praha

I appreciate the club’s intention to build a club that can have “sustained success”. However, I am seriously concerned about the off-field ramifications of bringing the club down to expansion club levels. I for one refuse to accept that when fully healthy this team is 10-goals behind GC. Even if statistically they are, it is not something we as fans or the clubs should accept. In the second half of the year, the Dees play the Bulldogs twice, the Saints, Suns and Giants, five very winnable games that should be “win at all costs” games: forget about the long-term goals in developing players. It should simply be a matter of taking the game on, and demonstrating that the club has some glimmer of hope. The players need to have the confidence to take risks, make mistakes and take the game on. That encouragement needs to come from the coaching department. IMO rounds 13-23 will be better indicators of Neeld’s coaching ability. Consider that in the first 10 rounds Melbourne has played 6 finalists, and 2 potential finalists in GC and Port. That’s 8 of 10 games against teams in the top tier of the competition. They lost by 5 goals against the Lions in what was a frustratingly winnable game, and also were in winning positions against the Tigers. 100-point losses to the Hawks, Eagles, Dockers and Bombers are hardly surprises. Not acceptable, but not surprising. Unfortunately this club does not have the flexibility of a GWS or GC to slowly build up something, because Melbourne is in an aggressively competitive market, one that resents a lack of competitiveness and refuses to back down on scrutiny. People on this forum point the finger at the media. We should be pointing the finger at the club: where there is smoke (media) there is fire. Change isn’t just about restructing the suits from the bellows of the MCG. It’s about standing for something and showcasing that you don’t accept what’s happening. We’ve sat through utter garbage for 10 weeks. The Pies game is a write-off. Neeld is coaching for his career from June 22.

Was never going to happen. Inside scoop was that he considered coming back to Melbourne, and his family pushed him to go to the Dees, but he wasn't keen on coming to a club that is about where the Suns were in their first year. That said even if Melbourne were flying he wouldn't have come back. Been through too many big losses in his first two years to just pack up and leave just as the team starts playing good footy. It's damning enough that fans resent you and the media hound you, but to have other AFL players acknowledging how bad you are, that's quite telling.

What the hell has him being a young Lib got to do with anything you hipster dweeb?

Yes, Mark Neeld was also "talked up".

Yes, last year was a pleasure to watch.

Two moments stood out for me, both when the game was still up for grabs (first 10 minutes or so). 1. It was a one-on-one contest in front of the AFL Members. The ball bounced awkwardly for both players. Watts never, not for a single second, seemed like he would win the ball. Both players at one point touched the ball, but the Hawthorn player crisply managed to brush Watts off, balance his footing and drive the ball forward. 2. About 5 minutes later the same thing happened. He was playing in 2nd gear. Either the guy lacks the confidence to excel at AFL level, or he simple has no urgency to win even the simplest of one-on-one contests. I think that since 2009 I've seen him win maybe a handful of one-on-one battles. Damning for a guy drafted as a KPP. He is failure of a draft pick.

I think what you're referring to is Obama's attack on civil and financial liberties.

Wouldn't be surprised. And if his runs with injury are still like what they are now, then I'll drive him to the airport. We don't need another injury prone coulda-been that hangs onto the club's salary like Lyon used to.

IMO Neeld, Lyon and Stynes should be removed, and replaced with Jones, Terlich and Viney. Smith, Barrassi and Flower are all we need of reminders of the past. There is far too much looking back in the Demonland banned -- and at the club -- and we need to start looking forward. Ditch them.

I find Neeld's vision to be ambitious, and on par with the vision Schwab and co had -- the "Red and Blueprint". Unfortunately, I fail to comprehend how a rebuild, even one as a rebuild of a rebuild, can be to the level it is. The club has risked, not only onfield pain, but off-field pain, for what it hopes will be "sustained success". In a grand of view of sustained success, the club has been brought to arguably its lowest point yet. I'd argue it is the lowest point, simply because the club is arguably below GWS (there is NOTHING to suggest GWS is behind Melbourne in development). He came in saying there would be paid, but 100-point losses every week pain? I can't cop that.

I love selective counting.

He's basically said what we have all known since half-way through season 2012.

Schwab and McLardy moved him out of the FB? Lock this thread up!

So basically Moloney spit the dummy because the club didn't think he was up to the task as captain. Is anything surprised? As for Sylvia, if he leaves imo it won't be because he is frustrated with the club, or wants to leave of the irk of Moloney. He'll leave to play finals. Even that isn't guaranteed to push him out. Hope he stays.

One in the same?

Sorry to disappoint you. Here, have some nostalgia.

Ah yes, Melbourne Student Union and Socialist Alternative.

Hearing it before the game means nothing anymore.

They're doing that now, though.

The reason some believe he only has two weeks left is because if the team can't lift after 11 rounds and at the very least be competitive for 4 quarters, what reasoning is there to suggest the team would beat either of those teams? It's a silly logic.

You mean the spin the club fed us about meeting financial targets as early as the pre-season comp? Seriously, if there is smoke there is fire. Please stop blaming the media. It is a deflection.

The main reason for low crowds is not the competition. Please stop deflecting blame. Melbourne was pulling 40,000 to the 'G in 2004, 2004 in games against West Coast, Adelaide, etc. The reason is that the team plays an insipid brand of football.

I love how people equate sacking a man with an 80-point average losing margin and essentially no wins against reputable opposition as a "knee jerk reaction". A "knee jerk reaction" would have been to sack him at the end of last season, or even after round 1 this year. Now it's just a formality.

How many opportunities per game do they get to clearance? Consider Geelong goes forward 50 very often and also keeps the ball alive with silky skills. It's like watching hot potato when they have the ball but they keep possession. It's OK to not win clearances if you still manage to beat your opponent in possessions. You have to balance it out. Melbourne can't get clearances but also can't: 1. get the ball 2. get it inside 50 3. tackle 4. hit targets 5. run 6. actually score Geelong can do ALL of those things better than the competition.

Nah. I don't how good the team is: the modern game has no place for 148-point losses, let alone 186-point ones. And the gameplan had NOTHING to do with that loss. Watch the game. The players simply did not care. It's all over YouTube. The reaction was swift and the decision wrong. Schwab should have gone.