binman

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.

I totally agree that replacing Neeld will not by itself fix the various ills at MFC. Howver i can't agree that the playing group is galvanised and united. There is no way a galvanised and united team can play the way we have played for most of this year. No way. Like many dees fans i know about poor sides. I followed the dees through the seventies through woeful season after woeful season. I remember how poor we were under big Carl, mainly because we simply not have the cattle. But the players tried and played for their coach. I'm not sure what anecdotal evidence you are referring to and the only message from the playing group i care about is what they do on game day. Galvanised? They had the chance to shore up Neelds position with a solid win, a win that if achieved would have quietened the jungle drums. If they cared for their coach they would have been ballistic in their attack on the ball and opposition. If they cared for their coach and wanted to reduce the pressure on him they would have left nothing out there. To their shame they did the complete opposite. I get the message loud and clear. They don't care for their coach.

True, but what was so completely clear was that from the get go he galvanized a team who were really struggling. Neeld has done the opposite. The other thing to remember about Roos was that fans loved him from the start and he seemed universally popular (in no small part i reckon because he sold a positive message - not the negative be patient rubbish Neeld has peddled). So much so that IIRC the club were going to go with another coach (Eade?) but were pressured by the members and fans to stick with Roos. It seems history has judged their decision to listen to their fans to be a wise one.

I have no problem whatsoever with fans deciding enough is enough. I went last night but geez with all the other stuff on weekends (junior footy, basketball, visiting family etc etc) its hard to be able to justify prioritizing going to he footy with performances like yesterdays. Which is one reason why i think the board (who approved Neelds approach) deserve heat. This rebuild of a rebuild and dour defensive footy stuff does not fly with a club as unsuccessful as the dees. Its fans want more and deserve some entertainment. You can knock Bailey and say the team were poor defensively but at least some of our games were great to watch when it clicked. You at least went to games thinking 'if everything aligns we're a chance here'. Look at out next 3-4 games. We are going to get smashed.

I hope you're right Redleg. For my money i'm more than happy for the AFL to come in and do what is required - we as a club have proven we are incapable of doing it on our own

GNF, you certainly have been both vocal and consistent in your views, particularly in regard to Neeld having lost the players (or never having them) I have said that there was a flicker (more spirit) in the last few weeks suggesting that he had the boys onside. Well the first q of the game yesterday snuffed that flame out for me. I went and cannot recall a more insipid lifeless performance that that first q. The players must take some responsibility but i agree that it is the coaches job (perhaps his most important job) to make sure his team is ready and switched on. In Neeld speak it is the fundamental KPI and he has failed to meet it on way, way too many occasions. GNF you have been vocal in your arguments for sacking Neeld but for my money your comment i've quoted above is the most compelling argument for sacking him now. He is certainly only part of the problem but as you say he is not part of the solution. Its funny though, the timing of that Roos rumour. As Terry Wallace said on radio players get hinky when a coach is discussed as being on the way out and i wonder if the Roos rumor was a deliberate attempt to destabilize Neeld given it came in the week of a must win game.

The flame has been extinguished.

Interesting take on the coaching palaver from Demonland's favorite journo. I have to say she makes a pretty good argument. Seems to be channeling Baghdad Bob.

I am at a bit of loss with the Magner call also. I'm assuming Jetta will come straight back in and he will play Grimes's role. Perhaps worried about the lack of pace in which case would not be surprised to see Blease back also. If he does come back he better perform as it is real worry that he is not a walk up start in this team. A real problem. If they were not going to pick Magner this week no point elevating him yet i suppose

Neeld said so in his presser, which was tweeted by the club. Perhaps they're worried that if there are reports Magner is elevated we will be suspected for illicit drug use

You mean he isn't going to coach us?

Sorry Jaded, did i miss something? I'm not quite sure what you intimating with the watch this space comment. Can you please clarify.

Fair call i reckon

I 100% agree and certainly i wasn't arguing he should be retained based on signs the players may be on side. Of course a coach should be judged on results and have made that very point before. Put simply the club will not sack Neeld if the results are acceptable and the board will determine the parameters of what is acceptable. There is no way the board will sack him mid season if the results are acceptable (by their definition), which i'm guessing will be competitive performances (no big blow outs), sustained effort and spirit and the occasional win. Many would disagree no doubt about what is acceptable but it is the the boards call However what i will say is that if they are not playing for the coach this will be reflected in the results (as i suspect was the case early in the season). It's funny though because at least 2 posters have argued very strongly that Neeld should be sacked immediately precisely because they believe he has lost the players and and if action is not taken irreparable damage will be done. I am assuming from your comments Bob that you would argue that this is fuzzy logic and not a reasonable reason (in isolation) to sack a coach.

I have said before that the way the team played in the first 2 rounds were an indication they were not playing for their coach so i would not be surprised if some of the reports on DL about player disenchantment are accurate. However many of those indicating Neeld does not have the players on board (and some even suggest this will will lead to mass walk outs which as Nutbean rightly says is a nonsense ) seem to imply that this is a static or unchangeable situation with no chance of him winning the players back. Again as i have said before i have seen some signs that players are playing with the sort of spirit that suggests that they are playing for their coach. Each week is another test of this but if if we see the sort of spirit we saw last game week in week out i will conclude Neeld has the players on side and playing for him. Surely even his fiercest critics would concede that even if Neeld has 'lost' some of his players (which is of course conjecture and in any case may be an inevitable outcome of trying to rebuild a playing culture from scratch - which by the by is something Hinkley has not had to do so the comparison don't really hold up ) this does not mean it is impossible to win them back. People can change, learn from their mistakes, alter their approach, develop. Perhaps Neeld is one of these people. Certainly i have seen a change in terms of him being much positive and supportive towards his players (though i wish he would stop reinforcing our inexperience - but i guess he's got a theory as to why he is doing that). The flame is flickering.