Nasher

Agreed. I think a new turn of events deserves a new thread.

Already a thread on this.

I laugh at the idea that this is knee jerk. I've never seen a knee take 11 weeks to jerk, you must have the slowest reflexes ever.

Why is Jones such a better candidate than Grimes?

Pointing out that ordinary player X is getting a game is not a good justification for giving poor players Y and Z a game.

Not sure what you mean by that. I'm a long way from the club. I live interstate, I have no ties with the club, I don't know anyone that works there, and the last time I was even at the MCG was in 2008. Hell, I hardly even know anyone else that supports the MFC. It's why Demonland is so important to me and why I invest time and resources in it.

First time you've ever said anything on the forum that made any sense, Tone. Well done. I, too, can't believe we are considering selling our soul to the devil like this.

It's Biffin. You've been tricked by that weirdo who posts on here.

Even if Frawley is unhappy now and does want to leave, a year and a half is such a long time away that absolutely anything could happen in the mean time. His contract expiry is such a long way off that it isn't worth even thinking about, let alone worrying about yet.

It had the side benefit of forcing Watts to hit the ball at full tilt as well. It really was a beautiful passage of play. For those few minutes, I actually felt alive watching the footy*.* Sorry for the nauseating hyperbole.

So every player other than Jamar is either as good or better than they were before, yet we're losing more often and by more? Justify this, please.

I challenge you to say with a straight face that the injury to Dawes didn't have a drastic effect on the functionality of our forward line. It was almost a carbon copy of what happened in the first round of the NAB cup, in fact.

This question is clearly a trap. My money says this will end in a "ner ner, you don't know it was Neeld's coaching" sort of post.

So what's the reason for us having so many turnovers? It can't *just* be skill - the number is too high. I reckon for every time I saw a turnover through a skill error, I saw two occasions where we turned it over by handballing it to a stationary player who got cained, or just hoofed it to a pack of Collingwood players. These aren't skill errors, these are decision making errors that can be a direct result of the team either being set up wrong, or players not working hard enough to put themselves in a dangerous position. I'd like to see a breakdown, or at least some analysis of the cause of the turnovers before I accept it as a reason to exonerate the coach.

Doesn't he work overseas?

Psychological. Our skills and decisions looked fine in the first quarter.

Clearly the difference between "keep Neeld" and "keep Neeld until August" is too subtle for you. The only argument that is at all compelling for retaining Neeld until seasons end is that all the people eligible for caretaker are just as culpable for our performance as their boss is. I don't buy it though; I can't see how getting rid of him is going to make the situation any worse than it already is.

Col Garland surely just hit the lead in the Bluey race.

deanox is spot on (in his now deleted posts) - churlish name calling is not on. The offending post and discussion that ensued are now gone.

And any player who signs for two after his 8th season. Weird rule, what's it there to protect against?

There are elements that Neeld has promised to deliver, which from the various bits and pieces I hear from those close to the club, I believe are being delivered upon and I still believe in them. This is the stuff like demanding elite preparation, training and fitness standards and so on, as well as delivering players clear messages about what is required to improve. I also heard an interesting story about how the 'fringe' players last year being told in no uncertain terms what they had to do in order to be retained, the only one of them bothered to do them is the only one of that group still on the list. BH in another thread called in to question Neeld's approach to these fringe players including Gysberts, Moloney, Petterd and Morton, making the assertion that players won't improve if they don't have the confidence of the coach. I agree with this in part, but I also agree that if players are going to take an obstinate attitude towards taking direction from the coach, they do themselves absolutely no favours. As a senior coach trying to pull everyone on to the same path, I can understand you might sooner or later declare that enough is enough. A whole season is surely enough for a player to see the writing on the wall and pull his head in and these guys didn't. Guys like Chris Dawes and Colin Garland have said they believe in the coach, and I believe they're being sincere. The one thing that is obvious though is that we're being smashed on the field in a matter that is completely unsustainable, and this is why the coach will go. For whatever reason, when it comes to on the field, the message is not getting through, or it is but it's a poor message. Either way, I can't see how this cycle is going to break without a change. The performance of our players, mostly, have been limp and lifeless. Their confidence is destroyed. I honestly believe we're not as bad as we're playing - certainly we're a bottom eight side on merit, but we're not 100+ point drubbings to Essendon bad. I believe a change at the top and a fresh set of instructions will go some way to breaking the psychological barrier the players are behind. With the way we've been playing and the deep hole the players are in in their minds, I can't see how the coach can possibly be retained. It's okay to point at the age and inexperience of the list, and the lack of quality through our midfield, but I think it's a huge leap to get from there to "it's okay to routinely lose by 10 goals". It's not okay. The other thing very alarming about Neeld's tenure to date is that the goalposts keep moving, and even this year they've moved (5 year plan - since when?!). His complete surprise at our lack of competitiveness early in the year is horrifying - it really did sound like nobody was behind the wheel. These are the things I see as our goals moving forward: Find a coach who is a good motivator and knows how to press the right buttons for different players. Better 'screening' of the coach during the hiring process is essential. Ensure the parts of Neeld's plan that are working are maintained. We need to be training and preparing at the same level as the best clubs, if not better. Back the players that we've got. I don't think all our players are as bad as they're being made to look due to their heads being in the wrong place. I don't expect 15 changes again this year. I had this post interrupted a million times so I didn't get to ride my "trains of thought" all the way through as I'd have liked, but I hope I'm making some sense. Either way, while I have some sympathy to the sentiment behind this thread, I can't see how retaining Neeld is at all viable.

I conclude from this thread that we should re-hire Dean Bailey as senior coach.

Sigh. Are we going to bump this thread every time he has a good game or a poor game?

I disagree that the supporters have a right to a justification to every selection decision that happens. What if, hypothetically, the reason was "he's got ability, but just doesn't listen to a word his coaches or teammates say"? It would be unfair on the player for this to enter the public domain. So in answer to the title of this topic, yes, there's a pretty good chance the coach knows something about Magner that we don't know. The reason may not be apparent to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one, or that it isn't a compelling one. I know that most people have zero trust or Neeld, but that doesn't mean that every decision he makes is poor or irrational.

I for one have been amazed at the club's ability to get worse when I thought it couldn't. Besides, "it couldn't be worse" is hardly much of an endorsement. As for Kennett, I acknowledge that he would bring to the table qualities we desperately need; leadership, strength and a history of getting it done. I also acknowledge that nobody else seems to be putting their hand up. I just hope we are able to find those qualities without turning to a self interested, divisive loudmouth like Kennett. Other suitable candidates must be out there.