Pm24, you had me nodding along until being open to the possibility of allowing Neeld until the end of NEXT season. There is no way on God's earth the club can afford a THIRD season in a row like the last two. We'll be playing in front of 10K crowds and calls for QB to be taken off us will become alot louder.

I'm open to him staying til the end of this season, but it would surely require a monumental turn around in order for him to be coaching this club in 2014.

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.

Not necessarily considering most of our access to high picks occured in during the introduction of two expansion clubs.

Also other clubs had high picks, see WCE in 2008 with same amount of round 1 picks + a priority pick.

Granted we had the best picks in 2009, with Scully and TRENGOVE, one year is hardly "the greatest access to early draft talent in history"... GWS easily holds that title that with last year's draft picks and talent on offer.

You were better at insults and picking on spelling mistakes...

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

Well he summed up the truth. Pretty reasonable response actually.

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.

Look at our list and the amount of NQR's and outright spuds on there. I'd list the following as fitting into that bracket;

McKenzie, Dunn, Pedersen, Nicholson, Gillies, MacDonald, Sellar, Davis, Spencer, Bail, Fitzpatrick

That's more than a quarter of the list.

Then you have the following who are either past it or questionable as to whether they have the ability to make it or not;

Byrnes, Rodan, Strauss, Tynan, Barry, Tapscott, Davey, Jetta, Jamar, Taggert.

That's another quarter of the list. So either half the list are NQR's/spuds or are either over-the-hill or haven't shown they have what it takes.

Then you have guys like Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones, Terlich, Evans all in their first seasons (except Evans) who have shown something but not experienced enough to have a significant impact yet.

There is also the category of players like Blease, McDonald, Gawn, Watts who have been around for a few years and shown they have talent but haven't been able to play consistently well.

So really there is a core group of players in N Jones, Dawes, Frawley, Trengove, Clark, Sylvia, Garland, Grimes and Howe and even a couple of those you could probably throw into the "good yet inconsistent" pile and two of the others have struggled to stay on the park.

So yes, I would say that we are pretty close to having the worst list in 40 years, and to be more precise, the worst list of midfielders in 40 years. In any given squad of 22 you need at least a dozen midfielders, a couple of key forwards and key backs, a ruckman, a small defender and small forward. We have N Jones as our only senior midfielder in the true sense of the word (Trengove, Sylvia, Howe and Grimes are really more your flanker types at this stage). We recruited some last year (Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones) and hoping they come on as midfielders and need to recruit another half dozen or so this year.

It is most definitely a shambles considering our draft positions over recent years but that is an indictment on those who were in charge at the time. I don't for one second think Neeld is the saviour but I would give him at least the rest of this year to see what he can do in the second half and hopefully with some injured players returning and then I would give him another off-season to mould the list and work on their fitness again. By next year he would have had the 3 pre-seasons he said he needed so there would be no excuses for at least 75% of the team to be up to scratch (considering he would probably turn over 10 more players). Then we will be able to properly assess him next year and if there is no improvement he'll be out the door by mid-season.

I just look at our stats and see things like Collingwood scoring 89 of 122 points via turnovers and can't understand how that can be an indictment on anything other than the skill and decision making errors of the players. Being at the ground it is blatantly obvious that the players just make these errors time and again. One thing he does need to sort out quickly is our forward structure because similar to when Bailey was coach often we will win the ball coming out of defense and look up to see no-one forward. Our players natural instinct is to bolt towards our goals however with no-one there they either bomb long to no-one, stop and get tackled or handball/chip kick sideways to a player under pressure who coughs up the ball. T

Not necessarily considering most of our access to high picks occured in during the introduction of two expansion clubs.

Also other clubs had high picks, see WCE in 2008 with same amount of round 1 picks + a priority pick.

Granted we had the best picks in 2009, with Scully and TRENGOVE, one year is hardly "the greatest access to early draft talent in history"... GWS easily holds that title that with last year's draft picks and talent on offer.

You were better at insults and picking on spelling mistakes...

You're an inconsequential fool. Clearly I'm talking about established clubs - as my "40" year reference attests. Our access to top 20 picks is legendary.

Look, I know I excite you, but you're a novice. And a desperate bore. I prefer not to eliminate posters, but my time is precious these days.

Look at our list and the amount of NQR's and outright spuds on there. I'd list the following as fitting into that bracket;

McKenzie, Dunn, Pedersen, Nicholson, Gillies, MacDonald, Sellar, Davis, Spencer, Bail, Fitzpatrick

That's more than a quarter of the list.

Then you have the following who are either past it or questionable as to whether they have the ability to make it or not;

Byrnes, Rodan, Strauss, Tynan, Barry, Tapscott, Davey, Jetta, Jamar, Taggert.

That's another quarter of the list. So either half the list are NQR's/spuds or are either over-the-hill or haven't shown they have what it takes.

Then you have guys like Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones, Terlich, Evans all in their first seasons (except Evans) who have shown something but not experienced enough to have a significant impact yet.

There is also the category of players like Blease, McDonald, Gawn, Watts who have been around for a few years and shown they have talent but haven't been able to play consistently well.

So really there is a core group of players in N Jones, Dawes, Frawley, Trengove, Clark, Sylvia, Garland, Grimes and Howe and even a couple of those you could probably throw into the "good yet inconsistent" pile and two of the others have struggled to stay on the park.

So yes, I would say that we are pretty close to having the worst list in 40 years, and to be more precise, the worst list of midfielders in 40 years. In any given squad of 22 you need at least a dozen midfielders, a couple of key forwards and key backs, a ruckman, a small defender and small forward. We have N Jones as our only senior midfielder in the true sense of the word (Trengove, Sylvia, Howe and Grimes are really more your flanker types at this stage). We recruited some last year (Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones) and hoping they come on as midfielders and need to recruit another half dozen or so this year.

It is most definitely a shambles considering our draft positions over recent years but that is an indictment on those who were in charge at the time. I don't for one second think Neeld is the saviour but I would give him at least the rest of this year to see what he can do in the second half and hopefully with some injured players returning and then I would give him another off-season to mould the list and work on their fitness again. By next year he would have had the 3 pre-seasons he said he needed so there would be no excuses for at least 75% of the team to be up to scratch (considering he would probably turn over 10 more players). Then we will be able to properly assess him next year and if there is no improvement he'll be out the door by mid-season.

Neeld isn't the only problem and our midfield is dire, but the worst team performance in 40 years "talks". The effort levels "talk". List management "talks".

History will judge your and my stance accordingly.

You're an inconsequential fool. Clearly I'm talking about established clubs - as my "40" year reference attests. Our access to top 20 picks is legendary.

Look, I know I excite you, but you're a novice. And a desperate bore. I prefer not to eliminate posters, but my time is precious these days.

Luke Ball, recognised as one of the more intelligent players going around, was asked on 360 for his thoughts on Melbourne.

He said he didn't feel sympathy, but more a feeling of empathy, having been in a similar position in his early days at St Kilda.

He did however observe when playing on QB that the team was "bereft of confidence", his exact words.

We can talk about the poor standard of the list, but I will never waver from my view that confidence plays a massive part in this game. This Neeld led side seemingly has none of it. Is it entirely Neeld's doing? Impossible to say, but he certainly has a large role to play in it.

Get them believing again. Make them actually believe they can take it up to anyone, and beat them, rather than constantly drilling into anyone who will listen that they won't be worth a damn until they've played X number of games.

You're an inconsequential fool. Clearly I'm talking about established clubs - as my "40" year reference attests. Our access to top 20 picks is legendary.

Look, I know I excite you, but you're a novice. And a desperate bore. I prefer not to eliminate posters, but my time is precious these days.

You said: "... we have the worst list in 40 years. This despite having the greatest access to early draft talent in history."

You cant simply cut out a clearly important factor (our access to high picks and priorities during the introduction of two expansion clubs) and then present as an accurate discription of the situation with a blanket statement which you would have presented no actual statistics to back up.

Granted 2009, our access to talent has not been the greatest in history, compared to drafts without the introduction of expansion clubs. Clearly been hindered by GWS and GCS.

We got the leftovers from two expansion clubs let alone have one of them poach our top picks because the of AFL flooding them with money.

What we have had to choose from and our picks aren't legendary. Legendary would be St. Kilda's access to the 2000, 2001 superdraft and 2003 draft which got them Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Ball, Dal Santo and Goddard - all top 5 draft picks bar 1, all the backbone of their finals, minor premiers wins and grand final appearance.

Look, I know you like to think you're the smartest man on DL, but behind your constant insults, belittling, rudeness, bias rubbish, and need to affirm your false belief in your 'superior' intelligence, you're just another keyboard warrior who likes the smell of their own farts and is wrong...

I think this piece from "opposition analyst" just about sums it up (although I suspect Neeld had a role in adopting the plan used successfully by Malthouse to win a flag in 2010):

Flattery or imitation: Demons fail to copy Malthouse plan

The problem is that on Monday, Melbourne didn't have the personnel available to enable it to work for the full four quarters and particularly so after Chris Dawes had to be subbed off at half time. I think Neeld knew this and, as a consequence, there was a fair bit of work done to avoid the necessity of subbing him off earlier (which was probably to the team's detriment in the end).

Though we certainly don't have the cattle, I think this highlights Neeld's greatest problem - his inflexibility in being able to make the necessary moves once the wheels start falling off (and confidence levels drop) in order to change the flow of the game. We've seen it enough times this year and last. On Monday, Collingwood scored 10.6 to 0.4 in a patch from quarter time until halfway through the third quarter.

While Neeld has done well in attempting to do what he says was his mission - to "change the culture of the club" and this aim should continue into the future irrespective of who is the coach, he has failed to fulfill what I see as a fundamental in coaching on match days with flexible tactics and strategies that can work to change the course of games.

If he hasn't shown this ability in 1½ years as coach, I can't see things changing in the next 12 weeks and, as a consequence, he's on his way out. He'll be very lucky to see out the season unless he's able to find ways for the team to consistently play as it did in the first quarter on Monday.

He's been dealt a shocking hand as a coach with everything that's happened at the club both before and since he took over but the reality is that he is at the least no better at the coaching caper than his predecessor even with all of the extra assistance at his disposal.

keyboard warrior who likes the smell of their own farts

PJ ain't nothin wrong with liking the smell of your own farts or smiling as u let one rip!!!

Just my opinion.

I think this piece from "opposition analyst" just about sums it up (although I suspect Neeld had a role in adopting the plan used successfully by Malthouse to win a flag in 2010):

Flattery or imitation: Demons fail to copy Malthouse plan

The problem is that on Monday, Melbourne didn't have the personnel available to enable it to work for the full four quarters and particularly so after Chris Dawes had to be subbed off at half time. I think Neeld knew this and, as a consequence, there was a fair bit of work done to avoid the necessity of subbing him off earlier (which was probably to the team's detriment in the end).

Though we certainly don't have the cattle, I think this highlights Neeld's greatest problem - his inflexibility in being able to make the necessary moves once the wheels start falling off (and confidence levels drop) in order to change the flow of the game. We've seen it enough times this year and last. On Monday, Collingwood scored 10.6 to 0.4 in a patch from quarter time until halfway through the third quarter.

While Neeld has done well in attempting to do what he says was his mission - to "change the culture of the club" and this aim should continue into the future irrespective of who is the coach, he has failed to fulfill what I see as a fundamental in coaching on match days with flexible tactics and strategies that can work to change the course of games.

If he hasn't shown this ability in 1½ years as coach, I can't see things changing in the next 12 weeks and, as a consequence, he's on his way out. He'll be very lucky to see out the season unless he's able to find ways for the team to consistently play as it did in the first quarter on Monday.

He's been dealt a shocking hand as a coach with everything that's happened at the club both before and since he took over but the reality is that he is at the least no better at the coaching caper than his predecessor even with all of the extra assistance at his disposal.

Jack, I think this is the most balanced analysis of the Neeld situation I've read. He has indeed been dealt a shocking hand and he is working with a list bereft of genuine star power and senior experience but he has failed to show on game day that he has the tools to change a game or even limit a loss. The killer for me is the mixed messages we as supporters have been receiving. If we're confused, how do the players feel?

I fully understand Neeld is hamstrung by the fact so many of the MFC have woeful skills, which makes it hard as he says to string chains of possessions together. But again it is too easily to fall into a blame the players, they're spuds argument.

A coach has to work with what he has at his disposal in the here and now not what he might have in the future. if they can't kick properly his job is to help them get better.

What i simply don't understand is we have had poor kicks for years at the dees. Given how crucial in modern footy good skills are my question is why has he not put a huge emphasis on skills training since being at the club, even if it means reducing the emphasis on fitness? From the start he has publicly emphasized how unfit we are and that our defensive skills are poor. Those areas have been his clear focus. But I'd suggest he has over emphasized those aspects (and perhaps also game plan) and not worried about building skills sufficiently.

The killer for me is the mixed messages we as supporters have been receiving. If we're confused, how do the players feel?

I think that's the key point.

I am struggling to "buy in" to the Neeld "rebuild" as it is based on contradictory and inconsistent statements. I do not fully believe in it. I don't see the "clear pathway" that Neeld preaches because that pathway has had too many sharp left and rights, zig zags and u turns.

Perhaps the players are also confused and maybe this contributes to the lack of belief in what they're doing which is so evident on game day.

At least in 2008 under Bailey, despite another horror year, I could see the plan and Bailey was consistent in his message and his implementation of the plan. Of course mistakes were made along the way and things started to fall apart, but I did have some trust and faith in the method.

The good news is there is hope and I feel that with a restructured footy department and a new coach who can get the players really believing in him and his message, we as supporters can start to believe in the process and the club can start to generate some hope.

Good coaches know where their list is at. The press conference after the Brisbane loss in Round 1 2012 showed that he'd overestimate where we were at. His comments at the commencement dinner 2013 where he suggested we'll surprise a great many looks very silly half a season later. If he'd made mention of his re-build of a re-build in November of 2011 then we might be a little more sympathetic. The youngest, most inexperience teams in the comp are never the hardest to play against. There's been too many catch-prases and too many shifts in thinking. Rightly or wrongly, they come across as excuses and more disturbingly a shift of responsibility from him to his predecessors and even to the players. He may still have the players but his vision (whatever it is?) is not evident on the field. Melbourne supporters unlike most others have incredible patience. We can hang in there if we see a future and a direction but right now we're so far off the pace and so uncompetitive that those on the reality bus who have been so well trained at calling a spade a spade know that a win/loss percentage of 50 is unjustifiable. Belief is shot to pieces. The chances of the same coach who was at the wheel during smashing after smashing after smashing being their when we turn it around is really really low.

4 out of the last 6 years we have been 1 and 11 after rd 11. What does that tell you??

Neeld didn't get the job by coming in and saying "you have a crap list it will take me 5 years to re-build it" He has made the list worse and he can't coach.

Last 3 rds losses by 95, 83 and 89.

Can anyone seriously defend him?

4 out of the last 6 years we have been 1 and 11 after rd 11. What does that tell you??

Neeld didn't get the job by coming in and saying "you have a crap list it will take me 5 years to re-build it" He has made the list worse and he can't coach.

Last 3 rds losses by 95, 83 and 89.

Can anyone seriously defend him?

It appears they can

Good coaches know where their list is at. The press conference after the Brisbane loss in Round 1 2012 showed that he'd overestimate where we were at. His comments at the commencement dinner 2013 where he suggested we'll surprise a great many looks very silly half a season later. If he'd made mention of his re-build of a re-build in November of 2011 then we might be a little more sympathetic. The youngest, most inexperience teams in the comp are never the hardest to play against. There's been too many catch-prases and too many shifts in thinking. Rightly or wrongly, they come across as excuses and more disturbingly a shift of responsibility from him to his predecessors and even to the players. He may still have the players but his vision (whatever it is?) is not evident on the field. Melbourne supporters unlike most others have incredible patience. We can hang in there if we see a future and a direction but right now we're so far off the pace and so uncompetitive that those on the reality bus who have been so well trained at calling a spade a spade know that a win/loss percentage of 50 is unjustifiable. Belief is shot to pieces. The chances of the same coach who was at the wheel during smashing after smashing after smashing being their when we turn it around is really really low.

I think that's they best summation of things I've seen. I've tried to believe - I really have, but I haven't seen anything that even resembles a light at the end of the tunnel. I appreciate that the 'get them fit, get them bigger' plan is not a bad one, it is being lost against the hammerings we are taking. I can put up with 5 year re-builds (not that I have a choice) but 5 year rebuilds that take us backwards weekly, and where winning a Q is seen as something to celebrate? No, No. And No again.

It's all broken. All of it. I don't know how to fix it, but I'm sure as hell convinced that whatever is happening now isn't doing it either.

4 out of the last 6 years we have been 1 and 11 after rd 11. What does that tell you??

Neeld didn't get the job by coming in and saying "you have a crap list it will take me 5 years to re-build it" He has made the list worse and he can't coach.

Last 3 rds losses by 95, 83 and 89.

Can anyone seriously defend him?

That we've played 12 games in 11 rounds

4 times

PJ ain't nothin wrong with liking the smell of your own farts or smiling as u let one rip!!!

Just my opinion.

It's great when someone really raises the level of debate. Well done.

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

It's all good then mate Just checking forums make you realise just how important the non verbal stuff is to human communication.

I've tried twice to reply to your post in detail, but have lost it both times. So I'll try again tomorrow. Not that the new post will live up to the earth shattering insights that the two posts I lost contained. A bit like the fish that got away

I think its fair to say this bloke will get the chop soon.

I think its fair to say this bloke will get the chop soon.

We can only hope that its real soon dd

Anyone up for making a new thread?

........... "The No M.N No B$ Thread"

4 out of the last 6 years we have been 1 and 11 after rd 11. What does that tell you??

Neeld didn't get the job by coming in and saying "you have a crap list it will take me 5 years to re-build it" He has made the list worse and he can't coach.

Last 3 rds losses by 95, 83 and 89.

Can anyone seriously defend him?

Yes and they will, Liam Jurrah was defended on this board after assaulting young females, make no mistake, Mark Neeld will be defended even after his sacking.