Leaderboard

Choko and Unleash Hell: The whole point of my comments is that my expectations were in fact very low this year. My main expectation was that the team would perform no worse than at or around the level we did last year. I did expect improvement, as would be expected of a coach in his second year, but in no way shape or form did I expect a high level of improvement or that we would suddenly jump up the ladder. I knew we were a bottom end club and I expected us to finish there. If we were to show just slight improvement on last year, I would be a happy supporter this year. That really was my expectation and I think you can agree that that is a pretty low expectation heading into a new season. But the fact is we are significantly worse this year than last year. We have gone backwards under Neeld. We are defending far worse than last year and are easier to beat. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect slight improvement in your game style and the way you defend after a full season and another pre-season under a coach. Last year we conceded 106.4 points on average a game. This year it has risen to 133.3. We are losing by a greater margin on average and our performances have been far less competitive than last year. Unleash Hell – do you seriously expect me to buy your argument that because we were also 1-9 at this stage last year, we are at the same level? It's not just about wins and losses, it's about how you perform week to week. I've been to every game in Melbourne this year and I also went to the game at the Gabba and my impression from watching us is that we are playing worse footy this year than last year. And I'd be pretty confident that most supporters would agree that we've gone backwards in 2013. I know where we're at and understand our list deficiencies. That's why my expectations were so low this year. But under Neeld in 2013 we have failed miserably to even meet these low expectations. We have managed to go completely backwards from an extremely low base. It is frightening how accepting some of our supporters are of what has been dished up this year.

So again, you are saying we are unique. If we were in a perfect footy world, your argument may carry some weight, but we are not in that world. Given we are faced with a woeful acceptance in the market place, we simply don't have the time to do what you claim is being done. It has gone too far now. Scoop is 100% correct, no-one expected a massive turnaround in performance, but even some semblance of commitment would be enough for most supporters. You do not get flogged by an average of 12 goals, week in week out, with a playing group that has bought into the coach's message, even if they cannot deliver it when required. Right now, it is scary how people are staying away in their thousands. Hawthorn President, Andrew Newbold, on radio this week, commented that he couldn't believe the lack of atmosphere at the 'G on Sunday. Those that profess we are on the right track and say we should simply wait until the rebuild has at least a super structure in place, are not understanding the reality of the AFL football world as it stands in the modern era. Jackson has not come into the CEO role just because he's a nice guy and just wanted the help out. He is a head kicker and heads will surely be kicked and it won't be just Neeld's Anybody who accepts what is currently occurring, does so at the Club's peril.

You miss the point clearly. This is not about wins and losses, it is about how you lose and the extent and consistency in the way you lose. If you can accept that, then good luck to you, but I'll tell you for free, the AFL aint gonna put up with it much longer and neither should they.

About Time One of our greats

While I don't want to snipe personally back at this Leach person, if he is speaking as a St Kilda supporter he should probably take a deep breath. Even during a period of continuous high performance on field, and some of the games most recognisable marquee players, they failed to establish a solid financial base. Before that recent positive surge they barely struggled along as a semi-viable club for extended periods, both financially and on field. And that was even while having, once again, some of the games greatest and most respected players. Now, they still have some of the top veteran players in the game (Riewoldt, Milne, Dal Santo, Hayes, and Jones) providing the core of their team, but have exactly one more win than Melbourne, and one of their two wins was also over GWS. They can argue that they have at least been more competitive, with smaller margins, but what will happen to that when those five 30 year olds retire? I'd rather be a Demon than a Saint right now, honestly. Both for future on-field prospects and when considering St Kilda's apparent failure to cash in on recent success financially. Also, while it is hard to compare fixtures and crowds, Melbourne's games against both Carlton and Essendon drew larger crowds than St Kilda's. Melbourne's off-field fundamentals are surprisingly solid - there's material to work with as soon as the on-field element is respectable again.

hang on lets get this straight , if a player improves its not neelds coaching? if a player has gone backwards its neelds coaching?

i'd be happy for it to be a year by year thing with Aaron. He's no worse than some of the old guys we signed up this year

Currently my post match behaviour consists of inhaling anything remotely alcoholic with fellow carping, bitter, recriminatory, pathetic, slobbering down in the mouth types constantly threatening to blow up their membership cards. Whereas I would love the camaraderie and bonhomie of sharing celebratory post match drinks with an ever increasing group of fellow upbeat and positive demoniacs.

"Coach" came into most European languages in the 16th Century, from the name of a Hungarian town where they had developed a new kind of carriage that all of Europe saw as the next great thing. The verb coach derives from the noun. So that a coach is an improved way of travelling, a faciltating of the intention; and to coach someone is to carry them forward in their endeavour. That's the origin of the word, and the concept. The coach is not, etymologically at least, anything like the captain, the judge, or the one determining the agenda. Coaching students sitting exams came before athletic coaching; the idea was always an extension of the idea of conveying them more effectively to where they were going. Not done with an axe, or by belittling people, or from any position of power. Applying this to football, the coach coaches the team. The team are the main event. According to the language, anyway. This is what the rednecks on this site don't get, and sadly it appears Neeld spent a long time damaging the players' ownership of their endeavours before (if he ever did) grasping the essential relationship that a coach must have to the initiative, confidence, purpose and commitment of the players to what they are there for. Work with them - that's the core concept, supporting them and bringing them things they can add to their stock. So sad, to see the mess we are in, and the abuse of our players, and the amount of focus here and (apparently) at Board level on Neeld first. Language evolves, of course, and the historical understanding of "coach" may be changing. People may point at earlier successful coaches to argue that the word changed its meaning long ago. But I suggest that no successful coach would disregard belief and individuality and psychology the way Neeld has; successful coaches have to rate their players and their talents - that's what they come to work with.

I have seen floated lately This idea by Eddie and supported by Hawthorn that we should get an additional salary cap allowance because we are so bad. I say tell em to get stuffed. I don't want it. If we start doing well, we would be doing so not on the basis of equalisation, but on the basis of inequality. If it was Collingwood struggling, I would want them to rot. The other thing is, where does it all end? When we win 6 games? 8? Finals? When we pinch one of their players? Stadium deals, fixturing and the draft is where equalisation forces should come in to play, not the salary cap.

We need to look at where Daniher left us when his coaching stint ended and the fact that he's been out of the coaching caper for so long. Pass.

Hey Ben, Since Neeld arrived and asserted his view on our club our recruiting has shifted for the discernibly better. The early draft picks you bemoan him having no time for in Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Pettard have been replaced by Hogan, Viney, Toumpass, M Jones and Terlich. Which group of players do you believe will reap greater dividends for the MFC from an investment in their development? The older statesmen that Neeld "off sided", who have left the club Moloney and to a less extent Rivers have been replaced by Clark and Dawes. Again which group of players do you believe will reap greater dividends for the MFC? Neeld has taken us backward only if you apply the Rose coloured glasses to those players we've lost, and don't acknowledge the gains we are making.

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do. I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him. The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level. For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

Of course he should get one year! And after that a role in the club helping our indiginous players

I think you can lay some criticism that not enough players have improved under Neeld but I think it is disengenuous to damn him for little improvement in not enough players and then suggest that players that have improved cannot be attributed to him at all. Edit - if people want to speculate that " Jones was always going to improve because he is such a hard trainer and committed to the task then by extension you can comment that Watts was never going to improve under any coach because he is lazy and not prepared to work hard enough"

I do hate the argument "oldest club" "started the game" have the name "Melbourne" These are not reasons why our club should exist. It should it exist due to its own viability and its support from its members. If we can't achieve that with the AFL help we already get due to their crappy draw. We need to stand on our own.

If we ever win a flag, there will have to be a massive Demonland bash. Attendance compulsory.

priority picks

Tom Scully: 'I won't leave Melbourne!'

Swan? Big deal. Can't run, can't kick, unfit, poor culture...... I'd have him in a heart beat!

Part of me thinks it would be great not to sack Mark Neeld just to stick it up the journos who keep reporting it as a fait accompli.

It's said that those who win wars write their history and this is a clear example of that saying. Cameron Schwab was forced to resign as a result of our abysmal on field performance which most of us around here have identified as being due to a number of factors ranging back some time and encompassing different boards, different ceo's, different coaches and playing groups. He might well be responsible for many of the failings that we now see and he certainly took the responsibility when he accepted the inevitable and resigned but now he is the scapegoat and the bunny responsible for everything. Peter Jackson expressed the view that Schwab's system of having four people report to him was problematic from his viewpoint but that's his way of doing things. It doesn't make what Schwab was doing necessarily bad or evil as some are suggesting. No doubt many systems put into place by Jackson at Essendon are still being used by whoever is in charge there and we've seen how perfectly things are working with the Bombers. Similarly, with some Freo fans allegedly saying bad things about Schwab. Others still recognise that he took them from being a financial basket case and a non entity on the field into a finals side and I doubt they would be the strength they are now without his input at the time. Schwab's gone now. The exercise of reinventing history to satisfy one's bloodlust is truly futile.

Romantic notion. Not going to happen. Head of FD, yes.

Knowing melbourne we will let him know in the warm up round 24 that he will be delisted.

Some of the petty arguing in this thread is just ridiculous. What I guess it goes to show is how divisive Neeld is, which, whether he's a good coach or not, and whether you think he's the right man for the job or not, is not a good thing for this club right now. Personally, the argument that we've gone backwards from last year and therefore Neeld is doing a poor job of coaching is simplistic and wrong. The idea of a J-curve is well known - sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. Maybe we all expected our 'backwards' period to last one year, and maybe now we're realising that, in fact, the position this club was in pre-2011 required more than 12 months turning around. That doesn't necessarily I believe Neeld is the man for the job. But I don't agree with the argument that we necessarily needed to become better in 2013.

Talk about quality contributions. Quote [you idiots]. You then say the whole point of the thread is to discuss issues other then (sic) Neeld himself. The title of the topic is "Neeld is not the problem". And mate, I never spoke about the so-called "proud traditions" Quite the contrary, I spoke about the business of modern day elite football. Your correct, my mind is certainly numb and you are the cause. Give me strength please

we got ourselves a nut job here, how anyone could defend Neelds win lost ratio beggars belief, let alone the losing margins, no real Demon could defend his coaching record, he makes Bailey look like Lethal Leigh.

You are completely off the mark here. My position has always been based on Neeld's performance as a coach (which admittedly includes his team's performance, in addition to other factors). I've never said it is all about wins and losses and I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting my position. I can no longer bang my head against a brick wall so am not going to argue any further. It's a waste of my time. I have set out my thoughts and my position. Feel free to go back and read them and you will understand how your comment above is so far off the mark.

Leach talks about ‘moral hazard’ and his views are similar to those of a vast number of football followers. But Leach and others are ignorant and completely miss the point. Mistakes are not made by clubs – but by the individuals who are in charge of those clubs. Our fans are suffering because of the mistakes of Stynes, Schwab, Bailey, Neeld, Prendegast and Cameron, who have all since departed the club (or will do soon). If the AFL does not support the poorer clubs they will dwindle and die. Eventually passionate football people like me will be without teams and the game’s following will shrink. We aren’t ever going to jump on board and support another club. And there will always be relatively poor clubs and teams at the bottom of the ladder, so where does it end? Anyone who has played Monopoly before can tell you the answer to that.

Wow five likes IVA, that's a lot of posters who agree with you, Jackson is not a head kicker as you so eloquently put it, he is an experienced CEO, what will you do if he doensn't kick heads, or kick the heads you think should be kicked. I read what Newbold wrote, he also said the majority of support was Hawthorn, no they weren't, they were the supporters who stayed away in droves you only need to ask OPEL, how many photos were taken with Jack Grimes and Mitch Clark before the game at their stand outside of Gate 3 to see how many Melbourne supporters turned up, I expect the same this week. The membership is only about 3000 down, St Kilda's is 8000 down, you don't see them wanting to sack everybody The effort and commitment has been building in the players, it would help if we could get through a couple of weeks without another senior player going down with injury or suspension What is the reality of the AFL footy world, we are the second most inexperienced list in the AFL, GWS is the most, hence bottom and second bottom, yes I would like a couple of more wins but we are not getting them but as long as each week the effort continues to rise (personally don't think we will see a Gold Coast effort again) I will happily wait till the end of the season to see how it has panned out.

I haven't read this site for a few days. Has anyone commented on or posted a link to an excellent article in The Age by Jesse Hogan ? http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/taskmaster-made-bold-early-calls-20130603-2nm9t.html

If this statement is true, does that mean that GWS (currently) and GC (for the two previous years) didn't buy into the coach's message given they would have lost by an average margin close to 10-12 goals?

I agree. Time to stand on our own two feet. Same with the proposed salary cap increase. I'd be furious if another club received such a benefit due to their own mis-management because that means it makes it all that much harder for my club.

It's not about wins and losses. It's about how you perform. I wouldn't be too upset if we were 1-9 but had close losses against GC and Port and showed some semblance of competitiveness in other games. Other than Richmond and Brisbane (who both kicked poorly) we have been smashed in each other game. It's not as simple as saying "well, we're the second worst team, so to be 1-9, beat GWS but lose to all teams above us is expected". You need to look at how we actually played in those games - a two-goal competitive loss to Port may be reasonable but a 13-goal uncompetitive blowout is not. So to say it again as you don't seem to understand - I don't expect to win each week but I expect us to perform better than what we have been (i.e. I expect us to be losing on average by less than our current 12-goal average losing margin).

supports arsenal. 'nuff said.

This season has been a disaster - to date, at least. Made me think, what would I like to see before the next pre season commences? Realistically, that is. 1. Number one priority - re-sign Sylvia and Watts, and contract extensions for the likes of Frawley, Hogan and Gawn (ie, keep all required players). 2. Get some experience and stability into the football department. It's hard to see Mark Neeld at the helm in 2014, but any transition must be handled sensitively and effectively. If Neeld is to go, he must be allowed to go with some dignity. And the new coach must absolutely be the guy to lead us for the next 4 plus years, and he must be someone who inspires confidence with the players and supporters alike. In short, we cannot afford another failed appointment. Mark Williams and Junior McDonald seems like an obvious combination and an easy sell (I would be very happy), but the club obviously needs to ensure we absolutely nail the appointment this time. 3. Retain all major sponsors - and shows some genuine signs of returning to 'surplus' in 2014. 4. Draft really well, including securing a couple of really solid, experienced midfielders from other AFL clubs. Not to much to ask. Surely ...

I'm all for playing more games at Casey/boutique stadiums to help improve our profit making from games played. I've said this before we have got to get away from the idea that our 'home' is the MCG and we should play all games there. It isn't viable for us unfortunately even if we were winning we stil wouldn't get enough supporters o these games. If we are trying to build a base in Casey we should go all out and eally entrench ourselves there. I would much rather have to go watch us play at Casey then travel to Tasmania or the NT every second week. Something's gotta give and I think we are going to have to make some sorft of compromise.

Is that a nice way to say he fumbled his marks ?

What is the point of extra salary cap when we couldn't afford to spend the extra $$$$$. I want any extra $$$ to go into recruiting, player psychology to help them break the mental demons they all seem to have and into player development.

Yeah, Gawn is the tough one. I don't think he should come in as first ruck though, and it's obvious that he's been playing more as a key forward than a ruck, so to me you don't bring him in for Jamar. Fitzpatrick should get more time. Yeah he wasn't great, but he brought the ball to ground a couple of times, and was good at getting into space on the lead. He deserves a few more games. He certainly showed more than he has previously. Given Fitzpatrick would be the other obvious swap for Gawn, I think Gawn stays at Casey for another week, just to give Fitzpatrick some more time. However, the future is exciting thinking about what Gawn could become.

Stuff it all, priority, salary cap, I want none of it, I want the MFC to get their [censored] together and go back up he ladder because we are competent in all areas no because we keep getting hand outs.

So let me get this right......the media got it horribly wrong & acted in an extremely distasteful & immoral manner.......yes? But now they rationalise it all by saying ......well he would have been sacked ...but the club can't afford it. And of course a lot of our anti-neeld 'landers swallow this tasty morsel & are now parroting it as the "new gospel" according to our illustrious media contingent. Surely it wouldn't be this scenario...neeld & his football dept are queried & maybe in a more in-depth manner (it was p.jackson's 1st board meeting) about the state of the list etc. in fact exactly as neeld states the meeting was conducted. He & his fellow coaches would certainly be aware ...as would all of the football dept.....because Jackson stated that everyone is on notice so they are under no illusion about that. Now (god forbid) that the team does actually improve in the second part of the season as our players get more games under their belts & senior players return. Imagine if the players actually do rate & like neeld & would rather sign contracts with him at he helm than not........I mean wouldn't it be amazing if some of those players that have played under 10 games or so & who some of you are already rating as average, B graders or plain,old,workhorses actually surprise us as they get closer to the magic 50 plus game mark. But we wouldn't want all that to happen because then that would mean neeld might stay & then who would you direct all your vitriol & negativity at. Then & only then you might realise that no-one is going to magically get games into players, extra pre-seasons into to match harden young bodies & injured players back on track in record time. Maybe he might not be the man in the long run but I have no problem in going the journey with him.

I thought he was Bailey's sidekick and Neeld had him shifted sideways away from being an assistant coach. Seem to remember a year or so ago when he was our forward coach someone here mentioned Mahoney was yelled at in the box for indecision and inaction when the forward line was falling apart during a game. Perhaps he had a bit to go on his contract and any skills he had could be better used in an organisational role rather than a coaching roll. Not sure - just a thought.

I understand your point, you believe that the performance of the club right now is an indication of the of the development and capability of Neeld as a coach. You want performance now. What I am trying to say is you are overly harsh with your judgement because the reality is that the MFC list is made up of very few leaders with experience (Dunn, Sylvia, Dawes, Clark, Davey, Byrnes, Rodan, Frawley, jamar, Garland etc). These players don't play in the side all at one time, these players are not players who can carry the load of a developing team. A lot of people on here argue that ONLY one of these blokes if not 2 are only good enough to be in the team now. Our team that takes the field is made up of blokes who have played 0 - 40 games (I reckon a good 8 - 10 each week have less then 40 games of AFL), you don't want to accept that mistakes from prior administrations are carried forward on to the field in 2013 as well - failed draft picks - poor development and poor standards (Players who don't perform at AFL level consistently). We are a team of kids and you expect competitiveness week in week out against the best sides in the comp from a bunch of kids and blame Neeld solely for the un-competitiveness . How can you reliably judge Neeld performance as a coach based on a developmental team over 18 months? its nonsense People need to accept changes were made because ELITE performance was demanded by the board. Step 1 - find out who is committed, Step 2 - train them up Step 3 - education and gain experience at AFL level - this change doesn't happen overnight., and it doesn't happen in 12 months like people seem to expect It takes time, that why I believe strongly the club is continuing to make serious errors in judgment by folding to the media pressure who only want to fracture the club more. The board demanded HIGH performance at the appointment of Neeld and expecting it to be delivered in 12 - 18 months when it could be argued the list wasn't up for it (how far behind the comp was the list when he started??? They don't catch up over one pre-season). Coupled with the history of this under performing club for decades and you want to argue it should have taken 12 months? The basic question is - What do you want more? Development of a committed list or short cuts to be competitive and remain a medicore club? the is a reason we are bottom 3 in VIC as a club - it's decades of crap expectations and NO ONE committed to demand and see ELITE performance delivered

There are ususally 11 of these meetings throughout the year, every single club and public company has them. It was scheduled in the morning most likely because of the large agenda they had: PJ presenting his findings, FD report and current situation/What to do about MN. What would you rather they do? Have it in the middle of the night, down a dark alley way, where they have to knock on an old rusty door and repeat the second verse of the club song to get entry?

186 was the best 186 point loss I've ever seen

I'm sorry Iv'a it's well documented that Moloney dropped his bundle - from inside and outside the club sources. That is not leadership. Rivers contrary to belief left to pursue success in what little time he has left of his career That's the debate I guess in a nut shell. What standards do we want at the MFC - elite hard working or one way traffic? Neeld was told to bring in ELITE performance to this club as a requirement - players who refused to take it on (Moloney) or weren't good enough (Cook etc) were told to pack their bags or decided to pack their bags Regardless if you support Neeld or not - Are we as a club willing to make the tough calls to bring in ELITE standards or do we accept being mediocre?? If bring elite standards means a full re-build do you accept it? I support Neeld & Craig demanding elite performance and moving on those who choose not to take on the challenge. Others won't and you don't have to... Neeld was brought in to do this and it would be hypocritical now of the board to fire him for bringing in changes they demanded.

What mess? Is that a serious question? There has never been a poster in the history of this site who seems to be completely and utterly blind to what is happening as you are. I'm not saying that to be nasty, it is just an observation. How can you not recognise that we're amongst the most uncompetitiv e teams in the last few decades and 5m in the red as a mess? Unbelievable.

Yeah but he shouldn't sell it as though he was right all along and that his understanding of where we're at hasn't changed. We can see through it, we are smart enough to know that and I just think it's the wrong approach to try to sell the message as though everything is on track and is going as expected. He recently told Damian Barrett that he wouldn't change a thing he has done. Surely that can't be the case. He is either fearful of making himself look bad (the most likely reason) or he is so stubborn that he can't admit or even see the mistakes that have been made.

A strong minded, ruthless club and supporter base would not see it as the best 95 point loss going around. Says a lot.