pm24

I think this post just confirmed for me why it is pointless in debating something with you..... Mature recruits may be more physically prepared to play AFL, that does not mean that they will be up to speed with the way the game is played, or have developed the skills to perform at a high standard against others with elite skills and experience in the league. I wish I could take such a simplistic view of things as you, but then again, that would mean giving no consideration to a heap of relevant information when making decisions etc.

This is what I've thought has been happening all along. The media has to sell papers, and it's always fun to kick the Demons while they are down.

So Dermie is perceiving, from what he has seen on the field, that Neeld has lost the players. It's not based on any interviews with players or anything else. But despite that, he believes they'll get rid of Neeld. Nothing but Dermie repeating the opinion of half the media. Nothing new.

That is true when one is narrow minded.

In 2010 we did, but you are right, in 2011 we didn't. Regardless the list was still experienced than the one we currently have. Neeld then, after consulting with the players, and having all players measured against characteristic of leadership, appointed Grimes and Trengove who were clearly identified by their peers as the best leaders in the team. And from everything that has continue to be said about both Grimes and Trengove, they continue to be seen as fantastic leaders both within and outside of the club. It has already been explained why Byrnes and Rodan were brought in, while none of Dawes, Clarke, Seller, Gillies, Pederson, M Jones and Terlich have played over 100 AFL games. While Dawes has just over 70 games experience and Clarke has 94 games, while Sellar still only has 43 games, none of Gillies, Pederson, M Jones and Terlich have more than 20 games experience. Age does not equal AFL experience. Try and come up with a more factual retort next time.

This is the first season Neeld has been able to work with a list that is more of his creation, and we are only 2 months into the first season with that list, which has never been able to get it's best 22 on the field to date. If you are comparing Clarkson to Neelds performance, it might be worth noting that at the time the Hawks, while rebuilding, still had a brownlow medalist by the name of Shane Crawford to set an example for others. Not to mention some quality players like Trent Croad, Joel Smith, Chance Bateman, Campbell Brown, Peter Everitt, Ben Dixon, Jonothan Hay (he used to be good), Richie Vandenberg (a really solid leader), and of course Luke Hodge and Sam Mitchell would have been in their 3rd season when Clarkson arrived. The two situations are not the same. Everyone here wants to see improvement, but with the amount of experience we have lost, and the fact that we have just 9 players with over 100 games experience, a further 7 players with between 50-100 games, and no other player with the equivalent of two and a half seasons of AFL experience would suggest that things are going to take time. Neeld has had one year with a list he thought was not right, and 6 months with a list that he has contributed to the construction of. That is very different to 2 years of coaching. Last year was used to start rebuilding the culture and practices, and to evaluate and analyse the current player group. The list rebuild only started this year when you consider the moves made. It is fine to expect improvement, but when setting expectations you also need to consider everything that has happened at the club, including the changes to the list and the need for players to get used to playing with each other, while also trying to get used to the AFL level of play, and develop their skills. Consider those things, and you might have a different perspective on things.

So you are suggesting that we had a lesser playing list and less experience despite the fact that the team had Brad Green (254 games), James McDonald (238 games), Cameron Bruce (224 games), and Brad Miller (133 melbourne games) all playing. Not to mention Moloney (currently at 145 games) and Rivers (150 games) who have also recently left and were best 22 players. We currently only have four players on our list with more AFL experience than what Brad Miller left with. They are Nathan Jones, Col Sylvia, Aaron Davey, and David Rodan. So we obviously had more leaders playing up until 2010 under Bailey. We had more senior experienced players who knew how to go about playing AFL football and could play the game plan the coach was demanding. I'm guessing you must have also forgotten the fact that our "brand" of football under Bailey was widely panned and criticized for being soft "bruise free football". Seriously, if you are going to try and make an argument comparing the Bailey era with the current Neeld era, it might actually help your cause to do some research instead of coming in and just talking rubbish that is factually inaccurate. I look forward to your "excuses" for your poor argument.

You can not be serious. You realise you are basically suggesting that Neeld should have come in and tried to appease Moloney just because he won the b&f and a key contributor to the poor culture. Open your eyes. It's because of Moloney and others that Scully felt he should take the money and run. But who cares you say, Neeld should have gone out of his way to appease him? It is that attitude that got us to the horrible state our culture is in at the moment.

Fair point but is reckon they'd have a better culture and core group of experienced veteran players to help with the development of players. Something we have lacked.

I hear what you are saying but think you need to look at with about more realism. The bulk of the players are still acclimatising to afl football, and and still learning what is required to play at that level. To me, though the performance of the team has been abysmal and heartbreaking, I can understand why we have been so inconsistent given our lists experience and age profile. Do I want to see improvement over the year. Yes. Do I think we will see it? Yes.

We are a rebuilding list that has the second least amount of experience in the league. You are only suggesting it is ludicrous to compare our place with theirs because it doesn't support your argument. If you're argument re gws held substance then the gold coast shouldn't have won 4 games this season because they are an expansion team in a hostile environment, with a bunch of kids who have been thrown together via the draft.

Just wondering where you got those stats from regarding the average losing margin. Do we have the 2nd worst losing margin in the league? I'm guessing GWS has a worse losing margin than ours. Given they are the only team less experienced than us, that would make sense.

I'm happy with those final changes. Kent for the sub vest I reckon.

Given strauss hasn't been named for Casey, I take that as guarantee that he's playing this week. I think the final in's will be confirmed as Rodan and Pedersen (both listed in the starting 22) with Straus and Fitzpatrick the other two changes. Spencer, Kent and Macdonald to be named as emergencies.

Can't help but think that it's pretty obvious why the playing group didn't vote him for the leadership group if this is how he behaved. Damn straight he shouldn't be part of the leadership group if he just sulks when he doesn't get what he thinks he deserves.

I reckon they'd leave to go to a club that has the guts to follow through on what it has planned to do, and not give up half way through just because it gets hard due to public pressure.

I guess this means that Strauss is a certainty to line up for the Demons this week. Good to hear.

I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying? I simply linked my general question to our current situation. I'm asking a general question. If a playing list looses experienced veteran players, and then becomes a more inexperienced playing list, would that list be expected to improve it's results or would it generally be expected that some regression would take place. I'll ask some more questions to emphasise my point. When the bulldogs lost players like Brad Johnson, Barry Hall, Jason Akermanis, Scott West, Luke Darcy and others, did they improve the next year?? Have they even improved this year compared to last? When the power lost players like Warren Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Brendon Lade, and Shaun Burgoyne, did they improve or regress?? My point is, people have made a number of comments about how we should be seeing improvement but either fail to consider or dismiss as irrelevant, the fact that our list is even younger and less experienced than last year, and that currently we even have some of our more experienced and mature players out who might be in a better position to cope with the rigours of AFL football (Sylvia, Grimes and even Joel Macdonald). We are not the only team in rebuild mode. There are other teams in the same position, but how many of them have teams less experienced than ours?

I asked who would be the first to run this line, and thanks Kojak, you didn't let me down. In that case, if you were to ever promote your own work or business should I then not trust you?

I'm certain my statement doesn't apply to all, but I think it does apply to some on here. Answer me this, when a team gets younger and less experienced in an offseason, do you expect it to improve or get worse? I'm interested in your response, because our team got even younger and even less experienced during the offseason, yet many on here still think that we should have some more positive improvement despite this, which to me is nonsensical.

Just a question for you on the Rivers thing. If the players voted on the leadership group and the captains and Rivers was identified because of the outcomes of that vote, is Neeld really the one who dropped Riv from the leadership group, or just the one that trusted in their process and acted based on the outcomes of that process? You make it sound like it was solely Neeld that lead to Rivers being dropped from the leadership group, which from everything that has been said, would appear false. However, I agree completely about how Rivers was fantastic last year despite losing his spot on the leadership team. Showed more on-field leadership than Moloney, that's for sure.

Why is it that whenever someone from the club comes out and makes statement that is contrary to what the media is spinning that people side with the media and not the club personnel? Do people support the club or the media??

So who is going to be the first sceptical person to come out and make a statement like "Robbo is employed in the marketing department for the club. Of course he is going to say something like this. It's his job"??? Surely someone will.

LOL

It depends on what you are investing in as a stakeholder, and what returns you expect and when you expect to see them. For me, I've seriously thought about whether I renew for another year in 2014, but that thought doesn't last long because in the end I support this club. The thought to not renew was purely an emotive response, which I generally consider to be the worst way to make decisions. When Neeld was appointed I thought it was a great move because he straight away provided his vision for the team, and laid out what was going to be expected. To me, this indicated someone with a plan. I also knew that it would take time, and when I look at our list, as I've said in other threads, it is obvious we are in a massive rebuilding process with a very inexperienced list. I can't in one moment say "things need to change" and that some players need to go even if they are experienced, and then demand instant success when we are left with an inexperienced list. Did I think we were so far back from the pack that it would take this long? No. But can I understand why it is? Yes. The reasons I still believe we are on the right track is because the list decisions that have been made make a lot of sense to me. I'll outline my thinking. Pre Neeld we relied on a forward line with Jurrah, Watts, Green, Petterd, Bate, Miller, and Dunn. We did not have a strong goal kicking marking option in the forward line. Neeld has since recruited Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes, Cameron Pederson, and brought in young Hulk Hogan to give us more depth at this position then we have had in a LONG time. Pre Neeld we relied on a midfield led by Moloney, McDonald, Bruce, Jones, Morton, and the newly acquired Scully and Trengove. We then lost McDonald (big mistake by the Bailey group IMO), Bruce (was on his last legs) and now Moloney and Morton. Morton was going nowhere and after some of the things that have been said about Moloney, I'm glad he's no longer at the club. Scully obviously took the money. Neeld knew we lacked leadership in the middle, and hard bodies, so he went out and firstly grabbed Magner and Couch for the rookie list, who provided relief for the younger bodies, and has now brought in Rodan and Byrnes to help provide leadership and benefit the culture of the club, and help develop our young midfield list. Neeld and co also actively pursued Wellingham, Young, and Ray. Unfortunately none took up the offer, but I reckon Farren Ray might be thinking he should have. This again showed an intent by Neeld to fill the wholes on our list as best he could. They are already saying that the midfield will be a priority in the next offseason. The backline is the only area where I believe little work has been required, however the loss of Bartram has hurt us defensively, but I believe that players like Strauss and Terlich (a Neeld recruit) can help address that in the future. All in all, I have seen a pattern where the club has actively identified areas of weakness on the list and recruited for those purposes. I believe we have a more well rounded list than we had the previous season, though it is less experienced. I think the pathway that is being taken is a positive one, and that in another year or two, we'll start seeing the results. .