Chook

So Mark Neeld's position as coach was undermined from day one? If everyone thought Ross Lyon was to be the coach and instead some relative unknown was brought in, surely the players were less receptive to the unexpected coach's instructions than they would have otherwise been. Maybe that's part of the reason why we've been so slow to adapt to Mark Neeld's ideas.

From those clips, it appears that Aaron Davey could still be a real part of our plans. He featured in both of those goals, and not just as a crumber.

How the heck is LeCras not a small forward? I mean, he's small and he plays in the forward line. QED.

What's up Greg Denham's bum? His brain.

Are you kidding? He couldn't even finish that Walk-a-thon!

I agree with you on the first one, but I disagree on the second one. There's no evidence to suggest Melbourne would be better off if Jack Trengove weren't captain. He himself might feel less pressure, but I'm certain that many aspects of his performance and character have improved markedly from the increased responsibility. Besides, we all know who the real captain is: Jack Grimes.

How dare he make our pin-up boy earn his spot! Dean Bailey would have never done that!

You are Kramer aren't you?

Go out and run a marathon tomorrow then. You'll find that you can't, no matter how much you want to. These people are physical constructs acting according to the laws of nature. Just deciding to be a good AFL player isn't enough. They need time to develop their bodies so that they can compete. Call it an excuse if you want, but don't discount the value of consistent training.

Next year.

I don't think flooding would necessarily help. Our guys more, than any I've ever seen, just guard grass. I reckon any decent team would be able to just pinpoint their players amongst the sea of flat-footed Melbourne players.

I'm trying to decipher this sentence, but I just can't do it. Do you mind explaining it to me?

Really well put together. I have been thinking this about Carlton for weeks now, and I hadn't considered that it applied equally to us too. So should Mark Neeld change his gameplan or try to change his players instead?

"Up there?" I think someone needs a map.

I've got another one for you: “. . .and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.” ― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

So you're using his response to being accosted by a journalist as a guide to how he behaves towards his players? Isn't that a bit of a leap?

Errors of the Bailey era all of them. Can you blame Neeld for trying to rid us of them?

It was about the time Brad Miller played his one and only good game for the Dees.

Agree on Jamar, but Davey's been surprisingly good in his two games this year. We just need to expect a lot less of him these days.

I said "uncontested possession count". Our contested ball kept us in the game and was a sign of our (comparatively) great desperation for at least the first half of the game.

Again, you're confusing poor performance now with eternal poor performance. We cannot slip into the trap of giving our coaches too little time to implement their strategies. Dean Bailey had three years, and that was enough to see that he wasn't right for the job. Mark Neeld has had half that time, and while I agree his time is running out, it has not yet come. Of course our second half was beyond rubbish. But don't lay the blame for that at Mark Neeld's feet. Our young and extremely low-confidence side was smashed by one of the best teams in the game. Last week was all sorts of shite, and so was the week before. I agree that Neeld is partly to blame for that, and if we continue to dish those performances out every week, he'll surely go the way of Dean Bailey. Just give the man another year to turn over the list a little more and bring in players who will do what they're told for an entire game. Players who won't run out of steam and drop their heads the moment things go bad.

That's an opinion, not an argument. You content that he's made it worse. I contend that he's made it better. Clark, Viney, Hogan (who unfortunately can't play this year), Matt Jones, and a few others have come on board since Dean Bailey's reign of error - not to mention Chris Dawes who may or may not significantly improve our structure and onfield performance. We need to give the coach the time to implement his vision. Calling it quits after 18 months is a surefire way to lock us into a cycle of mistrust and revolving door administration that will well and truly sink this club.

West Coast players were walking through our tackles because we're not strong enough for long enough to stick them. That's why our tackle stats are so low, and that's why we lose the uncontested possession count week after week.

That's because our players aren't very good. They can't apply pressure because they don't have the fitness and intelligence to go to the man with the ball before the man with the ball gives it to someone else. This can only be rectified by bringing in PLAYERS who do have the intensity and physical fitness to stick to structures and zone off when needed.

I was just responding to your equally shallow argument of "Has to go."