Maldonboy38

He is one of the players I want to do well, but today, apart from a few outstanding kicks he was poor . His hands are made of trampolines - the ball just bounces off them. Also his turning circle is like the Titanic. And as far as handballing to stationary team mates - this is one skill he has perfected.

Right........

It's all about the coach, nothing else.

Funny, we had a different coach recently.

In fact, we've had 2 other coaches recently.

And they got similar results.

But it's the coach... All the coach...........

You misunderstand me.

When I say "it is not about..." I mean that Mark Neeld is responsible for inspiring and leading us out of all these things. If we lack skill or endeavour, no player or group of players change this of their own accord - they are coached out of it and I expect Neeld to do the same. I am not blaming him for all that is transpiring but I unashamedly lay at his feet the task of change. It is an expected part of his role.

In part Striker, I agree with you. However, two glaring areas of weakness killed us time and time again today.

1. To use a tennis term "unforced errors". Our back 6 would win the ball, get it to the wing and the next disposal would be inexplicably poor. Missing targets, kicking blindly, or even centring it and having it cut off.

2. Our work around stoppages when Richmond won the ball. They would spread and end up with 3 versus 1 and run it freely through the middle of the ground. Our defensive gut running is horrible, and if we did not have Jones today, and to a lesser extend Jordie, we would not have been within 15 goals of the tigers.

But as for your comments about not thinking any of our players were awful, I reckon you may need to get your eyes tested. Morton, Bate, and Bartram lacked class and effort and trailed thier opponents for much of the day. When they did get clear, with a few exceptions they were embarrasing.

We exempt Neeld from blame for the debacle but we bake Royal when he has absolute dross (excluding Jones) to work with.

Demonland at its best.

I am not exempting Mark Neeld. But our midfield work is even worse than the Suns, and Royal is our man. Surely he has some serious questions to answer.

A coach has to take some of the heat when 16 out of 22 players are all out of form and playing without confirence at the same time.

This is not about talent.

This is not abut endeavour.

This is not about game-plan.

This is not about size of bodies or experience.

Blah blah blah...

It's about coaching. Why? Because its is about confidence across the playering group. And this IS the coaches job - to lift them, inspire them, encourage them, teach them.

I have said it before and I will say it again. I will not "buy in" to a new coach until 11 rounds are played. But Mark Neeld has to coach these players out of their slump. That is a major part of his job and I expect him to attend to it.

I fully understand and accept modern pressing and zoning, but when a dud like Grigg is left alone ALL DAY to run free and deliver into Richmond's hlaf forward line, I think old-fashioned things like "man up" are exactly what should happen. We often hear about the fat side of the ground or the skinny side of the ground. Surely, in a game that is based around contested possession, we have a player who could stand somewhere near Grigg or Houli or Foley and try and beat them one-on-one.

There is a time for man up, and we should have at least tried it at times today. Nothing else really worked.

Cale doens't seem to have any difficulty getting the ball when there is an absence of pressure. But it stops there.

His body work today was embarrassing to our jumper.

His disposal when free, running through wing or half back, was atrocious. If he got 50% effectiveness for uncontensted disposal I'll barrack for the Pies tomorrow!

His decision making is wobbly.Today, he refused to look beyond the first option, whereas at Casey last week he looked poised and made some great decisions.

No more cale Morton for me.

6. Jones. Even in the last quarter he was the only one trying to fill in gaps and gut-running to cover team mates lack of effort.

5. Howe. Class

4. Clark

3. Watts

2. Frawley

1. Our week in week out back 6 who save us from 20 goal thrashings - deserve medals.

ALthough Richmond deserve to go into the game as favourites, I am beginning to think it will be closer than people think. I am feeling more postive, but there is still some wariness.

In both games for both clubs so far in 2012, neither have been able to play their own game for more than 2 or 2.5 quarters. When both Dees and Tigers stick to their game plan and play it well the games have both been tight and close. When they have relaxed or worn out or whatever, the other sides have pole-axed them and run all over them. So my question is - who is going to play more of their own game, Dees or Tigers?

Yes, we have been really poor so far, but we have been able to stick to our game for longer in both games so far. Can Tigers beat us by playing 1 or 1.5 quarters better than us? Boys, I don't reckon they can. Chip will keep Reiwoldt to 2 goals and someone will tag Cotchin. At the start of the week I thought Tiges by 20 points.

Now - Dees by 8 in thriller.

I thought his disposal was absolutely disgraceful today. He reads the play well and makes space for himself but continually lets himself down by foot. Surely somebody else noticed this?

He made a couple of bad blunders right in front of the grandstand but these were overshadowed by mainly good disposal and decision making.His disposal was definitely NOT disgraceful in my opinion.

I feel poor about the Dees at the moment, but give up? NEVER!!!

Come on guys and gals, it's not over yet.

FRANKSTON Player #14

Mitchell BOSWARD 24/06/88 180cm 85kg

I might keep an eye on this bloke as a posible mature age recruit. He was impressive today against some potential AFL players.

tom couch

armchair ride

OK - the joke slipped through. Got in now though.

If I was a betting man, I reckon Richmond by about 20 points. But their 6 worst players are really poor - possibly the worst in the league outside Giants and Suns.

If Chippa can blanket Reiwoldt and beat him like he usually does.

If Jordie, Bartram of Bail can run with Cotchin and keep him to 20 possessions.

This will go a long way to our victory.

IN our favour:-

Our defence is far batter than their attack.

They have no match up for Mitch Clark.

It could be a very interesting game, especially once we know how the Dees will ine up.

Couch in!!

He would give us an armchair ride.

It's no guarantee he would give us this "armchair ride" but his intensity today was good. In AFL games I have seen him live, I reckon the speed of ball movement is too quick for him and he has to double think his first instinct. But he should be considered on today's game.

I watched a replay of the game on the AFl website video, and I reckon Neeld got it spot on in his press conference. We played a half of footy OK and we weren't "horrible" as so many seem to suggest. On another post I compared the Dees of yesterday to Fitzroy of the mid-90's and the lack of energy is similar. But Neeld's summing up seemed to be spot on, and like what McQueen says above about how Worsfold stuck to his game plan in 2010 and just bore the pain.

It seems to me that Neeld is preferring one half of the game being played according to his model resulting in a huge loss, than a small loss using a game plan that will never stand up in a final. I agree with him.

I am still being cautious and will not "buy in" to Mark Neeld but I agree with him on the game versus the Eagles.

Just got back from Casey Fields where Casey won by 1 point. It was a bit difficult to make out the Dees players at times but here are my insights for what they are worth.

Fitpatrick continues to develop. He puts himself into a good position in almost every contest and is super quick for a big bloke. I am not a fan but he impressed me today. But his kicking is going to restrict his influence at AFL level.

Leigh Williams had a shocker. Tried hard and he is coming off illness but his marking and in-close disposal was ordinary.

Sam Blease is on shakey ground. He runs well but that is it. He tried to get around every opponent and often couldn't, his kicking long to position often ended up with an opposition mark, but his defensive efforts were absolutely horrible. He only ran when Casey had the ball and his intensity around the packs is absent. I am a fan of this boy but I don't want him doing this in a Dees jumper.

Tapscott was OK. Some great stuff but only on 3 - 4 occasions. Seemed to be a bit lost today.

Cale Morton was excellent. He put his body on the line on numerous occasions, inlcuding standing beneath pack marking, and was poised and deliberate in his disposal. In the last quarter he held his nerve when the crowd was yelling at him to kick it: he held it for as long as he could and fed it off at the right time. An impressive game.

Jai Sheehan had a lot of the ball across half back and is a really good kick, but a lot of his disposlas were under no pressure so it is a bit difficult to gauge. His timing for defensive spoilng was good.

Couch was good, and excellent in-close during important moments.

Troy Davis. A really good game. Dominated his opponent for most of the game, often left one out and won most of the one-on-one stuff. Good thinking and disposal off half back.

The game was a blatant lesson about the importance of the half-forward line. There were a lot of stoppages (which Frankston won really well), and there were a lot of free possessions across half back. But the the half-forwards running into the right place at the right time was a lack for both teams. Frankston got it right in the last quarter and almost stole the game. The only Casey player who played a good game through half forward was Fitzpatrick when he rested there. But he would not excell there at AFL level. There is no strong half forward at Casey whom the Dees could promote, on today's form.

If someone could tell me who is no. 14 for Frankston that would be good. Read the game really well, used his body well, was quick for his size and and outstanding kick.

Morton, Couch, Davis should be considered for promotion. Fitzpatrick maybe. They may promote Tapscott but it would be on potential not form.

Out: Bennell, Green, J MacDonald, Sellar

In: Moloney, Tapscott, Strauss, Martin

Where do I start?

First, this is not about recruiting, development, coach appointments etc... Most of these things have been OK , with the exception of a few errors here and there.

Second, at the moment our boys are playing so similarly to Fitzroy mid 90's it is very scary. They had Roos, Pert, Lynch and a host of other great footballers but their confidence was shot, their enjoyment of the game was being sapped away, and they were no longer playing as a team. We have good players and some of them will be great players (Trengove, Howe, Frawley) but we play with no heart, no stand out leader, no confidence.

Third, at this stage it appears that Mark Neeld has a game plan that he believes in, but he cannot adapt during the game. Our midfield and forwards are playing without discipline, creativity or flair, let alone any defensive intent.

I feel horrible tonight. I am starting to use the "Fitzroy of the 90's" language for my beleoved Dees.

And to make it worse the older of my young boys was talking about Carlton tonight!!!!

The Good

The physical effort by Jones, Tynan, Watts, Bail, Trengove, Magner. They all had a dip

We won the contested ball

The Bad

Defence at stoppages. The Lions spread away from stoppages with horrible ease.

Long bombs to the forward line

Footskills coming out of defence

The Ugly

The pysical intent of our senior players

Melbourne fans booing their own players

The rate

5 / 10

1. Demonlanders are an uptight bunch.

2. Moan, complain, whinge, hurl abuse or scorn - but NEVER boo your own players. What a disgrace!

3. After all the soft failure of the past 5 seasons, perhaps it really is our most senior players (Green, Davey, Moloney, Rivers, Jamar) who have influenced this the most.

4. Grimes as captain is a good choice.

5. Enjoy each game but give scant attention to those "special comments" blokes and 95% of sport journalists.

I like his directness.

I like his emphasis on a game plan built from defence.

I like his firm hand and uncompromising manner.

I like the fact that he is not very likable - he comes across as deadpan and terse.

But I will not/cannot put myself through the ringer for another coach until I see MFC playing finals type football through the season, where winning becomes the weekly normal. What I like or dislike about a coach is becoming decreasingly important to me. I want results. I want my four kids to feel proud of wearing the jumper, and not be the butt of jokes for other mongrel clubs. Until this happens I will not become a fan, of buy in, or any other term.

When it all boils down, how good a coach is he actually? We will have a clearer picture by about round 11 or 14. Until then, I withold any conclusion on Mark Neeld.

With the exception of the first 10 minutes if the first quarter, the first half was a good game of footy. There was effort, physical accountability and some good marking by both sides. But even in the first half melbourne showed poorly in two areas:

• At stoppages
  
• Our senior players - Moloney, Green, Davey and Rivers were horrible. Rivers did some good solo efforts but his fumbling and kicking were way beloe par.
  

I thought Trengove, Magner, Watts Howe and Jones were all OK, and Tynan was OK in the first half.

Just finished watching the game. Especially in the first half there was some good aggression and attack on the ball. 2nd half was very difficukt to watch. I thought many Demonlanders were ranting about the senior players but I am afraid they were right.

The most glaring dysfunction about that effort was that Moloney, Davey, and Green were very poor. You know when a lot of first gamers get their run, how they run around the packs out of position and waititg for a ball to come their way? These three senior players played that kind of game.

Davey. A favourite of mine whose career is coming to an end. I don't think we will see him in the seniors for the rest of 2012 unless we have a string of injuries.

Green. How can a bloke with his experience and skill play that badly?

Moloney. Ran around chasing the pack all day. However, he rarely has two poor games in a row. Also, we must keep him because he is still capable of producing his best.

I was listening to ABC 774 at about 12:30 this afternoon and Gerard Whately had a really insightful comment to make. He has an annoying voice when commentating but his pre-game andf post-game insights are the best in the business.

He basically said that there was a battle of wills happening at Melbourne. Neeld has a specific model of how football should be taught, trained and played and he has no room for contradictions. Whately reckons that the senior players like Green, Davey, Rivers, Jamar (he did not put Moloney in this group) have not "bought in" to his plan and are playing as if to say "well your method is OK, but this is how we play footy".

He intimated that the main issue under Bailey's rule was that the leadership group would not lead his game philiosophy, therefore laying the playing form of the last 4 yeras squarely at the feet of the senior group.

If there is a battle of wills at the moment I have three responses:

1. Neeld is very tough and seems very fair. Unlike Bailey, he is tough enough to put to aside those players who will not buy in.

2. The board, CEO's and supporters must get behind him so that his plan can be fully inplemented.

3. I am absolutley furious. If this is true, then Neeld should do what Blight did at Adelaide and move these so-called senior players on. A player should be coachable whether they have played 3 or 300. If they don't buy in then get out of the way and give someone else a go.