Fat Tony

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.

Garry Lyon wouldn't even get a kick in the role Sylvia is being asked to play. The coaching staff have clearly instructed him to not go near stoppages (even in the forward line) and we never look to pass the ball to a leading player going inside 50.

The fact that we have cap space and won't have to give up any picks to land him makes it a no brainer for me. At worst, we will increase the amount Collingwood have to pay to retain him. Same goes for Goddard.

We need to forget the trade table and build our own list out of the draft. Nobody of any quality is going to want to play for MFC unless we pay them an obscene amount of money. And any trade involving Colin Sylvia would see us being the loser.

I thought our rebound out of the backline was much better today without Bartram and I think he should be played in the midfield going forward. On the negative, I thought we were pretty selfish in the forward line today, particularly Dunn and Clark. Tapscott is not quick enough and doesn’t have enough tricks to play forward at AFL level. HBF is the only position he will make it IMO. I would prefer to see Watts played on the wing and Blease in the backline. We still could do with more pace. Hopefully Bartram, Sylvia and Davey come back in next week for Green (inj), Sellar and Bennell.

Not much different, but I would say Clark for Scully is a win in the short term.

Get your head out of the sand Range Rover. We all want Mark Neeld to succeed as MFC coach. But the fact is we are playing insipid football at the moment and we have gone a mile backward this year with a slightly better playing list. Believing in Neeld in such an evangelistic fashion is just delusional. Without question we will need to improve over the rest of the year for him to remain at the helm in 2013.

Jones is clearly trying his guts out. But there is so much spin coming out of the club at the moment. What did you expect him to say?

My view of what has transpired: Garry Lyon and the Board were seeking a coach with a hard edge to toughen us up. Neeld fit the bill nicely. He came from working under a great coach at a successful club and he also thought some tough love was required. I didn’t really agree that this was what we needed at the time, but given that was their view, I don’t now have any issue with Lyon and the Board not casting the net more widely. They thought they had the right man for the job and they backed their judgement. Neeld then entered the club like a bull in a china shop, slagging off a number of players in the media, completely turning over the senior leadership group (which was at the very least an implicit slap in the face) and presenting a tough guy image to all and sundry. In addition, he introduced an outdated, ultra-defensive game plan and also displayed a selection bias towards grunt. The result has been a slow, unskilled outfit which lacks any confidence and cohesion. (This is evident by the low uncontested possession stats.) Now, after getting off on the wrong foot with the several of the players and such a horrendous start, Neeld may well have already ‘lost’ some of the players. IMO we are now likely to see a large number of exits at season’s end and get little in return. Despite all this, we need to stick with coach until the end of the year at the very least. (I would advocate an annual season-end review of the coach’s role, in any event of the current situation.) Neeld, on the other hand, must do his best to unify the playing list and get some confidence and flair back into the team. Talk of ‘cutting away the cancer’ or ostracising older players to Casey will only make things worse and we will have (even younger) players asking themselves if they should leave. (IMO if players like Bleese and Watts look to depart the coach is in real trouble.) While Neeld’s judgement has been poor to date, I think it is really the judgement of the Board, Lyon and the front office that we should be questioning. They clearly were after a coach with a hard edge and they should have realised there was a risk of it backfiring given our recent history (i.e. Bailey’s sacking, tanking, mistreatment of older players). If players leave en masse at season’s end, I would like to see many of those in charge of the club follow suit. They should not be given a second chance to oversee a full rebuild. With respect to our game plan, I disagree with those of the view that we haven’t had enough time to learn it properly. Adelaide is flying under Sanderson. Essendon adjusted quickly under Hird last year. IMO Neeld’s plan has already been surpassed by more attacking plans which attempt to quickly move the ball through the press. If Neeld is ever to succeed at MFC coach he needs to quickly realise this and adjust.

8.5 'one offs' for the year. We are playing well below our optimal at present and our supporters are justifiably upset. Nobody thought we were capable of winning the flag this year or anything like that, but we were all hoping for improvement and not expecting to go back to rock bottom. The argument that we have to go backwards to go forwards is rubbish. Our list is still ordinary but our performances have been insipid. IMO it is the coaches primary role to get us playing at our best. Neeld has not even got close at the moment.

We beat Essendon last year. IMO our list is capable of 8-11 wins not 0-3.

But he has little currency atm. If he were playing for another club he would be a player I would be saying we should target.

I would prefer if we persevered and got the very best out of him.

Clearly Neeld would prefer the kick down the line to a contest to be more of a last resort option. (He would prefer to maintain possession but without risking going through the corridor.) But he has stacked the midfield with grunt players who are slow and don’t provide sufficient spread and included too many poor kicks in the back half. Players like Bartram and McDonald lack the ability to hit targets by foot and lack confidence to take the game on. They both need to be removed from the side or play further up the ground. Including some outside support to our best inside mids would also help. A midfield of Jones, Moloney, Magner, McKenzie, Bate, Grimes and Trengove doesn’t have the outside runners to either provide chasing pressure of ‘win’ uncontested possessions. IMO Neeld has taken too much notice of the Collingwood game last season when we were monstered in the clearances and Cloke killed us.

Excellent post. Recruiting has been our major problem and is obviously the key reason we are where we are. However, I also think it is the coach’s role to get the best out of our list every single week. IMO we are currently playing in a fashion that makes it very easy for our opponents. I strongly don’t agree with the view that we need to take steps backwards in order to go forwards. Lack of short-term success makes it more difficult to retain and attract quality players which inevitably leaves us worse off in the long term. I also think the ‘reprogramming the players takes time’ argument is flimsy. AFL players are full time and have been able to adjust quickly at other clubs. And how do we know they will be better players with their attacking instincts dulled?