Jump on me all you want, but I can't see how pandering to egos acquaints to improvement.

Neeld's gone, half of his crew should have gone with him.

Too much residual.

Jump on me all you want, but I can't see how pandering to egos acquaints to improvement.

Neeld's gone, half of his crew should have gone with him.

Too much residual.

So given you're not happy with Craig, who would you have had as interim coach who doesn't classify as "residual"?

I don't really know and I don't really care.

These blokes are pea hearts (apologies to Nate Jones and Wonderboy) and they play as soft as butter.

Coach killers, coupled with massive egos.

I don't really know and I don't really care.

These blokes are pea hearts (apologies to Nate Jones and Wonderboy) and they play as soft as butter.

Coach killers, coupled with massive egos.

We're discussing coaches, in particular your claim that Craig has been a "disaster", and now you've turned your ire onto the players.

So essentially you're just angry at everyone.

We're discussing coaches, in particular your claim that Craig has been a "disaster", and now you've turned your ire onto the players.

So essentially you're just angry at everyone.

P_Man, it's the whole thing.

This whole thread has annoyed the hell out of me.

Every poster potted Neeld, but here's the deal....is it conceivable that these results are due to improvement and games together? Despite Craig? Many will refute this idea, but it's possible.

Sorry, I don't know who should have been the interim coach.....mebbe Rawlings?

Never, ever angry with you, P_Man - we have terrific footy debates.

They're still not running, chasing, blocking, shepherding!

Whatever it is,the games are easy to watch. Will be good if we win. I don't get panic attacks during the game after Craig took over.

exactly, they are easier to watch, l could not watch games while Neeld was coach but now l sit through the whole thing because we are playing heaps better. I wouldn't mind Craig as full-time coach for a couple of years with a younger coach groomed to take over. Maybe Burns or Tudor?

I don't really know and I don't really care.

These blokes are pea hearts (apologies to Nate Jones and Wonderboy) and they play as soft as butter.

Coach killers, coupled with massive egos.

settle down mate, so you think Jones and Viney are the only decent players! You obviously haven't been watching Fitzpatrick, Garland, Frawley, Grimes, Trengove etc etc in the last few weeks

P_Man, it's the whole thing.

This whole thread has annoyed the hell out of me.

Every poster potted Neeld, but here's the deal....is it conceivable that these results are due to improvement and games together? Despite Craig? Many will refute this idea, but it's possible.

Sorry, I don't know who should have been the interim coach.....mebbe Rawlings?

Never, ever angry with you, P_Man - we have terrific footy debates.

They're still not running, chasing, blocking, shepherding!

Fair enough. Few things:

- No way was every post potting Neeld. I was, certainly, given the level of competitiveness was like nothing I'd ever seen before. But there were times where those who were "anti-Neeld" felt like stuie, myself and a scattering of others. Make no mistake, he had PLENTY of supporters on this site. Admittedly they began to drop away towards the end.

- If Craig is deemed to be somehow tainted by Neeld, or "residual", then Rawlings is definitely residual. At least Craig has been a senior coach before with his own attributes and coaching mindset.

- It's of course conceivable that improvement can be attributed, in part, to a greater amount of games together. Ditto to the quality of opponent. But this is once again getting drawn into a debate around how much of team performance can be attributed to the coach, or to games experience. THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE SENIOR COACH. If he gets knocked for the failures, he surely deserves the pats on the back for the successes. The team has improved. The stats show that. And to the naked eye, the effort has greatly improved, which entails chasing and tackling (blocking and shepherding is also about awareness which comes with time).

You seem to be expecting a miracle turnaround under Craig. In the 5 or so weeks he's been at the helm, he's done well. Very, very few would argue otherwise.

I really don't follow your reasoning, jumbo.

Do you feel that this would have happened with Neeld anyway? Do you feel it would have happened with any other caretaker? Or do you reject that it is happening?

They're still not running, chasing, blocking, shepherding!

Yes, they now are, and that's one big difference.

I really don't follow your reasoning, jumbo.

Do you feel that this would have happened with Neeld anyway? Do you feel it would have happened with any other caretaker? Or do you reject that it is happening?

Yes.

Probably.

Reject what? More mediocrity? Meekness? Becoming completely non-competitive? I'm not rejecting the reality. And 10 more tackles doesn't inspire me at all.

jumbo, I recall you being alot more reasonable than this, which is why I thought you're labelling Craig a disaster was a joke. I really have no idea where you're coming from.

BECOMING non-competitive? What were we before?

Does that include the game we won? Against an established side?

The reality is Craig has taken a side from an incredibly low base, and in a few weeks has brought improvement in pretty much every single key indicator, whilst notching up a win and being in with a genuine chance of a second over the weekend.

No-one is saying that the current state of things is acceptable, but I'm not sure what you were expecting over the past few weeks.

Jumbo might have taken this a bit far, but I have to say I agree with him/her fundamentally. Craig has made us easier to watch, not better. Better in ball movement, but not more effective. I don't think he is any more the solution than Neeld was the problem.

I think we looked better mainly because of the quality of our opposition. We hung in there against the Swans, which was kind of good, but that game most days was 13 goals. Geelong was as bad as anything. Let's wait until the end of the year.

As always, it's the midfield, stupid!

Edited July 25, 201312 yr by Choko

Thats all that matters, and thats all that should matter. Don't care how many clearances, disposals. Wins is all that matters.

I still shake my head every time someone writes this. A 5 year old knows that there are different types of losses, why don't you?

Here's some more stats that matter:

Brent Moloney:

Round 5

Disposals 36
Cont. poss 16
Inside 50's 7
Clearances 10

Round 17

Disposals 0
Cont. poss 0
Inside 50 0
Clearances 0

Demons Improvement between rd 5 and 17:

Disposals +52
Cont. poss +18
Inside 50's +10
Clearances +13

So other than 16 disposals the difference is almost entirely attributed to Beamer

Here's some more stats that matter:

Brent Moloney:

Round 5 Disposals 36Cont. poss 16Inside 50's 7Clearances 10Round 17Disposals 0Cont. poss 0Inside 50 0Clearances 0

Demons Improvement between rd 5 and 17:

Disposals +52Cont. poss +18Inside 50's +10Clearances +13

So other than 16 disposals the difference is almost entirely attributed to Beamer

What a rediculous post, lets not take into account the players possessions who took the field for him on rd 17.

I'm shocked that supporters can't see a huge improvement on attitude and effort post Neeld.

What a rediculous post, lets not take into account the players possessions who took the field for him on rd 17.

I'm shocked that supporters can't see a huge improvement on attitude and effort post Neeld.

wasn't meant to be a sensible post More just a point that stats are meaningless.

jumbo, I recall you being alot more reasonable than this, which is why I thought you're labelling Craig a disaster was a joke. I really have no idea where you're coming from.

BECOMING non-competitive? What were we before?

Does that include the game we won? Against an established side?

The reality is Craig has taken a side from an incredibly low base, and in a few weeks has brought improvement in pretty much every single key indicator, whilst notching up a win and being in with a genuine chance of a second over the weekend.

No-one is saying that the current state of things is acceptable, but I'm not sure what you were expecting over the past few weeks.

You missed the word 'completely.'

Neeld had a vision. He built a magnificent backline, recruited the next Wayne Carey and brought Clark (problematic) and Dawes to the club.

His next step was mids, mids, mids.

The MFC is now the AFL's whipping boy - people are applauding a ruthless CEO, yet they were not comfortable in applauding a ruthless coach, that, in time, would have rebuilt the culture.

I'm going to game tomorrow P_Man - I hope many more attend.

You missed the word 'completely.'

Neeld had a vision. He built a magnificent backline, recruited the next Wayne Carey and brought Clark (problematic) and Dawes to the club.

His next step was mids, mids, mids.

The MFC is now the AFL's whipping boy - people are applauding a ruthless CEO, yet they were not comfortable in applauding a ruthless coach, that, in time, would have rebuilt the culture.

I'm going to game tomorrow P_Man - I hope many more attend.

You make an interesting case. I wonder how Bailey and Neeld will be remembered in future. I suspect Bailey's tenure will be seen as a failure but Neeld might be respected for putting in place a more professional on and off-field structure even though he may not have been the complete package.

Here's some more stats that matter:

Brent Moloney:

Round 5

Disposals 36

Cont. poss 16

Inside 50's 7

Clearances 10

Round 17

Disposals 0

Cont. poss 0

Inside 50 0

Clearances 0

Demons Improvement between rd 5 and 17:

Disposals +52

Cont. poss +18

Inside 50's +10

Clearances +13

So other than 16 disposals the difference is almost entirely attributed to Beamer

lol

What a rediculous post, lets not take into account the players possessions who took the field for him on rd 17.

I'm shocked that supporters can't see a huge improvement on attitude and effort post Neeld.

Exactly.

Who replaced Moloney in the midfield rotation? And how did he do?

Then you can do your flawed maths.

So other than 16 disposals the difference is almost entirely attributed to Beamer

What a massive waste of time, yours and mine.

Yes.

Probably.

Reject what? More mediocrity? Meekness? Becoming completely non-competitive? I'm not rejecting the reality. And 10 more tackles doesn't inspire me at all.

This is the part I don't follow:

You say we were patheitc under Neeld as you still regard us as non-competitive. And that is fine.

But then you say that Neeld could have brought about this improvement that we are seeing.

He didn't. He had 33 games to show some sort of consistency of performance and didn't get what Craig has been able to get in his 5 games.

We are still losers, and Craig may not be the man for the job - he may be simply getting 75% out of this group, but it is better than whatever percentage Neeld was getting out of them.

He was a failure, and I didn't need the juxtaposition of the perfomances of late to prove that, but it has been quite a exclamation mark.

Edited July 26, 201312 yr by rpfc

You missed the word 'completely.'

Neeld had a vision. He built a magnificent backline, recruited the next Wayne Carey and brought Clark (problematic) and Dawes to the club.

His next step was mids, mids, mids.

The MFC is now the AFL's whipping boy - people are applauding a ruthless CEO, yet they were not comfortable in applauding a ruthless coach, that, in time, would have rebuilt the culture.

I'm going to game tomorrow P_Man - I hope many more attend.

Okay, so you ARE a Neeld fan sticking to your guns. I thought by the "residual" comment you were not.

You can have your shoulda, coulda, wouldas, jumbo. I'm going to judge based on what I see on the field, and I'm witnessing improvement under a new coach, with players publicly stating that their improvement can be attributed directly to Craig's influence (e.g. Watts and Fitzy).

I'd advise you to move on from the Neeld fandom. He ma end up leaving behind a few good things for the club to build upon, but a competent senior coach he was not.

What a massive waste of time, yours and mine.

Define massive... I spent around 2 minutes... I'll write with smaller words next time if that helps you read quicker

Okay, so you ARE a Neeld fan sticking to your guns. I thought by the "residual" comment you were not.

You can have your shoulda, coulda, wouldas, jumbo. I'm going to judge based on what I see on the field, and I'm witnessing improvement under a new coach, with players publicly stating that their improvement can be attributed directly to Craig's influence (e.g. Watts and Fitzy).

I'd advise you to move on from the Neeld fandom. He ma end up leaving behind a few good things for the club to build upon, but a competent senior coach he was not.

Everybody can learn. Neeld was ousted before his plan came to fruition. Craig is not the man for me.

Don't forget that players improved under Neeld too. But, of course, there will never be any credit given for that.

Like I said, I'll go tomorrow, have a few beers and share a few laughs with some mates.

Life's good.