pm24

Ummmm Sellar played in the VFL last week. Pederson came in for him last week, though there is a chance Sellar comes in to take Cloke.

Ummm I actually think you are both saying the same thing, that is, that the fault for the state of the club shouldn't rest on Neeld alone, the only difference is that one of you are saying they believe that Neeld should shoulder some of the blame, the other is not. You've both actually said that the problems also go deeper than Neeld. So you are only disagreeing on one point....

I think I'd argue that under Neeld the football department has been doing something about trying to catch up to the pack with the additional funds allocated for the extra coaches, and other specialists like Misson and Craig. I'm hoping that by the end of the year, or even next season that will see the club become more competitive within the football industry and on the field. I actually think we've fallen behind because of the change in the list and the lack of quality mids this team has had. The failed recruitment/development of guys like Gysberts and Morton, the misfortune of injuries to Trengove, the loss of Brock McLean due the path of the club (I wish we had him now!!!), the mishandling of Jnr McDonald etc etc, have I think lead to were we are now placed under Neeld. If our midfield was reliant on McLean, Sylvia, Jones, (I've intentionally omitted Moloney from this list) a properly developed Gysberts/Morton, we would not be anywhere near as bad as we have been this season. We have gone backwards since Neeld started, but I think it's a culmination of things that have lead us there, and in many ways we needed to go backwards, and restart in certain areas in order to catch up long term. However, as I said, I think we are doing something to rectify the failures of the past under the current group. New training standards, new recruitment team, new approach to football for the players, more money for the football department. I reckon we just need to wait another 6-12 months before we see the fruits of those efforts.

Who knows. I'd like to see Jackson come out and make a statement honestly. I'm just interested to hear him speak because if he was the one that kept a level head in the board meeting and if the rumors are true that he convinced the board to fix up the footy department first before dealing with Neeld, I reckon it would be refreshing hear a real professional speak on behalf of the club.

I hope that it's more than just because we can't afford it. I'd just like to see the club show the guts and show some professionalism in all this and even allow Neeld to see out his contract at a minimum. I think that in itself is an important sign to other prosective coaches that we are a professional organisation and treat our players/coaches with respect. Something that has been severely lacking in the past with the departures of Jnr McDonald, Bailey and with the way it has handled all this pressure on Neeld. The club needed to make a statement earlier regarding Neeld. The media madness that happened on Monday should not have happened at all if the club managed this properly.

I can understand you feel this way given everything that has happened, but I still have my doubts, purely because the "business environment" that need has been operating in has had a weak foundation, and one could say it has been corrupted for some time by poor personalities, selfish ambition, a lack of discipline, a lack of leadership and so on and so on. Therefore, I reckon that until that business environment is fixed we cannot judge Neeld properly. Some people have suggested that Neeld just can't coach at the AFL level. However, we should remember that we basically grabbed him out of Adelaide's hands. Had Neeld gone to Adelaide, and not had to rebuild an entire club culture, he would probably be seen in a completely different light by the AFL community. But instead he took the harder option and chose us. Secondly, Neeld was endorsed by Mick Malthouse when the club approached Malthouse for an opinion. If Malthouse didn't think a guy could coach, I doubt he'd recommend him for a head coaching position. I just think it's too early, to judge whether Neeld can coach when the last 18 months has been spent rebuilding a player list, rebuilding a club culture, and establishing professional training standards and "football lifestyle" as he called it. With the state that our club was in, and the amount of work required for what I've stated, I doubt we've seen the best of Neeld as Coach. I can't help but think of Bomber Thompson at Geelong. There were calls for him to be sacked as well when their form was fluctuating so much. But instead Geelong chose to give him more time to coach, and reorganised the football department, and now the rest is history. Lets follow the lead of Geelong, get our structures in order first, then decide if Neeld is the best coach for us.

I've just re-read your post below: I might have gone a bit hard on you. Looks like you were only trying to highlight the "seriously" poor position we are in as a club, irrespective of the status of other clubs. I was only making the comparison with GWS and GC because of the link you made between losing margin and player buy in. However, I totally agree that this club is in a seriously troubling position, however I think it all goes further than Neeld, and that unless we can fix everything else up first, we won't be able to properly assess Neelds capacity as a Coach. I think that seems to be the conclusion that Peter Jackson came to as well. Also, I think that if there was a serious lack of buy in by the players, when Peter Jackson reportedly spoke to the senior players prior to the meeting, I'm sure that they would have communicated that to Jackson if they wanted him gone. The fact that Jackson has decided and convinced the board to give Neeld more time, to me suggests that it is things other than Neeld that are the real problems that need to be dealt with first.

Are you suggesting that a coach who has been there for 18 months is responsible for the failure to develop players over the last 3-5 years?

I think Darren Jolly disagrees with this. He wrote an article earlier this year (or maybe late last year) where he clearly identified the "special" treatment Daniher showed to some players over others, which lead to Jolly departing. Man, it would have been nice to have had Jolly post White wouldn't it.... Read Schwarz's book, "All bets are off" and you'll also find that he was a great nurturer of players 1 on 1.

You're right I mean what do Gold Coast have???? Gary Ablett Jr (Brownlow Medallist, multiple All Australian, premiership player), Jarrod Harbrow, Jarred Brennan, Michael Rishetelli (Brisbane B&F winner), Nathan Bock (All Australian), Campbell Brown (premiership player).......and Swallow, Bennell, Dixon, Lynch, O'Meara, Matera....... should I keep going. GWS still have the leadership of Dean Brogan (premiership player), previously had Chad Cornes (premiership player) and Junior McDonald. They are the only team you could argue should be below us if you want to focus on experience and leadership etc. But you have no basis for suggesting that we Gold Coast should be in a worse situation than us. None whatsoever.

Are you sure about that.... GWS had a % of 46.2% at the end of last year. GC was 56.2% in their first year. GC lost by an average of 58 points last season (I've only done the calcs for this one), probably more the previous season. GWS probably more last season and this season given their % is lower than ours is for both years.

So my comparison was erroneous on the basis that we are an established club versus GWS and GC being start up clubs??? You were arguing that the margin of the loss reflects a lack of buy in by the players. I was contesting that argument by saying, if that was the case, that argument can be extended to GWS and GC during the last few years because their losing margins were around that mark. I'm only applying your argument to other contexts. Nothing erroneous with that except that it does nothing the strengthen your argument. You were suggesting the following: Losing Margin = level of buy in from the players. My point was, if that is true, then there was a lack of player buy in at GWS and GC (first two seasons) because they had a large average losing margin. The fact that we have an established club has nothing to do with a players buy in to a coach in their 2nd year. If it does, explain how?

So you're saying that just because we have an established club, that our list, though just about as inexperienced as GC and GWS, which has a head coach in his second year, shouldn't be facing problems with player buy in because the club is established? If your main point is that we've got serious cultural problems that need to be addressed and that those cultural issues are contributing to the fact that players may not be buying in as quickly, then I could kind of agree. Though I'm not sure if that is what you mean? Are you trying to highlight how serious the cultural issues within the club are, or are you laying blame on Neeld for the players not buying in irrespective of the cultural factors??

I reckon it'd be good for him to have a run at Casey first. But, if the footy department think he's ready, then yes he would be first choice, though I'm not sure he has the strength to go up against Cloke. That would be my concern.

Should redo this poll at the end of the season if Neeld is still head coach, or gets a contract extension

Ummm you've got four possible in's with only two outs??? who else is out to make way for Sellar and/or Blease?

A question to consider regarding the effort etc conversations: If we had all of our leadership team and experienced players on the field for all the games played so far this season, do people think the results (effort, losing margin, etc) would have been better? I'm talking about having all of Grimes, Frawley, Garland, Trengove, Clark, Dawes, Byrnes, Sylvia, Macdonald, Jamar, Jones, Mackenzie in the one side at the same time.

If this statement is true, does that mean that GWS (currently) and GC (for the two previous years) didn't buy into the coach's message given they would have lost by an average margin close to 10-12 goals?

And Gawn has marked everything that has come his way has he??? Give the kid a break. Even experienced players drop marks.

I disagree with this statement because I don't think the "guts" of the team were ripped out. I'm not sure which players you have in mind, but the one player I wish we retained for another season was Green, however I've read little to suggest that he was against what was happening under Neeld. Rather, he seemed to support it in his media interviews once he retired where he stated that "players needed to get on board and not rely on just skill to get a game". I think you demand elite performance from the outset, but you expect to see gradual improvements towards that elite performance goal over time. It is always better to have a consistent message, rather than shifting the goal posts each year.

Well I've already seen the first thing I've wanted: Strong Leadership from the CEO, and a contract extension until 2014 for Peter Jackson. Hopefully he can sought out our weak, gutless board he is just reactive to the pressures of the media and supporter base. After that: At least 3 more wins for the season No more 10+ goal losses Consistent effort from all players including a willingness to do the team thing Watts to establish himself as a key player (this may not happen yet) for the club Use the draft to pick the best midfielders available (experienced or juniors) Continue the cull of those on the list not up to scratch Strong returns from injury for Clark, Grimes, and Frawley. Blease to get a strong run in the side for a number of weeks because he is able to show consistent effort defensively and offensively. Give Neeld some "clean air" to coach once the revamped football department has been put in place, and make no further decision on his tenure until he has been given a legitimate chance to demonstrate if he is the right coach within that revamped structure. This is massive to me. The main reason is because if we continue to act the way we have with Coaches we will be an extremely unattractive prospect for future coaches considering our club. Time to start treating them right.

Yeah, Gawn is the tough one. I don't think he should come in as first ruck though, and it's obvious that he's been playing more as a key forward than a ruck, so to me you don't bring him in for Jamar. Fitzpatrick should get more time. Yeah he wasn't great, but he brought the ball to ground a couple of times, and was good at getting into space on the lead. He deserves a few more games. He certainly showed more than he has previously. Given Fitzpatrick would be the other obvious swap for Gawn, I think Gawn stays at Casey for another week, just to give Fitzpatrick some more time. However, the future is exciting thinking about what Gawn could become.

I honestly haven't heard or read any statements that suggest this. Are you referring to statements where he has tried to iterate that it would take time? As for his statements about not changing a thing, another way of looking at it is that he takes a view that all experiences make you stronger, and that because of what has happened his better for it now? Just another perspective. I guess, the reason I overall support Neeld and Co is because I'm a fan of the direction being taken since they came in. I see a much more professional approach that what has been in the past.

Those wanting Couch to play, the club can't play him even if they wanted to. Magner has already been promoted due to the long-term injury to Grimes. There's no other spot open for a rookie to be promoted to the senior list. For me, Sylvia comes straight back in, and if Sylvia has improved his defensive efforts, as was suggested in the VFL report, he can come in to provide some run and carry on the wing. If we bring Sylvia back in, then Magner doesn't need to come back in my mind. Sylvia can come in for Bail I reckon. Jamar should also stay, because we've been more competitive in the clearances with him palming the ball down. With Frawley out, I think Sellar is the logical choice to come in purely to matchup with Cloke. He's a bigger body, and I don't think it would be smart to bring Davis in for that match-up. So I reckon: Ins: Sylvia, Sellar, Blease. Outs: Frawley (Inj), Bail, M Jones (might need the rest) I would put Sylvia in the middle. Blease in the half forward line, and Sellar at full back to take Cloke.

I might be overly optimistic, and some would say I've probably got a veil over my eyes, but I believe this capacity to adjust when provided with new information, and adjust one's message to the media is a positive attribute for a coach. I would also say it's not unique to Neeld as a head coach. A lot of head coaches go into the season believing the list is at a certain point, based on their players preseason effort. It's only after they've played a few games that those views are confirmed or corrected (see Richmond, Port Adelaide, Nth Melbourne for how much things can change).