On 18/06/2013 at 00:07, Rhino Richards said:

Ugh. Don't tell me you think Jamar has been AA form under Neeld! Oh dear!

Jones is an honest B grader at best and Sylvia is a C grader. Moloney is the same. But it clear that Neeld and Beamer had a falling out but you would blame Royal. I am not surprised you can't differentiate between Thompson and lesser players.

And thanks for proving my initial assertion correct.

I didn't say anything about form under Neeld. We were talking about what Royal has had to work with and his tenure has extended before Neeld and whilst Jamar was AA. During this time our midfield has always been terrible.

So when it is convenient for you, you are willing to underrate players that have actually been pretty good at times. Moloney has had very good seasons, even though he has dropped off now. Sylvia had all the attributes to become a midfield gun but hasn't; that must be due in some point to the person who is supposed to be developing and training our midfield.

Also I see you ignored my point earlier about how we set up at stoppages... even spuds can be set up well enough to stop the opposition players getting the ball so easily, as they always have against us. However Royal (if he actually is trying to teach the midfielders anything), doesn't seem to know how to direct them.

  On 18/06/2013 at 00:07, Rhino Richards said:

Ugh. Don't tell me you think Jamar has been AA form under Neeld! Oh dear!

Jones is an honest B grader at best and Sylvia is a C grader. Moloney is the same. But it clear that Neeld and Beamer had a falling out but you would blame Royal. I am not surprised you can't differentiate between Thompson and lesser players.

And thanks for proving my initial assertion correct.

Circular reasoning here RR.

  On 18/06/2013 at 00:47, titan_uranus said:

Circular reasoning here RR.

It isn't. You and Django would get on well.

  On 17/06/2013 at 22:59, Rhino Richards said:

Thanks you proved my point that you have no clue.

And as for Ratten, in 2004, he had an AA ruck in Jeff White and he had a gun in Scott Thompson ably supported by a flank of B graders. It's telling that when White tired/injured and Thompson was out injured the brilliance of Ratten evaporated. Hmmm.

I don't know if Royal can coach or not. That ups to the head coach. And it's clear that you less than I do in this regard.

  On 18/06/2013 at 00:07, Rhino Richards said:

Ugh. Don't tell me you think Jamar has been AA form under Neeld! Oh dear!

Jones is an honest B grader at best and Sylvia is a C grader. Moloney is the same. But it clear that Neeld and Beamer had a falling out but you would blame Royal. I am not surprised you can't differentiate between Thompson and lesser players.

And thanks for proving my initial assertion correct.

As Django said, when it's convenient for you you'll over-rate or under-rate players to make a point.

Jamar was AA in 2010. Royal joined us in November 2010 for the 2011 season. Since then, Jamar's been crap. But to you, no judgment can be made on Royal's ability as a coach. However, you're more than happy to use player form to judge Ratten's ability as a coach, saying that his strength as a coach came when players were in form.

And I'm sure I would get along with Django if I met him. Like most people on here, he's not a bully, and he makes fair and logical arguments.

  On 18/06/2013 at 00:47, Django said:

I didn't say anything about form under Neeld. We were talking about what Royal has had to work with and his tenure has extended before Neeld and whilst Jamar was AA. During this time our midfield has always been terrible.

So when it is convenient for you, you are willing to underrate players that have actually been pretty good at times. Moloney has had very good seasons, even though he has dropped off now. Sylvia had all the attributes to become a midfield gun but hasn't; that must be due in some point to the person who is supposed to be developing and training our midfield.

Also I see you ignored my point earlier about how we set up at stoppages... even spuds can be set up well enough to stop the opposition players getting the ball so easily, as they always have against us. However Royal (if he actually is trying to teach the midfielders anything), doesn't seem to know how to direct them.

Royal has been midfield coach since 2011 season. Jamar was AA ruck in 2010. Jamar has been a shadow of himself in form and fitness since 2010. Ratten looked good in 2004 where he had two guns in that year (White and Thompson).

As Leigh Matthews has said about coaching that 90% of success is the cattle. And we don't have the cattle. Blind Freddie could see that.

Moloney is a C grader who got the most of out of himself in 2011 and won the B & F. Could that have been Royal's influence? We know what happened since.

Sylvia has been a 10 year cack tease at MFC and the failings of Sylvia are the failings of Sylvia. He has been immature and undisciplined throughout his career. there are choices you make through your career and our Col makes a habit out of choosing the wrong ones. Beyond short rotations in the midfield Sylvia does not have the tank to play key midfield.

It's ironic the players you highlight are brass and only back my point on the cattle. And the same applies to stoppages. We have neither the skill, the experience or the body size to properly compete with the top mid fields. And after watching MFC play over the past 2 years its testimony to how spuds do play at times.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:12, titan_uranus said:

As Django said, when it's convenient for you you'll over-rate or under-rate players to make a point.

Jamar was AA in 2010. Royal joined us in November 2010 for the 2011 season. Since then, Jamar's been crap. But to you, no judgment can be made on Royal's ability as a coach. However, you're more than happy to use player form to judge Ratten's ability as a coach, saying that his strength as a coach came when players were in form.

And I'm sure I would get along with Django if I met him. Like most people on here, he's not a bully, and he makes fair and logical arguments.

I've made it quite what the difference between Rattens case and Royals situation.

And like Django you are judging Royal on what you want to judge him on rather than knowing the facts. And I realised you have not been strong on those before.

And you would be better crusading on Neelds wins against developmental clubs being as good as established clubs. You were on a winner there.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:14, Rhino Richards said:

Royal has been midfield coach since 2011 season. Jamar was AA ruck in 2010. Jamar has been a shadow of himself in form and fitness since 2010. Ratten looked good in 2004 where he had two guns in that year (White and Thompson).

As Leigh Matthews has said about coaching that 90% of success is the cattle. And we don't have the cattle. Blind Freddie could see that.

Moloney is a C grader who got the most of out of himself in 2011 and won the B & F. Could that have been Royal's influence? We know what happened since.

Sylvia has been a 10 year cack tease at MFC and the failings of Sylvia are the failings of Sylvia. He has been immature and undisciplined throughout his career. there are choices you make through your career and our Col makes a habit out of choosing the wrong ones. Beyond short rotations in the midfield Sylvia does not have the tank to play key midfield.

It's ironic the players you highlight are brass and only back my point on the cattle. And the same applies to stoppages. We have neither the skill, the experience or the body size to properly compete with the top mid fields. And after watching MFC play over the past 2 years its testimony to how spuds do play at times.

This is just going around in circles now.

Basically I think Royal should take more accountability as to the development of our players. I agree that we have a lot of players that just aren't good enough, but this is where a midfield coach should be able to help them develop into better players. There are plenty of guys on the list who aren't getting the best out of themselves (and haven't in the past), even though their 'ceiling' might not be that high.

I can see that you don't think Royal should be responsible for this but that's fine, it's your opinion.

Furthermore I just think our structures at stoppages and spread is just pathetic - again these are fields where Royal should be teaching the players. As well as that, you are fine to judge Neeld on performance (wins) however Royal escapes this judgement. But that goes back to the 'spuds vs development' argument so I'll leave it at that.

Good day to you Rhino Richards, hope it is a pleasant one.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:20, Rhino Richards said:

I've made it quite what the difference between Rattens case and Royals situation.

And like Django you are judging Royal on what you want to judge him on rather than knowing the facts. And I realised you have not been strong on those before.

And you would be better crusading on Neelds wins against developmental clubs being as good as established clubs. You were on a winner there.

I'm not judging Royal at all. Have you seen me make a comment about Royal?

I'm not judging Royal, I'm judging you.

There goes your bullying again - I know as much about the 'facts' as you do. I see Ratten in command of a midfield with an AA ruckman and a star and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that. I see Royal in command of a midfield with a ruckman who was AA the immediate year before he started, and then loses his form, and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that too.

Just to top it off, you're now saying that Moloney was a C-grader who won the B&F in 2011, and that might have been something to do with Royal. So when Moloney reaches new heights under Royal, that's Royal's doing, but when Jamar goes from AA in 2010 to shadow of AA in 2011, that's not Royal's fault.

As for the wins over GC/GWS thing, I knew you were still bitter about that. Things really gripe you, don't they? As I said all along, Neeld led us to five victories. Five. I'm not going to revise history to suit my arguments. You're welcome to.

  On 17/06/2013 at 22:59, Rhino Richards said:

Thanks you proved my point that you have no clue.

And as for Ratten, in 2004, he had an AA ruck in Jeff White and he had a gun in Scott Thompson ably supported by a flank of B graders. It's telling that when White tired/injured and Thompson was out injured the brilliance of Ratten evaporated. Hmmm.

I don't know if Royal can coach or not. That ups to the head coach. And it's clear that you less than I do in this regard.

A gun ??? Turn it up. Thompson was hardly a gun in 2004. He was a kid of undoubted potential who played half a season. The midfield Ratten had at his disposal included the likes of Junior, Bruce, Trapper, Heffernan & Read. Not many Hall of Famers at his disposal

I couldn't give a stuff about your argument with Django but don't reinvent history

I just want to take a quick swipe at those on this forum who abused and questioned my honesty and integrity in the "Time to go Mark Neeld" thread.

I note that the main reason given by Peter Jackson for the sacking of Neeld was the need to retain our players and show them that Melbourne FC was a place they could have a successful career. He essentially said MN had lost the players. I was given plenty by many on here when I said that this was the case and a walk out of players was on the cards come seasons end. I even said where I had heard it, a current player manager, and from feedback directly from players. I said it was not rumour and even mentioned players names. Yet still I received abuse and accusations of lying, and scaremongering from many.

Let me make one thing clear, if it is rumour, I say its rumour, if it is a fact I say it is fact putting my reputation on the line. I feel somewhat vindicated.

Now what I am about to say I have also said before. My understanding is that we are much closer to getting Roos than is being admitted. There have already been many communications prior to yesterdays sacking. Obviously Ross could only deny while we had another coach. Roos is very seriously considering a move to the Dees. The book makers have Roos at $5. At these levels this is an outstanding bet. The clubs view is closer to even money.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:33, Grand New Flag said:

Yet still I received abuse and accusations of lying, and scaremongering from many.

Well, I didn't abuse you or accuse you of lying but I did point out that you were scaremongering.

You intimated that we would be shipped off to Tasmania should Neeld not be fired soon.

As much as I love any inside information that people have, I didn't like that and said as much.

I hope we can all move on and I hope you are right about Roos.

We are all Demons - whether you think Jackson pulled the pin because of player retention concerns or the fact that we have been just terrible for his 33 games.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:18, rpfc said:

We are all Demons - whether you think Jackson pulled the pin because of player retention concerns or the fact that we have been just terrible for his 33 games.

No doubt a combination of both issues, but they are connected. I am sure that if Neeld had not lost the players, we would have performed better on field.

Neeld really was the worst coach I have ever seen. He will leave senior coaching with the worst on-field performance of any coach in history. He deserves it.

Questions must be asked on how he was chosen, it really was amateur hour under his tenure. How could we pick a coach that was missing the interpersonal skills required. This is perhaps the most important trait of a successful coach. The fact Neeld still can't see or admit he made errors and said he would do it all the same again given the chance is staggering. Surely a proper interview process would have unearthed these personality issues.

Good riddance!

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:30, Grand New Flag said:

No doubt a combination of both issues, but they are connected. I am sure that if Neeld had not lost the players, we would have performed better on field.

Neeld really was the worst coach I have ever seen. He will leave senior coaching with the worst on-field performance of any coach in history. He deserves it.

Questions must be asked on how he was chosen, it really was amateur hour under his tenure. How could we pick a coach that was missing the interpersonal skills required. This is perhaps the most important trait of a successful coach. The fact Neeld still can't see or admit he made errors and said he would do it all the same again given the chance is staggering. Surely a proper interview process would have unearthed these personality issues.

Good riddance!

you keep saying hes the worst coach ever, i still think your wrong

paul sproule

kevin bartlett

bluey hampshire

royce hart

donald mcdonald

peter knights

john todd

  On 17/06/2013 at 01:46, Norm Smith said:

Wait and see how we play now. That will make all clear.

Not to a lot of posters on here it won't, disappointed we had to do what we did but understandable, but it seems that some think Peter Jackson is taking the field as a clearance specialist this weekend and we are suddenly going to start winning games of footy.

I hope so, I would like to see us maybe snag a couple, it will make going to the games a bit more enjoyable than it has been, but if you think that the corner has been turned, you are wrong, long term is still the target

If and when we get a new coach, it will mean new assistants, new game plan, new players...........at least another 2 to 3 years, if we hold our nerve this time

To be fair, arrogance is a fairly common trait amongst successful AFL coaches. They just tend to have ability to go with it.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:30, Grand New Flag said:

No doubt a combination of both issues, but they are connected. I am sure that if Neeld had not lost the players, we would have performed better on field.

Neeld really was the worst coach I have ever seen. He will leave senior coaching with the worst on-field performance of any coach in history. He deserves it.

Questions must be asked on how he was chosen, it really was amateur hour under his tenure. How could we pick a coach that was missing the interpersonal skills required. This is perhaps the most important trait of a successful coach. The fact Neeld still can't see or admit he made errors and said he would do it all the same again given the chance is staggering. Surely a proper interview process would have unearthed these personality issues.

Good riddance!

I don't know, I see how he slipped through.

Ie. Do you have a proper game plan - Outlines proper plan with defensive structure like Malthouse

Do you have a good coaching record with experience - see Coll backline and mids under me, see my times at Ocean Grove

Are you a hard taskmaster - yes

Are you are a hard worker- obviously

You can see how Neeld had success at Collingwood where the players were capable and the had the backing of Malthouse who always has his players backs. Then Neeld gets to Melbourne and finds only at most 15 capable players and about 15 hard workers with the unfortunate thing being that those two groups don't match up equally and really struggles.

I suppose no one asked him what he does with under performing / not totally committed players. Even if they did I doubt his response would have been oh I'll just show them all the door or alienate them. It's funny because as he's from a teaching background you'd think he'd be used to dealing with under performers. I remember at my days at school it was the naughty and dumb kids who often took up a lot of the teachers time. And the good teachers were the ones who could get through to those kids and get something from them or at least keep the class engaged so everyone could learn something. You get the feeling Neeld as a year 9 maths teacher would have half a class on permanent detention or banned from his class with Nath Jones, Garland, Grimes and Dawes sitting in the front row the only ones getting A's on their tests.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:41, P_Man said:

To be fair, arrogance is a fairly common trait amongst successful AFL coaches. They just tend to have ability to go with it.

And a consistent message is a very important part of the job as well. You can tweak game plans and things but you have to set standards and stick by them otherwise you'll be all over the shop and will lose players due to inconsistency. Especially with a bad team even in the local footy I've played when a coach maintains a plan and shows belief (in it and the players just as importantly) you get a lot further than when a coach is chopping and changing his approach.

At the very least, the rest of the year will be intriguing to watch. Not expecting to suddenly see a different team, but knowing of the changes to come, and with what i still believe is a talented core group of players, there is a sense of hope that feels pretty good to be honest.

Love the Filth Files being wheeled out of his office on the back page of the HUN!!

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:43, the master said:

You can see how Neeld had success at Collingwood where the players were capable and the had the backing of Malthouse who always has his players backs. Then Neeld gets to Melbourne and finds only at most 15 capable players and about 15 hard workers with the unfortunate thing being that those two groups don't match up equally and really struggles.

Best thing I've read today. Some of our hard workers are not capable players, and vice versa.

Very interesting, had not thought of it from that perspective before.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:33, Grand New Flag said:

I just want to take a quick swipe at those on this forum who abused and questioned my honesty and integrity in the "Time to go Mark Neeld" thread.

I note that the main reason given by Peter Jackson for the sacking of Neeld was the need to retain our players and show them that Melbourne FC was a place they could have a successful career. He essentially said MN had lost the players. I was given plenty by many on here when I said that this was the case and a walk out of players was on the cards come seasons end. I even said where I had heard it, a current player manager, and from feedback directly from players. I said it was not rumour and even mentioned players names. Yet still I received abuse and accusations of lying, and scaremongering from many.

Let me make one thing clear, if it is rumour, I say its rumour, if it is a fact I say it is fact putting my reputation on the line. I feel somewhat vindicated.

Now what I am about to say I have also said before. My understanding is that we are much closer to getting Roos than is being admitted. There have already been many communications prior to yesterdays sacking. Obviously Ross could only deny while we had another coach. Roos is very seriously considering a move to the Dees. The book makers have Roos at $5. At these levels this is an outstanding bet. The clubs view is closer to even money.

I can confirm from my own staff source that neeld had lost the majority of the players.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:31, Go the Biff said:

A gun ??? Turn it up. Thompson was hardly a gun in 2004. He was a kid of undoubted potential who played half a season. The midfield Ratten had at his disposal included the likes of Junior, Bruce, Trapper, Heffernan & Read. Not many Hall of Famers at his disposal

I couldn't give a stuff about your argument with Django but don't reinvent history

Thompson showed the skills in 2004 which has been evident since he has been at Adelaide. He is that first dibs midfielder we needed then and have needed now but never had. He played the first 13 games before going down with injury. MFC were 10 and 3 and top 4 on the ladder. When Thompson went down we won 4 out of 9 and feebly fell in the EF. Up until Hogan we have not drafted an A grade player since Thompson.

  On 17/06/2013 at 06:13, grant said:

He was told he has the confidence of the board, you know the same board that has been and is currenly being dismantled.

The board is the same now as it was then with the exception of McLardy and Grimshaw.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:29, titan_uranus said:

I'm not judging Royal at all. Have you seen me make a comment about Royal?

I'm not judging Royal, I'm judging you.

There goes your bullying again - I know as much about the 'facts' as you do. I see Ratten in command of a midfield with an AA ruckman and a star and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that. I see Royal in command of a midfield with a ruckman who was AA the immediate year before he started, and then loses his form, and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that too.

Just to top it off, you're now saying that Moloney was a C-grader who won the B&F in 2011, and that might have been something to do with Royal. So when Moloney reaches new heights under Royal, that's Royal's doing, but when Jamar goes from AA in 2010 to shadow of AA in 2011, that's not Royal's fault.

As for the wins over GC/GWS thing, I knew you were still bitter about that. Things really gripe you, don't they? As I said all along, Neeld led us to five victories. Five. I'm not going to revise history to suit my arguments. You're welcome to.

Neelds negative influence was undeniable on a number of players. Jamar looks like another one. The inference on whether Royal had anything to do with it is moot. Hence my argument that it not possible to make an informed judgement on assistant coaches. I did say that Jamars fitness was an issue during 2011. I guess you would have that on Royal too. And what about the ruck coaches influence. Once again it creates uncertainty about the responsibilities for Jamar. But the reference to White is that a fit and firing ruckman was critical to giving the MFC midfield first dibs at the ball.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:29, titan_uranus said:

Just to top it off, you're now saying that Moloney was a C-grader who won the B&F in 2011, and that might have been something to do with Royal. So when Moloney reaches new heights under Royal, that's Royal's doing, but when Jamar goes from AA in 2010 to shadow of AA in 2011, that's not Royal's fault.

I have addressed that above. I dont know if Moloney has anything to do with Royal and once again it shows the inability from where we sit to make informed judgements about the performance of assistant coaches when we dont know the directions they are under and what the scope of their responsibilities are.

  On 18/06/2013 at 01:29, titan_uranus said:

As for the wins over GC/GWS thing, I knew you were still bitter about that. Things really gripe you, don't they? As I said all along, Neeld led us to five victories. Five. I'm not going to revise history to suit my arguments. You're welcome to.

Frankly I dont give us stuff about it. I find it amusing that you spend so much time trying to talk about wins against development sides. Little things for little minds I suppose.

  On 18/06/2013 at 03:39, Rhino Richards said:

Little things for little minds I suppose.

Was this really necessary?