Adam The God

It's about sending a message though. I'd much prefer Jones showing our mids the work-rate required to become a competitive, rounded footballer than having Moloney still there. That is one short term pain, long term gain I'm willing to cop into the future.

Unless they're waiting for a couple of easier fixtures (St Kilda and the Bulldogs) to hand over the interim reigns. I agree with quite a bit of that. The major issue Neeld has is his ability to communicate, for if he had the ability, our players would understand what's expected of them on game day. They have absolutely no idea. And let's be honest, we will be in more debt that prior to Bailey if Neeld is given another year and we dish up what we've dished up in his first two years. 6,000 Melbourne supporters to a home game. I was there and I reckon the 6,000 count is generous. We'll have crowds lower or as low as GWS against Freo and the Swans.

So Neeld didn't know improvement was required of him? The players don't know the fate of their coach at all. They know he'll be coaching this week. After that, who knows?

I completely agree. You've mentioned numerous times that you believe we're in bed with the AFL. Right there with you and thank goodness for that.

I'd hazard to say that is our reward from the AFL.

You mean the guy that helped sack him from Essendon?

Misson was already on his way to Melbourne before Neeld was. You cannot credit Neeld for that. I'd say Misson was under the illusion that Lyon was coming to Melbourne. Particularly as the day before Neeld was announced as coach, Lyon was announced as coach to the Melbourne players.

Yeah, I'd be playing Watts in the forward fifty for the rest of the year, even with the return of Clark. He's shown a glimmer of attack on the ball over the last two weeks. We've said it before. If he can impact contests physically, he'll become a very dominant player with increased possession. That said, going forward I see him as a player that rotates between deep forward, half forward, high half forward and the wing. It's a good thread this though. I agree. Dawes is more of a physical player than Clark. It's great seeing a Melbourne key forward banging and crashing opponents. There was a moment there today that reminded me of Neitz's hip and shoulder on Luke McCabe over a decade ago. He has a presence. I think he will be helped by Hogan's bash and crash too just quietly. Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Watts and Howe. Get two B grade crumbers and we're looking incredibly dangerous down there. If Blease can lift his work rate and fitness, he might become one of those crumbers too.

I'm not "continually bagging the club". I am continually saying Neeld should be gone for (what I perceive) the good of the club. Ultimately, on-field performance is what football is about. There's no doubt there is a rotten culture off-field at the MFC, but there's absolutely no evidence Neeld has improved this by any measure. Incidentally, the cultural problems at the MFC have about as much validity as Neeld loosing the players. None of us can really know for sure, but we make assumptions based on this acquired information. If we have such "inherent problems" within our club, what are you basing this on? Heresy, unless you've been amongst the players yourself. This seems to be a monumental hypocrisy in many of the arguments defending Neeld and his position.

Oh and according to Jon Ralph, the majority of our assistants are out of contract at the end of this end. So there will be no need to pay out. It would just be Craig (if he goes) and Neeld.

This is what I was referring to.

Dermie is a bit of a whacker, but he's essentially just echoed my thoughts. Sponsors, supporters and players.

I did consider those things. I did note that the situations weren't the same. I was simply quashing the crutch that people keep falling on RE: "look at Clarkson. He was almost sacked. Give Neeld time." The other thing I pointed out is that our starting 18 is not that dissimilar from 2012's team. Look at this week's team. Neeld has had over a year with the majority of these players. You can try and dress it up as many ways as you like, but there's really no two ways about it.

Neeld isn't a first year coach. This is his second year. That's the whole point. We gave him leeway last season. Fair enough, I guess. In his second season it is not unfair to demand some improvement. A few people have used Clarkson as an example of someone in Neeld's shoes. In Clarkson's first year, the Hawks won 5 games and finished 14th. In his second, they won 9 games and finished 11th. That's very close to the sort of incremental improvement we should be looking for. Obviously, in our situation we're building from a slightly lower base, due to a dearth of leadership, but the point still remains. Neeld wouldn't be on more than $400,000 per year. It's hardly going to equate close to million to pay him out. He'll have a season and a half to be paid out. Let's say $600,000. No one wants to pay him out, but our coaching situation is dire and it's not just "the usual disgruntled supporters". It's imperative that we provide the players, sponsors and supporters (let alone potential players) hope. This is not a question of supporting the club or not. I am there every week. I won't need to come back to you when Neeld has had two years with this list, because thankfully it won't go any further than that. He'll be gone after the bye or at the very latest come the end of this season. There'll be no "massive turnaround in supporter opinion". In Neeld's words, "it is what it is" (what a horrible phrase).

Yep, as soon as I read that the article lost all credibility. Basic facts. Get them right or don't bother putting them to print. What a clown.

Yeah. Shouting down players for not giving him the ball in an easy position, instead of running harder to present an even better option next time. Crucify me, but I prefer both Jack's as captains. It was the right decision by Neeld and I thought so at the time. I remain steadfast on it too. If we'd had more experienced genuine leaders then sure, but we didn't. I don't think Trengove's game has been affected by the captaincy. It's been affected by Neeld's game plan (and copious injuries that have hampered his preparation).

It can affect aerobic intensity around the contest though, Lord. But I agree. Our starting 18 reflects enough experience.

I expect to see work rate. This is not intrinsically linked with experience. Our players fail to show work rate after ten minutes of football. I expect to see improvement in our skills. They've stagnated. It isn't merely a lack of experience. I've watched a bit of GWS this year. Our work rate is so often miles below theirs as our first three quarters against them can attest. Our midfield is clearly an issue. It lacks experience, class and spread. But not one of the players (many of whom were there last year) seems to have any idea how to play this gameplan. I'll tell you how I know. We don't play as a team. If you look at our starting 18 this week, three weren't there last year or playing AFL level and we've since added the experience of Dawes and Rodan. If you're not playing the inexperienced card, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of our starting 18, Neeld has had over a year with them. During this time Jones, Howe and McDonald have improved. How much this can be attributed to Neeld we'll never know, but let's say that those three are blossoming under him. I think I could name about fifteen players who have gone backwards under him. In over a year, Neeld has failed to implement a game plan, even successfully, more than once. Only THREE players have shown marked improvement. If ever there was an indictment on a coach, it is these two failures. Even Bailey, who was a dreadful coach, oversaw more improvement from his squad.

I'm not saying I agree with the post you refer to, but the point was that the senior coach comes from a winning culture. Not an assistant coach and two players. It is the senior coach that sets the tone throughout the playing group. I'm not sure I agree with the insinuation that you cannot win a flag without it, but it probably doesn't hurt.

I thought someone would bring up 'The Great Wall'. Our defenders were good one-on-one, which can mostly be put down to Wellman's influence. As soon as he left they looked lost and have done since. I'd still debate that point about Bailey. I'll agree the midfield pressure was a problem then as it is now, but what defensive structures did Bailey implement to make the team remotely defensive? Obviously you could argue the same with Neeld, but he's been unsuccessfully implementing a zonal defence. I think Clarkson's Hawthorn brand of footy (albeit with a far superior list) is the right balance of the two. Bailey went one way, Neeld has gone the other. Neither have been successful.

I'd agree. I think if anything this highlights that Neeld is the knee jerk reaction to Bailey's coaching style, which was all-out attack. Essentially, Neeld is the polar opposite of Bailey. But as you say, with such an emphasis on defence, it has stifled the players and their impulses.

Mark Neeld everybody. Welcome to the party. To be frank, I think it's a pretty weak sentiment to proffer too. "It is what it is"? We must be inclusive of all types and handle our business and footy club in a way that is courteous to all involved. That way we don't leave ourselves open to potential fracturing and those with vendettas. Case in point, the way Bailey's sacking was handled. It is not blind trust, but hope that fills me with the confidence to believe PJ will start us off on the right path.

I'm intrigued by Burns. I want an experienced coach, but his name tends to crop up a bit. Can anyone from Perth offer a little insight on him? If he's got the runs on the board under Worsfold, why have clubs consistently overlooked him? What's the word in WA? I noted I think PSD mention that Sumich stayed at WC for such a period, because he was no threat to Worsfold. Can the same be said of Burns, who's been at the club since 2009?

Paul, no one is expecting faultless and rapid regeneration of the playing list. We are demanding that the coach extract AFL standard work rate from the players though. He hasn't. He continually says the pressure on coaches comes with the territory and he's right. When a coach is failing monumentally across the board, you cannot compare that to a player. In fact, you can't really compare what a coach does with a player at all. Yes, the players should take some responsibility in all of this, but ultimately, if Neeld can't get them playing, he is the one that should be sacked. If we had a player of Neeld's ability on our list he'd never get a game again.

With respect, that's rubbish. I think the vast majority of the supporter base, myself included, wrote off last year and afforded Neeld some time to see who would form part of his future plans. Who displayed defensive work-rates and who didn't etc. That was reasonable. It was disappointing only winning four games, but it was a season for experiment and enacting Neeld's game plan. When the 2013 season rolled around many of us were not expecting finals, but we were looking for any sign of improvement. Instead, the work rate and skills for the entire year (save one quarter against GWS) have been reminiscent of 186. Over and over again. I was there on that fateful day in Geelong and I've attended every game in Victoria this year. It's comparable. Bailey rightly lost his job over that game. Neeld should have lost his job 6 or 7 times over this season. The only reason he hasn't is that we're waiting on PJ's report. If you watch Neeld's press conferences this year, they are markedly different from last. He continually focuses on experience and mere competitiveness, never simply on winning. Neeld is the coaching problem. I think the drafting under him has been pretty solid, although it's still tough to call some of them. His problem is he's not a senior coach at AFL level. As simple as that. Get rid of him.