Mark Neeld head of development at the Bombers

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I'm still wondering why you don't put me on ignore, it would suit us both.

I like them, they are like a horror movie, tragic, yet entirely predictable.

I don't hate everything you write, but on stuff like this I find you hilariously transparent.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

I think your memory is playing tricks. Bailey took over a team that had won five games in 2007 and at the end of that year lost players like Bizzell, Nathan Brown, Ferguson, Godfrey, Johnstone, Pickett and Ward. I can't be bothered adding up how many games of experience that is but it's a lot. Oh, and the 5 games included the Carlton game where they let us win.

In the next few years we lost Yze, White, Robbo and Neitz who were all well past their prime when Dean arrived. He concentrated on list development at the expense of winning games but still managed to win about 40% of games played in his last two seasons.

Mark Neeld's record doesn't stand well against Bailey's. Nor does Roos' at Melbourne at this time.

If he concentrated on the list then that confirms my original statement.

Daniher played a part in all of this, but from Daniher to Bailey to Neeld - the biggest failure came from Bailey, as he had the most to lose... and he did.

[Ash35 425]

Actually all jokes and pings aside Id be very interested in the view of an informed Essendon supporter..

Calling Ash....... thoughts??

I think it's obvious he was out of his depth as a Senior AFL coach, but as a few have already posted here, the work he did at Collingwood was exceptional by all reports.

The reality is that Essendon is currently a club that has a lot of uncertainty about it.

I was surprised Cooney chose us over North Melb and Giles picked us over Adelaide.

I don't imagine Neeld was getting a heap of job offers, so I understand how it looks to some.

'Desperate Essendon clutching at straws'.

I don't think it's quite like that.

Time will tell if it's a poor or good appointment.

[dazzledavey36 54,862]

I think it's obvious he was out of his depth as a Senior AFL coach, but as a few have already posted here, the work he did at Collingwood was exceptional by all reports.

The reality is that Essendon is currently a club that has a lot of uncertainty about it.

I was surprised Cooney chose us over North Melb and Giles picked us over Adelaide.

I don't imagine Neeld was getting a heap of job offers, so I understand how it looks to some.

'Desperate Essendon clutching at straws'.

I don't think it's quite like that.

Time will tell if it's a poor or good appointment.

What a blast from the past.

Good to see you still lurk among us Ash.

[Whispering_Jack 30,024]

I think it's obvious he was out of his depth as a Senior AFL coach, but as a few have already posted here, the work he did at Collingwood was exceptional by all reports.

The reality is that Essendon is currently a club that has a lot of uncertainty about it.

I was surprised Cooney chose us over North Melb and Giles picked us over Adelaide.

I don't imagine Neeld was getting a heap of job offers, so I understand how it looks to some.

'Desperate Essendon clutching at straws'.

I don't think it's quite like that.

Time will tell if it's a poor or good appointment.

You make some good points there Ash. Unfortunately for Neeld he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He stepped into a club that was divided and he had a team that was never on the same page. That's a recipe for disaster and, in hindsight looking back at all of the things that happened in his time at Melbourne, he was never really given a chance.

I have a feeling however, that this is the same problem he is likely to face at Essendon although he might not be the direct target of any possible confrontation if things get worse and there's a power struggle at the club.

[_becks_ 35]

In Neeld's very short tenure as senior coach, the only players that appeared to 'develope' were Nate Jones and Garland. This is what surprises me when i read that he is developemant coach at the bombers. He might be good in this role, it certainly wasn't the case when he was at the dees.

[bing181 9,218]

He might be good in this role, it certainly wasn't the case when he was at the dees.

Neeld wasn't in this role at the Dees.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

Who cares what Essendon do the man needs a job

[Dees2014 2,377]

I wish Mark Neeld well. He was clearly a very successful assistant coach at Collingwood. While it might seem to be an unusual place to go, it may actually be a tactical master stroke. Of all the clubs in the AFL, Essendon might become the one that needs the most assistance in development of new players if the ASADA problems force a higher than average turnover of players (either by enforced suspensions or because players "do a Ryder" and walk out of the club).

And there is a certain irony on Demonland that on the one hand posters laud MFC's appointment of Brandan McCartney - a successful assistant coach who failed (for whatever reason) at the top job - and then seem to think Essendon has failed by doing exactly the same thing.

l.

In my consulting business, I have advised a couple of people who have been thinking about going for senior management jobs at Essendon. Frankly, there is only a limited pool who are prepared to take the risk of damaging their personal brands with that of a potentially fatally tainted brand of the EFC, and they are almost never the top flight.

Although I wish Neeld well, I suspect there was an element of this in the latest appointment: the fatally tainted (in football terms) Neeld brand meeting the potentially tainted Essendon brand.

Although Essendon are one of the best payers in the AFL, they will struggle to attract elite talent whether it be on the field or off it until the unfolding scandal is resolved which is a number of years off IMHO.

[titan_uranus 25,006]

I think your memory is playing tricks. Bailey took over a team that had won five games in 2007 and at the end of that year lost players like Bizzell, Nathan Brown, Ferguson, Godfrey, Johnstone, Pickett and Ward. I can't be bothered adding up how many games of experience that is but it's a lot. Oh, and the 5 games included the Carlton game where they let us win.

In the next few years we lost Yze, White, Robbo and Neitz who were all well past their prime when Dean arrived. He concentrated on list development at the expense of winning games but still managed to win about 40% of games played in his last two seasons.

Mark Neeld's record doesn't stand well against Bailey's. Nor does Roos' at Melbourne at this time.

The fact that our era under Neeld was worse than our era under Bailey does not mean Bailey was a good coach. He was not. Our side under Bailey was able to win 8.5 games in 2010-2011 because we played reckless, bruise-free football which, against the right sides, would score heavily and win games. It was not finals football and it was 3 years too late for the way the game was progressing.

The mitigating circumstances you've raised, such as senior players retiring/leaving, are valid for sure, but the fact that Neeld was his immediate successor and was incredulously worse doesn't change the fact that Bailey was not a good coach. You also noted that he focused on list development not winning games. Our list when he left was still terrible.

Then to say Roos' record doesn't compare to Bailey's is ridiculous. For a start it's 1 season to 3.5 - comparing the debut seasons has Roos at 4-18 with a percentage of 68.4 and Bailey at 3-19 with 62.61. So I can't agree with your statement at all.

[Qwerty30 196]

I don't think Bob was making the claim that Bailey was a good coach. His claim was Neelds record was inferior to Bailey. That s true.

Given Roos has a better admin structure and a better fit and capable playing list than Bailey his first year record is disappointing. It's hardly a great start for an experienced A list coach being paid a $1 million plus a year.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

The fact that our era under Neeld was worse than our era under Bailey does not mean Bailey was a good coach. He was not. Our side under Bailey was able to win 8.5 games in 2010-2011 because we played reckless, bruise-free football which, against the right sides, would score heavily and win games. It was not finals football and it was 3 years too late for the way the game was progressing.

The mitigating circumstances you've raised, such as senior players retiring/leaving, are valid for sure, but the fact that Neeld was his immediate successor and was incredulously worse doesn't change the fact that Bailey was not a good coach. You also noted that he focused on list development not winning games. Our list when he left was still terrible.

Then to say Roos' record doesn't compare to Bailey's is ridiculous. For a start it's 1 season to 3.5 - comparing the debut seasons has Roos at 4-18 with a percentage of 68.4 and Bailey at 3-19 with 62.61. So I can't agree with your statement at all.

Qwerty30 is right. I wasn't making a case for Bailey being a great coach, only that he was significantly better than Neeld. If you don't think that's right fine.

There is so much groupthink on DL it's frightening. Bailey and his reputation for "bruise free" footy is rubbish. He has the youngest side in the competition until the Suns came in and the list simply wasn't able to compete physically. So what did he do?. He coached a brand of footy that didn't rely on strength in contests. He coached a fantastic brand of running footy where players who had the skill set of our list could compete. Sure we got knocked around by physically stronger sides that were better than us (gosh, who would have thought) but the alternative was the tripe that Neeld dished up. As the list developed Bailey would have been able to add strength to the game style and we would have developed as the ability to apply those skills became available. So many seem unable to recognize the results Bailey got regardless of those that followed. Put simply footy is about winning. In his last two years Bailey was better than anyone since Danihers 2006 - significantly. He got very good results given the players he had.

I'm not suggesting Bailey was a great coach. I don't think he was the coach to take us to finals. But the garbage that gets trotted out on this site about him and others is disappointing. I remember being pretty much a lone voice regarding Daniher. I'm happy with my stance on Bailey and those that followed.

[titan_uranus 25,006]

Qwerty30 is right. I wasn't making a case for Bailey being a great coach, only that he was significantly better than Neeld. If you don't think that's right fine.

There is so much groupthink on DL it's frightening. Bailey and his reputation for "bruise free" footy is rubbish. He has the youngest side in the competition until the Suns came in and the list simply wasn't able to compete physically. So what did he do?. He coached a brand of footy that didn't rely on strength in contests. He coached a fantastic brand of running footy where players who had the skill set of our list could compete. Sure we got knocked around by physically stronger sides that were better than us (gosh, who would have thought) but the alternative was the tripe that Neeld dished up. As the list developed Bailey would have been able to add strength to the game style and we would have developed as the ability to apply those skills became available. So many seem unable to recognize the results Bailey got regardless of those that followed. Put simply footy is about winning. In his last two years Bailey was better than anyone since Danihers 2006 - significantly. He got very good results given the players he had.

I'm not suggesting Bailey was a great coach. I don't think he was the coach to take us to finals. But the garbage that gets trotted out on this site about him and others is disappointing. I remember being pretty much a lone voice regarding Daniher. I'm happy with my stance on Bailey and those that followed.

You say 'groupthink', I say 'revisionism'. You're spinning the positives of the Bailey era to make it sound like he was better than he really was. Whether or not you're saying he was 'good' or 'great', I simply cannot agree with the comments you've made about him.

We were soft under Bailey. We played football that was uncontested, free-flowing, based on running out of the backline. When it didn't work for us we got belted. It was nice to watch when we pulled it off (e.g. vs Sydney), and since we've been starved of wins since 2011 it might be easy to say 'well at least he got us wins!'. But it's not like 2011 was some sort of turning point for the club. We were simply never going to make it as a club playing that kind of footy. It may have been 'fantastic' when it worked but it was god-awful when it didn't.

You say the alternative is Neeld, as if they were the only two options. They were polar opposites, one at each end of the spectrum, neither good enough. Neeld was worse, sure, but again, the fact that Neeld came straight after and was worse does not justify what Bailey was doing. It just shows that there is more than one way to be a bad AFL coach.

I don't think there's a single rational person who thinks Neeld was better than Bailey, but if we'd had pretty much any coach other than Neeld to replace Bailey I don't think you'd be looking so fondly back on that time. It was a poor time for this club, just a different kind of poor to the Neeld era.

[demoniac 1,333]

l.

In my consulting business, I have advised a couple of people who have been thinking about going for senior management jobs at Essendon. Frankly, there is only a limited pool who are prepared to take the risk of damaging their personal brands with that of a potentially fatally tainted brand of the EFC, and they are almost never the top flight.

Although I wish Neeld well, I suspect there was an element of this in the latest appointment: the fatally tainted (in football terms) Neeld brand meeting the potentially tainted Essendon brand.

Although Essendon are one of the best payers in the AFL, they will struggle to attract elite talent whether it be on the field or off it until the unfolding scandal is resolved which is a number of years off IMHO.

Rob Kerr was a pretty good get for mine by the Bombers as GM, Football Operations and Strategy. Definitely upgrade on Hird Fan Boi Danny Corcoran as a counterweight to King James and his fawning courtiers.

Still the continued favourite son as messiah complex which landed the Bombers in their current unenviable position continues with Harvey returning.

And they won't win a granny in the Watson/Goddard era and their draft penalties and unattractiveness as a trade/free agency destination have ,and will continue to, damage their list build and will make it tough for them to challenge for a flag for 10 years.

Of course they could speed up their renewal by punting King James...

Edited November 3, 2014 by demoniac

[Dees2014 2,377]

Rob Kerr was a pretty good get for mine by the Bombers as GM, Football Operations and Strategy. Definitely upgrade on Hird Fan Boi Danny Corcoran as a counterweight to King James and his fawning courtiers.

Still the continued favourite son as messiah complex which landed the Bombers in their current unenviable position continues with Harvey returning.

And they won't win a granny in the Watson/Goddard era and their draft penalties and unattractiveness as a trade/free agency destination have ,and will continue to, damage their list build and will make it tough for them to challenge for a flag for 10 years.

Of course they could speed up their renewal by punting King James...

I understand what you say, but I think the fallout has not yet really begun. Hird will be rubber out, probably permanently, his 34 infraction notice players will receive multi year bans, and the board will all be gone. There is not much to build upon and to attract great talent. ...

[Whispering_Jack 30,024]

Qwerty30 is right. I wasn't making a case for Bailey being a great coach, only that he was significantly better than Neeld. If you don't think that's right fine.

There is so much groupthink on DL it's frightening. Bailey and his reputation for "bruise free" footy is rubbish. He has the youngest side in the competition until the Suns came in and the list simply wasn't able to compete physically. So what did he do?. He coached a brand of footy that didn't rely on strength in contests. He coached a fantastic brand of running footy where players who had the skill set of our list could compete. Sure we got knocked around by physically stronger sides that were better than us (gosh, who would have thought) but the alternative was the tripe that Neeld dished up. As the list developed Bailey would have been able to add strength to the game style and we would have developed as the ability to apply those skills became available. So many seem unable to recognize the results Bailey got regardless of those that followed. Put simply footy is about winning. In his last two years Bailey was better than anyone since Danihers 2006 - significantly. He got very good results given the players he had.

I'm not suggesting Bailey was a great coach. I don't think he was the coach to take us to finals. But the garbage that gets trotted out on this site about him and others is disappointing. I remember being pretty much a lone voice regarding Daniher. I'm happy with my stance on Bailey and those that followed.

Agree with the part about groupthink on Demonland - oodles of it but I must confess you got me with the bit about the "fantastic brand of running footy" because that's where I thought his greatest failing lay and to an extent, Bailey and most others at the club during and after recognised this.

That style was good against the competition's lesser lights and worked against the weaker interstate clubs when we played them at home (eg Adelaide and a weakened Fremantle in 2011) but it failed miserably against the stronger teams that had real running ability in that they ran both ways and not just when going into attack. Look at our third quarter v Hawthorn and the game v West Coast and then against every team that applied the pressure blowtorch on us with the press. We simply had too many players who lacked the work ethic or the will to get to the point where they were fit enough aerobicly to go with the leading clubs in the competition and hence, the dramatic inconsistency in performance. Fact is, we were never going to get any better unless things changed dramatically and they didn't. There's no better example than the recently departed Sam Blease who was sent back to Casey more than once to improve his defensive running and three years later, he had improved marginally at it - what a waste of talent!

The fact is that this one way running game was becoming obsolete early in the decade and we were never going to improve without stepping up considerably our ability to run defensively as well as in attack. Both Neeld and Roos recognised this, the former didn't have the full support of a divided team and lacked the experience, strength and the back up from the club to bring the playing group together as a cohesive group. That's water under the bridge now but it's taken Roos a full year and he has yet to overcome the deficiencies created by years of poor recruiting, poor player development and inadequate coaching by all of them to the point where the argument about who was the better coach is totally moot.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Agree with the part about groupthink on Demonland - oodles of it but I must confess you got me with the bit about the "fantastic brand of running footy" because that's where I thought his greatest failing lay and to an extent, Bailey and most others at the club during and after recognised this.

That style was good against the competition's lesser lights and worked against the weaker interstate clubs when we played them at home (eg Adelaide and a weakened Fremantle in 2011) but it failed miserably against the stronger teams that had real running ability in that they ran both ways and not just when going into attack. Look at our third quarter v Hawthorn and the game v West Coast and then against every team that applied the pressure blowtorch on us with the press. We simply had too many players who lacked the work ethic or the will to get to the point where they were fit enough aerobicly to go with the leading clubs in the competition and hence, the dramatic inconsistency in performance. Fact is, we were never going to get any better unless things changed dramatically and they didn't. There's no better example than the recently departed Sam Blease who was sent back to Casey more than once to improve his defensive running and three years later, he had improved marginally at it - what a waste of talent!

The fact is that this one way running game was becoming obsolete early in the decade and we were never going to improve without stepping up considerably our ability to run defensively as well as in attack. Both Neeld and Roos recognised this, the former didn't have the full support of a divided team and lacked the experience, strength and the back up from the club to bring the playing group together as a cohesive group. That's water under the bridge now but it's taken Roos a full year and he has yet to overcome the deficiencies created by years of poor recruiting, poor player development and inadequate coaching by all of them to the point where the argument about who was the better coach is totally moot.

I think your view is commonly accepted here but it's not one I hold.

You say "Fact is, we were never going to get any better unless things changed dramatically and they didn't." That's not a fact Jack, that's an opinion. It might be right or it might be wrong but it's not a fact. It's now part of DL groupthink. And things changed dramatically when Neeld took over but they didn't get better, they got significantly worse so I don't see that as an argument to question Bailey's philosophy.

You also say "That style was good against the competition's lesser lights and worked against the weaker interstate clubs when we played them at home (eg Adelaide and a weakened Fremantle in 2011) but it failed miserably against the stronger teams". Well the reality is we were a lesser light and the youngest team in the competition. We were never going to regularly compete with the stronger teams because they were better than us. I contend that as our list developed and got stronger we would. We were a poor mans Suns or Giants and they took years to be competitive (the Giants haven't been yet and the Suns without Ablett were poor) and yet we performed much better than either of those teams in their first couple of years.

I think it was unrealistic to expect us, as the youngest and most inexperienced team in the competition to be competitive against the stronger club. We weren't. People used this failure to damn Bailey. I think they judge him far too harshly. For all the obvious failings of 186 it was a few weeks before that we were being talked of as genuine finals material and even after 186 we were a chance to win enough games to compete but of course as things transpired that didn't occur.

Bailey won 7.5 games in his final (part) year at a time when the club was deeply divided. That was a good performance given our situation and the players we had. Neeld, with a united club performed nowhere near as well as Bailey and they were the two coaches being compared.

[Whispering_Jack 30,024]

Bob, I get that the team itself was young and inexperienced under Bailey. That was a fact of life and it continued to be so under Neeld. In addition, I recall that Neeld was bagged mercilessly when he made the point about the average games played by our team was significantly less than most of our opposition.

The point that I'm making is that while times changed, the style of play Bailey was promoting was becoming redundant and we were therefore doomed to not only not advance, but rather, to go backwards. Under Roos, I'm at least confident we're finally heading in the right direction, albeit too slowly for some.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Bob, I get that the team itself was young and inexperienced under Bailey. That was a fact of life and it continued to be so under Neeld. In addition, I recall that Neeld was bagged mercilessly when he made the point about the average games played by our team was significantly less than most of our opposition.

The point that I'm making is that while times changed, the style of play Bailey was promoting was becoming redundant and we were therefore doomed to not only not advance, but rather, to go backwards. Under Roos, I'm at least confident we're finally heading in the right direction, albeit too slowly for some.

It was a fact of life that the team was young and inexperienced and as such Bailey produced above realistic expectations. Neeld couldn't match Bailey's results and as a result started to explain our failures by reference to our inexperience.

Bailey's style of play was not unlike PA at the moment but with a much more immature list. Whilst I accept that DL groupthink is that Bailey's game plan was redundant I'm not convinced. Neeld's game plan was awful and the reality is that Roos didn't produce as good a set of results than Bailey.

Bailey was a deep football thinker and was highly respected at both PA and Adelaide. It's interesting that Adelaide and Sanderson's decline has been since Dean died. It's a moot point of course but I don't think that would have been so severe if he had lived.

The point I'm making is that whilst Bailey wasn't a great coach he is significantly better than he is given credit for. If he had just followed the contested footy round the boundary press/flooding of the time (Malthouse, Roos, Lyon) I think our results would have been much much worse.

Too many place too much emphasis on 186 and the groupthink is very strong.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

There were 5 minute blocks during 186 where no MFC player touched the ball. I don't think it is overstated at all.

The game earlier that year against Meth Coast was just as bad although the scoreboard doesn't show it.

The team had no idea. It was a complete shambles.

I loved Bails. Really good bloke but he was in to deep as a head coach.

Pity the CEO wasn't shown the door on the same day

[LegsLeoncelli 162]

Bailey's style of play was not unlike PA at the moment but with a much more immature list.

That's a really good point regarding the game plan.

I suppose the problem with it was when the run of play was against us; when we couldn't get our hands on the ball. Through Bailey and Neeld's time at the club, and even this year to a lesser extent, we had too many 'bad quarters', and lost games as a result.

[Deemotivated 550]

The run of play issue still exists. Our worst losses this year we had massive lapses where we simply could not touch the pill.

[rjay 24,917]

Bailey's style of play was not unlike PA at the moment but with a much more immature list. Whilst I accept that DL groupthink is that Bailey's game plan was redundant I'm not convinced. Neeld's game plan was awful and the reality is that Roos didn't produce as good a set of results than Bailey.

I think you are selling Port a bit short there 'Bob', they do have a defensive aspect that the Bailey plan didn't.

I think there was a lot of so called conventional wisdom espoused by the likes of Garry Lyon about Bailey's lack of defence that brought him undone. In the end the momentum (along with some more than poor results) was so great that he lost his job. In other words he was being "white anted"...

As 'WYL' said the CEO should have been walked out the door as well, maybe he should have led the way earlier or not been there in the first place.

Unfortunately for the club, we needed a complete turnover from board level through senior management including the FD. It's now just about complete.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Qwerty30 is right. I wasn't making a case for Bailey being a great coach, only that he was significantly better than Neeld. If you don't think that's right fine.

There is so much groupthink on DL it's frightening. Bailey and his reputation for "bruise free" footy is rubbish. He has the youngest side in the competition until the Suns came in and the list simply wasn't able to compete physically. So what did he do?. He coached a brand of footy that didn't rely on strength in contests. He coached a fantastic brand of running footy where players who had the skill set of our list could compete. Sure we got knocked around by physically stronger sides that were better than us (gosh, who would have thought) but the alternative was the tripe that Neeld dished up. As the list developed Bailey would have been able to add strength to the game style and we would have developed as the ability to apply those skills became available. So many seem unable to recognize the results Bailey got regardless of those that followed. Put simply footy is about winning. In his last two years Bailey was better than anyone since Danihers 2006 - significantly. He got very good results given the players he had.

I'm not suggesting Bailey was a great coach. I don't think he was the coach to take us to finals. But the garbage that gets trotted out on this site about him and others is disappointing. I remember being pretty much a lone voice regarding Daniher. I'm happy with my stance on Bailey and those that followed.

Cale Morton 4

Jack Grimes 14

Addam Maric 21

Jack Watts 1

Sam Blease 17

James Strauss 19

Jamie Bennell 35

Tom Scully 1

Jack Trengove 2

Jordan Gysberts 11

Luke Tapscott 18

Max Gawn 34

Lucas Cook 12

Jeremy Howe 33

Sure Bailey won more games than Neeld, but lets not forget it was an average of 5.5 games per year during his tenure and with drafting like that no coach after Bailey would have stood a chance.

Also trading Jonstone, delisting Yze, White, Miller and force retiring Robertson and McDonald didn't help...

Edited November 4, 2014 by PJ_12345

[Blistering 541]

I think you are selling Port a bit short there 'Bob', they do have a defensive aspect that the Bailey plan didn't.

I think there was a lot of so called conventional wisdom espoused by the likes of Garry Lyon about Bailey's lack of defence that brought him undone. In the end the momentum (along with some more than poor results) was so great that he lost his job. In other words he was being "white anted"...

As 'WYL' said the CEO should have been walked out the door as well, maybe he should have led the way earlier or not been there in the first place.

Unfortunately for the club, we needed a complete turnover from board level through senior management including the FD. It's now just about complete.

Fair go. Port Adelaide under Ken Hinkley in 2013/4 is in a different universe to Dean Bailey's Melbourne in every aspect of the game, starting from style and going through to fitness, discipline, culture etc. Nothing even close.