Uncovered Podcast on 186

[Demonland 73,528]

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,251]

I was living in Canada at this time and had unplugged myself from footy a bit.... which was a great time to do it

 

[praha 11,253]

Will never forget it. Was meant to drive down the highway for it. If I remember correctly we lost to Carlton the week before and Melbourne supporters were calling the radio after the match, all saying how something must be wrong at the club because of how dysfunctional it all seemed. 7 days later, we lose by 186 points.

I was deathly ill so stayed home. Fell asleep shortly before the match. Woke up shortly before half time. Had a message from a mate that read, "wtf is wrong with your team?" Checked the scores and we were down by 100+.

Later that evening, radio lines were filled with callers wanting to vent. One young guy in particular was yelling, filled with rage. Never heard or experienced anything like it when it comes to football. 

If you can find it and are a sucker for pain, the matchday thread on here is fascinating reading. A combination of jovial self-mockery, unprecedented anger, and bewilderment. The progression of the conversation would be entertaining if it weren't so depressing.

[Sir Why You Little 37,318]

Every member of that team should have been sacked. I know it is not possible to do that, but it is what they deserved. 
 

so much love and respect for Bails...NOT!

I recall Brad Green was interviewed by Mike Sheahan days before 186. Wasn’t hard to tell trouble was brewing. Brad was right out of his depth, terrific person Brad, but he was not a strong Captain. 
Schwab kept his job, whilst Bailey was thrown out

Complete shambles and embarrassment 

[Wells 11 5,467]

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Every member of that team should have been sacked. I know it is not possible to do that, but it is what they deserved. 
 

so much love and respect for Bails...NOT!

I recall Brad Green was interviewed by Mike Sheahan days before 186. Wasn’t hard to tell trouble was brewing. Brad was right out of his depth, terrific person Brad, but he was not a strong Captain. 
Schwab kept his job, whilst Bailey was thrown out

Complete shambles and embarrassment 

Unfortunately not fully complete. A shambles yes, agreed, job completed. But the embarrassment was only half completed. Neeld, tanking saga, Caroline Wilson, Jurrah and Scully finished the job. Jesus what horrible years they were

[Sir Why You Little 37,318]

4 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Unfortunately not fully complete. A shambles yes, agreed, job completed. But the embarrassment was only half completed. Neeld, tanking saga, Caroline Wilson, Jurrah and Scully finished the job. Jesus what horrible years they were

Different issues. 186 stands alone

professional AFL footballers allowed that to occur. A real shame they were allowed to play again in an MFC jumper

Edited May 12, 2020 by Sir Why You Little

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,525]

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Every member of that team should have been sacked. I know it is not possible to do that, but it is what they deserved. 
 

so much love and respect for Bails...NOT!

I recall Brad Green was interviewed by Mike Sheahan days before 186. Wasn’t hard to tell trouble was brewing. Brad was right out of his depth, terrific person Brad, but he was not a strong Captain. 
Schwab kept his job, whilst Bailey was thrown out

Complete shambles and embarrassment 

 

I still don't really understand how all of this works... I suppose we still don't have the full story.

I would have thought that if the players had issues with Schwab, then they should have been jumping for joy that afternoon.

The seconds got smashed as well if memory serves correctly...

[Mickey 4,756]

Interesting podcast, but it doesn't really address exactly why 186 happened (what happened game day). It talks about what was happening, and had happened leading up to it, and the results, but not about the game itself (short of a bit of 'the boys were off'). Being 'off' doesn't lead to a 186 point smashing. And as TPF39 says, if they knew Schwab was gone, why would they dish up that?

[Little Goffy 14,760]

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Every member of that team should have been sacked. I know it is not possible to do that, but it is what they deserved. 
 

 

There was one exception on the day which just emphasized the shame of the others.

Jordie McKenzie.  Respect.

[Sir Why You Little 37,318]

2 hours ago, Mickey said:

Interesting podcast, but it doesn't really address exactly why 186 happened (what happened game day). It talks about what was happening, and had happened leading up to it, and the results, but not about the game itself (short of a bit of 'the boys were off'). Being 'off' doesn't lead to a 186 point smashing. And as TPF39 says, if they knew Schwab was gone, why would they dish up that?

Agree. But i don’t think anyone knows the answer. Brad was being honest I believe, he had no answer. 
it is still terrible that the players let Dean down so badly, if they were all behind him. I just shake my head. 
And for Schwab’s situation to be reversed, how could that ever be seen as the correct  strategy??

Excellent Podcast 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Sir Why You Little

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

Interesting podcast, but it doesn't really address exactly why 186 happened (what happened game day). It talks about what was happening, and had happened leading up to it, and the results, but not about the game itself (short of a bit of 'the boys were off'). Being 'off' doesn't lead to a 186 point smashing. And as TPF39 says, if they knew Schwab was gone, why would they dish up that?

"Let's show up Schwab. Let's really stick it to him. We'll put in a coach-killing performance so shameful it will never be forgotten in football history. That'll show the world we mean .... something ... ? Come on boys! Who's with me?!"

 

[Wells 11 5,467]

21 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Different issues. 186 stands alone

professional AFL footballers allowed that to occur. A real shame they were allowed to play again in an MFC jumper

Im not sure they are SWYL or that 186 does stand alone. Less than a year later we were beaten by close to 150 against the bombers. The players were a part of it yes, but the ineptitude, lack of resources, poor planning  and loss of trust around  the club at that time had several expressions. Pains me to even remember those days. 

[Pates 9,680]

Perhaps in years to come we will get more of an inside scoop on it, it would potentially make an interesting (if horrific) documentary. Geelong were bloody good and we were bad, but 186 points? Nah. There were gangrenous rots in the club which created it, those in charge didn't solve the problem (in fact they made it worse).

I look back on those years and actually wonder how the club managed to survive. We were an embarrassment to the competition. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,318]

8 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Im not sure they are SWYL or that 186 does stand alone. Less than a year later we were beaten by close to 150 against the bombers. The players were a part of it yes, but the ineptitude, lack of resources, poor planning  and loss of trust around  the club at that time had several expressions. Pains me to even remember those days. 

The players let those performances happen. They are paid Professionals and it was a disgrace. Including that game against Essendrug, but 186 was inexcusable because Bailey got knifed by the players who “loved him”. 
Why the CEO survived i have no idea. That was just pure insanity and it became just that...

But we are far to nice to our players, they are very well paid and looked after, we should expect more in battle. Week after Week, not just the odd “emotional game”

[praha 11,253]

10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The players let those performances happen. They are paid Professionals and it was a disgrace. Including that game against Essendrug, but 186 was inexcusable because Bailey got knifed by the players who “loved him”. 
Why the CEO survived i have no idea. That was just pure insanity and it became just that...

But we are far to nice to our players, they are very well paid and looked after, we should expect more in battle. Week after Week, not just the odd “emotional game”

I suspect Schwab remained because replacing a CEO isn't quite like replacing a coach. Getting rid of both wasn't possible and sacking a CEO whilst keeping the coach would have just looked silly. But then again we'd just like by 186 so all bets were off.

But yeah no way Bailey survived. Not surprising Schwab did survive but what was surprising was that he even lasted the summer. 

Let's also not forget who was president throughout this time. 

[Supermercado 2,802]

This was well put together but as mentioned above I'd be interested in getting an understanding of why they played so badly. Was part of it that Geelong didn't pull up like many teams do when a major thrashing is brewing. It was the last season where a variety of teams were savagely beaten (even we won three games by over 80 points) and the Cats did beat Gold Coast by 150 points the next week (fair fortnight) so I wonder if what would have been a 20 goal loss under normal circumstances exploded because teams were in a percentage race. Or were we so bad that once they got to half time 110 points up they thought they could go for something special without extending themselves.

Also:

- Did Bailey really pay for the team to stay overnight in Geelong because the club wouldn't pay as was rumoured at the time?

- Why did Moloney play when he was so sick that he went around like a zombie for the first half having zero touches? I know they're not going to make it a four hour doco but these are things I'd be interested in.

- I'd like to hear more about the Schwab squib. It's one thing to say you can't sack a CEO and coach at the same time but why? We'd just lost a game by 31 goals, I don't think anyone was going to think we were any more of a shambles if a board member took over as interim CEO for a few weeks.

It was certainly a memorable afternoon, right down to going to a movie afterwards and yelling at some hipster doofus behind me for talking too loudly.

[Sir Why You Little 37,318]

14 hours ago, praha said:

I suspect Schwab remained because replacing a CEO isn't quite like replacing a coach. Getting rid of both wasn't possible and sacking a CEO whilst keeping the coach would have just looked silly. But then again we'd just like by 186 so all bets were off.

But yeah no way Bailey survived. Not surprising Schwab did survive but what was surprising was that he even lasted the summer. 

Let's also not forget who was president throughout this time. 

Schwab should have gone. He was the base problem. Even the Captain knew that and told McLardy. 
the whole thing was so bad and we are still paying for it

[Northern Summer 292]

15 hours ago, praha said:

I suspect Schwab remained because replacing a CEO isn't quite like replacing a coach. Getting rid of both wasn't possible and sacking a CEO whilst keeping the coach would have just looked silly. But then again we'd just like by 186 so all bets were off.

But yeah no way Bailey survived. Not surprising Schwab did survive but what was surprising was that he even lasted the summer. 

Let's also not forget who was president throughout this time. 

Regarding your last line, spot on. Everyone loves Stynes and nobody would ever want to criticise him, but it's important to reflect on a few home truths. .

Stynes, Lyon and Schwab were very very close to each other and had been for years.

Stynes was the one who brutally sacked Paul McNamee on the spot as soon as he walked into the club as President and appointed his mate Schwab into the role. McNamee had only been in the job for 5 minutes, yet apparently his death knell came when he wanted to recruit Jonathan Brown on a big-money long-term deal. Suitors were hardly reaching out far and wide for Schwab and he didn't appear to leave Freo in glowing colours. It was clearly a boys club back then.

Stynes might not have been well when the 186 debacle occurred, but his allegiance would certainly have been with Schwab over Bailey sadly.

It continued beyond this. . Garry Lyon became involved and looked after Schwab (along with Stynes), giving Schwab a 2-year deal (which alone should raise eye-brows). 

Who hired Neeld - primarily Lyon and Schwab. Not one to excuse Neeld because he's clearly shown even in recent TV interviews his lack of self-awareness and man-management skills, something you would have expected he would have reflected on over the past 7-8 years. However, it's still my view that he was initially hired to coach with one mandate from Schwab - to [censored] the players in an old-school militant manner - much because of Schwab's knowledge of their distain of him. The reality in any management position is you can lose your direct reports (or players in this instance) in a single moment only never to get them back again - it's clear Neeld did this straight away and had no way back. Yes, it was his fault. Was it a condition he was hired under? Perhaps.

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Northern Summer

[gs77 4,518]

1 hour ago, Northern Summer said:

Regarding your last line, spot on. Everyone loves Stynes and nobody would ever want to criticise him, but it's important to reflect on a few home truths. .

Stynes, Lyon and Schwab were very very close to each other and had been for years.

Stynes was the one who brutally sacked Paul McNamee on the spot as soon as he walked into the club as President and appointed his mate Schwab into the role. McNamee had only been in the job for 5 minutes, yet apparently his death knell came when he wanted to recruit Jonathan Brown on a big-money long-term deal. Suitors were hardly reaching out far and wide for Schwab and he didn't appear to leave Freo in glowing colours. It was clearly a boys club back then.

Stynes might not have been well when the 186 debacle occurred, but his allegiance would certainly have been with Schwab over Bailey sadly.

It continued beyond this. . Garry Lyon became involved and looked after Schwab (along with Stynes), giving Schwab a 2-year deal (which alone should raise eye-brows). 

Who hired Neeld - primarily Lyon and Schwab. Not one to excuse Neeld because he's clearly shown even in recent TV interviews his lack of self-awareness and man-management skills, something you would have expected he would have reflected on over the past 7-8 years. However, it's still my view that he was initially hired to coach with one mandate from Schwab - to [censored] the players in an old-school militant manner - much because of Schwab's knowledge of their distain of him. The reality in any management position is you can lose your direct reports (or players in this instance) in a single moment only never to get them back again - it's clear Neeld did this straight away and had no way back. Yes, it was his fault. Was it a condition he was hired under? Perhaps.

 

 

 

Very good points. I've long mused on just how much damage Neeld did to his relationship with the playing group right back at possibly his first public address as coach (was it the BnF?) where he delivered an awkward slapdown to applause when he was introduced. He may have come from the successful Collingwood setup, but he hardly carried the credentials of a Malthouse that may have lent greater weight to such an approach.