titan_uranus

As per usual, I'm having trouble following exactly what you're trying to say. Especially the bit about the seagulls.

Why?

I'm surprised at the lack of love for Dean Laidley. I always rated him as a coach, and an analyst of the game. I'd back him in to have a much more nuanced opinion of the MFC and its list right now than many of the other experienced coaches. I'd also back him in to know how to get the best out of our list from day 1. If we're set on an experienced coach, any of Roos, Clarkson, Laidley, Eade or Williams would suit me fine. Matthews' commentary on Channel 7 suggests to me he is no longer as adept at analysing the game as he once was. I find myself constantly disagreeing with him.

You can't draw that conclusion from PJ's words. He was referring to how the MFC is a basket case, and hence the difficulty the MFC has in selling itself when it comes to signing players. Our on-field performances, and hence Neeld, were a big part of that. It does not follow, however, that Neeld had 'fractured' the playing group.

As PJ said in the press conference, if we'd told him on Friday night, without time to call a press conference, it would have been all over the media over the weekend. It would have leaked; everything does, these days. Neeld would have copped media flak all weekend; people at his house, invading his space, etc. The decision was made on Friday so that this morning we could spring into action without having to wade through throngs of media, without having the papers pre-empt anything.

Wash-up from the press conference: Josh Mahoney to become Acting Director of Football Operations, with a permanent appointment to be made at the end of the year. Mahoney might put his hand up for that spot. Craig to be caretaker coach. More changes at Board level to come - both Spargo and PJ said this The decision to sack Neeld was made on Friday but he was only told at 8am this morning. PJ was very hesitant to link the AFL meeting to what is taking place. Suffice to say, the AFL wants to see some changes. The AFL also wants to see PJ stay here, and they want to know who any potential new Board members are before the come on. The entire playing group was present at the press conference

If you're interested, the press conference can be seen on the HUN's site here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-coach-mark-neeld-has-been-sacked-replaced-by-senior-assistant-neil-craig/story-fni5f91a-1226664862230

Hazy, whether you're right, wrong, or otherwise, the more you keep posting in the current manner, the more most people will be sick of reading you. Maybe more people would have listened to what you were saying if you said it civilly?

I don't know if I agree with him being moved on mid-season, especially given we have two games against struggling sides coming up. If we weren't prepared to let him go last week, or the week before, the only reason I can think of that suggests that we're doing this now is due to what went down at AFL House on Friday. Whether it was the AFL asking/demanding us to take action, or whether it was PJ using Neeld as a bargaining chip, or whether Neeld simply has read the writing on the wall post-meeting, you have to think that's the reason.

Forgot about Bird. He might get a game over Starc. But Siddle surely starts, surely. Our best and most consistent fast bowler both against India and over the summer. Also just cracked his maiden first class century.

So he doesn't take Clark and Dawes, and instead recruits two gun mids. If that was the case, you could just replace the word 'midfield' on this forum with the words 'forward line'. We'd be all saying how we should have taken a key forward, that there is no point having midfielders if they have no one to kick it to, that we shouldn't be continuing to give games to Lucas Cook and James Sellar, that key position forwards don't grow on trees, etc. Neeld's decisions to take Clark and Dawes were both absolutely fine. He's shored up our forward line. Midfielders are easier to find, and have an impact quicker. He's done the hard part first. I'm not trying to absolve him - I don't want him here in 2014. But Clark and Dawes are two aspects of our list management which I'd give a tick.

When did the Board blame the players? I'm not disagreeing with you regarding our Board being a contributing factor to our demise. They haven't done a good job, and their poor decisions have hurt us. And I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about recruiting.

Yeh maybe. If we think it's something he would want and might help him commit post-2014, then maybe. It's not too important, to be honest. The captain is, and Trengove simply has to come down from that position. And it's important not to have hacks in the leadership group (e.g. Jamar). Not fussed either way with Frawley.

Do you think Adelaide's Board has a 'spine'? Carlton's? Essendon's? West Coast's? Or any of the other clubs who have had to introduce a new colour into the alternate strip? The AFL requires all clubs to have an alternate strip. White was the only option for us. You'll recall, in fact, that we tried to use red instead, but the AFL stopped us. If anything, that showed the Board was trying to fight for our colours. You really need to learn to think.

This topic has been done to death already. Mods, merge with this maybe?

Grimes captain. No reason to take it off him. Leadership team to include Trengove, N Jones and Dawes. Garland and Clark maybe to round it out.

A lot of this will depend on what happens during the trade/FA period. If we are able to bring a mid or two from other clubs, that will go a long way to allowing us to take Boyd.

I assume he's just saying that Clark would be upset since he was considering going to Fremantle instead of Melbourne.

Regressed under Neeld? Really? None of those three got any worse under Neeld, they just failed to get any better. Your argument about how no one gets better under Neeld might make more sense if you stopped referring to players who have been moved to other clubs and have since not improved anyway. If Morton, Gysberts or Petterd had flourished for their new clubs, you'd have a great argument. But as we've seen, all three are continuing their careers wallowing in mediocrity. Moving them on was the correct decision and it wasn't because they'd gotten worse under Neeld - none of them were good enough.

In one post you criticise some for looking for a 'one dimensional answer', but then proceed to blame our plight almost entirely on the Board. Our disastrous situation is a combination of many things, the Board being one. Bailey, Neeld, Schwab, the players, development, fitness, tanking and some things out of our control (e.g. Stynes, Jurrah) are all a part of the problem. There is no simple answer, there is no 'here's the problem'. It's not the Board's fault, it's the Board et al.'s fault.

I don't know what to do with the batting. It's so weak. I want to see Watson bowling - he's not good enough as a batsman only, so he has to bowl or just not play. One or the other. He should be batting lower down the order to accommodate the bowling (i.e. not 1-3). Rogers and Cowan should open. Clarke to bat at 4. Outside of that, I don't know. Hughes is crap. Khawaja is worse. Haddin and Wade can't bat higher than 6, really. So maybe this: Rogers Cowan Hughes Clarke Watson Haddin Wade Starc Siddle Pattinson Lyon This isn't a team that is going to win the Ashes, unfortunately. We'll do OK bowling England out, but we're not going to be able to put enough runs on the board. Rogers and Clarke are the only batsmen that give me confidence; one of them has a dodgy back and the other, knowing the selectors, might not get a game in favour of the most undeserving hack in Australian cricket right now. Also, Lyon has to start over Ahmed. Ahmed needs to find his feet at this level. Give him time to just be around the side and to get a feel for what bowling at a high level consistently is going to take. Rushing him in to an Ashes XI could break him.

If Kennett wants to be taken seriously, he needs to declare who he's running with. A Board is not a President and no one else; just like McLardy didn't do everything, Kennett won't do everything. So we need to know who he has with him. He also needs to give some sort of statement as to what he thinks needs to be done. It's not enough to say 'Melbourne needs change'. What change? What exactly do you think needs to happen? I'd also like to hear him explain if/why he no longer thinks we should merge with North Melbourne, a view he held just months ago, and now conveniently is not in existence.

I agree. Wherever this rumour of 'he's gone within the month' started (Caro?), it's completely ridiculous and beggars belief. If they want to sack him before the end of the season, why wait? They will not have said 'after the next two games he's gone'. What may have happened, though, is that there may have been a decision along the lines of 'if we're not competitive against St Kilda and WB, then we're sacking him after the WB game'. Which would make a lot more sense than having made a decision already. If we're as bad against St Kilda and WB as we were against Freo/Hawthorn/Collingwood, that would suggest Neeld is gone no matter what; those two clubs are not very good and no side should be beaten badly by them, especially since we have both games at the MCG, where neither side is any good. If we can muster up two competitive performances, Neeld will surely buy himself the time to see out the rest of the year - if we can compete with WB and St Kilda, then we can compete with GWS, Brisbane and WB (again), which is enough to get us to the end of the year.

I'm sick of David Warner. I want him out of the side, and I guess this is a good way to start. Hopefully, if the selectors have any sense, they won't pick him for the first Test. To do so would be to say 'if you have talent, then it doesn't matter if you're stupid, rude, uncouth, ill-disciplined, or immature, you can still walk into the Australian side'. Moreover, he'll have had 0 warm-up games, and his recent 'form' is despicable. Warner is not a required player. Not even close. Rogers and Cowan to open.