binman

Yes, but there was no reason he couldn't have been promoted last week as Grimes was already on the LTI. And he should have been given how poor our mid field is. Crazy stuff.

I'm slowly losing all positivity about the dees (not the club, the current directioon) and my faith in the coaching panel and their selection decisions is gone. I simply do not understand how Sellar could remain in the side. He may have played a role last week but he was terrible. The same could be said of Nicholson (though i like his effort level). I'm also confused as why Magner didn't play last week and why Fitzy isn't getting his cance given his form in the VFL. However that to me is not the worst of it. Two decisions completely baffle me: Why has Toumpas come in this week not last week? I don't mind him as an in but jeez the VFL had a bye last week so he missed a game (and the potential development) and they had the chance to play him against younger opponents in a game that nominally we had a chance to win. Instead they bring him in to game where we are likely to be hammered (Richmond are $1.01 to win - unbackable) and he will be monstered. What sort of approach to player development is that? Why Jetta this week not last week? Defies all logic. He had to come back last week. He played with great spirit and we needed hard bodies. Instead they effectively add a week to his two week suspension and he couldn't even play VFL. Crazy stuff

Which makes the fact that he was our best player in the first 4 rounds last season all the more sobering

Good points, well made

Ahhhhh! My head hurts. How on earth could you come to that conclusion. Neeld is the one who has set the non negotiables. The talent of the playing list has no bearing whatsoever on effort and desire. Neeld got rid of those he thought were a bad influence and brought in players who would help instill a fierce, elite (ha) take no prisoners culture From Connolly's article today: 'Melbourne was 15th for contested ball when it took on Richmond in round three last year. It finished the season 16th. Now it's 18th. On the clearance front, the Demons went into that April game 16th. It finished the season 18th. It's still 17th. Over the last year-and-a-bit, Richmond has been able to concentrate more on ironing out the rough edges in its make-up, finding some goalkicking alternatives to Jack Riewoldt in attack, and improving the quality of its disposal coming out of defence. Melbourne doesn't have that luxury when it can't even count on making it to football's first base, having a genuine crack.' Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-v-demons-no-debate-now-20130516-2jo9h.html#ixzz2TQqexefb

Ratten head coach, Black mid field coach. I'm feeling better already

I'm a little confused so instead i'll say that based on what i have seen so far Neeld has no chance whatsoever of achieving his objective

Sorry dee-luded but on this particlar issue i think you may have an apt posting name. There was a time i would have agreed with you (last season to be precise and perhaps even part of this season). Not any more. Last Sunday sealed it for me. Neeld has to go. Soon. Bye. Then bye bye

Surely PJ it is reasonable to expect some evidence of at least making progress towards meeting his stated goal. What employer would employee someone, allow that person set a long term goal (eg 3 years) and not track progress against that goal.

C'mon, i would have thought judging him now is more than fair. He is halfway through a 3 year contract. If he was he making strides to meeting his own measurement of success then there would be evidence of this by now. Tackles, pressure acts, few blowouts, smothers, shepards, consistent effort etc etc. By all those measures he is failing to make the side hard to play against at all, little lone the hardest to play against. Micheal Gleeson article in today's age talks about the doggies escaping the sort of scrutiny the dees are facing precisely because they are showing the sort of competitiveness Neeld promised we would show. But lets say you're right. One can only assume when he set that as an objective he planned to meet it by the end of his 3 year contract. In all honesty if his contract is honored are you confident that he will actually meet it?

The other thing about Ratten is if Neeld was sacked now i reckon the Hawks would release him and he could slot straight in, obviating the need for a care taker coach.

I reckon Ratten would be an excellent choice. I rate him as a coach. Very unlucky to be axed at Carlton and wouldn't have if Malthouse wasn't available. Coached senior footy last year and is a senior assistant this year (at a top club) so has both up to date knowledge about the game (as opposed to Roos who has been out of day to day AFL for 2-3 years) and would also know Melbourne's list pretty well.

Its funny, i was thinking something similar this morning. Not so much meeting his own expectations as such more that as RR notes when his objective was to make MFC the hardest team to play against. He made it very clear that this was his goal (as opposed to say other measurements such as wins or ladder position). So i would say this is more than an expectation - its is his chosen key measure of his success as a coach. Now, he is getting close to half way through his contract, more than enough time to have made significant inroads into meeting this fundamental measure and as demonstrated last week we are actually less difficult to play against than before he started (look at our pressure stats this year - they're appalling). It is his own measure of success to be judged by and he has failed to meet it. To that i'd add that a fundamental KPI for a coach (in any team sport) is that their team comes psychologically ready to play, that they play with effort and the required intensity. He has failed to meet that KPI and whilst the players have responsibilities in that regard i'm sick of Neeld deflecting responsibility for the lack of effort all onto the players. He talks about people not worrying about his well being but instead worry about the players (see Burgan interview on Dee TV for the latest example - by the by i thought that gig was Robbos). Well perhaps he could help the players by accepting some responsibility for their lack of competitiveness. I have not heard him once take personal responsibility for not meeting this KPI and i wish a journo would ask him about this and also to ask what he is doing on a personal level to improve his performance.

Bag Bob you must think you've wandered into an alternative universe with all the support and love you are receiving!

You might be right about this Titan, however one thing i'd say is that perhaps the lack of effort is a subconscious (or even deliberate) protest by the players against the coach or even the club as a whole. If they are unhappy what other avenues do they have to tell the club? Remember the last time they collectively indicated they were unhappy with stuff happening at the club was prior to 186 and they saw how that turned out. They're not likely to volunteer their opinion now.

That's interesting pm24. However i simply can't believe that it is actually true (i believe that your colleague believes it to be true). Perhaps they appear united and positive in the rooms but really the proof of the pudding is out on the ground. I don't want to be argumentative for arguments sake but in the game i watched on Sunday they played with no unity or collective spirit. I can only recall one time where a player sprinted to a contest to lay a shepherd for a team mate, for instance (Spencer who struggled but at least puts in). They played selfish football that was the very opposite of unity and there was nothing positive at all in the collective energy. They showed no care for each other as team mates and none for their coaches. Dawes made clear that there was not the required effort from players. AFL players not showing sufficient effort. Do you seriously believe a team that is united in purpose and believes in the direction of the club would not play with effort? As i noted in the post you quoted they had the opportunity to shore up their coaches position (and therefore the current direction and focus of the club) but through a complete lack of effort (not skill, but effort) they have achieved the exact opposite outcome. Leaving the contempt they showed their coach aside they had a chance to win and to show supporters that the current direction the club is heading is positive and something we should get behind and support. Again they achieved the complete opposite. Compare how they played to how the Saints played the following night. Now there was a team who were playing in a united fashion, who were playing as a collective, who played for their team mates. At the risk of being accused of exaggeration i have seen hundreds of Melbourne games and never i have been more disappointed in the teams performance in terms of effort, unity and playing as a collective. Their actions speak louder than what appear to be hollow words.

Spot on Nutbean. Of course he'd adapt. He is a winner and he used a game plan at the Swans that maximized his teams chances of winning a flag. If he coached now and that game plan was not going to win a flag he'd adapt it (whislt imagine still keeping the emphasis on hard nosed defense and non negotiables such as accountability). No one is accusing Freo of being overly dour this year as Lyon has apated his game plan from the flooding model he used at the Saints

You are spot on Ralphius Neeld came to a new club and told anyone and everyone how utterly crap they were in the past and were currently. He made it clear the players were unprofessional and that were unfit and not AFL standard. He publicly criticized individual players and consistently compared to what he practically described a rabble to the elite club he had just come from. In short he broke almost every basic rule of sports psychology. You can see the inevitable result of his approach. Players playing without spirit, confidence, enjoyment or freedom. We are reaping what he sowed and soon he will leave the club. He is bound to be sacked mid season,of that i no longer have any doubt. Why? Because the club has to give its fans some hope and even though sacking him will likely not bring any benefit, it will allow the fans a little time to dream of a better things.

It's funny you should say that. I went to the AGM and thought was smarmy bastard he was. I wonder whether his aloofness is symptomatic of a more broad disconnect between the board and the clubs supporters. Perhaps that's unfair but McClardy's comments about the cheap seats were, even taken out of context, unfortunate. i also think the board misread the mood of the supporters when giving Neeld carte blanche to take his scorched earth approach - an approach that not only seems to have divided the players but also the fans, if DL is anything to go by.

Fair call i suppose. I'm a sucker for hope also. For gods sake i backed the dees to make the 8! I need a hopeless optimist support group - though i think Sundays game finally cured me. But i reckon to learn to win you need to first see hope.

In fact the other clubs would love it - when it comes to recruiting we are like a coffee filter. All the good stuff goes through and we get the dregs. Imagine the grief we have saved other clubs by kindly ensuring they didn't have to pick up Sylvia, Morton, Scully (GWS bad luck on that one - an expensive tagger!), Gysberts and of course the Cookie monster. On Gysberts it has to be said that he is yet to set the world on fire at Norf

Healy is absolutely spot on with this comment 'they need someone who can sell hope'. A club that has near 6-7 years of being crap needs to give its players and supporters some hope, it needs to sell hope. In some ways the appointment of Neeld sold some hope that if the if the fundamentals could be changed we would improve. The promise was of incremental improvement, which is ok and acceptable for most fans. There is still a message of hope in incremental improvement. But if anything we are going backward and at an alarming rate. No hope there. Neeld has, from the start been very circumspect about improvement, which again is ok as long as it happening. He has deliberately not promised too much before last season or this season. Ironic then that the two things he has said have proved so laughably and spectacularly unfulfilled. Before last season there was : simply we want to be the hardest team to play against. Tragic and the blackest of black humor. This year was his comments at the AGM (and i think repeated in an interview?) that people might be surprised at how we go this year and that success may not be as far away as people think. Well at least those comments might be partially true. Few believed we would/could be this bad. Compare his promises with Hinkleys at Port. He has said the only thing they will promise is that they will never give up. They have come back and won 2 games this season after falling more than 7 goals behind and pushed North after being well down. I'll take that promise. And Hinkley obviously gets that supporters need hope which having a side that refuses to give up will provide.

Is Rabbit Warren any good as a coach, i thought he had a rugby background.

Spot on DS (well almost!). I had the much the same thoughts. Though i would add the following: By emphasizing we need 22 players to compete the inference Garlo makes is that some players are just not putting in (which is obvious to observers) To further emphasis this he reiterates the point about missed tackles Garlo clearly cares about the club and appeared completely genuine and truthful It was instructive that when asked about support for the coach from the team he could/would only speak for himself - if all players were behind Neeld he would have said so (and my feeling was he was not going to lie) And most damning of all Garland made much the same point as Dawes did in the article he wrote - players are training well but not turning up on game day ready to play AFL footy and he does not know why - this is an indictment on Neeld unfortunately and i hate to see the players so confused about this (several others have commented on it in pressers). They should not have to worry about it (other than doing what they are instructed to do and preparing properly) - the coach should be taking care of this part

One thing i like about Jackson is that already when talking about the club he talks about 'we' and uses the phrase 'our club'. Contrast that to Neeld who for months after joining did not use phrases such as we or us or our club.