Soulless club

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,533]

Funny I think it is the other way round

This has been discussed in D'land many times, so I won't go on about it other than to say I believe it's statistically unlikely that we haven't recruited at least one A-grade player in the last 10 years. Ergo, I believe the problem is primarily with player development.

Edited August 5, 2013 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[old dee 22,982]

This has been discussed in D'land many times, so I won't go on about it other than to say I believe it's statistically unlikely that we haven't recruited at least one A-grade player in the last 10 years. Ergo, I believe the problem is primarily with player development.

So does the reverse follow If we had one A grader would that mean it is the selection not the development?

I am not suggesting that the two problems don't exist I just look at a lot of the selections and think these players would still be crap

in any team.

eg. Bennel, Maric, Cook

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,533]

So does the reverse follow If we had one A grader would that mean it is the selection not the development?

I am not suggesting that the two problems don't exist I just look at a lot of the selections and think these players would still be crap

in any team.

eg. Bennel, Maric, Cook

Yes, if we had one A-grader any time in the last 10 years it would add weight to the argument that we'd been able to develop him so the others we recruited must have been intrinsically poorer to begin with or they, too, would have developed into A-grade performers.

Or to look at it another way, Travis Johnstone, Jeff White and Jack Watts were all pick number 1 - did any of them consistently deliver A-grade performances? They've all shown talent and that they had (or have) sublime skills...but none of them truly dominated their position. I know I'm being a bit harsh on Jeff White, but he didn't consistently deliver A-grade performances. And neither have any of our other earlier picks, such as Sylvia, Trengove, etc.

.

[praha 10,360]

I inquired about the History site. The club said they are currently redeveloping the site and an exciting new design coming soon.

[corowa 216]

Yes, if we had one A-grader any time in the last 10 years it would add weight to the argument that we'd been able to develop him so the others we recruited must have been intrinsically poorer to begin with or they, too, would have developed into A-grade performers.

Or to look at it another way, Travis Johnstone, Jeff White and Jack Watts were all pick number 1 - did any of them consistently deliver A-grade performances? They've all shown talent and that they had (or have) sublime skills...but none of them truly dominated their position. I know I'm being a bit harsh on Jeff White, but he didn't consistently deliver A-grade performances. And neither have any of our other earlier picks, such as Sylvia, Trengove, etc.

You are being harsh on Jeff White. After Jim Stynes he would be the best ruckman to play for Melbourne for decades.

It is only changes to the rules relating to centre bounces that curtailed Jeff's effectiveness. He wasn't as tall as many opposition rucks but he had a great leap. He was also a good mark around the ground.

.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Deeluded,

How was late 2011 a turning point for turning around our culture? I have heard you say this a few times and wonder what they have been putting in your tap water. Mark Neeld's mantra of 'my way or the highway' may have made us all feel great as we could live vicariously throughMN as he gave the players the scaldings we wished we could. Facts are though after X amount of time the effect of constant haranguing wears off and causes resentment. People have egos and different personalities and gone are the days where kids especially just don't do as their told. The carrot and stick approach was needed. Unfortunately MN looked at the carrot and walloped the donkey over the head with it as well.

You know my opinion on Daniher and I can appreciate the argument that people at the club were getting too comfortable towards the end of his tenure (something I hope you were intimating in this post and not that his entire reign was a disaster). As for Mark Neeld, I felt sorry for him when he was sacked and hold no ill will towards him. But to say his appointment was nothing short of a disaster is ludicrous and this is coming from someone who supported his appointment.

your right in all you state, except this is a path to 'break' the 'bad culture'... its a bit like the ways of the army. breaking down the trainee soldier's spirits individually, & mold them back the way required, into a team mentality. yes this is the old way. so under pressure they will work as a team, & not split in all directions.

..... but successive nice guy coaches have Not even shaken the 'were all mates at melbourne' attitudes, onfield, or on the track.

Neeld took on the job at Melbourne & IMO its common knowledge of our soft lazy culture,,, & has been for years. I suspect he took advice from both MM & MB,,, & NC, as to how he should attack the biggest part of changing this club, & so decided to come in hard with a stern gruff attitude & be the Hard Cop. Craig took the option of Soft Cop....we had both bases covered in case of a total rejection of the hard cop.

In doing this job, he grabbed the list & shook the hell out of it, & those who were "coach-able" were respected & played in the senior side, & those who chose to rebell & try to undermine the coach, were moved to the reserves & then out.

IMO, this now has given us the first Real opportunity, (now the Weak culture has been fractured) to instill strong healthy footy attitudes into the main list without the white-ants tunneling thru the New attitudes.

..... we are in a much better place Now, thanks to mark Neelds critical work. this won't show on the ladder or in matches yet, because we have lost games of experience, (even if those players who were bad leaders & role models) they could play... so we naturally have gone backwards temporarily onfield & on the ladder.

#BUT# we are now in a position for the 2 Jacks & Nate Jones to Install their attitudes into this List..

We are Now a much more attractive proposition to prospective coaches who would now see the 'coach killer dangerous bridges' have already been crossed... so they should have less fear of destroying their reputations & future careers.

.... we can now finally start to develop our players, as long as we get the right coach his assistants,,,,, to lead this club back out of the dark period of which generations of Melbourne people have endured, of all age groups.

sometimes you Have to backup, in order to get back onto the right road.

----------------------------

# daniher: IMO I think he was right into the job until after the 2000 GF smashing... I suspect that after this he realised how for off we really were, & they went back to the draft to look for quick fixes.. & some more so called leader types who were more extroverted. probably risk taker types.

we stuffed many of our picks as we didn't have the right people who were the best in their roles.

I think that after 2002ish, the club went into survivor mode just being performers rather than really building the club into a hard edged leading club looking for premierships.

I think the club lacked the funds to build, because of our poor base supporter numbers... we gradually aged, our better players retiring & all of a sudden 2007 was on us.

that whole Era, turned into a Waste of time, as far as building to win & succeed is concerned... the supporters who are just happy to go to a game & see some red & blue flashing here & there, would still have been passively satisfied with their lot.

So IMO that whole era has left us in a real hole... one which we've tried to rebuild out of our ground zero, but have stuffed it up till 2011.. the disliked decisions that were taken by Mark Neeld, will set us up going forward.

Edited August 6, 2013 by dee-luded

[monoccular 16,394]

I doubt we are going to agree on the talent of our list iv'a.

IMO we have the worst list in the competition by some margin.

You cannot pull your socks up if you don't have any on.

Simply because you were a good under age player means just that.

There are lots of players selected in the first 50 players every year that do not make it.

We have unfortunately managed to pick way more of the "don't make its" than to "do's".

Not certain that your last paragraph is necessarily the crux of the problem.

Maybe we did actually select the best available but they have been stifled by our poor structure, culture and coaching.

One can never tell of course but had these same players somehow ended up at Geelong (post handbag era) or Hawthorn then they may have done well. Would Cyril have been the gun he is had we selected him ahead of Cale, as we could have, and vice versa??

Edited August 6, 2013 by monoccular

[old dee 22,982]

Not certain that your last paragraph is necessarily the crux of the problem.

Maybe we did actually select the best available but they have been stifled by our poor structure, culture and coaching.

One can never tell of course but had these same players somehow ended up at Geelong (post handbag era) or Hawthorn then they may have done well. Would Cyril have been the gun he is had we selected him ahead of Cale, as we could have, and vice versa??

Monoccular I am from the poor selection vs poor development group.

I am not suggesting that development does not play a part.

I think we chose poorly with most of the players we have chosen in the last ten years, IMO poor choice that is the main problem

[dee-luded 2,958]

Monoccular I am from the poor selection vs poor development group.

I am not suggesting that development does not play a part.

I think we chose poorly with most of the players we have chosen in the last ten years, IMO poor choice that is the main problem

I think we do tend to recruit a certain type persona, & I have my ideas about that & our culture, & where that stems from.

What is your thoughts old dee, on the wrong choices we keep recruiting? & how would you describe this?

[monoccular 16,394]

Monoccular I am from the poor selection vs poor development group.

I am not suggesting that development does not play a part.

I think we chose poorly with most of the players we have chosen in the last ten years, IMO poor choice that is the main problem

I reckon it is probably a bit of both - at the time I thought that Cyril was >>>>> Cale, and that is indeed how it has turned out, but given our serial lack of success with our multitudinous high picks the question surely must arise.

[Guest]

your right in all you state, except this is a path to 'break' the 'bad culture'... its a bit like the ways of the army. breaking down the trainee soldier's spirits individually, & mold them back the way required, into a team mentality. yes this is the old way. so under pressure they will work as a team, & not split in all directions.

..... but successive nice guy coaches have Not even shaken the 'were all mates at melbourne' attitudes, onfield, or on the track.

Neeld took on the job at Melbourne & IMO its common knowledge of our soft lazy culture,,, & has been for years. I suspect he took advice from both MM & MB,,, & NC, as to how he should attack the biggest part of changing this club, & so decided to come in hard with a stern gruff attitude & be the Hard Cop. Craig took the option of Soft Cop....we had both bases covered in case of a total rejection of the hard cop.

In doing this job, he grabbed the list & shook the hell out of it, & those who were "coach-able" were respected & played in the senior side, & those who chose to rebell & try to undermine the coach, were moved to the reserves & then out.

IMO, this now has given us the first Real opportunity, (now the Weak culture has been fractured) to instill strong healthy footy attitudes into the main list without the white-ants tunneling thru the New attitudes.

..... we are in a much better place Now, thanks to mark Neelds critical work. this won't show on the ladder or in matches yet, because we have lost games of experience, (even if those players who were bad leaders & role models) they could play... so we naturally have gone backwards temporarily onfield & on the ladder.

#BUT# we are now in a position for the 2 Jacks & Nate Jones to Install their attitudes into this List..

We are Now a much more attractive proposition to prospective coaches who would now see the 'coach killer dangerous bridges' have already been crossed... so they should have less fear of destroying their reputations & future careers.

.... we can now finally start to develop our players, as long as we get the right coach his assistants,,,,, to lead this club back out of the dark period of which generations of Melbourne people have endured, of all age groups.

sometimes you Have to backup, in order to get back onto the right road.

----------------------------

# daniher: IMO I think he was right into the job until after the 2000 GF smashing... I suspect that after this he realised how for off we really were, & they went back to the draft to look for quick fixes.. & some more so called leader types who were more extroverted. probably risk taker types.

we stuffed many of our picks as we didn't have the right people who were the best in their roles.

I think that after 2002ish, the club went into survivor mode just being performers rather than really building the club into a hard edged leading club looking for premierships.

I think the club lacked the funds to build, because of our poor base supporter numbers... we gradually aged, our better players retiring & all of a sudden 2007 was on us.

that whole Era, turned into a Waste of time, as far as building to win & succeed is concerned... the supporters who are just happy to go to a game & see some red & blue flashing here & there, would still have been passively satisfied with their lot.

So IMO that whole era has left us in a real hole... one which we've tried to rebuild out of our ground zero, but have stuffed it up till 2011.. the disliked decisions that were taken by Mark Neeld, will set us up going forward.

It's a bit of old hat to be honest but I haven't been near a CPU terminal in ages and I feel compelled to answer this.

One question I ask and I ask this with no disrespect, but have you ever worked in an organization where your decisions and leadership are central to an organization/group? It seems that you have adopted this practice from the army and a famous general specifically:

http://youtu.be/clM1i88s-7Q

'There's only one way to win a campaign, SHOUT, SHOUT AND SHOUT AGAIN!....... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!'

When you talk about people being weeded out, wouldn't it be better to actually get people to willingly accept why they should train hard, stick to their diets and give 100% during a game rather than beat it into them? Sure the hard approach would scare some people off who are lazy but it will also turn people off who actually do work hard. Point in case: Beamer Moloney/Colin Sylvia and Jared Rivers/Chip Frawley. The only similarity with these pairings is not merely field position. Say what you like about Beamer as I felt that he sulked it through 2012 and his 'farewell message' MN was one of the most petty acts performed by an adult (in the AFL and in my life). However, Jared Rivers didn't dog it once during 2012. He tried hard every week to push the ongoing tide back and kicked a few goals every now and then when he was thrown forward despite it not being his natural position. Something they share in common is that they both left and that both were pretty vocal in their criticism of Neeld after they left (though Riv said his piece and left it that whilst Beamer behaved like an 8 year old). We were going to face a similar dilemma with Chip and Col with Col playing the role of Beamer (talented yet wayward player though in Beamer's case only in 2012) and Chip playing the role of Riv.

A lot of what you write about is based on speculation and not results. It's definitely not reflected on the scoreboard. Peter Jackson has described us as a liablity to the AFL and both he and Neil Craig have intimated there was going to be a mass walk out if the coaching situation wasn't remedied. It's an easy cop out to say 'The people who have left were soft anyway so I don't need them'. It allows people to avoid self analysis and that was Mark's real problem.

I will add finally that life has changed since Ron Barassi last coached Melbourne (and there are others out there who may debate points of your theory). When Ron left, VHS tapes had just been invented. You could club a baby seal to death with your standard mobile phone. The internet was only the property of the military. The Soviet Union was still alive. The AFL was the VFL, most players had full time jobs, and as David Rhys Jones said, most times after a game, you weren't eating bananas and yoghurt, it was a tinny and a [censored] which went in your mouth. If you think stuff that worked back then is just as valid or the world hasn't changed at all, then you are deluding yourself. Players move clubs. Players have agents. Players have a union. Because of that alone, the Dickensian workhouse master approach won't work.

I can see bits and pieces of what you are saying about ND. I felt after 2000 as well it was kind of 'What we need now is consistency'. It's true that we needed some after the up and down first five years but what we needed was consistent excellence. We then became consistently 'good', not awful but not near the top clubs, where we needed to be. That being said, after the last 5 years of poo, I would take consistently good. I too said Mark Neeld came to burn down the village to save it. He merely burnt the village down.

[Mydee 288]

If you don't know where you've been, you don't know where you're going.

It's not about living in the past. It's not even about copying the past. It's not about the need to forge a new future.

It's about pride, heritage and ultimately, it's about who we are. We are the oldest organised sporting club in the world, and we don't even have our website telling people who we are, and where we come from.

Absolutely- This is the club of Bluey Truscott and Ron Barrasi Snr- amongst many others. It is not a valid argument to imply that remembering this history is an excuse for not modernising and undertaking a professional approach.

[dee-luded 2,958]

It's a bit of old hat to be honest but I haven't been near a CPU terminal in ages and I feel compelled to answer this.

One question I ask and I ask this with no disrespect, but have you ever worked in an organization where your decisions and leadership are central to an organization/group? It seems that you have adopted this practice from the army and a famous general specifically:

http://youtu.be/clM1i88s-7Q

'There's only one way to win a campaign, SHOUT, SHOUT AND SHOUT AGAIN!....... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!'

When you talk about people being weeded out, wouldn't it be better to actually get people to willingly accept why they should train hard, stick to their diets and give 100% during a game rather than beat it into them? Sure the hard approach would scare some people off who are lazy but it will also turn people off who actually do work hard.

Point in case: Beamer Moloney/Colin Sylvia and Jared Rivers/Chip Frawley. The only similarity with these pairings is not merely field position. Say what you like about Beamer as I felt that he sulked it through 2012 and his 'farewell message' MN was one of the most petty acts performed by an adult (in the AFL and in my life).

However, Jared Rivers didn't dog it once during 2012. He tried hard every week to push the ongoing tide back and kicked a few goals every now and then when he was thrown forward despite it not being his natural position. Something they share in common is that they both left and that both were pretty vocal in their criticism of Neeld after they left (though Riv said his piece and left it that whilst Beamer behaved like an 8 year old). We were going to face a similar dilemma with Chip and Col with Col playing the role of Beamer (talented yet wayward player though in Beamer's case only in 2012) and Chip playing the role of Riv.

A lot of what you write about is based on speculation and not results. It's definitely not reflected on the scoreboard.

Peter Jackson has described us as a liablity to the AFL and both he and Neil Craig have intimated there was going to be a mass walk out if the coaching situation wasn't remedied. It's an easy cop out to say 'The people who have left were soft anyway so I don't need them'. It allows people to avoid self analysis and that was Mark's real problem.

I will add finally that life has changed since Ron Barassi last coached Melbourne (and there are others out there who may debate points of your theory).

When Ron left, VHS tapes had just been invented. You could club a baby seal to death with your standard mobile phone. The internet was only the property of the military. The Soviet Union was still alive. The AFL was the VFL, most players had full time jobs, and as David Rhys Jones said, most times after a game, you weren't eating bananas and yoghurt, it was a tinny and a [censored] which went in your mouth.

If you think stuff that worked back then is just as valid or the world hasn't changed at all, then you are deluding yourself. Players move clubs. Players have agents. Players have a union. Because of that alone, the Dickensian workhouse master approach won't work.

I can see bits and pieces of what you are saying about ND. I felt after 2000 as well it was kind of 'What we need now is consistency'. It's true that we needed some after the up and down first five years but what we needed was consistent excellence. We then became consistently 'good', not awful but not near the top clubs, where we needed to be. That being said, after the last 5 years of poo, I would take consistently good. I too said Mark Neeld came to burn down the village to save it. He merely burnt the village down.

Footy clubs back in the day,,, & also other ways, as you go on to suggest, re therapies, & anger groups etc.... & responsible for construction workers & had to deal with both management resistance & worker resistance. so had to be both soothing & sometimes blunt & hard as well.

..... so I understand both ways you describe as I had to learn about them the hard way, from both sides, & have the life experiences from myself, whereby both are sometimes called for, IMO.... at different stages.

I think the culture was so bad & ingrained, the easiest & quickest way, without having Roosy there to try to weave his magic, was to go in hard... Bad cop - Good cop, initially, & then once the bad fruit was gone, I think we would have witnessed a mellowing of Neeld into the gentle persuasion routine.

.... a bit like a Clarkson... Barassi fire turning into Clarkson style.

.... as far as scaring off, players refusal to take part in time trials,,, is a Weed, bad fruit. better off gone..

the putting off the players for One season helped us in the draft with Viney Toumpas & Hogan... so without last years poor showing. we would not have made this happen.

the issue was the under-estimation of our weak cultures ability to respond after we removed older players from the list in order to aid creating the New Culture.. so it cost us one season more. & the loss of the coach because of his judgement error.

IMO, keeping all the bad eggs & the whole list together, we wouldn't have changed at all, & Neeld would still be gone with the players rebelling. and the poor culture would be alive and kicking sand in our own faces.

of the players Riv would have been a keeper, the only one in my book. but i think he was seen as not being around when we next make the Finals so was allowed to go.

Its easier some times when you really want to make Deep cultural cuts & changes, to prune the bad work right out to a basic framework & start fresh...

this was IMO where the Board, & Neeld were intending to do, BUT they made a huge misjudgement/gamble. they underestimated the passiveness of the supporters after we had already sat thru 4 Yrs prior of rebuild with Bailey... this was the crucial mistake for the plan they tried to implement.

& some people were deliberately trying to fire the supporter group up into action, to stop being so passive... I was one stirring.

this helped to cause supporters to fire up, but also caused imo, the backfire on the coach & plan. I'm sorry to say.

but nethertheless, IMO the culture has been cracked, & can now be reworked into something good.

I honestly think going the softly softly direction from the start, would have taken a topline coach 6Yrs to change this club... Now I think we can do it in 2Yrs.

On your last paragraph, I was not hoping to bring back Fire & Brimstone Coaching, (see my strong desire for Roos to coach us),,, but I wanted someone to come in & rip the Rotten culture to shreds first before a Roosy took over.

So as I hope came across in what I posted, I wanted to smash the weak culture to 'smithereens', & then mold the new boys into a real club/team & drive the new strong healthy values into a New Way for this club... growing into a club Culture.

on & off field.

[P-man 13,277]

I inquired about the History site. The club said they are currently redeveloping the site and an exciting new design coming soon.

You know things aren't good when the only excitement the club can offer in good faith relates to the design of the website.

[old dee 22,982]

You know things aren't good when the only excitement the club can offer in good faith relates to the design of the website.

and history again