binman

Positive trolling! Joke iv'a. My gut feeling is your source is probably correct. If so i wonder if CW (or perhaps EQ?) will 'break' the story. If we do end up cleared it surely will be huge blot on CW's reputation as a journalist. By going past reporting what her sources have told her into the realm of giving her own views of/opinion of the key people involved and likely outcomes she has a fair bit at stake i would have thought. Sure she can come out swinging and perhaps attack the AFL for not finding something or more likely continue to claim the evidence form our sources suggests we tanked. In fact attack as a form of defense is the most likely approach for her to take (she's not going to admit she got it wrong). What ever approach she takes her reputation as a journo will take a massive hit - at a time when EQ's balanced, insightful reporting of the Crows drama has enhanced her reputation. As i have noted before her gossipy approach to reporting requires good sources. I suspect the quality of her sources is somewhat related to her standing as a journalist and if that takes a hit so will her ability to get inside info.

In a nutshell this is where we differ. I only care how his selections go, not his rejects. If his selections go well then great, if they go poorly then i think it is fair enough to mark him (and the recruiting staff) down on that. I really don't care how the rejects go - well that's not entirely true i hope they go well, particularly Bater who gave his all for the dees. Still, if they go great for my money i still don't see this reflects poorly on Neeld and the recruiting team. You're right that the win loss is not the only indicator (though i assume we can agree the most important one). How he develops the new recruits (partic the rookies and later picks) and players like Blease, Clark, Tynan, Taggert, Watts, Tappy, Nicho, Bail and perhaps most of all Sylvia will also give us an indication of his ability to develop players. Another indicator to evaluate his ability to choose and develop players will be the ones that were borderline to be cut but he elected to keep. In that group i would have Jetta, Davis, Evans, Macdonald, Couch and perhaps even Spencer. All these players were discussed on DL as possible trade bait yet all were kept on, in large part due to their approach to training and general attitude i suspect. Lets see how these boys go - if they earn their spots on the list for the 2014 season then for me that's a big tick for Neeld and the FD.

Ok, fair call. What i was really trying to get at (in an long winded way) was that how players who have been axed performs at other clubs is not a useful or relevant KPI to evaluate Neelds performance on. How Pederrson, Dawes, Rodan and Byrnes perform (and how they contribute to the club culture) will be a much better measure given their respective clubs let them go (though Bynres was a FA). But really the only reliable measure is the win loss ratio. It will go up nest year. If it doesn't, well he will be marked hard.

Fan, sorry but that's bollocks. Gysberts and Bennel playing well in a winning GF team will say absolutely nothing about Neelds decision to axe them this year. Now is the time to judge if we made the right move axing the players we did. If you take DL as a straw poll the only players that consistently people were worried about losing is Rivers and that was his call. As for the rest there has been very few people arguing that we have erred in axing any of them (perhaps a few for Gysberts). The other thing that is relevant is that as can clearly be seen by who we have recruited Neeld is focused on building a physically strong, in and under team of fanatical trainers that suit his game style and philosophy (as articulated in the mantras of being the hardest team to play against and the need for elite preparation). It is no coincidence at all that the players he axed did not fit that template (skinny or poor trainers or questionable courage - in some cases all 3). Perhaps they will suit another clubs template better, and if so good luck to them but that would in no way indicate we erred in letting them go. I'd also add that by concluding that a player who goes onto be a successful player at another club is an indicator of a poor decision by Neeld then logically the opposite must be true. That's to say if none of the players we axed (not the FA's who left) end up being any good at other clubs this indicates Neeld made a sound decision in axing them. This scenario is much more likely that any of them being stars in GF winning side however for mine that is not proof Neeld made the right call. As i have said the only evidence that is worth anything in terms of decisions on players is our win loss ratio. If we finish 4th in three years time the path Neeld has chosen in terms of player choice will have been well and truly vindicated. Fan, to be honest it is hard not to see agendas in the stuff you write, and perhaps this is another example of gentle trolling but your arguments in this case seem quite illogical. You seem to be setting up a criteria for bagging Neeld. Perhaps i'm wrong. However if the players we axe do end up being also ran AFL players (which to be honest i think is highly likely) i can't see you coming on DL and saying that this is proof of Neeld's sound decision making.

Yep we need to see improvement next year and the following to be able to say he has pulled the right rein in terms of player choice etc. I said 5 years because i thought it might get a rise out of you given if Neeld is still around in 5 years it will mean one of the most important decisions of the current board and CEO had been vindicated. I was thinking about player development and really it's not what he will be judged on. WIns and losses is what he will be judged on. Of course player development and good recruiting is crucial but the KPI is number of wins not number of brownlow votes (of players we draft in or those we draft out). If Neeld gets a flag i don't think it would matter one bit if Bennel win a Brownlow, Pettard as Coleman and Morton is AA.

I reckon they would have shipped Moloney in the unlikely event he wanted to stay

You judge him on the list he is building. The players he has cut are all products of another coaches approach. Totally fair though to judge him over the next 5 years in terms of list management and picking players as it is his group and his choices. Clark was a pretty good start i'd have to say. As for other clubs wanting the so not so magnificent seven i would suggest that only Rivers would have been truly sort after, followed a fair way by Moloney. Look at the picks clubs were only prepared to give up for the rest (none in four cases). I would argue also that without the 2 exapansion clubs a few of these players would have not played another game of AFL footy. An interesting article in the Age highlights this: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-clubs-stretching-talent-pool-to-the-limit-20121211-2b6yr.html

I love highlights packages - every new recruit looks like an absolute gun. I'd love to see a lowlights package of exiting players to offer their new club (set to beeny hill music)

I reckon the Wharf Hotel suggestion above is a good one if you happen to discuss it any further with the MFC dudes.

Fan, Fan fan always pushing a political agenda! Just joking. Big cull no doubt but i agree it doesn't matter if one or two have good careers elsewhere. There are lots of examples of players who have been traded out and gone on to use the rejection as motivation to prove their previous club wrong. What i don't agree with is that if more than two do well this means we'd have to question Neelds judgement. It doesn't follow that if two or more of those players goes on to be successful at another club they would ipso facto have been successful if they had remained at the dees, or indeed fitted in with our plans.

Right, that gives me a clue. I was wondering who Fletch was in a previous life.

Published via 2, 800 serialized posts on Demonland. An online phenomenon.

Well now with Anderson going they have exactly that opportunity. A new person will come in and be able to say something along the lines of "i fully respect the work and approach the AFL has done on this issue in the past but we have reached an impasse of sorts. Integrity is paramount and there cannot be any suggestion of impropriety. The exhaustive inquiry has not been able to find conclusive proof of wrongdoing however there is no question there is a perception that clubs may have looked to take advantage of the rules that were put in place to ensure clubs would be able to improve and be competitive. In my role a first action of business will be to examine how we can keep the spirit of those rules but remove any incentive for clubs to not go 100% to win every game. But let me be clear the integrity of the game is paramount and so we will also be looking to put in place rules and removing any grey areas that ensure this is upheld"

Thanks HG, interesting stuff as usual. I reckon Misson won't be looking to bulk Watts up at all and i expect that he will play a half back/quarter back role and occasional moving onto the wing. He is so far our best user of the ball its not funny and these roles take best advantage of his disposal skills. I expect him to be super damaging in those roles and will not be surprided to see him being tagged with forwards whose role is to take him away from the ball. As i have posted before the irony is that in looking for a KPF we have found the next Robbie Flower.

Refer to me however you like. There will be no further dialogue. You have joined an elite group of posters i have blocked (joining the other two). Bye bye.

Puntkick, I was suggesting that perhaps the word drop could be substituted for punt as your post was both borderline misogynist and racist. Perhaps it was not meant to be, i don't know. I was making a subtle joke rather than directly slamming your post. I realise you are a new poster so perhaps i should refrain from being obtuse.

Buried away in a previously unremarked upon article is grist for the Fan, Hazy, ADC mill (big props for CS) and what i would consider to be a pretty positive bit about where the tanking investigation is at. Funny CW hasn't mentioned that the AFL no longer are interviewing MFC employees and or that the investigation seems to hinge on comments from that Bailey consider a joke in a two hour footy meeting (as opposed to a secret Vault tank meeting): Melbourne attempts to join the arms race with increased spending in the football department

I was wondering why you 'liked' my response to your post.

Is there a typo in your posting name?

That's funny! I love storms and consider myself to be a bit of a storm boy myself. I've been to Asian in wet season a few times and nothing beats a good tropical storm Not yet been to Darwin but keen to go in the wet season.

Should change your posting name to Storm Boy

You usually make a lot of sense Fan (even if i don't always agree with the view expressed) but to be honest i'm not sure how your comment relates to my post. I am not saying questioning Trengroves form or potential is being traitorous (or perhaps that's not what you're implying)' Also not sure what you mean by all is good in the off season, given the negative rumblings even on a thread that is nominally about an injury to the skipper (eg who cares he's no good anyway). Plenty of pre season examples thus far from posters wanting to point out how bad things are. One thing i will agree on however is that some things that go round and round on DL are pretty silly.

Satryricon, i am 100% with you on this. One of things i really hate when i go to the footy is supporters (demon or otherwise) bagging their own players and whilst DL is a forum to discuss things about the club i also hate when dees players get bagged on this site, or at least when it is over the top. Questioning form, application, attitude is ok. Bagging them unnecessarily is just rubbish And i for one cannot understand the lack of respect shown our skipper shown by several posters in this thread. As for the questions marks about his form and where he will get to again i'm left bewildered. He was the first to admit that last he didn't play as well as he had hoped but according to Neeld he met the KPI's set for each player. I thought he was terrific in the last few games and with his fantastic work ethic, attitude and approach to getting the best out of himself i am super confident he will end up being a star. What is no doubt is that he will be (and is already i reckon) a great leader for the MFC over the next decade and a player who role models to all how to go about preparing for and playing AFL footy. In case some people hadn't noticed the MFC has been in very short supply of exactly this sort of quality leader at the club for a long tome now and these qualities are exactly why Neeld made him the youngest ever AFL/VFL captain - that's 160 odd years! Unfortunately some people cannot see a player in holistic terms and as an example discuss his form last year in isolation, without considering what else he brings to the table and contributed to the team.

The thing that makes suspicious that this isn't really Seve posting is why he didn't use a photo of himself!

IMHO, since say 1975 the dees have only had one out and out champion player (I'm defining champion as a player who is in the top 30 players of the 'modern era" ie the last 40 years). And that's Robbie Flower. As a couple of people have noted, the ox had the potential to be in that league, but injuries cruelled him. Lyon was a top shelf A grade player, but not a champion. I was always (and still am) a huge Neita fan but i rank him a few notches below Lyon and a fair way of champion level. Top bloke, great club man but not a champion. I suspect those on this thread claiming he is didn't see him play that often. He was confidence player and if he stared poorly rarely could turn it around, particularly with his marking. Got in great positions but dropped way too many marks. Also never could kick bags. One champion in 40 years. No wonder we've not won a flag in that time.