old55

Melbourne Storm say hi

I'd have no hesitation when he's being unreasonable - but in this case his position is completely understandable.

If we thought he'd bring leadership and a good training ethic then he'd be worth considering.

Schwab's got a vision for the club with the Red and Blueprint and it's based on our heritage as the games founders - the emblem, the blazers etc - they fit this plan - he's trying to capitalise on our differentiating features. This should help distinguish us for sponsors. What's the alternative "iMelbourne"? Supporters are just as vital and appealing to younger supporters is a challenge - we've got the work out at Casey in this area. The key ingredient is winning. The fracture in the club last year appears to have been Schwab v Bailey and not managed very effectively by the Board. But if you believe in Neeld's appointment and methods then Schwab was right. Right about what we need to be succesful on the field.

It's perfectly understandable that the Pies don't want Taylor crossing to MFC ahead of this draft. This is an area where current intellectual property is key - Taylor will already have access to all Collingwood's IP on this year's draft - and would bring that with him to Melbourne. That's way more valuable even than assistant coaches bringing gameplan knowledge. Over Eddie's dead body will he be with us before draft day.

They were 2 specific examples of what happens in every game Watts plays. There is a problem and that can be acknowledged or denied - it doesn't really matter what us nuff-nuffs think, what matters is whether Jack acknowledges it because that's the first step to fixing it - hopefully he's got that far. He'll never be a KPF but to realise his potential he has to make a significant improvement in this area. It won't come by osmosis, it has to come by will. There may need to be some catalysing event.

Watts won some contested football at ground level which was encouraging and his handball was very creative in tight. But there's no getting away from the fact that he doesn't attack the ball in the air - he needed to move forward and jump at the Robinson ball in the 3rd quarter and he needed to fly for the mark in the exact same spot but in the forward line in the last quarter - he had the sit at 180 degress to the direction of the ball where the other 3 players were flew at angles. It's simply just not good enough.

and the flipside of this?

I'm unconvinced that David Matthews will authorise that - I reckon they'll be playing to win.

I'm eyeing this match with more trepidation than I have for as long as I can remember, the outcome is uncertain and the consequences of a loss are unpredictable.

I'd rather go to jail than watch TFS, but he said that did he? - that he never talked to Mick Malthouse during MFC's coach hiring process - and then he hired Mick's right hand man. OK.

I think that's what you're seeing - how much more drastic do you want? "We need big changes to ever be successfull!!!" "Oooh I don't like those changes, the pain, the pain ..."

worthless thread - take it to the Locker Room Farce and I'll delete your posts there as required

you give conspiracy theorists a bad name

Yes, I would have preferred that Garry helped Jim find someone better qualified and more suitable.

Mark Maclure is a dinosaur, but he made an incisive observation when he pointed out that Garry had no place questioning Mark Neeld starting the captains on the bench against Geelong when he had appointed him as coach. So typical of all the issues I have about Garry's involvement in club business.

Ironic that Garry appointed Mark Neeld to clean up these antics.

I reckon it went something like this ... Garry spoke to Mick when the Pies were absolutely towelling everyone up last season possibly to see whether he'd take the job. Mick said he wouldn't be coaching in 2012 but gave a roaring endorsement to Neeld. The coaching selection panel pushed forward on that basis. As RB points out - many of the best hires come from reliable recommendations. If that's the way it panned out it's flawed because it didn't canvas all the options and that's a worry. But it doesn't mean we got the wrong guy. It is very possible that what's happening right now, although unforeseen, is exactly what this club needs to happen to be successful. There's a certain irony about "Dollars" appointment of Mark Neeld and the path we've now gone down with player behaviour and attitudes.

Where does the MFC player culture of selfishness and smug self-satisfaction with modest achievements trace back to?

Yes, I'm not sure where the bad rap for Mark Jamar is coming from - he's been rucking well, is in the leadership group (contrary to Caro's article), performed well of the Game Plan and strongly indicated he wants to sign with the club.

wowee-wee-wow!

STOP PRESS!!! Neeld excludes poorly performing leaders from leadership group, makes them train harder than they ever have and requires them to follow strict team rules that a new to them in 10+ years of playing and they crack the sh1ts and don't give 100% on game day. Thank your local deity - you've finally cracked the code for us all.

Which post is that - I read Ron's post: and can't see anything in there to support your claim Maybe you and Ron had some PM traffic that's confusing you?