praha

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.

I want him to be scathingly honest.

People attribute the "line in the sand game" as one of the defining moments in Hawthorn's revival, when it wasn't. The reality is that a young, inexperienced side took it up to the opposition, not with physically intimidating football, but with physical intimidation, period. The Bombers had been belting the Hawks all day and as soon as Hawthorn had a sniff, their emotions got the best of them, brawls started, and Essendon ended up kicking 14 of the last 20 goals after already being up 6 goals. Melbourne has brought it for a few quarters this year -- the physically intimidating football you need to play for 4 quarters -- but it has been soundly beat each time, just as Hawthorn was that day. Melbourne is about 3-4 years behind the Hawthorn team of 2004, which was in the 2nd year of its rebuild. Neeld can crap on about "lines in the sand" but it doesn't matter how rough you are: the better team will always win. Melbourne's only chance this year is if teams like GC, GWS, Saints, Bulldogs, maybe Crows, nod off for 20 minutes or so near the end of the game. This would of course follow Melbourne's own quarter lapse, which would need to have happened before the opposition's lapse. I am not confident there will be any Essendon 2012-caliber wins this year. Let's focus on actually getting and developing players like Campbell Brown, Vandenberg, Bateman, Holland, Williams in the team before we start pushing the "play a line in the sand game herp derp".

Howe's kicking has improved out of sight.

Throw in Scully.

What did he say about the current club and organisation?

Every. Single. Melbourne. Player. Is. Like. That. I'm not big on Watts but that's nitpicking. It's like that at evert kick-in, no matter who is presenting. Sometimes I think people fail to actually understand how bad this team is.

I can't fathom how he could get another week to prove himself if they lose by almost/more than 100 points again? What would beating GC prove? If they get belted this week, he's gone.

I think a 70+-point pasting this week will do it. Bookmark it.

I'm prettttttttttty sure it reached the point of no return after the 24-goal loss. Who likes burnt cake?