old55

Schwab, McLardy and Neeld in a short time. Satyriconhome: "everything going fine"

Like when McLardy said on the club website that there would be no changes and Schwab was sacked the next day?

Messiah Jackson?

The fact that Neeld has got a few credits - Clark, Dawes, improved Jones etc, is the only thing that stops me from believing he actually came to the club intent on destroying it.

Neeld lost me in R1 2013. I know he lost many others a long time before that. And there's still a few true believers. I cut him plenty of rope to make us more fit and harden us up defensively and in the long run there would be pay-off. In year one when I saw horrible results I was willing to accept them as part of a plan I couldn't fully understand because I'm not on the inside. But when the horrible losses continued from R1 this year and they clearly weren't part of any internal or external plan and totally unexpected for Neeld, then he was gone. Since then he's been unable to turn it around at all - our few "good" results are at the bottom end of my, and I'm sure his, expected results, the rest of the are way off the left hand end of the chart: -10 goals to GC at home! He's not the only problem, things are never that simple, but he's a big problem.

There's a subtle but important difference between giving Neeld more time and giving the club more time before it sacks him.

You've been drinking Neeld's Kool-Aid. Contested possessions is his KPI v Freo 109-150 v Hawks 118 - 163 That's some new definition of "rather competitive"

Sub text????

better than him cutting your lunch ...

Nathan Jones' dog - President, Joyce Brown - coach and Tom Harley - Director of Football.

I'm tipping Bev back as Vice-Prez in a flash.

There has to be a definitive statement on Neeld's future at today's board meeting, either he's sacked or he's guaranteed until at least the end of the year when a review will be conducted. Anything else would be madness - although it is the MFC - Madness Football Club... As buck points out, I think people should consider the possibility that he's retained.

0 tackles - how is that possible?

It's quite possible - meltdown here if so.

No, I disagree, change is both important AND urgent.

Yes agree, the coaching plans are indivisible from the bigger FD re-structure. But I do agree with other posters that there's an urgency. What's Neeld's KPI going to be this week? "Most of the selected 22 players turn up with their gear"?

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.