PJ_12345

I'll man up: I am wrong, they were rumors and nothing was conclusive. Rhino, again all I said was ""probably didn't get a good first impression". New coach, wants to assess what is going wrong, wants to make changes - Moloney probably give a good first impression re his activities earlier on in the season. You've made a big deal about how Neeld wouldn't have pre-concieved views on players - be realistic, anyone entering a new organisation has pre-concieved views on staff and these activities wouldnt have helped. Sure, he would have most likely thought he is a good player - he had a great year, but he would be thinking is he a good leader for Neeld's leadership squad. You've made a big deal about how Neeld was midfield coach over questionable Collingwood players - wasn't his list to make changes, different situation, he actually had control over who could be part of the leadership team I've said this before, dont want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

We all know he has a issue with his foot and clearly isn't 100% yet. Neeld needs to bite the bullet and rest him. They will both get flogged in the media, but if you're not 100% then you shouldn't play, but the best response for them will be for him to come back when he is ready and silence the critics.

Brent Moloney did urinate on a bar. He admitted it: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/footy-player-caught-urinating-on-bar-in-st-kilda-report/story-e6frf9jf-1226036987002 He didn't have the power to change the leadership group at Collingwood - above his pay and responsibilities. Even blind Freddy can see that when you have a new coach, who comes to a club that is under-performing, he will scrutinize every aspect of the club - particularly the leadership group. He will have his own per-conceived view on players and of course he is going to look negatively at someone who is supposed to be a leader urinating at the bar in the same year of him signing. Again, as I originally said: "probably didn't get a good first impression". Is that link factual enough for you? There are some great quotes in there, I particularly like it when Moloney says: ""I went out for dinner and had a few beers. Then this happened. As I said I’m disappointed and embarrassed." Seems like more than rumors to me.

Every new boss or manager that comes to an organisation has already formed an opinion on their staff. Behind closed doors, it's usually "right so who is good and who is bad", with football its all in the media. You're joking yourself if you dont think Neeld would have come to the club already wanting to make a mark on the leadership squad. Doesn't help when you're club gets flogged and you're off getting so drunk you urinate on a bar earlier in the season. Not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. As I said originally: "probably didn't get a good first impression"

I'll be surprised if Trengrove is played at Casey - humiliating for a captain... mind you now I just remembered Viney played Green as a substitute when he was captain so I guess anything is possible

CS did what he had to do. It happened in 2011 season - Neeld signed September 2011. Barely pre-Neeld and I struggle to see how you dont think Neeld would be asking this: "This guy is supposed to be their B&F and he gets so blind he starts urinating on a bar... not leadership quality, not in the leadership group". Either way you look at it Neeld wouldnt have had a good first impression.

Fair call. I just thought I'd raise up the urinating on the bar incident. I had completely forgotten about it and didnt realise it could have been the thing that might have started all of this

Moloney's 75% to blame for his poor 2012 season. I really like Beamer, but I think he was expecting to get back into the leadership team after he stood down because of the urinating on the bar incident in September 2011. Neeld came in, probably didn't get a good first impression (see above) and treated him like everyone else and the rest is history.

Haha nice. Voss must have said something during that break, he alot more active. Turned it over a couple of times - they are playing like us: rushed!

Bit melodramatic.

Not to mention he was O'Keefe tagging in the 1st quarter who got 10 possies and a goal.

Maslow's dee-luded's Hierarchy of Needs

We have an identity: we are the oldest football club in the game and one of the oldest sporting clubs in the world. Ironically that was one of the things Cameron Schwab was trying to emphasise by bringing in the blazers and foundation culture values. Also we have a home: its one of the best stadiums in the world, and we are just generous enough to let other clubs play on it.

Was just an interesting stat, he is averaging more than the past few years - you're preaching to the choir

You have to rebuild to win games. Rebuilding takes time. Otherwise you get into our current situation... Bailey, rebuilding from Daniher, axed 2 years later because of short-term performance Neeld, rebuilding from Bailey,... see where this is going? In a constant state of axing, hiring, rebuilding and then having supporters complaining about how we have to rebuild, want to axe the current coach and hire a new coach who will have to rebuild, and want short-term wins only to be complains about this again in 2 years Honestly laughable

Another interesting stat: Jamar is #3 for average hit outs per game this year (32). Thats more than Cox, and more than he averaged in 2010 when he was All Australian. Would love to see him kick the ball a bit more though. He keeps handballing it off to players in worse positions and who are also too tired - turning it over too many times to count. He has a good kick and should trust himself!

... and then try to sack him after 2 years

RE Frawley I'll have a closer look at him this weekend - he'll get a bit of work so I'll take back my comments and see how he goes. My issue with your perspective i that, as you said, "the only stat that matters is the scoreboard"... For me thats a short term assesment. Long-term results > short term results

You'll credit Mark Neeld for the lack of improvement from players compared to them Dean Bailey's years, but you wont him for their improvement. Interesting.

Dont have time to go through each individual again atm and their improvement/non-improvement compared to 2010, 2011, 2012 and so far in 2013 but the difference to not applying my Strauss argument to Gimes is that Strauss has played less than 20 games but Grims has played over 60 - big difference in the type of injury and the recovery periods. Again Blease has played more games than Strauss, and had more time to actually train - you cant get alot done with the recovery periods from a shoulder reco and a broken leg RE Watts I watched a couple of pressers and Neeld was very happy with Watt's performance up forward. With Clark out I would like to think Neeld would have played him in a forward position. Clearly his current one isnt working out. Could be a different story in a couple of weeks so I'm going to hold off from Watts until he has been played there. Might have been pushing it with Trengrove. Very flat over the past few weeks. I stand by Frawley.

... and Mark Neeld considering the significant improvement Nugget has shown between 2010&2011 to 2012&so far 2013 (averaging more disposals, goals, kicks, handballs, tackles, clearances - more than trippled, contested posessions - more than tripped, and more Brownlow votes). But heaven forbid you guys actually credit Mark Neeld for something! I mean its fine to compare players stats during Bailey years and Neeld years and when the player plays poorly (like Moloney) lets all blame the coach but not the player and when a player has shown improvement its all credit to the player and not the coach. Come off it.

You missed my point. Moloney DID change in 2012, because Moloney felt he got burnt when he was dropped from the leadership team and proceeded to play extremely poor footy. It was his own making and fault. You're using an extremely bias example, and the only reason why you cant use another player is because no one else who was drafted off has played "Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, McKenzie, Strauss, Blease, Garland are no better than when he arrived and in some cases significantly worse" Trengrove - Improved, but last few games performance has dropped Grimes - Improved Watts - didnt improve under Bailey or MN and the moment MN was going to play him in the forward he gets injured Frawley - improved. Had to tag the best forwards in every team, including two undefeated clubs. Strauss - come off it, he broke his leg and had a shoulder reconstruction, how is MN supposed to improve a play who hasnt been able to play footy for the last 2 years Blease - improved. Played some great footy last year, setting the majority of his pb's such as 5 goals, 29 disposals ect. Garland - most improved player out of them all this year The biggest improvement from 2011 (Bailey) and 2012 (Neeld) is that we averaged 3 more goals per game... another improvement would be better use/improvement from our rookie list, trimming the fat off the list and drafting in better players (such as Byrnes) for once (none under Bailey). If you dislike MN because we aren't winning games - just say it.