pm24

As a paid up member (not sure why I'm bolding this, or why you did, but just thought I'd join the fun) I also expected to see some incremental improvement, but when you consider that we have lost our most experienced back (rivers), midfielder(moloney) and forward (green) during one offseason, and brought in a few more younger players, I think the fact that we are struggling more makes a sense. Not to mention that we have been without some of our leaders in recent weeks (Grimes and Clark) and the hardened body of Sylvia. Look what happened to the bulldogs once they lost Hall, Johnson and now Lake. Their backline and forward structure are weak, they're just fortunate to have an experienced and strong core of midfield leaders. Maybe I was naïve to expect more improvements given we lost experienced and important players and just got caught up in the unrealistic hope that is generated in the preseason. Just maybe, my expectations were beyond realistic. Changes were bound to happen with the free agency era coming in. It's unfortunate that we missed out on Young, Wellingham and Ray. But if we had managed to get one or two of them, I believe that we'd be much better placed. But it didn't happen, and it left us more inexperienced than we already were.

Listening to that speech, it seems clear that Neeld was always aware it would take time for the team to become the "hardest team to play against" though some people expected it to happen straight away. It's amazing that I think Neeld's attitude and messages have remained pretty consistent along the journey, yet those listening to the message have changed the way they receive it over a period of 18 months........ Leads me to question who really has the problem.

For mine, if we can get within 6-7 goals as the final margin, that would be a positive step from the Freo game. Reality, says to me that we are likely to get beaten by about 70-80 points.

I honestly didn't check the stats and figures before making that comment so don't read too much into it. The main purpose of the statement to acknowledge the regression that has taken place this year.

Thanks Mate. I am far from an expert in all things football, haven't even played the game at local level. Just trying to get people to look at things from a different angle, because though the results are really hurting, I think I can see the plan that they are following. It's just a matter of whether it will come to fruition. I still think it's too early to tell.

We have gone backwards in some areas, but when I consider the matchups of our players against other teams, particularly in the midfield, then I am not surprised we are getting smashed in the midfield. Our midfield is probably only more experienced the GWS. GC have a more experienced and talented midfield than us, so do the dogs, saints, etc etc etc. With that said, I am looking forward to the time we have Sylvia return from suspension, Grimes and Clark back into the team, and a few more games experience into players like Toumpas and Viney. I think what Neeld and co need to do is place Sylvia in the middle with Jones for the rest of the season. If Magner can be maintained on the senior list, keep him in there, and we'll actually have mature bodies around the ball. I would also like to see us move one of the tall backs out of the side to make way for some smaller, more nimble players in the back line to help with our run and disposal out of the back half. I would like to see Strauss get more time back, and for him to be used to clear the ball out of the back 50, by collecting the ball after marks from our taller players. I would like to see maybe Jetta used in the backline for his tackling and agility. I can't help but think that having 5 out of 6 back men at more than 191cm's is hindering our ability to move the ball out of there. But, we lack small defenders, so there's little we can do. I would like to see Blease back in to provide run and carry ahead of guys like Bail and Nicholson, but only when he can run out a game when providing as much defensive pressure as he does offensive spark. I would like to see Fitzpatrick get a game because he's earned it, but I don't think we can really say the forward line hasn't performed because we haven't been getting the ball in there. I might be overly optimistic, but I think if we can keep Sylvia, Jones, Magner, Grimes all in around the middle, with the tackling of McKenzie, then our midfield will perform much MUCH better. Then we would likely get more clearances, more forward fifty entries, and score more often. But until we can get some of those key midfield cogs back, we will continue to get smashed in those areas.

I agree with what you are saying. I look at this rebuilding in the following phases: 1st year - assessment of player group - No free agency and limited capacity to make many trades, however Mitch Clark was brought in to provide a key forward option and some hard bodied mature mids brought onto the rookie list. Game plan introduced and new standards set. 2nd year- transition stage - large amount of list turnover with player brought in with desirable characteristics and experience to fill on and off field needs for leadership and positions. Game plan becoming embedded, and new list structure developed to create greater cohesion during games. 3rd year (if Neeld gets there) - AFL level fitness requirements met, greater work on skill weaknesses and further embedding of game plan. Recruitment of further players to address list weaknesses. Expectation for improvements in performance and on field results. Continued development of younger players and core group of players. 4th year - Genuine progress in terms of results, and further development of younger players. Given the whole concept of the rebuild that has been mentioned, this is just how I reckon it could have been planned out from what has been said. I guess this is partly why I think more time is needed before making a proper judgement of Neeld. I acknowledge that some players have been put off by Neeld's manner, but when I consider how he has helped Davey in recent times, I feel more optimistic about his ability to get those players back on-side and play for him and the club into the future. I guess I'm just a glass half-full kind of guy.

Nice response mate. I'm not going to respond to everything you've said because I'm tired and my 5 week old daughter will probably wake up any moment now, but I will elaborate on my thoughts regarding the "benchmarking against the bulldogs and st kilda", and try to get to a few of the other comments. My comments regarding benchmarking our progress when we play against the bulldogs and st kilda was only used because i believe they are two teams in similar positions to us from a list perspective. With that said, their younger players are probably in my opinion not as naturally talented as ours, but will have had better habits built into them due to the stronger leadership groups at each of the clubs. We don't have a group that compares in experience and talent level to Cross, Cooney, Boyd, Griffin, Murphy, Giansiracusa, Morris for the Dogs, or Riewoldt, Montagna, Hayes, Dal Santo, Milne, Blake and Fisher for the Saints. So, based on that simple assessment, I do not expect us to be favorites, but what I do expect is for the team to be competitive and for the team to show some heart, some determination and some fight in going for a win. I believe that we actually have a better back line and forward line than both the dogs and st kilda, but our midfield is just too inexperienced to compare to theirs. So, will the results change my of the Neeld era, not necessarily. But the effort on the field against lists similar to ours may. I accept that with a young list comes inconsistencies with performance, but at some stage it has to change and if there aren't signs of that change then I would agree with the sentiment that Neeld may not be the best coach for us. With that said, I do not believe that we would see real change until next season. Trengove's appointment as captain...... I think it would have been wiser for Jones to have been chosen purely because he has the runs on the board. However, I still think that Trengove looks to be a great leader for the club, but it may have been a little early. Do I think it's as bad a choice as everyone has made it out to be though? No. I think too much of his average form has been attributed to the captaincy appointment and not enough to injuries in the preseason and the recovery from those injuries. Moloney and Rivers ........ I think Rivers might have left regardless. I mean what player nearing the last few years of their career wouldn't want to join Geelong, and have a near guaranteed spot in the starting 22 each week, when you've had little success throughout your career? As for Moloney, I don't care that he moved on. When I hear stories about him just choosing to miss time trials under Bailey, or here stories about how he was selfish while at Geelong and basically remained that way with us, talent or not, if you are rebuilding a culture he is one of the first to go. From the reports I've heard, he was one of the senior players Scully was referring to when he stated concern regarding their behaviour on the China trip. The Freo and Gold Coast games ....... I only singled them out because they were the two games that people had been focusing on recently. I did acknowledge the Port Adelaide and Essendon games, though not in depth and I agree that the perceived lack of effort is a concern. I say perceived, because I believe the fitness levels of the club are obviously still not at the required level, and add that to an inexperienced list and fatigue etc set in much quicker, tackles don't stick, and players get overpowered by more experienced opposition. That's about all I can add for now.

You are completely missing the point of the comparison with Clarko. My point was that early on there were calls for him to be sacked. They didn't sack him though, they extended his contract and things picked up soon after. Your reference to Healy's statement is totally unrelated to the point I was making. Also, I don't get the argument that this midfield is the midfield that Neeld put together......he inherited a list that relied on Moloney as it's main ball winner, and Moloney left. Since then, the midfielders that have been moved on were Morton, Gysberts and ????? So explain to me how the midfield is Neelds fault when all he was really left to work with Nathan Jones, Colin Sylvia, Grimes and........ Neeld has recruited experienced mids and young mids and I can not see one pick that has missed yet. Magner as a rookie has worked great. Couch has also been solid. Then we have Viney and Toumpas and late picks like Taggert, Kent, Matt Jones who have shown something but obviously still need time to develop. Trengove needs to have a full preseason but will surely come good because he is too talented not to. Neeld inherited other young mids like Blease (needs to work on defensive pressure), Strauss (still finding his feet), Nicholson and Bail (both are poor by foot), Tapscott and Jetta. All are young and need experience, but when you take just one of Jones and/or Sylvia out of our team, our midfield is significantly weaker. Some people have said that instead of going for guys like Dawes and Pederson he should have gone for mids. Well from the reports I read we expressed interest in Clinton Young and Sharrod Wellingham, the two top mids available in free agency. What else can we do when they say NO???

I can't help but feel that Carey is describing exactly what Neeld has try to do with this list, and those same characteristics that Neeld has been criticised for showing.

I think when looking at coaches like Clarkson, who rebuilt the Hawks, is to remember that people were calling for his head midway through his first contract, but the club stuck by him and look what happened. Now I'm not saying that the same outcome is guaranteed with Neeld at the helm. Only suggesting that things take time and given the problems the club seems to have, it'll probably take longer than it would for a team with a strong core group of experienced veterans, and a stronger culture than what we have. As for your response to comment 1, I recall the message from the preseason was that it was much better than the previous year but still only 66% of the way to where it needs to be. So, the preseason was probably the best this club has experienced in recent years (which is more obvious when considering Morton's statements), but still not where it needs to be. That may only come with one more preseason.

Cool, what was he talking to them about....the weather?? I don't think we need to get unnecessarily excited about Roos possibly coaching the club based on him having a conversation with senior players. I mean Malthouse has been having conversations with guys like Watts and Davey, so surely that meant he was going to take over from Neeld at some point. Unless there is more information about what they actually talked about, the fact that Roos who is in the MEDIA spoke to Melbourne players, means little to me. If it means anything, it could mean that he is preparing a piece where he will respond to all the rumours which he has already responded to just because people won't listen when he says he has no desire to coach AFL at the moment.

Cheers guys. Appreciate the comments. I just think the worst thing this club can do at the moment is bow to public and media pressure to sack Neeld and further destabilise the club. I can not see how the impact of removing a coach is going to be a positive for the remainder of the season, particularly when that coach has only been in the job for 18 months with the 2nd least experienced list in the competition. I actually think what the club has tried to do is implement a rebuild model similar to that used by GWS and GC, but with the lack of additional cash injections from the AFL, and with the added challenge of not just creating a solid culture, but also addressing the cultural issues of the past. That's a much harder proposition than just starting from scratch like GWS and GC.

I honestly do not know if he is the right man for the job, because I don't believe he's actually had a real opportunity to show his abilities. From everything I've heard hear, read in the media, and heard through a colleague of mine who works with the club, Neeld did get the senior players off-side when he came to the club, and that includes players like Frawley, Davey and Sylvia, and obviously Rivers and Moloney. However, I look at the story about Davey last week, and it is obvious that Neeld is working to rebuild those relationships. That is a huge positive to me. He may have come into the club and been a bit too hard, and not shown enough respect to the senior players, but he seems to be trying to build stronger relationships with the current group. He has shown to have been of great benefit to a number of players around the club, but obviously there are some that are still unsure. Do I think someone else may have been able to have us in a better place than the club is at now, particularly with all the speculation that is going around....maybe. But at the same time, I think anyone else that took over this list at the time that Neeld started would be in exactly the same position, albeit they might have had more success in transforming and retaining the more senior players. However, with that said, I'm not really sad that Moloney is no longer on the list. I've only ever heard negatives about his attitude to the game. Sometimes that cleaning out of the old is needed in order to rebuild the foundations of a club.

I've been as frustrated as the rest of you with the performances this year, but after each big loss which at the time seems unexpected, I find it useful to sit back, remove emotion from the equation and consider the lists and clubs who have handed us the latest belting. The two that stand out in most people's memories are the Gold Coast loss, and the Freo game. The first two rounds were obviously also very hard to take. However, upon reflection I think we are underrating the teams that are giving us these beltings. Firstly, the Gold Coast. They have now beaten all four teams that are also in a rebuilding phase (GWS, Melb, Dogs, Saints) and pushed the premiership favourites only to go down by just over 4 goals. Upon reflection, do I think we were favourites for that game based on a list comparison....hell no. Our experienced senior players do not hold a light to there collective group of Ablett, Bock, Brennan, Rischetelli, Brown and even Hunt (in terms of approach to the game). Secondly, our young developing players do not compare to their group. Now onto Freo. Going into this game, they had just drawn with Sydney on the SCG while undermanned, they had also just beaten Collingwood by just under 5 goals with a depleted side, and sat 4th on ladder despite all their injuries. In short, they are a bloody good side. A top 4 side now, and probably for the rest of the season. So should we be surprised they belted us...probably not. But the reality is, that it's the perceived "lack of effort" that is killing us as supporters, and making our team harder and harder to watch. But is the lack of effort of Neeld's doing??? The more I read, the more I listen to what the players are saying, the less I believe it is. Originally Neeld said the club was 3 years behind the level of fitness required to play AFL football. Here's a simple thought; if a player is not fit enough to play against other AFL players, they are not going to catch them in a chase, they are not going to be able to run out games, and their skills will not be at the same level for as long as the fatigue earlier. I just noticed this article about our good mate Cale Morton about his time at West Coast so far (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-27/cale-morton). If anything, it highlights how right Neeld was with his comments about the fitness of our players, and the lack of leadership within the player group. Leadership that obviously wasn't coming from the senior players like Moloney and Rivers, who were present when Neeld came into the club. So let me paint a picture of what Neeld took on when he accepted the head coaching position. When Neeld took over this club after Bailey's tenure, he took on a list that had kicked out it's best leader, Jnr McDonald, and said goodbye to good clubmen like Yze, Miller, Robertson, and Bruce; lost Tom Scully due to financial incentives and (if Scully is to be believed) concerns around the leadership of the veterans on the club list; had training standards and fitness levels that would take 3 years to fix; had a core group of young inexperienced players that had never experienced an environment with real AFL level standards before; and a history of poor drafting and insufficient investment of funds into player development; but he took it on with an aim to turning the club around to become "the hardest team to play against" within 3-5 years. Now, some people seem to think that this can be fixed within 18 months. I think that is unrealistic. We have a team bereft of leadership, which is why we have two of the youngest captains in the history of the game. We have also said goodbye to some senior players during the last offseason and gotten younger again. We are now in a position where we have the 2nd least experienced team in the league. However, the foundations are there for change. Veteran players recognised as good clubmen, who are recognised for their attitude to training, as well as some seriously talented Key Position talent, have been recruited. Byrnes and Rodan were two such players recognised as good club men, who were brought into to help mentor the player group. Clarke and Dawes have been recruited to provide us with the most promising Key Forward combo this club has seen since the Neitz and Schwartz years. Players have been recruited to fill roles, and some good mature age recruits have been brought in to bolster the ranks (Pederson, Magner, Terlich, Couch, M Jones). All the while, some seriously promising young talent has been recruited (Toumpas, Hogan, Viney) while games have been poured into our developing list. Some players have also shown a new level of consistency not previously seen (N Jones, Sylvia (some may disagree on this one), Garland, Grimes) under previous coaches. There are a number of positives, to go along with the negatives. Some say blame Neeld, some say don't, blame the players instead. I say, the problems lie largely in the past, and have contributed to the poor practices that our current player group have displayed. Why, because when you look at everything that has happened, our club was a basket case before Neeld took over and changes were needed to turn it around. Those changes are currently being made, and I believe that we will not see the improvement we are all craving, until next year. And when I say improvement, I simply mean that we will jump over the Saints and Bulldogs on the ladder while holding off a developing GWS. But we shouldn't expect much more than that, because that's just not where we are at with our list. Many on here will disagree, and many will say, BUT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!. It may not be good enough for where we WANT this club to be. But we are where we are for a reason and I do not believe that the big improvement will come until next year, and the year following. For me, the benchmarks of our progress for the remainder of this season should be when we play St Kilda and the Bulldogs, two clubs I believe to be in a similar transition period to us, but with a better group of experienced leaders. Those are just my thoughts on where we are, agree or disagree I don't care.

Why must every thread, even one set up to show the positives about a player, be eventually used to criticise that player???? If anything, Davey has acknowledge in the article that highlights the types of injuries he has had to play with the last few years, and how much he's had to work on getting his fitness back to the required level. There are a heap of positives that came out of this article for me, and I think it's about time we focused on some positives: Davey has worked his butt off to get back to a fitness level that enables him to have an impact on games, which will have set a positive example to the younger players on how hard work can pay off. Despite all supposed conflict between Neeld and Davey that was reported last year, Davey has obviously dismissed those rumors and said that in effect "it's all good". Neeld may be better at dealing with some of the players on a personal level than when he started as illustrated by Davey having Dinner with Neeld and his family and the general positivity from Davey about this experience. Players take time to develop, so do first time Head Coach's. A player of Davey's experience who apparently lost his passion for the game has regained it despite the turmoil that the club has experienced. This, to me, suggests that there muse be some positivity amongst the playing group, because I would think it is hard to become positive or passionate about football again if you are in a negative environment. If Davey really is feeling better and more passionate about his footy, we may just have a player who can seriously help us again. Every time he had ball in hand on the weekend I had a sense of calm that something good would happen. Something that doesn't happen often when watching our beloved demons at the moment. He seems generally keen to support the club and be a positive example. So, there is my attempt to focus on positives. Davey has sublime skill, something which we have been lacking. If his fitness levels are finally back to a good level, then that can only mean good things for our club. Who knows, with Davey and Watts back in the side, we may actually have enough skilled disposers of the football to not turn the ball over as much on Sunday and really challenge Freo.. Hey, I'm in a positive space, so may as well dream as well

Even if everything that GNF has said is true, and I'm not saying whether I believe it is, or it isn't, but a lot can change in a season of footy. Once we get our best 22 on the ground, what's to say we won't start winning games and the feeling amongst the player group won't become more and more positive and optimistic. At the start fo the year, it might have been quite possible Frawley, Sylvia and Watts would be leaving, but I'm hoping that by seasons end the team will have shown enough improvement to keep them around.

I disagree with this because I think since the middle of last year, the club has clearly identified Watts as a Mackie type rebounding defender. People continue to bang on about Watt's not having a thirst for the contest, but if he's been identified as the player other team mates need to get the ball too, then I can understand him waiting on the outer of the contest in order to receive the handball and deliver the ball into the midfield. Also, I think a lot of people have treated him unfairly in respect his "lack of hardness". How many here would like a guy like Mackie on the list??? I know I would, but he's hardly the big bustling defender we all think we need, yet he is a premiership player, and widely regarded as one of the most dangerous half backers in the league with ball in hand. This is the type of role I believe the club see's Watts playing. And with Clarke, Dawes, Pederson and soon Hogan to play in the forward line, I reckon it is great list management to put Watts into a role in the team where he can use his skills to the biggest benefit of the team.

That is true, but the observations that they make within the clubrooms are more accurate than the perception of us supporters based on actions in game and possibly more accurate that the media rumors that swirl around. Jack may not be 100% happy, but none of us truely know. I don't disagree with you regarding those in charge of the club having a lot to answer for in respect to Watts, and I know that the leadership of the club has only changed minimally. However the Football Department is completely different, and that is the environment that Watts would find himself in on a daily basis. I'm just suggesting that I think under the new football department, Watts has shown more improvement than he did under Bailey, and has in fact performed better. Why was it bad player management? Watts hurt his ankle the week prior, and played while sick during the Essendon game. So how is it poor player management to sub a player off when he is sick and playing with a bad ankle, and struggling in the game..... Please explain.

That is true, but the observations that they make within the clubrooms are more accurate than the perception of us supporters based on actions in game and possibly more accurate that the media rumors that swirl around. Jack may not be 100% happy, but none of us truely know. I don't disagree with you regarding those in charge of the club having a lot to answer for in respect to Watts, and I know that the leadership of the club has only changed minimally. However the Football Department is completely different, and that is the environment that Watts would find himself in on a daily basis. I'm just suggesting that I think under the new football department, Watts has shown more improvement than he did under Bailey, and has in fact performed better.

I have already posted in another thread that I have a friend who volunteers for the club with fundraising efforts and is in the rooms at every game before, during and after the game. All the statements about the players not being behind Neeld were dismissed, rather their comments were that they had never seen the playing group so united. This HUN article is just speculation. I also wonder why people would say that it is Neeld who is the sole problem if Watts really is disgruntled. What about Bailey??? What about the 3 1/2 years that he was in charge and the club stupidly decided to debut Watts for the Queens Birthday clash in 2009 for "marketing" purposes. Seriously, if Watts has a problem with the club, I think it would have more to do with the pre-Neeld era than the post-Neeld era. I sometimes wonder if Scully would still be playing in a Melbourne guernsey if Neeld was around, because Scully obviously didn't see much discipline or leadership amongst the experienced players while he was here given he reportedly cited their behaviour on the China trip as one of the reasons he didn't feel certain about remaining with the club. I actually think Watts has performed better under Neeld. His move to the backline has been a great move. I was actually pretty frustrated to hear that Watts had played most of his junior football along the half back line and on the wing, but we decided to throw him into the forward line despite the fact that he physically wasn't ready for it. We as fans, also placed too much emphasis on him becoming that big gorilla forward we've wanted rather than looking for the club to utilise his athletic ability and disposal ability for the best of the club. As a forward, Watts is more a Josh Kennedy type than a Jonothan Brown. But that wasn't the way the club operated under Bailey. There wasn't any thought, or any analysis of player skills and matching them to the abilities we required for different positions. That was when the administration of the club (Schwab and co) were meddling with the football department. If I was Watts, that would be the part of my career that would make me think about leaving. Not the current period. But hey, blame Neeld if you want. I'm getting in the way of some more Neeld bashing, so my apologies. Please proceed.

I think the problem has to lie with the midfield and not the defense. If not for our defense on Sunday we would have lost by 10+ goals. We can say it's the disposal out of defense that is the problem, but I believe the problem is that our midfield and half forward line are not moving into space and/or don't have the awareness to position themselves properly in cases where we do switch the ball. It's the second kick out of the back line, into the middle of he ground where we get caught, and we are often kicking to a contest rather then getting it to guys in space. Thus why I think we turn the ball over so much.

I wasn't suggesting that he's done enough but more pointing out that for the first time he's starting to show some of the attitude towards a contest that we have been asking for. Thus my statement "I get the feeling, he may actually be more willing to put his body on the line these days".

Ummm three weeks ago in Brisbane he kicked two goals from marks on the lead inside 50. One from basically the boundary line 50 out. In that game he also took a mark in the back half, where he actually went back with the flight of the bar and took the mark while getting crunched from behind. I get the feeling, he may actually be more willing to put his body on the line these days.

I thought the game against Brisbane was one of Jack's best for the year. Firstly, he was finally showing a willingness to go after the hard ball and got crunched hard from behind in a marking attempt, yet held the mark. He then also went forward to kick 2 goals, which has resulted in many on here wanting him to play forward, not back, thus the topic. He actually played his best game for the year against the Lions, so hopefully, with the rest he'll be fresh and ready to go against Freo. We NEED his disposal out of the back line badly. Dunn is a great long kick, but showed that he is accurate enough with the shorter kicks, which he bungled on at least two occasions on Sunday with one leadign to a Reiwoldt goal.