Binmans PA

I would give the game up if the MFC folded. I watch football to support. It's not interesting unless you're following one team. Even when watching opposition games.

I'm getting similar messages and from Essendon supporters.

Yeah, Aaron had a dip. Though he didn't play four quarters. Worth a game next week.

Disagree. For me he was very close to tears. Difficult to watch, but as callous as it sounds, I want to see that from him. I want to see him hurting like we all are. At least he made some moves tonight, instead of sitting on his hands like he did last week. It's not the right move, but he may be gone by the end of round four. My reading of our administration and board is kneejerk. I fear they may send another to the gallows before a contract expires.

This is something that was all too clear tonight. He would approach the majority of contests out of position. Surely Geelong would have hammered correct positioning into him?

No. He's low on confidence, in a defence being bombarded by opposition forward thrusts. Garland did some okay things tonight. I don't think many played four quarters tonight (the exception perhaps being Mitch Clark). The clumsiness was present almost universally by players in MFC jumpers. It's more an illustration of being belted week in week out, than it is of an ability to play the game. Not many people will agree with me, but I still believe we have a core group of players, forwards and backs, that will make a great AFL team. Currently, I would point to a lack of structures, tackle counts and one percenters, along with our rucking capacity that condemn us to the bottom of the AFL table.

Jack Watts will not be delisted. Bookmark this.

Defeatist. We must identify the problems and not scapegoat. Make everyone accountable. I don't think Neeld can coach, but I think he's got ordinary assistant coaches and something putrid within the admin and football department. I watched Josh Mahoney walk from the ground at half time. He looked incredibly dejected. It runs through the entire club. The MFC requires a transplant or it will die. Having watched five and now probably six years of this, it is not hyperbole to say that there will be no MFC in five to ten years time if this continues. We require blood. New blood. Non-Melbourne people that have had success elsewhere, at strong football clubs and know how to run a football club. We need role players right across the club. Everyone has a role and they must fulfil it or like any occupation in life, they will be removed. Rising MFC from obscurity must be the greatest challenge in football, but with our history considered, a prize worth aiming for.

Good to hear, but the obvious point to take out of that is why the fcuk did they fail to "try their guts out" last week? Grimes can hold his head up, but the majority of the group certainly cannot.

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.