Scoop Junior

I don't regard Betts as the type of small forward we need. He is more a lead-up player and would get a fair share of his goals from marks. He can crumb, and he has pace, but I don't think he is at the same level in these two attributes as the better small forwards in the competition. I also think he lacks that element of magic and X factor that the better small forwards have. We have marking power in our forward line but a genuine lack of pace and X factor at ground level. Betts, for me, would not fulfil this role.

In the lead up to this week's game against GWS, yet another fabulous Melbourne memory worked its way to the front of my head. It may have been 20 years ago but I can still remember the feelings of complete indignity and embarrassment as the Dees were rolled by the winless Swans at the SCG, with Richard Osborne kicking 10. That would be Sydney's only win for the year. Now, 20 years later, we head up to Sydney again to take on a winless team, with a full forward who is capable of doing the same (especially so given the possible absence of Frawley and Garland). A win for the Giants would likely be their only win for the year as well. Maybe it's just that we are naturally pessimistic as Melbourne supporters, but I'm really dreading this match. Please, Melbourne, don't let us suffer the same pain we felt that day.

Team full of talls, allowing Johnson (I presume) to get 30+ possessions (who is not a Brownlow medallist)...you're nitpicking here. Under Neeld we played what I would regard as the worst football I've ever seen Melbourne play. We could not sustain our effort. We regularly got thumped...including by ordinary teams. We were completely and utterly uncompetitive in all games bar one or two. We trailed GWS by three goals at the MCG. Players weren't happy. The team played with no spirit, no belief in what they were doing and who they were doing it for. The players had no confidence. Going to the footy was absolutely agonising. Under Craig, we've been competitive for longer, we've sustained our efforts for most of the game, we're starting to play with some confidence, belief and spirit. We're scoring more, keeping possession more and transitioning the ball better. Let's not forget we have the worst midfield in the competition - no matter who is coaching us it's an uphill battle each week given our midfield stocks. I reckon Craig has the team performing at an expected level. Under Neeld we were miles off our expected level. You mention the Geelong game and I agree it was terrible, but we maintained our effort and fight for four quarters. It was a long, long way away from games against Port, Essendon, Fremantle, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, etc. earlier in the year when our effort just completely dropped away. To ignore all the improvements and focus on such trivial matters as picking too many talls (note Geelong also had Lonergan, Taylor, Blicavs, Simpson, Hawkins and Podsiadly in the team - one less "tall" than us) and letting Steve Johnson get 38 touches (he torches most teams and has done so against us in the past) is ridiculous.

I went yesterday (yes I recognise the madness in doing so). What an utterly miserable day at the football. When we are a good side and playing good footy regularly and the footy becomes enjoyable once again, I will cast my mind back to games such as these, which will help me realise just how much we should enjoy and appreciate the good times. The rain started teaming down from about halfway down the highway to Geelong and did not stop until Sunday. Even better I had a seat in the open and didn't take my poncho. The beauty of going down to Geelong is that if you're sitting in the open or standing and it starts raining you have absolutely nowhere to go. So it was just a case of sit in the open, put the hood on and suck it up while my jeans became so saturated with water that you could have filled a 2 litre bottle if you wrung them dry. Worst of all not only were we playing one of the best teams of all time at their fortress of all fortresses of a home ground, but probably the best wet weather team I've seen. The rain also meant that the only area we could possibly exploit them in (tall forwards) was completely neutralised. Now I know some will say that in dry weather they would have won by 100 points, but I disagree completely with this. We would have been more competitive on a dry day and the rain only served to exacerbate the skill and midfield differential between the sides. A wet game is all about your midfield and any deficiencies in this area are further exposed in such games. I thought we had a dip but we just could not compete with a far, far, far superior side at their home ground and on their favoured track. Perhaps in better conditions we could have moved the ball out of defence with some fluency and attacked off half back with more success, but Geelong basically smashed us out of the middle, drove the ball forward and in the conditions we just could not get it out and into our forward line. This was due to a combination of not being good enough, failing to adjust to the conditions and playing a side that just set up so well behind the ball that any pressured or bombed kicks forward (which is the norm on wet days) just get picked off at will. In general I thought the effort was there but the one thing that annoyed me was the number of times our players stood 5m behind their opponents which resulted in easy marks to Geelong. For those having a go at our tall forwards, I really question your understanding of football. I can't remember a game we've played with rain falling as steadily and as constantly as that (perhaps there have been but I've been under cover and not out in the elements!). 19 inside 50s on a wet day is a recipe for disaster for a tall forward - it gives them absolutely no hope. I get that four goals is unacceptable, but let's not forget these Cats had conceded only 4 goals against the best attacking side in the competition (Hawthorn) last week up until midway through the last term in pretty good conditions at the MCG. These were diabolical conditions at Kardinia Park against third rate opposition. This does not excuse the performance, which was far from good enough, but it does put some context around our opponent and just how damn good they are. It also does not take anything away from what was just a miserable, depressing day at the footy. You get a fair indication of the game when you see Geelong supporters leaving at half time just to get out of the unrelenting rain. The result was always inevitable, the game was a slog, we hardly went forward and I sat there getting wetter and colder by the minute. The only positive is that I didn't catch pneumonia.

Take out the second quarter and it was 12.10 to 11.6. 22 shots to 17 for a 10 point margin. It was far, far from the absolute disasters we saw earlier in the year against top sides in the Hawks, Pies, Freo and Dons. IIRC we played probably one reasonable quarter in each of those games. Against Sydney yesterday we played three competitive quarters. Yes the scoreboard flattered us - but I think it was probably about a 9 goal loss if they kicked straight, definitely nowhere near 15 goals. Yesterday was an absolute mile away from the utter garbage we saw earlier this year.

Three things I liked about today 1) Sydney put us under immense heat early, especially in our defensive 50 and we coughed it up a few times which cost us goals. Instead of going into our shells and playing slow, risk-free football, we continued to run, share the ball, take risks and take the game on. It was great to see the players really back themselves to play that way against a strong defensive side. A huge contrast to how we played in the first 11 rounds. 2) Despite there being times in the game when Sydney looked on the verge of streaking away, we held on, gritted our teeth and came back at them. We never looked like winning but we also made sure they never got it all their own way. The second quarter they were well on top of us but we came out after half time and hung in there and then won the last quarter. 3) Scoring 85 points against one of the best defensive teams in the competition was a good effort. When considering how badly we got beaten up out of the centre this makes it an even better effort. There's no doubt Sydney monstered us out of the centre and were just too good around the ball for us. This is an area we obviously need to get a lot better in and of course had they kicked straight they would have won by a fair bit more. However, the way we ran hard forward, spread, switched the play, retained possession and looked to use each other was an enormous contrast to the side I watched in the first 11 rounds. It was enjoyable to go to the footy and see some really positive play. Under Neeld we attacked with almost a defensive focus (that is, our attacking play seemed to be about minimising the chance of a dangerous turnover). But we didn't retain the ball and we didn't make the opposition defend us. At least at the moment we are making the opposition defend when we attack.

I have been saying that all year - our huge disposal differentials were hurting us offensively and defensively - offensive in that we couldn't retain possession and defensively in the sense that the less you have of the ball, the more the opposition has it. Disposal stats are not the be all and end all but the differentials we were producing were extraordinarily large and were not sustainable. Will be interesting to see how we go in trying to retain possession more against two top sides in the next two weeks.

Astonishing call from Caroline. Pity no one on the panel pointed out to her that over the last seven years Melbourne has not finished higher than 12th, while the Dogs have made three preliminary finals.

I don't think we would want to set up like that. Too tall. You might have four talls down there every now and then for tactical reasons but for the vast majority of the time I think having Gawn, Dawes, Clark, Hogan plus one of Watts and Howe is way too top heavy.

I think four 6"4+ forwards in the forward line is too tall. Some teams only play with two tall forwards. If Watts is to stay forward, then subject to the status of his footy injury I would look to play Clark in the ruck. He is mobile, athletic and a good mover around the ground. He was close to being an AA ruckmen at Brisbane. With his mobility and ability I think he can be a real presence around the ground and win a fair bit of footy. A forward line of Watts, Hogan and Dawes has enough height and marking power. Throw Howe into the mix and I don't think you'd want to play another tall down there. Clark is obviously a brilliant forward but of all our tall forwards he is the best equipped to play in the ruck. Howe would hopefully rotate a bit through the midfield as well (perhaps in a Brett Burton type roll) and then you'd probably want two smalls, perhaps one being a specialist small forward (a player type we currently don't have) and the other a midfielder who can play forward. I'd have another ruckman on the bench with that set-up. I think playing 8 talls (three KP defenders, three KP forwards, two ruckmen), 3 medium/small defenders, 1 specialist small forward and 10 blokes who can rotate through the midfield is a fairly good balance. Alternatively you could go with 7 talls, with one of your KP forwards being the back-up ruckman. But things do change quickly in this environment in relation to tactics, form and injuries so no plans can be 100% concrete.

I'm staggered at the number of commentators that use the word 'deserved' in the context of the priority pick. Perhaps it's just a reflection of a complete lack of understanding and common sense. The priority pick is there to help a team that has consistently performed poorly. And guess what contributed to poor performance - that's right - insufficient talent, poor coaching, poor list management, poor recruiting, poor development, etc. So the comment that Melbourne doesn't deserve a priority pick because of past drafting mistakes is bordering on insanity. Past drafting mistakes would be one of the key factors that would result in poor performance which in turn leads to a priority pick. That is what the system is designed for! Agree that a PP won't solve all our problems, but I'd happily take it if we could get it. Draft well and you have yourself a 200 game star for your club. Lastly for those concerned about help from the AFL, don't worry about it! That's the system we are operating in. What about the leg up Collingwood gets from playing in prime time, 18 games in Melbourne and regular blockbusters. Does that not help sponsorship and membership which in turn generates dollars to be used on FD spending? The fact is we play in a compromised competition anyway, so if it's our turn to get a bit of a handout from the AFL, I won't feel any guilt whatsoever.

No doubt the trend in the game at the moment is a more uncontested style of play - being able to retain possession, get the ball out in space, use it well and not turn it over are what the top sides are doing really well. But while the trends change all the time in home and away footy, I still think finals football remains pretty much the same. Finals are a different ball game - very contested and congested, less time and space, heavy tackling and pressure. If you have too many players that can't win their own ball in finals footy then you are not going to win too many big finals. While I still think it's important to get a lot better at winning contested footy, I agree with you that under Neeld our uncontested game just completely fell apart. Neeld was obviously not big on disposals - he said as much - but I think disposals and uncontested ball are important for two key reasons. 1) Retaining possession and getting your hands on the footy increases a player's and the team's confidence. Anyone who has played the game would know you get confidence out of touching the footy. Under Neeld we just could not string together possession chains and players weren't getting their hands on the footy. 2) When you have the ball, it means the opposition doesn't. That means less touches for them and potentially less scoring opportunities. It's like the old soccer saying about the virtues of possession: 'the opposition cannot score when you have possession'. Clearly disposals and uncontested possessions are not everything, but I do think they are important and you only have to look at our results and our disposal differentials to see that is the case. I was pleased last night that we looked to retain possession a bit more, but I guess it was against ordinary opposition. It will be interesting if we can improve in this area when we play some better sides in the run home.

This is a game St Kilda should win, but for the first time in four weeks I feel as though we are not without a chance. It feels a lot better going to the footy knowing that there is that chance, unlike most games this year where you just turn up waiting for a massacre. Even though we are 1-10, in shocking form and without key players, I feel as though this week is a really important game for us. After the week we've had we really need the players to stand up and be competitive against a fairly ordinary opposition. A win would be sensational but I'm not expecting it. A solid four quarter competitive performance would be really good for the players, supporters and the club after what's happened this year.

I posted this in another thread but think it is relevant here too. Ater the Fremantle game: Neeld refused to accept his team's work rate was lacking after the Dockers feasted on uncontested possession to open a 71-point lead by halftime in the 19.16 (130) to 6.4 (40) defeat. "I don't think the effort was too bad ... when you put three guys behind the ball, those numbers get skewed quite a bit," he said. In the week after the Fremantle game: Neeld said he was not looking for short term measures and was determined to develop his youngsters for the long term success of the club Neeld said he choose not to flood the backline last week, when Melbourne was being dominated by Fremantle, because it wouldn’t help his team’s development. “It would have been an easy thing to go and put all these numbers behind the ball, but we aren’t going to learn anything from that ... we are coaching to develop these players,” he said.

Choko I don't know how you can say it's abundantly clear that Neeld executed what the club asked of him. Do you really think that on-field performance was not part of Neeld's brief? I understand that part of the brief would have been to improve standards and change the culture and things like that, but at the same time there's no excuse for what we have dished up this year. I even gave Neeld the benefit of the doubt during the 2012 season as it always takes time to adjust to a new style and a new coach. But to then take the team so far backwards in your second year in the job to the point of them being (currently) the least competitive team in the league, including the babies from GWS, is completely unacceptable. In all aspects of the game we have gone completely backwards under Neeld and there were no signs of improvement. Our game plan, our ability to defend and attack, our effort, etc. have been shambolic this year. The stats support how far we have regressed since 2011. Other than our on-field performances, throw in questionable man-management skills, some really poor recruiting decisions, a lack of improvement in many of the players on the list and a failure to accurately assess where the list is at. But above all, it was evident from the team's performances that they didn't believe in the message and the game plan. If a coach cannot achieve this then they are always going to struggle to implement their game style and tactics. It's all very well and good to have a plan, and I am a big believer in sticking to plans because impulsive decisions are no way to run a footy club, but when it is absolutely clear that the plan is not working and change is required, it would be foolish just to "stick to the plan" for the sake of seeing the plan through. I think if you wanted to have a go at the board, a stronger criticism would be the plan itself rather than the (justified in my opinion) deviation from the plan. FWIW I agree that the Bailey sacking was terribly handled but that is another matter.

I think that's the key point. I am struggling to "buy in" to the Neeld "rebuild" as it is based on contradictory and inconsistent statements. I do not fully believe in it. I don't see the "clear pathway" that Neeld preaches because that pathway has had too many sharp left and rights, zig zags and u turns. Perhaps the players are also confused and maybe this contributes to the lack of belief in what they're doing which is so evident on game day. At least in 2008 under Bailey, despite another horror year, I could see the plan and Bailey was consistent in his message and his implementation of the plan. Of course mistakes were made along the way and things started to fall apart, but I did have some trust and faith in the method. The good news is there is hope and I feel that with a restructured footy department and a new coach who can get the players really believing in him and his message, we as supporters can start to believe in the process and the club can start to generate some hope.

I wouldn't necessarily go by what the stats sheet says - it often lists a player's height or weight incorrectly. Pedersen is not 6"4.

The main issue with Pedersen as a defender is does he have the size to play on the big power forwards. He would be 6"3 at best and clearly undersized against many of the competition's tall forwards. He was exposed in one-on-one contests by an out-of-form Quinten Lynch yesterday, and as a tall defender he will be regularly facing much more difficult opposition than Lynch each week. The other issue is whether he fully commits his body in the air and I agree with Ben Hur in that I've seen him fail to go back with the flight of the ball with the required level of commitment. He also had an opportunity to completely flatten Travis Cloke in a marking contests in the first term but chose to avoid contact. I know it would have cost us a 50m penalty but I'd gladly accept that to let the opposition know you are out there. Cloke kicked the goal anyway. I seem to recall Neeld saying that he had been recruited for a specific role as a link forward and that they were very clear about the role he would play. Yet by Round 3 or 4 he was playing in defence for Casey.

It is possibly a result of having witnessed two of the more insipid efforts in AFL history in the last two years (being the 25 and 31 goal thumpings to Essendon and Geelong) that some supporters can actually say after yesterday's game that the effort was good. Against that benchmark, yes the effort was bloody good. But against the standard expected (at a minimum) from a professional football team, it was appalling and I really struggle to understand how anyone who was at the game can walk away thinking the effort was decent. The effort was terrific in the first quarter, but from midway through the second term until the end it was pathetic. To blame fitness or youth is just a cop out – these guys are professional sportsmen with elite conditioning and preparation and should be able to sustain effort for the majority of a game. I could accept reasons such as fitness or inexperience if we had a crack for three quarters and then faded in the last. I have seen GWS do this on a number of occasions this year (including against Geelong this weekend and against us) and I think it's fair to say that their last quarter fade outs are impacted by their youth and their inexperience. But I cannot accept it when a side's work rate and intensity completely falls away 10 minutes into the second quarter. Or, in the case of some other games this year, falls away 10 minutes into the first quarter. To me that's a mental thing and as I've said before the coach needs to be able to extract maximum effort from his players. Mark Neeld has not demonstrated an ability to extract the most out of his team and to me this is a bigger concern than things like game plan, structures, etc. I'm not excusing the players as they are also responsible for effort, but there is no doubt the top coaches are the ones who get the most out of their teams. I keep hearing the comment that since Round 3, apart from the GC game, our effort has been ok. Not it hasn't. It hasn't been anywhere near the standard of a professional football team. I don't blame Neeld for the shocking skill errors, the poor list he inherited and the injuries he's suffered. He has been dealt a difficult hand. But I do blame him for consistently failing to get the most out of his team.

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.

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).

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.

No one is expecting high performance to be delivered in 18 months. I never expected us to be a good side this year and I would have been very happy if Neeld showed that the side had improved from last year, even slightly. I would have even been okay if we were performing at the same level as last year. But we are currently far, far worse than last year. We have regressed under Neeld's watch. We have become less competitive and easier to beat. We are losing by more and playing worse footy. We are performing so far below expectation (even the most conservative of expectations) that it is a joke. To sit there and say 'high performance takes time and therefore anything that happens in the first 18 months or whatever is irrelevant' is just completely failing to comprehend the situation. There is no justification for how bad we've become under Neeld...and yes I am factoring in club politics, poor leadership, inexperienced players, an history of poor recruiting and development, etc. As I said before my expectations this year were extremely low and we've still fallen so far short of these expectations. Let me ask you a question...if Mark Neeld was currently out of contract would you sign him up for the next few years or would you look elsewhere for another coach?

The job might not have been to win 15 games, but at the same time the job didn't entail coaching a team that performs so badly that it is being compared by many (in terms of current performance) to Fitzroy. For Neeld to not admit that he would do at least one thing differently is laughable. Humans make mistakes yet here we have a rookie senior coach who is infallible. My only question is does he really think he hasn't made a mistake or is he just in self-preservation mode? Unleash Hell - there is a flaw in your argument that the board made a decision and now they need to stick to it. If they subsequently discover that the decision was the wrong one then they need to act on it. It would be catastrophic to not act because you want to stick to the long term plan. I accept that you can't just chop and change all the time but if a time comes when it is clear you have made a mistake or the wrong decision, then you should act on it. Stability is important, but bad stability is a potential disaster.

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.