hasn't been there every week since this coaching regime began.

I agree that the desperation and intensity isn't there..... But for me.... In a professional game played by professionals..... It would be more the responsibility of the player to bring aggression to the game.... Not the coach.... It's a fundamental of the game.... That at AFL level shouldn't have to be taught....

The questions are..... If Neeld had Sydney's list.... Would we be complaining about desperation and intensity? Would we be non competitive? I'd say we would be competitive.....

I think Neeld game plan would work with a more mature list.... Which we don't have..... He needs to develop a plan for the team as it is now.... That keeps us competitive, while working toward the ultimate plan..... The reality is we aren't the hardest team to play, were the hardest to watch..... That doesn't mean he should be booted.... It just means we have to change something.....

Maybe we could all change our culture by looking for a solution instead of looking for a scape goat....

I agree that the desperation and intensity isn't there..... But for me.... In a professional game played by professionals..... It would be more the responsibility of the player to bring aggression to the game.... Not the coach.... It's a fundamental of the game.... That at AFL level shouldn't have to be taught....

The questions are..... If Neeld had Sydney's list.... Would we be complaining about desperation and intensity? Would we be non competitive? I'd say we would be competitive.....

I think Neeld game plan would work with a more mature list.... Which we don't have..... He needs to develop a plan for the team as it is now.... That keeps us competitive, while working toward the ultimate plan..... The reality is we aren't the hardest team to play, were the hardest to watch..... That doesn't mean he should be booted.... It just means we have to change something.....

Maybe we could all change our culture by looking for a solution instead of looking for a scape goat....

Nice point......

And nice ......

Punctuation...

Tatu, I think the point you make is a good one. The game plan is one for hardened bodies and would possibly work for another team. Therein perhaps lies the problem. He is wanting to get the players to that point but supporters are struggling to deal with another horrendous season in the meantime.

I don't understand what the game plan is for our list?

The unaccountable corridor? Where shocking turnovers cost goal, after goal, after goal because every hero ran forward to get their name in the paper?

Leaving all the work to too few and skirt the packs? Refuse to block or help?

You just may have me there Jumbo Returns.

The question I have is Are the players letting the board know how strongly they support him? We could very well come full circle and find the board at odds with the playing group again if they decide to move on a coach who has the full backing of his players.

I really hope the board don't make any hasty calls here. If they are considering sacking him, they need to canvass the playing group to find out what the feeling is at ground level before deciding. Ignore the media and the online community (ie us) and get all the information from the people who actually know what's going on.

FMD. It's not relevant what the players tell the Board. At the very least this assessment is done by the CEO.

Hell the last time McLardy went to the players it contributed to the catastrophe of 186.

The bottom line is that this coach has overseen an appalling 1 win against an non development club in 31 games.

Only MFC supporters could possibly eulogise such an outright coaching disaster.

In addition the interim CEO will need to work with the FD in due course to determine the retention and cutting of players.

I agree that the desperation and intensity isn't there..... But for me.... In a professional game played by professionals..... It would be more the responsibility of the player to bring aggression to the game.... Not the coach.... It's a fundamental of the game.... That at AFL level shouldn't have to be taught....

The questions are..... If Neeld had Sydney's list.... Would we be complaining about desperation and intensity? Would we be non competitive? I'd say we would be competitive.....

I think Neeld game plan would work with a more mature list.... Which we don't have..... He needs to develop a plan for the team as it is now.... That keeps us competitive, while working toward the ultimate plan..... The reality is we aren't the hardest team to play, were the hardest to watch..... That doesn't mean he should be booted.... It just means we have to change something.....

Maybe we could all change our culture by looking for a solution instead of looking for a scape goat....

You make some good points, but it's just my opinion that the desperation and intensity is drilled into the players by the club, and specifically by the clubs figurehead (the coach).

I honestly believe that on the flip side to what you suggest, i.e. if our list was to represent Sydney this year, there is no way they would be seeing the kind of performances we have seen. It just isn't accepted at that club.

On a tangent, I had an experience myself of being the captain/coach of a suburban cricket club for a couple of years. I felt that whilst in the position the guys in my team didn't really seem to care about winning as much as I did. When I gave the job up, someone else came in and instantly the same group of players were doing the little things you need to do to be a successful team, culminating in a finals appearance. We were grand finalists the year before I took the job and the club has been really competitive each year since I finished. I see this as an absolute failure on my part, I no longer believe it was the fault of the players at all. I wasn't able to get the message across about the expectations in a way that the players gravitated towards. As the figure head of the club, they clearly didn't heed my message.

Just shows why junior deserved 1 more year. Also shows why the jacks were appointed, there was such a gulf in leadership, we didn't even have that "stop gap" option. Not one with the same credentials as vandenberg, or even Kane Johnson/Chris Newman.

That reason, that's why I'm comfortable about the long term position on field. We've finally got structures to deal with development and leadership, guys who will build to that expectation of how "elite" teams train and play. Jeez it's frustrating watching now though!

in my opinion the biggest one off decision that has ruined our culture was sacking our captain. I know at least four members who stopped signing up after that - one has been a life member at 56 years of age.

When they start showing a bit of effort on the field I might actually believe one of these "keep faith in the club because were on the right track" type articles that come out ever few months.

James McDonald was a mistake but I think at the time they had reasons re fitness and injury. The problem is, even with those negatives, we could have used his experience and leadership.

I think we could do worse than bringing in senior players from other clubs for one final year in player/assistant coach/mentor capacities. Simon Black is or Paul Chapman would be fantastic for one season, teaching and demonstrating and leading and advising. And landing a genuine leader aged 27 or 28 with 3 years left, who plays in the midfield would be a massive bonus. These would fast track is the most.

Nice point......

And nice ......

Punctuation...

thanks....lol....

The bottom line is that this coach has overseen an appalling 1 win against an non development club in 31 games.

Only MFC supporters could possibly eulogise such an outright coaching disaster.

In addition the interim CEO will need to work with the FD in due course to determine the retention and cutting of players.

Agree the first two lines.

As to the third line, are you advocating interference in football matters by the CEO?

Can I just add to this.

GWS just lost by 94 points! OMG, THE SKY IF FALLING!!!

SACK SHEEDY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James McDonald was a mistake but I think at the time they had reasons re fitness and injury. The problem is, even with those negatives, we could have used his experience and leadership.

I think we could do worse than bringing in senior players from other clubs for one final year in player/assistant coach/mentor capacities. Simon Black is or Paul Chapman would be fantastic for one season, teaching and demonstrating and leading and advising. And landing a genuine leader aged 27 or 28 with 3 years left, who plays in the midfield would be a massive bonus. These would fast track is the most.

Deanox, I think people need to stop bringing up Junior's retirement, as at best he would have played one more year with us and that would have been in Bailey's last year.

We are now under a new Coach and Junior has no relevance to this situation.

PS. I agreed at the time with Junior retiring as he was 34 and constantly injured.

Can I just add to this.

GWS just lost by 94 points! OMG, THE SKY IF FALLING!!!

SACK SHEEDY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GWS is less than 5 years into its life as an AFL club. Meanwhile the Melbourne Football Club after 150 plus years in the system looks just as bad as a club with less than 5 years in. Zero comparison with coaching.