I was impressed by Craig asking a journalist what his name was. When the journo replied that his name wasn't important, Craig responded that it was important to him. I thought it showed respect, something that's lacking these days, and not just around the football club.

AS opposed to Mick who wont answer questions to journos who havent played football. Or last year when he basically had acrack at some poor young journo

I was very surprised by the lack of Craig love on demo land leading up to this week. He is a class act, a bloody respected bloke and really is someone who sees the best in everyone and everything. I haven't seen yesterday's press conference, but I've met him numerous times over the years.

Paul roos would obviously be a fantastic get for the club, but do not discount Craig. He builds a mutual respect with players and will implore them to get better individually and as a team in a very similar manner to what roos does. You can say what you like about culture, but that has to be built on mutual respect. Neeld didn't, he went the wrong way about it. Craig won't. He has to be a part of the future in any capacity.

The key is that Craig doesn't have to prove anything to anyone - he has been a good AFL coach.

He has proven that.

The players don't need to wonder whether he can be a good coach - and what he says comes from a place of personal knowledge and experience.

I find it funny that he's come out and said exactly the same things that Neeld has been saying for the last few months, and suddenly people are saying it's no BS, honest and to the point.

I also liked Watts saying he wants to be around to see things improve having spent five years here. A good sign.

Seriously bizarre observation.

No offence, but your support for Neeld has brought you to the point of delusion. It was in total contrast to a Neeld conference full of excuses and "it is what it is". There was no excuses. Nowhere to hide. Complete non acceptance of where the club was at and the level of competitiveness. It could hardly have been more different to a Neeld presser and was frankly a breath of fresh air.

Perhaps RM was alluding to Neeld circa-early 2012.

It's worth noting too that this was after what was one of the most competitive showings for the year, arguably the most competitive. Imagine what he would have been like if we'd been smacked by 80 points.

2 more things that say a lot about Craig:

1. In what was the final year (or years) of his time at Adelaide, he asked to be put on salary; meaning a few weeks notice from him or Adelaide would see him walk away - no big contract payouts.
2. It was he who stood down at Adelaide (I remember the presser - dignified, doing what was good for the club); he wasn't sacked.

Interesting bloke. Wonder what the job description as mentor to Neeld was.

Ed: Points 1 & 2 highlight a difference to Wiiliams - it was Williams who held port to ransom for a huge contract after they won the premiership; crushed them financially.

I find it funny that he's come out and said exactly the same things that Neeld has been saying for the last few months, and suddenly people are saying it's no BS, honest and to the point.

I also liked Watts saying he wants to be around to see things improve having spent five years here. A good sign.

I didn't hear Craig say 'its a rebuild of a rebuild' or 'it is what it is' twenty times.

Other than his brutal honesty in the first round he ever coached I found Neeld in general to be a hard person to pin down - he just never really seemed to say anything of any substance ever. I thought it was his way of dealing with press exposure but he seemed almost the same in the pre game bake they telecast with him just saying 'we trust you' ten times.

Saying he was surprised by how poor we were actually surprised me the most. With one midfielder and three debutants your always going to struggle.

A guy a work that used to work at the saints tells me that in his opinion Craig is still highly respected which was illustrated by the fact that six clubs were after him as soon as he stood down at Adelaide. As this guy said - if he cant get the best of those players in the rest of the season then they will have no more excuses.

...

Some strange symmetry, of sorts, for Craig, too.

His first game in charge was as an interim coach against Melbourne.

His last game as coach was a drubbing against St Kilda.

His first game as interim coach was against St Kilda.*

* This is all off memory so if it's wrong I apologize.

All that's left for him now is to be stood down as interim coach after the Adelaide game.

Some strange symmetry, of sorts, for Craig, too.

His first game in charge was as an interim coach against Melbourne.

His last game as coach was a drubbing against St Kilda.

His first game as interim coach was against St Kilda.*

* This is all off memory.

I believed you until I read the last part

Take it from a South Australian, Neil Craig is a class act.

And the coincidences regarding Neil Craig & the MFC abound. The game that probably "put the writing on the wall" for Neil Craig at the Crows was a 96-point defeat at the MCG against Melbourne in 2011. Neil Craig played 319 games of SANFL football (in an era when SANFL was arguably nearly as strong as VFL). He played 11 State of Origins (including state captain in 1984). I will list some of the players in the 1984 state side to give Demonlanders an idea of Craig's standing that he could be named captain of such players & to justify my statement about the SANFL competition in the 1980s: Michael Aish, Stephen Kernahan, Greg Phillips, Mark Williams, Garry McIntosh, and John Platten. Most of Craig's SANFL games were for Norwood (for two premierships) & Sturt. He also coached Norwood from 1991-95. Norwood wears red-&-blue. Norwood & Sturt's club songs are "The Grand Old Flag".

I can add a personal note about Neil Craig. I understand that the Crows "19th man" slogan was Neil Craig's idea. As part of that, he asked the Melbourne office of the Crows in 2007 to invite the oldest Melbourne-based Adelaide Crows member to a game as the guest of the AFC. My family is very strange! I am an Adelaide-based MFC supporter & my Dad was a Melbourne-based AFC supporter. Anyway, my father, who was 89yo then, "won" the prize. I took him to the Melbourne-Adelaide game at the MCG in 2007 (which Melbourne won by 17 points) as guests of the AFC. It was the last outing that my father & I enjoyed together, and I thank Neil Craig for that experience.

I provide these facts & reminisces about Neil Craig so Demonlanders can appreciate the football experience that Craig brings. And when he talks about "culture" at a football club, he knows & "is" exactly what the MFC needs. We are in good hands & I truly hope that he remains at MFC in some capacity in 2014.

Perhaps RM was alluding to Neeld circa-early 2012.

Except RM claimed Craig was saying "exactly the same things that Neeld has been saying for the last few months". Completely untrue.

But are you insinuating if he didn't get the coaching gig, he would be up for taking on the HOF responsibility, Rusty? If so, I disagree. I don't think he has any interest in it. Of course, a paycheck would be a paycheck. Who knows, he might make a great HOF.

I'm not suggesting that AF.

As Craig said himself, you don't take the chair on lightly. It's a tough gig. It has to be the right move for everyone concerned. He'll no doubt also be watching how the players respond to his coaching/training demands in the next few weeks as well. I think he'll want to see some fire from the bulk of them and will sound them out as to who's up for the fight. He also doesn't know who's likely to stay on next year which makes his decision even more difficult.

Regardless of what goes down with the coaching search i think we have a very good man at the helm in the interim.

Definitely a keeper. Wouldn't say no to him as HOF but obviously this would need to work depending on who the coach is (assuming it's not Craig) and whether he thinks he's up for it and wants it and PJ etc believing the same. Outside of Roos i think he's almost on a par with Choco. Has a better regular season winning % than Choco and all other realistic candidates, other than Roos. Choco has been to the top though which is likely to give him a slight edge at this point IMO.

Just watched it. Comparisons to Neeld aside, thought Craig did well. Was very forthright, no spin, but friendly.

Gee, I tell you what, we are very hell-bent on pushing the 'we're awful' line. PJ's 'impediment' stuff, now Craig's 'we're non-competitive' stuff. Don't know if it's something PJ wants us to focus on (i.e. 'remember guys, when we get AFL funding and a PP, it's because we're hurting the league'), or whether it's just PJ allowing us to say the truth, unlike Schwab/Neeld ('didn't see it coming', 'we're going to be better soon' etc.). It's interesting nonetheless.

Thought Watts' performance was also good. Looked sincere in his answers - can't find anything in that to suggest he didn't mean it when he said he wants to stay.

I think NC is the answer. The man has great integrity, something the club has struggled to command for a very long time.

He has a strong, long term playing and coaching record and has the balance right between a no [censored] communication style and yet a strong affinity and supportive attitude towards his players. I can't help but think that the players will at least want to play for him.

2 more things that say a lot about Craig:

• In what was the final year (or years) of his time at Adelaide, he asked to be put on salary; meaning a few weeks notice from him or Adelaide would see him walk away - no big contract payouts.
• It was he who stood down at Adelaide (I remember the presser - dignified, doing what was good for the club); he wasn't sacked.

Interesting bloke. Wonder what the job description as mentor to Neeld was.

Ed: Points 1 & 2 highlight a difference to Wiiliams - it was Williams who held port to ransom for a huge contract after they won the premiership; crushed them financially.

Namesake - interesting observations comparing the departures of Craig and of Williams from their respective SA clubs. It would appear from results that NC left his club on better terms and in better shape than did MW. Perhaps a word of caution for those enthusing over MW.

I think NC is the answer. The man has great integrity, something the club has struggled to command for a very long time.

He has a strong, long term playing and coaching record and has the balance right between a no [censored] communication style and yet a strong affinity and supportive attitude towards his players. I can't help but think that the players will at least want to play for him.

NC certainly appears a man of passion, integrity and huge experience in elite sports. We could (and have) do a lot worse than give him a serious consideration.

Seriously bizarre observation.

No offence, but your support for Neeld has brought you to the point of delusion. It was in total contrast to a Neeld conference full of excuses and "it is what it is". There was no excuses. Nowhere to hide. Complete non acceptance of where the club was at and the level of competitiveness. It could hardly have been more different to a Neeld presser and was frankly a breath of fresh air.

I didn't hear Craig say 'its a rebuild of a rebuild' or 'it is what it is' twenty times.

Other than his brutal honesty in the first round he ever coached I found Neeld in general to be a hard person to pin down - he just never really seemed to say anything of any substance ever. I thought it was his way of dealing with press exposure but he seemed almost the same in the pre game bake they telecast with him just saying 'we trust you' ten times.

Saying he was surprised by how poor we were actually surprised me the most. With one midfielder and three debutants your always going to struggle.

Except RM claimed Craig was saying "exactly the same things that Neeld has been saying for the last few months". Completely untrue.

I think the confusion here is a matter of what we are listening FOR. I don't care about how something is said. I listen for content. Most of the comments on here are praising the way Craig said things, not what he was actually saying.

Content-wise, what did he say? Some players stood up, but the team as a whole needs to improve and our turnovers killed us. He singled out several younger players as having had good games. Exactly the same message, but delivered in a new way. He didn't mention inexperience. That would be the primary difference. His spin was perhaps more positive and his manner is much more casual and friendly, but as I said, I am interested in content, not style.

I think the confusion here is a matter of what we are listening FOR. I don't care about how something is said. I listen for content. Most of the comments on here are praising the way Craig said things, not what he was actually saying.

Content-wise, what did he say? Some players stood up, but the team as a whole needs to improve and our turnovers killed us. He singled out several younger players as having had good games. Exactly the same message, but delivered in a new way. He didn't mention inexperience. That would be the primary difference. His spin was perhaps more positive and his manner is much more casual and friendly, but as I said, I am interested in content, not style.

I still disagree, RM. If you watch it back, Craig doesn't mention any names until he is asked about specific players. To me he seems clearly cautious on this and then goes on to emphasise the importance of team development over individual output on the day.

I'd like to see Neil Craig get the job if the team lifts for the remainder of the season. Or, if he doesn't get the nod, he should at least fulfil his contractual commitments rather than being payed. If Paul Roos is not successfully recruited, then other top candidates that are not widely talked about in this forum include Malcolm Blight as he's proven and is doing some great mentoring now at the Gold Coast; and Gary Ayers, given he's a premiership player, coached at AFL level for about a decade and recently had great coaching success at VFL level.

I think the confusion here is a matter of what we are listening FOR. I don't care about how something is said. I listen for content. Most of the comments on here are praising the way Craig said things, not what he was actually saying.

Content-wise, what did he say? Some players stood up, but the team as a whole needs to improve and our turnovers killed us. He singled out several younger players as having had good games. Exactly the same message, but delivered in a new way. He didn't mention inexperience. That would be the primary difference. His spin was perhaps more positive and his manner is much more casual and friendly, but as I said, I am interested in content, not style.

It was totally different in both content and style. As pointed out, he only singled out players when prompted, and there was a clear reluctance to place positive spin on the performance, despite it being easily one of the best of the year. It was the setting of a standard. At least say it was reminiscent of Neeld post Round 1 in 2012, that would be closer to the truth.

It just seems like you're sticking to our guns re Neeld, that's fine. I don't really see the point of it seeing as he's gone. But you're arguing black is white in this instance.