Whispering_Jack

You won't get an argument from me but that would happen anyway if our performances are as putrid as they have been this year. The argument will always be that we (and other clubs affected) are entitled to concessions if they force us into crap fixtures and the AFL acknowledges that anyway. The best way to ensure better fixtures is improved performance. I have no idea whether Neil Craig can deliver that in 2013 but I'm convinced that we will have a better chance if we have a new coach with the necessary experience and credentials. I agree Bailey's sacking was handled poorly by the board (as did Bailey and the football department with their handling of players before that) and while I really feel for Neeld and think it was regrettable that he had to go, I don't believe the club had any option whatsoever. To his credit, Neeld handled himself with dignity and the board or the AFL (whoever one thinks is really running the place ATM) did as good a job as they could in the circumstances.

Latest news is that the AFL is relocating the St. Kilda v Melbourne game to the Melbourne Remand Centre recreation area to accomodate all players.

In summary, I agree that he was called upon to undertake a monumental task in relation to cultural changes within the playing group and changing the way they play and their defensive mindset but he also had to coach the players he had to play better football on a weekly basis. He wasn't achieving that and they decided he had to go. I'm not sure what financial arrangements Jackson is getting from the AFL and what Neeld's pay out was but from the sound of it it's not "we" who are paying the 600k or whatever out of "our pockets'. It's the AFL that's shelling that money out and that's why I'm not as mad about things as you are.

I haven't caught up with OTC but if the programme follows its standard formula (a la James Hird a few years ago) then the panel has a good conversation filler for every second show for the remainder of the season. I could write the script now.

Wrong thread.Please go to the No T$ No BS thread. The dancing banana rightfully belongs there.

I reflect back on an interview Jack Trengove gave on The Sunday Footy Show a few weeks back when he showed great maturity beyond his years and then compare him with Beamer who isn't the sharpest tool in the woodshed or anywhere else. What was he thinking? I'm sure that Michael Voss will have a few words with him over this as well.

Not long ago the "experts" and the "naysayers" were also saying that nobody would want to take the CEO's job and suddenly Peter Jackson emerged with enthusiasm about "taking on the challenge". The same will happen with the coach's job for precisely the same reason. It will be well paid and a challenge that those who are brave enough will dare to take on. As far as Roos is concerned however, the issue is not so much one of taking on the challenge but rather, the wife and family. Heard she's not keen on a move to Melbourne (the city) for personal reasons and that she will therefore prevail. The scenario should make for some interesting but contrived discussion on On the Couch in the coming months.

If Neeld were Malthouse, I doubt that he would have been sacked because the team would have performed better. Contrary to what has been expressed by some above, Neeld was not sacked because he carried out the job description that he was given. Nor did Bailey get the sack because he did what he was told and managed his team to less than five wins in 2009. He was sacked two years later because he had serious limitations as a coach. Neeld went because his match day tactics and strategies were complete fails and, in particular, he lacked the flexibility to adapt his game plan to affect the ebb and flow of a game. On the other hand, his old mentor Malthouse is savvy enough to understand the destructive nature of morale sapping blowout defeats and is prepared therefore to ring in changes during a game to turn things around. An example was the round 1 game against Richmond. Carlton trailled by 38 points at half time when Malthouse reorganised his team, went man on man and nearly pulled the game out of the fire. He said after the game that although he compromised his game plan, he would still revert to a more defensive style in the following round. With the exception of the GWS game when the Giants completely lost their run and folded after ¾ time, I saw little signs from Neeld of his capacity to make game changing moves when necessary. Ultimately, both Bailey and Neeld went, mainly because they were not good coaches. I hope now its going to be a case of third time lucky but this playing group is definitely going to need a seasoned, experienced coach who know what he's doing.

Left field replacement for Warner in the squad = Michael Klinger who is in England playing county cricket. A little while ago he scored back to back to tons. Also is a Demon supporter which makes him a chance

Me too. On a personal level, it's a tragedy but, reluctantly, it's something that had to be done.

Glad to see that you've woken up mjt. I've been trying to steer this thread onto the positive path where we should be going in the post McLardy (and now post Neeld) era but as you can see, we're being held back even here by some negative forces that delight in hijacking threads. I agree Nasher, this is getting tedious. Would you like to pull the plug or will I?.

Not even close to answering the question asked which was: You've even found one that mentions Szondy so you're a big fail based on your own criteria. When you go back to the reeducation camp try the course on reading and comprehension. It might help.

Stands to reason that if the club has been promised financial support from the AFL and they believe he must be replaced then it should be done sooner rather than later. Tough gig for Peter Spargo in virtually his first day in office as acting President to sack a coach.

Nice change of direction but you haven't answered my question because you can't.And in bringing up the coming federal election (which doesn't surprise me) you've highlighted exactly what's wrong with the type of political discourse you and the others are engaging in and which I've been so critical. When I decide who gets my vote it will be for the party that has the most practical vision for the future and not anyone who's so blinkered in their thinking that they must look at the past failings of others to explain themselves.

Reading your posts suggests you have an obsession with Gardner. Are you able to point to one post on the site where anyone (other than yourself) has claimed that everything is Gardner's fault? You sound familiar too. Ever been to an Atheneum Club Melbourne supporters lunch?

You've missed my point entirely. For some, it was all about petty, partisan football club politics from day one. One group gets marched out of office, some with their friends choose to oppose the incumbents with every breath and five years down the track when the new lot falter, "we waz right"; "we told you so", never mind that they were no more than half right at best. The trouble is that this has been going on for decades at the MFC and we really need to rise above that sort of thing. And no, I'm not "feeling hard done by" over the politics and I never said so. If you actually read what I said, its that it's counterproductive to the club's cause to waste time engaging in that debate at this point in time. "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." There will be a much better time to judge what went on from a historical point of view and that's in the future when the emotion's been spent. Peter Jackson has the reins now. He recently made it clear that, while he found areas where the club was not functioning properly, contrary to those who hold to your brand of "prevailing orthodoxy", the club is not a basket case. Whilst I'm not putting blind faith into this one person, it's him and not the doomsayers and those who want to engage in witch hunts, who's charged with running the place and getting it to move forward. We should be thankful for that.

Absolutely sums up your debating style and in the words of TimD, "I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you." and in the words of Bob "water under the bridge." But you blokes are never wrong, the divisive culture that pervades our club appeared suddenly out of the blue when the Gardner board left office and we were premiership contenders when Neeld was appointed coach. Your kool aid appears to be stronger than mine.

The Vic Metro v SA clash in a fortnight's time looms as the decider. At this stage, assuming we stay where we are on the ladder, Dunstan looms as a strong possibility to be picked by Melbourne at the draft. Dunstan, Scharenberg dominant in SA's win over Vic Country SOUTH AUSTRALIA 4.3.27 6.8.44 9.10.64 11.13 (79) VICTORIA COUNTRY 1.1.7 3.4.22 6.4.40 6.9 (45) GOALKICKERS South Australia: Harvey 4, Fantasia 2, Knight, Spina, Dumont, Reynolds, Hourigan Vic Country: Willsmore, McCartney 2, Saunders, McCartin BEST South Australia: Dunstan, Scharenberg, Knight, Pitt, Combe, Battersby, Durdin, Spina. Vic Country: Hartung, Fort, Gardiner, Holman, Jones, Herbert.

What's this Hazy? You and Bob taking up tag team wresting or something? I'm relieved to know that you agree with everything I say. Your next lesson in reeducation camp is to take note of what TimD has to say about snide sarcasm. It's a pithy form of humour and you don't do it very well. Never mind. Once the reeducation thing sinks in you'll find it easy to get the occasional laugh.

Bob, let's just say that we beg to differ on many things and in particular, just about all I've said above. I don't know why you brought up "the faceless men" issue. I didn't mention it in my post although I understand that it bothers a lot of people. Most in that category aren't "faceless" anyway - it's something you and others have coined and is quite a separate matter from the one that's at hand. And if you're suggesting that Redleg's posting is honest and mine is not then you really do have comprehension issues.

And one thing you haven't learned is to read people's posts before responding to them.

I was at an amateurs game yesterday and met a Melbourne supporter who was laying into Mark Neeld and blaming him for every ill under the sun including the "disgraceful decision he made to sack Junior McDonald". Unfortunately, that is exactly what passes for debate among many here. I wrote previously that in the main, the history of war is written by the winners and so today, those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly having made fools of people. But if you truly support the club, that's reminiscent of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned. It's still a matter of opinion as to how good or bad the board has been overall. I think it's undeniable that it inherited a financially stricken club with a decaying player list brought about by years of poor coaching, woeful development and diabolical list management (it's simplistic to claim that anyone is blaming the recruiters alone but that's the nature of this discussion). It repaired the club's disasterous financial state to an extent but it was unable to get things right on the football side and for that we are currently in the crisis which has seen Cameron Schwab, Don McLardy and others fall. No doubt there's more to come. Those who have gone have taken responsibility and now it's time to move on, or (as I quoted previously) in the words of the philosopher Life can Soren Kierkegaard:- "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." I'm assuming people are interested in getting Melbourne out of its current crisis which is not the first we've had and is no more dire than it was when we were broke and the AFL claimed we stood for nothing. Time to move on.

Just been watching a replay of the first half of the Queens Birthday game but can't work out why we're wearing Bulldogs jumpers and why the game's at Etihad.

Meanwhile according to @TFoenander on Twitter: Despite an injury scare yesterday, scans have revealed highly rated #Draft prospect Tom Boyd has no fracture in his ankle. Great news #AFL.

Back on topic, I'm not sure if this has received the coverage it should have but I don't think this item achieves what it presumably set out to do - Misson clarifies Clark’s injury status. I thought Clark's current injury problems had nothing to do with his 2012 Lisfranc injury other than that he had to have some screws from the operation removed earlier than anticipated. It was my understanding that what caused this injury was otherwise not related. Now I'm not so sure about the nature of the injury or the time Clark's going to miss from the game. The season's shot anyway so if he must miss the rest of it, you won't get any complaints from most fans but please - it's time to get frank about Mitch's Lisfranc.