deanox

I wouldn't be happy with "made finals". Making up the numbers isn't enough. We need to our together a team to win flags. There is a difference. Neeld took 12 months to try and with the relationships out before delisting anyone. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make then drink. You are seeing the 5 out of 40 odd that didn't work. Blease and Sylvia are two examples of relationships that have worked. And I'm not quite sure, but are you calling Clark and Dawes Neeldbots?

Yeah that's fair jaded, and its a reason why I wouldn't be surprised or particularly upset if he goes. Our performances have not been good enough and the results are unacceptable when considered on their own.I try to put then in context of our list, where we are at as a club, as a footy department and I wonder if in some ways this pain is the short term fix. If we had tried to undertake culture change and set new standards etc while maintaining results, we would have needed to drafted/traded for immediate results, and planned different. Certain players would have been kept. In that scenario, change may take 6 years or longer. In that time we may have done ok, may have made finals a court of times but probably wouldn't have ever got there. This way we are gutted for a year or so but are ready to start rising from next year with no baggage.

Not sure this post adds anything to the discussion about the board meeting.

If Neeld is meeting current requirements, you'd be happy to keep him only if the requirements are changed to something that you can personally measure (ie number of wins) rather than left as the goals/requirements set by the board?

I think you'll find this is what is happening already. Just because demonlanders don't know what his performance kpis are doesn't mean they aren't there. Just because the kpis don't align with what demonlanders think they should be doesn't mean they aren't correct.You suggested he could be delusional because he is so adamant he is on track. To me it would be more likely that he is meeting the kpis, thus his confidence.

But the effort was great, right to the end they chased, smothered, tackled and harassed. They just couldn't kick it. My prediction: part of the board to step down, change of president, and a football department restructure. Left field Smokey: Peter Jackson to take on the CEO role full time, or longer context.

Binman you can't have it both ways, either you acknowledge that the current footy department is trying to change the culture and set new standards (which means that there was poor culture and poor standards) or you claim that the problem is Neeld, not the previous players.If you claim the comments regarding culture and behaviour are just rumours (despite comments by robbo this week) and nothing more, then you are justified in saying that Neeld should have kept the players. If you acknowledge we needed a culture change then there are no two ways about it, these players were given 12 months you adapt to new management and when they wouldn't or couldn't change their ways they moved on. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Players with poor with ethic, poor culture and who are actively working against the coach so not make the team any better, despite how many games they've played. And if Neeld had of kept them we would be back in 2011, looking ok but miles off a flag and treading water. Neeld didn't take a short cut, he took the long road. They problem is the masses on demonland and in the media aren't willing to wait for the results. The short cut would have been keeping the senior players who wouldn't buy in to elite performance culture, or changing the game plan or standards to suit those players. We would have had better short term results, Neeld would have prolonged his career but the club would have gone nowhere. We may have made finals, but we wouldn't have gone further than that.

I don't think it is Neelds responsibility to be passing this information to members, it is up to the board, and they haven't done so. When Neeld took over I don't think anyone thought it would be like now. No one predicted that Moloney would act like he did. Free agency cost us experience and leadership in Rivers. The me football department certainly wouldn't have envisioned a playing list where players refused to put in the hard yards. On field this has set us back further than we thought. After a really good preseason I think everyone in the footy department, players and coaches alike were caught up in the hype - it's going better than we thought, we could improve quicker than planned. The reality was that on field we were young and inexperienced and couldn't back up out training performances on game day. With hind sight, I imagine we would have focussed more on midfielders at the trade table. That being said, talls take longer and its easier to build a midfield than build a spine, and this may have been reflected in the strategy. Where my problem with communication is that neither the board nor the CEO have been vocal in the position that the new footy department was out in place to bring elite standards to training and club work practice. This may be because over the past 18 months the board and CEO have had their hands full with a lot of other issues and haven't had the luxury to come out and reiterate the plan.

It was a good press conference. I would like them to better explain to the public what they plan is, this would probably help quieten the media and supporter storm.

If we end up with Schwartz and Matthews we may as well relocate to Tasmania now. Schwartz has no credentials to be involved at that level and has shown he struggled to get his own life and finances in order. Matthews has been out of the game for over 5 years.

6 Dawes 5 Frawley 4 Jones 3 Terlich 2 Garland 1 Kent

Hawks stepped up a gear in the last. Disappointing last quarter. On tv it really has seemed that they have tried to the end but just haven't been good enough.

You haven't watched since round 2 and you are willing to comment on how the club is traveling?

Great attack from Dawes, however if he had of bumped a player like that without the ball he would have got 4 weeks.

Pederson had just cost us 3 goals.

Credit to dawes if watts kicks this. Great shepherd.

Missing targets costs us so much. It runs or attacking thrusts and puts us out of position when we turn it over.

Your comprehension skills are obviously pretty poor. I am no pro Neeld, and haven't been.I am pro common sense and rationality. Blaming a coach for a poor on field decision is ridiculous. So is blaming a coach for being too defensive when we play on and attack more than anyone. I am happy to discuss any problems or issues rationally but demonland is going crazy with stamp my foot, demands of change from people who are talking rubbish and not making sense.

No its not. It is the players responsibility not to play on when he is about to be tackled. You can lead a horse you water but you can't make it drink. This applies to the coach and the players and this conversation. Neeld may be sacked tomorrow, or next week or in 6 months. It won't surprise me nor will it upset me. But he won't be sacked or held accountable for that.

You can blame the coach for a lot of things but this isn't one of them. Your football knowledge is better than stooping to this sort of irrationality. Pick on the coach for things the coach controls.

Our competitive efforts and attack on the man and ball are as good today as anytime this year, and are acceptable. We are losing because our skills under pressure are terrible.

You are 100% correct. That is a decision to be made by the players, and has nothing to do with the coach. If anything it is evidence the coach is supporting and encouraging his players.

Jaded, if they don't try and take the game on everyone claims that the coach is too defensive. What would rather - the players back theymselves and try and win, or the players just try to minimise the loss from out set?

You miss the point. It isn't about good bloke v poor bloke. I am not advocating only recruiting choir boys. What you don't recruit is poor culture - poor work ethic, personality types who will drag others into party mode, etc. We are trying to create a hardworking performance culture. A few weeks ago people were complaining about the boys laughing in the spas - Garlett wouldn't have made it to the spa's because based on last year he would've been out on the turps. He wouldn't work hard to get the best of himself. Ben Cousins and Dane Swan are examples of what could be dealt with - very hard workers, good work ethic, although they are not choir boy characters. They aren't going to necessarily drag others with them, or be dragged by others.

With all credit and many thanks to Supermercado and a shout out to his excellent blog www.mfcdemonblog.blogspot.com.au/