Hardnut

If Sydney was the great team you say, they would have won more than they have - you underestimate the speed of modern inside ball winners. You also clearly have not studied Geelong's style closely enough - their players love a contest, but use their skill to move the ball quickly without a contest if possible. A skilled kick will cover 50 m in about 2 s - a runner would take at least 5 s - that's how you generate pace from players who look slow on the track!

Pedersen/Gillies are forgettable Bob - Byrnes is a good player, but not in a top club's best 22 which is why we were able to get him. Hogan looks like a real gun - pity we can't play him now!

You are kidding - remember Milne missing the ball - Pies would not have had one Flag! The Cats showed them up well and truly in 2011!

Selective memory here I suspect!

All MFC supporters should be harsh on the Pies! Seriously, though, I do agree in general with the rest of your post. Just a question - who got rid of the players you talk about?

Would that evidence include a team of 22 Geelong players ranging in height from 175 to 200 cm or so, all of whom seem able to go in hard and also run?

The 'Collingwood' game plan got lucky once! The 'Geelong' game plan is a proven success - end of story!

Give me a pack of inside ballgetting midfielders any day Bob - they can also run enough to move the ball quickly!

Someone like Chocco Williams would be available at the end of the year, regardless of contract obligations.

Understand your argument Bob, but good contested ball getters are extremely valuable - runners are easier to stop, eg the Hawks Clinton Young in past years.

Rubbish! I agree we were not in the hunt against Essendon. However, against WC we ran round in circles, around the boundary line, and in continual energy sapping rugby style plays. In short, we did not use a sensible game plan when we had a chance to do so. We were never competitive, seriously - the end was just a matter of time.

You are wrong Bob, but as I said earlier, in the long run it probably doesn't matter in this case which order we choose which type of player.

The loss to WC was worse than the loss to Essendon. A loss in the next round to GWS in theory would be worse again. However, we should stop trying to assess losses based on the so-called ability of our opponents. The reality is that every loss is worse than the previous - our aim should be to win against anyone by any amount!

Which game plan are you talking about - if its Hinkley's then yes it makes sense!

Tona is understandably emotional, but fundamentally he is right - how much longer do we put up with the errors of judgement made by MFC? Other clubs would have acted much sooner and much more savagely, and with much more ultimate success!

Watching the draft, I was furious when MFC chose Toumpas ahead of Wines, however in fairness we must give Toumpas time - circumstances change and maybe he will fit in well when we choose another hard, in and under midfielder - sometimes the order of events does not matter in the longer term.

Put simply, reading the above, Hinkley has shown just how bad the choice of Neeld was, regardless of the playing list!

Thanks Deelirious - and your source is?

No-one wants to sack a coach anytime, let alone early in a season, but MN has to go - the players put in hard today (at least in the first half), so it isn't their fault in that sense (and the ones he chose didn't do very well IMO). The players looked totally lost when it came to decision making, and in particular when it came to deciding the quickest and easiest way to goal - that's a part of coaching - MN and NC to go asap!

Before MN was appointed senior coach at MFC, can anyone tell me who else was interviewed for the job?

Open your eyes Chook and look at our Club's performance from a rational unbiased viewpoint!

Not even close Moonshadow - Neeld simply hasn't got it - he was a bad choice. Stop blaming the players and anyone else. We need to lose MN and NC fast!

The comparison was clearly an analogy, but we must have a complete overturn - MN and NC in particular, must go!

You have just justified my comment and provided one possible reason for releasing the report - if there is nothing there, then the issue is over with no further speculation.

There's a very quick way to deal with the content of the Andrews report - release it and address any significant issues it raises - then it will be gone. Whilst it remains unreleased, it provides a source of unknown and potentially damaging material for anyone to speculate upon.