robbiefrom13

so does half the league. they [censored] us without raising a sweat. this is more than a "cattle" problem

you're a crack-up jumbo

Do something. Do something, to persuade the supporters, the sponsors, the players and the League not to sack the club.

Boomer Harvey made the point - every player is different, and the coach has to deal with each one as an individual; people skills, Boomer stressed. Surely we've now learned that this must be part of the discussion, whenever we next interview for a coach.

narrow bandwidth?

can the CEO teach the coach how to speak?

I'm anti-Neeld, and for me it is1. I don't like his attitude/manner. He reminds me of the school-teachers who were involved with school cadets back in the sixties. The kids who ended up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc did not choose to go in the cadets. We only had two AFL-level footballers in my year, and from memory cadets wasn't their thing either. There is an army mentality which is recognisable, and no doubt it has its place, but it's not for everyone. I thought Neeld from the outset had a limited range in terms of the attitudes/mentalities he was prepared to relate to. He seemed to me to be a bit of a cadets officer - he did not appear to be seeking relationships but ratehr obedience and deference; he relied on hard talking and demands for compliance. I'm a teacher, and I don't reckon what appeared to be his way is too smart - crushed compliance was what I feared he would produce, at best, and so far nothing has convinced me my fears were wrong. 2. I also had reservations about his acknowledgement of and alignment within the existing war-zone (as I saw it) that he walked into at the club - and I think in his fixed-mind approach he marginalised some players we couldn't afford to lose. It hadn't been his squabble, and in taking sides as he appeared to do he inevitably alienated people (players) in a way that compromised his job. Was he just on principle opposed to anyone who in any way could be seen to have broken ranks? I thought the players post-186, and post-SchwabvBailey, plus post Jimmy, needed sensitive handling, as well as a raising of standards. Neeld's attitude to what was inevitably the quite extraordinary state of the players was not what I thought we needed. I am currently open to the possibility that perhaps this is changing - posters have cited anecdotal evidence some of which I can see no reason to doubt, and there have been public statements by players... 3. Results. There is too much about Neeld's coaching relationship with the players that I can't know - but results are the proof of the pudding. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that sounds about right to me, at the end of the day. Though I do admit the argument that he needs time is not easily dismissed: obviously, things were already in a terrible mess when he arrived, and things nothing to do with him made them just get worse and worse. All the same, with your backs to the wall, the coach has a powerful card to play, and clearly he has not played it effectively even if he has tried. Remember that terribly undermanned side we took to Perth a few years ago? So, a little unsure about this third point, I am really in need of some scoreboard encouragement before I will give up my instincts against the guy. 4. too often his picking the team is puzzling to say the least. Roden in and out, in and out; Magner; Watts; Green and Jurrah earlier; a whole lot of criticised selections. If it worked, I'd accept it and learn - but there is no masterstroke revealed, and we just go on getting hammered. If people like Rivers etc didn't say stuff that so mirrored our concerns, perhaps it'd be easier to suspend my disbelief. 5. Neeld is a public figure, yet he seems to be making statements that either contradict earlier statements he made, or that are pre-game excuses/negativity, or that are seemingly baseless predictions about the future. If I am unconvinced by this sort of talk, how must the players feel? Unless Neeld talks differently behind closed doors, I am afraid he lacks the degree of honesty, intelligence and respect for those he speaks to that we need our coach to have. Teachers who cover up, or lie, or billshut, lose the students, at least to some extent. We can't afford to have that happening when everything else is so crap. We need to be able to close ranks very tightly, total trust all round - the players and the coach, anyway, even if it doesn't include supporters. I just wish I could believe he is rock-solid in consistency, integrity, truthfulness, loyalty to players, etc - but at this stage I don't.

Neeld is in a deep hole - far deeper than Voss. Question is, is he digging, or filling it in?

Brisbane's announcement is in a way a comment on this whole debate. they have obviously canvassed the same risks as we are thinking about - and their position is not as dire as ours. Not to say they are right, but they must feel they have done their due diligence. interesting to see how it pans out for them.

not all Demonlanders. Some of us have thought and said that the opposite might work better. Results haven't been unambiguous have they? "Things are getting better"? I don't see any consensus on that, either. "Diplomatic commentary" is hardly a criterion around Demonland, surely? But, I guess such observations are invalid by virtue of your "constructive" criterion? What I (undiplomatically, unconstructively) observe is that there is a lot of rank-pulling dismissal of unwelcome commentary on Demonland. It's what I see. Should this be unacceptable comment? Why, when our players can be vilified and it be claimed that their hopelessness is a matter of patently inarguable common sense by anyone who knows football, etc etc? Doublestandardsland, I reckon.

this sounds very plausible. I'm anti-Neeld, but maybe he (unwisely) was following direction initially; and perhaps with Schwab gone he is free to win back what he lost earlier. I'll be watching to see signs of that - and, as I have in forming my present opinion, believe what I see. When there's a plausible suggestion of things changing, you should be prepared to change your opinion.

you can't spell - and maybe he did ask

deny everything! I'm right, I am!!

hah - bingo! Australian Army...

You can't dismiss a conclusion and silence a poster simply by saying that there is no absolute proof. Demonland does not require that we refrain from posting unless we can present irrefutable sources and proof. Such strict proof requirements are not normal in discussions. Why do you think joining the dots is "way too much"? When things are going badly, conservatives always try to stifle discussion. I agree that the team looked somewhat better last weekend. We still got belted by a team that was not playing all that well. I agree that statements made by players is evidence in support of Neeld's coaching - but at the same time it would be naive to see these statements from players as compelling and conclusive evidence: obviously players would want to say the right things, out of wishful thinking if nothing else; also, they could have been asked to make supportive statements (this happens in every publicity machine); not that I am saying either of these things is the case here, but what I am saying is that the players' endorsements of the coach cannot be advanced in argument as definitive and irrefutable proof of a good working relationship between coach and team. Neither side of this discussion has absolute proof to support their take on the situation. In one respect, the pro-Neeld party have a huge advantage - that of incumbency - and time clearly translates into their winning: every week that goes by is another week that Neeld gets to work through his contract. Endless sniping at him is hardly a good thing of course - but then neither are the disappointing performances that we continue to suffer. I'd've thought the pro-Neeld posters, while Neeld continues to work through his plan, should be willing to modify their indignation and derision, and allow less persuaded posters the use of the site too.

stating that these and these players would be the nucleus going forward, when they have played next to no games, sounds pretty desperate and incompetent to me too. Who would be believing him?

the smokescreen and misrepresentation king thinks others are getting completely irrational!!

staring at extinction, you mean? Not a good choice...

do you see us being competitive against footscray or north? maybe some impartial people are seriously disturbed by the level to which we have dropped - far below other clubs with whom we might have been level, or above, a couple of years ago

no. He meant it the way he said it, I'm sure. It's you who thinks "short sighted' etc. - and you are trying to force your opinion into the mouth of someone saying something different to what you think. Just what this forum doesn't need at the moment.

you are relaxed when you disagree with another post?

Spot on - that's the question for both sides of this debate. I will give up my opinion that Neeld should go - I would reckon I should give it up, it's only reasonable in terms of what I am worried by - if MFC beat the Suns and then maintain an average losing margin of no more than 30 points in the following 4 weeks. Weighing up your tipping point is a productive thing to do. thankyou.

Sickened by a bulge you invented all by yourself in the other guy's trousers?... You trade in straw men, Satyriconhome

Out of the different points made, which ones did I agree with most? Playing for each other, not panicking - this is what stands out for me. Nothing really to do with complying with game plans or mongrel attitudes or hardness - all the stuff that's endlessly thrashed out on Demonland. Best of all I liked WYL's comment How good it would feel to be pleased with the guys we have, and seeing them being taught to win. Geelong players excel at looking for each other, executing skills, thinking under pressure, believing; the loss of Ablett having no impact, and the success of their recruits, shows that the club's success is not really about "the cattle", but about team fundamentals. I know they have got the cattle, but it's not so long ago that they were no good at all - until the teaching took effect. In WYL's post, before the teaching began, there was acceptance of the class list.

Odd to read a whole thread without disagreeing once.