Slartibartfast

I don't revere Flanagan as many do here. I like him but he's as capable of ordinary articles as most. He rarely tackles difficult issues and most of his features are feel good topics. Pretty easy stuff and he does it well. I also like Caro regardless of her critical attitude to us during the tanking investigation. Murphy provides an insight into the life of a footballer and intelligent one at that. I'll probably learn more from Murph and Caro than Flanagan. Each to their own. It takes all kinds Binman!

Bob Murphy is easily my favourite player outside the MFC. He has a lot of the qualities of Robbie Flower. He's also a fantastic journalist up the in the class of Flanagan. He's written a great article in the Age today about the incident with JKH which is well worth a read. It will be a sad day when Murph hangs up the boots.

This game was against Box Hill and he was terrific. Hurt his back that game and didn't recapture this form. I was disappointed when he didn't get another go but Todd Viney was there for his entire time and would have had a good handle on him and been able to assess how much of his failure was due to ability/application and how much was environment. And I think his delisting has been mitigated by the recruitment of Michie and Riley particularly as they are similar ages and ability. I'll watch his progress with interest as I reckon there is a fair chance he'll get another crack.

I go to round 1 every year............................

You're a bit touchy lately Ben. I was serious in about the info you put up on the Swans. It's an amazing performance and frustrating when you realize what we've done in a similar time frame. Anyway chip up old son, not all of us are taking the pizz when we respond to you!

He would have taken Rob Murphy with pick 5 from 1999 and his choice of best available in 2001 was James Kelly. But I take your point.

Wow, amazing.

Excellent post Scoop, as ever well thought out and presented. It's always interesting to look at historical perspectives to understand the present and looking at 2006/7 is a good example. I doubt many would take issue that the list was tired and that we had a big hole in our list regarding leaders and this caused us to fall and fall quickly. WJ has talked about the failure of recruiting in 2004, poor trading of Jolly and a failure to trade in players. But I think in retrospect this doesn't identify the two main reasons we found ourselves in the positions we did. IMO it starts in 1998/9 when we decided to investigate our TPP compliance of the mid '90 when we subsequently found it to have breached AFL rules. We told the AFL and received fines and draft penalties. I didn't support fessing up at the time but recall being in the minority. It's a little like Carlton now going to the AFL and saying "I know the investigation into tanking is over and I know you don't want to hear this, but we tanked and we're holding a presser to tell everyone at 2.00pm". The '90's salary cap rorting was a dead issue when we fessed up and the AFL didn't want to know. It staggers me we confessed. As a result we lost three early draft picks over 2 years and were fined. Those draft picks were in 1999 and 2000 and those players would have been in their middle 20's in 2008 when our rebuilding started. The second thing that happened was a bloke called Ian Johnson. A Board member from the "establishment" and very well connected. He went on television, during a big dinner and botched what I think he meant as a vote of confidence in the Chairman. It came across as a challenge to the leadership and all hell broke loose mid season and completely derailed what was a poor season anyway. This disruption flowed through to the footy department and our recruiting in the 2001 ND where we had three picks in the first 25 or so was nothing short of a disaster. As a result we had a hole in our list spanning 1999 to 2001. To make matters worse we lost Scott Thompson, our only 1st round pick from 1999 -2000 penalty period getting in effect Moloney in return. That group of players that was lost due to factors largely outside the control of the FD resulted in a large hole in our list which was devastating when we ran out of steam in 2007. I don't think the trading of Jolly was a significant loss to the club. IMO Jeff White did a fantastic job and when he left Jamar was a worthwhile replacement. Furthermore I don't think our position in 2007 explains where we are now. IMO the Saints around 2000. Footscray around 2003 and Hawthorn around 2005 were just as poor as we were in 2008. Within 8 years all those clubs, with solid rebuilding, played competitive finals footy. We are the exception. So there is no doubt we were poor in 2007 and poorer than perhaps we should have been but there is no nexus between that and where we find ourselves now. We are poorer now than we were in 2007 and we've had 7 years to rectify that situation. The only other club that's stuffed things as badly is perhaps Richmond. Let's hope we are now on our way.

I haven't tried to defend Prendergast. How you can interpret "You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast" as a defence is just silly. His record stands for all to judge. He stuffed up too many early picks to ever have that job again IMO.

No thanks. Done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

That's a very sad post Jack. You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast. You've been insulting about Gysberts and your comments about Moloney are distasteful. You've laced your post with silly comments like "Moloney wanted out before Neeld walked in the door" and "Scott showered him with love".In this exchange I was interested in your view on the state of Neeld's relationship with the players but your response is extraordinary in it's willingness to bag players in defence of your view, some kids just trying to make their way and others club champions. That is strange indeed given your love of the Club and support for it. I can only assume it's motivated by something other than your view of Neeld.

Yes, I agree with that but it doesn't address his relationship with the players, his ability to lead or build culture. I've also had discussions with players but I think it will depend on who you speak to and how well you know them. I base my views more on the fact Watts wouldn't have stayed under Neeld but stayed under Roos. Moloney's tweet was evidence of a terrible relationship with that player. His post match presser after his first game was awful and his pre match address against Essendon(?) last year was just dreadful and the players look detached. And of course there was the continual reference to "buy in" and his failure to achieve it. When you next speak to your player contacts ask about the psych testing that was done at the club for all players and coaches and ask where MN sat. It won't help your case.

Can you expand on this? What is your understanding of his player management skills, his ability to communicate, his ability to unite and inspire a playing group and his ability to build relationships? Your post above seems to say he had poor coaching methods and couldn't explain his game plan which ignores his relationship with the playing group which I think was his major downfall.

Bailey had his strengths and weaknesses. It's hard to find any strengths in Neeld. Bailey managed to get quite a lot out of what he had, ok veterans and youth. It's hard to imagine and harder for some to admit that we held reasonable expectations of pushing for the finals in Bailey's last year. And all under a bitterly divided club and football department. One of the things that hasn't rarely been stated here was the vile work environment generated by the football department under Neeld. It was hostile, derogatory and disrespectful to the players and crushing of spirit. Many of the players feared the coaches and didn't respect them. That's why I think the word "trashed" is apt but I understand what you're saying. It's clear that the Board and Schwab wanted a change of culture and that's fair enough, but they put in place a person who had no idea nor the tools to manage that change. It's surprising that we didn't speak to people like Williams and Eade who at least had the experience of managing players as senior coach. I feel sorry for players who's AFL careers are now behind them save a late recall like Taggert and Tynan who never had a good AFL environment and others like Gysberts who needed encouragement and support to succeed, something he found under Bailey and got 2 rising stars in about a dozen appearances. Roos treats the players with respect, is honest with them and encourages them. It's why I hold so much hope for this year because as well as an improved list we have an environment that is not the Neeld "one size fits all" but one where individual players strengths are recognized and we will be coached to our strengths.

What do you think caused that? Daniher took over at the end of 1997 and in the following year took us to a preliminary final. He developed players well in the early days and we had some fair imports. I think the thing that hurt us was that we just didn't turn the list over enough and the few picks we had were failures. But it 's not all down to Daniher, in fact I'd argue that Daniher has no responsibility for our position now. After 7 years of pain we are much worse performed than at any time since Daniher left. I think Colin is right. We went through a normal cyclical downturn but the rebuild faltered under Bailey and was trashed under Neeld. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood won flags within 7 years of the bottom of their cycle. We won 2 games. Daniher is not responsible for us now in any way. BTW, I think we are much better than a 2 game 54% club left to us by Neeld and Roos and the FD will demonstrate that this year. We will be unrecognisable. It's just a shame that careers were destroyed in the last 2 years where under different circumstances they could have succeeded.

Not me. I also believe in Viney but he, like Toumpas, will need time.

I enjoy reading you're posts Ben, more insightful than most and certainly entertaining. But I do think you misread the preseason horribly, singing the praises of Petersen (amongst others) and saying Viney could turn our midfield round quickly. When I suggested that preseason was like dancing with your sister you said perhaps but "she's had a makeover". You call it as you see it but by your own admission you're a blue sky junkie and that, more than personal relationships, leads you to wrong conclusions. I've given up trying to pick players, I'm not much good at it. You and I could point to numerous situations where we've each got it wrong. Come to think of it we could point to numerous situations where the recruiters have got it wrong. I don't remember your initial stance on Neeld but I don't recall it being anything but positive. I called him very early and had one poster stalking me. I also called McLardy and Schwab and was abused from pillar to post. Unlike players I reckon we can have more meaningful opinions of off field performance which is why I concentrate on that area. I think we can have views on the structure of list management so I comment occasionally on that. Neeld was a disaster from day one and there were very clear signs. His first public utterances were to criticise Watts and Davey and go on to say "I don't know the players, I've only just got here". His appointment of joint Captains was a disaster and his alienation of the senior players catastrophic. His tenure has put this club back 5 years and ruined the careers of many at our club. McKenzie, like Trengove and Grimes, has been cruelled by a coach with no idea of leadership or game plan. Hopefully the next coach can restore these players to somewhere near their real potential but I reckon for Trenners the horse has bolted which was my fear right at the beginning. The failure of our club to recognize Neeld's inadequacy is the single biggest blunder I can remember it making. And it was evident from the outside very early and blindingly obvious from the inside. Poor old Belly is a hard call by the way. Many clubs expressed interest in him because he had all the physical attributes to be very good but nobody realized he was affected as much as he was from his high incidence of concussion and the brain damage he suffered playing AFL footy. It had a profound effect on this ability to play the game. Thankfully the last I heard he had made very good progress and has overcome most of his issues.

I reckon you had a shocker of a pre-season on and off the field. I hope next year is better.

That would sum up the year for you wouldn't it?I'm surprised when seasoned footy supporters build up draft picks in preseason only to be disappointed when 18yo fail to dominate in adult competition. I doubt this year will be any different. I reckon if you'd read Abletts crits in his first few years they would have expressed the same views. Give the kids a chance.

I feel for the whole bloody list.

I've just pressed on the little star by the topic title which takes you to the last post you read. It took me to P47. Could someone quickly summarize what's been said?

Are the people who continually criticise Hadden and Ponting the same ones who wanted Hussey gone at the beginning of last year? It's a shame that people are so quick to turn on players who have performed so wonderfully for our country. Great to see these two blokes play an important role in our success this test. I recognise Ponting is past his best but he still warrants a spot IMO and at his best was as good as there was going around. Very few of his runs came against the no name countries unlike a few other icons. Great player, love him.

Well we are going over well worn ground but the issue is our good mature players aren't that good. Green, Moloney, Sylvia and Davey who should be providing a bit of grunt, particularly through the midfield are just ordinary footballers. Green has wrung the most anybody could have reasonably expected out of his ability. That he is now being vilified by supporters is depressing and shows how little they understand. Davey has never been someone who could lead when things got tough. Moloney is another "Green", but he's younger and given a tag free opportunity can play well. But for all his possessions he rarely hurts the opposition which is why he's a good ordinary footballer and not an top notch A grader. And Sylvia is just too inconsistent to be a top liner but his best is probably our best. Jamar has been injured since Adelaide (he doesn't seem to be able to jump at the moment) and for me Rivers has been our best mature player. People don't give credit to our defense. It goes in there quickly and regularly and it's not surprising that at times it just breaks open.

Your problem is you haven't managed your expectations. Everyone is very happy to buy into a "rebuilding" process but nobody realises how long 4 to 5+ years is, and that is how long this one will take (oh, and I'm not saying I understood either). And we started from as low a base as anyone. Carlton took from end of 2003 to now to go from hopeless to good. In the 2003 draft they took Walker at pick 2 and along the way they've picked up a once in a decade footballer. I have a very simple barometer. It says games and ages will tell you where you should finish on the ladder adjusted for skill. We are in the bottom 3 for games and ages but we will finish well out of the bottom 3 which indicates skill. (and yes, I know other things will impact, this is a blunt tool). So by my reckoning we've had a good season with some dreadful characteristics none worse that the thrashings we've had. They are what have killed the season for me. I'd have been happy with 8 to 10 wins but the size of the thrashings and the inept conduct of the Board over the last month have turned a good development year into a trial. And unless we pick up some mature midfielders next year will be a steady progression, not a quantum leap. Prepare yourself!!

Moloney and Jones are 182 and 180 respectively. Bartel 187, Corey 191, Ling 189 paved the way for Selwood and Ablett. Pendlebury 191 and Judd 189 are about the best in the business. And Jones and Moloney are "good ordinary footballers" and at their height they can't impact against bigger bodies. Neither is quick. And Jones doesn't play midfield really, he plays wing (and yes, there is a difference). We need blokes that "take space" and are strong enough to hold position and block for the likes of S.... sorry. Our blokes aren't. I think McNamara 190 has been successful at Casey because he can do just this and we'll see if he can do it Sunday. Grimes 187, Gysberts 190 and McKenzie 186 are our hopes here but are all are injury prone and are young and inexperienced. This year our midfield have been smashed because we lack size and strength and are very inexperienced. Our success is linked to our midfield. I think if you stuck a decent engine in between our forward and back line and we'd be knocking on the door of the top 5 because a decent midfield would make the forward and back lines so much better. I just don't see why people don't realize that its as simple as the midfield. And unless we "get" something from somewhere for next year we will see gradual improvement not the quantum leap many expect. Just look at the difference Cox, Kerr, Embley and Shoey have made to WC this year. As someone once said "It's the midfield, stupid".