Quite frankly who gives a flying... what Moloney has to say about his inability to apply to change. 

He was in reality as much of the problem as anyone. 

Pot and kettle there.

Can anyone make sense of this?

'He didn’t want me to stand still at stoppages and I felt that I had to be on the move…I felt that if you were on the move, it was harder to be tackled when you get the ball moving forward. We were butting heads all year,” the former Demon said.

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

Can anyone make sense of this?

'He didn’t want me to stand still at stoppages and I felt that I had to be on the move…I felt that if you were on the move, it was harder to be tackled when you get the ball moving forward. We were butting heads all year,” the former Demon said.

I had to read that a few times myself - from what I can gather I think he meant to say 'he wanted me to stand still' as the rest of the quote has him talking about being on the move and him 'butting heads' with Neeld over it.  Just my assumption though.

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

The only thing this article solidified for me, is that Neeld had no people skills. Can't coach if people won't follow you!

Amen! 

His appointment set us back!

20 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

I always thought he was treated a bit harshly tbh. I wasnt aware about the hotel in prahran the night of THAT game....but agree he was no leader of men. Unfortuately we had none of those at that time. 

As I said at the time, when I saw him that night he was having dinner but for a bloke who was curled up hardly breathing earlier he looked fine later that night.

He wasn't the only one from that time, Rivers after another smashing (can't recall which game now) was out getting right on the [censored] with mates at the Union in Windsor.

Seemed to be a theme, but onwards and upwards. 

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

I had to read that a few times myself - from what I can gather I think he meant to say 'he wanted me to stand still' as the rest of the quote has him talking about being on the move and him 'butting heads' with Neeld over it.  Just my assumption though.

It's what I assumed as well. Who coaches players to be flat-footed at the contest though? I know Neeld was keen on creating fresh stoppages (god knows why - because we were getting killed in them) but I think Moloney's interpretation might be a bit exaggerated. Maybe Neeld didn't want him to commit at speed in one direction - the signature Brent gather and boot forward and forget about defence? Possibly station himself at the defensive side of centre and find a running outlet? It's all a bit confusing - but for some reason I don't feel like watching old footage to see if I can pick anything up.  

33 minutes ago, danielE288 said:

Used to see him out regularly, loved a night out

Was well known for it in some circles. Apparently a bit of an old school style 'clubman' better suited to an era past or a regional power club.Footy had gone passed him, or his ilk, and probably remonstrated against any that might bring to a discussion things he didn't think worked. I mean he was so about the 'new' game 

Neeld was an ass in respect to technique and how to recast a club/team in his image but that might not mean his underlying ideas were out of hand wrong.

 Moloney's views are.,.... let's see.,. irrelevant.

19 minutes ago, Skuit said:

It's what I assumed as well. Who coaches players to be flat-footed at the contest though? I know Neeld was keen on creating fresh stoppages (god knows why - because we were getting killed in them) but I think Moloney's interpretation might be a bit exaggerated. Maybe Neeld didn't want him to commit at speed in one direction - the signature Brent gather and boot forward and forget about defence? Possibly station himself at the defensive side of centre and find a running outlet? It's all a bit confusing - but for some reason I don't feel like watching old footage to see if I can pick anything up.  

Bugger this! The first match Neeld coached, against Brisbane from memory, we showed a depressing brand of football, aiming at stoppages around the boundary line--a method of play for which we had no advantages whatever. Lost by a fair margin, lost the following week by 100 points. Coach said " we didn't see this coming"  . And it just got worse. We had won 8 games the previous year. My memory may fail me but I don't think we won 8 in all the time while Neeld was coach.

 All the senior players were demoralised, two kids had their careers destroyed when made  captain far  too young. Stef Martin told to p--off. And now people inclined to support Neeld over Moloney, who was no angel but won a few games for us and for Brisbane after we got rid of him. If he vomited over Scully in China, then that's a great pity,  it was an after season trip, and his damage to the club was quite insignificant compared with that inflicted by Neeld.  Any number of players have had big nights out after footy matches. Should Moloney be condemned for this?

I dont blame any one person for his appointment. Others who had worked with him were impressed and Gary Lyon, for one, felt he was the best choice. But it was an awful mistake. Everyone now knows that. On any view Beamer did more for the MFC, than did Mark Neeld who consigned us to our worst period ever.

We clearly had a weak, incompetent and highly unprofessional culture that needed a major overhaul.

Neeld identified this.

Unfortunately he was not the man, nor did he possess any of the requisite skills, to be able to turn it around.

If anything, he took it to a new level of incompetence not ever witnessed before in the history of the game. He struck me as a vicious nerd who should never have been put in charge of leading humans.

That said, I really liked his rhetoric for the first 6 weeks of the preseason i.e. before I managed to get a handle on what he had done/was doing to the club.

 

Id suggest it was a case of many senior players...a 'clique' thought THEY knew much better than this 'interloper' and played accordingly'

We as a club made any $2 novel look plausible. Tail wagging dog.

Thank god that's all behind us.

Forget Moloney the player and person. The two things he mentions about overall strategy are spot-on. Neeld tried to institute a dated game-plan, and tried to do so with the wrong supplies. Bailey-ball may have come up ultimately short, but Neeld tore the unfinished, inventive house down and tried to rebuild a different conservative design with the same materials or faulty knock-offs. We ended up having to throw the lot out and start again. I can only imagine the frustration if I'd been on the original building crew.

5 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Bugger this! The first match Neeld coached, against Brisbane from memory, we showed a depressing brand of football, aiming at stoppages around the boundary line--a method of play for which we had no advantages whatever. Lost by a fair margin, lost the following week by 100 points. Coach said " we didn't see this coming"  . And it just got worse. We had won 8 games the previous year. My memory may fail me but I don't think we won 8 in all the time while Neeld was coach.

 

Yes, I agree. I've been critical of posters critical of Goodwin in his first handful of games, but I'll never forget my feeling after that Brisbane match. It was clear to me right then that we'd made a huge huge mistake with a mountain of pain to come.

Forget Neeld... Moloney wasn't the coach. 

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Id suggest it was a case of many senior players...a 'clique' thought THEY knew much better than this 'interloper' and played accordingly'

We as a club made any $2 novel look plausible. Tail wagging dog.

Thank god that's all behind us.

That may be true for some of the senior players, but, by no means, all. Some , eg Brad Green, had given long distinguished service, yet they were deprived of any input.. Those who had finished on top in the Bluey Truscott the previous year, were effectively rubbished and largely gone by season's end.

Players arent there to run the agenda.

21 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Bugger this! The first match Neeld coached, against Brisbane from memory, we showed a depressing brand of football, aiming at stoppages around the boundary line--a method of play for which we had no advantages whatever. Lost by a fair margin, lost the following week by 100 points. Coach said " we didn't see this coming"  . And it just got worse. We had won 8 games the previous year. My memory may fail me but I don't think we won 8 in all the time while Neeld was coach.

 All the senior players were demoralised, two kids had their careers destroyed when made  captain far  too young. Stef Martin told to p--off. And now people inclined to support Neeld over Moloney, who was no angel but won a few games for us and for Brisbane after we got rid of him. If he vomited over Scully in China, then that's a great pity,  it was an after season trip, and his damage to the club was quite insignificant compared with that inflicted by Neeld.  Any number of players have had big nights out after footy matches. Should Moloney be condemned for this?

I dont blame any one person for his appointment. Others who had worked with him were impressed and Gary Lyon, for one, felt he was the best choice. But it was an awful mistake. Everyone now knows that. On any view Beamer did more for the MFC, than did Mark Neeld who consigned us to our worst period ever.

Sorry.

i hadn't read the piece about Scully and  vomit properly! It wasn't Moloney wot dun it. 

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Players arent there to run the agenda.

Can u name any other club where there had been such a clearing out of ALL senior players?

with great success!

10 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Can u name any other club where there had been such a clearing out of ALL senior players?

with great success!

Have no idea what point you make.

 

Moloney was part of the problem. 

Is it any wonder he took off....

Neeld was out of his league, but i also have some sympathy for him.  

Imagine trying to get some discipline into the MFC List at that time. They had just burnt Dean Bailey, a man they all supposedly loved with 186. 

Who cares about the Bluey the year before....

TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY MOLONEY. 

You Bolted...

Beamer was a Bailey man through and through and the story goes that he was disgruntled before Neeld walked in the door. Apparently, made that clear at the 2011 B & F so it was no surprise that they couldn't see eye to eye. 

Well i will admit i  may said we needed a Neeld 

but ialso said he he'd have  to take responsibility

Hevwas bloody hopeless and I think that has been shown.

it a easy in retrospect but now

I see Goodwin has a great mix happening

lets hope he Is able to do a beveridge

12 hours ago, Night Crawler said:

Peter Jackson was on Triple M last week for a pre-game interview (wasnt our game though...) Paul Roos was a part of the regular panel.

They were discussing the point in time where Roos decided that he would take the coaching position. 

Roos had met with the players and a senior player said to him. 'I just want to be treated like a human being'

Neeld was a [censored] stain on this club.

I don't think Neeld was the cause of the problem, or really the primary fuel. He went in and acknowledged the same issues Roos did, and tried to change the team in the same way. Neeld took a lot of the issues caused by management and the CEO out on the playing group, so there was really no differentiation between the corporate structure and the playing group. Neeld may have falling into that. We all know who the real stains were.

I thought Neeld was that "down before going up" point. After 2011, it seemed inevitable that we crash the way we did. It was important that more people be held to account, and I think the Neeld years will showed the club for what it truly was, and that was an amateur football club competing in a professional competition.

Some of you may not see this, but if Neeld did one things, it's have the guts to come in and say the club and its standards were the pits. He was brought in to instil premiership-caliber standards, and that's exactly what he tried to do. He wasn't a great coach, but he wasn't wrong with what he wanted to do.

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by praha

9 hours ago, Skuit said:

Yes, I agree. I've been critical of posters critical of Goodwin in his first handful of games, but I'll never forget my feeling after that Brisbane match. It was clear to me right then that we'd made a huge huge mistake with a mountain of pain to come.

I had that same feeling. I never like losing but the sense of despair I had after that game was the deepest Ive ever had. 

1 minute ago, Wells 11 said:

I had that same feeling. I never like losing but the sense of despair I had after that game was the deepest Ive ever had. 

Like being hit with a reality semi-trailer.

It is difficult not to re-write history when you reflect on it, but the article does seem to bring a sense of clarity. I was a Beamer fan, loved his aggression and uncompromising nature, but he was an extremely flawed leader whose leadership had powerful positives and more powerful negatives. 

However, the train wreck that was Mark Neeld can actually be seen as a huge catalyst for change. The 186 game revealed a dysfunctional, decaying, fossilised club. Mark Neeld was a resopnse to that, and his coaching tenure (I refuse to use the word leadership here) made the club finally implode and collapse. And it needed to. Our playing group being led by Beamer and Sylvia  - what?!?! Our leaders being given an uncompromising and unfair push out of the door - what?!?!  Hard-nosed bullying being seen as tough leadership - what?!?!

All the old gang had to depart, PJ was placed in charge, Roos as coach, Bartlett as president and we started again from ground zero. So although it was the worst period I can remember of 50+ years as a Dees supporter, in reflection, I am glad it all happened. Today we have 40,000 members, sponsors who continue, a women's team, and a list that might finally give us some success.

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Maldonboy38