bing181

You can't be serious: Tom McD - top 3 B&F last year, missed a slab of pre-season, out again with shoulder, struggling and struggled in the few games he played Mitch Clark - no need to comment. Played a couple of games, but not match fit, nor foot fit. (that's a technical term). Need him probably more than anyone. Grimes - must have been near the top in the B&F this year. Mister reliable. Sylvia - we all know the story, but has been good the last couple of weeks Byrnes - Good previous few weeks (excluding GC, like most of the team) Watts - showed something against the Lions, could have been more than useful with a few more games under his belt. Viney - see Watts, one of the few shining lights against GC, his best game so far, and becoming an essential part of our mids. That's 7 players, but not any 7 players, it's 3 or 4 of our (few) best players, plus 3 or 4 "first-picked". And it's not as if we have half a dozen guys with 100 games under their belts running round in the two's. Those 7 players get replaced by fringe players, depth players, "not quite up to it (yet)" players.

Sigh ... "Clark also said that he enjoyed playing under Neeld" http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-19/clark-hopes-for-quicker-demon-revival

"Defending his coach, recruit Chris Dawes said effort was player driven and that Sunday's level had to become the regular standard." http://www.afl.com.au:

Neeld is trying to protect the players from criticism, Dawes comes in and basically says "no, it's our fault, you can't blame the coach".

Half a dozen out there (if not more) who just aren't (yet) AFL level. Injuries hurting us at the moment, it's not as if we're missing 6 fringe players. Plenty of effort, but just not the sklls, the vision or overall the experience to turn that into something. Those GPS figures are revealing, Howe over 7 k's to half time, but had hardly touched the ball.

Delusional.

Frawley, best game for the year so far. Magner 8 disposals, but we're already 30 disposals down. Can't keep the ball.

Turnovers. Skill under pressure. Make it hard, if not impossible, regardless of anything else. Just can't hit targets.

Chris Newman out, can't hurt. (It's still the match preview thread, right?)

Think you're going to be disappointed. Just for starters, if we want people who are already at other clubs - which you would think would be likely given the emphasis on "experience" - they're not going to move till the end of the season. I feel that the main role we need to finalise is that of CEO. Hard to imagine someone joining us as head of football, reporting to the CEO ... if they don't even know who that person is.

Ambivalent myself Well, there's experience and there's experience, and perhaps Col isn't the kind of model citizen we need? Not sure. Ambivalent myself.

Go for it with your opinions, but at least get your facts straight. Only one of those, Pedersen (apparently?) has more than 2 years - but I don't know even where that came from, because the word was when he signed that it was 2 years. Gillies and Rodan both only have one year, Magner and Crouch have till the end of this year as Rookies, when they can be dumped or re-signed. Sellar is contracted only to the end of this year, he originally had a 2 year deal. Terlich, Jones etc. came through the draft, and have the obligatory 2 years. Byrnes has 2 years. i.e. the majority of the players on your list are out of contract at the end of this year, and the others, except Pedersen it seems, are OOC at the end of next year. 4 year black hole????

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just adding that experience is only one part of the equation.

Suspect the Board could have performed a bit better if they hadn't had to spend the last 2 years putting out fires, more than a few of which were not of our own making. It's just been one crisis after another. Understandable perhaps (though not necessarily excusable) that they took their eyes off the (foot)ball. I also get the feeling that so much of the emphasis in the Stynes period was in clearing the debt and getting us onto some kind of decent financial footing. To the detriment of other areas within their remit? And just to add to that, a really competent CEO, overseeing a well-run and well-performing club, is going to make any Board look good.

He did a lot more than just linger in the VFL, won B&F. Hale couldn't get a game at North either.

Fair enough, but just to point out, when Jackson took over as CEO at Essendon he had no experience in football admin, and had never worked in football. He came from the mining industry.

Barry also in the Development Team, not sure if it means he'll get a run (or we have two Barry's)?

I disputed the accuracy of what you (and others) were claiming to have been said, and in particular, the context of his remarks. I accept that it's a semantic point, but I just feel that, heh, if we're going to hang someone out to dry because of what was said in a press conference, we might as well get our facts right. I didn't respond further, simply because these boards get bogged down under the weight of you said no I didn't yes you did. I'd made my point, and had nothing more to add. Which is still the case, and is also the case here.

Actually, I don't support Neeld, not in the sense that you're implying. I do support the argument there's nothing to be gained by putting in an interim coach, that Neeld is not the be all and end all of our problems, and that the only way forward is with a measured, informed approach over time with good people in the right places throughout the club. I also support much of what Peter Jackson has said of late, amongst which, the need for Neeld and the rest of the FD to have some "clear air" in which to operate.

This from Andrew Nichol today: "Maia has been really impressive since arriving at the club. He's got good hands. He's played some top level sport in New Zealand. He'll play up forward in the Development League in the VFL this Saturday. That will be his first game since arriving at the club. He played a couple of games in NZ in an international competition, so it's exciting times. Paul Satterley has done an outstanding job with him from a development point of view."

It's by time period. LTI includes AFL/VFL, and he can still play for Casey when we have a bye (for example), so that's still a match day.

Viney. Bummer. Had a nice game against GWS. Obviously has/had some kind of foot injury going on, but thought it was an ankle. Like the team otherwise (well, given who we have available), interesting to see that Kent has still been included, albeit on the extended bench.

"As a player, you don't like seeing bits of footage where you could have worked a bit harder. "There were times when we were pretty soft." Jude Bolton on the Swans last week. No mention there of Longmire not "getting them up" enough, the whole thrust of his comments comes back to the players - and lest we forget, this is a team with the kind of experience that we're not going to have for another 7 or 8 years.

Port had off-field problems last year, together with the will he won't he go/stay Boak saga. For this year they've rejigged their under-performing and dysfunctional FD and admin. We're now seeing the kind of Port I thought we'd be seeing last year: a team that can generally beat teams in the lower regions of the ladder, and might get a scalp or two at home, but I don't know much more than that. Not so much an improvement as a correction. Let's see how it plays out over the season, but I'd be surprised if they make the 8, hard to see how they're going to get another 7 or so wins.

Having a significant impact on the list, and that list having a significant impact on the field are not the same. Unless you're suggesting that the half a dozen kids, plus a few state-leaguers that have joined of late should already be out there clocking up Brownlow votes. What did McCartney say ... it takes 5 years.