I'm not passive, I'm measured.

Having said that, I'm also seething that our experienced players fail to lead on the field.

I'm seething at our poor fitness levels.

I'm seething at our recruiting - the Prendegast high picks that went nowhere.

October will be my Grand Final.

Our fitness levels? What the hell? We were told we were unfit by Neeld who recruits this gee-whizz guru, and trains the guts out of them per-season, and what do we get? We looked fitter in 2010. .Didn't we?

1) Collingwood scored 13.11.89 directly from turnovers. This really supports the argument that we were ok when trying to win the ball but couldn't keep it. We only kicked 2 goals from turnovers. I think skill errors are often forced by actual and perceived pressure by the opposition; the reason why a team can look a million bucks against a poor team then get smashed by a good team. Increase fitness, experience and confidence are the only things that can fix this. They only way too improve all three is time.

2) champion data don't release the stats because those stats are their IP. They record hundreds of categories. The clubs have to pay big money to buy them, if they were released fir fee the company would go broke. Personally I think this should be done by the AFL and released for all.

3) newspapers buy the minimum stats we see and base analysis around that. Analysis is aimed at typical deadbeat and doesn't ever do real analysis. Half the time I don't think the authors are even at the game, stories are up so quickly after the matches the articles must be part written before the game. It would be great if they could get some ex coaches to do in depth analysis at a level they would do in club, to really explain what sort of planning and analysis may be applied.

The Dees unsurprisingly are the worst at keeping the ball; once possessed it is retained only 68% of the time.

This number may have gone down a bit after yesdy. I heard it on the radio pre-game.

This is what I've been saying for quite a while now. You can't blame the game plan or structures for massive losses when we see these sort of numbers week in week out. You can't defend a turnover because your entire team has run off their men to create attacking options. When the turnover happens they are all caught out of position, allowing an easy score. If we can eliminate this one glaring flaw from our games we will see far closer results, especially since it will also translate into more scoring opportunities for us.

So what's the reason for us having so many turnovers? It can't *just* be skill - the number is too high. I reckon for every time I saw a turnover through a skill error, I saw two occasions where we turned it over by handballing it to a stationary player who got cained, or just hoofed it to a pack of Collingwood players. These aren't skill errors, these are decision making errors that can be a direct result of the team either being set up wrong, or players not working hard enough to put themselves in a dangerous position.

I'd like to see a breakdown, or at least some analysis of the cause of the turnovers before I accept it as a reason to exonerate the coach.

So what's the reason for us having so many turnovers? It can't *just* be skill - the number is too high. I reckon for every time I saw a turnover through a skill error, I saw two occasions where we turned it over by handballing it to a stationary player who got cained, or just hoofed it to a pack of Collingwood players. These aren't skill errors, these are decision making errors that can be a direct result of the team either being set up wrong, or players not working hard enough to put themselves in a dangerous position.

I'd like to see a breakdown, or at least some analysis of the cause of the turnovers before I accept it as a reason to exonerate the coach.

Whatever the reason, it is the thing that most of us have banged on about for the last few years. We get the ball, but can't use it to AFL Standard and as a result you get smashed on the turnover in the modern game.

Is it skill, game plan or development. I don't think it is development. It IMO is skill. Yes you could say we are not sure of the game plan, but that is not the reason you miss kick 20 metres to a team mate or you handball to a player standing still, with an opponent next to him. IMO we simply can' t execute basic disposal. We have drafted non skilled footballers.

Someone posted that they attended training recently with some media people and they all agreed that our training and skill levels were the worst they had seen.

Edited June 10, 201312 yr by Redleg

Just managed to watch the press conference, or should I call it the 'depress conference'.

Neeld clearly doesn't give a flying fig anymore.

Do me a favour Mark and just leave.

Are you sure you watched the right press conference? I thought Neeld showed more emotion and frustration than he has for some time. He nearly went on to blast some of the senior players when he talked about the turnovers, but gathered himself and instead focused on how it was mainly the younger players that were doing the right things. Though you could sense his frustration with the senior players as he said that.

Neeld was on the money with his comments though. The effort was there but the skills weren't once we got the ball, which he mentioned when commenting on our failure to put together chains of possession.

If we can stop turning the ball over and get some cleaner entries into the forward 50 we will do much better.

On another, and is time for Dunn to be dropped. If he is not kicking the ball 60 metres to a leading player he doesn't know what to do. Bring Strauss back in for him.

Edit: for typo due to mobile phone auto correct. Bloody phones.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by pm24

Every week post game I read a 'I don't think I've ever seen a more pathetic performance than player X'!

Right on Johnny - I switch off when reading any comment that has the words, the most, the best, the worst etc.

Once Dawes went off, we lost structure, and we started filling up our backline without thought of what happens once we get it! We had Tom McDonald playing on swan and other resting mids at times during 2nd/3rd QTR, why not push Dunn/peddo to CHF and give us someone to kick too! Fitz and watts aren't targets, and we just let maxwell and co have a field day back there

..................

Someone posted that they attended training recently with some media people and they all agreed that our training and skill levels were the worst they had seen.

Dawes is on the record as saying our training is the equal of anything they did at the filth.

................

Though you could since his frustration with the senior players as he said that.

....................

Who are the senior players everyone is banging on about as turning the ball over, apart from Dunn?

N Jones? Are they going to drop him? Garland? Jamar? Davey? Aren't too many others who qualify as senior (and who played).

Seemed to me just about everyone was turning the ball over, excepting Davey.

Once Dawes went off, we lost structure, and we started filling up our backline without thought of what happens once we get it! We had Tom McDonald playing on swan and other resting mids at times during 2nd/3rd QTR, why not push Dunn/peddo to CHF and give us someone to kick too! Fitz and watts aren't targets, and we just let maxwell and co have a field day back there

In his presser, Neeld specifically said that they could have put Howe, Watts (and another player who I forget) in the backline to stem the flow, but after much discussion, they decided not to. That they didn't want to play that way, and to let it play out. Plenty on this forum would agree with those sentiments judging by past posts.

Could have made the odd positional change tho'.

As funny as it sounds, the difference between the two sides wasn't that great. Melbourne lack composure, make skill errors, and some poor decisions that cruel you. But it can change with a couple of guns in the middle, more experience, and a bit of belief.

I agree on the first part. To me it seems that their fitness may still be an issue. After working so hard in the first quarter, it seemed that they started the second feeling the affects of all that hard work and started to make bad errors in judgement and in execution... both of which can be attributed to physical tiredness.

One thing I noticed that I thought indicated a general mental tiredness was that whenever a behind was scored by Collingwood, there was no-one running to a space or calling for the ball to enable a fast restart; often players 40 to 50 metres up the field were walking to their man with their backs to the player (usually Garland) taking the kick.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by hardtack

Now that Neeld has come out and said that Clark is unlikely to play another game this year why don't we put him on the long term injury list and promote Clisby.

Neeld is always talking about getting games into players, well if they are so valuable why are we wasting them on players like Sellar, Gilles etc.? (they will never be part of a good team - the future)

I think if we can genuinely say that we are playing a really young list then the thrashings won't be as mentally taxing.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Young Dee

I agree on the first part. To me it seems that their fitness may still be an issue. After working so hard in the first quarter, it seemed that they started the second feeling the affects of all that hard work and started to make bad errors in judgement and in execution... both of which can be attributed to physical tiredness.

One thing I noticed that I thought indicated a general mental tiredness was that whenever a behind was scored by Collingwood, there was no-one running to a space or calling for the ball to enable a fast restart; often players 40 to 50 metres up the field were walking to their man with their backs to the player (usually Garland) taking the kick.

This has been the case for 15 years or more mate. SO many pot the kicker or bewail our "strategies" but as far back as the Daniher days we've lacked blokes who will take the responsibility of being a marking target for the kick-in.

Now that Neeld has come out and said that Clark is unlikely to play another game this year why don't we put him on the long term injury list and promote Clisby...

Clark has to agree to being put on the LTI list. I'm not sure if we have asked or not but given he was never going to be back in less than 8 weeks it seems odd that this didn't happen.

It is possibly a result of having witnessed two of the more insipid efforts in AFL history in the last two years (being the 25 and 31 goal thumpings to Essendon and Geelong) that some supporters can actually say after yesterday's game that the effort was good.

Against that benchmark, yes the effort was bloody good.

But against the standard expected (at a minimum) from a professional football team, it was appalling and I really struggle to understand how anyone who was at the game can walk away thinking the effort was decent.

The effort was terrific in the first quarter, but from midway through the second term until the end it was pathetic.

To blame fitness or youth is just a cop out – these guys are professional sportsmen with elite conditioning and preparation and should be able to sustain effort for the majority of a game.

I could accept reasons such as fitness or inexperience if we had a crack for three quarters and then faded in the last. I have seen GWS do this on a number of occasions this year (including against Geelong this weekend and against us) and I think it's fair to say that their last quarter fade outs are impacted by their youth and their inexperience.

But I cannot accept it when a side's work rate and intensity completely falls away 10 minutes into the second quarter. Or, in the case of some other games this year, falls away 10 minutes into the first quarter.

To me that's a mental thing and as I've said before the coach needs to be able to extract maximum effort from his players. Mark Neeld has not demonstrated an ability to extract the most out of his team and to me this is a bigger concern than things like game plan, structures, etc.

I'm not excusing the players as they are also responsible for effort, but there is no doubt the top coaches are the ones who get the most out of their teams.

I keep hearing the comment that since Round 3, apart from the GC game, our effort has been ok.

Not it hasn't. It hasn't been anywhere near the standard of a professional football team.

I don't blame Neeld for the shocking skill errors, the poor list he inherited and the injuries he's suffered. He has been dealt a difficult hand.

But I do blame him for consistently failing to get the most out of his team.

Garland tried valiantly but I cant see how when your opponent has 13 marks you can be your sides best player.

To be fair to Col, 7 of those marks were in the last quarter when Collingwood had the ball in their half 96% of the time. He did well to restrict him that much IMO.

In his presser, Neeld specifically said that they could have put Howe, Watts (and another player who I forget) in the backline to stem the flow, but after much discussion, they decided not to. That they didn't want to play that way, and to let it play out. Plenty on this forum would agree with those sentiments judging by past posts.

Could have made the odd positional change tho'.

But they did put Howe down there in the 3rd quarter, much as I didn't agree as he is one guy who can take a grab or kick a goal.

we need to attack more imo

So what's the reason for us having so many turnovers? It can't *just* be skill - the number is too high. I reckon for every time I saw a turnover through a skill error, I saw two occasions where we turned it over by handballing it to a stationary player who got cained, or just hoofed it to a pack of Collingwood players. These aren't skill errors, these are decision making errors that can be a direct result of the team either being set up wrong, or players not working hard enough to put themselves in a dangerous position.

I'd like to see a breakdown, or at least some analysis of the cause of the turnovers before I accept it as a reason to exonerate the coach.

We dont work hard enough off the ball, we just dont provide enough options for the guy with the ball to get him out of trouble.

Watching Hawthorn and Collingwood, they had multiple options , players running past screaming for the ball.

Can't believe people are actually saying Pederson was good... That's what I hate about stats, it says he had 23 disposals etc.. He was terrible, has to be one of the most inept one on one defenders i've ever seen. Gets slaughtered in marking contests, makes bad decisions, and doesn't run hard... at all

Maybe they thought Pederson was good in comparison to Dunn!

To state the obvious, we are at rock bottom. We have been completely uncompetitive for the whole of MN's reign, to the point now that we expect to be beaten by 15 goals every time we go out.

It was a credit to all who attended yesterday - there remains genuine enthusiasm from supporters who recognised the effort shown in the first quarter, which speaks volumes when we kicked one goal only - but then the inevitable.

This is by any reasonable measure unacceptable.

There simply must be change. I look forward to the outcomes of Peter Jackson's recommendations to the AFL on Friday.

Maybe they thought Pederson was good in comparison to Dunn!

Everyone was good in comparison to Dunn.

Pedersen was indeed quite good when he was running and linking up. He wasn't very good man-on-man, though, something he definitely needs to work on.

Positives:

• Davey is back in original form, great two goals
• The best Pedersen has played, marking was stronger but still weak on a 1 on 1
• Terlich had some great moments, stayed up when most would go down, had confidence, and had some great runs
• Fitzpatrick did well, laid some tackles
• Trengrove kicked two good goals and set up one which Watts should have kicked

Negatives:

• Blease turned over the ball almost every single time he had it, cannot kick, cannot hit targets
• Watts backed out of contests again
• No second efforts
• Silvia still providing the minimum
• ect.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

Dawes is on the record as saying our training is the equal of anything they did at the filth.

Who are the senior players everyone is banging on about as turning the ball over, apart from Dunn?

N Jones? Are they going to drop him? Garland? Jamar? Davey? Aren't too many others who qualify as senior (and who played).

Seemed to me just about everyone was turning the ball over, excepting Davey.

To me the main ones would be Dunn and Jamar, though I also think Sylvia made a couple of poor decisions at times, however some of that was due to him receiving the ball when surrounded by Collingwood players. Also, despite the great defense Garland played on Cloak he had a couple of disposal clangers (not kicking over the Collingwood player when running out of the back line in the third quarter, playing on when he had no-one to kick to because he failed to look where the players were running to first).

But, to me Dunn needs to be dropped. He does not have the vision to take the kick outs. Clearly missed multiple players leading out into space, instead deciding to bomb it long to a contest. This happened multiple times. Can't kick short passes, and not agile enough to actually try and tack the game on. So many times he received the ball and was standing still, but then looked to handball again without actually looking to try and move into space and evade the opposition.

Pedersen, despite playing what I thought was a good overall game, also butchered the ball one or two times out of defence.

Looking at our player list, there weren't many "senior players" actually in the team, but it was noticeable that some of those more senior players were letting the team down.

To me the main ones would be Dunn and Jamar, though I also think Sylvia made a couple of poor decisions at times, however some of that was due to him receiving the ball when surrounded by Collingwood players. Also, despite the great defense Garland played on Cloak he had a couple of disposal clangers (not kicking over the Collingwood player when running out of the back line in the third quarter, playing on when he had no-one to kick to because he failed to look where the players were running to first).

But, to me Dunn needs to be dropped. He does not have the vision to take the kick outs. Clearly missed multiple players leading out into space, instead deciding to bomb it long to a contest. This happened multiple times. Can't kick short passes, and not agile enough to actually try and tack the game on. So many times he received the ball and was standing still, but then looked to handball again without actually looking to try and move into space and evade the opposition.

Pedersen, despite playing what I thought was a good overall game, also butchered the ball one or two times out of defence.

Looking at our player list, there weren't many "senior players" actually in the team, but it was noticeable that some of those more senior players were letting the team down.

I heard Lyon sprout this one, I don't agree. I think the players were too lazy to make position up the field and left Col with no one to kick to, the players were running nowhere. I think this is a huge problem all round, we don't work at all let alone hard enough.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by rjay

It really grinds me that we can't really find enough 'rounded players'. For example, Dunn has a real crack, is physically imposing and has a bit of aggro but does stupid things which let him down. Nicholson - is quick but can't kick. Watts - skillful and athletic but little urgency and physicality... I could go on.

This seems to be a big problem. Not sure whether it is down to development or the kind of players we have drafted in the past but it gets me.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Django