binman

Good points, well made. I agree that we need to really focus on being able to link up and get the chains of possessions happening. But i would argue that this inability to get scoring shots to an acceptable level is a function of the game he is asking them to play or an inability for him to teach them how to play it. Suddenly we seem to be talking about this team as if they have no ability at all. I mean jeez were were better last year and getting into our forward half. Again the theme from Neeld seems to be blame the players for everything rather than take responsibility for changing what he controls. Again its is on the coached head. And if the approach is not resulting in more than 8 scoring shots in a half than put simply the coach has to change something. Because he can talk all he wants about the future, building blocks etc but the teams confidence is shattered, morale among the fans is a ll time low and there is nothing, nothing more dispiriting than not scoring in footy. Actually that's not true - not looking like scoring is worse. One of my concerns about Neeld is that he doesn't seem to get the psychological aspect of his role. Teams need spirit, fans need something to cheer about. if the current approach isn't working, change - at least in the short term. Change the approach, just as Neelds mentor has said he has just a couple of weeks ago when recognized the blues side he had inherited needed an more offensive focus to be successful.

The dees had a red hot go in the first quarter. Gary Lyon said it is the best quarter of football we have played under Neeld. We were fresh, tackling with purpose and had Dawes up and about. We were playing a side just in the 8 who are a long way off their best. Our second quarter was not as intense but the effort was pretty good. I said to mate my mate at half time something along the lines of - you can't knock the effort. So we played almost at our best, the effort was there.Yes we had some big outs (Grimes, Clark and Frawley) but realistically not that many so not miles away from having our best side on the park (and of course they have their share of big outs). We were 13 points at half time, with a woeful number of inside 50s, most of which were shallow in Neeld speak. Yes there were some very poor skills but 13 points in a half? When we were competitive and it was a perfect day for football? Surely that has to be sheeted home to the coach and the game plan he is trying to implement. Yes of course you could say that the players are not implementing it properly etc etc but come on 13 points? 13 points (in a half where we actually played ok - what would have happened if were terrible?) is not acceptable, forget the effort. Keep Neeld? What the? Anyway forget the deabete its all moot. As i have said ad naseum such thrashing"s and inability to score cannot be sustained. My tip is that McClardy will quit and Neeld will be sacked at the same time 'í selected him and am duty bound to also fall on my sword blah blah" Monday of next week. Gonski.

I feel punch drunk from footy at the moment. On Monday it will be 8 days since our last game. Enough time for the worm of hope to wend its way into my brain. Maybe we will fight and scrap and fight some more. Maybe we will win. Please bring on Tuesday for the more comforting salve of reality to be applied.

The best post i have ever read from you RR. Spot on. One thing i would add is that Bailey could only dream about the resources and facilities (and perhaps board support) that the current coach enjoys and that history will be a lot kinder to him than Neeld.

I don't believe in superstars, Organic food and foreign cars. I don't believe the price of gold; The certainty of growing old. That right is right and left is wrong, That north and south can't get along. That east is east and west is west. And being first is always best. But i believe in Pete

I have to say Baghdad Bob has been very disciplined - the temptation to to loudly chant nah nah nah nah nah must be strong. Haven't heard much either from his foil RobbieF about the high standards of the current board or accusing Fanbob of wild imaginings and agendas.

It is called the Pollyanna syndrome, similar to the Stockholm syndrome however instead of kidnappers it involves attending too many training sessions/volunteer nights/fundraisers etc and to much incidental contact with players, staff, coaches etc at a football club. Sufferers feel overly connected to the club, so much so they can they mistakenly believe they are employed by the club and/or part of the inner sanctum. Sufferers can no longer think critically or indeed form their own thoughts and can become aggressive if anyone connected to the club is in any way questioned. The classic symptom is blind optimism and refusal to accept anything is wrong. It is very difficult to treat and there is no known cure. Some Fitzroy fans were acutely affected and can occasionally be seen in boutique North Fitzroy pubs with an old footy record in hand muttering about Micky Conlan and Gary Pert. There are suggestions Mark Neeld may be a high profile sufferer (apart from every presser the keep calm and a carry on sign in his office is perhaps an indicator). I sympathize as every pre-season i start to feel blindly optimistic and start to worry i might develop Pollyanna syndrome. Fortunately once the season starts the reality of how bad we are snaps me out of it. But still i worry. I even caught myself thinking at lunch today that perhaps Neeld will pull of a modern miracle and turn the death ship around and sail us to premiership island. Perhaps i need help.

I think you have rose colored veil over your eyes. The big issue for me is that at the AGM his message to members was that we should be cautiously optimistic and that our improvement would surprise people. I assume he believed what he was saying and after the port game he was clearly shocked - and even more so after the essendon game - at how poor we were. He then changed his message to a rebuild of a rebuild etc etc but has never been able to sound anything other than not sure of what is actually happenning.

I think he will be sacked.

Good post. My take? I agree he will go after the maggies game - for several reasons. First i reckon the club would have been loathe to feed the media vutures who were unseemly in their desire to see some blood. Waiting allows them to control then when, how etc and ensures they can do things on their own terms. Media management 101 and i suspect that is Jackson's influence. Secondly this approach also allows a much more dignified exit for Neeld than would have been the case if they announced it today. For starters they can make sure Nelld knows the axe is coming so he can prepare himself and get his support systems in place. Thirdly it means that in the likely event a care taker is appointed it means they won't start with a higt profile hammering against a top side. The next game we play fter the bye is the Saints at the G and whilst we will still likely lose it is a much easier game. Finally the bye comes at a good time and perhaps means they have a little bit of time to go through a half decent process if they don't want to go with a caretaker. Though i guess they will be constrained in how publicly they can target or talk to someone like Eade or Williams (who will be watched closely by the media and the twiterati). I would assume they will have already started that planning process asnd perhaps even had some private chats.

Yep, you're right 2 games. But the point remains, why was he dropped?

Results always matter pm. Always. And not just wins but how a team perform when they lose. Which is why the heat has not been on the bullies.

Exactly. Why was Magner dropped after only one game?

That's true, good point.

Look we're going around in circles clearly but you said ' Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.' I pointed out that Neeld did in fact cut experienced players. The second point (ie do i think we'd be better placed if they were here) is a bit of weird question. You were the one who was arguing that our woeful performance this year (and apparent regression from the previous year, which was pretty bad anyway) should be seen context that we had a less experienced side than 2012. Using your logic if we had kept our expereinced players rather than cutting them we would be a better team. It is your contention not mine.

I agree to an extent, he certainly took a harder option, however i would also say it was an incredibly risky, even naive option as put simply he needed some wins on the board and his approach and not got them. Its not just DL posters and the media who are not willing to wait for results its the AFL, sponsors and general Melbourne fans (especially kids who will follow Miami Heat or a side that wins the odd game). Made finals. Yep, i'd take that. He needed to find a middle ground as did the board. An approach that sees the results we have seen is not viable from any perspective, not least of which being a financial one. A very poor business decision if the board signed off on this approach. That said i would argue that really getting the sleeves rolled up and trying to change culture and keep players would have been the really hard road. Yes it would have been risky but if successful the pay off would have been much better and the period at the bottom much shorter. He could have begun, not by drawing a line in the sand and with a clean slate but by acknowledging the psychological trauma that was so evident amongst the playing group post the 2011 season and doing something to heal it. That would have been the really hard, tough thing to do. Much easier to wipe people and send them packing and bring your own Neeldbots in.

I would have preferred Neeld found a way to engage Moloney and have him as an ally. We have the worst mid field in the competition and we simply could not afford to lose our second best mid. As i said who knows if what you say about Moloney is true ie he refused to mentor young players, sooked because he wasn't named captain etc etc. Are we going by what Robbo said or just rumours? Even if it was true a really good person manager would have found the key and got Moloney on board. But lets leave him aside. Rivers, yes a free agent so it was his call. I still would have loved it if he had felt so confident of where Neeld was taking the club that he felt compelled to stay (and i recall a few years ago he was adamant he wanted to be a one club player) and to be honest i don't get the feeling they put up much of a fight to keep him. Perhpas they could have made him captain or more realistically vice captain. perhaps they could have offered him a really big contract, one that another club couldn't match. But ok lets leave Rivers aside. You can't argue that he cut Morton, Martin and Pettard. All players up with more than 50 games experience (or close, not sure how many Martin played but must be up around 50). There's 160 games for you. Petard seems to be in the tigers (a side pushing for the top 8) best 22 so it is hard to see how he couldn't have been in ours. Martin was being selected at the lions before his injury. Morton hasn't yet but i reckon he'll get a crack but even so he would have added depth. He also cut Gysberts who has been in the system for a few years so had some experience. As i say you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't bemoan a lack of experience after cutting experienced players (and not being able to keep others). And it is not right to emphasis a lack of experience so much given the replacements are older more mature players (i forgot Couch and Magner in my previous post) with plenty of games under their belt (albeit at lower levels) a, which mitigates against the impact of not having played too many AFL games. Which raises the question if it really is a rebuild why bother selecting journeymen mid twenty players like Matt Jones? Why not roll the dice and just go with youth. The answer i guess Neeld would give is that you need hard bodies to help protect the younger guys and let them build into it. Which sort of highlights my point a bit ie an inexperienced at AFL level mid 20's player is not the same as an 18 year old just out of school who is still a boy.

Which means it has just started. WAt least there is plenty of off field intrigue to engage dees fans. Like fawlty towers mixed with West Wing

This is true however surely you concede that we are less experienced than last year because Neeld elected to cut experienced players or not fight to retain Rivers or Moloney, who had a choice to leave (though we could have matched beamers offer). For gods sake it was his call. Now of course you could argue that that the players you've mentioned were part of some cultural problem at the club and needed to go (as many on DL did at the time) but just as some have said there is no proof players this year are not playing for Neeld, or that he has lost them (despite what i would see as plenty of on field proof - but that's another argument) there is no proof, just scuttlebutt that Pettard, Morton, Rivers, Moloney or Green did not buy in or were poor role models that needed to be cut. I repeat Neeld chose to cut these players. Strange given he has made it abundantly clear that having players in the 80-150 game range is crucial. Surely given the importance of having this senior core he might have been a bit more pragmatic (and perahps even a bit more conciliatory) and kept a Pettard, Moloney or even Morton. What about try and encourage Green to play on another year? What about a coach who actually can get a player who is not fully buying in or performing to their potential turned around? That's what good coaches do. Instead Neeld tried to take a short cut and draft players in who he thought had the right attitude rather than working with what he had. Neeld (and you Pm) can't have it both ways.Another of Neeld big calls that if they don't come off have a big downside. And if you live by the sword etc etc. The other thing i'd point out (and have done previously) is that that using lack of experience as an ecuse is a bit misleading (and dare i say it disingenuous) as the players you mention (Terlich, Matt Jones, Gilles) and others you don't (Sellar, Nicholson, Bail and Pederson - who also bring the average number of games down) are all older players with bodies ready to cope with the physical demand of AFL football. I don't see anyone knocking Barlow for a lack of experience even though he's only played 30 odd games. 10 years ago an inexperienced player was invariably young and not physically ready to match it with mid 20's players.

I 100% agree old. As i've said on more than a few occasions (DLBRS - demonland broken record syndrome) history suggest he won't survive with the sort of results and performances we have seen. But if they decide to give him more time they absolutely have to give him full board support until seasons end, if for no other reason than to ensure the players have some certainty. In a funny way coming and being strong and bucking history might also galvanise the players and club, GNF well articulated fears of players leaving notwithstanding. Agree or diagree if they are strong in their support at leaset you'd have to give the board some points for showing some guts and courage of conviction.

Well i think Dawes might at least show him how to work. That said Watts was on his bike a bit yesterday. The goals he kicked in the 3rd he had been up in the back half immediate before and had run the length of the ground back to our forward line. That said he was absolutely knackered and sucking the wind - good effort to slot it considering. But Jumbo i have to call it. I was wrong and you were right. He won't be our most important player this year (or probably ever on current performances) - not by a mile. No pushing for AA selection, now or perhaps ever. No Goddard quarter back role. Chalk it up as another completely 100% wrong call I made pre season. The flame of hope once again burnt my logic. I appreciate and respect the fact you have not crowed in any way.Respect I thought that even though he did a few ok things yesterday his intensity, tackling and desire was deplorable. I was of the view in 2011 that he would never make it if he didn't address that aspect of his game but felt he had improved his intensity to at least an acceptable level in 2012. Well he's gone all the way back. Some his efforts, or should i say half arsed efforts were pathetic yesterday. And even though i don't think Neeld has done him any favours the blame for his lack of intensity is squarely on Watts shoulders. If only he had a tenth of Puoplos desire - or Terlichs for that matter. What then to do with Watts. I favour him alternating between a high half forward and a wing and using his kicking skills forward of centre to snag one or goals a game and set up a few more. The rest of the time play as an outside receiver type with a license to take risks and kick into the corridor.

And perhaps is why Magner was dropped?

Good post Ben. Welcome back. Before leaving you made a comments about initially being supportive of Neelds decision to cut Moloney etc but that perhaps in hindsight underestimating the impact of on the team of having their mates leave. I agree with that and if more to were to go at years end it would be difficult to repair. As i have said a few times Neeld will go because in AFL/VFL history coaches who have these sort of hidings always get the sack, always. And Neeld will be no different. I also feel sorry for him particularly as as he says his mandate was to change the culture and that's what he is trying to do. Well the board (and Garry Lyon) should share the blame but to be hones both he and the board were pretty naive to imagine it would be possible to endure such losses and not come unstuck. He should have realised that he needed progressions and if that meant keeping a Moloney then so be it. I agreed with cutting Moloney at the time but i also perhaps underestimated the impact on team mates but given our biggest weakness was clearly our midfield (the most crucial element in modern footy) a bit of pragmatism might have been in order and Neeld might have helped himself and the team if he had found a way to get Moloney on the same page.

GNF, i wish you'd stop being so obtuse - tell us what you really think!

Ralphius, i've read quite a few variations on this theme on DL over the last few months, ie the players are pros, should take pride in their job and should be able to rise above having a coach who they don't like/respect etc. I agree with the sentiment. However where i differ is that there is a missing element in this logic. That is that good teams play as a collective, a unit. Poor teams plays as a collection of individuals. It is the magic, hard to define element that separates good from average teams - the sum of the parts and all that. Good teams play like they have an extra man. Creating this magic is the job of the coach. All the great teams have a coach who has been able to create this magic. There are lots of average teams who have played above their raw ability because that magic is there. Northey had that ability to create that magic. On current evidence Neeld does not. His team play like 22 individuals, and as he has pointed out on many occasions the team have trained and prepared pre and during the season very professionally but can't transfer that to the game time. That's because the magi is not there. Using your work analogy, whilst you may be 100% professional and work hard i bet any money your boss is a terrible manager and unable to motivate your team (assuming you are part of one) or get them to perform to their full potential. Good on you for not dropping your standards but i bet you'd enjoy work more (and probably perform better) if you were part of a vibrant cohesive team, with a leader you respected and followed.