binman

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.

Yep i'm with you on most of that. They won't drop McKenzie though so if its a choice between Blease and Toumpas i hope they go for the Toump as i'd like to see enjoy a win. Having said that it is a real concern, given the improvements he made last year, that an apparently fit Blease can't force his way into this team (or stay in it once in). Fitz in Spencer out a no brainer (though i love the pencil's spirit)

Bollocks - and at odds with every analysis i have read in the media about the game. Or do you only like what the media have to say when it supports one of your arguments?

Scotland? Fletcher? No wonder they threw it out - they couldn't determine who he bumped.

Yes, i think so. I guess you don't think so. But again it matters not a jot what you or i think. I would imagine the position of the board would be that yes, Sunday, unlike the first 2 rounds, was ok and that the effort, spirit and intensity were at the required level - a level that if maintained will ensure they, rightly or wrongly, won't sack Neeld mid season. At the risk of repeating myself i simply don't see the point arguing whether Neeld should be sacked, better to postulate whether he will be.

I agree with the bolded bit and i shared your concerns at the time. My sense then was his approach was hugely risky with potentially an upside but also potentially a huge downside. The gamble has not paid off. You make a good point that it is folly to just look at spirit alone as an indicator of the FD performance. You also may be right about the club being best served by changing coach (and certainly if they do lets hope it happens in the most dignified way possible) and that we need a change As i said i'm a swinging voter on this point and i'm not sure which side of the fence i sit. I certainly was clearer in my mind when they were playing without any spirit whatsoever. My take though is that the club, rightly or wrongly, will not sack him mid season if the results are ok and i simply cannot see him standing down. History says a club needs the authorization of poor performances and heavy losses to sack a coach during the season (eg Bailey, Daniher, Wallace etc etc). If Grandold is correct about the level of disenchantment then those losses will surely happen but my gut tells me the players are coming around and if i'm correct the probability is he will see out the season - and then who knows from there. Thanks btw for your repsonses

Bob I'm what they'd call a swinging voter in politics on the issue of whether we should stick with Neeld. If the evidence is the players are playing for him i'm inclined to say we should stick with him but as i have pointed out it's neither here or there what i (or other supporters) think. Results will determine his fate. If the club avoids being smashed and picks up the odd win he won't be sacked. Full stop. A loss on the weekend, followed by some 100 point hammerings then he will go. But i have to say i'm a bit bemused by the bit i've highlighted from your post bob in so far as those that have suggested that Neeld has lost his players (including me and IIRC you also) have used the fact that the players were not playing with spirit and endevour as proof of this (or at least an indicator). Yes more than 2 and half games is required to establish players are on side but surely it is reasonable to conclude that if over a period of time they do play with spirit he has the support of his team. My view? He lost them and there are signs that he may have addressed concerns and is winning them back. But Bob you seem pretty clued in about the politics of footy. You'd have to agree that regardless of the logic of any arguments that he should go he won't be sacked if the performance by the team fall within an acceptable range - which they will if the team play with spirit and endevour. If the answer is yes i don't see much point batting it back and forth. I'd also be curious to know your thoughts about the weekend's game. Against GWS i was not confident of a win such was the lack of spirit and endevour. I'm pretty confident based on the same indicators we will win on Sunday. I'm assuming the bookies will have us a favorites. In all honesty, what do you think, do you think we'll win? Will you tip us? The reason i ask is that if you are predicting a Melbourne win then you obviously have a level of confidence in the team that would suggest Neeld has got the boys playing for him.

Duh, i'm obviously too old school. I mean 16th!

We'd have to be some chance of a PP. Ireckon we'll end up 14th, which would mean pick 3. A priority pick might be a second first round pick? Perhaps if we got it we could trade it for an established mid.

Yes i agree Jumbo. I have said previously that to me it was evident in the first 3 rounds that Neeld did not have the players on board but that perhaps something had changed as evidenced by the last quarter against GWS and big chunks against the lions, a change perhaps as a result of changes in how he is going about it and maybe on the back of the visit to Sorrento to clear the air. A flame flickering i called it. We'll i think the flame is burning a little brighter after the weekend. Yes we made tonnes of errors but we fought hard and played with the sort of spirit that is displayed when players are playing for their coach. Some sample quotes from the wrap up of the game by Greg Baum (a writer i respect): "Melbourne played like men possessed..... The Demons ran and attacked and harried and harassed and fought and fetched the ball out of trouble and into it again.......... The Melbourne men put their heads over the ball with such commitment that they won the free kick count 26-16, .......... For much of the evening, Melbourne led the inside 50 count, the contested possession count and the clearance count, all dimensions of dedication, ........ Melbourne demonstrated fanatical work ethic, and pride, and spirit, and heart .........." This attributes are exactly what DL posters have been screaming for and are what we saw on the weekend. Add to that we were a rotation down for much of the game thanks to an injury to one of our most prolific ball winners yet we did not throw in the towel and like the game against the lions kept going to the final siren. I loved the feeling i got when i saw players committed to the contest. Stuff the turnovers - i'm used to them. The dees had 4 of our best 22 out (5 if you count Jetta which i do) and a bunch of changes from the previous week (which always has a negative impact on a teams chances). With the lineup we had a ten goal loss was ok and was an accurate measure of the difference between the sides as Carlton played a hard brand and were looking to put us to the sword (as opposed to say the Cats who toyed with dogs the previous week). As a commentator during the game noted they were ruthless. And we could have easily been 2-3 goals closer if we had taken some basic chances like the Viney miss (which ended up being 2 goal turn around and was real shame as there was a great build up). Good on the boys for having a dip and credit where credit is due for Neeld for getting them up for the game and remaining positive. I have said consistently that it will be results (as measured by an absence of hammerings and the occasional win) that will determine Neelds fate and these results are determined by the players spirit and willingness to play for their coach. The flame is burning a bit brighter and so perhaps are Neelds chances of remaining coach. Again this week will tell a huge story. I hope we come out and play fantical footy from the get go. Go dees.

And further to that what a joke blaming the doctor because he showed them some dodgy letter. WADA have denied providing any letter so lets say there was one Dank was flashing around. It makes not a scintilla of difference that he may have misled the club, just as the players are responsible for their choice of doctor so is the club. If he is a quack then it is on their head not his. Oh and of course a copy was not kept, you wouldn't bother to keep a copy would you given the implications of half your team taking a banned substance.

Good thread. The first quarter against the lions was entertaining to watch - as the commentators noted. We hardly played any entertaining footy last year and if you count the last against GWS we strung 2 quarters in a row together where we moved the ball quickly, played on and were efficient up forward. Surely a positive. We played with good energy in that fist quarter (and for much of the game to be honest) which for me is a positive as it indicates that perhaps a flame is flickering and that the last q against GWS wasn't just a panic induced aberration. Yes they could have beaten us by more but they didn't so its silly to bang on as if it was a 10 goal loss. Easy to forget we missed some pretty gettable shots (eg Bail) and messed up some forward entries (eg Sylvia and Pederson). What's that saying about mothers and uncles? I thought that given how easily they moved the ball from our defence through the middle for much of the last half I thought they did pretty well to still be in it half way through the last. They also didn't throw in the towel and played to the siren. Two more positives Once inside 50 we were very efficient which has to be a positive. Gawn, Howe at full forward and the goal from the boundary by Watts were all other positives form me. We are likely to finish at least 14th on the ladder So we will have a top 3 pick at seasons end and may even get a priority pick (what beautiful irony that would be). Twisted positive, yes but we should be able to snag another good young mid in to help the Toump, Jones and Viney and who knows might be able to trade one in.

If a player is suspended for 6 months what does this actually mean? Obviously he can't play but can he continue to train with the club? The reason i ask is the talk is the ASADA/AFL investigation will take a few more months (read just near end of season). Lets say Essendon (and possible Trengove god forbid) players cop 6 months (which is what Dr. Peter Bruckner suggests in the Age would be the best case scenario) at the end of the 2013 season, they would be right to play at the beginning of the 2014 season. This would save the AFL (who hand down penalties - though ASADA would have to OK them) the problem of Essendon not being able to field a team (with all the implications) and if the players could still train they would be right to go in 2014. All sounds a bit convenient i suppose but i could see it play out this way. As for the punishment for the club, using the punishment meted out to MFC for bringing the game into disrepute you'd have to imagine Essendon will be fined several million dollars and the CEO, board, President and surely Hird (who will have been all over this, there is no way a control freak like him wouldn't have been) will be suspended. There is no way the AFL - or ASADA for that matter - want this to go to court (for different reasons: the impact on the games image and the chaos that it would cause to fixturing, TV rights etc for the AFL and the resource drain for ASADA). The AFL could a scenario such as the one outlined above to cut a deal with the Bombers not to challenge the punishment in court. Its a horror story all round but at least some of the damage would be contained.

I read on DL that SEN had reported he was getting scans on his knee today.

Ahh those were the days.

Troll. Goodbye.

Which was weird as there is no way that ball crossed the goal line and therefore no way it was a goal.

i have to admit i'm confused by this whole scenario and agree with WJ that there must be alot more to this story. I also now agree with Redleg who counselled caution before calling fro scalps and i have to admit i am guilty of going off half cocked in declaring a breakdown in governance and calling for head's to roll (though in my defence in the absence of denials from the club i was assuming AD was being truthful in his assertions the MFC had lied to the AFL about our involvement with Dank - perhaps he was being disingenuous and was referring to us not advising them about AO cream?). Who knows what is what and i'm not going to make the same mistake twice but if the latest articles are to be believed it appears we were made full admissions to the AFL about Dank (again assuming it to correct we didn't know about the cream, which is plausible). Again if the article is to be believed we did a thorough review of our supplement program which included information on the connection to Dank. If this is the case there has been no breakdown in governance. RR you are correct that the club is responsible for the actions of Bates in terms of him not fessing up to the use of a potentially banned substance but this does represent a break down in governance (a company whilst responsible for the actions of its employees can't stop them doing stupid things - only try and minimise the chances of doing them in the fist instance, respond appropriately when they do and mitigate against risks). But where does this leave the club statement that said we had no direct contact with Dank, never employed him and that at the least implied we had no connection to him whatsoever? Not quite a lie but certainly not transparent and poor form. I noted in another thread a couple of weeks back that i was concerned about our media management (eg putting the DeeTv with Mat Burgan and JW where he bemoans the lack of leadership up on the website) and this is just another example. Who is responsible for media management? The CEO and i suspect this will have been a factor in the boards decsion to axe CS. I'm still confused though. Why have the club not come out yet with specific rebuttals to ADs comments?

Please, for the love of god would people put mjt on their ignore list as i have done or at least refrain from continually quoting him. Just getting peripheral (almost subliminal) exposure to his inane statements causes me head pain. Perhaps there needs to be some new orthodoxy for quoting posters like MJT and (insert disliked posters here) where all texted is deleted and the post number is referred to instead.

I like Davey as a sub. Has a touch of class and fresh can hurt sides later in matches when perhaps they are tiring. Perhaps not so flash (pardon the pun) as cover for an early injury.

To be honest i wish he would stop saying stuff like this. I'm no psychologist but surely the team could do without messages that basically suggest they are going to lose matches against more experienced sides. I get he is trying to temper expectations but he needn't worry about that the performances in rounds 1-3 have achieved that aim.