Dr. Gonzo

My thoughts precisely (you can add why are Spencer AND Fitzpatrick in the team ahead of Gawn). I don't understand why they don't play Magner either.

Obviously he has some skills in this regard, my query is more about whether the modern game has moved beyond him. Neither I nor you know that though, it is just something I think the MFC will have to consider. I agree the support staff we get would be just as important as the senior coaching gig. Will be interesting to see who they chase.

I agree however my only query on Williams is whether he has the tactical nous for the current game. Is he innovative enough? Can he structure a winning modern game plan around the list we have? I don't know the answer but it seems he started to go downhill during the time when the modern tactical game really lifted a notch. If we couldn't get Roos I wouldn't be unhappy with Eade either. One of him or Williams would be decent gets, fair enough he hasn't gone all the way but he's come close enough at two clubs, has a tactical mind and is a good player relationship person. I think he'd also do a good job of selling the club to sponsors etc He is also only just below Williams on your list above.

Hasn't Evans already had his with his back injury? Not fair for him to get a second whack.

I cant even notice them.

The Saints were a toe poke and a dodgy bounce from back to back. If you have a team that is still in it with 5 minutes to go in the GF it pretty much comes down to luck then.

He's a good tactical coach too something which we need and I am unsure if Williams still has the nous for the modern game. If we can't get Roos I think Eade would be just as good an appointment. Look what h did at the Dogs with the worst KP stocks in the top 8. We have no midfield but our spine is pretty good. Stock up the midfield and I think he could do a fair bit with our list. Is a good "people person" too something we also need and something which I think Roos and Williams have too.

The board is the same now as it was then with the exception of McLardy and Grimshaw.

I agree I think it's pretty poor really - I wonder what Neeld was told after the board meeting a fortnight ago.

What are the stats from 2008-2012?

If you get a chance to listen to Mooney on 360 last night have a listen - he was quite adamant the culture comes from within the playing group. The coach, President, CEO etc set the environment for a good culture to prosper but without the leadership and buy-in of the players it would amount to nothing. Hall agreed with him.

McLardy to go this afternoon. His replacement, Alan Stockdale.

Haha my thoughts as well - could he be the first coach in history to get the sack after a win? Oh please - their lists have far more talent than ours does.

Jordie, Blease and Jamar in our most important players? Fitzpatrick a good contested mark? It's not necessarily that the article was miles off its just that he's clearly phoned it in and failed to undertake any real analysis of the list or our position. I can't believe people get paid to write that rubbish if he was a kid off the street and not a premiership player/coach with Carlton he'd be laughed out if the building - well you'd hope so anyway but the. You see the efforts of the likes of Yobbo, Pierek, Ralphy etc etc and you think yeah this is the standard of journalism these days. Where's the stats the evidence? Give us a proper analysis not just a couple of throwaway lines on half our list that everyone already knows anyway. Just filling up space in a slow news week with only 6 games this round.

Walls is an idiot this just goes towards proving that. "Without knowing contract situations I would release these players." It's called research Walls you moron.

Look at our list and the amount of NQR's and outright spuds on there. I'd list the following as fitting into that bracket; McKenzie, Dunn, Pedersen, Nicholson, Gillies, MacDonald, Sellar, Davis, Spencer, Bail, Fitzpatrick That's more than a quarter of the list. Then you have the following who are either past it or questionable as to whether they have the ability to make it or not; Byrnes, Rodan, Strauss, Tynan, Barry, Tapscott, Davey, Jetta, Jamar, Taggert. That's another quarter of the list. So either half the list are NQR's/spuds or are either over-the-hill or haven't shown they have what it takes. Then you have guys like Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones, Terlich, Evans all in their first seasons (except Evans) who have shown something but not experienced enough to have a significant impact yet. There is also the category of players like Blease, McDonald, Gawn, Watts who have been around for a few years and shown they have talent but haven't been able to play consistently well. So really there is a core group of players in N Jones, Dawes, Frawley, Trengove, Clark, Sylvia, Garland, Grimes and Howe and even a couple of those you could probably throw into the "good yet inconsistent" pile and two of the others have struggled to stay on the park. So yes, I would say that we are pretty close to having the worst list in 40 years, and to be more precise, the worst list of midfielders in 40 years. In any given squad of 22 you need at least a dozen midfielders, a couple of key forwards and key backs, a ruckman, a small defender and small forward. We have N Jones as our only senior midfielder in the true sense of the word (Trengove, Sylvia, Howe and Grimes are really more your flanker types at this stage). We recruited some last year (Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones) and hoping they come on as midfielders and need to recruit another half dozen or so this year. It is most definitely a shambles considering our draft positions over recent years but that is an indictment on those who were in charge at the time. I don't for one second think Neeld is the saviour but I would give him at least the rest of this year to see what he can do in the second half and hopefully with some injured players returning and then I would give him another off-season to mould the list and work on their fitness again. By next year he would have had the 3 pre-seasons he said he needed so there would be no excuses for at least 75% of the team to be up to scratch (considering he would probably turn over 10 more players). Then we will be able to properly assess him next year and if there is no improvement he'll be out the door by mid-season. I just look at our stats and see things like Collingwood scoring 89 of 122 points via turnovers and can't understand how that can be an indictment on anything other than the skill and decision making errors of the players. Being at the ground it is blatantly obvious that the players just make these errors time and again. One thing he does need to sort out quickly is our forward structure because similar to when Bailey was coach often we will win the ball coming out of defense and look up to see no-one forward. Our players natural instinct is to bolt towards our goals however with no-one there they either bomb long to no-one, stop and get tackled or handball/chip kick sideways to a player under pressure who coughs up the ball. T

This is an excellent post. Neeld was given a mandate to change the culture of the entire club when appointed, something that even experienced coaches would find difficult let alone a rookie. Then when some noses get put out of joint people are surprised or even upset about it? He is trying to overturn a cultur that has been embedded since the Daniher days and probably back even further. Not only that but he had to reshape the list after we had wasted years of high pick on guys like Morton, Gysberts & Cook and had one of if not the poorest fitness base in the league. I didn't think we'd be this bad this year and can understand why others have gone past the point of no return with Neeld and want him sacked yesterday as our results really are untenable. However I'd give him this year's off-season to see if he can get some midfield talent in through draft/trade/FA, get another pre-season into the players and get rid of some more of the deadwood. I'm not saying Neeld is the answer because to be honest I don't think he has really had a chance to have a proper evaluation yet. When you see constant basic skill and decision making errors made and you see the "talent" of some of the guys on our list it's clear the reason people can't figure out what the game plan is is because the players are totally incapable of even stringing together chains of possessions let alone carrying out a comprehensive game plan. Give him a chance to turn over 10 more players this year and try to beef up the midfield (our one real weakness yet also the most important part of modern footy) and if he can't produce the results by mid-next year he's gone. It is a risk (and some will say too big a risk) of having another wasted year but I think it is the only way to properly assess whether Neeld is able to carry out the mandate we gave him. I should point out that I agree with comments on both sides of the argument here. BH's post pointing out the contradictions in some of his statements are quite damning as are some of his other actions since becoming coach. I'd also persevere with some guys like Strauss and Blease for the rest of the year to see if they can settle in and earn a senior spot for next year. They have skills, something our team sorely lacks yet have other deficiencies which they are unable to iron out of their games due to being yo-yo'd in and out fo the side. I'd keep them in over guys like Dunn or Nicholson and see if they are able to settle in for the remainder of the season. I'd rather see changes made to the board etc first and see the positions of guys like Mahoney and Harrington addressed before sacking Neeld.

I beg to differ. Our effort was better in the first quarter but the skills and decision making were still quite poor, one example being the continued practice of kicking the ball over the targets head or sitting it on top of his head so he has to remain stationary and allow his opponent to come over the top to spoil or mark the ball. It happened multiple times in the first quarter right in front of me on the Southern Stand wing. I tear my hair out watching these fundamental errors as a supporter, I can only imagine how it would be being the coach knowing your career is riding on these basic skill and decision making errors. The term "coach-killers" has never been more apt.

Out of that list you'd be looking at; Re-sign - Watts, Sylvia, Gawn, Davey (reduced contract and assume he doesn't retire) though you'd consider trades if offered up for any of them De-list - Gillies, Rodan, Davis, Jetta, Sellar, MacDonald, Nicholson, Fitzpatrick, Tynan Unsure - Taggert (although I get Taggert and Tynan confused - one is a maybe keep the other is a delist) Of the rookies I'd upgrade Magner, Couch can go not sure on the other two as have never seen them play. So that's a pretty easy 9 spots freed up with a potential further two or three depending on what happens with Taggert, Sylvia and Davey.

I also think the thing about crowds is a bit of a furphy - yes our crowds are poor at the moment because the team has been poor for years. Hawthorns crowds were poor in Clarksons first year as well (remember the low turnout against Port, think it was 12K?) Start winning and things will turn. We got 35K against Brisbane in 2010. Our average home crowds in 2004 were higher than Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong (probably artificially lower due to KP). In 2005 we sat 5th for average home crowds behind Essendon, Adelaide, Collingwood and WCE. In 2006 our average home crowds were still above Carlton, Hawthorn and Geelong. Even in 2010 our average home crowds were above Adelaide, WCE, Freo and only a hundred behind Richmond and a couple of hundred behind Hawthorn (artificial due to Tassie) and St. Kilda. What does this all say? Start winning and things will start to sort themselves out. Nb. As a side note, didn't sign a new deal with the MCC/MCG a couple of years back so that we make $100K at each home game? Stats courtesy of Footywire

The thing is, regardless of how it might affect our finances there is slim to none chance of any third boutique stadium in Melbourne until the AFL owns Docklands. The AFL has contracts in place with MCG and Docklands requiring a minimum amount of games each year, this is the reason they knocked back the Kangaroos inquiry to play games out of Geelong. My comment earlier about playing games at Geelong was a bit tongue in cheek just stating that living in the north-west suburbs it would take me an hour to get to Geelong but 90 minutes+ to get out to Casey - I'd prefer to play at the MCG though and even Docklands would be preferable (for me personally) to playing out at Casey.

Those days are gone mate, it's not suburban footy anymore all AFL "clubs" are just competing franchises, some with a longer and more decorated history/foundation than others. Spending millions to get a training base so a few hundred supporters can have a beer and a pie on a Thursday night would be just flushing money down the toilet.

So play at Geelong. The stadiums already there, do you propose MFC spend the $100M it will take to build an AFL ready stadium at Casey? It's a pipe dream hardly worth discussing let alone getting all riled up about.

He was being interviewed on Triple M and gave the company line. I hope he's telling the truth and he stays with us but I'll remain sceptical at this stage. I also have no political argument here - if we don't lose players like Frawley because of it I think Neeld should stay til next year. But if it meant losing Frawley and perhaps Sylvia and Watts as well he has to go we can't afford a player exodus. I don't know either way so can only rely on what's said publicly.

You have no idea what the truth is, so excuse me if I disregard anything you might have to say on that subject. You'll also forgive me for being cynical considering our history, but his comments didn't really say anything. I mean, what would you expect him to say, "yeah I'm fed up with the club and losing all the time and hopefully I'll be out of here at the first chance possible"???