praha

Reality is that Demonland represents a very vocal minority. The casual supporters are the ones you need buying memberships because the hardcores that come here for all the complaining they do they still go to games and pay memberships. The casual fan wants to pick a team and no one picks the underdog unless your name is Clementine and you're a full-time student living in Fitzroy that survives on thrift shop handouts. It's becoming "cool" to go for Melbourne because of how bad they are. That sort of support is the "fickle" support you hear of: "fickle" is not paying members that complain but still go to games. They're the "hardcore" fans. It's not just about winning anymore. It's about creating a brand associated with winning so that the Chinese exchange student living in Melbourne chooses the Demons instead of the Pies, or Blues. They don't need that support because they've had it for 100 years.

Oh please...

Still don't understand why the club doesn't use the secondary "MFC" traditional logo. Seems natural to go down this path. Melbourne appears to be the only club that replaces its prominent colours with a shade, and a jumper not even remotely representative of the club's traditional colours, guernsey or design. And it really pisses me off seeing people wearing the clash jumper. It is a travesty. They always have been. Richmond: Essendon: Collingwood: Carlton: And then, Melbourne's:

I don't like the drive out there. From the North it is about 1.25-1.5 hour drive, which is pretty much what it took me to get to Waverley back in the day. If the club can establish a strong foothold there and generate maybe 5-10k extra members within 20-30 kms of the stadium then it would definitely be worth it. I might not always go to games there but a 15-20k seat stadium would be great.

I have? Not that any of said players are even of his quality..

Isn't he basically co-captain anyway? I was of the belief that even though Trenners and Grimes are "officially" captains, the leadership group collectively has the same goal to lead the group. Making him "co-captain" wouldn't change anything aside from making fans think he is actually doing more than what he's already doing. "Captain" these days is really just "media front" anyway. Nothing would change. He's already captain. Giving him the official title will just...well...give him an official title. Wait until 2014.

Would be a superb addition to our midfield. Even if he is injured it would be a great addition to the club. There are risks with every player.

Jeremy Howe is a younger Daisey Thomas and he would benefit immensely from having him in the squad. Get him to the club! This is free agency.

I don't know if it's just me but I thought the team addressed the issue of positioning and zoning quite well yesterday. Being at the game is much different to watching on television, but you could tell the team addressed the issues present in the Brisbane game. A few times they made Carlton pass back into their defensive area and a Demons players sprinted up on the mark to push them back. The only problem is that once we forced them into a long kick the Blues were too classy and quick around the stoppages. A few times the ball fell behind the pack and they go the goal. I think yesterday was more representative of a top-4-caliber team finally running away from a bottom-4 team. Potentially Melbourne could have been ahead at half-time if not for wayward kicking and taking advantage of inside-50s. It was a considerably better performance than the Eagles match, and imo more promising than the Brisbane match (which I am still adamant the team should have won). Anything less than a 5-10 goal pasting of the Suns is unacceptable. They are no easy-beats though.

IMO both 2012 and 2013 are far and beyond much worse than 2008 and 2009. Those teams were hard to watch, but Neeld's team is much worse, and far further behind the ball than Bailey's troops were.

IMO the club should give him a 2-year deal and then let him walk. It's the Melbourne way!

I must be the only one with sympathy for Richmond. 2 finals appearances since 1995. And we think Melbourne's bad...

Yep. Opposition transition out of defense has been pathetic. Melbourne's zoning is mechanical, lacks flexibility, and the players seem almost unable or afraid to experiment within their determined zone. It is not rocket science. This team plays predictable football across the middle and teams rip them apart. Against Brisbane the Lions were slamming them in transition: Melbourne would rush it in fine but if it wasn't a clean delivery than it was a guaranteed inside-50 for the. Naturally I would have thought that Neeld would get the message out and tell the team to slow it down, keep position, and high-percentage inside-50s only. Instead, the team played stubborn football and the same issues presented themselves for the entire match. I am bewildered at how anyone thinks that game was good. A team missing its spine in the middle still managed to run riot. Neeld was out coached and the players unable to match the Lions' run. It was frustrating to constantly, over and over again, see Brisbane players get the ball in defense, turn around and have a target straight away. If they keep doing this, then something needs to change. You don't stick to a plan for the sake of education when the team is in a winning position. Neeld had a hand in that loss because his coaching and structures failed him.

If that's what you equate to trying hard, this team is in worse trouble than I thought. Funny you say that: the list, fitness and leadership all appear to be at all-time lows, lower than they were before he arrived. You say "believe" because you take what he says at face value. Hasn't shown an inkling of what he promised over an 18 month period. Not even close. In fact, it progressively becomes more distanced. But hey, we don't want to make erratic decisions to cause instability. Eradicating those that failure are the last thing you want to do...........

They should come back. Bombers by 30. Either way puts A LOT of pressure on Neeld. 2 pre-seasons, 6 rounds in. Gotta take Carlton up to the task. GWS showing that no matter what cattle you have on the day if you play confident, free flowing, accountable football you will challenge anyone. Sheedy has also out coached Hird and Thompson. GWS plugging the holes nicely. Inb4NeeldApologists

This team at its best...leads the league is great stats. This team at its worst...looks like one of the worst teams at all time. I don't know what to expect.

Well, what have Kochie and the coaching staff achieved at Port since last October?

Yeah, only Knights was a [censored] coach...or at least wasn't to a standard expected by Essendon and its fans. Call them scum, call them whatever, they have standards and they are justified in those standards. How does Melbourne stand up against Essendon over the past 50 years? We shouldn't accept 24-goal losses, 100-point losses, no matter what the end goal. I literally go into every game CONFIDENT, very CONFIDENT, that a 100-point loss is possible. THAT'S untenable.

I wasn't against moving Moloney either but you have to ask questions when the guy winning your B&F in 2011 all of a sudden can't be fit in your salary cap, and doesn't really intend to stay. How can you not find a role -- on-field, as a leader, or both -- for Rivers who has been at the club for 10 years and never once even had an inkling of being disgruntled with the club? Stood up last year at times and yet Neeld couldn't even convince the bloke to stay and help lead the team to a few extra wins this year. I understand he wanted to play finals, but you don't just let guys like that walk. Petterd, I'm not fussed to see him go, same as the other guys, but he has contributed more to Richmond in a handful of games than he did all last season, when he was given no chance whatsoever. I agree that Neeld hasn't been given nearly enough time to demonstrate he can coach over the period he proposed was needed to get this team up and running, but he HAS proven that his coaching capacity at the absolute worst puts him firmly in the worst coaches of all-time bracket, because this team plays moronically-bad football some times. If you think the people on this forum are dumb sometimes, really pay attention to the team's structures on game day, because they seem to me to take "dumb" to a whole new level. I can't coach, admittedly, but I know the difference between good football and bad football, and this team is playing well below what it's actually capable of. Neeld seems like a top bloke with a passionate vision and a direct line of what he wants, but that doesn't make him a good coach.

I must admit: in Melbourne's own downfall, I have started watching more games, because I crave good football. I don't see it with Melbourne, and the last two years I've definitely watched more footy than ever, probably 5-6 games a week.

I'm not in favour of sacking Neeld mid-season but any more than two 70-plus-point belting between now at Queen's Birthday and I think they should move him on. I understand that it won't achieve anything but you need to move on when things aren't working. I don't believe this team is 148-points below Essendon, nor 100 points below the Eagles...the way Port is playing, maybe 70 points. If the players come out and say off-field issues aren't compromising their capacity to play, then as stakeholders we should hold on-field contributors accountable. The coach holds players accountable at the selection table: the club holds the coach accountable when things go sour. That's how it works. 1997, 2008, 2009 were bad years. But I wasn't around in the '70s, and this team is without a doubt the worst I've seen. He has initiated many of the changes and I understand he is trying to build his own team in the process, and I trust his vision is ambitious and dressed in hopes of success and longevity. But you have to set the line somewhere. You have to say that, no, these sorts of losses aren't good enough, no matter where you think individual players are at, and where you think the team -- and club -- are at collectively. I fail to see how he can't coach this current team to at least get close to teams that aren't called GC or GWS. It doesn't make sense to me.

Or maybe Essendon of 2000-2004 was a better team than Hawthorn of 2000-2004, and Hawthorn 2005-2008 better than Essendon in the same period?

Woah...that was heavy.

The "line in the sand" game is one of the biggest travesties in footy lore. Essendon absolutely destroys Hawthorn. Hawthorn drew a line, but Essendon just rubbed over the line, played the ball -- it's what made Sheedy such a great coach -- and took advantage. The Hawks were a travesty to this great game that day. THIS is a line in the sand game:

That just says to me that teams are so shocked when Melbourne goes forward that the Dees score because the opposition is caught off guard. Seriously though, similar stats lingered around last year, too. I think we have the players and talent up forward to cause trouble when it goes down there, even without Clark. But damn the team is awful at getting it there.