The Keep Mark Neeld Thread

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Its great you have keep the faith, but you lost me when you left the need to start your post with an insult.

So I did not read any further.

I'm here captain butterball.

For all your anti-neeld posts, you fail to mention ANYTHING capable of an alternative. What, you want to throw out "get roos"? Or "get Williams?" You don't get it buddy, you just do not get it. Watch today's game, watch last week. We have a midfield that has played so little together, we have 6 of our first picked players our, but do you want to know the most damning part of that? I know this wont help your narrow minded thinking, but changing the coach tomorrow doesn't add 100 games experience to trengove, Howe, toumpas, viney, jones and Evans. It doesn't work like that!!!!! If you watched the game on tv and listened to flogs like darcy and Bruce, you won't see the picture. You won't see that players are kicking the ball blindly trying to do too much or kicking 5m behind a leading forward. It's confidence. When we look down the line and see Clark, Dawes, Howe watts or hogan, then we can be more confident to kick long. But when we ply around with it seeing fitzy (who played ok in patches, but doesn't lead hard) or davey/blease/rodan, its hard to be confident kicking long.

Neeld can not be out on the ground to say "don't u-turn through traffic Dunn/davey/Sylvia, he can't say that. He is clearly instructing them to hold the footy and look for a clean pass in. But inexperience, or sheer selfishness by senior players u-turning or hand bling to players 70cm away costs us. We need to give it time. We need to practice going forward inside 70-80m from goal under pressure, we need to focus on freeing up a player with good skills outside of the pack. We need a decent run with injuries, because we haven't the depth yet to cover 6 first choice players, but most bloody importantly, we need patience. Supporters cracking the sads like you saying "7 years of bottom 4 finishes"- you bring nothing to the table. Every demon fan has had 7 years of bottom 4 finishes. But neeld is there now and has seen 35 games, after cutting soft, slack and under performing players who weren't going to take this club forward.

If you can't see that we need patience, we need to stay calm and we need to stick together, then PO and follow hawthorn or Richmond. We are on the right track, we just need to add 1 or 2 mids, some experience to the 22 who play together, and our injuries to give us a break. Neeld has cut the players who were not taking us anywhere. The group we have, we keep together and add some experience, and confidence, and we will get on top of this rut. Just stop blaming 1 individual, the same as saying we are always looking for our next "saviour" and let the players play, build trust and confidence and give them some bloody support!

[pm24 451]

Collingwood had 24 scoring shots from our turnovers.

24.

It's not the coaching that's killing us.

Forget about whether Neeld goes at the end of the year or not, at this rate Tim Harrington is going to need a bigger "Out" basket.

I think the list management has been improved since Prendergast left. I don't blame harrington, that's for sure.

[Stigga 25]

This is where it all goes wrong. Compared to what Collingwood had out there, Dunn, Garland, Watts, Dawes and McKenzie (even I'd throw in Jones) are NOT experienced. They're all around or less than 100 games. And apart from Dawes and Rodan, not a single finals game amongst them, yet alone a grand final.

Collingwood had more than half their team, 12 players out there, with more than 150 games. We had 2, and 2 that you'd probably wonder if they're going to be back in the VFL or not next week.

The gulf in experience between who we are, and who they are, is ... well, there's just no comparison.

Oh ok, so 80+ losses are warrented until when!!!???

[robbiefrom13 892]

Why is it that whenever economies in the last hundred or so years suffer massive economic crises, we see increased popularity in radical extremism - even though history absolutely tells us that such radical extremism rarely, if ever, actually produces good decisions and sound government. It's popular at the time though.

The drums will beat louder each week for Neeld's sacking at this rate. Doesn't mean however that those beating the drums are particularly clever or have good judgement. Most in the media want a senior coach to roll - generates good headlines.

And I'm not arguing that Neeld should be at the helm next year - far from it in fact. I just want calm, considered decisions at the moment - not dumb arse, knee jerk reactionary stuff. We absolutely must nail the next appointment, and we must also sign up our required players who are coming out of contract asap.

Securing our players is the more important consideration: the incoming coach should have the best chance we can give him.

Changing the coach isn't exactly "radical extremism". It's just setting the election date. There may be reasons to set it earlier rather than going full term.

[bing181 9,328]

Oh ok, so 80+ losses are warrented until when!!!???

Hmm. Just re-read my own post. Not sure where I said 80+ losses were warranted.

[robbiefrom13 892]

Hmm. Just re-read my own post. Not sure where I said 80+ losses were warranted.

out of interest, Bing, is there any circumstance in which you would say Neeld had failed, and should be moved on?

[deanox 9,989]

out of interest, Bing, is there any circumstance in which you would say Neeld had failed, and to be moved on?

After he has had a chance to build a list and train a group to play his way? Ie 3 years? That seems to be the standard "rebuild" turn around these days, and if after 3 years of rebuilding there is some promise the coaches get an extension of a year or two.

Not saying he should/will get this long but that is probably the amount of time required to make a full assessment, otherwise we are judging on part results I.e. Neeld has built a spine but hasn't yet built an engine room.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Its the MFC so I estimate 2015 as they don't like to put too much pressure on anyone.

I have read in a few posts that winning is not that important.

Surely the MFC Board's theme song must be "I Don't Care".

Oh ok, so 80+ losses are warrented until when!!!???

[titan_uranus 25,043]

As much as I want the guy gone I lean towards letting him seeing the year out. I agree with Nasher in that I doubt removing him will change anything. I reckon the damage has been done, but for some reason I doubt things will get worse. Mistakes have been made, but I just don't get the feeling they'll be compounded by him staying.

He must be replaced though at season's end. There's too much water under the bridge and the mistakes he's made won't allow him to move forward.

Agreed.

Jake Niall's article on the weekend further shows how sacking Neeld now could in fact be worse for us than better. Keeping Neeld until the end of the year and then sacking him, replacing him not with a caretaker but with our next coach, is the best option we have.

It isn't a ridiculous argument. There early years were always going to be hard for them but their scope for improvement. GWS has about 400 games of less experience ATM but their future upside is huge. GCS is showing signs of that. And MFC is now 10 goals shy of him.

And the 5/33 has GWS with 3 wins, GCS with one win and the only credible win was against the Dons who treated the game as a jolly and were starting to feel the effects of a disastrous fitness program.

This thread is MFCSS at this best.

The argument that we've only had one win because the other four were against GWS and GC ignores the fact that if they didn't exist, their bevies of talent would be spread out across the other 16 clubs, including us. For that reason, it's ridiculous.

You've also added in the 'Essendon wasn't trying' excuse, to deny our other win. Just to suit your agenda, RR, I'm sure you could think of an excuse for any win Neeld conjures. We could win the last 10 this year and you'd still find a way to discredit them.

As I said, it's not exactly a strong 'keep Neeld' argument to say we've won five games. Let's just take that for what it is and move on.

This thread is also almost the opposite of MFCSS - this has been an attempt by some people to suggest that Neeld should either stay permanently or at least stay until the end of the year. MFCSS would be to say that the sky is falling in and we have to move him on immediately otherwise the club will cease to exist tomorrow (the actual view of some on here).

[rpfc 28,779]

Its people like you that are destroying this club, If you like the results FO and follow someone else, real fans hate getting flogged by 15 goals every week, FO RPFC, your aligned with board , I'm calling you out, no one could defend these losers unless they where part of it, you no someone that's part of this board, who defends 15 goals losses every single [censored] week, YOU DO.

You deserve a holiday for this, mjt.

I have no idea what your problem is with me or my thoughts on the Board or the Coach.

After the Essendon game I said both should go before 2014. I haven't re-said that every week like some on here because I don't feel the need to re-state it every Monday.

My view is that Jackson is the one with the AFL endorsement, he is the paratrooper with a mandate, he should manage Neeld's exit the best way he can.

Personally, I would wait until he knows the structure he wants in the FD, and can implement it, and at that time moves Neeld on. This will be costly, and may need this Friday's meeting with the AFL for a 'rubberstamp.'

As for the Board, I think that from reading the words of McLardy he knows it is time for change and time for him to go. I am happy to wait until seasons end for that and I want it to be similar to how Stynes and McLardy took over from Gardiner: Demons realising their time has come and handing over to new Demons in a bloodless and amicable fashion.

Some of the Board will remain and the Freeman/Jackson review is as close as we are ever going to get to a AFL-endorsed/outside Demon-endorsed view on the way forward for the make-up of the Board.

I think some of the angst is from a lack of comprehension. My view is hardly controversial: in laymans terms - PREZ, COACH GONE. LEAVE TIMING TO JACKSON. NO OPPOSING TICKET.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

Its the MFC so I estimate 2015 as they don't like to put too much pressure on anyone.

I have read in a few posts that winning is not that important.

Surely the MFC Board's theme song must be "I Don't Care".

Transvision Vamp..........you beauty!!!!!!!!

[Red&BlueBlood 61]

1st quarter against the pies was an example of how we can play if we follow the structure set by Neeeld.

As he said in his presser poor disposal is what killed us, not the coaching.

for those jumping on the get rid of Neeld bandwagon, Roos, Eade or who ever else we could get in as a replacement wont be able to change the disposal skills of our players.

KEEP FAITH IN NEELD I SAY!!!!!!!

[Strafford 182]

I know this wont help your narrow minded thinking, but changing the coach tomorrow doesn't add 100 games experience to trengove, Howe, toumpas, viney, jones and Evans. It doesn't work like that!!!!!

To me the experience issue is a double edged sword. It does have validity as a reason as to why we play as do, although our expectations of mature aged recruits such as M.Jones should be higher in the here and now, thus they should be viewed as a different category. I believe the experience mantra, (which is obviously a key message that Neeld uses) is a double edged sword because it is something the players have little control over. The players also can't add 100 games experience in the here and now by training hard etc etc that is down to time. To me part of a coaches job is to sell self belief and to build confidence, which is vital at the elite levels of any sport. If you continually tell them why they are unlikely to win and that reason is beyond their control, is it any wonder that their self belief is so fragile and that they so often lack the confidence to execute?

[CBDees 3,167]

Its great you have keep the faith, but you lost me when you left the need to start your post with an insult.

So I did not read any further.

Maybe you should start reading further and stop being close-minded. Some of the posters on here actually have some considered opinions worth taking on board!

[Strafford 182]

1st quarter against the pies was an example of how we can play if we follow the structure set by Neeeld.

As he said in his presser poor disposal is what killed us, not the coaching.

for those jumping on the get rid of Neeld bandwagon, Roos, Eade or who ever else we could get in as a replacement wont be able to change the disposal skills of our players.

KEEP FAITH IN NEELD I SAY!!!!!!!

Rawlings said prematch that we went back to basics around the West Coast, GWS game so I'm not sure we can be confident that the structure we are seeing now is how Neeld sees us playing in the future. Does that mean that how we set up in the Port and Bombers game is more indicative of our future structure, again hard to tell because there was undoubtedly a great deal of confusion with the structures, coupled with poor execution.

[CBDees 3,167]

You deserve a holiday for this, mjt.

I have no idea what your problem is with me or my thoughts on the Board or the Coach.

After the Essendon game I said both should go before 2014. I haven't re-said that every week like some on here because I don't feel the need to re-state it every Monday.

My view is that Jackson is the one with the AFL endorsement, he is the paratrooper with a mandate, he should manage Neeld's exit the best way he can.

Personally, I would wait until he knows the structure he wants in the FD, and can implement it, and at that time moves Neeld on. This will be costly, and may need this Friday's meeting with the AFL for a 'rubberstamp.'

As for the Board, I think that from reading the words of McLardy he knows it is time for change and time for him to go. I am happy to wait until seasons end for that and I want it to be similar to how Stynes and McLardy took over from Gardiner: Demons realising their time has come and handing over to new Demons in a bloodless and amicable fashion.

Some of the Board will remain and the Freeman/Jackson review is as close as we are ever going to get to a AFL-endorsed/outside Demon-endorsed view on the way forward for the make-up of the Board.

I think some of the angst is from a lack of comprehension. My view is hardly controversial: in laymans terms - PREZ, COACH GONE. LEAVE TIMING TO JACKSON. NO OPPOSING TICKET.

It worries Me that some Demonlanders deliberately target threads where they can be negative without being open-minded enough to objectively read the rationale expressed by other posters who may have alternate viewpoint!

[Generation dee 1,336]

To me the experience issue is a double edged sword. It does have validity as a reason as to why we play as do, although our expectations of mature aged recruits such as M.Jones should be higher in the here and now, thus they should be viewed as a different category. I believe the experience mantra, (which is obviously a key message that Neeld uses) is a double edged sword because it is something the players have little control over. The players also can't add 100 games experience in the here and now by training hard etc etc that is down to time. To me part of a coaches job is to sell self belief and to build confidence, which is vital at the elite levels of any sport. If you continually tell them why they are unlikely to win and that reason is beyond their control, is it any wonder that their self belief is so fragile and that they so often lack the confidence to execute?

That's a fantastic post. That you could reply with an actual point, as opposed to "sack neeld" is a credit to you.

The unfortunate thing about experience is it can not be fast tracked. We are in a position that hasn't been seen before. Not only have we drafted poorly, but through the draft concessions and talent pool drain we haven't had that influx of players to pull us up the ladder (which st kilda, western bulldogs and Adelaide are about to find out). Not only has that stunted our improvement, but it has allowed the teams who were rebuilding at similar times to overtake us. Think of north, Richmond, Brisbane and port, all teams who have had strong leaders to fast track that development.

Self belief and confidence are definitely the 2 mental challenges we are facing. I know that neeld and co say through the media that we are inexperienced and that we won't be as competitive, but I sincerely doubt he would say to the players that he doesn't think they would win. If he was saying behind closed doors to players that they can't win, well I will join in and say he should be moved on effective today. But I don't think that is the case. Last nights press conference was the first time he has mentioned the senior players skill issues. We have all been calling for Mckenzie, Dunn, sellar etc to be shafted due to that, and finally it seems the coaching group have cottoned on. I think we now draw a line through Dunn and say he is in the same boat as sellar etc, and that is that he only plays when terlich, grimes, garland or whoever are injured. I think Davis deserves a sustained run in that spot, or Strauss, and that we stop playing these sub standard senior players. as you mentioned, Matt jones and terlich have come in and played a specific role, with more physically prepared bodies for afl footy that taggert, viney, toumpas etc dont yet possess.

I don't believe that any dee fan yesterday couldn't see some positives early on in terms of our intent, pressure and some pieces of ball movement. But we all saw the self belief drop when collingwood kicked the first few goals in the second term, pretty much all from turnovers or decision making issues. That self belief disappeared entirely when Dawes went down. I think it's best for our on field structures if we get some sustained run with a settled team over the next month, 6 weeks. The midfield group need to continually play together, if toumpas is going to play hbf, then leave him there for a month. Same with blease and watts across half forward.

It's tough for everyone seeing 70+ losses week in week out, and it s*its me no end listening to other flogs in the media spin doom and gloom about the club. But there is no quick fix, especially when 5 of the first picked players are injured and we have just played 3 of this years top 6 teams. Neeld isn't a bloke who is easy to warm to, especially after he made decisions to cut certain players and draft some fringe players at other clubs as replacement. But I think in time, those choices will show to be correct. We've just got to keep hoping that comes sooner rather than later.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Sorry its the 80 plus floggings that make me so closed minded.

I wish I was like the Pro MN camp supporters and simple don't care.

Life would be simpler.

Maybe you should start reading further and stop being close-minded. Some of the posters on here actually have some considered opinions worth taking on board!

[Generation dee 1,336]

Sorry its the 80 plus floggings that make me so closed minded.

I wish I was like the Pro MN camp supporters and simple don't care.

Life would be simpler.

That is one of the most ridiculous comments I've read. Don't care? How about opening your eyes to some positives and look at the bigger picture? You think the supposed "pro neeld" club is happy with big losses? Or that the demon supporter base is so divided? I am definitely not pro neeld. But I have enough footy knowledge to realise that there are positives there. Sure, your argument back will be close minded like "83 points on Monday" or my favourite "5 wins out of 36". But you don't understand just how far behind this group was before neeld, Craig and mission arrived. Everyone has said it, from neeld and Craig, to cale bloody Morton! You can't just make the human body start working 50% harder right away, or you have a situation like essendon last year with a huge soft tissue injury count. It's a gradual improvement, its standards increasing and effort increasing. Instead of playing good quarters, its a half, then 3 quarters, then a full game.

If you think a new coach coming in next week would benefit anyone, you are off the mark. 14 more games with an interim coach, before a new coach next year who comes in and changes the way they play again. You just don't turn Evans, trengove, viney, blease, toumpas and Kent into 35possession, 5 clearance players overnight. But at least they have Nate jones, jack grimes and now rodan to learn from, as opposed to Moloney and other players with questionable work ethic. But they will, because individually they are hard workers and keen to improve. Which is why they were drafted.

But if you keep abusing posters as not caring, just because they can find a positive and see all the change coming to the playing group and footy department that WILL make us better, then that just shows your incapability to have any open minded thinking as an individual.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Agreed.

Jake Niall's article on the weekend further shows how sacking Neeld now could in fact be worse for us than better. Keeping Neeld until the end of the year and then sacking him, replacing him not with a caretaker but with our next coach, is the best option we have.

The argument that we've only had one win because the other four were against GWS and GC ignores the fact that if they didn't exist, their bevies of talent would be spread out across the other 16 clubs, including us. For that reason, it's ridiculous.

You've also added in the 'Essendon wasn't trying' excuse, to deny our other win. Just to suit your agenda, RR, I'm sure you could think of an excuse for any win Neeld conjures. We could win the last 10 this year and you'd still find a way to discredit them.

As I said, it's not exactly a strong 'keep Neeld' argument to say we've won five games. Let's just take that for what it is and move on.

This thread is also almost the opposite of MFCSS - this has been an attempt by some people to suggest that Neeld should either stay permanently or at least stay until the end of the year. MFCSS would be to say that the sky is falling in and we have to move him on immediately otherwise the club will cease to exist tomorrow (the actual view of some on here).

If ever there was a post that sort to put gloss on a proverbial ----, it's your response. The only accurate comment you have made is that we should take it for whati it is. It's 5 wins from.33 games with 4 of those wins against development clubs that DO exist. Your efforts to claim that if they don't exist do stretch into the realm of fantasy and the ridiculous.

Neeld has been a disaster from his appointment to how far backward we are today. He is not the sole problem but he is definitely one of them.

FWIW, I would think your rankings are MFCSS at its best ....or worst.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

We didn't try to stop him. No-one went near him.

Probably a more damning assessment about how damaging Swan actually is relative to the other mids. Many clubs don't tag him.

Or are you contending that Neeld wouldn't know who the damaging Pies mids are?

It's laughable how many keyboard experts here have patronised Neeld's game day moves against the Pies - in particular the midfield. I mean, seriously ...

[Weedster 174]

If ever there was a post that sort to put gloss on a proverbial ----, it's your response. The only accurate comment you have made is that we should take it for whati it is. It's 5 wins from.33 games with 4 of those wins against development clubs that DO exist. Your efforts to claim that if they don't exist do stretch into the realm of fantasy and the ridiculous.

Neeld has been a disaster from his appointment to how far backward we are today. He is not the sole problem but he is definitely one of them.

FWIW, I would think your rankings are MFCSS at its best ....or worst.

Unfortunately this is the bottom line. We have gone backwards so badly under MN that it is hard to recall a worse AFL team - simple fact, we are being routinely beaten every week by 60, 70, 80 points. We are completely uncompetitive. Listening to the post match on the way home, even unbiased commentators were struggling to understand what game plan we were trying to execute. We are a rabble, and the buck stops with the coach.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

If ever there was a post that sort to put gloss on a proverbial ----, it's your response. The only accurate comment you have made is that we should take it for whati it is. It's 5 wins from.33 games with 4 of those wins against development clubs that DO exist. Your efforts to claim that if they don't exist do stretch into the realm of fantasy and the ridiculous.

Neeld has been a disaster from his appointment to how far backward we are today. He is not the sole problem but he is definitely one of them.

FWIW, I would think your rankings are MFCSS at its best ....or worst.

Where have I stated that I think Neeld has been a good coach? I haven't, and I'm not trying to defend his performances because the team has been deplorably bad this year.

I'm simply attacking the ridiculous argument that we've only 'won' one game (or in your deluded mind, zero). We've won five games. We might not have beaten Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong, and obviously the quality of the opponent affects the value of the victory, but the argument was put, which you agreed with, that the four wins against GC and GWS aren't really wins because they're expansion sides. I reject that.

At no stage have I said that those five wins make Neeld a good coach. Clearly, they don't. I don't think he's a good coach, I think he's a poor coach and I don't want him to be here in 2014. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore history just to push my agenda, like you.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Where have I stated that I think Neeld has been a good coach? I haven't, and I'm not trying to defend his performances because the team has been deplorably bad this year.

I'm simply attacking the ridiculous argument that we've only 'won' one game (or in your deluded mind, zero). We've won five games. We might not have beaten Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong, and obviously the quality of the opponent affects the value of the victory, but the argument was put, which you agreed with, that the four wins against GC and GWS aren't really wins because they're expansion sides. I reject that.

At no stage have I said that those five wins make Neeld a good coach. Clearly, they don't. I don't think he's a good coach, I think he's a poor coach and I don't want him to be here in 2014. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore history just to push my agenda, like you.

I am not sure what your agenda is but you inability or in capability not to differentiate a win against a development side as against an established club with a mature experienced list is unbelievable and the steps you have taken to defend it are amazing. And your constant need to misrepresent my and other points of view to create a faux veneer of credibility is more reflective of the shortcomings of your argument.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Probably a more damning assessment about how damaging Swan actually is relative to the other mids. Many clubs don't tag him.

Or are you contending that Neeld wouldn't know who the damaging Pies mids are?

It's laughable how many keyboard experts here have patronised Neeld's game day moves against the Pies - in particular the midfield. I mean, seriously ...

Almost as bad Ron as those supporters who make claims about other Clubs who they don't see. It's a bit rich to claim many clubs don't tag Swan.