The Keep Mark Neeld Thread

[pm24 451]

I think the focus of many of these discussions are misplaced. Rather than focusing on whether we should keep or sack Neeld, I think the question should be, do we allow the current football department more time to work on this rebuild of the playing list and the club given all the cultural and structural issues that have been highlighted within the football department.

I'm neither for or against Neeld. I'm for this club rebuilding, and sticking to it's guns and showing some integrity to let a group of people appointed for 3 years to rebuild the club, to be given 3 years to rebuild the club. However, given what we know about the structural and cultural issues now, it would seem that the task was possibly greater and harder than originally envisioned.

I'm for allowing Peter Jackson to put in place the new structures that are required to help drive this club towards success. I'm for a revamp of the Board to provide real leadership for this club. I'm for giving the young playing list time to develop.

Are the results, or more to the point, the manner in which we are losing acceptable??? No

But I believe our clubs list has been destroyed by the mismanagement of the past administrations and football departments. Spuds cannot just suddenly be turned into stars.

My only argument regarding the Neeld debate is that even if he has negatively affected some within the club (or previously with the club) that the overall direction with regard to the new standards and expectations being placed on players, and the improved and more consistent form of guys like Garland, Davey, Jones, Sylvia show that some things are working.

So, for me, time is needed in order to properly review and assess the performance of the coaching group, and this cannot be done properly until the other issues are sorted out. If Neeld is identified as the problem at that time, then see you later Mark. Thanks for your efforts, it just didn't work out. But, I think, for the sake of the clubs reputation that call should not be made until either the end of this season, or preferably the end of next season. Otherwise it doesn't send a good message to prospective coaching appointments.

Edited June 12, 2013 by pm24

[titan_uranus 22,438]

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.

Your hypocrisy is borderline hilarious.

Misrepresenting points of view? Just a couple of posts above you tried to imply I was defending Neeld, when I was doing no such thing.

Agendas? You stated that we'd won 5 of the last 33, that four were expansion side victories, and the last one was to Essendon, who were simultaneously not trying and unfit. That statement is pure agenda-pushing - discrediting Neeld's five victories to further belittle him.

If there is one person on this board with a 'faux veneer of credibility', it's you.

[binman 38,402]

The dees had a red hot go in the first quarter. Gary Lyon said it is the best quarter of football we have played under Neeld. We were fresh, tackling with purpose and had Dawes up and about. We were playing a side just in the 8 who are a long way off their best. Our second quarter was not as intense but the effort was pretty good. I said to mate my mate at half time something along the lines of - you can't knock the effort.

So we played almost at our best, the effort was there.Yes we had some big outs (Grimes, Clark and Frawley) but realistically not that many so not miles away from having our best side on the park (and of course they have their share of big outs).

We were 13 points at half time, with a woeful number of inside 50s, most of which were shallow in Neeld speak.

Yes there were some very poor skills but 13 points in a half? When we were competitive and it was a perfect day for football? Surely that has to be sheeted home to the coach and the game plan he is trying to implement. Yes of course you could say that the players are not implementing it properly etc etc but come on 13 points?

13 points (in a half where we actually played ok - what would have happened if were terrible?) is not acceptable, forget the effort. Keep Neeld? What the?

Anyway forget the deabete its all moot. As i have said ad naseum such thrashing"s and inability to score cannot be sustained. My tip is that McClardy will quit and Neeld will be sacked at the same time 'í selected him and am duty bound to also fall on my sword blah blah" Monday of next week. Gonski.

[titan_uranus 22,438]

We were 13 points at half time, with a woeful number of inside 50s, most of which were shallow in Neeld speak.

Yes there were some very poor skills but 13 points in a half? When we were competitive and it was a perfect day for football? Surely that has to be sheeted home to the coach and the game plan he is trying to implement. Yes of course you could say that the players are not implementing it properly etc etc but come on 13 points?

13 points (in a half where we actually played ok - what would have happened if were terrible?) is not acceptable, forget the effort. Keep Neeld? What the?

Anyway forget the deabete its all moot. As i have said ad naseum such thrashing"s and inability to score cannot be sustained. My tip is that McClardy will quit and Neeld will be sacked at the same time 'í selected him and am duty bound to also fall on my sword blah blah" Monday of next week. Gonski.

IMO focusing on the 13 points isn't as relevant as the number of scoring shots we were able to generate. We were 1.7. The skill errors causing most of those 8 shots to be behinds and not goals clouds what I think is the better analysis, which is that we were only able to generate 8 shots on goal in a half of football.

For comparison, against Collingwood it was 8 shots to 18. Against Hawthorn it was 8 to 22. Against Fremantle it was 4 to 20. Richmond - 9 to 16. Gold Coast - 10 to 17. Carlton - 10 to 12. Brisbane - 12 to 18. GWS - 14 to 16. WCE - 11 to 16. Essendon - 9 to 19. Port Adelaide - 9 to 18.

So as you can see, we've had no more than 14 shots in the first half in any game this year. Conversely, the best we've done is keeping Carlton to 12, and every other side has had 16 or more. In the last month we've really struggled to generate enough scores in the first half to remain competitive. No more than 9, and our opponents no less than 16. In our more 'competitive' games (Carlton, Brisbane, GWS, first half against West Coast) we were able to get that number up above 10, and in some instances even keep the difference small (Carlton, GWS). In our non-competitive games (Port, Essendon, GC, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Collingwood) you can see we were getting belted by half time.

Neeld spoke about it in the press conference - possession chains coming out of the backline. This is what is killing us the most of anything, and it's what we need to be working on the most, I think.

[binman 38,402]

IMO focusing on the 13 points isn't as relevant as the number of scoring shots we were able to generate. We were 1.7. The skill errors causing most of those 8 shots to be behinds and not goals clouds what I think is the better analysis, which is that we were only able to generate 8 shots on goal in a half of football.

For comparison, against Collingwood it was 8 shots to 18. Against Hawthorn it was 8 to 22. Against Fremantle it was 4 to 20. Richmond - 9 to 16. Gold Coast - 10 to 17. Carlton - 10 to 12. Brisbane - 12 to 18. GWS - 14 to 16. WCE - 11 to 16. Essendon - 9 to 19. Port Adelaide - 9 to 18.

So as you can see, we've had no more than 14 shots in the first half in any game this year. Conversely, the best we've done is keeping Carlton to 12, and every other side has had 16 or more. In the last month we've really struggled to generate enough scores in the first half to remain competitive. No more than 9, and our opponents no less than 16. In our more 'competitive' games (Carlton, Brisbane, GWS, first half against West Coast) we were able to get that number up above 10, and in some instances even keep the difference small (Carlton, GWS). In our non-competitive games (Port, Essendon, GC, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Collingwood) you can see we were getting belted by half time.

Neeld spoke about it in the press conference - possession chains coming out of the backline. This is what is killing us the most of anything, and it's what we need to be working on the most, I think.

Good points, well made. I agree that we need to really focus on being able to link up and get the chains of possessions happening. But i would argue that this inability to get scoring shots to an acceptable level is a function of the game he is asking them to play or an inability for him to teach them how to play it. Suddenly we seem to be talking about this team as if they have no ability at all. I mean jeez were were better last year and getting into our forward half. Again the theme from Neeld seems to be blame the players for everything rather than take responsibility for changing what he controls.

Again its is on the coached head. And if the approach is not resulting in more than 8 scoring shots in a half than put simply the coach has to change something. Because he can talk all he wants about the future, building blocks etc but the teams confidence is shattered, morale among the fans is a ll time low and there is nothing, nothing more dispiriting than not scoring in footy. Actually that's not true - not looking like scoring is worse.

One of my concerns about Neeld is that he doesn't seem to get the psychological aspect of his role. Teams need spirit, fans need something to cheer about. if the current approach isn't working, change - at least in the short term. Change the approach, just as Neelds mentor has said he has just a couple of weeks ago when recognized the blues side he had inherited needed an more offensive focus to be successful.

Edited June 12, 2013 by binman

[Scipio 5,868]

IMO focusing on the 13 points isn't as relevant as the number of scoring shots we were able to generate. We were 1.7. The skill errors causing most of those 8 shots to be behinds and not goals clouds what I think is the better analysis, which is that we were only able to generate 8 shots on goal in a half of football.

For comparison, against Collingwood it was 8 shots to 18. Against Hawthorn it was 8 to 22. Against Fremantle it was 4 to 20. Richmond - 9 to 16. Gold Coast - 10 to 17. Carlton - 10 to 12. Brisbane - 12 to 18. GWS - 14 to 16. WCE - 11 to 16. Essendon - 9 to 19. Port Adelaide - 9 to 18.

So as you can see, we've had no more than 14 shots in the first half in any game this year. Conversely, the best we've done is keeping Carlton to 12, and every other side has had 16 or more. In the last month we've really struggled to generate enough scores in the first half to remain competitive. No more than 9, and our opponents no less than 16. In our more 'competitive' games (Carlton, Brisbane, GWS, first half against West Coast) we were able to get that number up above 10, and in some instances even keep the difference small (Carlton, GWS). In our non-competitive games (Port, Essendon, GC, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Collingwood) you can see we were getting belted by half time.

Neeld spoke about it in the press conference - possession chains coming out of the backline. This is what is killing us the most of anything, and it's what we need to be working on the most, I think.

In a way Neeld has shown some flexibility here. It seemed as though his game plan initially involved kicking to packs out on the flanks (which we still do often), targeting a tall ie Jamar or Clark. Now however there seems to be more focus on short possession and hitting up targets to get out of the back half. I take this as a positive - he has realised what we were trying earlier wasn't working and has altered it to be more effective.

Now we just need someone to teach the guys how to kick and how to move/present for their team mates.

[binman 38,402]

I take this as a positive - he has realised what we were trying earlier wasn't working and has altered it to be more effective.

You think? I'm not convinced, but lets say you're right and he has changed his game plan to be more effective. Another epic fail. Look at the figures Titan posted above. We are getting worse not better at scoring to half time! Our last 3 weeks have been 8, 8 and 4 scoring shots (yes i know they're all good sides but c'mon that's woeful, particularly given the hawks don't play a lock down style and collingwood only really pressed in one quarter). Against Carlton and West Coast, two good sides we had 10 and 11 respectively.

So you change your game plan and it doesn't work because the players skill are not up for it. But you as a coach know that better than any one. And its their fault?

Anyway i don't see chipping it around as a change in game plan. Going down the corridor and trying to score as many points as possible is a change of gameplan

Edited June 12, 2013 by binman

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Your hypocrisy is borderline hilarious.

Misrepresenting points of view? Just a couple of posts above you tried to imply I was defending Neeld, when I was doing no such thing.

Agendas? You stated that we'd won 5 of the last 33, that four were expansion side victories, and the last one was to Essendon, who were simultaneously not trying and unfit. That statement is pure agenda-pushing - discrediting Neeld's five victories to further belittle him.

If there is one person on this board with a 'faux veneer of credibility', it's you.

Nice bit of hyperbole with the agendas. I don't have to belittle Neeld as a coach when he is 5/33 and 4 of those victories were gimmes against development sides.

Gloss it anyway you want,

[Pipefitter 2,020]

If Neeld stays until the end of the season we will be playing to Sheffield shield crowds. There are people who think we actually have a chance against the saints and bulldogs. We are 80 points worse than every team in the competiton bar GWS (though I'm worried as we play them again).

[Strafford 182]

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.

Hopefully it wasn't intended, but the first sentence of your post came across as pretty condescending mate. There have been a number of pretty thoughtful well articulated arguments by both those for and against Neeld being sacked.

I don't see any reason to believe that what Neeld says to the media about experience is any different to what he tells players behind closed doors, as it does seem a core belief, which as I wrote isn't without validity.He certainly used it prematch last season against the

Suns. I just don't think he recognises the negatives associated with continually making reference to something that is for the most part out of the players control.

There are ways at AFL level to mitigate experience deficits in relation to player performance. One is, as we have done, bring in mature age guys from the lesser leagues. These guys generally have bodies up to the rigours of AFL football and have played in a better standard of comp than the various underage ones for at least a few years. Thus why players such as M.Jones and Terlich have been a couple of our better performers. I don't like how Neeld continually lumps our mature aged recruits and the kids into the same basket though.The mature agers should get it before the kids.

Another is to have strong well defined roles within solid structures on matchday. I don't think we have that. Neeld continually refers to our inexperience yet overloaded them with theory with his "University of football" thus as Rawlings stated having to go back to the basics around the GWS game. If you have a number of inexperienced players you need to keep it simple.

As you rightly say we probably haven't enough experienced players to show our kids the right ropes as that is another way to fast track development. I doubt anyone would have said Port had strong leaders last season or when Richmond were struggling with both a young and inexperienced side.

Yes he did mention skill issues, but J.Viney and Terlich are actually averaging more clangers than the guys he probably means such as Dunn and Jordie. We have a number of guys whose clanger rate considering their possession average and disposal percentage for their position isn't great. Across all categories of players mature age retreads, kids, experienced players pre Neeld, those we have traded for and the mature agers from lower leagues. If we are training the house down why can't guys hit targets when in the clear?

I honestly don't believe where we are is all Neeld's fault, but I also think he has exacerbated a few things. In my mind it has to be seen as a failure that we have been poor in our opening games, but more damning much worse in our second ones. Given his penchant for quoting history, surely he was aware that games with emotional significance can go a number of ways, one of those is badly once the emotional energy runs out. In my mind he badly mishandled the aftermath of our first game last season with predictable results.

I continually have " say what" moments when I listen to him. For example his Toumpas comment, linking him with Hogan due to his hip problems. If Neeld believes Toumpas is behind the eight ball due to physical issues then why set him up to fail in round one. Why risk his confidence?

I don't think it is as simple as Neeld sucks, but nor do I believe that he is just a victim of our club. He said himself " I do things my way"

[Pipefitter 2,020]

" I Do things my way ". Neeld your arrogance and complete overestimation of your knowledge of the game is mindboggling. Complete discredit any work that had been done before. Look how well the "Neeld way" is going.

Absolute disaster of a coach. Can't wait for this nightmare to be over.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Pipefitter

[dazzledavey36 48,844]

come on guys

Neeld is rubbish, why the hell defend him?

Lets not forget who hired him by the way - Garry Lyon, the same bozo that got us Dean Baiey

Anything that Lyon did to this club needs to be undone asap

Agree its the same muppets that continue to find [censored] weak excuses and accept mediocrity for so long.

[Lordweaver 235]

_{5 reasons to keep Neeld}

_{1. Top Bloke}

_{2. Coached Ocean Grove to a couple of premierships}

_{3. Looks a lot like Michael douglas in falling down}

_{4. Tries hard}

_{5 If he goes then maybe so does craig and co}

[Scipio 5,868]

_{5 reasons to keep Neeld}

_{1. Top Bloke}

_{2. Coached Ocean Grove to a couple of premierships}

_{3. Looks a lot like Michael douglas in falling down}

_{4. Tries hard}

_{5 If he goes then maybe so does craig and co}

Why did you have to make that, so... damn... small

[Lordweaver 235]

Why did you have to make that, so... damn... small

You must need glasses Django or perhaps my reasons are not worth the time of day

[Generation dee 1,336]

Hopefully it wasn't intended, but the first sentence of your post came across as pretty condescending mate. There have been a number of pretty thoughtful well articulated arguments by both those for and against Neeld being sacked.

I don't see any reason to believe that what Neeld says to the media about experience is any different to what he tells players behind closed doors, as it does seem a core belief, which as I wrote isn't without validity.He certainly used it prematch last season against the

Suns. I just don't think he recognises the negatives associated with continually making reference to something that is for the most part out of the players control.

There are ways at AFL level to mitigate experience deficits in relation to player performance. One is, as we have done, bring in mature age guys from the lesser leagues. These guys generally have bodies up to the rigours of AFL football and have played in a better standard of comp than the various underage ones for at least a few years. Thus why players such as M.Jones and Terlich have been a couple of our better performers. I don't like how Neeld continually lumps our mature aged recruits and the kids into the same basket though.The mature agers should get it before the kids.

Another is to have strong well defined roles within solid structures on matchday. I don't think we have that. Neeld continually refers to our inexperience yet overloaded them with theory with his "University of football" thus as Rawlings stated having to go back to the basics around the GWS game. If you have a number of inexperienced players you need to keep it simple.

As you rightly say we probably haven't enough experienced players to show our kids the right ropes as that is another way to fast track development. I doubt anyone would have said Port had strong leaders last season or when Richmond were struggling with both a young and inexperienced side.

Yes he did mention skill issues, but J.Viney and Terlich are actually averaging more clangers than the guys he probably means such as Dunn and Jordie. We have a number of guys whose clanger rate considering their possession average and disposal percentage for their position isn't great. Across all categories of players mature age retreads, kids, experienced players pre Neeld, those we have traded for and the mature agers from lower leagues. If we are training the house down why can't guys hit targets when in the clear?

I honestly don't believe where we are is all Neeld's fault, but I also think he has exacerbated a few things. In my mind it has to be seen as a failure that we have been poor in our opening games, but more damning much worse in our second ones. Given his penchant for quoting history, surely he was aware that games with emotional significance can go a number of ways, one of those is badly once the emotional energy runs out. In my mind he badly mishandled the aftermath of our first game last season with predictable results.

I continually have " say what" moments when I listen to him. For example his Toumpas comment, linking him with Hogan due to his hip problems. If Neeld believes Toumpas is behind the eight ball due to physical issues then why set him up to fail in round one. Why risk his confidence?

I don't think it is as simple as Neeld sucks, but nor do I believe that he is just a victim of our club. He said himself " I do things my way"

Not condescending at all. I found it highly engaging that someone has replied to a post of mine with something intelligent.

You do raise a number of good points, however stats can be very misleading in that regard. For example, Melbourne are ranked below Sydney in clanged averages per game, and we also are more efficient per match than Adelaide, freo, Sydney and WCE. So that to me would suggest we aren't making as many mistakes. However, when you take into account what part of the oval these changers occur, you get an understanding of 1- why we aren't generating sufficient inside 50's, and 2- why teams are able to rebound and score so heavily against us.

Also, you wouldn't believe, but cam pederson and James sellar actually rank 3rd and 7th for overall disposal efficiency at our club with 83 and 79% respectively. It just highlights again how stats can be misleading. Terlich sits at a respectable 73% (alongside jordie) while Dunn is around 68%.

I agree with you mentioning the emotional aspect of games. The adrenaline you get from the initial "pump up" wears off early in the first quarter. Which I think is a credit to essendon that they continue to get up for games while they have the psychological issues of a pending drug investigation.

Answer this though, strafford. Do you think neeld has changed his demeanour from early last lesson, comparable to now? As I posted previously, I don't think he was ever the media charming type of Paul roos. But personally I feel he has improved and doesn't throw as many big statements around a anymore, and has shown considerable more care for most of his players than previously.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Generation dee

[DemonFrog 1,347]

come on guys

Neeld is rubbish, why the hell defend him?

Lets not forget who hired him by the way - Garry Lyon, the same bozo that got us Dean Baiey

Anything that Lyon did to this club needs to be undone asap

You have my vote to be on the selection panel for a new coach.

As you are straight to the point and clearly don't like BS.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,484]

Psychological. Our skills and decisions looked fine in the first quarter.

I beg to differ. Our effort was better in the first quarter but the skills and decision making were still quite poor, one example being the continued practice of kicking the ball over the targets head or sitting it on top of his head so he has to remain stationary and allow his opponent to come over the top to spoil or mark the ball. It happened multiple times in the first quarter right in front of me on the Southern Stand wing.

I tear my hair out watching these fundamental errors as a supporter, I can only imagine how it would be being the coach knowing your career is riding on these basic skill and decision making errors. The term "coach-killers" has never been more apt.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[Hero1 74]

This is the worst coach in the VFL/AFL EVER. GET RID OF THE USELESS COACH.

[pm24 451]

This is the worst coach in the VFL/AFL EVER. GET RID OF THE USELESS COACH.

Thank you for such a well reasoned and argued post........

[Hannibal 5,814]

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 ...

Many don't tag Swan, because they consider Pendlebury more damaging and that Swan's possessions don't (always) hurt as much.

Only a dumbarse would think Swan wasn't doing major damage early on against the Dees. In that scenario you man him up pretty quickly.

It's called lateral thinking. A novelty on here I know.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,484]

I think the focus of many of these discussions are misplaced. Rather than focusing on whether we should keep or sack Neeld, I think the question should be, do we allow the current football department more time to work on this rebuild of the playing list and the club given all the cultural and structural issues that have been highlighted within the football department.

I'm neither for or against Neeld. I'm for this club rebuilding, and sticking to it's guns and showing some integrity to let a group of people appointed for 3 years to rebuild the club, to be given 3 years to rebuild the club. However, given what we know about the structural and cultural issues now, it would seem that the task was possibly greater and harder than originally envisioned.

I'm for allowing Peter Jackson to put in place the new structures that are required to help drive this club towards success. I'm for a revamp of the Board to provide real leadership for this club. I'm for giving the young playing list time to develop.

Are the results, or more to the point, the manner in which we are losing acceptable??? No

But I believe our clubs list has been destroyed by the mismanagement of the past administrations and football departments. Spuds cannot just suddenly be turned into stars.

My only argument regarding the Neeld debate is that even if he has negatively affected some within the club (or previously with the club) that the overall direction with regard to the new standards and expectations being placed on players, and the improved and more consistent form of guys like Garland, Davey, Jones, Sylvia show that some things are working.

So, for me, time is needed in order to properly review and assess the performance of the coaching group, and this cannot be done properly until the other issues are sorted out. If Neeld is identified as the problem at that time, then see you later Mark. Thanks for your efforts, it just didn't work out. But, I think, for the sake of the clubs reputation that call should not be made until either the end of this season, or preferably the end of next season. Otherwise it doesn't send a good message to prospective coaching appointments.

This is an excellent post. Neeld was given a mandate to change the culture of the entire club when appointed, something that even experienced coaches would find difficult let alone a rookie. Then when some noses get put out of joint people are surprised or even upset about it? He is trying to overturn a cultur that has been embedded since the Daniher days and probably back even further.

Not only that but he had to reshape the list after we had wasted years of high pick on guys like Morton, Gysberts & Cook and had one of if not the poorest fitness base in the league.

I didn't think we'd be this bad this year and can understand why others have gone past the point of no return with Neeld and want him sacked yesterday as our results really are untenable. However I'd give him this year's off-season to see if he can get some midfield talent in through draft/trade/FA, get another pre-season into the players and get rid of some more of the deadwood.

I'm not saying Neeld is the answer because to be honest I don't think he has really had a chance to have a proper evaluation yet. When you see constant basic skill and decision making errors made and you see the "talent" of some of the guys on our list it's clear the reason people can't figure out what the game plan is is because the players are totally incapable of even stringing together chains of possessions let alone carrying out a comprehensive game plan. Give him a chance to turn over 10 more players this year and try to beef up the midfield (our one real weakness yet also the most important part of modern footy) and if he can't produce the results by mid-next year he's gone. It is a risk (and some will say too big a risk) of having another wasted year but I think it is the only way to properly assess whether Neeld is able to carry out the mandate we gave him.

I should point out that I agree with comments on both sides of the argument here. BH's post pointing out the contradictions in some of his statements are quite damning as are some of his other actions since becoming coach. I'd also persevere with some guys like Strauss and Blease for the rest of the year to see if they can settle in and earn a senior spot for next year. They have skills, something our team sorely lacks yet have other deficiencies which they are unable to iron out of their games due to being yo-yo'd in and out fo the side. I'd keep them in over guys like Dunn or Nicholson and see if they are able to settle in for the remainder of the season.

I'd rather see changes made to the board etc first and see the positions of guys like Mahoney and Harrington addressed before sacking Neeld.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[The Yarra 83]

This is the worst coach in the VFL/AFL EVER. GET RID OF THE USELESS COACH.

Is that you Rhino?

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Many say he is and some say he is not, the worst coach ever and we all been told by the MFC CEO that he is unable to tell if he canactually coach.

There is a simple way to tell if a coach is doing his job well.

Just look at the scored board at the end of each game!

It not that hard to do.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Name the last team to have sub 50% on the ladder in the last 40 years of the AFL/VFL at the half-way mark in the season. There's no better way to judge competitiveness than percentage.

The excuses made for Nerd are extraordinary. He lost the players the moment he walked in the door.

Or perhaps you consider we have the worst list in 40 years. This despite having the greatest access to early draft talent in history. Either way, what a shambles.