leehow

I made the comment about clearances, because people were saying Neeld has no idea because he hasn't upgraded Magner. I understand that we are getting beaten in most/all areas of the game at the moment, but i feel that our mids were better last week than they had been all year, without Grimes or Trengove playing through there. Neeld is obviously showing faith in the players that played last week, and i feel that is the right decision. I know what Magner brings to the table, and we have the option of upgrading him at any stage during Grimes' injury. It just seems like some posters on here will criticise everything Neeld does without due thought as to why the decision is made.

I know you love your stats mate. Of that 110 extra disposals, how many of them do you think would have been sideways or backwards kicks because of our pressure? Obviously we need to get our hands on the ball more, and use it better when we get it, but that stat to me is meaningless in isolation.

Last week we had Grimes go down early, and Trengove not play through the middle at all, yet in my opinion saw the best performance from our midfielders of the year. We ended up losing the clearances 38-36 i believe, against a quality midfield. Those two are obviously out, so i think Neeld is backing the boys that played in there last week to replicate that performance. While it may seem a strange decision to some here, I think it is the right one. We can upgrade Magner at any stage during Grimes' injury, so lets see how the boys go this week and assess from there, rather than just saying Neeld has no idea because you want him gone.

Made the All Australian team in 2011, so reckon he went alright that year! Had injuries last year, which saw him struggle a bit. Has had a slow start to this year, again caused by off-season ankle surgery. His game last week was pretty good, admittedly the majority of his possessions were loose across half-back, but would walk into our midfield and be a massive help to Nathan Jones.

A player on the decline??? I understand your point about not paying overs, but Thomas turns 26 this year. I'm pretty sure he still has a few good years left in him.

Would you classify Clark, Dawes and Hogan as talls that can take marks? I certainly would. It's obvious to everyone that the midfield is our major problem. They will try and rectify that at the end of the year through trades, free agency and the draft. There wasn't many midfielders we could have traded for or got through free agency last year, and we picked up Viney and Toumpas in the draft. Sure they will have a massive crack at getting a big name this year, and look to draft the best available mids.

If they keep Byrnes, which they probably will for the reasons you've named, I would drop Strauss, move Dunn to the back line and have Mckenzie tag Ablett all day. Just like the option of having both Dunn and Mckenzie available to tag Ablett.

FB Garland Frawley Jetta HB Terlich McDonald Strauss C Evans Dunn M. Jones HF Howe Fitzpatrick Tapscott FF Bail Dawes Gawn R Spencer Jones Sylvia Int Trengove Mckenzie Viney Kent (sub) Outs - Byrnes Grimes Nicholson Ins - Fitzpatrick Dawes Jetta This is how i would like to see us line up. If Magner is upgraded, i would bring him in. Probably at the expense of Kent, although i think a game against younger bodies would do him the world of good. I want to see us try and stretch Gold Coast's defence by playing 3 big guys, all of whom are agile and good on the ground for their size. It will also help us with the get-out kick down the line, and the quick kick into the forward line, which we struggled with last week. Grimes is an obvious out. Nicholson gets replaced by Jetta, who i think offers just as much defensively, but has better skills. I would tag Ablett with Dunn/Mckenzie in short bursts, with Dunn told to look to push forward any chance he gets to make Ablett work and keep him accountable. Barring injury, I would look to sub Spencer out half way through the third, and ruck for the rest of the game with Gawn/Fitzpatrick to provide us with more run. Evans to run with Harley Bennell, and like Dunn, to push forward and spread hard to keep him accountable. Byrnes out, while he has been ok in a couple of games, I think Bail offers better pressure in the forward line, and better run through the middle when needed. I don't mind him having shots on goal, there have been a couple of times when he could have passed, but i like the fact he has the confidence to do it.

I support what Neeld is doing, and understand that we are not going to fix things in a season and a bit. He has said from the start that it will take 3 years, and I hope the club gives him that time. At worst, I would hope they give him at least until near the end of this season. If that is the case, and he gets the next 10-12 rounds, for the people that want him gone immediately, is there anything that could change your mind? Will a couple of unexpected wins and some good performances against stronger teams change your minds? Or does it not matter what happens, you just want him gone?

The goal that Sylvia kicked from Evan's pass was a result of us bringing the ball through the middle. While we have tended to use the boundary so far, I don't think that is a reflection on Neeld's gameplan, I think it's more that our players don't have the skill or confidence yet to take the game on. Having a couple of big marking targets, (Dawes/Clark) would help too. I think you'll see us come through the middle a lot more and try and open the game up once our players gel, better understand the game plan, and are fit enough to provide that option.

While he does have a long way to go i think his start to the season has been a lot better. He is starting to show a bit of consistency. His chase on Yarran was fantastic, he just needs to learn to do that every time.

I don't have the stats for the centre square clearances, but overall, we lost the clearances 38-36. Against a very talented midfield i wouldn't say that is being slaughtered, in fact, i think it was probably our best effort of the year in that regard.

Stuie, where did you get the tackle stats from? AFL stats say we lost the tackle count 79-64, which still isn't good enough, but is a lot better than being beaten by 30. For what it's worth, I thought today was a big improvement in intensity and effort. Thought the boys ran hard all day. We were let down by poor disposal, and the lack of a forward line. Our hurried kicks under pressure looked terrible today, but when you have a Clarke / Dawes / Hogan down there to contest and bring the ball to ground, it will make us a lot better team.

As others have said, it's good to see some of our up and coming players playing well at Casey. While it is tempting to put them in to see what they can do, I would love to see guys like Fitzpatrick, Taggert and Toumpas string together another 3-4 good games before they play for the Dees. Playing in a successful team and playing well, will give them a lot of confidence once they do make that step up. With our injuries, Fitzpatrick may be a bit closer seeing as he is in great form. Dawes i would expect to come straight in next week which will really help our structures, and release Howe a bit. It's looking like Magner won't be upgraded at the moment, but he can come in Round 11 i believe. He will take great confidence from his performances so far, and will be a help in the middle, the area we are really lacking. This should also be about the time Mitch comes back, so there are a couple of things to look forward to in a very disappointing season so far.

2 goals, 8 touches and 3 tackles early in 2nd quarter. Think we did very well out of Scully leaving, but he, in my opinion, will end up a very good player. Good to see GWS smashing the Bombers so far!

As long as we get Nat Fyfe that's fine.

In my opinion, Martin was never going to make it with us. He is not good enough to play first ruckmen, which i think put him behind Jamar, Gawn and even Spencer. Could possibly play as a backup ruckman/forward, but i just don't think he is dangerous enough as a forward, which is were he would have played 80% of the game. I think Neeld would have hopes of playing Clark in that role next year when Hogan and Dawes are both in the forward line. I cannot see Gysberts getting a game at North, and am happy we got rid of him to be honest. Doesn't really have any weapons. Gets a bit of the ball, but isn't effective when he does. Is not quick, has no tank. Yea, we could have kept him for another year and tried to improve his tank and put on a bit of size, but i think Neeld and the other coaches made the right decision. I'll be very surprised if we see him play another AFL game. Moloney definitely would have helped this year, but i think his form at Brisbane is partly because of having a better midfield around him. We know he can get the ball, it's what he does with it when he gets it that's the problem. And what he does when he doesn't have the ball. I had no issue with Neeld trying him in different roles last season, because he needed to be more versatile. It's disappointing that his time at the club ended the way it did, but i think he has to take as much of the blame as Neeld does.

Of the players he got rid of, which of them would you have liked to stay? Other than Moloney, and Rivers, who as i just said left because of restricted free agency, I think he did the right thing by getting rid of the others. Petterd had his chances, admittedly had injuries, but I think it was best for him to get a new opportunity, and for us to free up a list spot. Martin, good athlete, average footballer. Bennell and Morton, again, both had plenty of chances. What do you think Neeld could have done differently in working with them?

Rivers left as an unrestricted free agent, as far as i understand it we couldn't do much about it. Yes, if we were closer to playing finals he probably would have stayed. He wanted the chance to play in a premiership before he retires in a couple of years, and we weren't going to be able to offer him that. Unfortunately, that is going to happen more and more with free agency. So i don't think that Neeld can be blamed for him leaving.

I believe Jones is leading the league in clearances. He has to start in the middle.

It's good to hear he had a good game. Think he has definitely improved. Can't see them playing all three big guys as others have suggested, so would think for him to get a game he's going to have to replace Jamar.

Can someone tell me who Spencer rucked against at Essendon? I've read a few ppl say he dominated against a quality ruckmen. Hille and Bellchambers were in the seniors and Ryder was suspended, so not sure who it would have been.

Ben-Hur, you have said for a long time now, as you have here, that our midfield is substandard. I think everyone understands that, and to me, is the main reason why we're in this position. An average midfield makes forwards look average because of lack of supply and quality of supply, and the same with our defence. You say that we need more quality midfielders, and to give Toumpas and Viney time to develop which again i think everyone understands. What i don't understand is why you would not be prepared to give Neeld that time. He came to the club and straight away told us that we are nowhere near fit enough, which he, along with Misson, are working to rectify. If we are 30% down on AFL standard fitness, you cannot make that up in one, or two preseasons, especially with young players. Players take years for their bodies to adjust to the demands of AFL, and the club are doing the right thing by increasing loads slowly. Yes, it's a frustrating process, but it is one that will hold us in good stead for the future. The lack of quality midfielders is also a problem he inherited. I'm not sure what else he could have done since he arrived to fix this. We now have Viney and Toumpas, two extremely highly rated juniors, and if i remember correctly, the exact two players that you wanted. People questioned why we used a high pick on Hogan instead of a midfielder, and i think that is fairly obvious now. Again, Hogan was a player you pushed for. We got rid of Gysberts, who i don't think you rated, and rightly so. Moloney is the other one, and while he has had a couple of decent games at Brisbane, I think it was the correct decision to get rid of him. We brought in Rodan, who so far hasn't really done anything on the field, but it's very early in the season, and if he increases the competition and makes a kid have to work harder to get a game, then i think it was worth pick 88 or whatever we gave up for him. Matt Jones and Shannon Byrnes are two others who Neeld brought in to spend time in the midfield. Jones has been a success. Byrnes spends limited time there, but again, increases standards on the track and increases competition for a spot. Which players would you say haven't bought in? Or has Neeld "lost"? Personally, I think the majority of players like him and understand what he is working towards and putting in place. I think sacking him destabilises the place even more than it is, and will see the players confidence sink even further. If he was to be sacked, who would you replace him with? And do you think that person would have done a better job over the last year and a bit? I think it's very easy just to say 'sack the coach', and people will disagree and that's fine, but i think a viable alternative needs to be offered, and also for people to understand that what Neeld, Craig, Misson, etc are working towards isn't going to be fixed overnight, or even in the very immediate future. We will have more lows this year, and hopefully some more highs like Sunday's last quarter. At the very least, I think Neeld needs to be given the rest of the year to show us that he is on the right track.

Final team - Ins - Watts, Gawn Outs - Sellar, Toumpas

7:08 Comment From Liam Trying to get a big crew down to training to support the boys. So for any supporters that don't know and are free tomorrow morning. 9.45am at Gosch's Paddock. 7:09 Hi Liam, at this time, your support would be greatly appreciated and we're really pleased that we've got several supporters coming down. Paul.