old55

Ironically Neil Craig would be high on everyone's list of potential experienced coaches if he wasn't already at the club and possibly part of the problem. He has said he doesn't want to coach again It's hard to tell how much of the coaching problem (yes there are other problems) is down to Mark Neeld and how much is down to the Neeld-Craig combination. Craig has been extremely loyal to Neeld but that's what I'd expect as part of his nature and ethics. Those on the inside, i.e. Peter Jackson should be able to work out Craig's ongoing value. I think we're not necessarily restricted to going for an experienced coach - if we think Craig has ongoing value independent of Neeld then a set-up like Essendon with a GOOD young coach and senior assistant (Craig in our case) could work. This would put Richardson / Bassett / Tudor / Burns in the frame in partnership with Craig. We'd still be looking for a new Head of Football from outside the club. Alternatively if we do land an experienced coach like Roos, Eade or Choco then where do Craig and Viney fit in? Hopefully one of them is a candidate for Head of Football. The financial implications caanot be ignored.

More likely Fibonacci series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 ...

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-05-23/combative-football-our-focus-neeld Contested Possession 109 to 150

Quite clearly said "didn't know and should have known". Known what? Is still the big question. He's absolved himself of any hint of drug cheating. He's admitted to mismanagement.

Neeld is clinging to inexperience like a drowning man to flotsam and it is a legitimate reason for inconsistent performance. He's focussing on games inexperience which is fair enough but that's not the entire story of our list. We've got a lot of players who for injury or late start reasons have less games than players their age would have. These players should be more mentally and physically mature and should be able to play at consistent AFL level faster than say Jimmy Toumpas. Players like Strauss, Blease, Pedersen, Magner, Nicholson, Gillies, Sellar, Grimes, Evans, Tapscott, Gawn, Howe, Jetta, Spencer, Bail, M.Jones, Terlich have all played less than their age allows - they drag the games average down, while they do have greater maturity. We should be able to improve quickly.

Sat, your position that there are no real problems at the club is inconsistent with our results, what PJ said and the significant changes that are inevitably coming.

The season is too long. I'd like an 18 round season with one match against each of the other teams and one "derby/traditional rivals". The versus each team could rotate H&A venue year on year and if the team is playing say WC away then get Freo at home. There could be 2 byes with 6 matches a week like there currently is for the single bye. The final 8 is enough - I realise that only gives 24 weeks of football, results in less TV revenue and doesn't help the fight against RL early start - but I do think there's a glut of meaningless matches. I got turned off cricket for that reason. I used to live in the US and the 16 week NFL regular season had me hungering for the football season - I realise that the winter weather is a factor there. When I arrived I in the US liked baseball more than football but the absolute glut of baseball turned me off it too, but I left with an enduring love of NFL. Less is more. That or two divisions with promotion and relegation (two finals series), which I think is the real answer to a fair and full fixture (play each team in your divison twice and in the other divison once) and retaining interest - but I realise this is a bridge too far for most people.

There was no point elevating him until they were going to actually select him. He could have played last week, I agree. I suspect he has been elevated now in response to Sylvia's suspension in the recognition that we need another bigger body after being brushed aside by the intimidating Suns last week.

I'm not simply angry and demanding change - I've simply come to the conclusion that Neeld is not the coach to lead us out of the problems we're facing, in fact he's a contributing cause. I'm quite sanguine about it (as RPFC said - in both senses) - it's a big ask and he's just not up to it. I agree we're in a diabolical state and it's definitely not all of Neeld's making but he's not helping, he's contributing to diabolo.

Sorry, you and Mark Neeld may be willing to reassess expectations to 25 goal defeats and 10 goal loss to GCS at home but I'm not.

I see you've jumped on "acceptable" and dodged "expected". I'll give you one fact - the most salient fact - that these results should not be expected or accepted. The coach himself didn't expect them. "Didn't see that coming" - then what's been his response since then - not to actually remedy the situation and have the team play to expectations - it's been to lower expectations - "we're less experienced than GC". Take a look at Port Adelaide - they lost important players Pearce, Chaplin and McCarthy over summer, but they replaced their failing coach and president and they're showing signifcant improvement. Their leadership group is Boak, Ebert, Schulz, Gray, Hartlett and Trengove. Yes it's not ALL Neeld's fault - we've got a poor midfield, major management problems and some unavoidable misfortune. But he hasn't delivered on his OWN expectations.

His message hasn't changed ...

It's about expectation - I don't expect us to be playing finals with our current list, but we SHOULD NOT be being beaten by 25 goals by Essendon or losing to GCS by 10 goals at home. We're not delivering that performance because the players are "feuding" with the coach - it's because the coach is a rolled-gold DUD and unfortunately as I posted on another thread the players have drunk his Kool Aid that they're no good, unfit and can't follow his instructions. We better not be delivering these same results this time next year - how anyone can think they're expected or acceptable is mind-boggling!

I don't think that's right - Jack Grimes, Nathan Jones, Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes, Colin Garland, James Frawley, Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Shannon Byrnes - there's nothing wrong with that leadership group per se. The problem is the current coach is not up to it. If John Longmire, Ross Lyon or Alistair Clarkson was running the show there'd be markedly different results.

The players have been drinking Neeld's Kool Aid that they're no good, unfit, too inexperienced, can't carry out instructions and have therefore been delivering on his message. One day they're gonna wake up from the nightmare and wonder how they got where they are.

I was there - BB's report is accurate and confirmed by Tricky. Jackson was very impressive - connected well with a simmeringly hostile audience and I really felt like he was already one of us. Howcroft was completely the reverse, aloof and extremely disappointing - for someone who is in the communication business, well all I can say is his performance mirrored our on-field performance.

I'll be totally amazed if we get a first round PP. We've wasted previous drafting opportunities and we need to show we've got our house in order.

What are they going to be doing - we've got Harrington in LM, Taylor in recruiting and Misson in fitness and conditioning - I can see a strong argument there's a new HFO and NEITHER of them are required let alone both of them.

I think the coach has to report to Head of Football Operations and just ONE footbal report to the CEO. IMO there's no way there can be a new HFO, Craig and Viney at the club - one of them has to become HFO if they're both going to stay.

Neeld is dead man walking and has been since R1 IMO. His departure will need to be aligned with the changes Jackson wants to make to the overall FD structure. He said yesterday that he has 4 FD people reporting to the CEO effectively making the CEO head of football - IMO those 4 must be Neeld, Craig, Mahoney and Viney. He quite clearly said he needs a strong experienced Head of Football Operations like Geelong (Balme), Hawthorn (Evans until recently) and Collingwood (Eade) - that's not Mahoney and I'm not sure if Jackson knows yet whether it can be Craig or Viney. When Neeld goes whoever takes over as caretaker will be decided in the context of the decisions regarding the FD structure as a whole. Craig, Viney and probably Rawlings are the caretaker alternatives IMO. If say Craig or Viney took over as HFO then they obviously can't be caretaker - I'm not in any way saying that's what will happen - maybe Jackson is looking outside - but if he is then more than just Neeld will have to go. Who wants the poisoned chalice of taking over with our next 4 opponents lined up - but we may have no choice but to act swiftly. It's ugly.

I like your posting Ron, but what's the evidence for this?

First of all Neeld "didn't see that coming" now he's reverted to running up the white flag and playing the youth card which existed when he couldn't see it coming. He's got no real explanation for what's going wrong but I have. Yes there is inexperience and lack of talent in the midfield and apparently they're fatal but the coach didn't realise this pre-season, it's only dawned on him now and he's clinging to it like an upturned lifeboat in a storm.

I honestly thought that was a joke post - but he actually said that??? Holy [censored]!!!

I've seen this "(because) we are still losing" posted by a number of the "stay the course" advocates. My concern is not that we are still losing - I fully expected us to be losing more than we're winning but I didn't expect us to be pantsed by PA, murdered, buried, dug up, poisoned, drowned and set fire to by Essendon, mangled by out of form West Coast, struggle for 3 quarters against GWS, and lose convincingly to totally horrible Brisbane. The GWS and Carlton results are the only ones that I can say fell with in my expected range of outcomes and they were at the very bottom of my expectations - but have been at the very top of our achievements. What I expected doesn't mean a jot, but what the FD expected does and I reckon they expected pretty much the same as me. They were wrong!