Fat Tony

The incumbants (Wood and Yencken) are sympathetic to the MFC.

Without being inside the club, it is impossible to say whether he should be replaced or not. Those voting ‘yes’ are putting a lot of faith in intangible improvements, which I don’t think can be evaluated from outside the club. IMO the board would be negligent if they did not do a thorough review of the situation - given the on field results have been so poor. This may end up reconfirming the administration’s initial positive view on Neeld. We now have a lot more information on Neeld's coaching ability than before his appointment and so it is easier to assess his suitability.

IMO we would be better off with a smaller defense (i.e. three of Frawley, Rivers, Garland, MacDonald, Sellar, McDonald and three of Grimes, Bartram, Blease, Tapscott, Nicholson, Strauss). It gives us more run and skill but comes at the trade off of being caught short in the air. At times this year we have had a five and one mix (with Macdonald and Garland as small defenders), which is unbalanced. IMO Garland should be played on the third tall and either Tapscott or Grimes on the slowest small.

It is obvious there is a directive to go along the boundary out of the backline and we then give up far too much territory in switching because we don't want to take a risk bringing the ball into the corridor. This allows the opposition to set their defensive press and thus leads to slow ball movement. Team selection, by including too many key defenders with poor foot skills, then exacerbates the problem.

Disagree. Neeld's game plan is a massive outlier compared to the rest of the competition. We have been way too predictable and slow in our ball movement, which is a complete 180 on where we have come from. No other team is so averse to either using the corridor or using handball as an attacking weapon.

I don’t think making mass changes to the list is a great idea given the requirement for new draftees to be given two-year deals. I would prefer to retain players like Cook, Bail, Green, Gysberts and Dunn on one-year contracts. Tapscott will only make it as a small defender IMO. He does not have enough pace or tricks to play forward and cannot develop the tank required to play as a mid. But we would need to structure our defense to accommodate him. (i.e. play only three key defenders.)

To have faith in a Neeld future I think you must have confidence that his long around the boundary, defensive game plan provides us with the best chance of winning a premiership. Watching the way Hawthorn are playing, it would be a brave person to say that the future of football is not a style which puts a greater premium of retaining possession and encourages risk taking through the corridor. To my mind the quality of football is only going to improve, so this is even more likely to be the method to win premierships in the future. Neeld has not adapted his thinking and we are still sticking to the same approach used by Collingwood to win the 2010 flag. This is my key concern and all the other issues with Neeld are just side issues IMO. Comments will be put forward that this will come later in our development and that we do not have the players yet to adopt this approach. However, I doubt any coach in their right mind would be so discouraging of taking risks and then do a complete reversal and advocate it. The recruitment of players such as Magner and Couch also indicates Neeld’s thinking on the future of the game.

Having a signature saying “I believe in Neeld.” at a time when we are 2-14 smacks of evangelism.

Three-year contract or otherwise, it is clear as day that Neeld will start 2013 under pressure. (And fair enough too given our pathetic performances so far.) No matter what the board and administration say, another very poor start to the year next year and the media pressure will be intense. The club and the Neeld evangelists can only point to intangible improvements for so long.

The weekly cycle of Demonland under Neeld: Game Time: Insipid performance by the team with no apparent purpose or modern game plan and no sign of hope. Post Match: Demonlanders who actually watch the game question how a team that won 8 games last year can become a 10 goal worse side so quickly after spending an inordinate amount of money on new coaches. Monday to Thursday: Neeld evangelists shoot down anyone who dares question the direction the club is taking, sprooking buzz words like ‘culture’, ‘186’ and ‘deadwood’ and expressing unwavering confidence in the coach. Thursday: Team selection and our team doesn’t look so bad on paper and we cling to a small chance of winning.

Think of White not impeding Jamar.

Surely any trade discussion requires a degree of prognostication?

Jamar is a lumbering tap ruckman rather than an athletic one, so I don't think he is likely to play great footy in his 30s. And I doubt we will be a contender in the next three years. Furthermore, I think we should also be planning for an AFL rules change to open the game up. (i.e. a move to 2+2 on the bench.)

No. And this is not a Jamar bash thread. Rather my view just takes into account Jamar's age, where we are presently at, my positive view of Martin as a ruckman and Jamar's likely trade value. And I also don't think our side is balanced with Jamar, Clark and Martin in it, as Martin has never really excelled as a KPF.

Hopefully not Sam Blease in the PSD.

This as different as Jamar has some trade value. I also believe that Jamar being on the list is more likely to stunt the development of Gawn, etc than assist it.

"We're not at a stage really where we can change too much about what's going on in a game. Game plan A, that's hard enough to learn. Three quarters into a game, when you're two short, you can't try and pull game plan B out." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dockers-stifle-demons-20120714-2234g.html#ixzz20ffQ6q8j Surely when you are 20 points down with 10 minutes to go, the message needs to be to play on and use the corridor. The fact that this message never came is very disappointing IMO.

You are missing the point. I still think Jamar is a handy player, but we aren't going to win a flag while Jamar is still at the club. Trading him for someone who may be part of a premiership is worth the risk. Moreover, we have a good replacement in Martin.

See point 5.

Clark has played excellent footy this year as a forward, but he was also nearly the All Australian in ruckman at Brisbane one year, so he is clearly able to play both roles well. Martin has played his best footy when he has had to carry the ruck load single handed and IMO gives us more than Jamar. He only needs 15 minutes chop out a game and by using Clark as the second ruckman we can play an extra runner.

The decision to sign Mark Jamar for a further three years was an error in my view and we should look to trade him at the end of the year. Rational: We are a better side with Stefan Martin in the ruck. Martin’s best position is the ruck and he is not a great marking forward. Mitch Clark is probably the perfect second ruck option. The game has changed against ruckmen that offer little around the ground and there is only room for one specialist ruckman. Max Gawn and Jack Fitzpatrick (and even possibly Jake Spencer) will hopefully come on. The best available player in the draft at the time of our pick may be Brodie Grundy. Jamar’s reoccurring calf injury is a worry. Clubs are often willing to over pay for ruckmen on the trade table. We have a slow midfield and this is exacerbated by Jamar’s lack of second efforts in the stoppages. We are unlikely to win a flag in the next three years. On the flip side, I don’t really like trading loyal players and he will become a veteran over the course of the next three years which has advantages. However, on balance, this would be a good decision IMO.

We were horrible again yesterday. A 10 goal hiding to a very ordinary team. Neeld continues to make the same basic mistakes at the selection table, notably the decision to play Spencer, playing Blease as the sub (on repreive) even while Davey was out of the side, Frawley being the third option for Brown and again carrying more key defenders than we needed. With Clark out for the season we obviously need to move the ball much faster and aggressively through the corridor. Neeld needs to show some flexibility with repsect to his gameplan otherwise we won’t get close to anyone other than GWS and GC.

You might be able to back up that type of comment E25/Lutz/Jose if you didn’t change your username every couple of months. IMO Cale Morton is lucky he was drafted by a weak team at #4, as he has been gifted many games as a result. He is now 22 and the “he’s still young” excuse has worn well and truly thin.

Neither are free agents and we would have to trade draft picks. We are better off going for Cloke.

Morton is a very outside player who fumbles under pressure and has average acceleration and ordinary foot skills. I am amazed how so many see so much potential in him.