timD

I WANT HIM TO SUCCEED. I WANTED BAILEY TO SUCCEED. I WANTED DANIHER TO SUCCEED. He is not my wife or my kids - he will never get unconditional support. Ever. He earns my support. Like the players do. Respect, support, regard is earned. Maybe a uniform is enough for you to give it up; I like to think that higher standards are in order.

It is a sobering post that will get ignored. Let's all be clear that there is no evidence that Neeld can coach at this level. Last year we were so poor it was pitiful. I would hope for some improvement on that year and improvement is inevitable. However, Neeld needs to produce results over the next two years that are a damn sight better than Bailey produced when 'positioning the club'. I am full of hope...but I've felt that before. I remembering hearing from Bailey about a new fitness regime that would build the players from the ground up... Nothing will count other than wins. Neeld has two years IMO to get a fair few. Everything I see and read tells me he'll do it. I've had that before too.

That would be the single greatest improvement in the midfield in a decade if it holds. Our mids have played like seagulls.

Neither is ignoring facts or making them up robbie, but it doesn't stop you, does it. Fan has made the point many times that he likes Cam schwab and Connolls. So, the blokes who are most in the gun are the guys Fan says he likes. But you'd have read that by now, yes? So you've either had serious cognitive failings or decided to fabricate a position Fan doesn't have in order to bag him. Says a fair bit about you, doesn't it. And it says a fair bit about your fanboys too.

Buh ... The man to fear is the hyped up pcp-head whose just got released and is a raging 'roid junkie. The man saying nothing is just avoiding getting his head clean knocked off. Fear the man saying nothing...life is not a clint eastwood movie.

Name one person who thinks that. Just one. FMD indeed. You are fighting a figment of your own imagination. And on a factual level, if Jack plays as he described, he'll be markedly better than "good ordinary". FMD indeed.

There is nothing obscene about questioning Jim. I think it is dangerous not to, truth be told. Few seriously objected to the idea of tanking. We can be pretty confident that the board were aware of the rewards to tanking and the true state of the list. We can be sure that Jim stated that 'no-one told the players to lose'. The issue here is whether it was board directive to the FD to lose games to get picks and in what manner was this done? Few would have complained if it was either explicit policy or implicitly supported by the board. The issue is really whether it was done in a way that preserved plausible deniability. Were we smart enough to do that? As for Jim and obscenity, I think that this topic is best left alone. As someone already said somewhere, no-one wants to degrade Jim's legacy (or words to that effect).

Jack, I think you are being generous to the majority. The majority railed because they did not like what they heard. They generally ignored the content - or just did not think about it beyond 'not liking' it. Few actually questioned it. PaulRB did and I PM'd him to tell him what a good post I thought he'd made and how weak it was that Hazy did not respond. Paul was an exception. Fan gets dismissed not because of what he says but what people feel about what he says. Same with Hazy. What they are saying needs questioning but most don't even get that far. CC (or comments attributed to him) has questioned the club...and the board (who else would move him - not CS!). He therefore should be dealt with the same way as Fan and Hazy - belittled because of saying something the mob didn't like. Hell he displayed internal rifts to an outsider - BETRAYAL!!! BETRAYAL!!! To then argue that Hazy's posts were "agenda based... without..proof" is flimsy. Having an agenda does nothing to undermine the point they make. You need to understand it to understand the point, but it does not invalidate it like you imply. Fan can be cheeky (and it strikes me as annoying but then I am an intolerant [censored] at times) but does that mean that his insights should be summarily dismissed? Fan argues for integrity and process. Yet he can be provocative and inconsistent. When do I dismiss? He's not backing up his insights because of an ethical decision. When do I discount and just take pot shots at him? Where is his proof? As for ad hominem attacks...I'll raise you Ben Hur. Ben Hur regularly posts in an aggressive or demeaning way. Does that mean that his insights into footy are lessened? You are arguing that for Hazy but I bet you won't about B-H. The mob reacts without logic or reason. They rationalise their spite and vitriol. You don't. Don't make the mistake of extending your grace to them. They have not earned, nor do they deserve, it.

I think that all the gallant posters that railed against hazy and america et al for showing dissent should now line up to pot CC for the same thing. He should simply accept the status quo and shut up. It it time for solidarity REGARDLESS of circumstance.

No Robbie - I know where it is but I'm not doing your work for you. I'll give you a hint - try looking at how Fan has described both processes to get some sense of his opinion. Then remember what emphasis Fan puts on good process. Then join the dots.

Robbie, try actually reading what he said. Fan has already answered that and you've outed yourself as arguing with him and not reading what he is writing at the same time. This is starting to make you look a bit more than 'silly'. So obsessed are you at trying to counter and denounce Fan that you aren't even reading what he is saying - just yelling "he's wrong" with little regard for what he is actually trying to argue.

I think the 'poor us' bit softened the descriptions of the inept playing list/performances we've put us. It allowed him to sink the boots in and not come of looking like a flamer.

Well done Adrian - bloody good work.

I don't think Tom played forward BUT he trained predominantly last preseason with the forwards...and then Neeld played him back.

I think 'threatened' is exactly right. The response of many to Fan's writing is desperate, breathless denial. Wailing about 'disunity' - as if one poster on one fan site is a threat to the club. Infantile, gutless, hand-wringing magical thinking. Fan is bang on when he says that Caro actually releases more information - more of it and earlier than everyone else on this topic. So what if it is leaks. WE still know more because of her. That her editorialising is pathetic makes it harder to sift the gold from the dross, but it is there. And that is what so much internet discussion misses; all or nothing thinking often ruins the ability to discuss anything. It's happened here.

I am not wanting to be a politician - but I'll give my view on their performance. I do not want to run a company, but if I'm a shareholder I'll voice my views. Just because I doubt the board and question their behaviour, but I won't run against them, does not mean I should just accept whatever they dish up. I'd have thought that there is a big difference between criticising someone's performance and then saying that you can personally do better. Heaven's, no one would say a thing about footy if that were the case. Let's hope the footy starts soon.

Hardly shallow. Perhaps I've not explained it clearly. Neeld had a terrible year and the team was a disgrace. There are many, many factors behind this and neeld can only bare a relatively small portion of responsibility. Now, Neeld needs to show an improvement in team performance that is marked this year. Why - because this is his team and it is far more advanced now than Bailey's bunch. Neeld has a lot more resources behind him and he's had two preseasons. You pointed out that Hird had the bombers playing effective defensive footy after one preseason. Let's see if neeld can do it after two. Posters can make all the blue-sky statements all they like about the team and improvement. I've made them; I've believed them. I think the only reliable metric is wins. It is lagging indicator of improvement but at least it is an actual indicator - albeit with some weaknesses. Now, in a year with an easy draw, Neeld need to show marked improvement measured in wins - not in 'gelling', not in quarters, but in something that is meaningful. Lots of clubs show some good stuff; only a win actually shows an ability to play better than another team. Lots of players show moments of improvements; only 'wins' actually captures sustained, meaningful improvement. Wins count - both in number and quality. I think that no one would argue that beating interstate clubs at the G is much of an achievement but at least Bailey could. Neeld can barely do that yet. So much patience is required for him and his whole coaching team...but we still need standards and my preferred one is if we won or not (and quality of performance). Everything else is so open to bias and delusion and I don't think it's worth much. And don't get me wrong about Neeld; my gut says he is the man. I like him, how is comes across, how he started to mature, how he is blunt with players. I'm all with Ron Burgundy on this one. BUT, I am all too aware that gut instinct is a very fallible measure. We need standards, we need reliable, meaningful standards and so far the talk about 'youngsters getting better' and 'gelling' and team cohesion sounds all too much like the "the vibe". Bailey fed us the same stuff. And for periods it appeared that it was there...or at least on the way. That fell apart and posters only recognised it when the quality of wins and losses was really examined. Beating bailey's win/loss in 2010 is arbitrary, but it is a damn sight cleaner and reliable than 'do the players gel'. And ultimately, if the wins are not going up, then we have legitimate reason to question the coach.

I'm not defensive, I'm sick of the thoughtless responses to serious ideas. On this thread it is being argued that wins are not a reasonable way to measure performance. This site has gone so far into itself that posters are actually arguing that wins don't count. Mark Neeld coached one of the most insipid teams I have ever seen. One of the least competitive teams I have ever seen. And posters are suggesting that Bailey somehow winning 10 or so games is less impressive that Neeld effectively winning one. Now, I'm all for a nuanced understanding of team style and needing to go backwards to go forwards but i'd also like to win a game. Neeld needs to see us win quite a few this year to show that he knows what he is doing.

It is now; it wasn't 18 months ago. Re-writing history with hindsight must be a fun game. Bailey was being lauded and MFC fans told to wait for our inevitable success. We'd bottomed out the way everyone thought we should have and were progressing slowly. It wasn't the game having moved on, it was a gameplan X list problem that we were repeatedly told would be fixed by experience put into our kids. This is all really simple. How do you measure improvement? If not by wins, then what?

Fan is making a simple point. He must write in a language other than english I reckon. Bailey won more games against better teams with a worse list that Neeld has now. If Neeld cannot win more games now than Bailey would have then the club is going backwards and we are being sold a line. What other metric, other than wins, do people want to use to assess the team's performance? Maybe the site should invent a 'feelgood' stat and everyone rates how happy they feel and we use that to tell us how we are going. Let's just ignore objective reality. Nothing is wrong. everything is working. Just like we were told last time.

Improvement for me entirely depends on the midfield. I see no reason to think that we'll improve enough to pass anyone on that count this year. We'll finish 14-15 because we have an easy draw. I think the Prendergast years have damaged us near indefinitely. Until Viney, Toumpus and one or taggert/evans/jones/superman become A graders we will not improve relative to any other team. It is depressing but our midfield is still, IMO, one of the worst in the AFL. I hope Prendergast gets his fair whack one day. [censored].

Try reading what he wrote Robbie. Fan clearly argued that it was neeld's job to spot talent, not turn every player into a star. I'm amazed at how poor many are at actually understanding what words actually mean - Fan has to go to the depths of pointing out again and again what he has actually written, rather than the nonsense that so many think he has written. It should be embarrassing to binman, you and dandeeman. It won't be, but it should. One of a senior coach's key skills is talent management - seeing it, moving players whom you cannot develop and developing those you can. Bailey failed on this count - prendergast helped disproportionately. So If neeld lets 5 blokes go that can really play and they really play well, then we've lost talent. Quite frankly, we don't have much we can afford to lose. So getting that call right is important and helps us all figure out if the bloke can coach. To say it doesn't matter is like disregarding the 'loss' section of a balance sheet. FWIW, I'm rapt that he is making calls and turning the list over. That we should see how well he does it does not mean that he shouldn't.

HG, I think you are point blank wrong about melbourne supporters. We are few in number and relatively loyal. There is no getting away from the MFC having a low supporter base for most of its life. In addition, the MFC has been disgracefully poor on the field for most of the last 40 years. There have been brief periods of good performance, but they have been very brief. The problems of supporter number are significant. Moving to casey is one example of a pro-active decision to try and boost supporter numbers. Darwin in another. It is a poor argument to suggest that we are to blame for the need to try such things - the team should try winning a game, or recruiting a star or not being a basketcase most of the time. I think you'll find it amazing to see how popularity increases. Really, your argument is the equivalent of Qantas blaming its shareholders for its shareprice.

You once made a breathtakingly insightless crack about 'cognitive bias' to me. What you failed to understand was that it was my posting that was relatively free of it. You say here that you hate it when people cannot remove bias: on the topic of the board this is a hurdle you fall at and continue to fall at. I think you cannot remove your bias. You sound pompous and argue from that position/with that manner almost without fail. Your denial of wanting to sound pompous pre-empts sounding pompous. I thought 'irony' was a pretty reasonable description.

I presume this post is an example of irony.