Ron Burgundy

Who exactly makes the call on sacking the President? The Board?

He's been our best player for most of the year. Ridiculous comment.

I've tried to maintain a calm head throughout this, but yesterday was bloody pathetic. I'm not in the emotion charged, reactionary camp, but clearly something needs to change. A 10 goal loss at the G against the Suns in front of 13,000 supporters is about as low as it gets. My instinct is that the club/player group is very fragile at the moment - accordingly, things need to be handled sensitively and astutely. Perhaps conducting an urgent, independent AFL sanctioned review of the football department might be the go - if only to give supporters a line of sight as to what the situation actually is in there. I can't see how Neeld can justify these performances/results - not being competitive against the Suns at our home ground would be a death knell for any coach in the land. Absolutely depressing stuff - I didn't see that loss coming, certainly the size of it anyway (nor the loss against Essendon for that matter, or Port to be honest - both games in which we had a reasonably full squad to choose from - Dawes and Clark excepted - following a pre-season that Neeld and Craig said was really good). As an aside, it's also a real pity Freo trumped us on Hannath too. We got smashed in the ruck.

I want to see a contract extension announced for Colin Sylvia asap. IMO this would provide good evidence of morale in the sheds and 'buy in' from some of the old guard.

He has flourished under the Neeld regime. Seemed to be on the outer under Bailey for some reason. Hope they maintain him as Co Captain following the return of Grimes. The Swans had three Co Captains in 2005.

No good evidence really. My opinion's based largely on his experience prior to coming to the club and my perception of some of the things he has done/said whilst in the role. Principally: - (Collingwood experience) He strikes me as a technical type coach - it's his soft skills that seem to have let him down to date. As the senior assistant midfield coach at the Pies under Malthouse, he would've been exposed to the latest AFL structures and patterns, and clearly he would've had to have understood them and how to implement them. He would've had access to the best data on player fitness and the like, and would've overseen the implementation of sophisticated processes and training regimes at arguably the competition's most sophisticated and well resourced club etc. The knock on him from some here is that he has simply imposed the Collingwood formula on a player group that's not good enough to make it work. I don't buy that. I like the fact that he has a clear plan/strategy and he is pathologically focussed on implementing it. I don't accept that the alternative approach (ie, tailor a plan to best suit the players at the club at the time) would work in the medium to long term - it would serve only to mask the deficiencies with the list, even if it may have avoided 'bottoming out' so badly. I have always thought in ALL football codes (rugby, soccer, league, NFL, AFL) that defence generally wins the big games. And, prior to Neeld coming in, we were downhill skiers in every respect - good to watch occasionally, but ultimately not going to get us deep into the finals each year. The approach needed to change. - (tweeks to the list) I think the list was a bit unbalanced when Neeld came in - for instance, we needed a taller forward line - he has recruited Clark, Dawes and Hogan. (That Dawes came to us fills me with some confidence that Neeld is not the monster that some here seem to suggest - I don't think we would've been able to secure Dawes, Clark and Byrnes sans Neeld and Craig - ie, under the old football department.) Clearly our midfield needs work, but he would know that - after all he was the Pies midfield coach in a premiership year. That's why he had a crack at Wellingham, and also recruited Toumpas, Viney, Kent, Matt Jones and Rodan. The surgery to the midfield will take some time though. I don't get why we didn't fight to keep Rivers only to effectively trade him for Gillies - Geelong must be laughing. But otherwise I think all of his recruits/trades made sense, on paper at least - despite what some here and those in the media report. - (game plan) I have seen some signs in recent games that the zone, the intensity around the ball and stoppages, and the defensive pressure that Neeld is seeking to introduce actually works. The list is very young and inexperienced though, and they can't seem to hold it together for sustained periods. I predict this will change over time - it pretty well always does as players get more experience, particularly with each other. So, in short, I think the approach to the game and the structure of the player group has improved. That's why I think Neeld gets coaching from a technical perspective - his room for improvement seems to be in player management and talking to the media, both of which I also think he improved thus far this season. Too early to tell whether he will be a long term coach for us obviously, but I do think what he's doing at the moment will be of significant benefit to this list going forward. Sacking him now would be absolutely senseless IMO.

Very sensible, well reasoned post, Robbie. You make some very compelling points, some of which are undoubtedly concerning. As an aside, I don't like the Jesus quote particularly, but I expect some in the anti Neeld prayer group will.

I thought that no one had improved under Neeld.

I agree with this. I have always thought Neeld took a fairly abrupt and potentially arrogant approach with the senior players (and Jack Watts) when he came to the club. I didn't think it was particularly clever at the time, and I suspect with the benefit of hindsight Neeld would probably have done a few things differently if he had his time again. That said, I think Neeld has softened in his approach in this respect in recent months. He is learning too, and it seems he has learnt some things about dealing with the players and also with the media. In short, I think Neeld quickly, and correctly, identified the problems with the list and the culture upon his arrival. Although I think the way in which he initially implemented some of his changes lacked a certain amount of emotional intelligence. After all, clubs are about people - and I suspect Neeld didn't give sufficient respect to this fact at the end of 2011. Losing Moloney and Rivers was not cool - they should still be on our list IMO. However, we are now seeing a far more professional, disciplined player group IMO - and the foundations for success are clearly being implemented at the moment. Technically, the changes have been sound - in player management terms though, perhaps there's further room for improvement. And this is the very reason I would like to see a contract extension announced for Colin Sylvia asap.

Yep, you're on fire Pipefitter - Neeld absolutely inherited a bullet proof premiership list from Bailey. Hard to disagree with that, despite the fact that we lost by 186 points to Geelong in an AFL game a couple of months earlier.

The irony.

Nope - to the contrary, I'm just trying to get people to think clearly. Seems to be hard for the prayer group who view everything through the anti Neeld lens - conveniently ignoring things which don't accord with their view, and over emphasising the importance of things that tend to support their view (ie, confirmation bias). As for me - I don't know Mark Neeld from the next bloke. He may not ultimately be the guy to lead us to the silverware - I'll reserve judgement on that for now. I'm just assessing things at the moment. Calmly. I wholly accept that there are a lot of things that he has NOT nailed to date. That said, he seems to be focussed on nailing the correct things (fitness, discipline, competitiveness, culture, leadership). He's had good pedigree coming into the role (2.I.C to Mick Malthouse at the Pies), so he knows what success looks like. And he strikes me as having an almost pyschopathic competitiveness about him. Will he succeed? Don't know yet. Have we given him time to succeed? Not nearly. He, and Craig and others, have always said it will take time - and I suspect they're on the money there. It will take time - there are no quick fixes from where we were coming post 186. Notwithstanding this, the anti Neeld prayer group were calling for his head about 6 months into his first season - and the prayer group has only got more fanatical ever since. Tedious stuff IMO, particularly as not much of their criticism seems to address the underlying issues confronting the list. It's simply a dogged focus on attacking the player, not the ball. In response to this, I try to be an advocate for calm and rational thinking about things - that doesn't mean I will blindly follow Neeld wherever he wishes to go. I can see what he's trying to achieve, and I'm willing to give him some reasonable time in which to attempt to achieve it. His focus seems correct. Some of his execution to date seems to lack finesse and judgement, but I think he's improved quite a bit in those areas in recent months. In short, I think he's making the decisions that need to be made. Whether or not some other coach takes over in 18 months or so, I don't know - but, if they do, they will definitely get the benefit of what Neeld has done during his period at the helm in terms of building a fitness base and introducing a focus on maintaining elite standards, professionalism and discipline. And for what it's worth - Roos, Clarkson and Malthouse don't want to coach Melbourne. They never have. But the prayer group doesn't seem to get this either.

Man U was a party club when Sir Alex took the helm. He exited all the party boys and recruited highly competitive types who simply wanted to succeed. In short, he focused on culture and discipline - on and off field. He was thoroughly uncompromising on this - in fact, he was known for moving on highly talented players who refused to 'buy in'. There's a message in this for the anti Neeld prayer group.

Back to the anti Neeld altar for some more prayer time Rhino. Meanwhile I'll continue to do what I've been trained to do throughout my life - that is, to think logically and calmly and, as far as possible, without uncritical bias.

He said 'I love you Stuie - you're like a little Buddha, only covered in hair'. The people who fall victim to this line of reasoning are generally susceptible to conspiracy theories, which are generally not aligned to rational, common sense thinking and which are hugely selective in the way in which they 'use' the available evidence. It's convenient, but it's actually not very insightful. The Schwab situation was complex, and its presenting issues and history make it far, far different to comments being made by the players as to morale within the player group. Now, I accept the moon landing occurred. However I know people who don't 'believe' it happened - these same people 'believe' 9/11 was some kind of plot by the US government to justify the commencement of the 'war on terrorism'. And this is why I think, for some here, this anti Neeld stance has become like a religious crusade. IMO it's getting completely irrational. Any information that does not support their anti Neeld crusade is conveniently ignored or discredited. In this context, I find it ironic in the extreme that a comment has been made about the McLardy/Schwab presser - yet many here have been boxing at shadows for the last couple of days all because of some b.s rumour posted on some b.s blog about Roos being our coach in a few weeks - notwithstanding that ALL of the 'evidence' to date is that Roos wouldn't go near this club with a fifty foot barge pole. But hey, that's right - we can't 'believe' what Roos has said about his own intentions and various 'on the record' comments he has made over the past couple of years about this club, because such comments are unreliable and probably untrue. Talk about people who can't think ...

Makes sense - pay him $10,000,000 per year. We'd have administrators appointed to the club within about 6 weeks. Dead set, some of the stuff posted here wouldn't even make the grade at OK magazine.

Ohh okay - so we can't believe anything the players say about the player group, the club, the coaching staff or themselves that's featured on the website or that's said to the media at a press conference and the like? I take it however we are to believe much of the innuendo posted here. Because it's bullet proof. Unlike the statements actually made by the players, that is - ( ... because they're not telling the truth). Wow. Interesting angle.

Rhino R, a direct quote attributable to a player is far better evidence than anything to the contrary that I've read on this thread to date. Quite frankly, I'm absolutely in the dark as to what's going on within the club - but it seems to me that many others here and in the media are as well, although several here continue to make various strong assertions based on, what appears to be, pure speculation/completely illusory evidence. I just want to know the facts as to which players have lost confidence in Neeld/the football department - yet no one seems able/willing to provide such information. As I've stated previously, if such opinions are based on pure speculation, that's fine - just don't assert that such opinions are based on fact. Simple stuff really.

On the basis of the some of the comments posted here, I take it the following is rubbish and not to be believed ... Frawley - article on the official MFC website: Having been through plenty already, Frawley said he hadn’t seen his team as tight knit as it is at the moment. In fact, Frawley said he was “proud” of the resilience shown by his teammates under adversity. “After a great pre-season, all the boys were full of optimism and hope,” he told melbournefc.com.au. “It’s been a tough six weeks, with one win and five losses - but that’s the good thing about this group, the boys are staying pretty positive and upbeat and they’re looking to get better and improve as a group. “We’ve been pleased with how the group has responded to week to week situations – as a group and as a club.” http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-05-08/frawley-focused-and-firmly-on-his-feet

That's the very reason I posted those anecdotes DemonWA. I'm not intending to criticise any other poster - to the contrary, I want to know the actual underlying evidence about alleged player dissatisfaction/revolt under Neeld. In fact, I generally enjoy reading all posts that contain information passed on by players etc. Virtually all of what I have read to date on this issue seems to be based on observation and pure speculation only - not direct evidence based on conversations with the players, coaches etc. And, unlike certain others in the media and here, I am releuctant to form opinions based on matters which seem to be largely unsubstantiated.

People say a lot of stuff here, and then seemingly influence others to form quite strong views based on that information. Quite often, I don't trust the underlying information which is reported. For instance, many seem to contend that Bailey was loved by the players and Neeld is not. Here are a few things that perhaps counter the universal view that Bailey was loved. 1. I spoke to Stef Martin at a Debt Demolition Dinner a couple of years ago. He told me, to my face, that many of the players, including him personally, hated the boring, tedious weekly regime that Bailey imposed on the player group, and that he regarded Viney (as caretaker coach) as a breath of fresh air. Martin said it was like going to a school class room each day under Bailey - it didn't feel like a 'footy club'. 2. I also know that Junior McDonald had a massive issue with how Bailey broke the news to him that he was not going to give him a contract extension. I understand it was on the flight to Adelaide before the game against Port in round 21 of that year. Not great player management IMO - particularly given that Junior then had to go into the sheds and rev the players up for that game shortly afterwards. 3. Scully. Even though we all know he left for the club money, it has been widely reported that he thought the football department and culture lacked discipline and wasn't sufficiently professional, and that this also influenced his decision to leave. Convenient line to adopt perhaps, but I expect there was some truth to it. Hence, my request for facts re: player dissatisfaction under Neeld now. I want to know the reality, not base views on pure speculation and poster bias.

Jaded, I am not choosing to 'believe' anything at all. I base my views on evidence, not 'beliefs'. In this regard, I find the statements that various players are unhappy with Neeld and wish to leave the club very concerning, and I would like to know what this information is based upon - in other words, where certain posters (including you) are getting this information. Merely stating "I choose to trust the information I have" is not particularly compelling to me. In fact, I find it flabby and lazy in the extreme, as it doesn't disclose anything at all, other than perhaps your own personal bias against Neeld. By analogy, in Kansas, many 'believe' the world was created about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Our current science based understanding, however, tells us that the world is in fact about 5.45 billion years old. Until the religious fanatics provide some compelling evidence to the contrary, I will continue to trust what I consider to be the better view, which is based on science and rational thought, not 'beliefs'. Hence, please provide the facts, or, if not, please desist from saying that things are facts when they are nothing more than pure speculation.

' ... the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group.'Some posters here continue to assert this - but what exactly is this based upon? I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, although I would really like to know where this is coming from. If it's purely outside speculation, that's fine. If not though, I'd just like to know what the underlying evidence for such statements is - and, if it is actually based on something, what exactly it is, who exactly thinks it within the player group, how serious it is and how exactly did it occur? Ie, please provide some facts ... Edit - iPad typo

Really?!

This exactly.