St. Kilda v Melbourne - 2006 Elimination Final

[Whispering_Jack 28,004]

Permit me to be a dissenting voice on a couple of issues not because of the fact that there's a need to defend Mark Neeld/attack Dean Bailey but because there are some things that simply don't resonate with me.

Firstly, the view that the players were flogged too hard in preseason training under Neeld. This flies in the face of comments from Neeld that the policy in 2012 and 2013 were to work to the intensity of 60% rising to 80% of the top clubs like Collingwood. This was said to be done to ensure that the players (especially the younger ones) were not subjected to potential injury from the stress and strain of moving too quickly into maximum workloads. The fitness programme was prepared by Dave Misson who is still at the club and working under Paul Roos.

Moreover, looking at reports at the time on Demonland and in the media, I can't see many claims that the group was overworked other than in a few individual instances of players lagging at the back in basic running exercises and training routines. I heard no complaints from the (admittedly) small number of players with who I discussed pre season training both at the time and later in the year.

Secondly, while I accept that by the start of the season Neeld no longer had the full confidence of all the playing group it's not clear that this was directly a consequence of his supposed "school teacher"/harsh approach.

Again, it's not consistent with what I heard from the players at the time. I believe that rather than it being due to the harsh approach, it was more a result of a loss of belief in what he was trying to do.

Neeld was given the task of hardening up a team that was known to be "soft" ("bruise-free") and below the required overall fitness; a team that fell apart in the face of pressure applied by the top sides. I can't see that Roos' aims will be much different although his methods and manner certainly will be. However, there will be times when Roos will find it necessary to work the players hard on the track and there will be other times when harsh words are required.

I don't expect us to suddenly become a team of nancy boys who shun hard work or harsh words under Roos and I don't accept this was the problem under Neeld.

IMO he simply wasn't up to it in his coaching methods and in getting his game style across (especially on match days) and the players knew this and responded accordingly.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

IMO he simply wasn't up to it in his coaching methods and in getting his game style across (especially on match days) and the players knew this and responded accordingly.

Can you expand on this? What is your understanding of his player management skills, his ability to communicate, his ability to unite and inspire a playing group and his ability to build relationships?

Your post above seems to say he had poor coaching methods and couldn't explain his game plan which ignores his relationship with the playing group which I think was his major downfall.

[Whispering_Jack 28,004]

What I'm saying is based on conversations with players and other mainly anecdotal evidence to the effect that he wasn't an effective communicator in translating what he was doing at training and talks with his players to an effective, coherent game plan. As with all coaches who carry poor records with them, there will be critics internally on a personal level as there were with Neeld's predecessors.

I'm sure you can enlighten me with some examples of how his relationship with players were so different at Melbourne where he was a senior coach than at Collingwood and at previous clubs (TAC Cup and country) where he was reputed to be good with his players?

Why did we play just as badly (and in some cases worse) under Neil Craig after Neeld went? Did Craig also have issues with his relationship with the players or perhaps there are some issues with the qualities of some of the players?

[Guest]

I'm sure you can enlighten me with some examples of how his relationship with players were so different at Melbourne where he was a senior coach than at Collingwood and at previous clubs (TAC Cup and country) where he was reputed to be good with his players?

Why did we play just as badly (and in some cases worse) under Neil Craig after Neeld went? Did Craig also have issues with his relationship with the players or perhaps there are some issues with the qualities of some of the players?

I think the reason why he turned into Yosemite Sam as soon as he got to Melbourne was because of the brief he was given by the Gaz Man and Cameron Schwab. Garry, around the time of Bailey's sacking, was saying on his various media platforms that the team did not have enough mongrel fight in it and that was Dean Bailey's responsibility. It was clear that those on the selection committee thought hat the playing group needed to be whacked with a pretty large stick. My take on it is that it seemed that Neeldy was too keen to say and agree with what he thought that panel wanted to hear rather than be true to himself.

I believe that Craigy had a better relationship with the players but by the stage he had taken over the reins, the dike had burst and the group's confidence was shot. I think if you had listened to Nate Jones' speech at the B&F that was pretty obvious.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

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.

well said

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I think quite a lot of Neeld's ideas were actually pretty good, he just in no way had the skillet to successfully implement them.

The pre-game address is a classic example. If you read a transcript of it you would probably think it was reasonable, but when you see and hear the delivery it makes your skin crawl.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Clint Bizkit

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

What I'm saying is based on conversations with players and other mainly anecdotal evidence to the effect that he wasn't an effective communicator in translating what he was doing at training and talks with his players to an effective, coherent game plan.

Yes, I agree with that but it doesn't address his relationship with the players, his ability to lead or build culture.

I've also had discussions with players but I think it will depend on who you speak to and how well you know them. I base my views more on the fact Watts wouldn't have stayed under Neeld but stayed under Roos. Moloney's tweet was evidence of a terrible relationship with that player. His post match presser after his first game was awful and his pre match address against Essendon(?) last year was just dreadful and the players look detached. And of course there was the continual reference to "buy in" and his failure to achieve it.

When you next speak to your player contacts ask about the psych testing that was done at the club for all players and coaches and ask where MN sat. It won't help your case.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think quite a lot of Neeld's ideas were actually pretty good, he just in no way had the skillet to successfully implement them.

The pre-game address is a classic example. If you read a transcript of it you would probably think it was reasonable, but when you see and hear the delivery it makes your skin crawl.

I am not sure how many pre game addresses you witnessed of Neelds but his Rd2 effort last year was not a good example of your argument.

The transcript of the speech given the context of the situation would have highlight a number of serious concerns so early in the season. Given Neeld stood up in front of the faithful at Crown less than a month earlier and lauded how prepared the side was after an intense and focused pre season. He also advised that the things could turn around and improve quickly. Really!

The club made a terrible error allowing the camera into the rooms pre game for the Essendon match. Neelds performance there as you pointed out was excruciating. I thought Neelds goose was cooked after the insipid game the previous week against Port. The visual of his pre match, the atmosphere and the players faces and their later actions required Neeld to be exited urgently. He certainly did not have the players with him.

[Whispering_Jack 28,004]

Yes, I agree with that but it doesn't address his relationship with the players, his ability to lead or build culture.

I've also had discussions with players but I think it will depend on who you speak to and how well you know them. I base my views more on the fact Watts wouldn't have stayed under Neeld but stayed under Roos. Moloney's tweet was evidence of a terrible relationship with that player. His post match presser after his first game was awful and his pre match address against Essendon(?) last year was just dreadful and the players look detached. And of course there was the continual reference to "buy in" and his failure to achieve it.

When you next speak to your player contacts ask about the psych testing that was done at the club for all players and coaches and ask where MN sat. It won't help your case.

Speculation about what Jack Watts or any other player might have done proves neither your theory nor mine. Hawthorn might as well have sacked Clarkson for fear (well founded as it turned out) that Buddy would leave the club. Bailey lost a #1 draft pick but what did that prove about his ability as coach? What will it say about Roos if James Frawley moves on at the end of the year?

Psych tests? Whilst I don't discount them by any means, I've seen competing psychologists in court at odds over the efficacy of various tests, their evidence depending on who was paying for their testimony. Clubs employ nutritionists, people with lab coats and laptops but in the end, it boils down to what the coaches do and how players respond.

The players you've mentioned in this thread don't promote your case one iota. Two coaches and five years have yet to turn Jack Watts into the hard edged player we wanted him to be. Roos is taking a different tack and let's hope it works but there are no guarantees.

In an earlier post (#48) you mentioned Josh Tynan and Luke Taggert. Really? The last of the Prendergast legacy who both had games in the Casey twos in 2013 and neither were picked up by other clubs when delisted. Not even as rookies. Don't start me with Gysberts needing love, affection, lots of watering, a sunny spot in the garden and loads of mature to nurture him. Brad Scott showered him with love and exactly how many AFL games did he hand him before giving him the shove?

The piece de resistance would have to be Moloney who wanted out before Neeld walked in the door. A model player who admitted to having an alcohol problem and was lucky IMO to get away with no weeks club suspension for "that" incident. Who wouldn't love a coach and play for his heart out for him for no result while suffering from a debilitating cold or flu after that? A player with so much class that he issued that "karma" tweet which you seem to regard as some sort of badge of honour but which I reckon, sums his character up pretty well. Brisbane, which made such a good fist of retaining its young players last year, deserves him.

To sum it up from an historical perspective:

Back in 1978 Melbourne appointed Denis Jones (a good player under the legendary Norm Smith in the 50s & 60s as coach). Jones tried to coach his team in the same style as his mentor. The problem was that Smith had six champions and 20 or so darn good players at any given time and Jones had one champion and half a dozen good players at his disposal. Moreover, the other clubs had long moved on from the old style of game. Jones lost the players because they knew his methods were wrong and had no confidence in what he was trying to do.

Much the same thing happened with Neeld but he had a range of additional disadvantages and circumstances facing him. As I said when I raised this, my view might well be a dissenting one. Some players were no doubt not particularly charmed by his style and his approach. You never expect that in a list of 44 when only 22 get to play every week but IMO the problem was always that the style of game he tried to instil wasn't right for the players he had at his disposal and further he was too inflexible in his methods to adapt them to this playing group.

I will however, take on board your comment when I next speak with some of our players (they're not "contacts" by any means) but I wouldn't expect them to be monolithic groupthinkers on the subject anyway.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

The club made a terrible error allowing the camera into the rooms pre game for the Essendon match. Neelds performance there as you pointed out was excruciating. I thought Neelds goose was cooked after the insipid game the previous week against Port. The visual of his pre match, the atmosphere and the players faces and their later actions required Neeld to be exited urgently. He certainly did not have the players with him.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I felt at the time, and still do, that whoever was behind the R2 televised address knew exactly what they were doing which was exposing Neeld as being incompetent - with a view to having him removed for the good of the club. The fact we got absolutely demolished in the match only helped consolidate it.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

Speculation about what Jack Watts or any other player might have done proves neither your theory nor mine. Hawthorn might as well have sacked Clarkson for fear (well founded as it turned out) that Buddy would leave the club. Bailey lost a #1 draft pick but what did that prove about his ability as coach? What will it say about Roos if James Frawley moves on at the end of the year?

Psych tests? Whilst I don't discount them by any means, I've seen competing psychologists in court at odds over the efficacy of various tests, their evidence depending on who was paying for their testimony. Clubs employ nutritionists, people with lab coats and laptops but in the end, it boils down to what the coaches do and how players respond.

The players you've mentioned in this thread don't promote your case one iota. Two coaches and five years have yet to turn Jack Watts into the hard edged player we wanted him to be. Roos is taking a different tack and let's hope it works but there are no guarantees.

In an earlier post (#48) you mentioned Josh Tynan and Luke Taggert. Really? The last of the Prendergast legacy who both had games in the Casey twos in 2013 and neither were picked up by other clubs when delisted. Not even as rookies. Don't start me with Gysberts needing love, affection, lots of watering, a sunny spot in the garden and loads of mature to nurture him. Brad Scott showered him with love and exactly how many AFL games did he hand him before giving him the shove?

The piece de resistance would have to be Moloney who wanted out before Neeld walked in the door. A model player who admitted to having an alcohol problem and was lucky IMO to get away with no weeks club suspension for "that" incident. Who wouldn't love a coach and play for his heart out for him for no result while suffering from a debilitating cold or flu after that? A player with so much class that he issued that "karma" tweet which you seem to regard as some sort of badge of honour but which I reckon, sums his character up pretty well. Brisbane, which made such a good fist of retaining its young players last year, deserves him.

To sum it up from an historical perspective:

Back in 1978 Melbourne appointed Denis Jones (a good player under the legendary Norm Smith in the 50s & 60s as coach). Jones tried to coach his team in the same style as his mentor. The problem was that Smith had six champions and 20 or so darn good players at any given time and Jones had one champion and half a dozen good players at his disposal. Moreover, the other clubs had long moved on from the old style of game. Jones lost the players because they knew his methods were wrong and had no confidence in what he was trying to do.

out

Much the same thing happened with Neeld but he had a range of additional disadvantages and circumstances facing him. As I said when I raised this, my view might well be a dissenting one. Some players were no doubt not particularly charmed by his style and his approach. You never expect that in a list of 44 when only 22 get to play every week but IMO the problem was always that the style of game he tried to instil wasn't right for the players he had at his disposal and further he was too inflexible in his methods to adapt them to this playing group.

I will however, take on board your comment when I next speak with some of our players (they're not "contacts" by any means) but I wouldn't expect them to be monolithic groupthinkers on the subject anyway.

That's a very sad post Jack. You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast. You've been insulting about Gysberts and your comments about Moloney are distasteful. You've laced your post with silly comments like "Moloney wanted out before Neeld walked in the door" and "Scott showered him with love".

In this exchange I was interested in your view on the state of Neeld's relationship with the players but your response is extraordinary in it's willingness to bag players in defence of your view, some kids just trying to make their way and others club champions. That is strange indeed given your love of the Club and support for it.

I can only assume it's motivated by something other than your view of Neeld.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I am not sure how many pre game addresses you witnessed of Neelds but his Rd2 effort last year was not a good example of your argument.

The transcript of the speech given the context of the situation would have highlight a number of serious concerns so early in the season. Given Neeld stood up in front of the faithful at Crown less than a month earlier and lauded how prepared the side was after an intense and focused pre season. He also advised that the things could turn around and improve quickly. Really!

The club made a terrible error allowing the camera into the rooms pre game for the Essendon match. Neelds performance there as you pointed out was excruciating. I thought Neelds goose was cooked after the insipid game the previous week against Port. The visual of his pre match, the atmosphere and the players faces and their later actions required Neeld to be exited urgently. He certainly did not have the players with him.

Did you read what I wrote?

[The Great Pretender 430]

I know we've strayed from the OP but what was obvious to me from almost the start was the Neeld game plan of going wide into the forward line. I remember a nab cup game v Hawthorn when we were pantsed by Buddy. They went direct to the forward line and kicked goal after goal. We went for the pockets and had trouble scoring. This continued through 2012 and you could feel the players weren't responding. You really needed a much stronger team to get away with such tactics.

The free flowing style we had under Daniher and Bailey were good to watch when things were going well but I dare say that things will be different now that Roos is on board.

[Whispering_Jack 28,004]

That's a very sad post Jack. You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast. You've been insulting about Gysberts and your comments about Moloney are distasteful. You've laced your post with silly comments like "Moloney wanted out before Neeld walked in the door" and "Scott showered him with love".

In this exchange I was interested in your view on the state of Neeld's relationship with the players but your response is extraordinary in it's willingness to bag players in defence of your view, some kids just trying to make their way and others club champions. That is strange indeed given your love of the Club and support for it.

I can only assume it's motivated by something other than your view of Neeld.

There used to be a television series entitled The Naked City that finished every programme with the following narration -

"There are eight million stories in the Naked City. This has been one of them."

Many of those stories were sad, brutal and/or violent but the show was acclaimed for its realism.

That which you might regard as sad is to me the reality, as brutal as it may seem to you. Every year we see young men and women aspiring to reach the pinnacle of their sport and every year we see the majority of them fail. Tynan, Taggert and Gysberts are among the failures and their stories are sad but real. Whether it was injury, lack of ability or lack of will that caused their downfall, the fact that they failed to make it onto the big stage doesn't make it any less real or my assessment any less honest or any less applicable to Melbourne than any other club.

As for Prendergast and Moloney, I can only say that their stories are the saddest of the lot and I feel absolutely nothing for them other than that I hope for the sake of others around him that Beamer has shaken his alcohol issues.

Your final remark, which I find to be offensive and disgraceful, is what you should really feel sad about.

Cheers

[Hannibal 5,814]

That's a very sad post Jack. You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast.

Elaborate.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

Elaborate.

No thanks. Done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

[Hannibal 5,814]

No thanks. Done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

Trying to defend Prendergast is a sick joke and makes you look stupid.

[Scoop Junior 2,973]

I think there are two primary reasons for what we have seen over the last seven years.

The first is recruiting. I agree with others that 2007 represented the end of the era of our star players in White, Neitz, Yze, etc. While there may have been some signs of demise during 2006, the fact is we made it to a semi final that year and I do not blame Daniher for 'having a go' at a flag in 2007 rather than start a rebuilding process. Of course 2007 didn't work out due to the drop in form of our stars, injuries and other reasons, but after three years in the finals I think it was fair to try to extract one more good year out of that group.

So we then come to the end of 2007 and we embark on a full rebuild of the list, one that is needed and which most supporters agree with. The same position other sides (St Kilda in the early 2000s, Hawthorn and Carlton in the mid 2000s, Collingwood in the late 90s) have been in. The difference between their successes and our failure must to a large extent come down to recruiting. Hodge, Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, Lewis, Franklin, Roughead, Pendelbury, Murphy - who have we drafted that has between 2008 and 2013 performed to the levels of those players?

This has severely affected us in both the Bailey and Neeld regimes – clearly our talent levels have been well below most other clubs during this period.

The second reason I think is what happened to the club during 2011, which has then been exacerbated by the dismal failure of the Neeld era. Under Bailey, while we won only 7 games in his first two seasons, you could see the improvement from 2008 to 2010. 2009 was a far more competitive season than 2008 and then 2010 was an enormous improvement on the previous two seasons. We were tracking at what I would consider normal development rates for rebuilding clubs – struggle for a couple of years, show signs of improvement and then start to win some games and push stronger teams in subsequent years. This is where we were at after the 2010 season.

Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that Bailey was the man to take us to the next level or that we would continue the upward trend to get in the top 4. Clearly 2011 did show that there were severe deficiencies and certain issues needed to be addressed. 2010 was slightly illusory – I think we were made to look closer than we really were and our free spirited attack only game plan was not sustainable. Nevertheless, what appeared to happen inside the club, with the reported in-fighting and divisions which were allowed to fester by senior management instead of being dealt with at the time, must have had a devastating effect on the players and this (together with our poor form) culminated in 186, a devastating loss for the footy club.

I think that the in-fighting and divisions, along with the performance that day, helped to crush the spirit of the senior players (who are so imperative to the performance of the team). Then, instead of rebuilding the spirit and trust and confidence of the playing group, a series of poor decisions – the timing and handling of Bailey's sacking, the extension of Schwab's contract, the appointment of Neeld and his disastrous 18 month tenure – only served to make matters worse.

So not only did we not have the cattle due to poor recruiting, but we 'lost' the senior players due to a failure to manage the divisions within the club and then, while seeking to start afresh at the end of 2011, we appointed the wrong man who made a number of terrible decisions and failed to unite and inspire confidence in the playing group which contributed to our 'double dip' bottoming out in 2012 and 2013.

At the end of the day success is achieved by having great talent and extracting the most out of that talent. As we have not had the required level of talent (particularly in midfield) and have failed to extract the most out of the talent we do have, it's little wonder why we've been so horrible for much of the past seven years.

[John Crow Batty 8,258]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I felt at the time, and still do, that whoever was behind the R2 televised address knew exactly what they were doing which was exposing Neeld as being incompetent - with a view to having him removed for the good of the club. The fact we got absolutely demolished in the match only helped consolidate it.

No conspiracy here, more like it was another inspired move by the genius who created Whiteboard Wednesday.

Edited January 7, 2014 by america de cali

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Did you read what I wrote?

Yep. Did you?

[mjt 640]

Yep. Did you?

God your a sad man.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

God your a sad man.

LOL. Your post is a better reflection of your own disposition.

I note you're unable to contribute to the discussion on the thread. Well done.

[mjt 640]

LOL. Your post is a better reflection of your own disposition.

I note you're unable to contribute to the discussion on the thread. Well done.

Its one of the better threads of late but how any one still replys to you is beyond me, have a nice day.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

Trying to defend Prendergast is a sick joke and makes you look stupid.

I haven't tried to defend Prendergast. How you can interpret "You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast" as a defence is just silly.

His record stands for all to judge. He stuffed up too many early picks to ever have that job again IMO.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,218]

I think there are two primary reasons for what we have seen over the last seven years.

The first is recruiting. I agree with others that 2007 represented the end of the era of our star players in White, Neitz, Yze, etc. While there may have been some signs of demise during 2006, the fact is we made it to a semi final that year and I do not blame Daniher for 'having a go' at a flag in 2007 rather than start a rebuilding process. Of course 2007 didn't work out due to the drop in form of our stars, injuries and other reasons, but after three years in the finals I think it was fair to try to extract one more good year out of that group.

So we then come to the end of 2007 and we embark on a full rebuild of the list, one that is needed and which most supporters agree with. The same position other sides (St Kilda in the early 2000s, Hawthorn and Carlton in the mid 2000s, Collingwood in the late 90s) have been in. The difference between their successes and our failure must to a large extent come down to recruiting. Hodge, Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, Lewis, Franklin, Roughead, Pendelbury, Murphy - who have we drafted that has between 2008 and 2013 performed to the levels of those players?

This has severely affected us in both the Bailey and Neeld regimes – clearly our talent levels have been well below most other clubs during this period.

The second reason I think is what happened to the club during 2011, which has then been exacerbated by the dismal failure of the Neeld era. Under Bailey, while we won only 7 games in his first two seasons, you could see the improvement from 2008 to 2010. 2009 was a far more competitive season than 2008 and then 2010 was an enormous improvement on the previous two seasons. We were tracking at what I would consider normal development rates for rebuilding clubs – struggle for a couple of years, show signs of improvement and then start to win some games and push stronger teams in subsequent years. This is where we were at after the 2010 season.

Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that Bailey was the man to take us to the next level or that we would continue the upward trend to get in the top 4. Clearly 2011 did show that there were severe deficiencies and certain issues needed to be addressed. 2010 was slightly illusory – I think we were made to look closer than we really were and our free spirited attack only game plan was not sustainable. Nevertheless, what appeared to happen inside the club, with the reported in-fighting and divisions which were allowed to fester by senior management instead of being dealt with at the time, must have had a devastating effect on the players and this (together with our poor form) culminated in 186, a devastating loss for the footy club.

I think that the in-fighting and divisions, along with the performance that day, helped to crush the spirit of the senior players (who are so imperative to the performance of the team). Then, instead of rebuilding the spirit and trust and confidence of the playing group, a series of poor decisions – the timing and handling of Bailey's sacking, the extension of Schwab's contract, the appointment of Neeld and his disastrous 18 month tenure – only served to make matters worse.

So not only did we not have the cattle due to poor recruiting, but we 'lost' the senior players due to a failure to manage the divisions within the club and then, while seeking to start afresh at the end of 2011, we appointed the wrong man who made a number of terrible decisions and failed to unite and inspire confidence in the playing group which contributed to our 'double dip' bottoming out in 2012 and 2013.

At the end of the day success is achieved by having great talent and extracting the most out of that talent. As we have not had the required level of talent (particularly in midfield) and have failed to extract the most out of the talent we do have, it's little wonder why we've been so horrible for much of the past seven years.

Scoop , Nice considered, logical post with clear non-emotive explanations to back up your thoughts. Not enough of these about here at the minute. As our top end starts to mature and strengthen through development and recent trade and Roos hopefully taps into some of our unfulfilled potential then I think our improvement could happen quicker than most anticipate.