Bonkers

Can you elaborate further on your comments regarding Dunstall? Thanks

It is an indictment on Watts that he hasn't been able to get this out of himself on a regular basis. I'm not applauding him, just stating that there is something to work with if his mind set changes.

In the first quarter today I saw something in Watts I've never seen before. He attacked the contest & had the confidence to force the play. There's a glimmer of hope for him. Hopefully he can learn from Jobe Watson to harden up.

I may be making an obvious point here, the board are unpaid. Doing a love job basically. I really doubt that people outside of the club are going to want to volunteer to help the club out as though we are some sort of charity. I'd question anyone's motives for doing this including Kennett considering his track record. More to the point what does it say about MFC members that would like him on the board? The bloke wanted the club to relocate or fold a couple of years ago & now he wants us to vote him in. It's a slap in the face, I'd be too proud to ever vote for that [censored] considering what he has said about the club in past. He can go get F'd.

We will probably never know why it was setup this way. One might speculate that Schwab enjoyed this aspect of football & wanted to get involved. Or that the MFC were under resourced so he took it upon himself. Either way he had roughly 4 years to setup a structure & system that was industry norm & failed to do so. His area of expertise does not relate to the football department even though he spent time in recruiting when he was at the beginning of his career. These are some of the reasons why I speculated regarding the Andrews Report as I believe that it would have been critical of his methods. Essentially by having 4 football department members report to him he was taking on the role of CEO & head of football operations. That's my take on it anyway.In addition I don't believe the FD is inexperienced. Harrington, Viney, Craig, Neeld, Rawlings & Royal have all spent a considerable amount of time in football departments. Although Neeld is an inexperienced head coach granted.

The key aspects of a business are finance, marketing & production or in this case the football department. The CEO should sit in the structure above all these departments & have the head of those departments report back. It streamlines the way a business runs & simplifies the structure. Rather than giving the head of the football department responsibility to oversee how the football department was being run Schwab was taking this role on himself to an extent by micro managing the one department. I believe the Andrews Report would have been very critical of this as it is not normal procedure.

It's easier to run harder when you know your team mate will honour your hard work & not turn it over. It's a vicious cycle & would be demoralising after a while I think.

Playing a zone system requires a high work rate & fitness levels. It's part of why other teams find it easy to transition the ball. So yeh I'll agree the zone is part of the issue in the disposal differential every week.

They tackled & harassed equal to the tigers yesterday yet still didn't have anywhere near there disposal count. Skills & hard running is the reason IMO.

The zone doesn't explain why we can't retain possession.

What's the disposal differential after each game & why are we always behind in uncontested possessions?

It could also be argued that turnovers are being created because the players aren't running hard enough into space or to make space to create an easy out. I agree we have some poor users of the ball in the backline but I don't think it's our biggest issue. It's quite obvious all teams are going for this style of football. We shouldn't draft & coach to follow this strategy but draft & coach to beat this style. Counter attacking football is quite similar to soccer but it's very limiting & allows the other team to dictate the game. However It creates easy goal oppurtunities if you can intercept & move quickly. The only way to beat this style is to possess the ball or to leave numbers behind the ball as a safety net. We will probably still need to draft the same type of players anyway but Neeld should be coaching to get ahead of the trend already.

I think the most telling thing he said is that teams are placing more emphasis on counter attacking footy or sling shot footy. This is the reason we can't score heavily at the moment. We have no way of creating easy scoring opportunities as we are basically slow & poor users of the footy. Hawks, Geelong etc have all drafted midfielders with pace & skill. They aren't necessarily inside mids but can still win their own footy. We don't have those players & one of the players capable of this type of footy is playing at GWS now.

No probs

Andrews Report

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/heat-on-suns-to-retain-midfielder-20130515-2jmt5.html He apparently has links to the club through coterie, the article says we are interested amongst other clubs. It couldn't hurt to have another ball winner of his type.

The reason Geelong can create new styles of play along with the Hawks is because they draft players who have the skills to play any style. They are above all things good footballers, have great skills, hands, football IQ & are competitors. The teams that don't have these types of players all over the ground adopt defensive game styles. Sydney, St.kilda & briefly Freo have all adopted this approach under Roos & Lyon. It's the reason why Colingwood is now being found out because they are trying to play an expansive game without the ability to execute it. Malthouse understood his teams limitations where as Buckley doesn't.

Be careful what you wish for.

Jackson can actually command a level of respect with the people who he deals with, I'm not sure Neeld can. There is a big difference in the way they seem to go about things & the way they hold themselves.

Also stated that it is unclear who is responsible for reporting to the CEO from the FD in addition to your last point.

All the players they bring in through the draft have great clean hands & can handle contested footy almost straight away. Wells has got to be the best recruiting manager in the AFL. It would be great if the club could do whatever it takes to get him to Melbourne. Sadly it will never happen.

I agree. Neeld has so far been successful at targeting a couple of players such as Dawes & Clark. I'm not sure if he missed out on any midfield targets. It's speculative that he targeted Ray, Monfries, Boak & Wellingham. It would be interesting to see what the expectations of the side is in terms of performance this year & what has been relayed to & from the Board.

The three fundamentals of team football Neeld's side fails each of them. When in possession, in dispute or without the ball his side is poor & the stats & losses don't lie. He's moved the football department forward in terms of setup, but on game day his side is a joke. He can't even enforce his players to run goal side of their direct opponent. Some of the failings of his team have nothing to do with ability but mostly to do with discipline or motivation. His side is currently the easiest to coach against. His public stance has gone from being the hardest to coach against to rebuild & no experience. The same shite Bailey peddled. Most of the teams current issues are in regards to the midfield or lack there of. Neeld has failed to address this issue & unless his plan was to bottom out for draft picks, his bags are already packed.

Interesting to hear his opinion that Neeld won't be there in 2014.

Call it what you like. Do you think they have a better group of midfielders than the MFC yes or no? Because on evidence of what I see from our midfield every week they aren't good enough whether Neeld can coach or not. Hinkley would still be struggling to get this group into winning form IMO. All I have stated is that the issue is not just Neeld's coaching, I don't see how you can argue against that.