titan_uranus

Because he beat Cloke in most of the fair one-on-one contests they had. Where Cloke got him was when the ball came in under no pressure and he could get on a lead and take the mark. Commonly there was no assistance - no one dropping into the hole. You could see from Garland's body language and constant frustration that there was meant to be someone getting in Cloke's way and stopping him getting on those leads.

Was really happy with Toumpas today - for the first time he looked like he was comfortable out there. Saw a bright future for him, should be a sound player for us. Garland was outstanding, Pedersen provided some run (needs to be allowed to run more, can't have him tied down at FB or CHB because he loses man-on-man too much), Matt Jones bounced back well from last week, Davey looked good when he was forward, Dawes look good while he was out there. Losing Dawes destroyed our structure and we fell apart. At a guess, I'd knock 20 points off the margin if he'd been out there, maybe more. The gap between the two sides was great, but not 83 points great. I've been saying this for years, today was just another example - Lynden Dunn is a disgrace of a footballer. I don't want to see him get another game. He's absolutely awful. All he does is point and yell at everyone else to man up or zone or run or something. He's good for nothing. I'm done with that hack. Blease and Fitzpatrick were both odd. Blease did some nice things and defensively looked to have upped his workrate, but he still tries to play on and take tacklers on too often and doesn't lower his eyes enough. He also needs to get fitter. Fitzpatrick generally looks like a total spud, but he showed pace and mobility. I think Blease could use some more games, but Fitzpatrick I just don't think is good enough. Generally agree with this. Pedersen is weak in man-on-man marking contests, if that's what you are referring to there. Watts I thought was pretty good today, presented well, was crucified by terrible disposal when he was on the lead.

6 - Garland 5 - Watts 4 - M Jones 3 - Pedersen 2 - N Jones 1 - Davey

Your position on this is absolute tripe, RR, though I have come to expect that from you. Any tanking, if it did occur, did so in 2009. Not 2008. At any rate, Bailey's first two years, tanking or otherwise, gave him two years to implement development, to build relationships, to teach, to learn, to set in place what he wanted. You cannot write those off because he was told to tank. That may explain our uncompetitiveness in 2009, but it doesn't explain it in 2008, and at any rate, it doesn't change the fact that Bailey had two years with the group before he began to get something out of them. I am not justifying Neeld, I am attacking arguments which seem to suggest that Dean Bailey was a good coach. He was not. I didn't 'cherrypick' games, RR, I referred to games in which we were non-competitive. That's what transpired. Of course, what do you care, you've gone and 'cherrypicked' yourself - mind you, you've picked games where we were competitive, but lost, to the 11th (West Coast), 12th (Sydney) and 15th (Richmond) sides. Yes, we ran the Dogs to 7 points, who then made a preliminary final. But that doesn't change my point - under Bailey we were not consistently competitive. He was not a good coach. And then to suggest that if it weren't for the tanking directive, we would have been more competitive, is absolute rubbish. We were a terrible side, we might have won one or two more matches at most. You're attempting to make it sound like we took a premiership, or even finals-quality list, and abused it for draft picks. We did not. Unfortunately for you (maybe I should call you a 'Bailey apologist'?), Bailey was not able to get our list, in his four years with the club, into a position that was threatening in any way. We beat up on sides when we had a good day, but we were still at our core weak, unfit, not defensive and not capable of winning a flag.

The Collingwood side we are playing today is weak, full of young players who really aren't that good (Ben Kennedy, Marley Williams, Kyle Martin, Ben Sinclair, Paul Seedsman, Josh Thomas, Adam Oxley - these names would strike fear in the heart of no one). If we were half-decent, this would be a major chance to knock off the old foe. Of course, in our current form we're all just half-hoping to see us be competitive and not 5 goals down at quarter time. If we can come out and match them quarter-by-quarter, if we can not let ourselves fall too far behind, if we chase and tackle and pressure and apply ourselves, and have a shot at three-quarter time, then who knows, we might be fitter than them and able to run it out. Most likely - down by 7 goals at half time, win the third quarter, lose in the end by 9-10 goals.

I'm interested - which statistics are those? Are they based on Bailey's first two years, or all four? You may well have statistics to back you up, but our game back in 2010-2011 was attack at all costs, that much is undeniable. Bailey pushed numbers behind the ball to run forward and score heavily - it worked against sides who weren't prepared or good enough to defend, but against decent sides we were just as uncompetitive as we are now under Neeld. Were we 'supposed to push on'? Or was Neeld brought in to start again, given Bailey had put our list in a situation that was never going to win us a flag? You say there was never talk of us going backwards - are you sure? Neeld is only two years in - that's a fact, Demonstrative. Sorry if you don't like it. Neeld's mantra and game plan is starkly different from Bailey's. Why was Bailey afforded two free years that his supporters are now all just wanting to ignore, when Neeld doesn't get that luxury? Bailey was brought in to change the club after Daniher; Neeld was brought in to change the club after Bailey. They both changed the list, both brought new thoughts and strategies. Bailey built a list that could win games. He did not build a list that could win a premiership. We were wildly inconsistent, ranging from thrashing clubs when things went our way, to getting hammered and being uncompetitive against even lesser clubs (remember the West Coast game in 2011? The loss to North Melbourne despite us coming off three wins and them having just one win all year? Losing to Collingwood on QBD by 88, not giving a yelp? Losing to the Bulldogs on Friday night by 64, when we were above them on the ladder?).

It's a fair analysis of Watts. It would be nice for sure if the media applied the same attention they give Watts to some other high draft picks who seem to coast under the radar. Bryce Gibbs is as ineffective a number 1 pick as Watts. He was drafted to be a midfielder but can't play in the middle as he squibs contests, so they play him off half-back where he doesn't have to do anything contested. He's as flawed a pick as Watts is.

Oh, you mean the 12 month period commencing halfway during Bailey's third year?

It's not the 'keep him' argument. It's the 'keep him for now' argument, and there's a big difference.

You've missed another part of the rules: A player has served ten or more seasons of AFL football at one club, has already come out of contract once in the period after serving his first eight or more seasons at his club, and is now out of contract. (Unrestricted free agent) That's Sylvia.

Why should that be noted?

Just to refresh some people's memories, this is a thread from 2011 (Bailey's fourth year. It was, it seems, one of Bailey's 'better' years). What do you want to see from the players this week? From memory, this was the week after we were non-competitive against West Coast on a Thursday night. Sound familiar? Bailey did not have this club in any better position. For all the flashy wins we had, we similarly were able to be non-competitive, toothless, weak and lazy. The lack of defensive capabilities was present every game we played; some weeks we scored enough to get by, other weeks we didn't and were suitably embarrassed.

Not only is this an overstatement (we were competitive for some matches and non-competitive in others), this 'competitiveness' occurred in his third and fourth years.

From what I've seen he should surely be one of our targets.

Your last sentence suggests you're going tomorrow, which means you can 'pizz and moan' as much as you want, as I was referring to those who wish to have a go at our financials whilst simultaneously contributing to the poor position.

Your point?

Surely the salary of a senior coach is higher than that of an assistant or other FD member, meaning that anyone who steps in to the role as caretaker is entitled to a pay rise? Niall also addressed the argument that sacking Neeld now provides 'hope'. How does that work, BB? At the end of the year, sure, I understand, and agree with the idea, that moving Neeld on and replacing him with a new coach provides us with hope for 2014. But replacing him now with a caretaker doesn't give anyone hope. It will fill me with dread, in that the rest of this year will be totally a waste as we just play out time waiting. The Board will change. The FD will change. Our administration will look totally different. Once those changes are made and are able to take effect (a matter of months, not days) we will be in a position to properly assess Neeld. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests he won't be here in 2014, but that decision will be made after PJ has a proper administration put in place at this club.

I'm not sure what the technical term for this kind of reasoning is, where one looks unfairly favourably on the past because the present is gloomy. Whatever the term is, you're suffering from it. The Bailey era was no better than the current one. Dean Bailey put us in a position where we were downhill skiiers. When the going went our way we could run forwards in droves and score heavily. But when opponents put the pressure on us, we fell apart. Our mids weren't defensive enough at all, not even close. We beat those sides because we matched up well against them and had good days. Our players weren't fit enough, didn't run hard enough, couldn't tackle hard enough, didn't try tackling enough, and generally were all offense with no defence. Looking at your list of players - Trengove is no worse now than he was in 2011. Gysberts did not 'develop', he came in, played some good games, but did not progress at all. Morton didn't 'develop' at all, his failure as an AFL player is Bailey's, not Neeld's, fault. Grimes is still one of our best players, no idea why you're suggesting he's not. Tapscott did not 'develop', he is no worse or better now than in 2011, he's stagnated because he's not a very talented player. Bennell was never any good, so I don't know what your point is there. Frawley is indeed playing worse than in 2011, but he's improving this year and getting better each week. As for Jurrah and Wonaeamirri, if you want to attempt to place some sort of blame on Neeld for those players, you're actually proving your insanity. At any rate - Bailey had two years, 2008 and 2009, where we were insipid, before any of what you've said took place, yet you're calling Neeld out midway into his second year.

This is a fantastic article, and it's spot on. It takes each argument against Neeld and provides a fair counter. It is unbiased, doesn't attempt to make Melbourne a laughing stock, nor attempts to make Melbourne sound any better than we currently are. Well-written, balanced and fair analysis.

I wasn't saying you implied we were going to get a Cotchin-style player. Even targeting a B/C-grade midfielder who can come in and help is difficult. As in, it's one thing to identify what needs to happen, it's another to get it done. I'd love us to go get Dale Thomas or any other midfielder who is available and potentially could join us, but we have to both find these players and convince them to come to us instead of any of the other 17 clubs. That's not easy.

If all of Redleg's points were to come to fruition, we'd be a finals quality team in 1-2 years. Unfortunately, reality says that some/many simply won't happen. Finding mids to join us under FA sounds fantastic, but they have to exist, and then they have to want to come here. Not saying it can't/won't happen, but very well may not. Delisting Rodan/Gillies/Byrnes again sounds nice, but Byrnes is contracted, and we can't afford to waste money on paying players out. You can't with one hand ask us to pay a player out and then with the other hand go to the AFL for financial assistance; that's ludicrous, Redleg. Byrnes stays, IMO. Rodan is adding value, wait and see after Round 23. I'm with you on Gillies though, unless there is some miraculous form reversal he is gone. Obviously the rest of the OP is pretty much fair. I can't help but look at a team with a spine of Hogan, Dawes, Gawn, McDonald and Frawley, with Clark a third KPF/second ruckman, and think there is more than enough to work with. Give N. Jones and Viney some midfield support and we'll hopefully get there. A new FD, Board and (probably) coach will be needed, but it can be done, I feel.

Agree with those who say 'take the expansion teams out and we've only had one real win' is ridiculous. The expansion teams are teams nonetheless. If they didn't exist we'd have a greatly different list. You can't on the one hand talk about how they're full of talent, and thus incomparable to us, and on the other hand bemoan our inability to beat anyone other than them. At any rate, the 5/33 argument is strong enough as it is.

Geelong are toying with their form and are due to get beaten. Level with GC at three quarter time, in Geelong, then level with GWS 5 minutes before three quarter time. GWS had lost its previous four games by 83+. Their last four games have all been one quarter efforts - Collingwood (third quarter only, lost because of it), Port Adelaide (ripped them apart in the first quarter, foot off the gas after that), GC (fourth quarter blitz) and GWS (fourth quarter again). The bye might do them good, and Brisbane the week after, before big games against Fremantle and Hawthorn. Gold Coast are on fire. Not sure how they'll go against Essendon, but after their bye they then have three winnable games - Adelaide at home, Brisbane and Richmond (in Cairns). Could well grab two of those three and be 7-8. North's season's probably shot now, with their next game against Fremantle in Perth, likely to make them 4-8. Still got to play Richmond and Carlton, before a last three of Essendon, Hawthorn and Collingwood. Don't think they can get enough wins to push past the logjam of teams in the 6-12 bracket.

On comparing Neeld to Thompson - the comparison is fair-ish. In 2006 there was huge speculation over Thompson's future and there was a lot of pressure from Geelong supporters who weren't happy. That is similar to what is going on with us right now. Clearly Geelong wasn't as bad as we are right now, but that's not really the point. There were Geelong supporters in 2006 who did not want Thompson coaching in 2007 because they didn't think he was meeting expectations and they didn't think he'd be the one to take them to their next flag. That's a relatively similar situation to what is facing us right now. On attending games - those who choose not to attend games should refrain from whinging about our debt. If you're going to contribute to our financial woes, then you have to accept some of the blame and you cannot take it out on the Board, as many do on here. The financial losses we are facing, and the prospective need to go to the AFL, are angering plenty. If you're not attending games out of some sort of childish protest, then put up with out financial situation, as you're not helping.

I'm not attempting to defend Morton's AFL career, but I truly am sick of people using that footage as some sort of attack on him. If you had seen that game, you'd know that he wasn't running away from Lade, he was moving to create the next play; the ball was behind Lade and Morton saw the play coming towards him so he ran off to make space and present.