I think we can improve more than marginally but we need the stars to align for once.

Two years ago Port Adelaide shocked the football world with its resurgence and much of that was due to its football department being very good at executing well laid coaching and fitness plans that brought the best out of the list. Most of it was hard work but they were also blessed by having an almost full list at their disposal. Can anyone remember when we could say that about Melbourne in round one of any season?

So if the stars align it could be 10 wins and possibly more.

Nail on head, WJ. Less games unavailable from less of our list will see a BIG improvement. It is still the strongest statistical correlation to success across the AFL. Less injuries = more wins.

Nail on head, WJ. Less games unavailable from less of our list will see a BIG improvement. It is still the strongest statistical correlation to success across the AFL. Less injuries = more wins.

You're back Webber, thought you had disappeared.

I know this isn't the thread, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on Trengrove's injury and whether you believe he can make it back.

He got Neeld right about a year before most

I pick Neeld from day one.

As all I needed to know was he was coming from Collingwood.

It not rocket science OD.

King called Neeld very early. I'm not sure if he called for his sacking either, just that MFC had picked a coach who was wrong for the list.

He never came out and said to sack him. It was a bit of a Clayton's call to action with lots of talk about looking at the process etc.

The reality was at the time that we couldn't have sacked Neeld after 9 rounds. It was a case of trying to get as much support around him as possible to let him live up to his potential. King's argument would have held more water with me if the fact that we were stuck with Neeld for at least a year was acknowledged and that we had to make the best of the situation.

Edited November 19, 201410 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

The secret to a career in football punditry is to talk heaps, show graphics, and tell us absolutely nothing we don't already know.

Pretty handy combination to have up your sleeve on a footy forum too.

It is still the strongest statistical correlation to success across the AFL. Less injuries = more wins.

Could not agree more webber. What amazes me is how often this fact is ignored. I know it is part of footy club culture not to blame injuries but facts are facts

The reality was at the time that we couldn't have sacked Neeld after 9 rounds. It was a case of trying to get as much support around him as possible to let him live up to his potential. King's argument would have held more water with me if the fact that we were stuck with Neeld for at least a year was acknowledged and that we had to make the best of the situation.

The reality is that after 9 rounds in his first year there was serious reason to question the direction Neeld was going. The football was putrid and the game plan preditable and obvious. And the Club gave him significant support and he did live up to his potential that was evident by the end of his first year to a number of posters on Demonland. He should have been removed after the 1 st round loss to Port Adelaide and exited with the incumbent CEO after the appalling loss to Essendon.

King would not know the reality of Neelds contract or the machinations at the boardroom level to determine his standing and progress. But he did what he had to do as a game analyst and called it as he saw it..... And he called it correctly.

The reality is that after 9 rounds in his first year there was serious reason to question the direction Neeld was going. The football was putrid and the game plan preditable and obvious. And the Club gave him significant support and he did live up to his potential that was evident by the end of his first year to a number of posters on Demonland. He should have been removed after the 1 st round loss to Port Adelaide and exited with the incumbent CEO after the appalling loss to Essendon.

King would not know the reality of Neelds contract or the machinations at the boardroom level to determine his standing and progress. But he did what he had to do as a game analyst and called it as he saw it..... And he called it correctly.

I don't think anyone questioned that the results were diabolical after 9 rounds. My point still stands. No matter how bad things were after those 9 rounds, it would have been financially devastating and hugely disruptive to sack Neeld. The best we could have done in 2012 was to lump it and see what happened in 2013 as at that stage, it wasn't so clear cut that Neeld was part of the problem. We got our answer pretty early in said 2013.

To be honest, the Neeld situation was handled as well as it possibly could have been. A round 1 sacking would have been knee jerk in the extreme. The man was given the 'clean air' that PJ promised and showed, sadly, he wasn't up to the job.

I would also contest that he was given adequate support. If we class 'support' as getting a stay of execution then he did. Sadly though, as far as the personnel who he had access to, he was mostly surrounded by first year or bush coaches besides Jade Rawlings and Neil Craig. As PJ said, they were incredibly inexperience. Neeld himself had only been a line coach at Collingwood for 3 years.

As for your last point, King would surely know (if he was a decent journo and had done his research) what Neeld's contract was. Even if he didn't know the nitty gritty, he would have a vague idea that he was on a 2-3 year deal. It would have been knee jerk in the extreme to sack him (which King didn't, he just hemmed and hawed on that point).

I am no Neeld apologist and I believe that he lacked the emotional smarts to be a good coach and was stubborn at times for the sake of it (plus his game plan wasn't suited for the cattle he had). However, I don't like this Demonland talking point that 'Kingy said Neeld should be sacked after round 9, 2012' because he wouldn't go the full nine yards and say that he should go and the fact was at the time there was more to lose by making that decision.