timD

Neeld was a disgrace. Neeld did more to destroy our club than any other in our history. Neeld never backed his players............ especially those with skill. Bennell was always a highly skilled player, but simply had trouble getting his hands on the pill. Any AFL level coach should have been able to develop him, but instead Neeld failed to back him, destroyed his self confidence, made football unenjoyable and then at the end delisted him on the back of an AC injury. What message does this send to the group? Neeld still makes me feel sick.

Neeld had appalling bias to the unskilled battler, he could never relate or develop the underperforming, highly skilled, early draft [censored]. His game plan was an out-dated, copied, embarrassment, developed for a team with completely different strength and weakness to out own. I can't believe it took until round 12 last year to fire Neeld. He sent the club back at least 5 years and may yet be the catalyst to our extinction.

I am sure Bennell will smash us this weekend, and although it will hurt, it will be justified to the appalling development, lack of faith and unjust dismissal he endured.

Good luck to Jamie. I hope he plays in a premiership for WC. He sure as hell was not going to get that opportunity at the Dees.

I agree with everything here.

My fear is that we won't escape the black hole that Neeld + CEO+ Board created. Not much has to go wrong now. We;ve always had very little wiggle room. We have none now.

The membership's muted response to Roos is a nice indication of how bad things are and how much faith the MFC as a club has genuinely broken with its members. What do you do?

The other issue raised here which absolutely paramount is development. It is the thing that I'd say most fans are genuinely awful (me included) at predicting accurately. Bob started a thread on this issue recently. Just shows that if you can predict how kids will develop and then specific the program/s they need to build strengths and address weaknesses, then you are so far ahead of the curve it is not funny.

BB i could not agree more. Misson is starting to really annoy me. What is the point of the weekly Dee TV injury update with him and Burgo? It is usually just rubbish and in fact i would argue more often that not it is misinformation. Your examples perfectly illustrate this. Of course injuries sometimes don't respond but once you see a pattern its hard not assume the truth is not being told.

Watch the last one. It is a terrific study in someone not comfortable with what he is saying. Watch Missons body language, note how he flushes and listen to his tone when discussing Dawes, Hogan and Garland. He looks like he is, if not lying, then concealing the truth. As fans we deserve better and to be honest i don't understand the logic for not being transparent. It's not as if other clubs are going to be fooled.

If Misson can't or wont be frank then don't have the segment.

Saty i appreciate your posts and much of your feedback from your preparedness to ask insiders what is going on. However, whilst it has been said before your sensitivity to the club being criticised is curious and not a little irritating, chap.

The teams are announced days before the match. The rumours of inclusions and exclusions come days before that. There is no tactical reason that makes any sense to not tell us. Right now I'm paying a membership as a charitable donation to a basketcase with ambition. I want and as a member demand better bloody information - especially given it is of no loss (tactically) for the club to reveal it. I want to know what to expect. Then my expectations (at least in this regard) have a basis in reality.

Saty, your defending of the club had bordered on quite silly in the past; it is now genuinely unnecessary.

Agree. The premise, unless I am mistaken, was to hear Roos speak about the team and it's progress. He didn't.

He is a very good speaker but he told us absolutely nothing about the team or where it is at. Even an accurate injury report would have been nice.

I left feeling disappointed.

I left disappointed at the lack of information. I want in-depth insights damnit!

Actually, I think that a lot we know and a lot is simple: the team needs to learn how to play as a team and how to win under pressure. I started a thread last year about this topic and we are in exactly the same position still: the team needs to learn how to play as a team (just like in the movie). However, the only way to do it is through experience. You can only teach so much; the rest has to be done the hard way. And that will take time and take learning from mistakes.

So what is Paul going to say? We know he is teaching game plan and he won't tell us what it is. He won't tell us about injuries because that is private. He won't 'out' player's issues. He wont critique the previous administration or footy dept. So what can he say?

Speaking with Josh Mahoney, it was clear that basic things were not done against Hawthorn and we need to learn to do them. Once we get that right, against good teams in big games, we'll be almost there.

And, I know I should not do this to all the faithful who dare not dream because they don't want to feel so cut-up again, but there was a real glimmer in Josh's eye. My "feel" (and that is all it is) is that there is reason to hope and again, like always, we need to give it time.

I attended this morning.

As with many things at the MFC, it could be so much better than it is. Smaller turnout (at a guess) than last year. Less polished event, less interesting, fewer speakers, less info and not that engaging.

Nick Smith did a reasonable job as MC.

Neita and Roos spoke and were interesting without saying anything at all. It was content-free, or near enough. That is probably fine for the moment and for the setting. The video ad for the NT thing was odd - about 2 minutes of footage that ended abruptly and left the room silent. Gives a good indication of what that production was like.

Got a chance to catch up with Josh Mahoney - as always a really approachable fella. Been a big push over the last few months it seems and there is a palpable sense of excitement at how well the players have gone improving their role-play and game sense. Able to briefly discuss the fall-off against hawthorn. Nothing to panic about, but that game contains, in a nutshell, the challenge for the year.

Also, worth having a shout-out to Tom Parker. I spoke with him last year about his + clubs work on China Southern and how close they were...and the work done over years to get them nearly over the line...for it all to fall away in the pile of dung that last year became. Great to see he + the team's work be successful after years of slog, the loss of quite a few colleagues, near-constant instability etc. A great job and a mark of persistence with his character.

I think this is a worthwhile function that could really develop into something highly successful over time - the business club is a promising work in progress.

OK so in layman's terms I think your saying drafting should measure "coachability" and if a player can't be coached then it's a drafting error.

But you could draft the most coachable player in the world and have such poor processes that the player never develops. Hence I'd argue that development has nothing to do with drafting.

Having said that I may have misunderstood your point!!

No!

I really must get better at communicating, damnit!

What I am saying is:

1. You could specify key areas of proficiency (e.g., skills, response to authority, leadership, preparation, adherence to rules etc);

2. Then you establish how you actually measure these things;

3. Then you figure out how you predict their performance i.e., which tests predict what behaviour in this environment);

4. Then you screen every draftee;

5. Then, once you pick one, you know exactly what needs to be targetted.

So, you might pick a bloke whose skills are excellent but whose confidence is low - coaching targets that;

You might pick a bloke whose confidence and aggression is excellent, but whose kicking needs work - you target that;

You might pick a highly skilled player but one who has never needed to follow a coach's instructions - so you target that.

You might pick a bloke who is an innate leader, but as a player is a bit of a utility - you target general game sense and "winning" his position, while you let his leadership just evolve as his proficiency improves and he gets runs on the board.

What I am saying is that you pick blokes based on what is prioritised and then address the gaps - whatever they might be - and THAT is development. The advantage to such a system is that the whole coaching and recruiting team all agree of what makes up a good foorballer, all call it the same thing, all the players are measured against one set of standard and it is a fair, balanced and specific set of criteria normed on the AFL environment.

I hope that makes more sense! Otherwise I'm going to start to worry.

Yes and no.

It seems to me that 3 things have been identified. Firstly and broadly "culture/leadership". Secondly skills development/game plan understanding/playing a role. Thirdly drafting.

My view is that it's the second more so than the others. I don't think drafting has anything to do with "development" because development is getting the most out of what you've got and has nothing to do with the drafting process.

But it's raised an issue and got those that are interested thinking about what it really is.

Given that I think it's the skills devleopment/game plan sort of thing I'm still confused as to why ours seems to have been so poor. I think part of it was the appalling list structure we had for many years post Daniher which required us to play young players far too early and in "bunches". And perhaps the people we had who were responsible for development were just no good.

I think there is a direct link between drafting and development. It is just that it is rarely used - I'd think anywhere.

You recruit (hire/employ etc) based on a few issues: what you need, what you can get and the goodness of fit between the individual + job + workplace (which includes culture). Development flows directly on from recruitment (ideally speaking). The recruitment process should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the applicant. which allows the club to then tailor development FROM DAY ONE across all critical areas of performance. Consider that you can assess how psych traits are linked to critical competencies (e.g., training, preparation, performain under pressure, leading etc). That is, you can measure which traits actually predict key stable behavioural patterns. This is done across industries, levels of complexity/cognitive demand, cultures, languages etc. It has been done effectively for decades.

So, every recruit could have a simple profile highlighting +/- before they even come through the door. That provides the basis for all specific development work year 1. That then gets reassessed every 12-18 months (i'm guessing at the timeframe) thereafter. Now, psych testing is one method - recruiters have several sources of data and different measures available to them - this is just the one i'm most familiar with. Development becomes the degree to which players demonstrate competencies across key domains of performance.

The monumental effort and amount of data collected in the process of recruiting AFL players should allow competent clubs (i.e., clubs competent at this process) to have a clear development plan for every player from day one.

Really saddened to hear this news. My condolences to all his family and friends. Much sadness and regret.

Jack and Ben, the idea that you know what happens in AFL is a joke - a sick, pathetic, joke. You don't know squat. You would not know if indiscretions became public. You don't have a clue. And I'm guessing that the only reason you buck up at Bob is because it is Bob. I'd figure that you'd just shut up now, after all your failures. After all your trumped-up assertions/denials that now drift, dead and decayed, across the sterile databanks of the 'net.

Bob made the most basic of points - I'll strip it down for you (consider it like a community service): Player X has left club Y because of "issues" - I hope the club has done a damn good risk assessment!

That is it.

You both jump up and say "Risk? What risk? We know everything!" I'm surprised the hubris you had for breakfast didn't choke you.

After Jimmy. After Don. And Cam. And Neeld. After so many stuff ups. After losing so many sponsors...After the AFL had to save us from ourselves while Jack railed against it all (Damn you Andy for getting us Jackson and Roos - now we're rooned!).

But you two genuises reckon you've got this one covered.

Thanks guys,

I'll sleep better now.

Holing up between here and New Year with saké and the Studio Ghibli collection. Happy Holidays, fellow secularists.

I want to get my kids 'Spirited Away' but am not sure what age is would suit - it's been years since I watched it!

Neeld might have had his failings as a coach but in my view they were related to things other than the fitness programmes that he undertook. His issues were more with the tough attitude to some players when one on one (some of it probably justified although poorly executed) and his match day coaching.

Bob might have heard some scuttlebutt from anonymous opposition FD people but I have heard differently from others including some of our players. We must have had around 30 training threads from last year's pre season on Demonland and if the group was being flogged too hard we would have heard it at the time. I recall even hearing Denham on SEN commenting (grudgingly perhaps) that Neeld was correctly training the players harder than they were under Bailey and how necessary it was to break the bruise-free mindset of some players. Neeld and Misson explained more than once that they were trying to bring the players up to the standards of the leading teams like Collingwood. The process was a stepped one going from 60% in 2011/12 to 80% in 2012/13 and then 100% now. I also heard this praised in the media at the time for being safer with young players compared to The Weapon's program at Essendon (before that went totally pear shaped).

It's true that the coach takes ownership and responsibility for the programme but the fact that Roos has persevered with Misson suggests that Roos doesn't see the physical training adopted in the past two preseasons as a problem.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now and the views of a few anonymous FD people from other clubs don't interest me.

I'm more concerned about what Roos and Misson do going forward and I have confidence in them both notwithstanding Misson's involvement in the previous fitness regime.

That are that many logical failings here I feel utterly overwhelmed. Roos keeps Misson but completely changes how training look and you think it is an endorsement of previous methods? I'd excuse that were you drunk but I know you abstain. I'm baffled as to how you take 1+1 and get 37.Seriously, how does totally different = no problem with the past?

Who the hell is greg denham as a judge? What do posters know about physical condition and training elite athletes. and how can they evaluate a program they know almost nothing about?

How does thrashing players on a track make them more willing to get hit? There is no physical risk that you must tolerate without time to predict in running until you spew. You know that, too. Why post this inconsistent guff? Seriously, wtf?

And the views of the anonymous few! Some time ago you trumpeted that the "shadow conspiracy" would be outed - this fed to you by an 'anonymous few'. What respect should anyone have for that now, Jack? By your standards? Are your anonymous few somehow different? Can you tell me the quality of the anonymous few? Should I trust you? Why the hell should I do that, given your track record of big promise and total failure to deliver? It's over 12 months and I'm still waiting for these revelations.

This "nothing to see here; it's all fine" routine is starting to annoy me. It lacks intellectual rigor and stinks of an agenda - but I'm buggered what agenda you have. Regardless, this sort of defending-the-past sleight of hand is wearing thin.

We needed to nail certain drafts if we were to have any chance at flag success and we failed dismally. The best coach in the world is no good with a crap list.

That said, the 4 pillars will determine how strong any AFL club is, namely, President, CEO, Head Recruiter and Coach. And these days you could throw in the head of football to make it 5. Ron Barassi said over 30 years ago that you need a successful administration to be a successful club. Who'd disagree?

So Baghdad is right to a large degree. If you draft well, but everything else is shot to pieces you won't become strong on the playing field. But you're also right. It's folly to disregard Baghdad's terrible recruiting pals. You know, "if we win a flag Bazz's fingerprints will be all over it". "Thanks Bazz". Now he's disregarding bad draft choices. Falls down in a stiff breeze our Baggy B.

And in the unwitting irony stakes you again win.

Compares Bob's changes while disregarding own (re: coaches and admin) and then suggests that bob's credibility = questionable.

It is amazing that you front a forum where your schtick is living/dying on your judgement calls and you have consistent and epic failures on this topic (Bailey, Neeld, Jimmy, the Board, schwab and various players), yet blithely hoe into others on issues of judgement.

And let's be really clear: your calls have been wrong about the issues that have led to the club being on its knees and near dead. It's not a matter of not guessing about player development.

Off all the big calls about the club in the last 5 years, you have been wrong on all of them.

All.

Every time.

Without fail.

Bob has been right on all. Without fail.

Perhaps a sense of shame will see you say less about others for while.

Relax, we've got this.

That is not funny.

I think 6-10 goal loss for us. We don't know how to win. We have a midfield that has not played together. We have a forwardline that has not played together. The players and coaches have shown 0 ability in 7 years to use a preseason to good effect.

Right now we are hoping that a new bloke can do it - we've all done that before. He has a new team and new methods. We've heard that before. The players are enthused. Whoop-de-do.

The team has no spirit. They talk it but cannot 'do' it. They talk about leadership but on-field do not show it.

Expect to lose until the team learns to win. I don't expect change until late in the season at best. And that is optimistic IMO

I wouldn't pump Bob up too much. He had a close eye on internal workings as his role as a volunteer and still thought Harrington and Prendergast were the bees knees.

"Thanks Bazz"

Snigger.

You are lying and it Is pathetic.

I know Bob didn't think that way. So do you.

the problem with Andrew bolt was that he was so careless with the truth that he damaged reputations in a genuinely gutless and unfair way. I wonder if irony extends far enough to see you so boastful, so defensive and so wrong in the same way as your idol.

Without stepping Tim's toes, I think a few of us have been aware for a while that Grimes is limited player. His foot skills are ordinary and his decision making heightens that. I'm not saying there's no scope for him to improve, but I would hope that we recruit someone that supersedes Grimes as a HBF. For the moment, I would prefer Jimmy Toumpas delivering the ball off half back.

I think eventually, if Grimes is to make it, he'll have to develop a clearance-winning ability. Players like Sewell, Cross and even Priddis have shown the football world that you don't necessarily have to be the most talented, to be an important midfield contributor. These players have exemplified a tireless commitment to improving and getting the best out of themselves. Grimes certainly has these attributes, so I won't write him off becoming an important cog just yet.

I'm not claiming some sort of superiority or primacy of judgement AdamFarr...no toes to step on.

What I'm astounded by is Dunn being devalued. He is better in the air and generally defending than most of the team but few have him in. He's a damn sight better at defending than Terlich....

Anyway, Jack Grimes is going to struggle to get a spot in the team. With Cross in, I'd have Jack out. Maybe Mitchie. Either way atm.

B: Colin Garland Tom Mcdonald Mitch Clisby

HB: Lyndon Dunn James Frawley Jimmy Toumpas

C: Jack Watts Dom Tyson Viv Michie

HF: Jeremy Howe Chris Dawes Jack Trengove

F: Jesse Hogan Mitch Clark Dean Terlich

FOL: Mark Jamar Bernie Vince Nathan Jones

I/C: Jack Viney Jordie Mckensie Jack Grimes

SUB: Dean Kent / Michael Evans / Matt Jones

Wonder if thorp could play back - what's his pace like?

I was just thinking the same thing. He was captain-coach this year, which shows (I hope) an ability to lead, to be responsible and understand game plans. To my mind that has got to help a role in defense - particularly as an architect. Can he kick? We need an improvement of disposal/decision making off halfback.

We are pretty desperate for blokes who can actually kick when coming off half-back...given that we have none. Maybe Clisby...maybe. Given that half-back is where you win the ball back and we turnover the ball consistently atm, I'd think that blokes who do better might well be a priority. Not saying that we should ignore midfield, or that a better midfield won't automatically lead to less ball going in to the defensive line in the first place...but we still need someone who can defend and kick off halfback.

although this is true, it is true with all, most likely howe was instructed to play the loose man and someone like terlich got sucked into the contest as he often does. im sure you saw him take countless intercept marks as well, and he often positioned himself behind the ball in order to do so.

that being said, sometimes he is soft on the chase and is often found hanging off his opponent, but at other times he is very quick on the chase and often pressures to smother well also.

Howe is a required player, he is the only player that gets our pictures in the paper for positive reasons and it might be a little bit over the top but partially why some people keep memberships or get them for that matter.Bloody ridiculous to suggest a trade, in fact it is down right stupid.

Taylor adams will be a good player, but i think there are others i would be looking at first, players like dom tyson who would be easier to get across and have just as much potential,

if we can come out of a trade period having secured cross, shaw and tyson i will be very very happy. plus maybe one more older mid

Well, this was when we had two loose men already. This one example might have also shown that the backline had no organiser at the time as well. That said, I saw it several times over the game as well.

AS for being stupid, I'd suggest that you do not understand our problem. The problem is that we do not have a midfield. Now Howe is not a midfielder. He is not that competitive, not aggressive, not physical and not defensive. You could try and coach some of those things, or, recruit someone who already has the base laid and just needs time.

Now, I'm relatively confident that you've not measured his psych state nor looked at his profile. You'd have no idea about whether the raw materials are there. I've watched him behave; he's not shown them on field. If they are not on the tests and not on the field, odds are that the ingredients are not there. You cut your lossses.

So to say it is stupid fails to understand the problem or provide a solution. And if you reckon we should keep someone because he gets in the papers, then you be banging down the door to try and get dustin martin then.

Simply cannot agree with this.

I reckon every club in the competition would be interested in Howe.

GOOD! I want them interested.

Tell me Ron, when have you ever seen Howe burst away from a pack, win the footy in a contest or run to help out a teammate? Does he provide a physical presence?

I'm happy to be proven wrong - but bring the proof. He has a load of potential and takes a great grab. I'd trade him for a two-way running, ball winning mid.

Nail on the head, Tim.

You and I think very similarly about quite a few things Adam.

What sold it for me was when I saw Clisby needing to direct howe during the last quarter against the dogs (first time). Clisby was pointing out the bleeding obvious - a dogs player free at half foward. Howe had seen him - I was watching him - so it took a very inexperienced teammate to tell him to do the obvious.

I love his marks - I love the thrill - but he is not competitive, not switched on and is lazy. If character counts, it counts for all.

Clubs land players all the time and manage to keep who they want. It is possible. It doesn't have to be either/or.

Having been to a third of preseason training I can vouch for his tank.

You'd trade him, I wouldn't, no biggie. It's how we see things. For the right deal I'd trade every player on the list accept Hogan. So I get your motives. Just don't see the need or the return we'd get that makes it necessary.

Ben, I'd trade Howe because he's a lot of not that much. He can play forward but I'm not sure how much he will once all the forwards are fit. He can play mid, but his defensive side and awareness are, IMO, pretty poor. He is an outside mid at best, but not that quick and not that skillful. His handball is not creative. So I actually think he is a half-forward who can run but he isn't a midfielder really and certainly not a defender. So we are then left with considering his role, whether than could be done by anyone else and whether trading him would address a deficit.

IMO the deficit (genuine mids) is a greater need to address than keeping a player who is a one-role player, and not that important a role at that. Now maybe roos can develop him...I think that is a big 'maybe'.

I'll make it simple.

Is intentional contact allowed ?

No.

I'm not saying basketball isn't a tough game.

Just that it's for pea-hearts who like wearing dresses.

HA!

i shouldn't laugh - it isn't funny.

pea hearts wearing dresses - (snigger)

Don't be amazed by anything this time of year! Many unexpected trades will happen. Even some of our players are in for a surprise!

So it would be 2nd round plus a player for Adams. Who's the player?

Just a word of warning to any joint Demonland and Demonology members, particularly if you share the same username and password, please change your password on this site. You can do that by going into your profile. PM me if you need assistance.

Your passwords on Demonology might not be encrypted. All passwords on Demonland are encrypted. It would be prudent to change them here to avoid your account being hijacked.

This is just a precaution and not based on anything else.

done - thanks again

what happened? i hardly ever visit there? Where is the TImD guy that ran it? I know he was quite ill at one stage. Sad to see it be run by the club

Hey dawi03 - I'm here but I'm not the Tim you are looking for.