Paul Roos is the teflon man. Nothing sticks to the guy. He can even rise above the pack to praise Neeld for some of the elite aspirations he had. The positivity that flows from the man has permeated the maze of the office at the club. Players are even getting to training earlier than necessary. The dinner at Roos' place recently with assistants was the culmination of togetherness and love and positivity. In the past I'd puke, but Roos gives it substance.

Neeld cops a lot, and he copped more from me than anybody...and that is for most of his tenure. What irks me though is standing next to supporters who lazily criticise his decision to go with Trengove and Grimes as captain. You can be a monkey and state that "Grimes and Trenners" were too young and should not have been given the gig. Fact is, they were the best 2 of a very average lot. I'd say the only choices.

Nathan Jones gets tossed up, because prospectively, he was the best player in one of the worst outfits in memory. That is great, but nowhere near excellence. Jones is an introvert and should never be captain material in my book. He is favorite for the job in 2014 I would guess, but I reckon Roos is a better judge than that.

That left the wild boys Moloney and Sylvia. Gee wiz, enough said.

Mitch Clark had just arrived from Brisbane, and your Barry Davis - Chris Judd decisions are 2 in 50 years; and they were captains of their clubs pre-trade. Clark was not.

My 5c for 2014 is that Jack Viney will be in the leadership group. Too young many say. Well, no player had his intensity and repeat efforts per his tank at Melbourne in 2013. Dawes might be our Nick Maxwell too. Captain because of his brain rather than his footy ability.

Dawes might be our Nick Maxwell too. Captain because of his brain rather than his footy ability.

You rate Dawesy's intelligence that low...?

What

Is

The

Point

Of

Thread?

TL;DR.

He thinks the selection of the young co-captains was the right decision at the time.

Bloody painful way of saying it though.

You lost me at Dawes being our captain and Nick Maxwell...

Injury prone forward that we paid too much for.

I can buy the bit about Jonesy not being captain material. Then again, no one would say that Junior was a bloke who was a vocal leader but people respected him nonetheless.

But as for Trenners? It was never a good idea giving him the captaincy that early. Make him VC or deputy VC but captain was a bridge too far.

Yeah, nah.

The co-captains was a cop-out because of anxiety about appointing a young captain.

Just one would have been better. Maybe with two vice captains.

But it is pretty daft to appoint two young guys with little or almost no experience of their role as a leader, and then split it so that neither they nor anyone else is quite sure who is responsible for what, and a constant negotiation and collaboraation effort has to be made.

I rationalised it at the time, did my best to be positive, noting how both 'had great leadership qualities' but yeah, it was a dud decision.

But it is pretty daft to appoint two young guys ... and then split it so that neither they nor anyone else is quite sure who is responsible for what, and a constant negotiation and collaboraation effort has to be made.

When we follow the Sydney model and go with 2 or 3 captains next year, you'll be calling Roos daft as well?

Paul Roos is the teflon man. Nothing sticks to the guy. He can even rise above the pack to praise Neeld for some of the elite aspirations he had. The positivity that flows from the man has permeated the maze of the office at the club. Players are even getting to training earlier than necessary. The dinner at Roos' place recently with assistants was the culmination of togetherness and love and positivity. In the past I'd puke, but Roos gives it substance.

Neeld cops a lot, and he copped more from me than anybody...and that is for most of his tenure. What irks me though is standing next to supporters who lazily criticise his decision to go with Trengove and Grimes as captain. You can be a monkey and state that "Grimes and Trenners" were too young and should not have been given the gig. Fact is, they were the best 2 of a very average lot. I'd say the only choices.

Nathan Jones gets tossed up, because prospectively, he was the best player in one of the worst outfits in memory. That is great, but nowhere near excellence. Jones is an introvert and should never be captain material in my book. He is favorite for the job in 2014 I would guess, but I reckon Roos is a better judge than that.

That left the wild boys Moloney and Syliva. Gee wiz, enough said.

Mitch Clark had just arrived from Brisbane, and your Barry Davis - Chris Judd decisions are 2 in 50 years; and they were captains of their clubs pre-trade. Clark was not.

My 5c for 2014 is that Jack Viney will be in the leadership group. Too young many say. Well, no player had his intensity and repeat efforts per his tank at Melbourne in 2013. Dawes might be our Nick Maxwell too. Captain because of his brain rather than his footy ability.

I get the impression Roos does not see the Captain's appointment as his highest priority. I think he is more interested in the overall culture and "collective" leadership. For what it is worth, I think he will go with Dawes as Captain (if he thinks they can keep him on the park), Grimes and Jones as joint VCs, and the rest of the leadership Group comprising Clark, Trengove, Frawley, Cross and Vince.

What

Is

The

Point

Of

Thread?

Its not all bad as it gives my an opportunity to bag Mark Neeld again and again and again.

Its not all bad as it gives my an opportunity to bag Mark Neeld again and again and again.

Do you think any of us want to read you bag Mark Neeld again and again again?

Tread makes little sense, what is not neelds fault? Why start this attack on roos,.? Why do trolls like u start such things

The OP raises some interesting issues worth discussing and debating and hopefully, posters can rise above the groupthinking dislike of Mark Neeld spurred in the main by his epic failure as a coach at the Melbourne Football Club.

To judge the decisions made by Neeld and the football department of the time you need to consider the condition of the team and the list when Neeld's tenure began. He inherited a team that was inconsistent, described by their opponents as "bruise-free" and contained a group that included some disgruntled older players whose attitude to the pre season obligations was said to be poor.

Neeld opted to share the responsibility of captaincy between two young players and, in hindsight, the weight of their responsibility was too great. I'm not sure that even Roos would have dealt with the leadership issues much better than Neeld although most certainly, his experience and his football acumen would have given him the scope to deal better with the issues that were dished up to Neeld in those 1½ years.

This shouldn't be considered as either a Neeld bashing exercise or an attack on Paul Roos.

Roos, PJ, Bartlett and co are all still going through their "honeymoon" period and we're trusting them to make the right decisions. Some of those decisions are being made easier by the recruiting and list culling that necessarily took place in the past two years. We were in a dark place as a club as a result of 186. Neeld and Craig were on a hiding to nothing when they came in and the task proved too much for them. We're still in for some pain and I believe the worst is behind us but we would be foolish to believe that simply because of the changes made at the top, life for the club is going to be a bed of roses from now on and that no mistakes are going to be made in the future.

Well summariised W_J

I get the impression Roos does not see the Captain's appointment as his highest priority. I think he is more interested in the overall culture and "collective" leadership. For what it is worth, I think he will go with Dawes as Captain (if he thinks they can keep him on the park), Grimes and Jones as joint VCs, and the rest of the leadership Group comprising Clark, Trengove, Frawley, Cross and Vince.

If Dawes becomes captain we will be the laughing stock of the AFL.

Cant even get on the park and yet you want him leading the team from the stands?

I see the leadership qaulitys in Dawes, but seriously he is another Brad Miller that was just a honest battler.

If Dawes becomes captain we will be the laughing stock of the AFL.

Cant even get on the park and yet you want him leading the team from the stands?

I see the leadership qaulitys in Dawes, but seriously he is another Brad Miller that was just a honest battler.

By that I assume you think that Dawes will not be fit for the first game of the season?

Just had a rotten run last year, not a full pre season, followed by one niggle and another, he still managed half the games

If we go with more than one captain, I expect him to be in the mix

Having considered this issue for a while I am on the side of those who feel they were too young.

To be a captain at such an early age you have to be nearly a superstar on the ground first and have no issues about your own game, so that you can help and rally others. When you are not playing well or injured and very young, the task IMO is too much, as it was in this case.

I think both boys didn't play to their ability and Captaincy was one of the factors. That then affects the whole team.

I think there was a statement in making Trengove and Grimes captains - that the older players had failed the club in leadership, onfield performance and setting any reasonable standard for the youth of the club to follow. Can anyone disagree with this ?

The problem was that the jobs of Trengove and Grimes became even harder as some older players were exited and those who remained did not buy in. When Moloney was dumped from the leadership group by Bailey for his indiscretion he publicly went on record saying that he didnt need to be in the leadership group to be a leader of the club - admirable sentiments indeed. Contrast that to the reaction of the senior players when they were "dismissed" under Neeld.

I supported many of the things that I could see Neeld trying to do - trying to change our putrid culture, acknowledging that our seniors had not performed, acknowledging that our fitness was not up to AFL standard. From where I sit Neeld only made one mistake - execution and in turn bringing all players and officials along with him. ( and that was a huge matzoh ball of a mistake)

Do you think any of us want to read you bag Mark Neeld again and again again?

Yes

Hogan, Clark, Dawes and Terlich, are clear evidence that Neeld did more things right.

"we overpaid dawes" well we have to pay out the salary cap anyway, which is why front ended contracts for both Clark and Dawes were great ideas, and left us with money to bring in mids this year.

He did make necessary list management choices, and whilst the older players didnt really work out last year, it was not about on field performance but rather off field leadership and training techniques.

Sure Neeld did a lot of things wrong, but he also has helped provide the list with a great forward line and indirectly was involved with being able to create cash and room on the list for the midfield recruits we were able to get this year. It was a shame that last year players of cross and vinces quality werent available and even potentially michie because he knew we needed bigger bodies but the problem was the player availability was poor. but yes, ultimately neeld did alot of things wrong but also has provided our club with the basis of hopefully a very very competitive team that will play finals in years to come

Interestingly - If you had a blueprint of what Bailey identified as wrong with our club/playing list/culture and what he wanted to implement as opposed to what Neeld identified as problematic with our club and what he wanted to do and how he wanted to change things, I would say Neeld was streets ahead in indentifying where were failing. As we have painfully found out, knowing what the problems are and having the skillset to fix the problems are two entirely different things.

The point was made at the time - "they were the best of bad options."

As for any larger debate about what Neeld brought - this isn't a Marvel comic - he and his FD brought many good things during his failed tenure.

Interestingly - If you had a blueprint of what Bailey identified as wrong with our club/playing list/culture and what he wanted to implement as opposed to what Neeld identified as problematic with our club and what he wanted to do and how he wanted to change things, I would say Neeld was streets ahead in indentifying where were failing. As we have painfully found out, knowing what the problems are and having the skillset to fix the problems are two entirely different things.

You are wasting your time and energy on some on here, a complete lack of understanding, there is no grey, just black or white, I spent half of last season trying to explain the vision, it ultimately failed, so we should move on.....again some can't.......with Roos being the god like figure, they have lost a target they need...for now

I think Grimes did a great job and Trengove suffered. As the OP asks who were the alternatives? One critic may have preferred we retained Brad Green.

I think Grimes did a great job and Trengove suffered. As the OP asks who were the alternatives? One critic may have preferred we retained Brad Green.

well one alternative would have been to have one captain