binman

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.

No i think if he was asked about players and their gear he would say something like: 'as much as the footy public want to see players turn up with their gear it will not be how we measure success. I mean i understand why supporters expect players to turn up with their gear, i get that, i do, but for us its about the process and the elements that if put together correctly will mean that the end result will be the players will turn up with their gear. But we can't be all about the end point. As i said our focus will be on the sub elements and process and this week the emphasis will be on the boys remembering to pack their bags correctly in the first instance. Our expectation is the boys pack their bag with an elite mindset, but look it is what is. We have the least experienced AFL side ever to play the game. They're going to make mistakes, sometimes their socks will be missing or they'll pack the white shorts instead of the blue ones. But they'll learn and when they build their routines and get them to the elite level, well they will have correctly packed bags and regularly attend matches with them ready to go. But supporters have to be patient, i get that might be frustrating, i do but we see the boys at the club and fans don't and they have been training to pack bags at a level that will allow them to make the next step Good sides do the small things well and when they are done well the result will look after itself.'

Is the speed of the site Neelds fault? Or perhaps the boards? But seriously the name of the thread is a little misleading. I was sure it was referring to the dees playing list.

I think Lyon uses more of a press than a zone but yes it also relies on constant manic pressure, which i think is a flaw in both game plans because it is so difficult to maintain that sort of intensity over a season, little lone a 3-4 year period. This is one reason i reckon why the Saints (with Lyons infamous bubble) didn't win a flag under Lyon and why the Maggies could not turn their 2010 dominance (where they were by far the best team and had the perfect spread of players in terms of age,talent and experience) into a a dynasty like Geelongs. This need for constant pressure also in part explains the situation the dees are in because clearly (and for what ever reason) we have been unable to play wit the sort of consistent intensity the game plan requires and if the pressure is not there teams can be taken apart.

It is interesting you say this (see below). On FC last night Lloyd made a point of saying how Collingwoods zone game plan worked against the Cats as the Cats try and run it down the ground with handballs and under manic pressure and the zone Collingwood trapped them. However against the Swans they were all at sea with their zone (and drop in manic pressure) as the Swans just kicked over the top of it and ran it down the ground with little pressure. Sound familiar? I wonder if teams have worked out the Magpie zone based game plan, a plan that relies on a combination of players playing their assigned 'role', an emphasis on super fitness (and effort, Lloyd seemed to suggest this had dropped in the team and mentioned Swan in this context) and applying maximum pressure to the ball carrier. If any of these elements fall away the game plan suffers. I suspect Neeld has tried to implement this plan, one that is perhaps already outdated with a team that can not put the elements noted above together.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. It does not matter a jot whether people think Neeld should go or stay. Their are sound arguments for him to go ASAP, end of the year and to see out his contract- and these have all been thrashed out on DL. But none of them matter, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong in terms of Neeld staying or leaving. Football history is crystal clear. Coaches who have such a disastrous run of performances (not just losing games, but losses in combination with a lack of basic competitiveness and the occasional thrashing) over an extended period get the chop. Every time. He was on notice after the Essendon game and had his cards stamped against GC. He needs a miracle win against Hawthorn but the players are too beaten down so that's not going to happen. It's a sad situation but footy history says Neeld will likely go post Magpies.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/neeld-has-two-weeks-says-healy-20130527-2n7jo.html

If that's true we'll get conclusive evidence one way or the other if Neeld has the support of the players. All evidence thus far is he hasn't and if we play with a similar lack of effort this week Hawthorn will destroy us. I can sense a massive, massive loss and unfortunately would not be surprised if it was 20 goals plus.

Any more detail iva?

Easy done Iva - and you will enjoy the respite from trolldom. Go to your name at top right. Click and the button for manage settings then navigate to set ignore settings.

Exactly. The message isn't the issue. The forum this issue is delivered in is the issue. Plain stupid to be honest and i thought so at the time. RPFC's point in the post above that "most of Neelds words in public are poorly worded and haphazard and they get misconstrued constantly" is spot on. He is a head coach a and for any coach (in any sport) being a good communicator is a key competency. There are any number of examples of him making comments that are not clear, the recent one about 5 years being the most recent - a comment that had Mitch Clark perplexed. Its one reason why i think he should stop doing so much media. If your messaging makes things more confusing don't say anything. I wonder whether his poor communication in the media extends to explaining to his players his game plan or what he wants them to do. The on field evidence suggests it does. Much was made of him being a teacher and good teachers also have to be good communicators. I wonder if he was a good teacher?

i don't think any of these reasons are plausible. I'd suggest the plausible reason for this rumour is the same as the one about Roos. To destabilise Neeld.

What about rewarding Fitzy for good form at Casey?