Leaderboard

To be honest, I think it's more important to have an elite professionally run development program to ensure young players develop to their potential, than to be able to pick the right players. Certainly, all the years the club's facilities were based at the junction oval, I saw nothing remotely elite about the clubs development program. All that can be hoped for now, is that youngsters recruited to the Dees will be given every opportunity to develop and thrive, so that they reach their potential.

There's something else going on here The stink emanating from our playing group just can't be put down to bad drafting or bad coaching Or can it? Something is drastically wrong. Players are going backwards, no leadership, no fighting spirit, no desire, no stars, no good skills, no brains. This group is totally demoralised. I have no idea why but it is becoming a recurring nightmare We now have a new coach, new and more assistant coaches, some of best training facilities in the comp and yet we go backwards I give up, I feel this sense of hopelessness now more than at any time in the last 5 seasons C'mon players give us something, just anything to feel positive about

Watching tonights game. Shockers v Cats. Both teams have an appetite for the contest. It is the main ingredient our entire club lacks We do as we are told far too much.

Overreaction. You don't change a culture that permitted a 186 point loss overnight. Assess after 10 rounds, not 1.

I was listening to ABC 774 at about 12:30 this afternoon and Gerard Whately had a really insightful comment to make. He has an annoying voice when commentating but his pre-game andf post-game insights are the best in the business. He basically said that there was a battle of wills happening at Melbourne. Neeld has a specific model of how football should be taught, trained and played and he has no room for contradictions. Whately reckons that the senior players like Green, Davey, Rivers, Jamar (he did not put Moloney in this group) have not "bought in" to his plan and are playing as if to say "well your method is OK, but this is how we play footy". He intimated that the main issue under Bailey's rule was that the leadership group would not lead his game philiosophy, therefore laying the playing form of the last 4 yeras squarely at the feet of the senior group. If there is a battle of wills at the moment I have three responses: 1. Neeld is very tough and seems very fair. Unlike Bailey, he is tough enough to put to aside those players who will not buy in. 2. The board, CEO's and supporters must get behind him so that his plan can be fully inplemented. 3. I am absolutley furious. If this is true, then Neeld should do what Blight did at Adelaide and move these so-called senior players on. A player should be coachable whether they have played 3 or 300. If they don't buy in then get out of the way and give someone else a go.

Lol what a load of crap. Rumours. I've seen with my own eyes a number of players who don't want to be a Dee, and that is more worrying to me.

I listened to Mark Mclure sum up the Dees yesterday and it hit a nerve but it was true when I analysed what he said. We have more talent than Brisbane, we know it and Brisbane knew it but they were prepared to put in the hard work and run to support each other or provide an option. Mclure believes Neeld will continue with his plans and IHO it is the right thing to do, get rid of the older players refusing to conform and play those willing to stick to the team ethos and reap the benefits. Stan ALVES chimed in comparing the Saints under Lyon in 07 ealry on refusing to conform and he now regrets not moving the players on earlier in the season. ALVES backed it up by saying Neeld needs to act now and he thinks he will starting from this week. So for those who say we rate our list as better than they are I don't agree the problem is we rate a lot of them on talent, which they have an abundance of but f%#k me we need a lot of hard runners out there, mission can get them as fit as he likes but you have to want to run and go beyong the pain barrier. Yes it's only Round 1 but we need to make the right decisions I beleive in the talent just need to weed out those who don't conform no matter who they are.

If senior players refuse to put in unless under their own terms then we are stuffed forever. Better play all the the kids and start afresh.

Our midfield has been triaged since I can remember: Powell, Moloney, and now Magner. All recruited as known talents and became (or destined to be) our most damaging midfielders. We need to develop the talent we have and are about to get, we have not been able to turn young potential into star performers and that is the way to get out of this mire, not looking at some magical trade that will net us a 'Judd' - there aren't many out there, and they don't want to come to us. Gysberts, Trengove, Bail, McKenzie, Viney, Young player traded for with comp picks (or the mid-round comp pick), Tapscott, and Blease are the only way out of this predicament.

How do you know what the game-plan is or whether it's being carried out the way the coach wants ? It's new and will take time. Neeld already knows they can attack, but like most good sides wants their game based first on a sound defence. It's too early to be critical of a game-plan when clearly it's not being implemented properly. And as for being too hard as a coach, how do you know what he's like behind closed doors ? How do you know what he's like one on one ? The players at Collingwood loved him and he took Ocean Grove to 4 flags in a row, so clearly the players there bought in to his agenda. How about you allow things to unfold beyond round one before you pigeon hole him. How does that sound ? EDIT: by the way, you say "somewhat successful" ? Are you frigging kidding me ? FMD. Your idea of success and mind couldn't be further apart.

I like the tough approach taken by Neeld, I like the long kicking, however is he too adamant that players play exactly to the game plan? For example, if there is a free player in the middle of the ground, players should be able to kick it to him. The corridor is and always will be the most efficient way to move the ball from one end to the other, so if the opportunity is there, why not take it? As we saw yesterday, Melbourne became so predictable, even if the the game plan was 100% perfect, the predictable nature of it means that opposition can quickly read what will happen next.

This. Felt to me like he was blaming the players for something that is mostly HIS fault. Isn't it the coaches job to have a suitable gameplan? Then to teach that gameplan effectively? Then to motivate the players? Then (god forbid) make relevant changes during the match, especially if we're getting pantsed?! I'm already concerned about this "style" of football Neeld is bringing. Does it suit our list or is he just forcing what he knows on a group not suited to that one idea he has? Time will tell I guess, but man am I sick of giving this team my time.

Harsh. Joel Mac was not great, but i thought he was among our best of the 20 others that were rubbish.

The improvement comes from the brain. (upstairs) on & off the field. Those not up to it must be asked to leave. Until we get this attitude throughout the whole club. We will never have respect. How i wish one year performance contract were available to all at the MFC.

Come on - we have had far more than our share of high picks. Our players are just plain LAZY. They will not run to contests, and certainly have absolutely no interest whatsoever in running to back up a team mate or to make an option. They have got away with this for years. Presumably successive coaches approve, or haven't been strong enough to turn this pathetic attitude over. Too much talk, too little action. Look at Hawthorn, Collingwood, Geelong AND LEARN!!! We could have the best 20 players in the comp: if they don't want to run, they will get nowhere, as we have done for far too long.

I wrote in a thread earlier today about how I like Neeld's tough and uncompromising way, however that maybe there wasn't any flexibility in the game plan which might be needed. This has also been mentioned over at Demonology. I just switched on the Sunday Footy Show and Shane Crawford and Matthew Lloyd were talking about this. Basically, they were saying it looked at times that Melbourne players had no variety (too focused on going down the boundary), they were too predictable and even looked like they were too worried about where to stand (structures) and didn't play their natural game enough. Essentially, this gets back to an old argument I have had with many on here whereby I believe that game plans should to a large degree be dictated by the type of list a team has (based on strengths and weaknesses). The reason being that it takes years to delist, trade and draft the right players a coach wants to fit a certain game plan. By then, senior players are too old and for the most part a team will never have 100% of their list fit and available. By all means a team can tinker with the list to get a certain type of player (Mitch Clark), but the idea of getting a whole list together to fit a certain game plan is almost impossible with the restriction of player movements in the AFL. Therefore, back in the days when I was arguing against "run and carry" (which by the way was proven to be rubbish for Melbourne) my point was that there is no one best way to play football and the best teams do tinker with lists, but essentially develop plans to get the best out of the players right now. At that time, "run and carry" did not suit Melbourne at all. For example, Hawthorn and Collingwood are quite even but they play a very different style, each of which plays to the strengths of their list. Factors such as pressure on the ball carrier, contested football, gut running and tackling are always important for any plan, so I don't see these as tactics as such. Shane Crawford today said even before the 2008 Hawthorn flag, Clarkson was always tweaking the plan to get the best out of a list at the time each year. Again, whilst I like the ruthless nature of Neeld, I just hope he doesn't do a Bailey and waste a number of years trying to find the perfect mix of players to fit perfectly with his ideal style of play. In theory, all game plans are great, but the fact is at no time will they ever be executed perfectly, so this must be taken into consideration.

Am I expecting too much? Watching the Hawthorn & Collingwood, Geelong & Fremantle and hell even some of the Carlton & Richmond game and I find myself entertained by some exciting, high quality football that we have come to expect from AFL standard footballers. Sitting down to watch my beloved Demons against the Lions today and i find my satisfaction with the quality of football on display diminishing by the quarter. Long stagnate bombs into the forward line to awaiting Lion defenders, Token forward line pressure acts performed merely to give the impression of intent to chase or smother and inability to man up on awaiting Brisbane outside runners peppering our backline with instinctive and varied inside 50 entries. Granted my level of bias towards Melbourne and my passion to see them do well may taint the impartial view I have when watching other games but what if I didnt barrack for Melbourne? Would I find this game entertaining? Would I see the quality of football produced by Melbourne acceptable compared to the AFL standard? There are a number of players on our list that simply need to watch the quality of football produced by probably 80% of the competition and ask themselves if they are doing the same. Do their skills, intensity, footy smarts and intent measure up? And if not why not? This is not a round 1 beat up or an over reaction to a single loss, simply a passionate, concerned and somewhat strained patient Melbourne supporter who longs to proudly boast of his teams performances to his so called mates and hated work colleagues. Is that too much to ask?

If the great Norm Smith was still around he would answer that question in the affirmative.

Are we serious? We are ONE GAME INTO THIS GUY'S TENURE. Bailey got belted by 100 POINTS. Neeld's method thrives on footage. Thrives on learning from the mistakes. Thrives on teaching these guys based on what they do as compared to what they could do. See the Pendlebury footage again. The common denominator is the players, not Neeld.

After yesterdays results for both Melbourne & Casey I'd be looking at: Bennell for Davey Couch for Moloney Dunn for Green Petterd (if fit) for Blease & Sellar for Mac Donald Gysberts, T. McDonald & Tapscott emergencies. Need to bring some physicality into the team which Couch, Dunn & Sellar all do, Sellar also helps with WC's tall forwards, and Bennell & Petterd to hopefully give us some forward pressure. Moloney you may bring back in after 1 week in he dominates. Davey & Green would have to dominate for weeks on end to earn a recall. Morton & T. McDonald clearly wont be far away if they can continue their good form & I have no doubt both Gysberts & Tapscott will be better for their runs.

First rounders we should take the two best available mids + JV, then take a crumber with our 2nd round

T-Mac for Green. Petterd for Blease. Morton for Joel Mc. Sellar for Rivers. Couch for Moloney (statement should be made).

Much better. When the last time a nice friendly coach won a flag.

People are different, and therefore need different ways to get the best out of them. Magner was playing his first game. He had just made the big time. Green is at the end of his career. He had some massive issues with the football department last year and was dropped not only as captain but from the whole leadership group. In a perfect world then yes, Brad would be able to get through this and perform to his best. Neeld needs to have a decent chat to Brad and find out where the problems lie and work through them. Davey has had some bad injuries over the past few years and simply isn't enjoying his football. Neeld needs to find a way to re spark his passion. Davey has another year left on his contract. If Neeld cannot utilize his services then its a cross against Neeld. Who knows, maybe he has tried and the players simply don't get it. We don't know. But as a coach he needs to get the best out of his whole playing list. I don't think i'm asking too much.

Beyond Blue?

I'd have thought 30-40k was reasonable. When we're winning, we can get 40k+, as we did in I think it was 2004 or 2005 against West Coast - 2nd vs 1st. 33k was pretty decent. Supporter base isn't large, so getting a high percentage of total support is probably good for the club if you look at it that way. I'd say 5k were Brisbane. They made a lot of noise. I also think people are sick of the club. If it's a blow-out against the Eagles I'm not sure I can dedicate a weekend afternoon to them in round 3. I'm studying my Masters and practically lost a day of study yesterday. That was always at the back of my mind. I always think like that, and I'm not prepared to sit around and watch non-efforts just to "show support" and "have faith".

This what i find perplexing...our game plan seems way too predictable. Every kick forwrad went to the same pocket all day If i was playing for Brisbane i would of thought, how easy is this to defend.

Its time to change up the centre clearances group. In the future i see it as this....Gawn. Gysberts Magner Viney Once this quartet starts playing regularly we will see some inprovement. Gysberts needs to be in there from now, and maybe Grimes too. Bartram and Macdonald arent good enough in my opinion. Id put Jones in Bartrams role and bring in Morton or Bennell fpr Macdonald Howe needs to be the full forward leading out of the square...he has the smarts . Clarke at CHF

Who here thinks Neeld counted how many players he was happy with on his fingers before the press conference? I wouldn't take his words so literally - he was just making the point that most of our players played below expectation. I think Magner is the only one who played well enough for four quarters.

Okay I'm very upset with the effort yesterday, and I think that a lot of changes are needed. But we've only played one game...let's keep talking about THIS season, please. No need to say we're already done for the year...still a lot of footy to be played.

He has now coached one AFL game.. just how many games had Thompson (and for that matter, Clarkson) coach before they started to taste success to any great degree... why was it they were both on the verge of being sacked? Don't you think it's a tad early to be sinking the boot into Neeld?

This highlights bad coaching on many levels (if you're accurate in your assumptions). 1. He should, regardless of what happened today, go in to next week expecting to win. Anything less is a cop out, and if I hear any excuse at the after match preser, I'll spew. 2. Regardless of his belief about winning games from stoppages, he has a list, and should coach to its strengths. List wise, we are not the greatest looking stoppage team, so why think otherwise? Innovative coaches create with what they have got, not sit back and wish for something they haven't. Mark Thompson believed in what he had, it was different to the normal, he nearly got sacked becasue of it, but then won 2 flags (which is bascially 3). Said it before, and I'll say it again, there are No More Excuses. Even today, the fcuking commentators used Jimmy's passing as an excuse for a lack-lusture performance. Well, at quarter time I don't think it was playing on their minds. But people still use "something" as an excuse, be it new game plan, coach, whatever. People, please hit 2012 with the No More Excuses attitude. They even said such in the TV after the game.

I said this tonight (or something similar)... I enjoy watching the Gold Coast Suns. While I never will have a 2nd team, the Suns are fantastic. The fact that there is every possible chacne that they will ose the game they are playing, they never EVER give less than 100%. Their senior players, Ablett, Brown, Rischtelli, Harbrow, they put in, and because of this, their kids put in 100% too. Even if their senior players are tagged out of the game, the kids know that there is only one level to play at. They know that if they play at that level, they can walk off with their heads held high, regardless of the result". There is nothing "Melbourne" about the above.

You're going to have to sit tight, we are a long long way away from being a team we can boast about! You're not expecting too much as a supporter, but it's unrealistic expectation of this group. That James Magner can come into our side for his first game straight from the VFL and be our best for the day highlights exactly where we are at with our list!

"Jamar was smashed in the ruck"... as was SM! Should we need to play a KF as ruck over two bona fide ruckmen? Clark was playing up the ground a lot of the time and Watts was moved deep at times. Rivers' strength is the loose / 3rd man reading the play - I wouldn't be isolating that weakness over our mids getting smashed. I don't think any match day tinkering could have overcome the chaos I was witnessing.

This post is the most depressing part of today. A soul-crushing performance to the extent that it has drawn a pessimistic and frustrated post out of our resident optimist. All parts of our club need to face the reality that our midfield is disgusting. This is not new information. It needs some serious fixing, and whether that comes from trialling other players like Watts in there, through the draft, trading, differing styles or other means, it needs a complete reboot. I kept muttering "Win a clearance" today like a deranged man, and realised I've been saying the same thing for years, but little has changed. The game plan was utterly predictable, but I need to see it in action when we aren't getting skewered like a pig in the middle of the ground. Our limited and stagnant forward entries certainly didn't help. I can't believe it's still only March and my post-game attention went straight to the November draft. Depressing.

Bartram! What are you nuts. He may look like he's trying and he did take a tough mark at one stage but my god he's a pathetic footballer. He can't kick at all and he was often off his man. He is completely incompetent with ball in hand and just loses all clue as to what to do. Also I really like Tynan but he ran out of puff in the second half and his game went off because of it. I'd be keen to put him as the sub next week. I certainly wouldn't drop him but I'd be managing him through the season. Magner, Bail and Howe put in respectable performances, I'm happy with those 3, not sure if I can find a 4th. Trengove had a crack as always. Mitch Clark didn't play the smartest game but he did compete hard in the first half in an impossible set up.

Upping the work rate - our players simply need to work harder to increase the pressure on oppositions. They need to work harder for one another. Todays effort was just not good enough. Lions outworked us today in all aspects of the game. If its fitness it will take time - if its learning the game plan it will take time. If its endeavour - then I'm concerned.

I got a free Sherrin with my slab of Boags on the way home from the G today. The footy was easy to get, I just had to go in and get it.

I can see what he is trying to do, but his gameplan won't work with a losing midfield. Actually there aren't too many viable gameplans that will.

I am just not on either side anymore. People go the extreme one day and just go on and on and on about everything that is wrong about the club, but then there are people that tell them to back off, and that they'll "always have faith" and "go dees", which I think makes some people even more angry. I am not sure there are any acceptable excuses for today. Just none. We should by this stage be slamming a team like Brisbane, and we're not, and the loss is really just indicative of everything negative that is said of the club: as a whole, for a long time, it is a weak club with a very poor culture. I am not sure that one extreme is acceptable, but I don't think brushing off the loss as "just round 1" or "emotionally drained" is really going to lead to much constructive discussion. Why is this club consistently putting in efforts like these? I see so many people getting angry, and I don't really think anything of it because I genuinely sympathise with these people. People are sick of losing. It's just frustrating now. And trying to empathise with the players doesn't do anything for me, because they're paid to perform, like everyone else in this world. It was a weak effort. You don't need to be an angry Melbourne supporter to realise that. It was weak and just really, really dumb football. Geelong 186-point loss type footy. Had we been playing a top side it'd have been a 100-point loss. It was really, really bad football. I don't trust anyone. I just want to see results. I am past the whole, "I have faith" stage. I'm not 12 anymore. Oh, and inb4 "they've had a tough, emotional pre-season". Here come the excuses!

Correct, he has as much to answer for as anyone. At the end of the day he is the coach and he has to live and die by his choices both pre-game and on match day. He made some glaringly obvious mistakes at selection (and to think that he nearly left Watts out of the team, one of our best today!), with match ups and he couldn't rally the team at half time or 3/4 time. He needs to get his sh*t together before talking his players down, because our midfield was never as bad last year as it was today, despite the make up being largely the same. He's been around 2 minutes, and they've been pretty woeful. He has plenty of time, but I hope he isn't the type who is too proud and too stubborn to make changes. Today I sat at the G and saw a grand total of zero moves being made in 2 hours. Not a good start.

I actually thought his press conference was brilliant. But coming after "stonewall" Bailey, anyone's presser would be better.

Neeld has done a lot of talking, a lot of tough talking, but today has was responsible for leading 22 players and in his own words, 18 failed miserably. He has a lot to do before I give a crap about his tough press conferences. The easiest thing to do is talk tough. I want to see whether that actually translates to tough on field performances this century. I'm glad he won't put blind faith in players, but unfortunately for him, he doesn't have an unlimited selection of good players. He has a short list of proven capable players, a longer list of unknowns, and a very long list of crap players who are past their use by date, or who were never any bloody good. If he thinks that dropping Davey and bringing Dunn in is going to solve our problems, he's delusional, but he claims that he's a realist, so who knows. He might want to find some magical talent elves this week, or we will get bent over hard by West Coast.

If Watts becomes a gun midfielder, it would be a better long term result than if he becomes a good forward. Teams have won premierships with ordinary forwards, nobody has ever gotten close to finals, let alone a flag, with the sort of garbage midfield we currently boast. Of anyone running through the middle today, Watts was far and away the silkiest. He can hit a target for once. That's a really refreshing change from a bunch of dumb footballers bombing the ball to the boundary.

Let's see if i can understand our game plan. If we get the ball (?) we then kick it as quickly as possible away from their goals and towards the boundary line. We take the quick option and we don't try to hit a target, so no one offers a lead. Even if we are bombing the ball into our forward line, we still aim for the pocket rather than in front of the goal square. We also play a zone defence which means we must stay at least 5 metres away from an opposition player. The problem is that everyone knows our plan, so they play man-on-man and bottle us up. We have to hope that someone like Howe or Clark can take a hanger over the pack, and that's a very low percentage game. Now this plan might be OK if we win the majority of the stoppages and clearances, but not today - we got smashed. So they get the ball, and they instantly have oodles of free targets. All they have to do is hit the targets and away they go. And this mob was crap last year - we beat them!! Why have they suddenly become a 50 points better side than us? Same with the game against Port two weeks ago. We watched this game plan in the NAB Cup. The MFC had the same tactics this afternoon, and it's a game plan that's been superseded by the great ball use of Geelong, Carlton and Hawthorn. Our guys are playing in fear of not following the plan, with no-one willing to take the game on. It looks awful and it breaks my heart to watch it happen.

Only an idiot would accuse Clark of having a bad game. I challenge anyone to try and do well when the ball is being bombed into the forward line in hope, like it was today. Delivery was shocking all day. It's one thing to have a gameplan that is as predictable as it is boring, it's another thing to be woeful in clearances, the main element that the game plan relies on.

Haven't been so depressed by a game of footy in a while. Very hard to see a way forward with this playing group and game plan. Agree wholeheartedly that our inability to spread, create options and hit up targets means we need to almost start again. Bloody hard to watch our team get torn apart by an average side like Brisbane on our home ground.

These kinds of reactions are usually welcome after losses. But not today's loss. In Round 1 of a new year, with a new coach and coaching team, new captains, up against a side who wasn't very good last year and who cannot claim to be any better than us, at home, with great home crowd support, and with as much motivation as you can ask for, we played as badly as we have in our entire period of mediocrity. In context, this is inexcusable, and it's not an appropriate response for us, nor for the club, to simply say 'let's wait and play some more matches before we criticise'. Supporters are perfectly entitled to feel like we are utter rubbish after today.

Clark awful? How ridiculous. Clark never stopped presenting, was constantly outnumbered because, as per Bailey, Neeld was content to have our forwards move up the ground, and continually brought the ball to ground. Terrible call. There were far worse than Clark (probably about 20 other players)