Groan...

Neale's time at the club was up. He had been a good coach for 7-8 years he had been at the club but like everyone, sometimes if you have been a particular environment too long then your impact can be minimized. He had gotten the most he could have gotten out of that list and come 2007, it was obvious another rebuild was on the cards. While ND had already overseen two rebuilds of the club in his time there and while they both produced varying amounts of success, it was questionable whether he could do another one and take us to a flag.

Other long term coaches have left clubs as they have hit a flat spot but those clubs have managed to turn it around. Our biggest mistake in 2008 was listening to that chucklehead Mark Maclure, a bloke who admitted to Mike Sheehan that he just says stuff to get headlines, when he branded us a basketcase. Things weren't great to be sure but with some astute drafting, some recruits who were there to fill a need for the medium term and a progressive phase in of the kids, it needn't have turned out as bad as it did. The problem was never that ND stuffed the club, it was that the rebuild was totally botched.

Kevin Sheedy was sacked at Essendon in 2007 as well. Does that mean his entire 27 year career at the Bombers was a write off?

I don't think you're actually responding to the point being made.

It's not that Daniher was a poor coach throughout the entire decade that he coached but rather that we were in poor shape when he ended his term. The ladder at the time told the story 2 wins out of 13 matches played in 2007 before he was sacked. You're right about all that followed including the botched rebuilds but it started in the last few seasons of the Daniher regime when our recruiting and list development was not up to standard leaving Bailey with an enormous task to get the club up to scratch.

Incidentally, there are many at Essendon who thought the same of Sheedy's last 2 or 3 years which is apparently why PJ gave him the flick. My Essendon supporter friends also say he made a mistake with the person chosen to replace him but that's another story.

The bottom line is that both coaches had passed their use by dates and in their final years of coaching left their respective clubs is difficult situations.

I don't think you're actually responding to the point being made.

It's not that Daniher was a poor coach throughout the entire decade that he coached but rather that we were in poor shape when he ended his term. The ladder at the time told the story 2 wins out of 13 matches played in 2007 before he was sacked. You're right about all that followed including the botched rebuilds but it started in the last few seasons of the Daniher regime when our recruiting and list development was not up to standard leaving Bailey with an enormous task to get the club up to scratch.

Incidentally, there are many at Essendon who thought the same of Sheedy's last 2 or 3 years which is apparently why PJ gave him the flick. My Essendon supporter friends also say he made a mistake with the person chosen to replace him but that's another story.

The bottom line is that both coaches had passed their use by dates and in their final years of coaching left their respective clubs is difficult situations.

My point is that what happened with Neale was nothing but merely the cyclical process of football. It has happened to many other a club and they have gotten over it. It happened to us and we botched it. A balanced approach was required instead we got a schizophrenic youth policy that unfairly exposed our young draftees before they were ready.

I would suggest as well that 9 years without a premiership is a big black mark against your name for anyone and who is to say that Neale would have been offered an extension at the end of the year even if we had made the finals? Maybe if we had finished top four but even if he had guided us into the bottom half of the eight, it would have been no guarantee.

I believe this stuff about ND wrecking the footballing side of things is nothing more than certain people pushing a fantasy agenda to prop up people that they like(d) at the club.

If people want to know how 'horrible' the Daniher era was, maybe they should have a chat to Richard Colless.He mentioned the Daniher era as a time when it was tough to play the Demons. Not like the Bailey and Neeld eras when it was usually a time that was more akin to the bye.

Colin. Did you actually read any part of what I wrote?

Colin. Did you actually read any part of what I wrote?

I might ask you the same question. You were saying that the Daniher FD botched recruiting and development and that left us in a terrible state come 2008. I stated that what happened was merely what happens at most football clubs (there are the Sydneys of this world but they are more the exception and not the rule) and I will now elaborate further on this.

Clubs rebuild until they become finals/premiership contenders. They load up for a shot at the flag and maximize whatever results they can get during that 'up' period. Once that well is exhausted they go back to rebuilding.

We were at that final stage. It's happened to a lot of clubs. In fact the Western Bulldogs of 2011 were a case fairly similar to us in 2006. They too saw their premiership window open (or in our case in 2006, the era in which the list would reach it's potential), they loaded up (Aker, Barry Hall) and when the list had every drop squeezed out of it, they started to reload. The difference is that while they have since introduced some kids, they didn't a-hole their entire senior core and hang their youth out to dry. This is the reason why things got so bad. Not because Neale Daniher wrecked the club. Who is to say that if he and the then FD put their minds to it that they couldn't have produced another competitive squad during another rebuild? I don't think that would have been a good idea as the previous two rebuilds indicated that he wasn't going to win us a premiership and that's what we were 'aiming' for during the 2008-9 rebuild (snigger, snigger).

I also wonder how many Bulldogs supporters get onto their fan forums and s***can Rodney Eade for 'leaving us in a terrible place with list management and development'?

Quite frankly Jack, you need to let go of this 'let's spread the blame evenly and we can call it square' approach you seem to have. I would say if you were to apportion blame for our current predicament as a measure of percentage, Neale Daniher would get well under 10% of the blame.

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

I might ask you the same question. You were saying that the Daniher FD botched recruiting and development and that left us in a terrible state come 2008. I stated that what happened was merely what happens at most football clubs (there are the Sydneys of this world but they are more the exception and not the rule) and I will now elaborate further on this.

I suppose it wouldn't dawn on some posters that this is a forum where people can hold views other than theirs and that those others can think more logically than they can.

remember singing the song about 800 times at the corner hotel after the game

god damn i want to be back in the finals

I suppose it wouldn't dawn on some posters that this is a forum where people can hold views other than theirs and that those others can think more logically than they can.

If that is directed at me, when did I say Jack wasn't entitled to his opinions? Also where have I been illogical? It mightn't be logic you agree with but there is logic behind what I am saying.

How anyone can think Daniher left us in a good shape is beyond me and the team from that night backs this up to the hilt.

I love my players but when you talk culture there were a number of players in that final team who had behavioural issues while at the club, mainly related to alcohol, aggressive behaviour and/or gambling. Moreover, a number of others have been criticised over time for poor attitudes including selfishness on the field and the training track (there's some overlap between the two categories). Others never reached their full potential after displaying enormous promise early in their careers. If the task of the coach and your football department is to turn out better players and better people from the material they're given then this is not a good example of what we should expect. Nor is there any support for the claim that this sort of thing inevitably happens at the end of any football cycle.

If that is directed at me, when did I say Jack wasn't entitled to his opinions? Also where have I been illogical? It mightn't be logic you agree with but there is logic behind what I am saying.

Could have fooled me the way you carry on about agendas, [censored] canning and letting go but why don't you address the points he's making?

Could have fooled me the way you carry on about agendas, [censored] canning and letting go but why don't you address the points he's making?

I believe I did. They may not be to your satisfaction but I'm not here to make everyone happy.

As I write this, I'm entirely calm and enjoying myself. If you can't take a little robust discussion then so be it.

If you take what I have written as me believing that he's not entitled to his opinion that is your perception. I think his opinion is fine. I just don't agree with it.

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

How anyone can think Daniher left us in a good shape is beyond me and the team from that night backs this up to the hilt.

I love my players but when you talk culture there were a number of players in that final team who had behavioural issues while at the club, mainly related to alcohol, aggressive behaviour and/or gambling. Moreover, a number of others have been criticised over time for poor attitudes including selfishness on the field and the training track (there's some overlap between the two categories). Others never reached their full potential after displaying enormous promise early in their careers. If the task of the coach and your football department is to turn out better players and better people from the material they're given then this is not a good example of what we should expect. Nor is there any support for the claim that this sort of thing inevitably happens at the end of any football cycle.

Ah! Now this is a view I haven't heard before and one I would be interested in talking more about rumpole. I'm tired of this 'we needed to get rid of the old blokes earlier' line that gets wheeled out here but the stuff you have mentioned intrigues me.

If you aren't in danger of being sued, are there any specific incidents you can bring to light besides Brock McLean doing doeys in his ute and he and Chopper Carroll auditioning for Jimmy Sharman's boxing troupe?

I will digress with you a little in that all lists age and eventually have to be turned over. There is a difference between turning out a list that has aged and that needs to be rebuilt and turning out a list that has aged, needs to be rebuilt and produced a bunch of deadheads with it. The former happens at most clubs but I would agree that the latter doesn't always happen.

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Daniher stuffed our list beginning straight after the 2000 GF. He tried plugging gaps at CHF/CHB with guys like Miller, Robertson, Ellis, Bizzell and Rivers. None of them are KPP, Miller you could make an argument for but he didn't have the talent. Not to mention the fact he persevered with his favourites and accepted mediocrity from players who continually fell apart in big games (Yze, White, Johnstone, Bruce etc). Was a one dimensional coach who was good for the first 3 years but gave us nothing after that. Couldn't make a game day move to save himself either.

Daniher stuffed our list beginning straight after the 2000 GF. He tried plugging gaps at CHF/CHB with guys like Miller, Robertson, Ellis, Bizzell and Rivers. None of them are KPP, Miller you could make an argument for but he didn't have the talent. Not to mention the fact he persevered with his favourites and accepted mediocrity from players who continually fell apart in big games (Yze, White, Johnstone, Bruce etc). Was a one dimensional coach who was good for the first 3 years but gave us nothing after that. Couldn't make a game day move to save himself either.

I will say that if we were performing at the level of mediocrity that ND produced during 2012-13, I would be doing bloody cartwheels. Here's hoping Roosy is the man to take us back to the finals.

The persevering with mediocrity bit is a double edged sword. I see where you are coming from but we all saw when Neeld drew his line in the sand and dropped all those blokes back to the VFL. It wrecked some blokes confidence when all they needed was a bit of encouragement (Jack Watts) and alienated others away from the club (Beamer though it does sound like he was a bit of a prima donna). It's a fine line to straddle.

The CHF/CHB stuff was valid but that was one part of the ground.

My bone of contention is more with people who talk about how we needed to clean out the entire list within the space of a couple of years and replace the oldies with green kids. We had gotten to the point where the list was going to be turned over and Neale was never going to be the man to do it for a third time. However, the way it was done was the cause of our current ills, not that Neale didn't start nurturing kids earlier.

but it started in the last few seasons of the Daniher regime when our recruiting and list development was not up to standard

What do you think caused that? Daniher took over at the end of 1997 and in the following year took us to a preliminary final. He developed players well in the early days and we had some fair imports. I think the thing that hurt us was that we just didn't turn the list over enough and the few picks we had were failures.

But it 's not all down to Daniher, in fact I'd argue that Daniher has no responsibility for our position now. After 7 years of pain we are much worse performed than at any time since Daniher left. I think Colin is right. We went through a normal cyclical downturn but the rebuild faltered under Bailey and was trashed under Neeld. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood won flags within 7 years of the bottom of their cycle. We won 2 games.

Daniher is not responsible for us now in any way.

BTW, I think we are much better than a 2 game 54% club left to us by Neeld and Roos and the FD will demonstrate that this year. We will be unrecognisable. It's just a shame that careers were destroyed in the last 2 years where under different circumstances they could have succeeded.

At the end of the day, the only two players that are still with us that played in the Elimination Final in 2006 are Nathan Jones and Mark Jamar.

That says it all I think...

Gippy

Quite frankly Jack, you need to let go of this 'let's spread the blame evenly and we can call it square' approach you seem to have. I would say if you were to apportion blame for our current predicament as a measure of percentage, Neale Daniher would get well under 10% of the blame.

IMO, he has no blame whatsoever for the failings of others that followed him in senior roles at the Club.

But it 's not all down to Daniher, in fact I'd argue that Daniher has no responsibility for our position now. After 7 years of pain we are much worse performed than at any time since Daniher left. I think Colin is right. We went through a normal cyclical downturn but the rebuild faltered under Bailey and was trashed under Neeld. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood won flags within 7 years of the bottom of their cycle. We won 2 games.

Daniher is not responsible for us now in any way.

Like it.

How anyone can think Daniher left us in a good shape is beyond me and the team from that night backs this up to the hilt.

LOL. I dont think anyone has made that argument on this site before.

Look at Travis Johnstones foot skills in the wet. And the whole team in general.

No wonder our last 7 seasons have been so pathletic, our skills have been woeful the entire time.

And if people wanna know why we took Jimmy Toumpas at pick 4 have long hard think about it. Already the best kick at the club.

I miss when football was played like this, fast, free and with out 20 player around the ball.

We should have hired a coach who was under Paul Roos like St.Kilda did after this season, unfotunety its taken us 7 years to realise that but I guess its better we got the man who changed the game instead of a man under him.

What do you think caused that? Daniher took over at the end of 1997 and in the following year took us to a preliminary final. He developed players well in the early days and we had some fair imports. I think the thing that hurt us was that we just didn't turn the list over enough and the few picks we had were failures.

You've answered your own question.

I think we don't disagree all that much. We weren't in good shape when Daniher left. You and Colin think it was merely cyclical but I believe the collapse came too quickly for that to be the sole or main explanation. I think it was because Daniher got stale after about seven years and wasn't assisted by either his board or his football department, especially recruiting. There was a period in those last couple of seasons when he became the spruiker for the club at fundraising etc. and while he did that well, it shouldn't have been a role that he had to play. Clearly, he's not responsible for us now and we had ample opportunity but failed to rectify the situation. I agree that Bailey wasn't up to it but I think that "trashed" is too harsh a word for Neeld who was given a major clean up job after 186 and it was simply beyond him. I think like you, that we're not as badly off after Neeld than many think.

The debate here proves that its possible for there to be differing opinions of past events. There have been a number put forward in this thread.

The debate here proves that its possible for there to be differing opinions of past events. There have been a number put forward in this thread.

The past is never so black and white. Rumpole gave me a bit of food for thought and a new take on that situation.

IMO, he has no blame whatsoever for the failings of others that followed him in senior roles at the Club.

'Tis me being diplomatic Rhino. At a stretch you could say that 5-7% of what happened after his tenure was related to him but most likely the true answer as you said is zero (which is pretty much what I believe).

But it 's not all down to Daniher, in fact I'd argue that Daniher has no responsibility for our position now. After 7 years of pain we are much worse performed than at any time since Daniher left. I think Colin is right. We went through a normal cyclical downturn but the rebuild faltered under Bailey and was trashed under Neeld.

Trashed is a harsh word because it implies deliberate sabotage but Neeld did discard the previous rebuild for something far inferior.

The wreckage of the Neeld years can be salvaged though I must say that if he had stayed another year like others on here had advocated, it would have been hard to turn around (especially with Chip and Jack Watts having potentially walked out the door).

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Daniher stuffed our list beginning straight after the 2000 GF. He tried plugging gaps at CHF/CHB with guys like Miller, Robertson, Ellis, Bizzell and Rivers. None of them are KPP, Miller you could make an argument for but he didn't have the talent. Not to mention the fact he persevered with his favourites and accepted mediocrity from players who continually fell apart in big games (Yze, White, Johnstone, Bruce etc). Was a one dimensional coach who was good for the first 3 years but gave us nothing after that. Couldn't make a game day move to save himself either.

I disagree with a lot of this - but first and foremost I think it's completely unfair to say Johnstone fell apart in big games. He had a patchy career and didn't reach his potential but his record in finals was superb. I still don't think I've ever seen better f than what he produced against Adelaide that night in 2002.

Bizzell was a very good pick up and wasn't a CHB, he played as a rebounding defender. and Robertson kicked 78 goals as a FF in 2005.

We had a very good team around the 2002-2006 era, but were very prone to complacency. I guess Daniher has to take some of the blame for that - but he was a very good coach.

Is there any evidence of this "cyclical" folly?

Are all "cycles" similar? Is there a rule that applies to "cycles" and, if there is a rule, why are there so many exceptions?

The Swans should have been struggling after Roos retired as coach, surely?

I agree that Bailey wasn't up to it but I think that "trashed" is too harsh a word for Neeld who was given a major clean up job after 186 and it was simply beyond him. I think like you, that we're not as badly off after Neeld than many think.

The debate here proves that its possible for there to be differing opinions of past events. There have been a number put forward in this thread.

Trashed is a harsh word because it implies deliberate sabotage but Neeld did discard the previous rebuild for something far inferior.

Bailey had his strengths and weaknesses. It's hard to find any strengths in Neeld. Bailey managed to get quite a lot out of what he had, ok veterans and youth. It's hard to imagine and harder for some to admit that we held reasonable expectations of pushing for the finals in Bailey's last year. And all under a bitterly divided club and football department.

One of the things that hasn't rarely been stated here was the vile work environment generated by the football department under Neeld. It was hostile, derogatory and disrespectful to the players and crushing of spirit. Many of the players feared the coaches and didn't respect them. That's why I think the word "trashed" is apt but I understand what you're saying. It's clear that the Board and Schwab wanted a change of culture and that's fair enough, but they put in place a person who had no idea nor the tools to manage that change. It's surprising that we didn't speak to people like Williams and Eade who at least had the experience of managing players as senior coach.

I feel sorry for players who's AFL careers are now behind them save a late recall like Taggert and Tynan who never had a good AFL environment and others like Gysberts who needed encouragement and support to succeed, something he found under Bailey and got 2 rising stars in about a dozen appearances.

Roos treats the players with respect, is honest with them and encourages them. It's why I hold so much hope for this year because as well as an improved list we have an environment that is not the Neeld "one size fits all" but one where individual players strengths are recognized and we will be coached to our strengths.

Edited January 6, 201411 yr by Baghdad Bob

I was listening to an interview with Steve Waugh this morning in the car. He said that Darren Lehman has taken away all of the anxiety in the team. There's a belief and calmness. Lehman is hard, but he also has the players respect and they know he deeply cares about them. I suspect Paul Roos is very similar to Lehman. Nathan Jones stated in a recent interview, ''The other real noticeable thing is the morale around the place and the vibe of the playing group, and the excitement of the direction that we’re heading in. The belief that we’ve got has become really powerful and I’m pretty excited. To be honest, there is a lot of optimism.''. When he was asked about Neeld all he ever said was that the players need to ''buy in''.

I thought Neeld's harsh approach was needed at the time. I thought it was the right way. I was a fool. Sport is 80% above the shoulders. Like Lehman, I suspect Roos has removed all anxiety from this group.

Neeld may well have had unbelievably bad luck during his tenure, but he was also an unmitigated disaster that helped foist some of the turmoil by his approach.

I was listening to an interview with Steve Waugh this morning in the car. He said that Darren Lehman has taken away all of the anxiety in the team. There's a belief and calmness. Lehman is hard, but he also has the players respect and they know he deeply cares about them. I suspect Paul Roos is very similar to Lehman. Nathan Jones stated in a recent interview, ''The other real noticeable thing is the morale around the place and the vibe of the playing group, and the excitement of the direction that we’re heading in. The belief that we’ve got has become really powerful and I’m pretty excited. To be honest, there is a lot of optimism.''. When he was asked about Neeld all he ever said was that the players need to ''buy in''.

I thought Neeld's harsh approach was needed at the time. I thought it was the right way. I was a fool. Sport is 80% above the shoulders. Like Lehman, I suspect Roos has removed all anxiety from this group.

Neeld may well have had unbelievably bad luck during his tenure, but he was also an unmitigated disaster that helped foist some of the turmoil by his approach.

This is a great post and I hope you are right

I wouldnt say you were a fool as I also supported a different approach and supported Neeld while recogniszing he was an untried option. Not only sport is 80% above the shoulders, when all else is equal in any competition the difference will be above the shoulders.

Roos seems to be able to massage that component so lets hope it works or we will all be in the foolish camp.