Axis of Bob
-
Posts
3,052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Axis of Bob
-
The last quarter and a half we ran completely out of steam. As a result our skills dropped off and our run dried up. Their midfield was too big and too fit and gradually gained total dominance. We also lacked a bail out kick once Dawes went off so we struggled to get the ball forward. I thought the effort was there, though.
-
LCD.
-
I've lost count of the number of times you have said "The club will be dead by then" (usually a year, 2 years, end of someone's contract). It started in 2008. Forgive us if your comment holds no weight. "Look! A wolf!!! No seriously, I swear that this time there really is a wolf!"
-
5 Years Says Neeld - Who is going to cop that?
Axis of Bob replied to Mongrel Dee's topic in Melbourne Demons
The post you quoted referred to 'our tackling being worse than ANY time since the early 2000s'. Having a single year (which didn't include any of the mentioned players) is not providing relevant evidence. -
5 Years Says Neeld - Who is going to cop that?
Axis of Bob replied to Mongrel Dee's topic in Melbourne Demons
I call [censored]. Evidence? -
Democracy relies on the population being intelligent and informed. Two things that are not furthered by the Ox. It also shows why SEN hasn't folded yet.
-
It isn't about wins and losses. That is too broad a tool to use to judge. I look for improvement between and within games and look to see if that is sustainable. There are a thousand other things I look for too, but whether we win the game means sweet FA in relation to our long term prospects of a flag. The real world isn't black and white. There is glorious grey everywhere.
-
I asked the question openly. You were the only one to reply to it, so I asked you. . As usual? When have we ever done this in the past? Also, which questions have I not addressed? If you point them out to me then I will happily expand on my views. I'm sorry if you consider me to be considered, rather than being rash and decisive. By saying you are 'wired that way' I didn't consider that I was being malicious, since I followed it up by telling you how I was wired. I know you run a business, because you tell us reasonably often .... almost defensively. But that aside, do you honestly believe that the next 3 months will cause irreparable damage that hasn't already been caused by being awful since 2007? Why do you believe that this 3 month period is more important than the rest? It's all about perception? What will sacking a coach do to our perception as a club? How will sacking a coach help us to keep supporters (that have stayed with us for the last 6 years but now suddenly decide that they'll jump ship because we didn't sack a coach in round 6)? How will sponsors feel about a club that shows no inclination toward honouring a partnership and contract? How would sponsors feel about a club wasting their sponsorship money by throwing it away on a contract payout for a coach, only to have the interim coach come in and do the same thing anyway? You may consider my considered approach to not be part of the real world, but I suppose that's what your real world looks like. It's just the way you're (you are) wired.
-
I am a very different person to you in that the wins and losses don't make as much difference to my thoughts as they do to yours. I know you will dismiss this as madness because that's just the way you are wired to think. But I work differently. I am looking in the longer term to you. I am looking at Neeld and wondering about whether he is moulding a team that can be successful long term. At the moment I am neither here nor there, but I do know that those advocating for an immediate sacking are not necessarily thinking about anything past their own nose (and emotions).
-
I answered it in the post you quoted. Your argument isn't from a football perspective, it's from a supporter perspective. That's where we are differing and that's why I asked you to explain yourself. You are also making the 'magic bullet' assumption, that an interim coach will magically make the side better. Neil Craig (who won't coach) will simply follow the same path as Neeld is, because Craig was one of the main people who put this plan into place! Craig would be as invested in the plan as Neeld is, so you'll have the same message from a different person (who now needs to have his previous role filled). Craig spoke to several clubs, but after speaking with Neeld he decided to join us.
-
So your argument is that the 'irreparable damage' that he's causing is to the credibility of the club. I don't see how the club can be sullied any more in the next 16 rounds than it has over the last 5 years. I don't see that damage as being 'irreparable'. If Neeld is not the right man for the job, then he will find himself without a job in the future. However I don't think, after a season and a bit, we can judge whether or not he is the right man for the job. What we do know is that he came into a culture that stank and it has been his main focus to turn that around. If Neeld doesn't turn out to be the right man for the job then I would say that he has left the club in a better state than he found it. Therefore I disagree that his presence as coach is something that needs to be snuffed out ASAP. Should we bring in Craig (who won't coach) or one of the assistants, they will coach in a very similar way to Neeld. Why? Because you can't teach a new style of play during the season when they have been training in a different style. The only thing that would happen if we replace a coach less than half way through his contract (!), is we make ourselves an even less desirable place to both coach and play. We will be seen like Richmond of the late 80s who couldn't get anyone of note, nor any success, because coaches were sacked at the first sign of trouble. Neeld is a very process driven coach. He has set in place a plan that he has proposed will take him through his first contract. To sack him now would be like leaving Splash Mountain because you didn't like the singing.
-
I asked a simple question and nobody has been able to properly answer it. What is the 'irreparable damage' that Neeld is causing that everyone keeps repeating? If the question was as simple to answer as everyone has been saying then why has nobody done it? I know why Hardnut can't, but surely someone else is capable.
-
So you can't explain it either? As for the second point, you would say that letting one of the assistant coaches act as interim coach would provide us with wins and better skills? We'd hit targets because we changed coach, eh? I have some magic beans for you here if you want them - I think you'll find that my price is very reasonable.
-
Yes, I would say that having your 2 time premiership coach resigning on you would make a coaching change necessary!!!!
-
I appreciate that you feel you need to look tough, but you still haven't answered the question. Although there are many others around here that do patronising better than you do. But don't worry, you'll get better with practice. Your articulated answer to why he is doing more harm is simply "the longer we get flogged .... the more damage the club suffers". Forgive me if I don't take your complex analysis of the situation as seriously as you would like me to, but I actually would like you to detail the specific harm that it's causing. The sort of harm that every week of him being in charge is making 'irreparably worse'. Secondly, I would like you to quantify how much improvement you expect a new coach to make. What would an interim coach (who is already being employed as an assistant coach at the club) do to improve the team and what level of performance do you think this current MFC assistant coach will achieve that will stop this 'irreparable damage'.
-
I asked a question about the apparent harm caused because posters have continually stated that he must be sacked now to prevent more harm. You have dodged the question twice in a row now, so one can only assume that you can't answer it. Will someone else help save RobbieF?
-
Because nobody has yet articulated why they came to that conclusion. Since it remains oft repeated but never explained, one can only lean towards the conclusion that most people are sheep.
-
Everyone keeps repeating the groupthink that the longer we keep Neeld, the more irreparable harm will be caused. What is this irreparable harm he is apparently causing?
-
Our style of game was much more in line with what Neeld has talking about. We tried to move the ball quickly, we made it awkward for Carlton and we even had periods of dominance (albeit we couldn't put the score on the board when we did). We played a style that is well suited to a big, tall forward line. We moved the ball quickly and gave the forwards plenty of opportunity to win the ball in the air. The only problem is that our forward line wasn't playing and we kicked it to ruckmen or midgets. But it was really good to see the style starting to come through because we haven't been able to implement it very well so far. That style will start yielding different results when our forward line consists of Clark, Dawes and Hogan. I thought that our intent to run defensively and disrupt play was good. We were down by 30 points halfway through the opening quarter, but had the better of the play for the first 10 minutes. I think the scoreboard looked a lot worse than the performance. If you compare that to the first 2 weeks then it's night and day. We still have a lack of run through the midfield, and it's often the younger players that contribute to this. Viney doesn't yet have the tank to do all the running he needs to do. He'll be great, but it's players like him that are hurting us. McKenzie unfortunately struggles with the quicker style of game. I thought that our work in the stoppages was generally pretty good against a very good midfield, and a lot of that had to do with the defensive work of our midfielders and Spencer (who was good today). So, overall, disappointing to lose but I thought it looked like a (fairly healthy) step forward overall.
-
Mumford? Anyway, the important part about each of those teams is that they've built around a core group of high quality players (that they've developed themselves). The tinkering that they did has been at the edges of those stars. I thought we were OK today, but we played a style of game that required big forwards but we didn't have the big forwards in the team. That's a problem in the short term, but long term we are well covered here. Clark, Dawes, Hogan has a different threat to it than Howe, Gawn and Tapscott.
-
Got it. You're just angry.
-
Who would you have replaced him with?
-
I respect people who know what they are talking about or are at least accepting of the fact that they don't. You have shown over the past year (or however long it has been) that you don't know what you are talking about. What would change my mind? Sustained patterns of rational analysis of the subject matter. Give me that and I (and perhaps the Demonland community) will stop treating you like a fool.
-
Once again, you have only proven that you have found the stats sheet. However you still couldn't tell even tell me the answer to the basic question of who McKenzie was playing on. Thanks, bing. Maybe 316 can report back who those players were after he checks the replay.
-
Your posts tell me all I needed to know on your posting style and football knowledge. I also note that you, again, avoided the specifics of the argument. My educated guess is because you do not have enough inner faith in your argument to test the specifics of it, or because you don't have faith in your ability to argue it with me. As for why I find your stance strange, it's because usually when someone doesn't understand the complexities of a subject they usually just react to whatever manifests in front of them unthinkingly. You, however, are willing to treat one part of that with complete, unabashed faith while blaming the other part entirely. It's almost religious. So what does this say? Hmmmm, it's almost like there is something else affecting it behind the scenes that you are unwilling to talk about. Maybe it's player hero worship. Maybe you have a relationship with someone who you trust in the football scene who once told you something. My guess is that you are just arguing based on someone else's opinion that you trust, but you don't fully understand that opinion nor why you should have it. I find it strange because someone who knows as little as you do about the game is arguing very strongly on a specific point (and only that point), while being completely oblivious to absolutely everything else.
