Slartibartfast

Who knows BR, but in the Age article I note with interest Selwood saying the role of captain for him was daunting. He's won 3 flags and has a huge amount of support around him. It made me think just how hard it would be for Grimes or Trengove without that culture or mature support because the reality is neither IMO are the precocious talents of Voss or Carey and neither has really established themselves as AFL players. Trengove is going into his 3rd season and Grimes his 5th but only a handful of games. Very hard, and I think unrealistic, ask of those boys. Edit: Teribal spelleing eror.

I don't think any of us know when he suffered brain damage. He suffered serious concussion a number of times before he joined MFC.

We probably differ on "when he stepped in". Anyway I've had my say, Cheers all.

I don't believe Bailey should have coached beyond 2011. I believe the club could have announced he wouldn't be coach in 2012 before the end of the season, started looking for a new coach and Bailey could have been given the option to leave or see out the season. I believe he should have been given the opportunity to resign. I don't believe Garry Lyon should have been involved in any decision making on the Sunday after the Geelong game. I don't believe McLardy had any role interviewing the leadership group to gain their opinions on the MFC management prior to the Geelong game. That's just for a start. Adelaide replaced Craig and did it gracefully. Footscray replaced Eade professionally. We replaced Bailey and looked like the Keystone Cops. We are in a good place now but none of that has to do with the way the Board or Lyon acted in the 48 hours after the Geelong game, it has to do with a lot of other things not the least being the AFL's equalization package which provided us the funds to support the FD and the decisions management and the Board have subsequently made. We've recovered a very poor position. Garry caused some of it and he fixed some of it. He's now left before any of his decisions have been tested. Time will tell if Neeld is the messiah or just another Bailey that Lyon will start potting in a few years time.

I reckon it's tough because to me there doesn't appear to be a good option. Because of that I favour the option that could do the least damage. I don't like that position at all. I hope Neeld has seen the answer and I'll trust the FD judgement.

I don't think either of you have said Sellar is up to it. I think the main difference is you would revert to Frawley on the gorilla's quicker than Bob because you think that would lead to a better outcome. Both are valid views, neither assumes Sellar is a "given".

You haven't read much of this thread have you!! Or alternatively have dismissed much of it without explanation.

He certainly lacks accountability, after all, he helped select Bailey. I doubt if he lacks ongoing influence as he has a powerful role in the media and some on the Board are seduced by his aura. How else could he have played the role he did in getting Bailey sacked in 48 hours?

Akum my real issue is I don't fully understand the role of Captain. Neitz said he took a couple of years to adjust to it and he'd been around for a while when he got it. Green may well have been affected by it last year, and I agree BH, he struggled with the position. I just don't want to burden Trengove or Grimes with the position and take their focus from footy because neither has really matured as a player. My conservativeness says I'd rather have Green as Captain for a year and preserve Trengove and Grimes than risk their football development. It's a very difficult decision and there is clearly no obvious answer but my tip is Trengove will get it.

I haven't read all the posts but has much consideration been given to Moloney, Jones, Frawley or Rivers - even Jamar? I'm conservative and favour keeping Green purely as a stand in for one year to let Grimes and Trengove have a little more time. But I understand the counter arguments.

I should let this go as I know many won't want to read or hear criticism of the club at this most optimistic time of year. It was the same last year and all turned sour fairly quickly. I give little credit to the Board because they were primarily responsible for the fiasco that followed the Geelong game and when you compare the way in which Footscray and Adelaide handled their coaching transition and the way we did I can only come to the conclusion that we were amateur hour. As a supporter I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed by the Geelong loss but I was so much more embarrassed by the 48 hours that followed. This was the makings of the Board and G Lyon with McLardy a prominent figure in the post match and a totally inappropriate figure before hand. That's my interpretation of history pure and simple. What has happened since is that the MFC has recovered wonderfully. Operational head Cameron Schwab would be front and centre I'd think and he would have had help from Matt Green, Tim Harirington, Todd Viney, Chris Connolly and perhaps many others. Whilst Don McLardy and others on the Board would have been involved in implementing these changes they would not have had the contacts or footy smarts to expedite them. Garry can be the messiah this time round because as rpfc says, we need our heros and I believe Garry has been part of a team that has put us in a good situation. But we appear to be in that "good situation" every January. For me the hero is probably Cam Schwab who has overseen a major restructure, additional AFL funding, as good a compensation package for Scully as we'd ever get and the generation of optimism in a very short period of time.

I'm in.

I don't think we will know what real role Garry played in helping the club but what he did do was give the supporter base and others someone to get behind when everything was turning sour. The irony of course is that Garry played a significant role in the fiasco following the Geelong game. I believe we are exactly were we would want to be now. The changes at the club have been made possible by the extra funding from the AFL and the efforts of people to attract the right people. My hope is that the Board recognize their role (which they clearly didn't in July) and they are not swayed by media in the way they were in July. When Scully left Cam Schwab made the comment that "you should not underestimate the ability of football clubs to recover from adversity". I suspect Garry is getting the credit for the work of a lot of people but that's probably good for the club and I'm fine with that.

Pendlebury was used as someone the same height as Neitz who played a completely different role. I'm not saying Howe is a Pendlebury, just that if players are the same height it doesn't mean they play the same role. I just see Howe and Darling as largely different types. Time will tell.

The point I'm trying to make is they play completely different types of games and as their careers unfold will play different roles. Darling could easily end up playing the big KPF like Neitz and Terry Daniher (both about the same height) whereas Howe will play high forward and perhaps midfield and will not be the tall forward target that Darling may well be. Their attributes are very different and they will play different roles.

I don't think you can look at just height and then say players play the same role. David Neitz was/is 191cm and so is Scott Pendlebury. Comparing Howe and Darling is like comparing those two. Darling wasn't passed over based on his footy ability but on other things which caused him to drop down the draft.

Yes, but what if there were 6 players who were running their first 3 km trial. This statement doesn't mean only 25 ran.

Please read the Code of Conduct and Moderating Guide. I've selected one area that may help to explain. As moderators we do our best to moderate fairly and maintain the posting environment of the forum but we are volunteers and provide our time as and when we are able to. No moderator will read every post, moderators will view situations differently and some will have more time than others to explain their moderating decisions to members. And this for Steamin Demon who has been sent a PM. Player abuse is the most difficult area to moderate. Whilst we do not want to stifle player comment and criticism player abuse is NOT acceptable. Comments should be constructive and not destructive. Comments such as "player X is useless" or "player X is crap" are NOT acceptable. Comments such as "player X would need to improve to stay on our list" or "player X was poor today because ...." are acceptable. Common sense will be your best guide here but if you think something is marginal don't say it.

Sole focus? You're kidding me.

We have 23 of 25 who improved their times. But I'm hoping there were others who completed yesterday who didn't complete the first two test and hence "no comparison". At training on Monday there were many more players in the main group (at least initially) than before Christmas. But like you, I'd rather see more out there. I'd also like to back up Ben Her's comments on Morton. The kids got tons of talent but isn't using it at the moment. I'd punt on him doing very well, I think he's just taken a while to work AFL footy out.

In case others can't see what the inconsistency is I'll explain my view. Neeld names Watts and Davey in the media and, depending on your interpretation, challenges them or criticizes them. This was reported on or about 10th November. He had been appointed coach on 17th September. The players are on their preseason break and he speaks to them for the first time early in October (the day of the B&F). The players then return for PS training some weeks later. So he's make his Watts and Davey comments with very little chance for them to demonstrate to him their attitude or approach and I, along with others, thought this odd. On 11 January, some two months later he states he doesn't want to individualize. But he already has in November. I think it's an inconsistency, nothing more. It's not a hanging offence, it doesn't mean he's no good as a coach, it doesn't mean I don't support him or have confidence in him and it doesn't mean the players involved responded badly to it. It was just "odd" and I'm interested to see if I can work out why he did it. No logical explanation has been offered here that I'm happy with. TBH I think he made a mistake and he knows it. Not a big one, not a hanging offence, just a small error and he's learning on the job. For clarification, I fully expect him to make these statements privately and if Bailey had made them I'd accept them because Bailey had a history with these players. Neeld didn't. And I don't buy this rot about making public statements for the supporters, if he wants to do that he shouldn't and wouldn't individualize.

And this article with interesting observations: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/127784/default.aspx "... but I don’t want to go into individualising anyone yet,” “We’re beginning to know the group, but reality still says we’re in our 10th week of training. “We don’t know them intimately about how they go about their footy, but we’re getting a fair idea. There has been an initial upward spike in intensity by the players." These comments seem to be at odds with his naming of Davey and Watts.

Trained with the defensive group. He looked good, but then again, he always has.

Rohan trained with the midfielders and did the majority of the session. He had an issue prior to Christmas but is over that now. I left before the end but they were doing a running drill when I left in four groups. He was not included in this and I imagine it was to ensure there is no flare up of his issue. He's fit enough now anyway. Whilst I don't agree with Freak's concerns I have noticed that the gut running that was part of every session I saw prior to Christmas has not been seen since. I did notice Tom McDonald really sucking in the air when I left. He has been one of the star performers to date and for him to be showing that level of fatigue indicated to me that perhaps the sessions are a lot more tiring than they appear. It was good to see so many more in the main session today even if some did pull out part way through.