nutbean

Actually the buck starts and stops with the head coach as there is that much overlap that not one of the coaches can work in isolation

I'll be controversial. We dont need to slang off at each other - but there are many posts that i would just like to press the dislike button on. If 100 posters press the dislike button on a post - we have a fair idea that the suggestion or idea wasnt all that well received.

I'm plain ignorant and non judgemental as most of us here should be. I suspect most of us have zero insight as to him doing a good,bad or indifferent job. - therefore we have no choice but to take the stance " the club knows what it is doing". The same goes, IMHO, on assistant coaches - lets wallop Royal as we cant get the ball out of our backline but should we be walloping the midfield coach as the midfielders are static and not offering any options for the backmen to kick to. Lets [censored] our forward coach but how does the ball come into the forward line from midfield ? is it the ruck coaches fault that we dont get clearances or the midfield coach because the midfield is not in right places ? We have little insight as to what the overall game plan was. In fact the game plan may be ok but there is massive disconnect between plan and execution. We are all quick to judge with so little information.

I dont know what Neeld would "add" to a footballer but as it stands now Dawes ( except recently when he has come back from injury) has been a sensational , present and present again footballer with excellent defensive skills and loved by coaches for his 2nd and 3rd efforts. Jessie White has lots of talent but is bone lazy. It aint about the service - compare both of them when they don't have the ball - thats the making of Dawes.

I have zero insight on any of assistants but I loved West as a player and always hoped this his blue collar desperation and desire to get his hands dirty and get in and under ( and lots of other cliches) would translate to the playing group - apparently not !

Pendlebury didnt sign a one year contract to play the $$$$ game this year. This house in Toorak will go on the auction block at the end of next year.

It doesn't say anything to me - it SCREAMS to me G.W.S. ( what a wonderful negotiating ploy- Milk the Pies for both years that GWS is able to take uncontracted players - his managers are genius's)

On that basis,surely you would agree the talk of "moving him on" by some on here is a bit knee jerk. In fact I would be as dirty on the likes of Rivers and Davey as they gave nothing.to help Green, In fact I am most livid at Rivers - as I have witnessed his leadership skills first hand. There is link somewhere on this board with Wayne Carey chatting with Rivers. Carey was making statements about us being a rabble, coachless and losing Scully and instead of making of a strong statement on behalf of the club he went insipid and folded like a bad poker hand. How about saying "the problems reported during the year were media beat up of the highest order, As greeny said - all clubs have differences of opinion and they are worked through - you Wayne should know that as well as any one from your years at North. Whilst we dont like losing our coach, you dont release a coach to end up with a worse coach - we will get the best possible coach available have no doubt about that. And Tom Scully left for greener pastures. - so be it - we will be compensated and have super talent on our list that will continue to develop. Players come and players go that will never change. We are about a list of 40 not one single player" - Jonno Brown would have steamrolled Wayne Carey. Now THATS how a leader responds ( sorry about the highjack but if you want to vomit have a look at the Carey/Rivers clip)

Where did this Pendlebury poaching come from - he has signed an extension with Pies for a year

I actually think that Green does provide experience and leadership. Look at last year - turning games of his own boot, leading by example, and plenty of chat to the youngsters on the field. He has had a poor year and has not taken the required step from being a leader to THE leader. ie the captain. In fact in the leadership department he has gone backwards this year. When we looked at leaders at the end of last year we looked at Davey ? Rivers ? Moloney ? Grimes ? and Green. With the exception of Moloney, Green was probably the standout. I dont think we should re-write history. There was a reason most of us here thought he would be a good captain - it was based on his 2010 season and his steady progression to a harder footballer, with an ability to do "lead by example" acts on the footy field. I would remove the captaincy from him but definately leave him in the leadership group. It would not surprise me if they gave him a second year as Captain based on this year being an abberation. I will ask people to wind back a year and see if they foresaw Brad having such a horrible year as Captain - I certainly didnt

I thought the Sidebottom and Pendlebury comment was taking the mickey ( or taking the Mikey). Pendlebury has signed for one further year at the Pies. (GWS 2013 here we come)

nice and clean feel - I like it

Interesting that we made a play for Hale last year - I would suggest that Stef Martin stepping up the way he did was not factored into the decision to go for Hale.

Jake Carlise ? At the bombers I think.

You point of boxing camps and familiarisation of MFC history is important however onfield leadership IMHO is 75% most important part of a captains role. Beamer has been really good in some matches but his disappearance in others has been disturbing. Gavin Brown was nowhere near the best footballer at Collingwood but week in and week out he would throw himself on live grenades for the team and the team wanted to follow that man. On Beamers off days I would like to see him do something to influence the team albeit small things - rather than disappear off the face of the earth.

The most disappointing part of the Daniher years onwards has been development. Some posters talk critically about our drafting but the biggest question for me is why we have footballers who become good but seem to hit a ceiling that doesnt allow them to go beyond that. From the Daniher years Green,Davey and Bruce have (had) every attribute to get to the elite level but stalled. I see the talent at the club and there are a few players that have the potential to be elite. Potential is the ugliest word in the football dictionary. We really havent had elite in the mould of Buckley, Voss, Hird since Robbie Flower. We havent had anyone in the league of Pendlebury, Swan and an emerging Thomas who have taken that next step. I even look at Travis Cloke - he has taken that next step. I hope that Neeld and his new team will be able coach players to that next step - I have seen a plethora of good MFC footballers - I want to see an era of good footballers becoming great footballers.

Let me rephrase on the tackles - watch Swan - he always seems to get his hands free to deliver a hand pass. Jones runs in congestion ends up in a lot of dead contests ( which is infinitely better than not impacting on a contest at all). Incidently Swans disposal is actually no better or worse than Jones - he can also spray. I think the difference is that hSwan rarely seems to make dumb decisions. The other thing that needs to be recognised when comparing players from say Geelong or Collingwood is the team mates provide clear, unambiguous options for the likes of a Swan to take. It is easy for Swan to deliver to players like Thomas etc who keep presenting and making space.

Nope - leading teams doesn't find the leaders - the program helps identify the leaders. It is through the actions of the individual player within the the system that this leadership comes to the surface. Leading teams also provides support and eduction to improve leadership skills. The problem is that there are many different aspects to leadership and you may be a standout within the program but that may not translate into leadership action on the field. We only have insight as to how Green behaved onfield and from a few media performances - we have no insight to his leadership in talking to players, mentoring and off field stuff. On the reverse side ( and I can only gauge this from the limited view we have on the outside) - I think that Judd shows tremendous leadership qualities on the field but to my mind has been lacking in leadership in some of the incidents that have occurred off the field. Edit: there many different aspects of leadership but to me the most important is what Judd does on the field ( most of the time) - that captains ability to elevate himself and impose himself on the result. The "do as I do" approach. Judd does it, Hodge does it, Brown does it - however one of the best captains is Nick Maxwell - does he do it ? not really.

Can you coach "moments of dumbness" out of a player and coach in patterns of play- where you should be and where you should run ? Look at Nathan Jones - always prepared to do the hard yards and is the closest we have to busting a gut to provide options - I believe he has gained a yard of pace from last year. He is strong through the body but doesnt know how or hasnt been taught to shrug a tackle. He is definitely the subject of the not so occasional brain fade. Am I being overally optimistic in him turning into our version of Dane Swan ? Statistically ( yeah ...i know) - Chunk has averaged 9 disposals less a game this year, marks and tackles are close - the big one is the amount of goals Swan has kicked 31 to Jones 14. The remarkable feature is that Swan is 4 years older than Jones - go back to season 2007 for Swan and it is almost mirror image of Jones 2011. Swans became a ball magnet he is today in season 2009 at age 25. The reason I have picked Jones is he has one outstanding quality - he is prepared to run all day.

Nutbeans Law - refrain from making big ballsy statements - they tend to bite you in the arse. I posted prior to Shanes delisting that I saw him being our version of Sam Mitchell - yikes. He does play the game the same way - but you are right - maybe the gap between VFL and AFL is too much for him.

My back and my hand are a bit sore from the constant patting on the back I am giving myself. But your previous post sums up my thoughts - yes we need a game plan but we need to do the simple things better but more importantly harder. Commentators mention that games plans to a certain extent go out the window in the finals and it reverts back to one on one footy. So who wins ? The team that goes harder at the contest, goes harder when the ball is in hand and goes harder when the ball isnt. The difference between Heath Shaw and say Jamie Bennell - at the risk of being shouted down I would suggest the our Jamie probably has more tricks - but Heath Shaw runs hard yards over and over and over again to give an option. He throws his body into the line of fire without fear or favour. Jamie at this stage doesnt do this. I look at the Pies and I only see three to four footballers who will beat their opponents one on one on every occasion - Pendlebury, Didak, Cloke and now Thomas ( and cameo's from the Krak ) - the balance are better than their opponents because they work harder. ( and yes - are better drilled, but you can be as drilled as you like - without a work ethic drilling is moot). Dane Swan is my perfect example - he is quick but not lightening, he is adequate overhead without being sensational, his disposal is ok. What he is, is a continual presenting machine - never stops presenting and never stops running - he just gets to contest after contest. Now he may be drilled in structures and where he should be presenting but he has to have the want and desire to do the yards. We need to be drilled and have a game plan - but first we need a committment from the players to be hungry and hard - not just to expect things will happen but to make things happen by gut busting running and presenting. If this is the hardness that Neeld can extract from our list he will be a success.

I was 6 months ahead of time - I compared Melbourne to Collingwood in article published on AFL.com. What is interesting is the Collingwood comparison - if he can bring the two things that are so evident at Collingwood to Melbourne I will be a happy man ( you will note that I used the word harder almost a dozen times in the article. Hey Mark - I want royalties !) http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110896/default.aspx If I was to have my time again, I wouldnt be so dismissive of "the game plan" - but I am still of the opinion that you can have all the game plans in the world but if you cant execute then it is nothing more than chalk on a blackboard ( or whiteboard these days)

I said senior - meaning top dog Assistants get poached, get sacked, move on for various reasons.

!00% right and I hadn't factored that in. As a football onfield decision I have no problem with Neeld. Financially, even though both a MM and RL would cost more, the financial bottom line would look better with an MM and to a lesser extent RL at our club - you would back in higher memberships at all levels. The other thing which a MM or RL would bring to the club is an immediate impact on the attitude some other clubs players ( and assistants and even sponsors) - "MM is at the MFC and thats where I want to go".

At first the only thing I think was a bit low was Lyon telling his management to continue negotiations with the Saints, to the extent that all his management thought all that was required was Lyons signature. All the time, he was negotiating with the Dockers behind their backs. But then we know that "the board has full confidence in the coach" means they are preparing to move him on. Also, even though there is no factual evidence, it is widely held that Hird was already tied up at Essendon before they gave Knights the heave ho. It would not be unheard of for clubs to be feeling out coaches well in advance of showing the incumbent coach the door. I guess Lyon has just got as down and dirty in his dealings with his club the same way as clubs get down and dirty in their dealings with their coaches. Edit - the major difference is motivation - clubs deal dirty with coaches for "the betterment of the club". Lyon has dealt dirty with the club for Lyons benefit. Same dirty dealing , different motivations