pm24

I wonder if we are one of the only clubs where a coach has to clearly identify which Jack he is referring to by also stating their surname....

No point having his good disposal in the forward line if we haven't got the players in the back line or midfield to get it to him.

I noticed that this was an in-game change in strategy. In the first quarter there were still a lot of rushed handballs and temptation to kick long without regard to who we were kicking to. I noticed a massive change from the second quarter where it looked like the players had been told to kick more and maintain posession. There were more switches of play or short passes, rather than the temptation to just play on at all costs. This change also meant that we were in a better position to slow them down when there were turnovers, because players were out of position less. It was one of the real positives from the game to me. That, and the fact that we were able to slow them through the middle of the ground a lot more than we have in previous weeks, giving our defenders a better chance, and I believe the defensive unit did a fantastic job given the amount of forward 50 entries for the tigers. Nice to see a post on some of the positives from the weekend. It's certainly refreshing. I must say, my first thought when I saw the heading of thread was..."we have strengths???"

I'm just wondering if people are still thinking that the boys are just providing "spin" in their media comments given both Dawes and Frawley have now come out and said something like, the effort was better, but it still wasn't enough to WIN, and that means it wasn't good enough. Dawes even bluntly said it should be at AFL level which almost suggested that even the effort provided was still not quite good enough.

Neeld has now come out basically said what I think he has needed to say for sometime... and revealed, in my mind, some of the reasons he was appointed, and the objectives that were set for him. Great article on the club site and very much worth a read by Neeld supporters and critics: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-05-18/competitiveness-the-aim In short the key message is. Everyone thought we should have rebuilt properly 2-3 years ago, and that HE was given a blueprint when he joined the club, to rebuild it. He then says that it takes 3-5 years to rebuild a club. So in other words, he's doing what he was employed by the club to do....rebuild the team.

If this is your feeling, how about watching this interview with Blease after the Round 20 loss to the saints last year. He is well aware of the things he needs to work on and gives credit to Misson and others for helping with his work on fitness: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2012-08-11/deetv-sam-blease-post-match-round-20

I'm not sure I agree we'd be top 8, but multiple times over the past couple of weeks, I can't help but wonder where the club would be if the culture wasn't such a mess for so many years and we'd been able to keep the following players (who are currently active): Scott Thompson, Brock McLean, Darren Jolly, and Jared Rivers I can only imagine how much more damaging our team would be if we had Thompson, McLean and Jones in the middle with a Jolly and Jamar ruck tandem.

Didn't Jackson hire and then extend Matthew Knights while at Essendon FC??

I wonder whther he won the job because he said this is what he thinks needed to happen and if that's what the club was seeking at the time of his appointment. Surely the club would have known what he might do before appointing him. Mind you, I actually think a lot of the changes that were made were probably needed, so I'm not against what has taken place so far.

Fair questions to ask Michael. I don't really have the answers, but a look at other clubs and you can identify that it's not a quick process. Geelong, which easily had a better list at the time of their "rebuild" than we do, had a five year lean period before starting to play finals football again (1998-2003). This is the period where they picked up the core of their premiership team. The Hawks took three years (2004-2006) to rebuild, but again they had a stronger core of experienced players than we currently have. However, I think many have said that the rise of Hawthorn was more the exception to the rule, rather than the rule. As already identified, Sydney took quite a long time to recover in the 1990's. Barassi took over from 93' to 95' and they finally started to have some success again in 1996 when they finished on top of the ladder. However, prior to Barassi taking over they were a basket case from about 1988. So all in all it took about 7 years for them to recover. In short, every case is different, but I reckon it takes at least 3-4 years to rebuild a club to competitiveness. That is only based on what I've been able to find regarding some clubs who have had to go through that process.

Actually I am basing it on more than just what the players say, and how they perform on game day. I am considering why the players would come out and say the things they have said, and why so many of the players would come out and say the same things. I am going beyond game day, and beyond the statements and asking why they would make those statements in media forums if they did not actually believe them and why they would be so adament in what they are saying. I also ask myself why respected guys like Neil Craig and Dave Misson would be sticking around if the club was in such a shambles in respect to players being on board etc. There are too many inconsistencies in the arguments that suggest that the players are not on board, or those arguments are based on the consideration of just one or two factors. I ask myself why players newly recruited from successful clubs would make statements standing up for the club. Dawes doesn't need to come out and say the things he has. Dawes didn't need to choose us in the first place. Clark wouldn't be posting comments calling for support and supporting the message of Neeld and others if he didn't believe it. I actually just think people need to stop jumping to conclusions and actually think things through a bit more. Consider all the factors, not just one or two.

I completely agree that actions speak louder than words, and have also acknowledge that the performance and effort of the players in some games this year has been unacceptable. However, one thing that hurt us on the weekend was the players we also had out. Now this should be used as an excuse for effort, but for a club that lacks leadership to have the following players out does hurt us on field: Mitch Clark, Grimes, Trengove, Jamar. Then the talent of Watts and the defensive ability of Tom McDonald (disposal is poor, but defensive abilities are strong). Without those players on the field we struggle for talent and leadership. We do not have enough depth on our list to cover the absence of 6 important players even against a team like the Gold Coast. No that does not excuse the lack of effort, but it is still relevant to the performance of the team. I believe there is nothing wrong with being upset and angry with the state of the club, I just disagree with the current climate on here which flat out seems to be suggesting the players are liers and have no credibility. It hasn't been said directly, but when threads are started following statements from players Dawes and Garland labelling those statements as "spin" just because the players have come out and expressed some thoughts and shown support for the coach, suggests a belief that the players are lieing. As members we have a right to be frustrated with the state of affairs of the club, not only because we pay memberships and give up our money to support the club, but also because of how long things have been in a state of disrepair, but I do not believe that should extend to us as members and supports then going out and attacking and disrespecting players because they say something we disagree with, let alone labelling that content spin.

I think it can be argued that the lack of effort on the part of the players has been there since before Neeld. Case in point, the fact that the team under Bailey was regarded as playing "bruise free" or soft football. There may have been effort on the offensive side, but not defensively. With everything I have said, I am in no way suggesting that the effort of the players is acceptable. This thread was set up to discredit the players by commenting on the "player spin". My my point was that to simply disrespect what an individual player says by labelling it spin is just insulting. I then went on to point out that I think the club has shown more integrity through this process then they have in a long time. This thread is not about whether Neeld should stay or go. I have only addressed to things that stood out from the original post which in my mind were misplaced. They were, suggesting the players and club had no integrity and that anything the players said was simply media spin.

I actually believe that the club is only now doing a proper rebuild of the club list and culture and putting in place standards that have been developed thoroughly thanks to the experience of guys from successful clubs like Misson, Craig and Neeld. I think we are actually seeing the changes we have been needing for a long time, but it's just taking time and requires patience which many of us are understandably running short of. We all expected it to happen under Bailey, but there was never the required financial support under Bailey for it to become successful, nor was their arguably the right people. We may not have all the right people now, but we are putting the money where it needs to be, and have personnel from successful clubs who are well regarded in the AFL as being generally successful. I believe that if the current core FD personnel remain in tact for another year or two, that in next year or two we will start to see the signs of success we have been craving.

I'd agree with that. I think it's been since the Daniher era that we've had problems from a culture perspective. I remember reading David Schwartz's book "All bets are off" and being in shock at some of the things that the players got away with, all with the clubs knowledge.

It is genuinely insulting for you to fail to give any of the the players any respect, and not even acknowledge that they may be being truthful. I find it absolutely disgusting that many on here continue just abuse, abuse and abuse, without giving the players any respect as people. It is the same reason I will NEVER abuse our own players or opposition players, even if I have a dislike for them. For people to come out and openly suggest that first Garland, then Dawes are just flat out misrepresenting things just to toe the "club line" gives them no respect as people. And in my opinion, those who are suggesting such things, should also be given no respect. Paying a membership, and supporting a club does not given anyone a right to abuse and disrespect a person expressing their opinion. All members, and even the players are hurting because of the performances. There may be some players hurting less than others, but to suggest that players aren't hurting again is disrespectful to the playing group as people. Those who keep suggesting that the players are just spinning c*$p and just making excuses, I ask this question...if they didn't believe in what they were saying why would would they make such statements?? Again, I'm guessing the responses would be along the lines of....to protect their own skins, etc etc etc But what would compel someone to come out and mislead the membership when they don't have to. They could sit back and say nothing. To me the players are coming out and standing up for what is happening at the club because they believe in it. I have found that people are more likely to stand up and defend something when they believe in it, as opposed to when they don't. Why are so many on here so quick to acknowledge the way the club has stuffed up in the past, yet not patient enough for all of that poor work to be fixed. I believe this club has been in a poor state for over a decade, and I think it is unrealistic, bordering on lunacy to believe that it can be turned around in 18 months. Many have suggested that a coach like Paul Roos could fix things, to which I have suggested that Sydney were in a similar position to us in the early 90's when Barassi was brought in to fix things, then Eade took over, and led the club for 7 years (including finals appearances) before Roos took over. Sydney took about 4-5 years to dig themselves out of where they were in the early 90's and return to playing finals football. Why should we expect any different? Look at the history of other clubs who have been in similar positions to where we are at. I think you will struggle to find examples of where a club has returned to being competitive and successful within 18 months. But back to my main point. It is simply disgusting for so many on here to simply abuse and disrespect the players and those in the club that are genuinely trying to move this club to where it needs to be. People want the club to show integrity......so how do they want that to be represented? To me, integrity means being consistent in your words and actions, yet people are getting sick of hearing the same old message of "it's going to take time, but we're on the right path". Since Neeld took over, I have seen more consistent messages coming out of the club regarding where it is at then I have for any time in the last decade. The actions or results have not been there and there has been little evidence that the players are performing at the level intended or expected, but does that mean that the players lack integrity, or that the club lacks integrity?? The club has always said it is going to take time. It is taking time. They have clearly explained that their are standards the players are expected to meet. The players may not be consistently meeting those standards at the moment, but how many 20 - 25 year olds are always consistent in their behaviours. There are reasons that those clubs near the top of the ladder are where they are, they have a more mature and experienced group of players. Some people are being blinded by anger, and frustration when looking at the club. Take a step back, take a rational look at the playing list (which isn't great at the moment), and think, when compared to other lists, where should this club be sitting on the ladder?. Some food for thought is an article from today's Age comparing the performance of the bulldogs and us...... http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/perceptions-punish-demons-but-dogs-are-none-too-rosy-20130514-2jklt.html We are in no better state than the bulldogs, GWS and GC in terms of development (though we are arguably behind GC now). This club is rebuilding, is starting afresh, and we have some good young talent. We just need to develop them properly. So rather than disrespecting the players, and those in the club that are trying to bring this club success, how about we actually respect them as people, and for once try and believe the players when the come out and publicly state their views. To me, the most recent comments from Garland and Dawes have been some of the most compelling evidence that the bulk of the players are behind Neeld and Co. Maybe we should be giving the benefit of the doubt and start trusting the comments of the players, no matter how frustrating things are at the moment.

The anecdotal evidence has been presented by myself and another poster in the Fire Mark Neeld thread. Both have spoken with people that are in and around the club every week, my colleague plays a key role in raising funds for the club and is in the rooms before and after every game. Both reported that they had not seen the players this united and positive as a collective group in years. They still hurt because of the results, but they are united in purpose and in the direction of the club.

I disagree. We are in a worse situation. Sydney finished 7th in 2002 and had a list that included guys like Barry Hall, Adam Goodes, Paul Williams, Leo Barry, Paul Kelly, Michael O'Loughlin, Jude Bolton, Brent Kirk, Ryan O'Keefe, Wayne Schwass, Tadhg Kennelly. We are in no way in the same position list wise, or culturally as that team. We are like Sydney in 1993.

Roos galvanised a team of senior players, who would have arguable been involved in a club with a better culture than what have had for the last decade. The situations are not the same. Barassi came in during the 90's to help fix the club and the culture. The Eade took over and helped lead the team to the finals. Then Roos took that list to become a group of contenders. We are like Sydney in the early 90's at the moment. No-one knows how Roos would perform in that context. How are we to know there wasn't any player discontent post Roo's. The media, particularly social media coverage of the gave in 2002 was no where near what it is today. And why do people keep saying the playing group isn't galvanised and united when every message we here from the playing group, and other anecdotal evidence presented on here, says otherwise??? I'm simply trying to point out that no COACH, including Roos, is a guaranteed solution to the problems that this melbourne, as a football club, are facing at the moment.

As I mentioned in my previous post....should Roos get ALL the praise for the state of the Swans after Barassi coach the team in the early 90's and then Eade took them all the way to a grand final before Roos took over. I'm sorry, but the two situations are not the same, but I am also not trying to suggest that Roos doesn't deserve the respect he receives. Just one final point. What Roos did at the Swans was fantastic and he was/is a great Coach. Roos did it as an untried, inexperienced head coach in his first senior appointment. Just saying.

And how much time would you give Roos to improve the club?

And what would everyone be saying if Roos didn't have this club where everyone expected it to be after 18 months?

Haven't even seen the game yet. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to get too many games at the moment. So can't comment on it, except to say that from what I've heard, and just based on the pure fact of who were beaten buy, I can assume that the level of effort was dismal. I'm not a football expert, so don't feel I'm in a position to comment as to whether there has or hasn't been an overcorrection by Neeld. There may have been, and more work is certainly needed to address the skill level of the players. But, I feel more inclined to think that the change was necessary when a guy like Dave Misson, who has been present in successful clubs during times of success (St Kilda during their grand final run) emphasises just how far behind the team is from a fitness perspective. Now, as I said, I'm not football expert, but I would think that statements such as that from Misson should be listened to. With that said, I will acknowledge that I have not once made it down to training to watch the training sessions, so I don't know how much skill work they are doing or how much they should be doing. However, our skills are woeful. But should I blame the training practices of the club for that, or is it a consistent problem across all teams with young lists in the competition. My view is the latter. All teams with young lists struggle for consistency and with skill errors. I would envisage that the next pre-season (if Neeld is still in charge) would see more skill work. I think those who reported on the preseason training this year acknowledged that skill work and game simulation sessions took place earlier than the previous season because the fitness levels where better. Also, without being part of the football department, I can't say whether there was an overcorrection because I have no knowledge of what it was like previously. The supposed overcorrection, might actually be the exactly right amount of correction and that it could only become evident over time. Once again, I do not think that the blame should be solely placed on the coach. My main point was that the problems within the club appear to be deeper than just the Coach. Jackson has already identified the problems within the Football Department. I know Rivers has made some comments about the previous leaders not being acknowledged or recognised, but there have also been statements about how some of the senior players in club walked around like they were God's gift to football (i'm paraphrasing by the way). So, it's plausible that Rivers was one of the players, and therefore brings into question whether his views of the Neeld way are truely credible when they could be biased. I don't know for sure. You don't know for sure. None of us know for sure. It is all purely conjecture based on rumblings that are heard around the place. But, if you look at the club over time, there are clearly problems and to me it is the culture that is at the core of it. People calling for Roos to take on the job here need to also realise that before he took over at Sydney, Barassi was appointed to help fix the club, then Rodney Eade took over. Who's to say that it wasn't barassi that fixed the culture of that club before Eade and Roos started Coaching. The AFL had to step in to help the Swans in 93" and then Barassi started, and then Lockett and Roos were brought in as players and they made it to a GF in 1996, with a much more experienced list than we have. My main point is, culture cannot be fixed overnight. And fixing a culture while also rebuilding at the same time is doubly hard. So, I am not going to lay sole blame on Neeld, because in my mind, the Coach is only one part in the overall function of a club, albeit an important part, but if other parts are malfunctioning, then regardless of what that important part does, the product is not going to work as it should.

I agree twith the thread title, but disagree on the reasons. I'll explain why. Jackson has come in and straight identified that there are problems with the structures in the club. He spoke about streamlining reporting to the CEO, and also commented that with all those other factors contributing to state of the club AND the playing list, that nobody really knows whether or not Neeld can coach. Here's an excerpt fromThe Age quoting Jackons re Neeld and Neeld's response... Asked about Neeld, who has endured a nightmare start to his coaching career, Jackson admitted that judging his ability as a coach might prove difficult in the short term. Angry Demons supporters yell abuse. ''He's contracted until the end of 2014, and that's where it sits at the moment,'' Jackson said. ''When he came into this club there has just been one massive external factor after another, and on top of that, we've got a very inexperienced playing list,'' he said. ''I think we've got to give everyone the chance, whether it's Mark Neeld or whoever it is in the footy department - give them some clean air, if you like, to show what they've got.'' Neeld said he had not heard Jackson's comments before the match, but revealed he had been heartened by the new boss' direction for the club. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mother-of-all-hidings-20130512-2jg9k.html#ixzz2T7o7jzog Neeld seems to be right on board with how Jackson is approaching things. The important part for me, when reviewing this whole situation, is that a Coach, in my view, should not be ultimately responsible for the culture of the football club, the administrators and the CEO are. Schwab is now gone, that was the appropriate move. I firmly believe that a new coach, even an experienced coach like Roo's could not hope to turn around our onfield performance in 18months whilst also rebuilding the list given the culture of the club at the time. This team was less experienced than the GC team that smashed us (though I'm still [censored] by the manner of the loss), and less talented. Our top line talent would be seen as Sylvia, Jones and ?????? from that game, and that doesn't go close to their top line talent of Ablett, Brennan, Swallow, and young crop of Bennell, O Meara, Lynch, McKenzie. I'm sorry but we don't even shine on a light on them talent wise. This, to me, is a byproduct of the poor management of the football department since as far back as the Daniher days. Think about it. Why did it take Travis Johnstone up until the time he was traded to the Brisbane Lions to realise the standards he needed to train at. Why did promising young Ruckmen, like Darren Jolly (dual premiership) and Troy Simmonds, start to develop and become solid AFL players AFTER they left the Demons. Why couldn't our culture provide enough incentive for guys like Scott Thompson to stick with the club. Why did Brock McLean, a guy many thought would be our next captain and who is now one of Carlton's most important players, want out of the club.....the CULTURE. Why haven't we been able to turn Watts into more than he currently is? I don't blame Watts, I blame the club culture and the football department. Why did Scully leave? Money maybe, but he stated that he wasn't impressed with the actions of some of the senior players (think Moloney) during the China trip, again CULTURE. Why has it taken until now for Colin Sylvia to put in effort for a full game, both defensively and offensively. Hell, we've even contributed to the downfall of Liam Jurrah, who had never touched alcohol until joining the club. A coach, can only do so much within a poor culture, and as has been reported by two people on here (one being me), their are people in and around the club that are stating that the list is tighter and more united than it has been in years. This is a positive statement. If thing's weren't changing we wouldn't have had players join us of the calibre of Dawes and Clark. This club is in full rebuild mode. We are NOT going to be playing finals in the next 2-3 years because we are in the same position as the bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS development wise. We should expect inconsistent performances from the young list as Neeld and co continue to work to fix the problems of the past. Jackson has already identified that Neil Craig is probably the only experienced football person in the footy department. Until we can provide the coach with the proper structure and support he needs, only then should he be the one under the microscope every other week. Until that time, he needs to be given the opportunity to prove he can coach. But first we need to fix the culture and the football department.

Yep I thought it was the players that were meant to have selected the leadership group... Another perspective to consider. A colleague at my work is heavily involved in the fundraising for the club, including the match day raffle. He is regularly in the rooms. I mentioned to him about some of the comments suggesting that Neeld did not have the support of the player group. He laughed it off and then commented that (i'm paraphrasing) the team now, seems more united and in better spirits then it has for years. He indicated that their is genuine positive energy among the player group and a belief in the path that they are on. Many on here have suggested that the presser's where players express their thoughts/opinions can't be believed, but I think this perspective from someone who is in and around the club regularly, including in the rooms pre and post match provides a valuable insight. Take it however you want. But to me, it suggested that the players have bought into the Neeld and Co way of doing things. Listen to the press conference with Dawes and I think that positive attitude really comes through, and he's only been in the club for about 7 months.