phoenix

Thanks Dazzledavey36 for posting the links to twitter and other media. For those technically challenged like me they are gold. Go dees.

Careful buddy.

Have Rohan Bail's telephone number tattooed on my forehead.

Casey by a point and against the wind in the last.

Casey haven't scored this quarter and lions draw level.

Casey 7.9.51 v Coburg 6.2.38. McKenzie, Tapscott, Evans, Michie, Nicho all good. Blease lots of the ball but few if any contested possessions. Most MFC players in the game and contributing.

Casey 4.6.30 to Coberg 2.0.12. Evans and Kent best for Casey. Casey kicked with a strong breeze that quarter.

Bail.

I don't know why you'd think poor management is "music to my ears". In fact I've haven't been this depressed about our current situation since the late 70's. I hate it. and I'm worried hence I've posted. I don't blame Neeld at all for instituting his game plan. He would have presented it and we had the option of accepting or rejecting his proposition. We accepted it and our best course now is to support Neeld to the hilt. Whilst I know the Geelong game plan is built on contested ball it's also fair to say it requires run and carry, risk taking, use of the corridor and precision kicking to execute. These are skills based charactistics. The Collingwood game plan is much more indirect, stoppage and congestion based. We recruited skillful footballers who were perceived to have good kicking skills to execute Bailey's plan. Neeld's plan, at least what we've seen of it, is much more long kicking to an area of the ground and create a contest. I think the fact that we've recruited Tynan, Couch, Sellar and Magner highllight Neeld's belief that we need a different sort of player to suit his plan. I understand Taggart is also in this mold but I've not seen him play. I think Sanderson would have been a better fit for our list and previous game plan given his Geelong background. That Neeld's line now that we don't measure ourselves by wins and McLardy's that he's not sure what's gone wrong concern me. I'm glad the overwhelming sentiment is support for Neeld. I also support him but to be honest I've serious reservations about the club and it's ability to make sound decisions. I'm not sure I can ever remember a FD being so divided as ours was last year and I can't recall a situation where the CEO was involved in the type of speculation Schwab was last year. It's those background management issues that make me question the coaching selection process. That others are happy with it and support it is good. I just don't share that confidence that we got the best fit for our club.

As I said in that post "I suppose we'll now debate the example rather than the issue". Ben H and Old, the point I'm trying to explore is managements change of philosophy, not a debate on which game plan is right, which players are right or which coach is right. I can only explain their change by accepting they judged the Collingwood style to be better than the Geelong style and I don't know how you could bet 4 years development on that. And Old, the Geelong game last year was not representative of our season. We were 7.5 wins last year when Bailey was sacked with three wins in prospect despite the obvious flaws in our game. I doubt we'll get that this year with a team that includes Clark and a significant increase in FD personnel. Like McLardy, I can't explain that.

Game plans are refined, ours was rebuilt. Neeld said as much in his presser after the Dogs game. “It was a really good contested brand of footy. We’re going through a stage of building a base and building blocks. “When you’re starting to build something from scratch, people tend to analyse the tiny little things that got away, but it’s a lot bigger than that,”

Despite going to great efforts to explain that this is no criticism of Neeld it seems to have been interpreted as such. It's not. HT it's also got nothing to do with politics. It's got to do with decision making and why the club changed it's stance mid term. In 2007 and 2010 we pursued one course and in 2011 we changed. I think that was a mistake. It's not Neelds fault, it's got nothing to do with Adelaide's list or even the names of the coaches. Our list was being selected and trained to play a game plan. In 2011 this administration changed that midstream. It means that 4 years of player selection was on the wrong premise. For example Blease, Strauss and Bennell could well have missed our club and we could have gone for contested ball winners Shuey, Redden and Sloane. They would have suited the new game plan where the other three were selected for other reasons. I suppose we'll now debate the example rather than the issue, but that seems to be the way of it here. Like This "Strategy without tactics is the slowest way to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat"

Nice summary, nothing to do with the OP.

Your problem is that you're comparing lists and outcomes, I'm looking at the selection process of the coach and it's appropriateness which has got nothing to do with your focus. I hope you can see this.

I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done so unless you think he didn't tell the coaching selection panel what he was going to do or even worse, they didn't ask his part is "known". We've seen what Sanderson's done at Adelaide. He has introduced a more attacking Geelong game plan so unless he was going to do something different at Melbourne we know what he would have done. IMO it was folly to throw out 4 years work and a very poor management decision. That's my point.

In 2007, the then Gardner Board undertook a search for a new coach. They chose Bailey. Presumably during the interview process they established Bailey's football philosophy, game plan, strategies and measured those against the then "best practice". Bailey would have outlined the type of players that were needed to implement the strategy and then undertook the rebuild of a terrible list in conjunction with Cameron (2007) and Prendergast (2008 - 2011). In February 2010 the Stynes Board extended Bailey's contract by 12 months until the end of 2011. They had had the benefit of seeing Bailey in action for two years, had a chance to determine if his philosophies were sound and had seen how he managed the players and the other members of the club. Clearly they thought he was doing a good job and hence was extended on the back of 2 years "exposed form". in July of 2011, some 18 months after reviewing his performance and endorsing his direction they sacked him and undertook a search for a new coach. Among others Sanderson and Neeld applied at a time where Collingwood were seen as clearly the best side in the AFL. Sanderson would have come to interview and said "I've been at Geelong since 2007 and experience 2 GF victories and one defeat. Melbourne play a "Geelong" style of footy and I can take your group and build on what has been done since Bailey's appointment. It needs development but it's the same genre." Neeld would have come to interview and said "I've been at Collingwood since 2008 and I was involved in the 2010 GF. Collingwood are now the benchmark of the competition and it's game plan has superseded all others. It's designed on defence, stoppages and strength. Unfortunately your recruiting and coaching for the last 4 years is contrary to this game plan and I'll have to go back to square 1, rebuild your list and completely deconstruct the game plan. It will most likely take 3 to 5 years to build a list capable of competing at the top level. The last 4 years have been a waste." History now shows us that Geelong beat Collingwood in the 2011 GF and there game plan is being copied by most teams with the centre corridor being used much more frequently. Why did the current administration abandon 4 years of work and pain and opt for a complete rebuild last year when there was an equally well credentialed coach who could have taken that previous work and developed it? The only reason I can think of is they didn't believe the Geelong game plan could stand up. To make that decision a sophisticated understanding of game plans and the future direction of the game would be critical. And guess what, there wasn't a coach on our selection panel just a couple of Board members, a footy commentator who hasn't coached and an administrator. IMO Sanderson was clearly the correct choice because he would have develop and used philosophies based on Geelong and endorsed by the very people who extended Bailey contract and run our club now. Neeld was a knee jerk reaction to copy the team of the moment but which ended up failing in September and are struggling now. Our management panicked and abandoned their 4 year strategy and we are now back to square one where we don't even measure our performance by wins (Neeld presser after Bulldogs) and a President who by his own admission has got no idea why things have gone so wrong. Encouraging isn't it! Clarification: This is in no way a criticism of Neeld, it is a critique of the management flip flop that has given us the laughing stock of the competition and consigned us to yet another rebuild.

Unlike many here I thought his presser was first rate. In contrast to the uncontrolled spoiled brat performance post Brisbane where he wanted to kick anyone and anything other than himself he was measured, realistic, informative and looked like he was in control. It's the best I've seen him perform in public. That doesn't mean I like where we are at, just that I liked the way he handled things. What will upset many is that he is telling the truth at the moment, they are not excuses, they are reasons. That won't placate the frustration supporters feel, but it's reality.

I reckon there are some excellent discussion points in the OP and congratulate Gotsy15 for raising them and responding in the way he has when he has been attacked for no good reason. The question for me is should Neeld ignore the attributes of the players and coach his game style regardless or try and use the attributes of the players. Many make the point, fairly, that it's really too early to tell and most, including me, want to believe in Neeld. But that doesn't mean we can't question his approach and like Gotsy I have concerns. In essence if what he is doing is using fear as one of his primary tools then he won't gain the respect of the players and that is a major issue. The other interesting thing, which I think I'm right in saying, is that of the coaching group only two have done the job before. We have Craig in the wings but only Royal and Rawlings have done their job at AFL level previously. Whilst we focus on the inexperience of the players the coaches hardly have a game between them. The most disappointing thing from my viewpoint is the lack of commitment of the players to the contest and after all the focus of the preseason was aimed at that I was hoping for more. Early days - poor start and I fear for next week. One this is for sure, Neeld has not shown Bailey up at this stage.

Couch reminds me of Fisher, Valenti and the like. Good player but not someone who will really have an impact. And he's slow even at VFL level. Magner will do me. I thought Couch was good on Saturday at stopping the opposition take control at clearances but he doesn't "create" much. Gysberts does/did.

I don't get the love for Couch and Magner in this thread. I've seen them be good grunt players but neither have yet to do anything at all classy. Putting both in would be silly IMO. Couch is very slow and would struggle to keep up with McLean. He couldn't break away at Casey let alone senior level. Gysberts is much more of a chance. I like Tynan but he's nowhere near senior selection. He does nice things and he's hard but he needs an apprenticeship. Interesting that Bail played predominately as a pressure forward on Saturday and for all I like him he's in the 18 to 26th best player at the moment and will need to take his chance when it comes. McKenzie has only played 5 quarters of footy this year and didn't play Saturday. He has to be doubtful.

Couldn't agree more BH, he was certainly recruited as a key forward. Will he end up there? I don't know and as we are several years down the track and have a different list I wonder how important that is. I saw last nights game and just marveled at Watt's skill. In the end every time he went near it the crowd rose. At one point the ball looked like it was going through for a point but he kept it in, got it to a team mate who goaled. He makes the very hard look very easy because for him it is. He couldn't have done that at VFL level 2 years ago and I doubt he could do it at AFL level now but I think he will in future and he will be very effective, but perhaps not as a key forward. I share your disappointment that he is not the pack breaking key forward that we "bought" but I relish the future watching him do things. Unlike many I don't want him to break packs apart, I want him to apply his skills and be a very effective player - perhaps elite. Let less skilled bigger builds break their bodies on that task as Jack would be wasted on it anyway. Other players couldn't lay a hand on him last night and it was a pretty good standard game. IMO Watts could be the elite midfielder we crave but that's just speculation. BH, how do you interpret Jack playing on the wing for much of the time last night when Neeld said he'd play deep forward? That is the really interesting part to me.

Very good!! I've been like most and written Michael Newton off. I wouldn't have re-signed him last time and thought he was a flat track bully and teaser. I've been very slow to warm to him again - I've been caught before like that. When someone first mentioned to me that he could "do a Jamar" I thought "no, Jamar dominated at Sandy for a long time in a way I've never seen Newton dominate". Jamar just looked confident when he played at Sandy - got the ball all the time and took marks around the ground. VFL clubs couldn't stop him. He just always looked completely out of his depth at AFL level. Then something happened and we have one of the best ruckmen in the comp. Jamar is playing today at AFL level almost to the same level he played at VFL level. Until the last few games I've never seen Juice be so comfortable in his surroundings at VFL level the way Jamar was. But the last two games he has. He just knows he's better than them - he uses his strength confidently and say what you like - he's got great skills. The worry of course is that this is an indian summer for Juice. A couple of good games that never translate to AFL level. It took The Russian 3 or 4 years to translate that VFL form to AFL level. But Juice has some things going for him - not least the changing landscape of AFL footy. Rather than a leading goal kicking forward, a role Juice may always have struggled with, there is the second ruck, mobile around the ground player who goes forward and can jump at the ball, bring it to ground and apply pressure (Jamar and Spencer would always struggle with this role). The query I have is whether Juice can do the second ruck role well enough because I think he's got the skills to do the rest. We invested about 6 to 8 year in the Russian and are finally being rewarded. I'd hate to invest 6 years in Juice, see some signs, drop him and then look at him in another teams colors doing a good job in a specialist role all for a one year contract. The ruck/forward role is a new thing and I reckon the players that can do both aspects well will be like hen's teeth. Juice is possibly one of them.

It's that sort of ignorant comment that I hate. Did you see him play today and how many times have you seen him at Casey this year?? For the record I've seen him twice in the past 4 weeks (Bendigo and Werribee) and on both occasions he's looked a cut above. Yesterday after a quiet first quarter he was terrific and mainly around the ground as ruckman - not as a leading forward (where he also did ok). If Michael Newton continues to play the way he is I'd be astounded if he wasn't retained on the rookie list or even promoted to the senior list. He's 23, he looks like a late maturer to me and could well replicate Mark Jamar's late success. He is a rookie and played early in the year as Luke Tapscott was on the LTI list. ATM Michael is not a promoted or nominated rookie and is unavailable for selection for MFC. My guess is that they will try and find a way of promoting him prior to year's end.

Great news for the club. Few had faith in Jamar - perhaps none - I for one really doubted he could make it but I was slower than many to dismiss him. But those that saw him at Sandy in his early years knew what he was capable of and it was impossible to dismiss him completely. The major point of interest is "what caused the change". I reckon it was three things - firstly developing confidence in his body, secondly developing the self confidence that he belonged at AFL level and finally just maturing as a person. His next challenge is to see if he can become a genuine forward threat - if he can do that he'll become an exceptional player. But of course we need to recognize that he's really only performed well for about 20 games in 8 years so the future isn't assured. The other issue of course is to learn from the lesson. Can anyone think of a player on our list with great talent but who lacks confidence that he belongs at the top level and is immature? I can.

The only changes to the mature aged rookie rules are that you can now have two and there is no games limitations. Previously to be a mature aged rookie you could not have played any AFL games. The other change is you can now have two mature aged rookies. Newton is not 23 so would not be a mature aged rookie, just a rookie, but you can still do it. Hughes is already a mature aged rookie. The process is that the players are delisted by the club. With time to run on their contract they are automatically put into the ND and the PSD and anybody can pick them up. If they are not picked up they can be rookied by their original club or any other club. Therefore there is a chance you could lose them so you'd only do it with players you'd be prepared to lose.