deanox

I think you'll find what Neeld was trying to do was drive culture change (as discussed in the evolutionary vs revolutionary thread) by appointing two players who epitomised the new culture that we want to establish. It has nothing to do with selling the idea that we are a young team.

This, combined with your user name, is quite amusing.

There is talk of AFL support for someone like Buddy Franklin going to GWS, I wonder if there could be similar support to get players to Melbourne? It is quite obvious we need 2 or 3 mids to support Jones and the young mids coming through. This is the only thing that will make us competitive next year.

Pederson was indecisive and is unfit. But he had only been in for one week and deserves the sane chances as others to get confidence after a few games - it did wonders for fitzy. Also with the injury to Frawley I think stability is important, especially amongst the back 6. Also re pederson, I won't defend his performance but he has a 3 year contract. There is no point nagging him out and labelling him a spud and sitting at casey for that time. We may as well see if we can utilise his strengths and make a player of him.

I'm going to go a slightly different tact on this. While I agree we have been unimaginative at both selection table and onfield moves I can see some benefit in trying to stick with the sane team. We have a core group who haven't played much footy together so there is a focus on building up that experience instead of chopping and changing each week. There is an attempt to build confidence through exposure ie get a few games under the belt settle down, lose the nerves. There is also the fact that hardly anyone at carry is any good and that we'd be swapping player 22 for player 23 anyway, not bringing in anyone who is going to impact. Ok maybe a couple of blokes are next in line but I think the current approach seems to be "you must lose your spot" which is intended to rebuild the confidence I.e. The pays don't have to feel on the edge all the time like they might have been under Neeld. The focus isn't on players who make mistakes while trying (terlich, kent even pederson to an extent) the focus is on players who don't put on our run hard enough (blease).

At the time everyone was happy red and blue people were being brought into the fold. It was the big "getting the club back together" party that we thought would move us forward. whatever we do this time needs to be done right. But we said that lady time and the time before and both times we were happy with the first 12 months of the new way of doing things until we realised it was falling apart just the same. I have no idea how we make sure we don't make the same mistakes again bit we need to.

I missed the first 15 minutes but was told there it was big. Anyone able to elaborate?

Everyone should read the executive summary that is linked. It is very clear that the AFL are going to support us both financially and otherwise (attracting key personnel) of we give then a board they want. It was good that the is focused on keeping the board and ceo separate. I thought that report was too heavily focused on the need to satisfy the afl for public consumption however reading between the lines makes it clear that a non afl sanctioned board could see the end of us.

Devils advocate soon on this: Sooner poster have expressed concern over how will we attract players to the club (young Taylor Adams or other senior midfielders for example.) well if you sign a coach and Jack steps up and signs and col signs that is a pretty good indication to the external afl playing group that things are on the right track. If these players recommit it is hard to suggest the place is a horrible place to be a player.

I have no problem with stockdale, and would love us to be led by an outspoken strong president who won't take it from anyone in the media or afl. BUT now is not the time. In 18 months or 3 years when we are on track again Thanks to the afl bail out it will be time to take on such a leader. Right now we need the afls help and support.

I'm not sure what the fuss is. If I was Jack, I'd want to sit with the coach and say "what are your plans for me? What position do you think you will play me?". Jack would have an idea of what he enjoys and he had been shuffled around. I wouldn't blame him from wanting someone with a solid vision. Also, if seems obvious he didn't get on with Neeld but loves Craig. I don't mind him waiting to make sure we dont get a Neeld clone personality wise.

I can't remember many board members ever mentioning who they support! http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2013-07-12/former-eagle-joins-melbourne-board.workstation This article describes him as a passionate demon. It also suggests he has been identified and in discussions with the club about joining the board for some time.

Oh WJ you beat me to it! I hope the tv stations run with "that one day in September" as the promo.

Whoever we get, I hope we get a coach who is more focused on leaving a legacy than winning a flag.

To soon to call tanking??

My understanding is he is a Melbourne supporter since birth. Remember there was no west coast or freo back then!

The only reason id consider Craig is of the players truly had a great relationship with him. In that case, keeping him on would add some on field stability, which I think the group needs, while still moving on from the Neeld regime. He would have to be able to show he was in charge and would still maintain a professional standards and hard line as a coach while having that good relationship with them, ie demonstrate how he'd avoid a tail wagging dog scenario. It may not work, I don't know the inner machinations. But I think some of this is what Craig means when he days "mfc needs to identify what type of coach it needs".

Having read through this thread I think while most of these reasons are correct we are also missing one of the most obvious. If since 2009 the only have 13 players left on the list and have had 4 coaches, we seriously lack on field stability and cohesion. If we wonder why the last seems so mentally fragile, maybe the uncertainty of list position and constantly changing coaching instructions goes a way to explaining why they play like they do. The players have hardly paid a full season together, what chance have they have to develop instinctive pay or Trust that others will be where they should to support and receive? What we need next most of all in my opinion is stability. A period of 3 to 5 years where the players can pay together and develop under one coach. Develop s core group, develop a culture and some consistency of message.

Why was a free kick paid against us when the North Melbourne player refused to get off Viney? Surely pushing him of our player was reasonable?

New inside 50 record on the cards?

And only let him out on game day?

Im going to take the middle ground approach on this because I really think that's the only one that's true. Neeld has some positive legacies. He culled where it was needed. He set good standards. Misson is an appointment that will leave us in good stead in the future. He had also lost the group. Was it his fault? I don't know. Psychologically getting belted in round one surprised us all, including the players and we never recovered. Was it Neeld? Maybe. Probably. But even the best coach probably couldn't have recovered the group at that point. The team was smashed horrendously at a time when self confidence was already fragile. I think it would be rate that beltings like that happen in round 1, and for it to happen twice was a bigger shock. I expected to see improvement moving forward whether or not Neeld was involved. I also expected that removing Neeld would be seen as releasing the shackles by the players. That may have been Neeld related, but it may also have been psychologically related ie release the building pressure.

What, university is patronising but academy isn't? What if it was a sport society? Or a practice institute? Are they preferred namesofr not?

Wait. When Neeld has football university that's a bad thing, but when Craig or pj has a development academy that's a good thing?

While pederson hasn't shown heaps at afl level what I have seen in him is the ability to read the play, the ability to take a mark and the mentality to take the game on. To me he looks unfit. That is extremely disappointing if the case but if he can get his fitness right and get shine confidence up I can seed him playing a role. We often talk about wanting "footballers not athletes" and I think he is a good example. At levels down he would be a great footballer, but we need to seed if he can transport those skills to afl level. For these reasons, I can see him being an appropriate swap for Garland but not as versatile obviously.