Neeld made a lot of mistakes, but this wasn't one of them

[robbiefrom13 887]

what about "the Schwab era"? Who knows how many decisions had his fingerprints on them. But he is a common d(en)ominator...

[Whispering_Jack 30,242]

The fault with the censorship of words is with the programming. I haven't the foggiest idea why it would censor the word "idiot" on this site when we have so many of them posting here

[daisycutter 29,622]

The fault with the censorship of words is with the programming. I haven't the foggiest idea why it would censor the word "[censored]" on this site when we have so many of them posting here

i expect there will be table somewhere jack which is maintainable by an administrator

[Whispering_Jack 30,242]

I think the problem some have with the broader issue of this thread is that they believe this exercise is some sort of blame game in which the discussion is necessarily centred upon who was the better or worse coach - Bailey or Neeld - or, more specifically, to what extent people want to create scapegoats.

Rpfc demonstrates a good understanding of this when he talks of "eras" rather than of personalities because the other approach overlooks the basic cause and effect that led to our decline after a promising season in 2010. Instead of trying to exonerate one or other of blame, we should be looking at what happened between 2010 and 2011 that led us to become a team that exhibited such weak tendencies that led to the meltdowns against Hawthorn and the West Coast Eagles in early 2011. Hannabal might want to pin 186 on "toxic political machinations" but I would suggest the deeper problem was related more to the direction we were taking in terms of a style of football which would inevitably fail. We were good flat track bullies over certain sides like the Suns, a developing Richmond, against injury weakened interstaters like Adelaide and Freo at home but our style of game had been worked out by the better coaches. We were easy meat for the stronger clubs and we were mauled relentlessly by them.

The thing that stands out is that when the chips were down we lacked in leadership. It's not the individual Green who is blame but the fact that out leadership group simply did not stand up at the time because there was never a proper succession plan put into place to develop strong leadership at the club.

In hindsight, one of the problems was that we let McDonald go a year early. I was in favour of the move at the time but the loss of Junior, Bruce and Miller in one fell swoop left us with a large void in leadership that came back to bite us hard in the bum. The die was already cast but I think there were other mistakes of judgement made by the club during the early part of 2011.

I'll focus on one of them and that was the situation with Brent Moloney and the night club incident which was poorly handled in that the discipline imposed failed to set the appropriate standards for a young team. IMO he should have been suspended for a period of weeks and lost his place in the leadership group for the remainder of the season.

Collingwood reaped the benefits of that sort of discipline two years earlier and many at that club will tell you that the heavy sanctions on Shaw and Didak, whilst tough on a club into the lead up to the finals, was a significant factor in it winning its flag in 2010. Our failure to impose the correct measure of discipline on an errant team leader at the time was a mistake. In a sense, it provided empowerment that led to the involvement of the players in those "toxic political machinations" that occurred later in the year. I believe a more experienced and stronger captain like McDonald would have handled the situation better than Green and could have helped avoid the implosion that followed (there were of course, others at the club who also could have handled the situation better as well).

So by the end of 2011, the club had a massive void in leadership and Neeld was brought in to regenerate in a broken club. The Neeld era was littered with mishaps and not helped by the fact that he as a coach was far too dogmatic in his approach and failed to demonstrate the flexibility required to bring in what was a fairly dramatic change in game plan. As it turns out, he made the same mistake as his predecessor in that the game was changing too fast and the things he was trying to implement were probably never going to work but he was limited in his choices for team leadership. Grimes and Trengove were thrown to the wolves but they are quality individuals who I believe will gain from the benefits of adversity more than from the hardships they and the team suffered during this brief era.

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

Dead right Jack. Leadership was a major problem, but right from the top.

Jimmy was ill, Schwab was doing his usual, trying to set himself as the coaches coach, instead of minding his own business.

His finger prints were everywhere.

It was his idea to get rid of the leaders and fill them with gifted kids.

That may have worked in 1953 - 54, when football was an amateur local comp.

Not in a national totally professional business.

Isn't it great at the moment. We don't have the CEO mouthing off about coaches and Red & Blue prints.

The president is quietly going about his job. Sponsors are on board.

And all us supporters have to complain about is hiring a player that has a degenerative knee problem.

I think life is pretty damn good being a Melbourne supporter at the moment.

[mjt 640]

The fault with the censorship of words is with the programming. I haven't the foggiest idea why it would censor the word "[censored]" on this site when we have so many of them posting here

Try reading the Bombers Supplement Thread, it's full of idiots participating.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Dead right Jack. Leadership was a major problem, but right from the top.

Jimmy was ill, Schwab was doing his usual, trying to set himself as the coaches coach, instead of minding his own business.

His finger prints were everywhere.

It was his idea to get rid of the leaders and fill them with gifted kids.

That may have worked in 1953 - 54, when football was an amateur local comp.

Not in a national totally professional business.

Isn't it great at the moment. We don't have the CEO mouthing off about coaches and Red & Blue prints.

The president is quietly going about his job. Sponsors are on board.

And all us supporters have to complain about is hiring a player that has a degenerative knee problem.

I think life is pretty damn good being a Melbourne supporter at the moment.

Agree with what we have at the moment. I hope Bartlett and Jackson pretty some fundamental leadership, governance and discipline where there was little before them.

While you can hang Schwab and he had faults, you have to ask who was overseeing him and who was responsible for a bizarre contract extension in 2011 and a further contract during a serious AFL investigation (only to sack him 3 months later)......the Board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It frustrates me that Bailey and Neeld are coupled together as failures. Bailey had by far the harder task. He had no facilities and no money in the FD when he came. I sat in a meeting where he was told we didn't have enough money for new training footballs. We were training with ones that were out of shape. (Ironically the person who gave him this advice didn't understand the budget and denied him new footys when we did have the money!!).

He started with an exhausted list with ageing "stars", many journeymen and few young players. The club was led by a CEO (Harris) who knew he was done and had mentally switched off. He was directed to go down the youth path by the new CEO and Board and sacrificed games for youth. He didn't trade in one mature player bar John Meesen and that agreement was "done" before he was appointed. He sacrificed games for picks to his own obvious detriment. He had an extraordinarily young list but managed to get 8.5 wins in each of his last two years. Yes we had some awful results and yes we were inconsistent but our list was not unlike the Suns and Giants who in their first years didn't get anywhere near 8.5 wins.

Neeld came in with many good young players on the list with a year or two under their belts. He had exceptional facilities, he had an expanded and fully funded FD, he traded early picks for established players and yet didn't manage as many wins in his tenure that Bailey got in his final 15 odd games.

Bailey had his weaknesses and I don't think he was the right person to lead us into finals but he never got the opportunity. MN was a very unfortunate appointment who was nowhere near Dean Bailey's level of competence and the two should not be "coupled".

Nailed it Bob. The efforts made to exonerate or rewrite the disaster Neeld stanza are laughable. A terrible appointment process brought to the embattled a completely inadequate coach in every facet.

[The Great Pretender 463]

Nailed it Bob. The efforts made to exonerate or rewrite the disaster Neeld stanza are laughable. A terrible appointment process brought to the embattled a completely inadequate coach in every facet.

That's a nice re-write in itself.

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

I think the problem some have with the broader issue of this thread

Just for clarity as I'm not sure whether you are referring to the discussion of my post as the "broader issue of this thread" but my post was nothing more than saying Bailey was a much better coach than Neeld. I'm not arguing Bailey was a good coach (although I think he is much better than some give him credit for). Master I'm not arguing there weren't drafting errors. I'm not arguing we were a good team under Bailey and I'm not arguing Bailey didn't make mistakes.

I'm arguing that when you compare Bailey and Neeld then Bailey was significantly better than Neeld and they should not be coupled together in terms of coaching ability.

All this talk of "eras". Old Dee will tell you that this era started in 1965 and won't end until we've got a flag. Since 2006 we have been a disgrace. We've debated the reasons and we know where we stand. But Bailey should not be tarred with the same brush as Neeld. I'm not disrespecting Neeld, I'm not blaming him. I'm saying Baileys record is very significantly better and to say they are the same is just plain wrong.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Just for clarity as I'm not sure whether you are referring to the discussion of my post as the "broader issue of this thread" but my post was nothing more than saying Bailey was a much better coach than Neeld. I'm not arguing Bailey was a good coach (although I think he is much better than some give him credit for). Master I'm not arguing there weren't drafting errors. I'm not arguing we were a good team under Bailey and I'm not arguing Bailey didn't make mistakes.

I'm arguing that when you compare Bailey and Neeld then Bailey was significantly better than Neeld and they should not be coupled together in terms of coaching ability.

All this talk of "eras". Old Dee will tell you that this era started in 1965 and won't end until we've got a flag. Since 2006 we have been a disgrace. We've debated the reasons and we know where we stand. But Bailey should not be tarred with the same brush as Neeld. I'm not disrespecting Neeld, I'm not blaming him. I'm saying Baileys record is very significantly better and to say they are the same is just plain wrong.

Both coaches were poor and almost polar opposites.

Both were poor choices for the MFC, who was better or worse is really only relevant for phallus comparisons on Demonland.

[Whispering_Jack 30,242]

Just for clarity as I'm not sure whether you are referring to the discussion of my post as the "broader issue of this thread" but my post was nothing more than saying Bailey was a much better coach than Neeld.

The broader issue is about coaching and leadership and while you've put your case about Bailey being the better coach, I would argue that it's a moot point about the evil of two lessers and one that really doesn't matter anyway. Each had the same number of wins in their first 33 games but Bailey was kept on for two seasons longer than Neeld so I guess he wins ... but only just. Both inherited [censored] sandwiches and both had careers that ended in disgrace and a shambles. By me, that means Bailey doesn't even get a consultation prize for the feat of being a better coach than Neeld.

I think we should be more concerned with righting the wrongs of both eras and hoping that the new coach and his leadership group are up to the challenge.

[Deeman 1,497]

Both coaches were poor and almost polar opposites.

Both were poor choices for the MFC, who was better or worse is really only relevant for phallus comparisons on Demonland.

How did the "ph" word get through the censors?

[old dee 23,801]

The broader issue is about coaching and leadership and while you've put your case about Bailey being the better coach, I would argue that it's a moot point about the evil of two lessers and one that really doesn't matter anyway. Each had the same number of wins in their first 33 games but Bailey was kept on for two seasons longer than Neeld so I guess he wins ... but only just. Both inherited [censored] sandwiches and both had careers that ended in disgrace and a shambles. By me, that means Bailey doesn't even get a consultation prize for the feat of being a better coach than Neeld.

I think we should be more concerned with righting the wrongs of both eras and hoping that the new coach and his leadership group are up to the challenge.

I agree WJ.

Otherwise we end up in a never ending discussion about which was the crappier (is that a word?).

Needless to say there is very little in those six years really worth the effort.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Or even a consolation prize.

[Machsy 2,858]

Both coaches were poor and almost polar opposites.

Both were poor choices for the MFC, who was better or worse is really only relevant for phallus comparisons on Demonland.

I think both bad very very different strengths and different glaring deficiencies.

To say that Bailey was better than Neeld, I think, is disingenuous.

Neeld had his obvious failings, but Bailey had let training standards drop to such a low point that it is one of few things Neeld can hang his hat on, having changed for the better.

The complete absence of defensive running, and the playing group getting ahead of itself to such a degree it felt it had power over the sacking of the CEO, shows an ineptitude of massive proportions.

Both good blokes, I'm sure, but not an AFL coach's bootlace.

[rpfc 28,542]

Nailed it Bob. The efforts made to exonerate or rewrite the disaster Neeld stanza are laughable. A terrible appointment process brought to the embattled a completely inadequate coach in every facet.

I honestly don't think that there is a population of posters who think the above large enough to warrant this hubris.

Neeld was a disastrous failure - that is an opinion that will not find much disagreement.

When posters want to talk about the context of the mess we find ourselves in we cannot simply start with October 2011 and the hiring of Mark Neeld.

The reasons for our current malaise begin well before the rot set in, well before our malaise started, and - like a skipping stone - the reasons why we continued to struggle continued through the Bailey Era and into the Neeld Era.

If you and BB wish to rank coaches - that is a very short thread: Daniher, Bailey, Neeld. Happy?

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

what about "the Schwab era"? Who knows how many decisions had his fingerprints on them. But he is a common d(en)ominator...

I blame him for most of the ills when he was in charge. Coaches and players are victims to varying degrees. And perhaps even the board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

When posters want to talk about the context of the mess we find ourselves in we cannot simply start with October 2011 and the hiring of Mark Neeld.

The reasons for our current malaise begin well before the rot set in, well before our malaise started, and - like a skipping stone - the reasons why we continued to struggle continued through the Bailey Era and into the Neeld Era.

You are either naive or self serving playing that ridiculous argument. No one is claiming the rot started with Neeld. But well done on your batting order of coaches.

[mdemonski2 403]

I think both bad very very different strengths and different glaring deficiencies.

To say that Bailey was better than Neeld, I think, is disingenuous.

Neeld had his obvious failings, but Bailey had let training standards drop to such a low point that it is one of few things Neeld can hang his hat on, having changed for the better.

The complete absence of defensive running, and the playing group getting ahead of itself to such a degree it felt it had power over the sacking of the CEO, shows an ineptitude of massive proportions.

Both good blokes, I'm sure, but not an AFL coach's bootlace.

I never heard bailey in a pre game speech but I still cringe when I think of neeld's televised one.

Now I know that is one small element of coaching but it was appalling. If it was symptomatic of the way he coached in other aspects it is no wonder we got smashed each week.

[Carrot Top 947]

I think both bad very very different strengths and different glaring deficiencies.

To say that Bailey was better than Neeld, I think, is disingenuous.

Neeld had his obvious failings, but Bailey had let training standards drop to such a low point that it is one of few things Neeld can hang his hat on, having changed for the better.

The complete absence of defensive running, and the playing group getting ahead of itself to such a degree it felt it had power over the sacking of the CEO, shows an ineptitude of massive proportions.

Both good blokes, I'm sure, but not an AFL coach's bootlace.

True. When Bailey left we were in a bigger mess than when he took over. Not all of that can be laid at his feet, but enough of it can. For a so called development coach we saw a lot of talented kids drown.

Neeld inherited a mess and made it worse through bad man management and substandard tactical ability. But he did make them train hard, even if he went about it arse up.

Roos will get a list of talented kids (Bails) that have been made to understand that hard training is the norm (Neeld). It's obviously not ideal where we are, but even though those two failed badly at the job they were given, they have - in a roundabout way - given the new regime something to work with that wasn't there in 2007.

[rpfc 28,542]

You are either naive or self serving playing that ridiculous argument. No one is claiming the rot started with Neeld. But well done on your batting order of coaches.

I didn't say you did, but this useless 'Bailey was bad but not as bad as Neeld' is self serving or naive. Maybe both.

[TGR 1,367]

I never heard bailey in a pre game speech but I still cringe when I think of neeld's televised one.

Now I know that is one small element of coaching but it was appalling. If it was symptomatic of the way he coached in other aspects it is no wonder we got smashed each week.

Amazing how they do all this profiling, all this psych testing, but a basic such as "OK Mark, you are the Coach, this is a scenario.....we are the players....what are you going to say?" is considered so basic and so junior, it would never be asked....probably for good reason.

Problem is, that Neeldy would have struggled to pull it off unless he quoted Kennedy.

Can't believe some are even comparing Bailey with Neeld. One of them you wouldn't mind coaching your son; the other you would be sitting in your car with your phone (speed dial DHS) in one hand, and in the other, an elephant tranquilizer ready to go. God, imagine if they ate his lollies!

Under 9 banner "Hunt with speed".

[H_T 3,049]

They can be coupled together with Daniher's last few years to explain the decisions that left us with the list that we are left with.

Would it be better to say the 'Eras' of these coaches? As opposed the men themselves?

The Bailey Era is lumped with the other failed eras because that is what they are.

The latter half of the Daniher Era saw the MFC trade away picks and brought in discarded help because he thought he was close to a flag.

The start of the Bailey Era was stunted by the 'retirings' of seasoned pros that had a few years left with the pros that had no years left, The Bailey Era then saw no mature bodies brought into the club to restock save for Meesen and MacDonald, with the 'siren call' of the draft beckoning we were at the mercy of a skill we have never been quite adept - choosing the right teenagers, especially at the pointy end of the draft. The claims of poor development are not without cause, but are left somewhat moot by the fact that Morton, Gysberts and Cook have been abandoned by the AFL at large.

The Neeld Era shook this tree and while saving us another year of Morton and Gysberts left the confidence of a young, talent-bereft team in tatters. Losing Moloney for nothing was a headache, nearly losing a number of players if he had stayed would have been an embarrassing disaster similar to what the Lions had to endure this past off-season.

All throughout these eras has been an abject inability to pick talent in the draft. The cupboard was bare and hopefully the last two drafts are filled with successes, because we need them.

Spot on!

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

Spot on!

Isn't hindsight marvellous. Shame the hindsight experts spent their time cheerleading Whiteboard Wednesday, draft positioning and stillborn youth policies when they should have had a more critical appreciation of what was really going on. Many knew there was a bad smell around but some influential posters were all to wiling to help paper over the cracks.

Edited February 3, 2014 by america de cali