nutbean

I just find the "not landing the big fish" disappointment interesting.

I love Mick Malthouse but draw a line under him up until 2009 - success or failure ? Two GF's for no flags in nine years under an administration that spared no expense ?

Ross Lyon - has done remarkable well but the Saints are looking decidedly on the wane - did not snare the big one

Clarkson - also has done very well but took his group to premiership and since then has been "daniher-esque"

Bomber Thompson - sustained success but took a while to get there

The take home message is that these proven coaches can be made to look good because of good teams. On the flip side good teams are developed by good but not necessarily proven coaches. You need a lot of things to go your way. Why did Hawks win the flag 2008 but struggled to replicate that form up to this year. How did the Saints go to 2 GF's in two years and this year limp in. Why did it take MM 10 years to get the ultimate prize.

The "big fish" won the first four premierships of 2000's - Sheedy and Matthews ( Matthews because he had done it before at Collingwood and I include madman Sheedy because he went up the mountain again to grab a flag) bit since then Port ( Williams) - an assistant, Swans (Roo's) an assistant, Eagles ( Worsfold) an assistant, Cats ( Thompson) - an assistant, Hawks ( Clarkson) - an assistant and then Thompson again and MM.

Looking at this history ( and ignore history at your own peril) I ask the question - would you go any other way but to hire an assistant coach ?

I am firmly in the camp of wait and see - I like the noises Neeld makes and look forward to it being translated into positive action.

I am already slightly more whelmed (I know) following Schwab's interview on SEN and Neeld's interview on DeeTV.

I am neither overwhelmed or underwhelmed - i will take a supportive what and see approach.

I am completely parallelo-whelmed

I'm happy with him at the club and I'm happy with Neeld as Coach. Let's hope that he gets the people that he needs behind him and the supporters get on board as well.

You missed one Robbie - the players !!!!

I am hoping the players embrace being the hardest team to play and learn and display what they will be taught by this man ( an effective forward press for one !)

It was the most surreal month of my life...

The complete euphoria after beating the doggies to get into to the finals. Hugging randoms in the street ( I could get locked up for that now)

I still have distinct memories of the pre-game and how I was like a sausage on hot plate.

I remember the Tony Campbell was a virtual unknown and did well up forward

I remember the Swans games the week after and feeling a little smug watching Gerard Healy walking dejectedly off the ground for the Swans and thinking " glad you left for greater success"

I remember the week after ( Prelim final vs Hawks) and sitting speechless in the stands for about 30 minutes after game - not moving - not speaking. Shattered.

I prefer the 3 previous weeks

Of course you're underwhelmed because Neeld comes with no recognizable name, and there were no fire works at the press conference.

Coached his local team to 4 premierships in a row, that requires baddassness no matter what league you're in. Spent the last 4 years under Malthouse... yet everone would do a back flip if we landed MM- but his protoge leaves you underwhelmed?

It's an unpopular sentiment because it is unfounded and based on your own insecurity. Get behind the club.

Neeld could be Clarkson circa 2005 or Lyon circa 2007.

He may fail.

But a Malthouse could be a Malcolm Blight circa 2005 or a Sheedy 2012-2013 ( given long term leave of absense mid 2013 - due to senility)

I've noticed a few comments reegarding Clarkson being untried, he did coach in the VFL and had premiership sucess in his first year at Centrals in the SANFL, some comments here read as if he were a Tim Watson type appoinment at the Saints.

Clarksons resume prior to the senior gig at the Hawks reads no better or worse than Neelds. There is a huge amount of difference between a Clarkson/Neeld and a Watson (and even Hird).

The point that is being made is that the assistants like Neeld or Clarkson are untried as senior coaches and the Clarkson comparison is in response to the debate of an experienced senior coach as opposed to an untried assistant. Drawing the comparison to Clarkson is very valid.

Whether or not it was his "outside" impression of us I loved his choice of response. He could have fielded the question of what sort he wanted acheive with words like success ,premierships or even the dreaded competitive - he went with the word "hard". "We will be the HARDEST team to play against".

I think the wider football community does view us as a bit soft and even happy to be "ok" - certainly we are not perceived as having a hard ruthless edge. I talked to good mate of mine who barracks for cats and he pointed out that until Thompson the cats could not dispell the "handbaggers" tag. We havent heard it since Thompson turned them around. It takes a year or two of displaying hardness to be perceived as a hard team.

cudos to you, Dean...

I find it hard to understand the notion that an "experienced" coach can just be picked up off the street like so many freo memberships right now. that coupled with the assumption that experienced = successful. Northey, experienced, Danners, experienced (and probably still available), Eade, experienced. Lots of coaching years in that trio, how many flags?

I'm happy with Neeld, it seems to me (based on public knowledge as I don't talk to filth supporters or listen to Mick Malthouse, or know someone who's brother knows someone at the club)that Neeld knows what he is doing and can communicate to the playing group an ethos that has been lacking since the 90's.

Anyway, what the hell can we do about it anyway? The club has chosen him, yet posters here will continue to right page upon page of meaningless dribble about how the dee's have failed again...

Get behind the club, get behind mark neeld. and get behind the playing group (most importantly) and look at 2012 as the year that we finally turn potential into success....

I was a big advocate of Mick Malthouse for our top job but am also thoughtful enough to realise that we would be getting Malthouse and not the Collingwood team - A lot has to go right, not only with your coaching but the drafting and the development of players to acheive ultimate success. We are getting caught up in the Malthouse hype because we are taking a snapshot right now. If you were to draw a line under Malthouse from 2000-2009 , the finals played in ( one extra grand final) resembled our Neale Daniher. Danners seasons were more hot and cold but finals appearance are very similar and how does history judge Danners ?

This is not a knock on Malthouse but more for people to take a reasonable approach to our new appointment rather than suggesting a highly credentialled assistant coach wont have the same success as a Malthouse may have.

For those who are saying this path has been tried and failed have a close look at some history

Peter Schwab was coach at Hawthorn ( his background was also an assistant) and was sacked in 2004 to be replaced by OMG...an untried premiership assistant coach in Alistair Clarkson

Grant Thomas was a left of centre coaching appointment for StKilda sacked in 2006 to be replaced by OMG...an untried premiership assistant coach in Ross Lyon

Dean Bailey came down the same path as above - if Neeld fails then so be it - but i am tipping if down the track we have success we will rewrite history on Bailey and say that whilst he didnt have any success he stripped the club of 90% of the deadwood and began the rebuild that our success is built on.

I give my full support (and reserve my judgement - be it praise or condemnation) as this decision has been made by smarter and infinitely more well informed people than me.

There is a huge difference to listening to, and inderstanding what is being said

He was lobbing grenade after grenade at the MFC

Simon and Garfunkel expressed it beautifully in their seminal "Sounds Of Silence"

If he was lobbing grenades he forgot to pull the pins out. I heard/comprehended/understood something completely different from you obviously.

I've said it in previous threads. Rivers for 2 seasons and then Trengove to take over.

Get Trengove, Frawley & McKenzie into the leadership group next year.

Go back to the Neeld thread and look at the youtube clip of Rivers with Carey talking about us - if thats what he offers as leadership - gawd......

Insipid responses - hardly inspiring

Wow, clearly you must've been right in the inner sanctum when we were selecting our last coach. Otherwise, how would you they "kicked sand in the face" of Sheedy? Sheedy went for a job and presented for it, Bailey presented better. Does choosing someone over him constitute insulting him?

I will probably be the odd one out here, but I'm backing in the last selection panels decision on Bailey. You can only choose the best person based on what is presented to you, Bailey promised a period of development, where he'd play kids and play for draft picks, he has done that. I always questioned whether he'd have to ability to get us to the next level, but I felt at that time the concern was secondary to what we required.

So was their appointment of Bailey wrong? IMO it was not.

Was their sacking of Bailey wrong? Hell no, he'd taken the list as far as he could.

Am I glad we didn't get Sheedy in the beginning? You damn right I am, he is nothing more than a promotional coach at GWS, make no mistake the real brains at the Giants is Choko.

Odd two out - I agree with you.

Bailey was an assistant in a highly successful period at Port.

Clarkson was an assistant in a highly successful period at Port.

Lyon was an assistant in highly successful period at Port.

Scott was an assistant in a highly successful period at Collingwood.

We are not privvy to what is presented to the panel but I would be very surprised if the boxes we wanted ticked were not hard edge, no nonsense, non acceptance of mediocrity etc.

60 games of VFL/AFL footy. Coached Ocean Grove to a few flags. Second fiddle at another club. Forgive those of us who aren't doing cartwheels in our pyjamas.

Alistair Clarkson says hello

On ya bike then. Bailey was experienced at Port, big difference between them and the Pies I'd suggest.

I trust the decision that the club has made.

But I wouldn't cite differences between Port and the Pies - Port were premiers and we pinched a premiership assistant as did Hawthorn ( Clarkson). When we got Bailey Port had just finished where the Pies are now.

I'm a little dissapointed we still leak our information. I'm sure it wasn't planned to have an anncouncement on Saturday which Gary cannot make but like the appointment of Neeld. Now for Pendles to re kindle his demon passion. All year we should put pressure on the pies. Just like GWS did to us.

Information was leaked out of Collingwood not Melbourne - and Garry would not name the coach - just said we have a coach and an announcement tomorrow

I think he means Clarkson was never really available, and we never had a chance with Ross Lyon because of what some would call underhanded tactics, but even then he would not speak to us when we made enquiries, so you'd presume he was not interested.

I don't agree that we should have been beating down Ross Lyon's door and circumventing his management.

There's a train of thought that he even approached Freo himself - does that sound like a man who was interested in our job?

You can't force someone to coach your club.

I'd say GL is certain we have a list of very impressive candidates and setups in mind, meaning a man who has proven to have little integrity is actually of little interest to us.

Scott Burns and Neil Craig sounds like a bloody good setup to me, if it has any legs.

Maybe all you say is correct but the fact is that there was one coach out of contract and one coach who has now moved clubs. If I was one to read into words ( which I dont because no one is above spinning the truth including our Garry) you would question Garry's choice of words - "We have not missed out on any one" - yeah we have - two possibilities that we were reportedly linked with. "we are right on track" - if we are right on track then Clarkson and Lyon were never our real targets.

Just odd turns of phrase.

Is it acceptable to actively get a fellow colleague sacked for a pay rise?

Clubs have to fire coaches so they can get a (perceived) better coach

Coach goes to another club where they have to fire their coach for him to get a better gig.

Same same - whats good for the clubs is good for the coaches - two can play that game - Malcolm Blight 16 games into a contract - bye bye.

If all is to be believed, then it could have been handled a lot better by Ross signalling earlier that he was off. And Freo releasing Harvey earlier ( if it was a done deal a while back) but it just continues the trend of ruthlessness in the AFL.

There are no rules to this.

Freo shafts a coach with a contract

Coach with a contract shafts club

Pies head hunted a coach with a contract in Malthouse

Seeing how ruthlessly clubs dispose of coaches when they want to, how could anyone blame a coach for taking the same ruthless approach to securing their future?

bazinga

As I have stated from day one - I am an "ink on paper" man. Until something is signed sealed and delivered, everything talked about, written about, commented on by all parties is fluff and nonsense - I cant differentiate fact from fiction and wont even try...

Having said that

"We're not missing out on anyone. The only thing that's important is for the Melbourne footy club people to realise that we are absolutely on track."

What the hell does that mean, Garry ? Clarkson ? R Lyon ? One re-signed and one went elsewhere. If we are not missing out on anyone and are on track you would assume that we are getting the person we want ?

(I refer back to my first paragraph - I am the same person who accepted TS when he said " I want to finish my career as a one club player and anticipate that will be case" - I WANT TO SMELL INK ON PAPER)

To turn this into a negative for the Dees is simply preposterous. The reason Freo acted most unusually in contacting a coach direct was because their target shared managers with their current coach so to go through normal channels was impossible.

or...Freo wouldnt take no for an answer ?

( who knows - just having fun !)

I wait with bated breath.

Matty Bate is the leak ? that's a big call - got proof of that ?

I'm not saying that Melbourne should have done what Freo did, what I am saying is that I disagree with the OP, Freo did a great job. They did whatever it takes to get their man, and their actions are not making Melbourne look good.

Point 2 wasn't meant to be a shot at you, it was more along the lines of I understand that supporters want to back the club and be positive, but in this case Freo has done a great job, and it appears better than Melbourne. Could have been put better.

To your first point - I am exactly saying we should do what Freo did

To your second point - Freo did do a good job but I withhold judgement on us possibly doing a better job until I see how it plays out for us.

There was a need to go through the back door, because that is what happened. I can't understand how you fail to see that. It is fact, it's not even a debate.

And if I can again ask you to read the OP before responding. This is a thread about Freo looking bad. I'm saying that did a great job at getting what they want.

I'm semi with you with lots of "if's".

What I have no idea on is to what extent we enquired on Ross Lyon, if the MFC wanted him at all or if we have someone else in mind who we have landed or hope to land.

Having said at all that - I dismiss the gentlemanly strategy of approach his management, ask the question and then walk away. The question Freo obviously threw the rule book away.

Therefore I like Freo's balls of steel and I will take a stab at initiating the "Freo approach" to luring Malthouse to the MFC.

1/ Speak to Malthouses management about coming to MFC - if there is no interest there....

2/ Speak to Malthouse directly and tell him why it is such a wonderful idea to come to the MFC...if there is still no interest

3/ Talk to Mrs Malthouse directly and tell her that she will be on the front cover of Demons WAG's magazine if she can tempt Mick to come across...if still no interest

4/ Approach Spot Malthouse and offer him 10 bones a week to bite Mick on the leg until he agrees to come to the MFC.

In short - time to make your own rules, MFC.

So you would call into question Ross Lyons integrity but every club that has the backroom meetings to discuss the coach's future and then fire him before the end of contract is fine ?

"the coach has the full support of the board" means pack your bags son, you are done and dusted.

Clubs for many a year have been sacking coaches and many on this board called for Baileys sacking last year with one and half years on his contract without batting an eyelid. As soon as coach does the same thing to ensure his long term financial security we call his integrity into question.

The question is where you set the bar on integrity for both club and coach as the clubs have been acting without integrity when it comes to coaches for years and it is accepted practice - clubs have been doing what is in the best interests of the club and now Ross Lyon has done what is in the best interests of Ross Lyon.