Dr. Gonzo

If it was a choice I'd go with Frawley - at least he's already shown he can play, Neeld has yet to show he can coach.

Cop-out.

Mate not only that but before the team ran onto the ground they had the cameras trained on Watts in the change rooms and coming up the race (all being shown on the big screen) and introduced over the loudspeaker at the G as "the Melbourne Football Club and number 1 draft pick Jack Watts" (or something to that effect) - it was incredible just how poorly they managed his debut. He was also on the back page of the Herald Sun during the week all used as a marketing ploy to ensure we got a crowd over 60k as Demetriou was threatening to take Queens Bday off us if we couldn't draw a crowd. In respect of your prior post re: the moving on off our senior blokes I am happy to say I am one of those who got that completely wrong. I agree they should have been kept on and used to mentor and shield our young players through until they had matured however at the time I absolutely thought it was the correct thing to get rid of them all and load up on draft picks. I don't think I or the club were alone on that either it was a bit of conventional wisdom at the time however it is clear that that route did untold damage to the club and also the young kids coming through who have had to shoulder way too much responsibility before their time. For the odd one it may work out and they relish it but for most I think they are more likely to burn out and crumble under the weight of expectation. We thought it was as easy as plug and play and all you had to do was get as many high draft picks as possible and pump games into them and in 4 years they'd be a powerhouse - it is now clear that was utterly utterly wrong and we need bigger bodies and experienced minds on the field and training track to help these kids through. That is why I understand Neeld's strategy in recruiting the experienced guys even if they haven't worked out as he'd hoped.

We can't control what the media say but we can control how we treat our players. I agree with the OP it's definitely an aspect o our lack of development and seems to be ingrained in our culture where we keep trying to anoint a teenage rookie as the saviour of he club. Was disappointed when McLardy referred to Hogan in his letter to supporters after the Essendon game.

Yeah I agree was just using it as a frame of reference.

Frawley is by far and away the best Full Back we have had at this club at least since Danny Hughes. I cannot believe some people would even consider being happy to see him go.

I think you are both partially correct - our players inability/failure to properly implement the zone is a contributing factor as is our players inability/failure to spread or spread at the correct times. I think another contributing factor is our poor skills resulting turnovers across midfield/half forward which allows the opposition to quickly transition the ball to their forward line with little pressure. It is pretty hard to implement a defence-zone if you're caught out trying to create an offensive play in your forward half and the ball is turned over due to a skill error.

I agree but that was done under a prior coach, FD and recruiting manager. So the changes have been made we just need to wait for them to bear fruit.

Wouldn't you call sacrificing a high draft pick now for Hogan who can't play til next year as being in the long term interests of the club?

I don't disagree with you although I think you're a bit harsh on Byrnes, I think he's been OK for us. Last week in the second and third quarters he was practically the only player who was running hard to spread and create options when we were trying to move the ball through the midfield.

Do you get upset when the leg of lamb you put in the oven 5 minutes ago is still red raw?

On Nathan Jones - yes he was shut out of the game and is something he needs to work to overcome but my question is who is there in our midfield giving him a chop-out?

Sylvia streaming forward, Pedersen fails to push forward to create the overlap, Sylvia hand all's to a stationary Pedersen who is immediately tackled cost us a goal. There would be at least several more examples if you went back and reviewed the tape which is why I put today's loss solely on the players heads, not Neeld's. He should have moved Watts forward earlier though as he was clearly struggling (again) down back and we struggled to find targets up forward.

The point was that that happened under Bailey not Neeld sorry if it was unclear.

Nah I disagree there - there was improvement today in the structures and systems we had. Still issues in the centre square and our skills and decision-making let us down but I thought there was improvement today. Today I thought was a better effort in this regard than last week (minus the last quarter last week). If our players play the percentages more often and take their first option instead of trying to set-up the "perfect" play we would have at least broken even with Brisbane and likely would have won.

Didn't he get dropped from the leadership group after he got blind drunk and [censored] on the bar? Anyway there's already a thread discussing Moloney, what I'd like to know is how people think Neeld coached today? I didn't think he was too bad and if our skills and decision-making abilities weren't so poor we could have won.

Like those who have criticised Moloney said he plays well against poor sides and plays poorly against the competent sides. We are a poor side hence he played well today, no surprise. Really? What issue exactly did you have with the coaching today? I thought he should have started Watts forward but he did eventually make that move other than that there wasn't a lot more he could have done. The loss today was on the players heads today if they played the percentages more and made less stupid errors we would have won today.

Not only that but he rarely gets a chop out from a third man up or players filling the space for the forward to lead in to. He wasn't too happy with Terlich on one occasion today as he hadnt worked back to fill the hole allowing an easy lead-up cheat mark to Brown. There's times where he hasn't been up to scratch but today (and last week) he did his job. There's others I'd be looking at well before him (for instance McDonald who needs a run in the 2's).

Well clearly I meant their supplement program re: the use of prohibited substances was more systematic whereas JT's alleged use of the cream containing AOD-9604 looks like a one-off.

I meant it more in that Trengove's appears to have been a one off whereas Essendon's (possibly our) supplement program was systematic.

I don't make the rules, I am only explaining to you what the former head of ASADA stated and what the WADA code states.

Look I agree with you and there is clearly a difference between being given a cream and systematic injections of supplements/drugs to players as happened at Essendon and possibly us also. I'm just putting out the info I know and trying to get to the facts of the matter while still hoping we are left unaffected by this.

I don't disagree and I clearly don't want Trengove to be penalised (although I would query the doctor as to what it was I was being given) but I am just pointing out the official line. As Ings mentioned in the 3AW interview the players have resources available to check this stuff including the AFLPA & AFL medical commission and could have called ASADA themselves. The average person may not do that but then the average person's career isn't jeopardised by taking the wrong thing.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-admit-to-drug-investigators-some-of-its-players-took-anti-obesity-drug-aod-9604-last-year/story-fndv8gad-1226628993513

They're not really "kids" they're adults who can vote, drive, drink, join the police force and fight in overseas invasions. They are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies and it's the same for all professional sports around the world who adopt WADA's code.