Adam The God

Both I think, Jack.

Except RM claimed Craig was saying "exactly the same things that Neeld has been saying for the last few months". Completely untrue.

Neeld said it will take three to five years to be competitive. That is competitive, Bing. He said nothing of making finals or even winning them. With regards to the quotes, Neil Craig is a respectful guy. He has been sure to acknowledge his predecessor and his contribution to the footy club. He has been mindful of this at each press conference he's done. Mark Neeld was the exact opposite on Dean Bailey's tenure and failed to do anything but criticise his predecessor's era. Arrogance and disrespect all over the place. Failing to recognise any development or achievement from the previous regime. Craig isn't as stupid. I'm not a Bailey apologist, but he and Neeld have shown themselves to be absolutely inept, though the latter probably more so. Bailey didn't have the same public arrogance that Neeld had though, which you could argue was his first mistake. Let's for the moment take Craig's comments RE: Neeld on face value though. The training and preparation may have been better than the Bailey years, but those years were never going to be particularly difficult to outdo. In fact, Craig's comments are ultimately vague. He says nothing specific of Neeld's ability to coach or instil confidence amongst the playing group. If you fail to differentiate the nuances between the way Craig handles questions of development, expectations, gameday output etc in comparison to his predecessor, then I urge you to give Craig's another watch. He is very careful to demand more of his players, but in one, demonstrate a willingness to nurture and support them during this. The manner in which he expresses these feelings is a world away from Neeld's approach in the same arena.

Glad he's getting a few accolades then, RM. He deserves them.

Craig alluded to this in his press conference. He said once we get into space by ourselves, we need to get better at finishing these passages off. He's right of course. One of the journos asked him how we intended to fix and then improve this. He was coy on this point. He essentially said they'll work on it at training. The pleasing thing was he never insinuated it wasn't possible to fix this over the remaining rounds. He keeps making all the right sounds. He's not making excuses for the player's to fall back into.

Craig spoke beautifully. Totally disagree, RM. Neeld never so categorically and matter-of-factly demanded we need to lift our performance as Craig did today. Neeld was still banging on about the importance of contested possessions, yet we were suffering possession differentials of staggering proportions against us. Not once did Neeld emphasise the importance of team improvement, over individual improvement in such a way. Tellingly, he also never spoke of protecting the players, in fact, when he first addressed the players in 2011, all that went out the window. I think the most telling moment in that press conference was Jack Watts' ability to crack a joke at the end. He would never have done that with Neeld sitting next to him, yet Jack played one of his best games for Melbourne today. You can tell just from that press conference that Craig has the respect of the players. Craig carries himself in an intelligent and insightful manner. Neeld always came across as arrogant, emotionally retarded and stubborn. Light years, RM. Light years. Craig was not happy and demanded the players raise the bar after a six goal defeat. He said so in a respectful and constructive manner. In comparison, Neeld was happy with a five goal defeat to Brisbane and could only point to specific players, rather than the team to illustrate improved output. It's laughable, farcical to suggest Neeld's been saying the same things for the last few months. Neeld's been saying gems like "it'll take five years", having changed his tune from "things will turn around quicker than people think" prior to season 2013. Importantly, Craig also pointed out that it was his responsibility to create an environment at the MFC that would entice players to re-sign and re-committ to the club.

But are you insinuating if he didn't get the coaching gig, he would be up for taking on the HOF responsibility, Rusty? If so, I disagree. I don't think he has any interest in it. Of course, a paycheck would be a paycheck. Who knows, he might make a great HOF.

He will win the Bluey easily if he continues. He and Jones would be one each then. Jones struggles with a tag, Garland can play on any forward, big or small. You'd have to say Garland is a better player. I think Frawley's a better defender, but Garland's got more heart. They are both equally important to our defence going forward though. Col's leadership is absolutely wonderful. I feel sorry for him every time the opposition kicks a goal. He is trying his guts out, often single-handedly. On our defenders, I thought Tommy Mac was solid and unlucky tonight, but if he's going to make it as a player, he has to learn to take the game on. That's when he's at his best, rather than second-guessing himself. Garland's potential impact on a game from a defensive point of view, as well as setting up attacks, is the equivalent of an on-song Mitch Clark up forward. Col is certainly in our top 5 best players. Perhaps even top 3.

Craig categorically ruled himself out of the HOF job during the week. Still, James Hird said he wouldn't coach Essendon and there he was three months later.

Yes to three year contract. I'd go with $400-450,000 though.

I don't think Howe is inherently lazy. I think he is lazy when he plays forward the whole game. Almost as if, 'I'm playing in the forwardline, which means I stay put inside offensive fifty'. Agree on Toumpas and his impressive ability to provide an option for his team mates.

I think he let himself down a couple of times. He dropped that easy mark that Terlich spotted up beautifully and missed two shots he should have and would normally kick. He's turned a corner though. Still a long way to go, but there was one moment in the last quarter when it was kicked in to him. It was a one-on-one. While the ball was in the air, he was the one that initiated the body contact and would have taken the mark had he not been impinged. If he was wearing the number 12 for St Kilda he would have been awarded the free kick. He did a lot of good, but unfortunately mistakes stick in the mind more so. Really liking the move to play him solely as a forward though. Leave him there from now on. He is a forward. Jack, always take the front position. As a forward you're more likely to draw a free kick that way.

How bad are our attempts to clear the ball from defensive fifty too? The huddle? Still? Easiest play to defend against and has been since the '90s. There's not much you can change in a week, but we are so predictable. From our first kick out, St Kilda pre-empted our setup and were waiting. Sure enough, turn over.

RE: the clearances and spread - I thought there were signs that we were trying a lot harder to spread quickly from the contest. It isn't a thing you can fix in one week though, which tells me that Neeld either didn't know how to communicate this or failed to pick up on it at all. That seems staggering to me. RE: Terlich - as with so many of our players, it's more about the decision making that kills him. Often he's quite a sound kick technically, but he makes the wrong decisions with ball in hand. Admittedly, a lot of our guys have this trouble too, but he also fail to hit targets under little to absolutely no pressure. It's between the ears. Either confidence or experience. RE: Howe - I maintain he is a liability up forward. He is abhorrently lazy and his work rate is ordinary. For me, he's overrated. Can take a great mark, but lacks the right attitude so often. He's reminding me of a fellow Tasmanian who donned our 24 guernsey. I think the new coach's biggest test will be fixing and ensuring the basic fundamentals of the game are being executed to an appropriate level. It might be a little more difficult unless a psychologist gets a look at our guys beforehand. A lot of battle scars across this group.

He just needs to learn how to direct those taps a little better.

Thanks Rusty. And that should have been "affected".

Well we actually had the ball a bit more today. Less need to chase as much tail. I was looking more at the possession differential today. We ended up finishing only about 40 possessions behind.

On ya. I love reading your insightful contributions to Demonland.

And I don't care what the stats say, but I agree with the poster who said Terlich is a turnover machine. My god. He does the occasional good thing, but the amount of times he turns it over that result directly in goals is staggering. Matt Jones' disposal today as well - atrocious. I understand these guys are inexperienced, but their turn overs killed us.

Lots of Garland love again from me. What a game. Back to the wall the entire game, but I'd love to know how many spoils he affected. He took the game on as well. There were good and bad signs from both Watts and Toumpas too.

What exactly are you basing this on? I've been to every game in Melbourne this season and just got my ticket for the Geelong game. And it's you're.

Because for me it's not about the right to vote. It's about keeping my club afloat. Without memberships, the AFL would eventually shut us down. Common sense really.

Agreed. This provides me a semblance of faith.

Well said as usual, Doctor.

Agree with this too.