titan_uranus

These are comments from those who don't give a rats ass about Melbourne, and never have, hence their crap about Rivers, Moloney and Petterd.

I didn't say I disagreed with you. I asked you to explain how you think sacking Schwab makes us better? From what I can gather, you believe that by sacking Schwab and getting a better CEO, we'll just get better, because strong clubs have strong CEOs. Is that it? It'll just happen? Or can you actually say what it is about a strong CEO that will make us better? I still feel that you're looking at off-field administration issues, but when it comes to on-field performance, the change will come with changes either in attitudes or coaches or something. Your attack on his 'business plan' is rubbish. We've gotten more financially independent and more financially secure. To call Schwab out for making things unsustainable or worse off in anyway is unfair and just ridiculous. I understand what you're saying about his 'meddling', but over the last year or so that's been much less of an issue. And as for 'lack of leadership', what exactly has he done wrong there? Not public enough? Does speaking out in public define leadership? I'm not saying Cameron Schwab is a great CEO, or even a good one. Your criticisms, though, aren't exactly strong, and your solution to improve our on-field performance seems to rest with changes in the football department, which don't rely on, or are affected by, Schwab.

Schwab on MMM We were a finals team up until 2006. We tipped over the edge after that. We were never as good as it may have appeared, back then. Now, Schwab believes it's not as bad as it appears. From the club's point of view, there's no need to look back. We're here now, and our job is to improve from here. Since 2003 the club has had 14 first round draft picks - why haven't they worked? Have the resources been in place to help these kids prosper? Schwab says no Melbourne person can put their hand on their heart and say we had the resources to develop any player. However, that's not an excuse. We are judged by our drafting and our development, and that's how it is for all clubs. The players we take early are the ones who get scrutinised. We've begun to put in place structures which will maximise the quality of the players coming in. We now have a financial model which can support this; the first time in 2-3 generations of MFC players we can say this. It's been a challenge for us, but it's also been a challenge for other clubs who have been OK, so it's no excuse. Carey talks about leadership. Strong clubs have strong leaders, in various roles. Carey looks at Melbourne and sees no leader in any area. Schwab responds by saying he understands that point of view. However, Schwab says he says the day-to-day stuff, he sits in on meetings, and he sees an emerging group. Some players show leadership in different ways; for some, it's obvious on the field (he mentions Jones), but for others, they do it other ways. He says we have a backbone. People underestimate Jack Grimes. He conducts himself as a strong leader. Trengove is 'not far behind him' in those regards, and Schwab says they conduct themselves well as leaders and they have the capacity to influence their teammates. The decision we took to appoint Grimes and Trengove as captains was a signal to the footy world of where we are at with our leaders. This is the core of our group, and it's very young. Carey says we need more than Jones, Grimes and Trengove. Who else is there? Schwab says Mitch Clark goes in that group. Dawes also has an influence. He then says Viney and Toumpas will get there, but they're young. He mentions Tom McDonald as someone who plays with purpose. He then says Frawley can become a leader too. He's asked where he's been in the media for the last few months. Schwab answers by saying he's had other things to do. He had to deal with the tanking investigation, he was a part of that directly, so he had things to do there. He says there is a time and place for CEOs to step forward and speak. He says that the strongest leadership can at times be to say nothing and allow others at the club (e.g. McLardy, Neeld) to have their space. He has no concerns about being quieter, he says it's a part of his role. Did the tanking investigation bog us down over the preseason? Schwab said it had an impact on those who it involved, but it had no impact on the football group. There is a strong group - Neeld, Viney, Harrington, Mahoney. Schwab said he had a priority to let Neeld and co. have their space during the investigation, and he sees the quality coming from them. However, he admits we need to win or it hardly matters. How is the playing group this morning? Schwab says he can describe last night. Schwab said he saw players who were genuinely upset. He says that he knows players can bounce back quickly, they have no choice but to bounce back. Their performance creates discussion and 'narrative' in the media, and we have to cope with that, but they need to rebound. He then says Grimes and Jones put their hands up to deal with the media, then this morning Garland and Clark, who are in the leadership group, stood up and did media stuff. He says the players are 'ambitious and caring' who know they have a long way to go, but they won't be sooking or feeling sorry for themselves. Watts' name is then brought up. The crowd turned on him last night. Where is he at with his footy? Schwab said his preseason was good, but he's not been able to take that form and play well. His standard is not up to our expectations, or his. From Watts' point of view, the biggest challenge is playing to the best of his talent, being number 1 pick has nothing to do with it. The pressure doesn't help, but he deals with it well. His challenge is to play to his ability, and he's not doing that now. He has a 'critical role' to play, but he's been disappointing. The expectation is on him to improve, but he's not the only one who needs to. What does Schwab say to those who are calling for Neeld's head? He says our goal is, despite the two games so far, to stick with Neeld and 'get around him'. He'll get support from everyone at the club.

McLardy on ABC (missed the start) McLardy says that Neeld and Craig have strong personalities. They're not going to be 'dominated' by Schwab. Schwab works with them to get our on-field performances right. Our past two weeks are unacceptable. But we have to keep it in perspective. Only those on the inside know what it's like truly. We have to wait to see how we go. What message will the club send to its members? What approach do we take? McLardy says the one thing we can't do is react to all the different comments. We have to believe in our process, however, we understand that there are problems. We had a calm discussion last night to talk about what we do this week. We know the media is going to come at us, we know heads will be called for. McLardy asks our supporters to trust that the club can handle serious issues; we've done it the last few years, and we need to do it again. We believe it that this is a football department issue, and as such, they will get the resources they need to make it better. We all know, players included, the players are underperforming. What answers have the football department given the Board for our malaise? McLardy says there isn't an answer; if there was, we'd have fixed it. We know we trained well over summer, but we're not seeing that on gameday. Whatever the answer is, we need to find it and fix it. Is Neeld's job guaranteed? McLardy says he hasn't even spoken to Neeld about his job. MFC has a history of knee-jerk reactions. Before McLardy took the job, he spoke to Frank Costa and others who have succeeded. They said that stability is crucial. We need stability to make progress. Radical change now is not good for the club. We need to see this through with calm and methodical processes.

You didn't answer the question. Again. The question - how does sacking Schwab and replacing him with a better CEO (even the best there is) make us play better?

So by replacing Schwab, we get better leadership. Which doesn't matter too much, according to you, because we also need a new Board and new coaches. If we were to replace Schwab and retain the current coaches, would we go anywhere? Conversely, if we were to keep Schwab but get a bunch of new coaches, would that work? I'm just curious as to how you think Schwab actually changes this, given you've noted your belief that our coaches are poor. Sum it up for me. One sentence. You're happy to write a sentence about apologists and heads in clouds, write me one sentence on how removing Schwab will make a difference.

OK. Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to put your (in my view, flawed) opinion in words. Unlike: See above.

Just posted this in the other media thread: Craig on SEN Staying together is part of the culture we're trying to develop. A winning culture is something all clubs try to develop. We live with Melbourne Storm; last year they lost five in a row but went on to win the flag. Not saying we're the same as them, but that it's possible, when you have a winning culture, to come back. We need to have that. We need to look for opportunities to grow. Craig agrees that it's fair for supporters to ask why we don't chase/tackle. Craig agrees that effort is basic enough and we don't show it. Says that what we do during training during the week isn't flowing over to gameday. We need to 'push forward' with a 'realistic optimism'. On letting cameras into the pre-game, Craig says we have a certain responsibility to the media to help promote the game. We have some experienced coaches, so we weren't putting them completely in a new situation. Media exposure of us is going to increase; by letting the cameras in, we're helping the players deal with it. Why did we revert to closed doors afterwards? Craig says we cop it for losing. Craig is asked about non-negotiables at the MFC. Do we have any? Craig says it's hard to look at the last two games and assess what we stand for. We need to get a combative effort, we need to have intensity and urgency. We see it during the week, but we don't see it during the game. Craig saw 'more than glimpses of it' during the NAB Cup. We can't move with gameplan/structures unless the competitive element is ingrained in our game, and until then, we go nowhere. Craig's then asked about leaders. At Adelaide, they had leadership. Why is Watts talking about no leaders when he should be a leader? Craig says 'let's leave Watts out of it', but Scott Lucas didn't like it, he should have accepted he needed to lift. Walls said Watts' comments were an insult to Nathan Jones, and that Jones should be the captain. He thinks Trengove is treading water. Walls said Jones always gives a crack so Watts' comments were an insult. Craig said that he read Watts' comments in print, did a double-take, and then went and looked at the video where he said them, and thought they were slightly out of context. Craig said Grimes was outstanding in Round 1, Jones was too, and last night, both Grimes and Jones stood up. We need to keep pushing more people to join those two. He believes Grimes and Jones are beginning to lead the way. Connolly said the current coaching group doesn't have the experience or personality to turn around our 50 years of inherently weak culture. Our fundamentally weak culture kills us. Craig responded by saying that he doesn't agree about our current coaches. Royal is experienced and has a 'strength of character'. Neeld comes from success at Collingwood, has a strong personality. Rawlings is the same. The others are a bit younger and are learning the trade. He says that changing the culture is a difficult exercise, but it's not impossible. How far away are we? Everyone thinks we're a million miles away, but where do we think we're at? Craig says that he can't put a time period on it. He doesn't know. What he says is that to change a culture we need strong people, in terms of leadership and playing ability. To our members, he says that our current playing group have a 'thirst to change their culture', they want to take this culture and change it to a successful one. He's been to the club this morning and he sees it. He sees it at training, he sees the work ethic, so he has the confidence that they're up for the fight and they can do it. Craig says once the fire gets going, it can all change, but we need to be up for the fight. What is the message being sent from above (e.g. Schwab and McLardy) to the football department? Craig says the message is that these performances aren't good enough. There is strong support from above to get us back to where we were back in the 'fantastic days'. Craig believes the Board and Management have dealt with a whole range of issues in a professional manner. The next stage of the club is to get the on-field aspects in order. Does the MFC have a strategy to make sure we get the strongest players? Our players seem to do things that you don't see at local football. Craig says mental strength is very important, we need it. We need highly competitive players, players who want to be leaders. He says 'we've got those players', though it's hard to prove that in the public arena with our actions not matching our words. Craig says he's seen it, 'make no mistake'. Jones and Grimes are examples he gives as players who are strong. What kind of support will Craig give to Neeld this week? Blowtorch is clearly going to be strong this week. Craig says that part of his role is to support Neeld in a whole range of ways. He needs to keep calm, not let his thinking get derailed, so Craig will give him whatever support he asks for. What's the thinking with our recruiting? Rodan and Pedersen dropped after one game. Walls was disappointed with our lineup - we give these new players one game, then we drop them. Craig says they were considered for selection. We can't let ourselves become a 'revolving door' in times like this. Each week we'll assess the group and make decisions based on that. Has Craig ever been associated with a club this bad before? Craig says no, these are uncharted waters for him. 'Exciting' isn't the right word, but it's challenging. He says 'I'd have it no other way'. He has to use all his skills in a tough environment in a tough town to make us better. He wants to be part of it. 'I'm in it, I'm in it for the long haul'. Does Craig have an interest in coaching an AFL side again? No, he says. I'm done. I'm enjoying my time at Melbourne, those days are done, I'm in this role now. What are we looking for next week, scoreboard aside? Craig says it's the non-negotiables; energy, intensity, urgency. These will let the rest unfold. We need to be demanding about this. If we're not there next week, we keep going and we keep demanding. Eventually, with this group, it'll come.

Craig on SEN Staying together is part of the culture we're trying to develop. A winning culture is something all clubs try to develop. We live with Melbourne Storm; last year they lost five in a row but went on to win the flag. Not saying we're the same as them, but that it's possible, when you have a winning culture, to come back. We need to have that. We need to look for opportunities to grow. Craig agrees that it's fair for supporters to ask why we don't chase/tackle. Craig agrees that effort is basic enough and we don't show it. Says that what we do during training during the week isn't flowing over to gameday. We need to 'push forward' with a 'realistic optimism'. On letting cameras into the pre-game, Craig says we have a certain responsibility to the media to help promote the game. We have some experienced coaches, so we weren't putting them completely in a new situation. Media exposure of us is going to increase; by letting the cameras in, we're helping the players deal with it. Why did we revert to closed doors afterwards? Craig says we cop it for losing. Craig is asked about non-negotiables at the MFC. Do we have any? Craig says it's hard to look at the last two games and assess what we stand for. We need to get a combative effort, we need to have intensity and urgency. We see it during the week, but we don't see it during the game. Craig saw 'more than glimpses of it' during the NAB Cup. We can't move with gameplan/structures unless the competitive element is ingrained in our game, and until then, we go nowhere. Craig's then asked about leaders. At Adelaide, they had leadership. Why is Watts talking about no leaders when he should be a leader? Craig says 'let's leave Watts out of it', but Scott Lucas didn't like it, he should have accepted he needed to lift. Walls said Watts' comments were an insult to Nathan Jones, and that Jones should be the captain. He thinks Trengove is treading water. Walls said Jones always gives a crack so Watts' comments were an insult. Craig said that he read Watts' comments in print, did a double-take, and then went and looked at the video where he said them, and thought they were slightly out of context. Craig said Grimes was outstanding in Round 1, Jones was too, and last night, both Grimes and Jones stood up. We need to keep pushing more people to join those two. He believes Grimes and Jones are beginning to lead the way. Connolly said the current coaching group doesn't have the experience or personality to turn around our 50 years of inherently weak culture. Our fundamentally weak culture kills us. Craig responded by saying that he doesn't agree about our current coaches. Royal is experienced and has a 'strength of character'. Neeld comes from success at Collingwood, has a strong personality. Rawlings is the same. The others are a bit younger and are learning the trade. He says that changing the culture is a difficult exercise, but it's not impossible. How far away are we? Everyone thinks we're a million miles away, but where do we think we're at? Craig says that he can't put a time period on it. He doesn't know. What he says is that to change a culture we need strong people, in terms of leadership and playing ability. To our members, he says that our current playing group have a 'thirst to change their culture', they want to take this culture and change it to a successful one. He's been to the club this morning and he sees it. He sees it at training, he sees the work ethic, so he has the confidence that they're up for the fight and they can do it. Craig says once the fire gets going, it can all change, but we need to be up for the fight. What is the message being sent from above (e.g. Schwab and McLardy) to the football department? Craig says the message is that these performances aren't good enough. There is strong support from above to get us back to where we were back in the 'fantastic days'. Craig believes the Board and Management have dealt with a whole range of issues in a professional manner. The next stage of the club is to get the on-field aspects in order. Does the MFC have a strategy to make sure we get the strongest players? Our players seem to do things that you don't see at local football. Craig says mental strength is very important, we need it. We need highly competitive players, players who want to be leaders. He says 'we've got those players', though it's hard to prove that in the public arena with our actions not matching our words. Craig says he's seen it, 'make no mistake'. Jones and Grimes are examples he gives as players who are strong. What kind of support will Craig give to Neeld this week? Blowtorch is clearly going to be strong this week. Craig says that part of his role is to support Neeld in a whole range of ways. He needs to keep calm, not let his thinking get derailed, so Craig will give him whatever support he asks for. What's the thinking with our recruiting? Rodan and Pedersen dropped after one game. Walls was disappointed with our lineup - we give these new players one game, then we drop them. Craig says they were considered for selection. We can't let ourselves become a 'revolving door' in times like this. Each week we'll assess the group and make decisions based on that. Has Craig ever been associated with a club this bad before? Craig says no, these are uncharted waters for him. 'Exciting' isn't the right word, but it's challenging. He says 'I'd have it no other way'. He has to use all his skills in a tough environment in a tough town to make us better. He wants to be part of it. 'I'm in it, I'm in it for the long haul'. Does Craig have an interest in coaching an AFL side again? No, he says. I'm done. I'm enjoying my time at Melbourne, those days are done, I'm in this role now. What are we looking for next week, scoreboard aside? Craig says it's the non-negotiables; energy, intensity, urgency. These will let the rest unfold. We need to be demanding about this. If we're not there next week, we keep going and we keep demanding. Eventually, with this group, it'll come.

So your view is that Schwab's presence at the club is causing the players to be angry/upset/whatever emotion, and as such, are playing with disdain or in some sort of rebellion against him? And that if we get rid of him, the players will effectively say 'Hallelujah' and return to playing proper football? I'm not trying to criticise your opinion (yet), I'm merely trying to understand what it is about us that drives people to call for Schwab's head.

If it's a starting point, then other things are to come, right? Like, for example, changes in the coaching staff? Or another overhaul of the list? You're not answering my question. With facts and actual answers, tell me how changing the CEO changes our on-field performances. Don't just say 'a good CEO clearly leads to a good team'. Tell me how that happens, and hence, tell me how we improve by sacking Schwab and replacing him with the ideal CEO.

I don't believe our players are as bad as our performances suggest. Clearly, our midfield is weak, but it shouldn't be this bad. The real issues, IMO, are the attitudes of the players, their confidence levels, our lack of leadership, and (to an unknown extent) some sort of rift between the coaches and players.

I'm interested in the view of those who think Schwab should go. Let's assume there is some hypothetical perfect CEO. Now, let's assume that we sack Schwab, and immediately hire this hypothetical perfect CEO. In this world, we literally could not have a better CEO. Now what? How does sacking Schwab and bringing in the best CEO there is/was/ever will be improve our on-field performance?

That's actually quite good of the club, to let us all know when/where to listen.

Honestly, his first half was appalling. Luke Darcy ripped into him on the commentary, and rightly so. Pointing to the hit outs column isn't enough. If you watch him ruck, you see that if he does indeed win the tap, it's just a meaningless hit down to the ground more often than not. He was ineffectual in stopping Ryder and Bellchambers from influencing the course of the clearances. Then, after the ruck, he gives us nothing, whilst Ryder and Bellchambers either link up through the middle, or go forward and kick goals. I'm beginning to wonder how much of our ineptitude in the middle comes from Jamar's lack of form. I'm not trying to exonerate our mids, but seriously, they're being dictated to by opposition ruckmen. Interested to know what others think - am I being harsh on the Russian? Or do others also seem to think he's dragging us down?

Wasn't close to as bad as some have made it out to be. I get a sense from listening to that, though, that he's trying his hardest to do the right things by the players. He understands the need to balance care with discipline, which is good, and he understands the pressures they're under. It's completely unfair to pin everything on Neeld, IMO. It's easy to turn his responses into excuses, but when he says he came in with his team and they had to fix our training, he's right. When he says our midfield is truly in development stages, he's right. Obviously, the buck stops with him, and he is currently the head of the worst coaching team in the AFL. His game-day coaching isn't good (it's actually awful), but right now it's not game-day tactical coaching that is hurting is. He could move players around, try new strategies, but that's not going to solve the bigger issues. Possibly the most interesting thing he said was how strong he was in saying Grimes and Trengove are the best leaders we have. He didn't say 'they're exceptional leaders', or anything like that. He simply said (and repeated, when questioned) that they're the best we have. A clear indication of his recognition that our list, as delivered to him, had no senior leadership in it.

From what I've seen of the first half, he was one of our best. I'm sure the entire 22 was pathetic for most of the second half, but Davey showed more than most in the first, so ease off him this week at least.

I'm in, and truth be told, so is everyone on this website. The reason we come on here, the reason we cry for sackings, the reason we whinge about beards, the reason we kick up a fuss about clash jumpers, is because we love this club. With all the emotion, anger, disappointment, embarrassment, and frustration, a response of 'I'm done, no more for me' isn't exactly unreasonable. But in those people's hearts, they're not going anywhere, and deep down, they don't mean what they say (and yes, I'm aware that there will be people who say 'No, this time it's for real'). Eventually, whether it's next week, next year, or next decade, something good will happen to this club, and the lot of us will be the most chuffed supporters you've ever seen for sticking through hell. For now, we're all still in.

It's a tough one. I haven't seen the second half, so I don't know exactly what happened tonight. If booing the team off the ground is the way you want to express your anger or disgust at the situation, then so be it. I have trouble with people saying it's unfair on the players or it's not going to help. I also don't think it's fair on the players or helpful for us to cheer them off or to politely clap them. I do understand that the supporters turning on the club now is the last thing we need, but to me, the booing as an outpouring of emotion shows that we do actually care, as a collective, and that we're genuinely upset. If the alternative is to do nothing, or worse, to support mediocrity, then I'm not sure I disagree with booing. I do disagree with verbal abuse or with calling specific players out when it's the team in general we're upset with, so those kinds of things are not on. I certainly disagree with opposition supporters sticking the boot in - seriously, enjoy your win, but otherwise you can f**k off.

No stress, Andy. We really only just lost more of the same. Yep. That's really on topic.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. He also said "there are roles that have to be played. There were a couple of cases where players knew exactly what their role was, and we saw none of it."

With Neeld telling us what's happening this week in his HUN interview today, let's focus our attention on filling the blanks. In: Trengove, McDonald, Terlich, one other Out: Dunn (purportedly injured. I disagree), three others. McDonald for Gillies?

The footage they showed on On the Couch last night of Frawley not chasing Westhoff in the first 10 minutes of the game was despicable. No defence to that.

On the one hand, I think it's a bit mean for them to single out Pedersen, Frawley and Nicholson for each of their pathetic attempts, when I'm sure all bar about 2 players did something similar. However. Frawley's 'chase' symbolises all that is wrong with our 'leaders'. I can only presume he thought the ball was going to go out of bounds, but even then, for him to see it didn't, and not put his head down and sprint, but just continue to amble, is absolutely, utterly, totally disgraceful. I'd drop him to Casey for that and that alone. It's far worse than Nicholson going the double fist (don't get me wrong, that effort was also terrible). If he doesn't want to try, he shouldn't play. Pedersen's squib was just sad, really. But you'd hope that he watches that back, and vows internally to never do it again. Might change him.

Amazing. So now, even a win is a bad thing.