Binmans PA

Well written, but defeatist crap. If you can attend a game of two opposition teams, you can bloody well attend Melbourne games. I don't enjoy watching Melbourne every week, but I'll go along and support. It's this sort of fella that gives the passionate MFC supporters a bad name.

He was the major part of the culture problem. Pissing on bars, chucking hissy fits. Good riddance. The rest however I could agree with. That said I think when Dawes finally gets on the park he'll be an important get for us.

Bingo. Innovation is the key. I'm yet to see it from Neeld and never saw it from Bailey. I hope we begin to see it soon otherwise Neeld's had his end.

I must be the only one who thought Chippa played alright the other day. At least not as poorly as some people make out. EDIT. Apparently I missed some of his chasing.

He may have been guilty of micro-managing (not necessarily confirmed), but our on-field success has little to do with the financial viability of the club. He's done wonderfully well with sponsors, albeit slowly at times. Still, kudos for attracting any sponsors considering the on-field rabble we've been.

Yes, player movement is essential, but there needs to be numerous plans. Not just the Jamar option every time. It's lazy and lacks innovation.

Not correct really. Neeld has probably lost me too, but Jones clearly had his best season last year. Finally delivered and stepped up. That was under Neeld.

Agreed. He's not proactive or innovative. Make some moves for somebody's sake.

He's in trouble I reckon. Offers nothing. He's got 21 rounds to find his schtick, otherwise he's out the door. He has to present up the ground, take strong marks, kick goals, impose himself on the ground physically. I can't see it happening though.

Wasn't good enough today. I know Jack experienced a family loss during the week, so I will cut him some slack. But if he's going to play spare man in defence, it's obvious, but he has to get much more of the ball and use his sublime skills to set up attacks and thus influence the game.

It's essentially impossible to defend Neeld after today's performance. I was with you before today NSC and it's foolish to ride someone off after one week, but we're not talking about a hard fought loss, where Port really turned up to play. This was an absolute thrashing that exemplified a lack of structure, seemingly a lack of fitness and a lack of heart.

The lack of progress is evident right across the ground. If the ball and momentum isn't going our way, we struggle to implement any semblance of structure. The backline is zonally poor. Many of the MFC players (backs and mids) are loose. Certain players even walk between passages of play. Perhaps the most frustrating element of our defence is that during kickouts we have failed to rectify our issues apparent since 2007. Under both Bailey and now Neeld, we've had a transparent A plan and absolutely no B, C or D plan for kicking out. It's long to Jamar on the flanks. Our ball movement is then sluggish and seems to lack urgency. I understand structures can fall down once under pressure, but that's why a plan B, C or D are so vital to fall back on. We have nothing in this department. Our coaching staff have shown little innovation. When you look at Malthouse, Clarkson, Roos and even Pagan in the modern era, they've all shown great innovation. If you look at our accountability across the ground today, it was essentially nonexistent. Enough is enough. If we turn to the midfield, there were moments today in an attacking sense that have improved. Viney is a breath of fresh air. He possesses some zip, he knows where to go to win the ball and he knows where to go to receive it. He showed signs of being able to play inside and outside. The addition of Viney will help release a little bit of pressure from Nathan Jones. Hopefully Matt Jones can continue his form he showed today too (albeit his one or two turnovers - which we must accept for first gamers). Defensively though, our midfield is still all at sea. If Jamar managed to shark it down to a red and blue jumper, we showed some sign of improvement, but if we lost it, the numbers are almost immediately against us. We then have literally no answer or method of stemming the flow of play against us. Most teams struggle to stop a "run on" in modern footy, but we seem have struggled at this for five years. Further, the delivery into the forward half today, with the exception of three kicks (Viney's two pin-point passes in the first quarter and Toumpas's spot up of Viney in the last quarter) was below AFL standard - abysmal. Far too predictable and poorly executed. I lost count of the number of times a forward (usually Clark) had to stand waiting underneath a lobbed kick toward him, with two opponents and little assistance around him. Dawes will certainly alleviate some of this, but we also seem to panic when moving forward. Understandably, this is not a good sign. We don't exemplify the composure or class that is needed in that final third of the ground. Meanwhile, the difference in forwardline structures today was clearly discernible. We would start three big guys in the square and the rest of the attacking players would start at CHF. Port would start with one player in the square. He was given space and his team mates around him were disciplined. Their ball movement was brisk and it was often put out in the space for the forward to lead into, enabled by the well-structured forward set up. Contrast this with our setup. Lethargic and confidence-sapped. If the Port defensive rebound didn't come from a poor kicking decision from a Melbourne player, it came from a lack of urgency from our forwards and midfielders to keep the ball in there. Byrnes laid one crunching tackle in our forward half, but generally it was too easy to break our forward 50, which you couldn't call a zone. This was a glaring concern of ours last season. The lack of forward pressure. It still hasn't been addressed. Just as our kicking from defence has yet to be. Individually, players like Jones and McDonald showed improvement last season, but as a team we've gone backwards or at the very least stagnated. Neeld and his coaching team have failed to find a balance between defensive mindset and attacking fervour. In fact, as has been mentioned by many and evidenced by our inability to register more than a hundred points per match (except against the Suns and Giants), the attacking mindset has seemingly been stifled and the defensive attitude remains delicate at best. Blame should rest with the players to an extent, however with a third of the playing group new to the club, the coaching staff must bear the brunt of criticism for continued poor results. Neeld's mandate was defence and today's performance, two pre-seasons and a season on, demonstrates absolutely no tangible sign of improvement. Neeld's background was an educator and so, in terms of being able to deliver a message, it's probably safe to say his ability to communicate is not in question. However, it's his incapacity to mend and improve inexplicable weaknesses in our game style that suggest his position as coach will be untenable should it continue.

Chip is one of my favourite players, but there's no way he showed something straight away. He took quite a while before he came on. Other than that, I agree.

You mean the guy that nicked off to play with Carlton, WYL?

I hope he does finally string a consistent season together. Unlikely though.

IMO the 'play the kids at all costs' mantra failed due to the lack of experience surrounding these young players. They required strong leadership. If we had a Shane Crawford or Chris Judd type on our list when Bailey came in, I don't think they would have been cut. They would have offered strong leadership. The likes of Yze, Bruce, White etc didn't. That said, I think Neeld has a better feel for what is needed - the importance of balance in this area.

My take: he left because he was pushed by the FD. He's slow and his disposal is questionable. Too one-paced. Glad he's gone.

The speculation is also being driven by a journalist who clearly has a vendetta against Schwab. Wilson has always lacked a semblance of credibility. She jumps the gun with heresy and innuendo. I maintain the AFL will do nothing about this. It's a can of worms they don't want to open. They'll release articles like today, with Vlad sprouting things such as the AFL won't tolerate anyone undermining the rules, but ultimately will do nothing.

If Melbourne were to cop a whack, Carlton would too. I can't see it happening.

The third Demon I've known to stop barracking for Melbourne and start following Richmond. Pathetic.

Not sure why it's five and not six. Frawley, Garland, McDonald, Watts & ? I'd have Dunn ahead of Grimes down back. Grimes is a far better user of the ball when he's forward of centre half back.

Good post. Generally agree with everything, except perhaps that Martin was an ordinary tap ruckman. I thought he'd improved in this area quite a lot. Meanwhile, it's Pedersen, not Petersen.

That team's decent. If the forwardline can click like (I would argue) the backline has, then it's just the midfield we're waiting for. I count 11 players that could rotate through the middle in that team: Blease, Jones, Grimes, Sylvia, Howe, Byrnes, Trengove, Viney, McKenzie, Pick 4 and Rodan. That's good numbers for a midfield. We just have to see improvement from Blease, Sylvia, Trengove and McKenzie. We then have to hope that Viney and Pick 4 can step in, and impact. If all of that clicks that side has some danger about it.

You do a bit of that, Moonshadow. I'd agree with the OP. Neeld and the FD's selections this year have highlighted the importance of "buying in". Yes, we've heard that phrase thrown around a bit, but it's important that Neeld is seen to be making these "tough" decisions. It underlines a no [censored] attitude. It's all about leadership. It's all about being seen to be a leader. You gain respect this way. If you put up with [censored] like past FD's have done, then that'll be your return. Perhaps a more accurate thread title may have been 'Great leadership is quintessential'. Neeld has certainly embodied this so far. Now we need to see his coaching ability deliver. EDIT. Grammar.

It looks like we've left ourselves five spots on the list. Four rookies (Magner, Nicholson, Couch and Evans) look like they'll be upgraded, which leaves one pick (#4) to add to the senior list. Then the rookie list will seemingly be entirely new faces. We may not keep Couch and Evans, which will leave two further spots. A speculative delisted free agent and our first pick in the PSD (pick #3). Their position may depend on whether we go for a delisted free agent next week. I think I've got that right...