binman

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.

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!