pm24

Pedersen is 193cms and 96kgs, Frawley is 193cms and 94 kgs. So, does he have the "size" to play on the big power forwards? The guy has played most of his footy as a forward, give him time to learn how to play as a defender.

I was sitting down that end of the ground when Garland made that move. At no point did he look up after grabbing the ball out of the bag to play on. He got inside the square, touched the ball to foot, then looked up and realised he was screwed. the players were actually still gathering where they needed to in order to then lead out into space as per whatever the game plan is. It was Garlands fault.

Not sure about that, given that the OP actually posed the question (not sure if it was rhetorical though): " On the flip side how many players have gone backwards under Neeld?" The setting up of the thread seems to suggest that the OP doubts that any players have progressed positively since Neeld took over while suggesting that there are more that have gone backwards than have improved. I see no problem in asking the OP to actually list those players they are thinking about. If there's no proof then, then the OP shouldn't have made a vexatious statement.

Does anyone else think we're being a bit hard on a guy who's only just played his maybe 5th game as a defender since being at the club. He's played as a forward for most of his career. Give the guy a chance to learn to be a defender at least. The fact that he's been able to make it into a defender with so little time playing that role is either a negative reflection on the other defenders in the team, or a sign that the guy has some promise at that end of the ground.

I think Fitzpatrick showed enough to continue playing him after the break. He had a few clanger moments, but his delivery on at least two occasions into the forward 50 was fantastic as he collected the ball in the middle of the ground then kicked a low penetrating kick onto the chest of a teammate. Better than some of our midfielders. Yes he didn't convert all of his marking opportunities, but the guy has had a rough run. Remember he came to the club suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, and then was diagnosed as having diabetes, and for a pick 50 something, he's done bloody well to work through those health conditions, dominate in the VFL and get a handful of AFL games so far. If he can clunk a few more marks, and we can get better entries into our forward 50, I reckon he could do very well. With guys like Fitzpatrick and Watts, a lot of people are harsh on their marking abilities, but we have to remember that our midfielders are not kicking to their advantage. Multiple times, rather than our mids kicking into space for Watts and Fitzpatrick to run onto, using their pace, we kicked it too high and allowed Collingwood defenders to out position them. We can't expect them to be Travis Cloak and bully their defenders out of the way. Even Clarke and Dawes struggle to mark in those situations.

To me the main ones would be Dunn and Jamar, though I also think Sylvia made a couple of poor decisions at times, however some of that was due to him receiving the ball when surrounded by Collingwood players. Also, despite the great defense Garland played on Cloak he had a couple of disposal clangers (not kicking over the Collingwood player when running out of the back line in the third quarter, playing on when he had no-one to kick to because he failed to look where the players were running to first). But, to me Dunn needs to be dropped. He does not have the vision to take the kick outs. Clearly missed multiple players leading out into space, instead deciding to bomb it long to a contest. This happened multiple times. Can't kick short passes, and not agile enough to actually try and tack the game on. So many times he received the ball and was standing still, but then looked to handball again without actually looking to try and move into space and evade the opposition. Pedersen, despite playing what I thought was a good overall game, also butchered the ball one or two times out of defence. Looking at our player list, there weren't many "senior players" actually in the team, but it was noticeable that some of those more senior players were letting the team down.

Are you sure you watched the right press conference? I thought Neeld showed more emotion and frustration than he has for some time. He nearly went on to blast some of the senior players when he talked about the turnovers, but gathered himself and instead focused on how it was mainly the younger players that were doing the right things. Though you could sense his frustration with the senior players as he said that. Neeld was on the money with his comments though. The effort was there but the skills weren't once we got the ball, which he mentioned when commenting on our failure to put together chains of possession. If we can stop turning the ball over and get some cleaner entries into the forward 50 we will do much better. On another, and is time for Dunn to be dropped. If he is not kicking the ball 60 metres to a leading player he doesn't know what to do. Bring Strauss back in for him. Edit: for typo due to mobile phone auto correct. Bloody phones.

I think the list management has been improved since Prendergast left. I don't blame harrington, that's for sure.

Unfortunately I didn't get to the game until the start of the second quarter so looks like I missed the only competitive quarter we had for the game. From what I saw Trengove is looking like the player we all got excited about a few years back. The mark going back with the flight of the ball and then coverting the goal was a real captains goal. Watts was showing more aggression than he's shown before and was leading very well. He should have had two extra shots at goal of the delivery had been better. He would have had to have been frustrated when he worked his arse off to burn off his man while Kent brought the ball down the mcc wing and completely ignored/missed jack and centered to either tapscott or Trengove. Then of course he made a great lead towards the ball later on but Blease kicked it too high and wide, bringing maxwell into the contest instead of hitting jack on the chest. Our foot skills kill us going into the forward 50 over and over again. Fitzpatrick also showed something and was better with his foot skills into the forward 50 then most of our midfielders. I loved the chasing and effort from M Jones and Evans, and Garland was fantastic on Cloke and has really gone to another level this year. Tom McDonald will be All-Australian material if he ever learns to kick, because he has the height and the athletic ability to play on nearly any forward going around. If he can clean up his disposal, then in a couple of years.....look out. IF not, he'll just be another so-so defender. The effort was there but the skills and ability to read the play was not. It is not just the skills, but the poor decision making that is the biggest frustration. I notice on more than one occasion, when we cleared the ball, and actually had multiple players running with each other, they were too close together. There was no spacing. I'm a basketballer, not a footballer, but spacing is vital in both games. If you spread, then it is harder for the defense to cover you as they have more ground to cover. Multiple times we have too many players, to close to each other, with too few moving into a position of advantage. And the handballing to a stationary player, or handballing to a guy just because he is in front of you has to stop. There was no better (worse) example of this than when the ball was handballed to Sylvia coming out of the back 50 on the members side in the last quarter. Sylvia was running between two collingwood players and the handball was high enough that it gave the collingwood players time to tackle sylvia just as he landed. The handball should have been into the space Sylvia was moving into. This skill is one we simply fail at time and time again, and that mixed with the poor foot skills is killing us. I can see the benefits of what the club is doing with the training and the improved effort and tackling pressure of the players since the "bruise free" football era, but the disposal skills need to improve quickly or it will all be for nothing.

Would Dylan Grimes even get a game in our back line? I haven't seen him play much but I think the our back six is better than Richmond.

It should be, but we relied on the completely hopeless recruiting skills of Barry Prendergast, and had players like Morton, Gysberts, Maric, Cook and others. That is the fault of the club under Bailey etc, when they started the downward spiral that has lead to our current state. The positive for me is, I believe our recruitment since 2012 has been vastly improved, particularly in respect to young talent. Viney, Toumpas, Hogan, Terlich, Kent, Taggert, Barry, even Evans is looking good. I actually feel like our recruiters are doing a good job. Some people criticise the selection of Gillies, but we got him for nothing and if anything he provides depth in our back line and he's still young enough to develop further. Things are changing, this time I believe they are changing the right way and for the better.

So it's Neelds fault for Magner not getting a regular game in our top regular 22, despite only being promoted to the senior list as an injury replacement 4 weeks ago, does Neeld get any credit for actually getting us to recruit him for the rookie list??? I thought it had already been said before that Magner is effectively a back up for the Jones or McKenzie roles and he's not as good as jones and not as good of a tagger as McKenzie. I do think he deserves more games, but Bail and Nicholson play different positions than Magner, so the question becomes, who's role does he take if he comes in, and could he perform it to the required standard?

So in other words, we should be pointing our fingers at Barry Prendergast for the state of the club, and maybe even Bailey?? It is refreshing to hear that Jackson has come to these views. For me, it reinforces my belief that since Neeld and Co took over, that we have been heading on right path and that things are going to get better. I think it's pretty obvious that our problems started in the Bailey era. Recruiting, premature moving on of senior players, failure to put in place the proper standards etc etc. I also really like the statement regarding Trengove and Grimes.....PJ recognises that although the move to make them captains may not have been the best move, he seems to acknowledge that there has been a lack of leadership amongst the player group in the past, and that there were possibly few alternatives to the Jack's.

This would have more to do with having an inexperienced list. They don't seem up to the pace of the AFL game yet, but it will come with time.

I've been thinking about the matchup for Cloke issue a bit more, and then remembered the Sydney v Collingwood game from the other week. Sydney put Ted Richards on Cloke, who is far from being a man mountain. But despite this Cloke had minimal impact on the game. Why? because Sydney played good team defense. They continually had another defender or flanker running back into the space that Cloke was leading to. So, it may not matter who we go with on Cloke. The main thing is to put them in a position where they can't bomb it deep to Cloke in a 1 on 1, but try to ensure that the defence works well as a team to help each other out and beat Cloke that way.

It is passages of play like that, and some of the footage from Casey, that makes me feel that the game plan the players are being taught may not be as bad as many think it is. Check the highlights of play from Casey, and ball movement out of the backline like the passage we're talking about, occur frequently.

I'm just amazed that people are continuing with a view that sacking the Coach is the first thing that should happen when Jackson has already identified that the structure of the football department has serious problems, and we all know the board is just incompetent. It's amazing what can happen with those issues are dealt with first. My support for Neeld is not unwavering. If post the football department being sorted out and the board being fixed up, and the culture of the club being sorted out, we continue to lose by big margins to struggling teams (not ladder leaders and premiership contenders), then I will join the chorus for change regarding the coach. The reason I stated that your view was narrow is because it completely disregards the other factors that have contributed to the lack of success for the club. Unless those things are fixed first, it is irresponsible to put all the blame on a coach working in an environment that is completely messed up. I'm NOT saying that I think Neeld is not part of the problem. I'm saying that there are clearly other factors contributing to the failures of the club, and until those things are fixed it's too early to make a call on the coach. By the sound of things Peter Jackson is also thinking along these lines.

Great post!!!

Yeah, some good points. I could be a bit harsh on Davey, but it was one of the most encouraging examples of ball movement I've seen from the players this season.

Seriously narrow thinking here. The board should go first, and I would in no way endorse a Jeff Kennett ticket. Remember, Kennett has commented multiple times that we should be moved to Tasmania or even merged with someone. You want this guy to run our club??? I'll trust in Peter Jackson to make the right decision regarding Neeld. I think he has already made one positive call, that is to restructure the football department structure first, then once all that is sorted out, then determine if Neeld is the right coach. Also, I pose the question that Garry Lyon posed on Footy Confidential earlier in the week. What happens if we win a few more games in the second half of the season? What happens if we beat other teams in similar list positions to us like Bulldogs, GWS, GC, Brisbane etc? What happens if the effort continues to improve and losing margins against good sides starts to drop??? What then??? Will everyone's opinion of Neeld still be that he can't coach BECAUSE he has only beaten the lesser teams. With a healthy list, we are a chance to 4-5 games in the second half of the season. So what happens if we win 3 or 4 and finish with possibly a better win loss ratio than last year. But wait......the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

Yeah, I was ready to throw something at the TV when Davey undid all that good work by kicking to the shortest guy on the field (Rodan) who had a key back within metres of him. I can't get to many games at the moment, so I'm not sure if there were many other options for him though.

I think we've seen evidence of the difference in the skills when we get chains of possession involving experienced players vs inexperienced players. I'm just thinking of the possession chain that was shown on the Craig report: First kick from Garland to Trengove, then Trengove to Joel Mac, Joel Mac to Bail, Bail to Davey and Davey into the forward 50. All of those players involved have been in the system for 4+ years now and played close to or over 50 games apiece. It was one of the cleanest passages of play all day for us.

Don't take my post too seriously.....I was just being cheeky and baiting some of the Anti-Neeld people, which I probably shouldn't.

Thank God for Neeld. Without him we probably wouldn't have Dawes or Clark.....just saying.

Do you have a positive bone in your body?