rpfc

I would argue that if he were to act professionally and respectfully then he will not act promptly.

With all due respect, stmj, you have added a great deal more to what I said was pretty simple. I don't disagree with your diagnosis or your remedy. But it is not as simple as getting kids in - which is what I said was too simple - and getting Roos, Prestia, Cooney, 23-25 year old mids, and the best talent in the draft is pretty difficult and complicated. I agree we would ahve a core of players to build around but recruiting should be done on a case by case basis and a respect for the type of character you want your playing group to reflect. I want them to be as aggressive as Viney, but I also want them to be as dedicated and driven as McKenzie. Recruitment and list management is not a science - there are no hard and fast rules. We need to evaluate what we lack (other than talent) and attempt to remedy that. Your remedy is close to that but from your list: 6 are teenagers, and from those older than 20 only Jones, Grimes, and Trengove play in the midfield. We cannot just clear out these bodies, unless you direct replacements, and you certainly can't clear out these bigger bodies for kids. A midfield of Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Viney, Barry, Kent, Toumpas, Taggert, and whatever good kids we get is going to get hammered. Unless we can get suitable replacements for M.Jones, McKenzie, Bail, Magner, Evans (20 btw again), and Sylvia they are going to be sticking around.

I don't take much notice of the match reports on here...I am alluding to the lumping of Byrnes and Rodan and Gillies into some outward failure of recruitment under Neeld. Dawes was in this milleu up until he started playing. It is not fair to any of those individuals, to Neeld, and, especially, to the 28 year old small forward we got for very little in the summer. He has not set the forward line alight but he has been a solid player for the opportunities he has been given.

I'm sorry, what? How did we get there? I really hope many are not fooled by what they see in the rearview mirror.

Bailey used to talk about that. It used to infuriate many on here. Neeld can talk about what he likes, it's what we do on the field that will determine his fate. If he thinks that mentioning our inexperience will somehow get the players to spark some form then good for him. It's his job and his decision.

Or we can have a more nuanced discussion about how many games Jones and Magner need to be considered in the 'prime' as AFL footballers. Because that is what he is alluding to - when players can be expected to be able to play their best consistently. When we talk about AFL players reaching their prime we use arbitrary numbers of games and years played to reach physical maturity but also maturity when it comes to decision making, skills execution, and performing under pressure. So a better measurement would be one for the teenagers that are drafted (IMO: 4 years in system and 70+ games played) and a sliding scale for the mature age players that are picked up: Picked up at: 20 - 3 years and 60+ games 21 - 3 years and 50+ games 22 - 2 years and 40+ games 23 - 2 years and 30+ games 24 - 1 year and 20+ games 25 - 1 year and 10+ games How is that? And would the the bulk of supporter go cross-eyed if Neeld started talking about that the fact that the even this sliding scale has not been met by many of the players we have.

No, they are not correct. I have little idea of what they have provided inhouse but Byrnes should not have to fight through the mud slung at all the 'duds' we got in the off season. Byrnes was 'noticeable' because we are a bad team playing other bad teams. He is a forward pocket and while you say that is an excuse it isn't. Playing forward pocket is the a most thankless task - commonly asked to operate in space the size of a phonebooth and contribute with minimal touches of the footy. Sometimes simply helping to keep the ball in the forward line through pressure and tackling is all a forward pocket can do. We have a great many players who have contributed 'nothing' but the time spent talking about these new players is out of balance to their importance to our form. A back up tall defender, a small forward, and a rotational 'leadership guy' were never going to solve our issues and yet we waste so much energy deriding them.

Byrnes, Rodan, and Gillies have all borne the brunt of people looking for easy answers to our issues. You haven't noticed this?

Again, Davey remains one of the few who can kick straight and in form he is more use behind the ball and Jetta... Jetta is not a small forward. I think I have typed that about 100 times on here. Byrnes is our best option at small forward and he is value when we can get it down there - oddly enough when we play against the poorer sides. I refuse to let him be a scapegoat on here for our issues.

He is our only small forward on the list. Many want Davey forward while others talk wistfully about him being behind the ball... Byrnes is a small forward in a team that struggles to get the ball forward. I have been impressed with what he has done and he will slot straight back in when he is right.

Sorry, GNF. You have not convinced me that getting rid of Neeld now is better than in August. I still maintain it would be worse. Especially with the spectre of Roos hovering over the caretaker. I don't think Roos will come but his shadow will stay until he rebuffs us out of season. An audition is laughable. It's an audition if you can win games and turn around our fortunes in a matter of weeks. And you surely don't think that is a possibility here do you? A caretaker is a waste of time - that is my primary point and without sounding arrogant or dismissive - I think that Jackson, in charge for all of 20 days, would agree with me that for the nex three months it is Neelds job to save.

Neeld is the coach - for good or bad. having 4 months of caretaker means you take the fear of having a 'lame duck' coach and merely confirm it. I am intrigued to see how this group goes in the next three months. I know they are not going to win many games but there are about 15 players playing for their careers and I would prefer they do it with a coach that is a chance to be coaching them next year. Craig, Viney, or Rawlings as caretaker is a waste for 5 games. If we are doing it for 12 games it becomes nuclear waste. No, I don't think that yesterday will save Neeld, but effort like that for the next 4 months will give him a chance. He is not a cancer and he is not cause of our off-field issues (he is only subjected to them and suffering from them). Agian, we have the bulk of the list we had before Neeld got here and ALL the good young players that are the future. Most are playing without confidence and without a midfield. Neeld will own their lack of confidence and their effort - but I won't put our midfield at his shoes and that is why we are at where we are at.

lol Does no-one else make the logical leap with our forward, midfield, and back lines that I do - we don't have many good midfielders? But, no, it's Royal. Dawes, Clark, Gawn and Howe are handy forwards to work with. McDonald, Garland, Frawley, and Terlich are very capable backs. Nathan Jones has Matt Jones, some good kids, and the cast of Space Jam to help him.

It is not as simple as that. I want good kids too in our midfield but with Viney, Toumpas, Kent, and the inexperience of Jones, Evans (he is 20 stmj and the equal of many promising 20 year olds at clubs people respect) how many kids can we put in there? We have shown that overloading with youth is terrible for a club with an already battered culture. We need to get some more talented youth but don't tell me that they shouldn't have to earn their games (because that is the inference) or that we shouldn't waste time with anyone older than 22. Jones was 25 when we got him, Terlich was 23 - on the small amount of evidence available they are worth their place and are earning their place.

I bet they are embarrassed by where our club is at and want to do better - whoever the coach is. Would you allow such an attitude to a coach you like?

Excuse me? So we are throwing 23 years of irrelevance on that fateful decision on Smith. And nothing unrelated to that or since then has had more repercussions than hiring Neeld? Talk about hyperbole. Our issue isn't the one obvious decision that we screw up - it's the death by a thousand cuts that we have chosen since 65. We stayed at the Junction too long. We didn't move into Olympic before Collingwood when we could. We allowed ourselves to be run like the other amateur clubs aligned with the MCC, we went over the salary cap and got hit with penalties that led to our cliff falling in 2007, we went into debt, we fired a CEO then the coach and kept the CEO - all in the same day, we let go of James McDonald, we have spent picks on players for little return in 2007, 8, 9, and 10. This malaise meant that we were the last club to get decent facilities, we have an small, ageing supporter base, we have a dearth of good players 25 - 29 that we drafted, we have a number of kids that have not made it because they were never up to it, and had a administration that has been all over the place and is now being run by an AFL-assisted appointee. Neeld doesn't get a look in as a cause of our troubles. The players have a lack of confidence in each other and themselves, and our drafting and trading has had mixed results. These are hardly debilitating or unrectifiable. Neeld needs another three months of what we showed yesterday to keep his job, but don't tell me he is the reason for all our ills. If the club could kick the backside of those that are to blame for its issues - it would have a very sore behind.

Beats me. But the players playing the next three months like they did yesterday will save his job so maybe he thinks they will respond to it. It would get a reaction out of me as a player that's for sure...

Working 'defensively' doesn't just mean tackling. If he pushes back when we don't have the footy and sticks to his man then his bloke won't get it for him to tackle... I am not saying that he shouldn't tackle more - I am just saying that one stat doesn't prove much and that working defenisvely is whole of team issue.

The ridiculousness of this thread is not that the players 'spin' with what they say. The ridiculousness comes from the desire to see anything other than 'spin.' The players should never be expected to have their day-to-day feelings on the coach, club, and each other in the public sphere without a filter. It's the one thing that they have done consistently this season - they have outwardly admonished themselves and backed the coach and the club. You don't want it any other way and when we change coaches they will effectively say "the king is dead, long live the king" - they will move on to the next coach to outwardly support. You don't want it any other way. And those looking for hidden messages from players as to their true feelings on club direction - whether in support or lack thereof - you look foolish and you are being counter productive. I can see there are issues because of what we have thrown up (so to speak) this season. There is no spinning that.

No, no, the players are backing up what I say!!!1! The players don't take sides and back whoever is in charge. As they should for the sake of the club. Their opinions are not public and when should NEVER try to get them out into that sphere. I would say that that is the only fracturing crisis we haven't had in the last 2 years...

Yeah, I seem to be able to keep going from my terrible trading... Although the Riewoldt, Danger Mouse, and Ziebell for Redden, Thompson, and Walker did give me a massive upgrade on Ziebell and an elite tackler and kicker... I guess we will see how that trade goes later in the season. It's funny though, I have only one keeper from last year remaining and traded out my first 2 picks in the draft. Only Le Cras, Garlett, Armitage, and O'Keefe remain from my draft that play in the 12 starting positions... So 4 from the draft, 1 keeper, 3 traded players, and 4 FAs.

Well might you ask that. Stuie thinks that anyone who disagrees with him loves Neeld. So I guess we are all Neeld fans at times...

My view is that you should try and get blokes that are good at both (duh, obviously) but training hardness at AFL level is painful to watch. The good kicks out there that need toughness can find it at Casey and we put up with the clangers. Attack on the footy is more essential to playing footy than great disposal. Without the former, you don't have the latter.

Stuie - you are having an argument with about 5 people on here. If things continue the way they are Neeld will be gone. You continually pointing out the obvious is not doing anything for this place. Am I a Neeld defender because I would prefer his dismissal come later in the season? Because I think that is where a number of posters are at right now.

Yeah, the tagger and the half back flank with the terrible kick. Yeah, THAT is why we are bad...