Leaderboard

I'm not sure that this is correct. At the same point in each of their respective coaching careers (six games into season 2) their records were similar although Bailey already had a wooden spoon to his credit and was on his way to a 1-12 record before he allegedly started tanking. I think you'll find that his list was more experienced in terms of average games played in 2008/9 as well.Bailey didn't start "achieving more" until his third season as coach when the team won 8½ games but (rightly or wrongly) many around here aren't even prepared to afford Neeld the opportunity to have a third season at the helm. As has been pointed out above, when Neeld's comments are taken in context he's not making excuses. He's stating a fact - i.e. that this week's team averages around 50 games per player experience. The fact that this is a disadvantage in the modern game is fairly obvious to most but will not really assist against Gold Coast which has similar numbers.

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway. Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions?? The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line. All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me. I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working. Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

If you listen to yesterdays presser involving Dawes, Neeld is quite clear on why Trenners and Grimes were selected as captains. Because after the internal peer review process, which involved the players, they were ranked the top 2 in leadership ability. Jones was no.3. It was quite refreshing to see Neeld have a go at one of the Journo's who then followed up by asking why Jones wasn't considered. He basically said, "because Trengove and Grimes were ranked as the top 2 leaders. Jone's was third. Why would the 3rd ranked leader be selected against the top 2 ranked leaders??" It's pretty obvious that they have a list of attributes that players are measured against when determining leadership. This is why they were selected, despite their age. Because they are the best leaders in the club. Obviously in Neelds view, having the right leadership attributes was more important than the games experience when it comes to leading a team. As for going backwards as a team, explain to me how a team that started 0-10 last season has gone backwards when we are possibly going to be 2-5 after this week.....Not to mention that this team is less experienced than the one that one we fielded last year. Aside from the first few weeks, I think the team is ahead of where it was last season. The last three weeks have seen the team play with a greater level of competitiveness than we saw for most of last season. The first two weeks in particluar were atrocious. We then played one good half against West Coast before winning (as expected) against GWS. The game against Brisbane was competitive, and though we lost to a team that isn't all that crash hot, the team never gave up and plugged away until the final siren. In that case, it was the third quarter that killed us. Then, against carlton last week the intent was there to pressure, the desire to compete, but the execution of skills failed. Given last season, with a more experienced team, we still had a 0-10 start, and failed to show much all season, I think this season we are progressing better than last. Particularly when you factor in that we have only had clark for about 3 weeks, and that we have had only a make shift forward line for most of the season. We haven't seen how this team would be with Dawes and Clark both fit yet, and that is important to our ability to score. All in all, I think the team is showing an end to the bruise free football it has played in the past, is getting fitter and better as playing as a team, which lays a solid foundation for the rest of the season and beyond.

Not sure he has enough pace or agility. He's just starting to settle in at half forward and is playing some good footy so I don't think we should mess around with him again just yet.

according to stuie Neeld was responsible for 9/11

What the hell do you think you're doing pm24? There's no room on here for people who go about scurrilously making sense in the face of all the clear-thinking naysayers. Be off with you and don't you dare try to enlighten these dull surrounds with that sort of intelligent analysis ever again. It won't be tolerated. Mods - do something about this upstart.

Wow. Great odds for us, I'd say. Isn't it funny that Demonlanders are now using betting odds to slag on the club. Any excuse to be pessimistic, I guess.

Man U was a party club when Sir Alex took the helm. He exited all the party boys and recruited highly competitive types who simply wanted to succeed. In short, he focused on culture and discipline - on and off field. He was thoroughly uncompromising on this - in fact, he was known for moving on highly talented players who refused to 'buy in'. There's a message in this for the anti Neeld prayer group.

Re gifting games. My take is that the kids, and the players the coaching staff see as genuine long term players need to earn it. They need to develop and play well to get promoted. We have also recruited a bunch of what i call "fillers". Pederson, Sellar, Rodan, Byrnes etc. These players are there to provide a few things: solid, older bodies, a great example on the training track, some knowlede about how other clubs train, think and work (to bring that perspective to our young list), AND they are also cannon fodder in the ones. If they play great. If they develop, great. If they dont, who cares. But they dont always need to earn games, sometimes there is value in them placeholding if no one else deserves the game. We say play the kids and people whing that we throw them to the wolves and we get belted, and they whinge thar we recruited older guys who arent getting a game. We say make the kids earn their spot and learn to dominate at casey first, but people whinge that weare playing the old guys and not giving the kids a go. Instead of whinging all the time, try and analyse WHY the coaching staff may have made the decisions they have and consider the motivations that way.

God you're a miserable bastard.

I would have thought given that the Club had been through a rocky 5 years beforehand and the fact that Neeld has only a 3 year contract he would have surely realised that a Coach needs to start delivering in his 2 year in order to fulfil a 3 year contract and to get an extension. Neeld would have understood this and after a carp 1st year Neeld needed to show evidence that there was some improvement. His whole pre season had been focused on that. At the major pre season dinner and in the pre season pressed he create the expectation for some improvement. What we have got has been the complete opposite. After the each of the first two games We are worse than we were last year and last year was worse than 2011. No has been setting the standard for "rapid" improvement from Neeld. But he has shown little to date that suggests MFC are barely competitive. His 5 wins out of 28 consist of 3 wins against a schoolboys 18, GCS and a peptides Essendon last year. He is nearly 50% of the way through his contract and has had 2 of his 3 pre seasons already and this side is a basket case. There is no on field evidence that he has brought the club further forward either in team or individual player performance. In fact many have gone backwards. There is also a number of personnel decisions that are questionable and raise concerns about the wisdom of getting an untried coach through a flawed and inept coaching appointment process. Keeping Neeld is prolonging the problems that he brings to MFC and delays the ability for the Club (hopefully the AFL) to find a competent and experienced coach to move us forward. And given the basket case MFC is on and off the field I would hope the AFL heavy support would assist mitigating the unattractiveness of the Club ATM. For the good of the game and to prevent the stagnation and disintegration of the supporter and sponsor base, the AFL need to take control and rid MFC of this coaching disaster as an important early step in the rejuvenating the oldest club in the land.

whilst I am a swinging voter - the gloss has come of Neeld a little for me because last year he ran the line that we are younger, not physically developed and not as experienced but that is not a reason not to have a red hot crack and produce unacceptable results. This season he seems to be using the first part being younger, underdeveloped and inexperienced as an excuse for the second part - like a disclaimer. He wasnt making excuses last year - this year he seems to be. I heard excuses under Bailey and didnt like it and I dont like Neeld doing it this year. I dont want to hear it .

We all know what Neeld took over and what Bailey took over but it doesn't change the fact that people are howling for Neeld's blood now while Bailey was given almost four seasons before he hit the wall with 186. And while Bailey may have had to pension off some of his older players, he still had experienced heads like McDonald, Bruce and others while Neeld doesn't have them. On top of that, instead of pensioning off some of his older players Neeld has had a number of obstacles put in his place as a result of events that happened both before and after he came which were beyond his control. He deserves a little more respect than some are giving him in comparison to Bailey who was apparently not far from having an extra 2 year contract that would have had him coaching until the end of this season.

I'm not sure why you keep including Bail & Strauss in these discussions (versus Magner) as i'm referring to players who are capable of being rotated as "inside mids" for significant periods during a game and who can hold their own through their while doing so without getting smashed by bigger bodied inside mids and taken out of the game easily (ie., early in a contest by being moved off the ball easily etc). Wasn't Strauss recruited to become a small defender anyway? And Bail's been on the list since 2009, had 3 more seasons at it than Magner, not really come on and also weighs 4 kilos less than Magner but about the same height. Regardless, I see neither Bail or Strauss as being capable of playing the role of an inside mid atm. If they build an AFL "inside mid" sized bod (up around the 90kg mark like Magner) within a few years then it's quite possible they could. But as inside mid rotations, at present they wouldn't be considered in this role by any other team within the AFL imo. The same might be said of Magner in terms of class/skill/impact but i can at least see him as being capable and he does have a mid sized bod that can stand up to the heavy hitting as well as dishing it out during rotations. His tank probably wasn't there last year as it was only his first season but this would surely have improved with 1 more pre season under his belt. I would take Mckenzie as a potential rotation option (inside) before Bail & Strauss at this point. M Jones is still years away as well but more likely to be an outside mid IMO. To me both Bail and Strauss are (at best) potential half back players who might push into the middle occasionally but more as camio outside mids. The only real prospects we have at this point who could call themselves an outside mid and possibly grow into and fill the role on this list on a regular basis now and looking forward 2 to 3 years is M Jones and Evans imo. And no i don't see Sylvia as being the sublimely skilled inside mid you claim. He has impact at times and can burst break away with power. But his disposal effectiveness and smarts in many cases leave much room for improvement, even after 8 seasons. This leaves only one solid player who has the all round game of an impact/power game and reasonable disposal skills to play as a true quality inside mid for us at AFL standard IMO. And we all know who that is. And he needs every little bit of help he can get. We are basically running 1.5 inside mid field (AFL standard) rotations at this point. No wonder we're getting smashed after a quarter or 2. The opposition's "Quality" inside mid field rotations are crueling us pretty much every week so far. Solve this and we go someway towards becoming an AFL "competitive" unit. I say bring in Magner ASAP until we trade/find additional AFL standard inside mids to plug the gaping hole. Not the savior, not the solution. Just a better option than anything else on offer at present to assist N Jones/Sylvia (and the boys) to stay in the hunt a little longer or possibly pinch a few unexpected victories from the jaws of defeat.

I'd hate to be a coach. If he has a long term plan to fix a weak club with a poor culture which will involve major changes and pain along the way, then he gets belted here for not winning. But if he puts in certain players who might help win the next game, but maybe are not part of his long-term development plan, it is because he's only interested in a short-term win to keep his job. Most, probably all, calling for MN's head accepted we were in an unprofessional mess by the end of 2011 and needed a major change of direction. You can't expect rapid improvement. Indeed if things were that bad, you shouldn't be surprised to go backwards at first. You might hope for rapid improvement, but you have to lump it when it does not happen as quickly as you would like. Of course it may not happen at all - that's when you start sacking coaches etc. But not so soon.

Neeld has been banging on recently about games experience like it is the only important thing in footy and that it is the sole factor in determining a team's fortunes. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned earlier in this thread but other than it being totally infuriating hearing the same thing over and over again (which I guess is understandable given it's probably the only excuse he can offer up), how does it sit with his decision to appoint two captains with less than 50 games of experience each? If we take him at his word that games experience is so vitally important, why on earth would he appoint captains who lack what he considers to be the most important ingredient for a player and for a team – games experience? This is not at all to question the captains but rather is just to illustrate the inconsistency in his message and his misreading of where the team is at. And that's what has been concerning to me. There is little doubt Neeld expected big improvement from the team this year. He has not got it so far (in fact we have gone backwards) so he is grasping onto a convenient excuse, games experience. One of the worst thing a coach can do is overestimate their list as they make decisions on where they think they are at rather than where they are actually at. For me Neeld is guilty of this.

Pessimism is a wonderful human trait Old Dee. May you never be unpleasantly surprised through the coming years.

Neeld managed to hit the wall earlier against Port Adelaide and Essendon. That was his 186. I would have thought the obstacle of playing for draft picks was a significant obstacle in itself. And our ineptitude at managing it has been made plain to see. Bailey was never close to getting another 2 year contract in 2011. And just because Bailey got longer than he should because the Board had little idea of what happening in the FD ( Groundhog Day) is no basis to suggest Neeld is strangely entitled to that. The bottom line is that the Clubs performances have gone backwards even further since they sacked Bailey. We must be the only Club around that argues that Neeld should run his term when he has a W/L % sub 20%. It's a remarkable culture we have at MFC.

I think this is out of line - ( you are entitled to your opinion) - There are a number of very reactionary posters on this site that are "woe is us" and after little consideration want all and sundry sacked for not meeting unrealistic expectations. However I dont think there is one supporter on this site who honestly wants Neeld fired more that they want the team to succeed.

We can agree that she's a vindictive cow.

First of all I think when you are in your 40's you earn the right to cease being referred to as champ Second I wasn't sure where the quote you put in came from, may have been the same site where your way off the mark tackle count reference in last weeks game came from And as for guiding me through it I just went and found the presser, and as I suspected asked a question about is there extra pressure on you going in as favourites against an u and coming team Neeld's response text book deflection not wishing to take the favouritism mantle I'm sure you heard it that way it is there for all to hear but that would not have suited your anti-Neeld vendetta, I have some doubts on Neeld but I am objective and don't play with facts.

But averaging 30 touches and 6 tackles per game should get you a shot in the league's worst midfield...

Has anyone here actually had a bone fracture in their foot? Because they are pains of things to get over, he is still obviously suffering from it. Just can't wait until he gets over it COMPLETELY and starts hitting his straps, then we will see these forums talking him up like they should be instead of continually kicking a man when he is down. We are after a club culture, as fans we are a part of that. I doubt having cheap, pot shots at one of the co-captains is showing loyalty to a rebuild. Where, obviously, he has had so much to deal with. The least we owe him is our support. If i recall correctly, he re-commited to the club when we were looking all doom and gloom, when Scully was taking the money and running, this man was stepping up and showing there are players who are wanting to be apart of this club and help lead them up the ladder. Now an injury which has gotten him down on form and confidence, has sent this forum into overdrive. Honestly, some of the people on here are borderline ridiculous.

Run hard, tackle hard and use the ball well. I don't care what game plan is being implemented - these are cornerstones of good teams. They are the fundamentals and foundation we should have been drilling into our team over the years. It's never too late.

Traditional Bombers surge in the last quarter. Always able to run out the game better than their opponent this year. How do they manage it? Oh, right.

Some of the creative handballing tonight. Some of it is as good as a kick. Lots of handballs over the head that always seem to hit targets too. So impressive.

Fifty years ago Clint my coach told me "never turn your back on the play" It is still as true today as it was fifty years ago

Pretty much right there 'master', he brings greater flexibility.

First world problems... I enjoyed giving the Pies [censored] when balls where bouncing off his chest last year. Opposition supporters will enjoy doing the same thing whilst he plays for us. Glasses of concrete all 'round.

People give Sellar a lot of crap, but I actually think he's a fairly competent defender. His marking sucks for a big man, but otherwise he's pretty decent depth in that area.

If you want to post [censored] sources/articles from websites we've never heard of, go here

Many have short memories of his second half year performances in the backline last year and the multiple goals that he kicked in the NAB Cup this year in the forward line. Personally I think that Sellar has some upside and he won't be our worst player on Sunday. Howe was arguably our worst player last weekend but nobody is calling for his head or suggesting he be dropped on the basis of form!

Just found out the reason Davey or Rodan wasn't picked is that it would've made us more experienced than Gold Coast. Neeld relies on the lack of experience excuse to justify loses.

When things get seriously out of hand its time to do something. I dont know for sure if player managers are talking to other clubs, but its my opinion the drums are beating. If players were doing deals I believe it is this time of the year they shake hands on it. For example I would think Daisy Thomas would be negotiating right now not after the season ends. He is free like Sylvia. it was this time of the year that many believed Judd shook hands. Maybe not and maybe Scully just decided when he flew up to GWS on the day. But I dont believe it. Its worse if a player is out of contract but wants to go. Add this possible player revolt against the coach with now making excuses for future losses against Gold Coast. Its not like we would lose Winston Churchill. I had previously thought Neeld's path would succeed eventually... When I changed my mind, and he started feeble excuses it seemed he had lost the players totally. So should we wait untill round 16/17 before a change? I think we should consider what further damage we may escape if he goes sooner than later.

It's all about instant gratification apparently. People aren't willing to be patient, but with MFC supporters it's understandable that we might be a bit impatient, it has been a while. What I think should happen: all talk about this should be shut down for the duration season and Neeld should be left to his job for the rest of the year. It can be reviewed at years end (by which time I believe he will have made some good progress) but any move on his spot during the season will only set the club back further. There have been some promising signs even though the first few weeks have been hard. Sacking Neeld and bringing in someone else won't change the fact that our list is poop and needs a bit of time to develop. A lot of people here expect young kids to be stars straight away and it just doesn't make sense.

and how has anything changed since the teams were named last night, just because of the change in betting odds. HTFU

Bailey was also keen on building culture and issues of performance an and off the track - or he said he was. So is every AFL coach. The only religious zealot here is you, Ron. You are the one prepared to take things on faith alone. I think the "anti-neeld" group is the only honest "group" on 'land. They, by-and-large, base their views on observable reality rather than on hope, prayer or good intentions.

Fancy talking facts to the media. Holy [censored]

An interesting round ahead. Some mouth watering clashes surrounded by enough games to keep the footy fan interested, with really only a couple of non-events. Geelong v Essendon Friday night footy strikes. First v Second on a Friday night for the first time since 1486 promises to be a free-flowing, attacking frenzy of skill, guile and complete arrogance. Recent form: Both teams undefeated. Recent form v each other: The Cats have won 7 of the last 8 (the loss being the game where the guy dropped a million (?) on the Cats). Cats' favour: They're a slick, confident mob who know how to win and can burn teams off with a flick of the tail. People rave on and on about the young kids at Geelong but, really, it's the old boys who continue to get the job done - with Johnson, Kelly, Bartel and Chapman tearing it up. Add handy names Selwood, Stokes, Duncan and they're bloody tough to beat even at their worst. They know how to win. Bombers' favour: Undefeated and riding high, the Bombers have played frenetic football this year lead by some out and out guns of the competition in Stanton, Heppell, Watson and some bloke in No. 4. Many have waited for them to wilt under the investigation and it'll be fascinating to see if this is the week (after the interviews) or if the players come out strongly again. Verdict: The Cats will be too classy against a Bombers side that have been high for too long. Essendon will have set themselves for the clash, however, as evidenced by their pathetic turnout against the Giants. They'll be up and about early but can't stack up against the Cats. My tip: Cats by 21 Port Adelaide v Richmond An intriguing clash that could, strangely, give a good insight into the finals hopes of both sides. Port are yet to really prove themselves (though a win here may still not achieve that) and the Tiges have blown their wonderful start with some off-the-pace performances (how lucky are they that Yarran couldn't finish the job in round 1? Recent form: Power have beaten trash, Tigers have lost to decent sides. Recent form vs each other: 3-3 and a draw from their last 7. The last four wins have come from the away side (two each). Power's favour: Their fitness is immense. They are never out of a game and, playing at home, are hard to top. Their midfielders get enough footy and they have some handy goalkickers (including the blokes running through the guts). Tigers' favour: They'll treat this is a must win. 3-3 and some losses to good sides leaves Richmond sitting in 9th. They'll be comfortable there - like returning to your favourite sofa after a long holiday - but they won't be happy. They trounced the Power over there last year and have a dangerous mid/forward combination. As usual, they need to stop the passages of "being Richmond." Verdict: The Power's bubble has burst. They will lose some confidence from last week and will have to front up to a determined Richmond outfit. Despite their comebacks this year, I think the start is crucial. Edit: Cotchin, Vickery and Grimes out could be very costly and enough to swing the match. My tip: Richmond by 7 Edit: Power by 12 Brisbane v West Coast Have these been the two most disappointing sides of this year? Brisbane were Melbourneesque in the first quarter last week. Recent form: terrible v terrible Recent form vs each other: 2-2 from last 4. Lions' favour: they're at home? Eagles' favour: With NN back, they're up and about. Verdict: WC have too much class through the midfield and too many goalkickers not to get up. My tip: Eagles by 27 Western Bulldogs v North Melbourne Uh oh. Recent form: Terrible/plucky v cruelly by the fixtures. Recent form vs each other: 2-2 from last 4. Dogs' favour: They've been plucky twice this year. Flogging Brisbane (which doesn't look as great now) and annoying a disinterested Cats. People also forget that they have some classy, classy experienced players. Griffen, Cross, Cooney and Boyd are leading the way - they're playing good footy and, without them, the Dogs would be absolutely disgusting. Roos' favour: They're a much better side and will be buoyed by the win (against a flying side). They'll enter this game with the confidence that, three weeks ago they destroyed another terrible team at the same venue. Verdict: North will be far too classy and it'll depend on how interested they stay. My tip: North by 67 Hawthorn v Sydney Here it is! Two rough and tumble teams with fiesty midfields and work-aholic captains face off in the Grand Final replay. Two teams that are used to having their own way and not being pushed around. This should be a cracker. Recent form: just going v just going Recent form vs each other: Hawks have won 5 of the last 9 but Sydney have the big one. Hawks' favour: On their home turf the Hawks will be looking to exact some small revenge on the Swans for their Grand Final loss. Hodge is an inspiration. Despite playing below par against two reasonably tough opposition and without Buddy kicking a goal in the past two weeks, they've still got up in the last fortnight. Rioli is a big miss but they still have so many good, tough footballers that use the ball so well. Swans' favour: They're unfazed by any opposition or situation and have a wealth of character and strength in their team. I love absolutely everything that Jack, Hannebury, McVeigh, O'Keefe and Kennedy do (to name a few) and they've all been doing the job for the Swans over the weeks. You get the feeling that they stepped it up a notch last week in preparation for this weeks' game. Verdict: This will be hard to split but I have a definite leaning. There are so many great players playing but I simply lean to Hawthorn's home ground advantage, anger at the Swans and the probability that they won't kick as badly again as they did in September (though, that's what everyone said after their Prelim). My tip: Hawks by 17 Fremantle v Collingwood This promises to be one of those low-scoring, it'd be mind-numblingly boring if it weren't so close/interesting games. Recent form: meh vs ok Recent form vs each other: Pies have won the last 4. Dockers' favour: Ross Lyon has successfully installed his terrible(ly effective) gameplan and his players are responding. They were good against the Suns, or the Suns were just disappointing, and they fell over the line against the Tigers. No Fyfe hurts but getting Hill back should help. Pies favour: They absolutely love to travel and this is a big game for them. They were good against the Tigers and did the job against the Saints but are, overall, just going. Star players get a lot of ball but aren't damaging enough and many of their players are found out too easily. A lot rests on Cloke but Swan/Pendlebury/Sidebottom should love the surrounds of Perth. Verdict: This will be close. Freo are 1 and 1 from close games and the Pies love the road. My tip: Pies by 13 GWS v Adelaide Meh. Form: terrible (save for a very gutsy half against the Dons) v mediocre Form against each other: Adelaide have pumped them twice. Giants' favour: it's at home and the game will end. Crows' favour: they're bigger, tougher, angrier and too good for the kids. Verdict: Adelaide will destroy them. My tip: Adelaide by 80+ Melbourne v Gold Coast Well - I don't know what's left to say. We're a skilless rabble and they're a one man band apparently training at the G this week for an imminent Grand Final. Form: terrible v dissapointing in the last couple of weeks. Form vs each other: Dees are 3-0 but the last, a 7 goal win at the MCG, was a terrible display and was saved by a quarter. Dees' favour: It's at home, Melbourne players walk taller against trash and we haven't lost to an expansion team yet. Despite the terrible result last week, Melbourne played well through the middle and lead the inside 50s for much of the game and, with some greater composure, could've forced a different result. Dawes will not be the in that we are all hoping for. Suns' favour: Gary Ablett is immense, they've been competitive in most games this year and they dominate areas of the ground where Melbourne struggle. Dixon must come up for them I feel to get up and guys like Prestia, O'Meara and Bennell will be great for them. Verdict: Melbourne generally walk taller against these teams. The extra experience in some players really stands out against the inexperienced kids and with good ball use through Dawes and the midfield, Melbourne should be too good. My tip: Melbourne by 18 St Kilda v Carlton Monday night footy to end the round - not a massive fan. Form: plucky v overrated Form vs each other: Saints have won 3 of the last 5 after winning the previous 50 (or something). Saints' favour: They've been plucky against better opposition of late and Jack Steven will be a gun. If they can get enough grunt in the middle they could be dangerous. Carlton sans Waite could be a massive boost for the Saints. Blues' favour: Confidence. I think the Blues think they can topple teams and, for the most, they're thereabouts. They're a better team than the Saints but last week showed them to be largely soft. They'll run forward of the ball when they're up and hate a tackle. Verdict: The bookies see this going only one way. I'm not so sure. Carlton haven't had it all their own way and have been hard to read and the Saints, while passed it, still have enough talent to win a game if they're on. My tip: Carlton by 11. Game of the Round Hawks Swans Thrashing of the Round Crows/Roos Toughest to Pick Tigers Power Upset of the Round Tigers possibly Saints Closest tip lat week Missed Pies by 3

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-05-10/luke-tapscott-highlights Midfielder on not, this bloke has improved alot this year great pressure acts, works hard, strong, brave all the good things you want in a young player

Spot on rjay. How the decision was made to hand this tragic mess to an untried coach beggars belief.

We were a minus 2 differential in the clearances against Carlton (who are supposedly a gun midfield), how is that getting smashed? Which part of it is improving slowly don't some posters get, and one other point Brian Royal actually stated on the chat last night "I would like one more quality midfielder", so even he agees with what some on here continually harp on about

Neeld took over the list that Bailey had which yield 8.5 wins from 19 games before he was sacked for not being good enough.Neeld has had Craig, Misson, development coaches and Clark in addition to the list he inherited. It was not a great list still very young but in terms of results Neeld has taken us significantly backwards. And Bailey took over a spent, exhausted and talentless list after NDs final tilt flopped and Cameron was making a meal of recruiting. Bailey had pension off Neitz, White, Yze, Robbo, Whelan and others whose careers had ended. His list was then flooded with junior players. The list got progressively younger as Bailey played the younger players as the older players retired. The number of games that the side had for the 186 game was comparable with the games experience of the MFC side of the first two rounds in 2013. And it should be noted that Bailey was definitely coaching to outcomes to deliver sub 5 win seasons. Neeld does not have that constraint but would fill that criteria admirably. The team we fielded last week had less experience than the team GCS fielded in their game due to having Jamar 120 games and Clark 95 games out injured. And we had dropped Rodan and Davey (170 games).

Interesting to note that it took Sir Alex 6 seasons at the helm to win any silverware/turn the club around, culture change is not an instant fix.

Make him the forward coach so that he can clean sweep the ruination of our list.

worse players have won premierships as back up tall defenders. Just don't think about trying to make him a forward. If he plays he's worth a chance

sometimes reading a thread all i hear in my head is RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

The South Park gif needs to become the unofficial D'Land logo. Seriously. It pretty much sums up everything I love and hate about this forum. It could be placed on the 3rd page of any open thread and adequately reflect the state of the dialogue. It's so genius it even made me smile right after looking at that incredibly uninspiring team.

Congrats to Davis for making the extended bench

I think many on here have unrealistic expectations on where we should be at, and therefore because they think change should happen overnight are suggesting Neeld and Co should go. I think this completely unreasonable, and it is because of the following: Offseason 1 - FD clearly said the players were a long way away from AFL required fitness levels and it would take 3 years to reach that level. Offseason 2 - FD said improvement has been made but that players were probably only at around 60%-70% of the required level. Clear messages that improvement in player skill and execution was clearly linked to fitness levels of players, as skills would fall away late in games if the required fitness level were not achieved. Games experience is clearly recognised as one of the most important factors in determining team success. We have the third least experienced list in the competition. The FD identified early in the piece that we needed to bring in players who could play the roles needed, and that we did not currently have players that filled those required roles. Therefore, players were moved. That every player would be expected to become a two way player and would spend time at Casey to develop this part of their game if needed (see Sam Blease). That Neeld wanted us to become that hardest team to play against. This is still what the team is trying to become. It won't happen overnight. In all of the information coming out of the FD, the messages have been consistent and appear to be based on facts and figures that are being gathered by the club. That there is a clear path they are following and that they will not be swayed from it. There have been no false expectations promoted by the club. The message has always been, we are on a journey, we want you to join with us on this journey. The club made the most comprehensive overhaul of our list in the last free agency/trade period. It got rid of players who did not fit the mould (Morton, Bennell, Gysberts) despite having obvious talent, and brought in tougher more ready made bodies into the club (Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes, M Jones, Kent, Terlich). This was all done with the "plan" in mind. So in short, the Neeld and co Football Department have been consistent with their messages to the supporter group, they have also been clear about where they saw the team list and that it would take time to get to where it needed to be. The never created false expectations, that is something that we as supporters have done. I think the club is on the right path, and that it will take time, and that we are much better placed than we were at any time under bailey because the right groundwork is being done to help this club become successful for the long run, not for just a season here and there. So rather than tearing down Neeld and Co, look at what they've said and what they've done. They've shown integrity and strength through everything that has happened over the last 18 months. That should be applauded. They should not be crucified because we as supporters have had unrealistic expectations. That's our fault, not theirs.