Binmans PA

Colin Garland's game today was solid. A lot of mistakes were made today by our defenders, but he did a couple of great things today. A few of his marks and attacks on the ball I believe started our resurgence in the last today. He's an attacking, solid defender when playing on the third tall or small. Definitely has to be part of our core defensive set up going forward. Well done, Colin.

I think JT does a lot of great work that doesnt necessarily receive the praise it should. He was good again today. I watched him quite closely. I think the majority of the times he is made to look slow is from direct stoppages, where an opposition player will burst by him. He will be flat footed. I still believe it's more about how we set up defensively across the ground and particularly at a stoppage. I cannot believe Neeld and Royal have not rectified this in the four matches thus far. Worrying. More so that they haven't seem to have identified our woeful set ups.

He often plays from behind and that's his basketballing background. It sometimes works beautifully in the AFL, but it can also make him look soft and at times a little stupid.

My god. The way we set up at stoppages today was still atrocious. There was usually one or two free GWS players on the defensive side of the pack. Had they released better by hand, they would have killed us. Every other team would have ripped us to shreds today. It was great to get a win for the supporters and players, but we're so far off the pace in the midfield it's scary. Jamar is finished too. Just get Gawn and Spencer rucking every week. The pressure is still on Neeld. Lose big next week and this week will be forgotten very quickly.

Yeah, was wrong about that one. Mitch injured against GWS again.

It's tough though, because as BH says, there's probably too much baggage attached to Neeld and his time at the club. I'd agree again. I'm beginning to think we can't move forward without that change of coach. We'd really have to see a drastic change onfield this season to goes against this theory. I just can't see it happening. Hogan's gonna be a gun, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch kicks 5 or 6 today.

Nope. I completely agree with you. It's about game plan, structures and personnel. Particularly in the midfield. We've seen that the backline as the ability to repel forward thrusts under Bailey - this is essentially the same back half, minus the admittedly experienced Rivers. Clark, Dawes and Hogan will be a powerful forwardline. Get some crumbers and goal kicking midfielders around them and it becomes an undeniable attacking threat. Viney looks like being a consistent ball winner. Nurture his abilities with A grade talent around him and all of a sudden Trengove, Grimes and even the limited McKenzie will start to look good. But essentially what you're getting at is player buy in and respect both ways. Hence it has to be a coach that has had the ultimate success, I agree, so for mine Clarkson and Roos are our best options. I can't see us getting either of them, without the AFLs help. But given his ability to instil the bloods culture, I'd say Roos is almost the perfect fit. However, with our firepower in the forward half, we might be more suited to Clarkson, given his Hawthorn team. It's about strengthening the defensive mindset of the team, ironically the aspect Neeld was brought in to tackle.

Rightly or wrongly, he'll be gone if we lose tomorrow.

I agree, RF. It seems almost inconceivable that no one else in the FD would have known about it.

Good post, Tim. Less trite and cliched than it was in Skyfall.

You're right. I don't know the ins and outs of Neeld's reasoning for dropping Jack. I just believe there comes a time where we as supporters would be negligible simply sitting on our hands. We have to probe these decisions. Making a guy, whose confidence is evidently and clearly dwindling, sit on the sidelines and watch a game will do nothing for anyone. He's dropped Jack before and made him watch from the stands to little effect upon return.

Intriguing.

Watts was subbed out due to form against Essendon. Neeld stated this in his press conference. The next week he was omitted. So that's not in dispute, but as for why he might have been an emergency, how is he supposed to improve or build the necessary confidence by sitting on the sidelines? Is it supposed to make him hungrier? You either play him or drop him to Casey to get the ball in his hands and allow him to build that confidence. You don't sit him in purgatory.

We must have the right people in place, Biffen. Otherwise we'll go nowhere. So I'd say, yes.

Jackson's not in yet. Meanwhile, I'm not sure Neeld would make a good assistant at any old club. I think he worked at Collingwood, because he took orders from Malthouse and thus ultimately their midfielders were singing to Malthouse's tune.

Jackaub was saying that Freeman was brought in outside of McLardy. ie. It wasn't McLardy's decision. I have heard this too. EDIT. At least that's the way I read the post.

That's what I heard too.

That's what I cannot fathom. My reading of the situation is that Don never wanted to be Prez, hence his cajole of Jimmy in the first place. What defies belief is that he hasn't given up the Presidency sooner. It's had to get to a dire position before he and the board seem to have acted. I'd also like to know who brought Freeman in. Was it DM or another powerbroker? Perhaps, the line of thinking was to ensure stability within the club, in the wake of Jimmy's passing, but the mantle should have been passed by now.

My position is simply this: if the floggings continue, Neeld's position is untenable. If he can turn the ship around, then I am not so egotistically proud that I cannot change my position on him. But "turning the ship around" means showing some semblance of structure and game plan, not just attitude. The way some players run around absolutely clueless and it seems structureless, is worrying to say the least. Moreover, when the coach comes out and essentially says he doesn't know what happened, you know you're in trouble.

Fair enough, yet Neeld hasn't shown himself to be a particularly modest coach in the past. He's been utterly arrogant at times. "Hardest team to play against" is one example. The countless times he's blamed it (admittedly rightly) on the previous coaching regime. It's getting to the stage where he has to start taking responsibility for these massive floggings that are under his watch. As for seeing the answer eventually, perhaps, but as I say, if he doesn't see the answer soon, these floggings will ensure his position is untenable.

Bookmark this. What a post.

I think it's called arrogance. It's never too far away where an Essendon supporter is concerned. They've also got a little more to look forward to on field at the moment. This is just another kick in the guts for the supporters and paid up members like myself. The tanking investigation and now this.

Surely the fact that we're questioning faith in McLardy at all is mostly heightened by his past dealings of ineptitude, rather than merely the Danks issue. At least for me anyway. The longer this season goes on, the more I want the AFL to take over our club, because think of the instability brought about by losing your CEO and your President in a matter of weeks. We need some sort of security and the AFL can provide us with it. Ultimately, McLardy and his board have to go. I think it's probably untenable now and it has to come before season's end - I think McLardy's resignation probably was anyway.

That's what I heard.

A lot of the old MFC medical staff left, because they were paid pennies in comparison to what Misson is on now.