Akum

As far as our midfield is concerned, I think it's fair to say we need a clearance specialist. Someone to get their hands on the ball first after a stoppage, especially a centre bounce. Our best mids - N. Jones, Grimes, Trengove - aren't really clearance specialists. For the Swans, Kennedy got 12 (including 8 centre clearances), O'Keefe & Jack got 7; Hannebery's 4 clearances were all from centre bounces. Our entire team got only 5 centre clearances. That's why I push for Magner - sure, he's slow and butchers it, but he's the one mid at the club who is even remotely capable of racking up 8 or 10 clearances. The other one of course is Viney, but it's a big ask to expect a first-year player, even one with the his class, to be our clearance machine. But that's the point about trading and drafting, we need clearance mids rather than link-up mids. And how do we match the premiers in clearances from stoppages (20 to 21), but get so smashed in centre clearances (5 to 24)? My guess is that for centre bounces, the midfield "team" needs to be much more highly organised - know who's going to run where, , who's going first-in and who's backing up, where the ruck is going to try to hit it etc - while at stoppages it's more improvisation. In other words, the main problem with our midfield may just be that it's not organised enough, which is a coaching issue. Anyway, there are mids and mids. And if it's clearance skill we need, someone like Daniel Cross may fit the bill, and would be a fairly easy get as he's not going to get games with the Dogs who are trying to put together a young midfield.

Why was Clisby left to take the kick-out in the first place?

OK, but if any of those match-ups goes pear-shaped (and the obvious risk is Dunn, just because he doesn't match up well on any of these), we'll need a really solid contingency plan. The things we could try are: * Switching these 4 around - might work, might not. * Switching someone from attack into defence; the only option is Watts, maybe Howe - don't like the odds. * Have Sellar on the bench. We'll also need Sellar to give chop-outs to Gawn & Fitzy in the ruck. I'm no fan of Sellar, but this is exactly the circumstance that we got him for in the first place - for when we look like getting caught out for height, esp in defence. And I think Sellar's a far better option than Pedersen.

Can see the point people are making about Howe, and you definitely need to give good to get good in trades. My only reservation is that if we ever get our midfield to the stage where we're getting 50-something instead of 30-something inside-50s per game, would Howe then be an essential part of a lethal forward line?

Hate to say it, but I think we need Sellar on the bench for back-up in case either Gawn & Fitz tire again, or one of their 3 big forwards gets a hold of McDonald or Garland. Also, we don't want a bench of 4 smalls. So one of Toumpas, Strauss, Nicho or Davey will miss out. And I'd love to see what Strauss could do in an attacking position, but considering that the other 3 played pretty well last week, he might be the one to miss, with Davey as sub. On the other hand, our tall forwards could give them lots of problems too. But it just all depends on how often and how quickly and how well it gets down there.

Except that this is Hannath's first year and Jamar's 8th or whatever. The point was that it would be prudent for us to pick up another young ruck in the next year or two, to cover for Gawn & Fitz etc by the time they're at the end of their careers. Hannath would have fitted the bill. Instead we took Gillies & Pedersen.

You know exactly what I mean. Lewis had already had some good WAFL performances at that stage, and we were more aware of him than others 'cos he's Nev's cousin. We could have easily rookied him the year before he was drafted, his family were very supportive of us, and we would have given up very little in the process. We had taken Nev in the previous draft, and every indication was that Lewis was even better. We had the inside running and gave it up. Was that the year we rookied Robert Campbell instead?

Great point. Jack b***** Hannath would have been perfect. I think we might regret not picking him up as much as we regret ignoring Nev Jetta's mum's tip about Lewis. And wasn't there someone else who trained with us who we didn't pick up who has since done well? Was it Rockliff? The other big concern is how many games these four have already collectively missed through injury or illness, and whether or not this will continue. IMHO Gawn is by far the most talented, but that depends on his knees holding together. Jamar seems to be able to find ever more creative was to miss most of a season through injury. The ideal is Gawn develops the tank to ruck all day, and the physical strength and durability to not miss a game for several seasons. He really could be anything.

Not exactly. Just that a less-than-10-gamer showed more than we've seen from him before, which has to be a good thing - not great, just good. Like 98% of AFL footballers, he has flaws in his game which can be pointed out by any moron, but on yesterday's effort he also seems to have some pretty good weapons that weren't apparent before. There's a huge gap from "showed promising signs" or "better than we thought" to "hero" ... let alone "saviour". Nobody's trying to leap that gap yet.

He played a huge part in our first goal. Nathan Jones bombed the ball high to the square, towards Fitz & Watts and their opponents. Watts peeled off, and Fitz went up against the two tall Dogs, and palmed it perfectly to Watts who snapped the goal. Just good smart thinking, but the sort of thing that's mentally and physically so far beyond Jamar & Spencer. If the two Jacks can continue to combine like that, we may be really on to something.

What worries me about Clark is that he doesn't seem to have a concept of "going easy on it". Only his kamikaze approach. Can't help but wonder that if he'd eased back into it (or been eased back into it) he may not have reinjured. He spent a lot of time injured at Brissie too. Watts gets criticised for being circumspect and choosing when he goes and when he doesn't. Seems clear to me that there's a great difference in his physicality between games that we're a chance to win and games where we're getting smashed. I think it's as stupid to say that circumspect is right and kamikaze is wrong, as it is to say (like many on here) that kamikaze is right and circumspect is wrong. Any good team probably has both. And Watts could certainly benefit from being more physical. But Clark could certainly benefit from being more circumspect sometimes.

Just a co-incidence that in our only wins against non-franchise teams in past 2 seasons, he's been our best both times??

No, it needs to be at the top of the list.

Probably true ... unless he's learned from his past shortcomings.

I can understand this point of view, but by the time there IS proof (enough to satisfy outsiders like us) that Neeld is damaging the club, it will be far too late.

A number of good posts on this thread, but I think this is closest to the mark.This is Chip's 7th(?) year, and if things don't change dramatically, it looks like he won't play finals. I reckon that if there are clear indications that things will definitely improve, he's much more likely to stay. If not, he's much more likely to go. But he would need clear indications that things will get better. If he leaves end of this season we can trade for him; if he leaves end of next season, he can walk and we may or may not get compensation. Free agency was made for someone in his situation - a very good player in a lowly club which don't look like improving. And if we can trade for a quality midfielder, it may end up a win-win. Another factor is that clearly some MFC players are still in touch with Rivers & Petterd, both of whom are much closer to playing in finals than anybody who's stayed. Even Moloney, Martin & perhaps Scully are closer.

And how many games was this after Neeld started playing him as a forward (where he had never played in his whole career)? Neeld all but killed off Rivers' chances of finishing his career with us long before the season finished. But of course, Neeld's judgment on Rivers was so much better than Geelong's - what would they know??? I'm sure they couldn't believe their luck when they got Rivers & gave us Gillies. Easy to see who's done best out of that deal. And we not only lost Rivers as a player - we burned yet another on-field leader.

The message it sends to players that started playing for us between 2008 and 2010 is that if things stay the way they are now, there's a good chance that you'll not play finals with us throughout your whole career. And it begs the question of whether any other coach could do better than this.

Dawes's thumb injury was pretty bad, it's apparently really affected him in the past 2 seasons and they can be really nasty. Can't help but wonder whether he's going to have difficulties marking out in front (and thus have to go for chest marks) for a while yet. Marking out in front was one of his strengths in his good year (2010?)

Rhino, while I totally agree with you about Neeld's abilities as a senior coach, I'm getting a bad feeling about it. This article to me reads like the start of a PR "angle" from the club, and even softening us up for the to keep Neeld on, despite his performance so far.I know that Jackson is interviewing the players. This will be part of his process to add up the pro's & con's of keeping Neeld and sacking Neeld. My guess is that if Neeld stays, and if GNF and others are correct, we risk losing: * Sylvia, Frawley, Watts, and possibly fringe players such as Taggert and Jetta. * A large number of members and supporters. But if Neeld is sacked, we risk losing players who feel they owe their current position at the club to Neeld, which might include: * The players that have been drafted in since he's been here - Clark, Dawes, Byrnes, Sellar, Gillies, Rodan. * New recruits - Viney, Hogan, Toumpas, Terlich, M. Jones, Kent and others. * Those who have come into the leadership group since he's been there - Grimes, Trengove, N. Jones, Garland, Jamar, McKenzie, and again Clark & Byrnes. * Any of the FD staff who have come in since he's been there, especially any that he's hand-picked, which would cover at least Misson & Craig and perhaps some of the assistant coaches. * The cost of paying out Neeld's contract, and the contracts of any others. Now definitely not all of these people would be upset by Neeld leaving, and most of them are likely to stay. But you see what I mean - even if half a dozen players who see themselves as being better off with Neeld around than with him gone are unhappy about him going, it would have a disruptive effect on the group as a whole. And any replacement coach would have to be of sufficient stature to have the backing of the whole playing group; it would have to be someone that the whole list could look forward to playing under. This might rule out some good (but not great) possibilities such as Eade & Ratten. And if the prospective new coach would prefer to bring in some of their own staff, it creates further problems. I'm getting very concerned that when Jackson does the adding up, it may turn out to be much less trouble than to keep Neeld rather than sack him, if all we lose is Sylvia, Frawley & Watts. Unless they can pick up a coach from the very top of the tree (which virtually leaves only Roos or bust). In which case there's still the relevant costs. And they may feel that they can manage the loss of members (and the loss of respect from the wider AFL community) by spinning it in the way outlined in this article, which is just dripping with PR syrup.

I think this is the point with Blease. As far as icing on the cake goes, he'd probably be fantastic, but at the moment we don't have anything resembling a cake, and the cake is what we need.He's one of quite a few on our list who will look a million dollars in a good team, but in a bad team he will look like a pile of sludge. He needs the cake to be solid in order to show his qualities as the icing. Perhaps one of the problems with our list overall is too much icing and not enough cake.

... just not at AFL level.

This actually puts the heat right back on the Board. Either Neeld is right, and he's doing exactly what the Board (on behalf of the club) want him to do. In which case the ownership of the "plan" lies with the Board. This would surely make the Board's position untenable. The President now needs to answer whether Neeld is in fact doing what they want him to do, and if yes, then explain to us what and why. Or Neeld is not right, has seriously misrepresented the club by saying that he's only doing what they wanted him to do. In which case his position is untenable. Either way, what Neeld said is more than trying to spin his way out of trouble; it's throwing petrol on the fire. Providing, of course, that Barrett hasn't seriously misrepresented his discussions with Neeld. Which can never be discounted as a possibility. But if he hasn't, what Neeld told him would indicate we're in even bigger trouble.

... especially as Toumpas has played his first four games in one of the worst teams of all time.

Get Craig Bellamy!