robbiefrom13

how superior of you! I don't think anyone is suggesting sacking Neeld would "magically solve all the problems." What I think is, if the orchestra cannot play together, and the conductor says he has no idea why, and he's had a go at changing the personnel, but still they cannot do the basics together, then persevering with the embarrassment of dreadful gigs is neither sensible nor economically viable, and the conductor clearly isn't able to fix things. You need to look for a different conductor who has different ideas, and who can try something different, to get everyone in tune and playing together. Neeld appears to me to have his eyes fixed too far above the basics, and is imposing a repertoire that does not suit these players. He also belittles them - a bit like the way you have sneered at his detractors. Not calculated to win anyone around - that'd be right, wouldn't it? The fact is, things like tackling, shepherding and running to make a lead - these are not superstar acts. They are not failings due to the players lacking talent. You and I could have a go at those things. If the coach cannot get those things happening, for whatever reason, he is not able to do his job. How long it will take to repair the mess - who knows? The question at the moment is, do we have any reason to believe Neeld is going to be able to do it? If not, based on the evidence, then the second question to ask is, how long can we afford to run the place down this way? Because these thrashings are destructive and corrosive; left for long enough, they must end up terminal. I can't see Neeld making progress on the basics, or on the big picture (game-plan). No identifiable good results. I can see disorganised and demoralised players, trying to hold on, endlessly reiterating how much they are behind Neeldy (like all last year's talk about "buying in"), but not keeping their heads up. Lots of inarguable evidence there - the whole football world is beginning to feel awkward about Melbourne. I'm not supposing anything magic is going to happen, no matter what we do. But I really would like what is happening now to stop. I don't think we can justify letting it continue.

Jumbo et al, the thing is, we only have the players we have. It's the coach's job to get out of them what they may be capable of. You bag out the players as not having anything in them, while others of us bag out the coach for not getting anything out of them. What is not negotiable is which players we have to pick from, for the remainder of this year. You cannot improve anything by targeting the players, not before the end of the year - it just isn't possible to dump and replace them. So, if what is going on is not acceptable (surely we are agreed on that...), the only change that can be tried is changing the coach. Sure, there are risks. But there isn't much there at the moment, it's hard to see how it could get worse. And another coach would do it differently, and in theory this could result in a different outcome on match day. Could hardly be worse. If what is happening is unacceptable, then whatever changes it is what we have to go with. And perhaps I'd see it differently if Neeld wasn't telling us - and looking like - he has no ideas. Something has got to change.

ok. but I think his frustration levels at the players' performance would, from day one, have been at least as trying as the frustration he gets from the media. Your argument uses an analogy that isn't much of a help to the point you are making, I think. Neeld was actually pretty convincing in staying removed during the media barrage over tanking. I reckon it looks like when it touches him, he has a shorter fuse than a public figure can afford to. Shorter fuse, and less ability to come up with the right sort of responses (e.g "I have no idea - any suggestions?") Could be wrong.

No, I think it is you drawing the wrong conclusions. You are right about where we lost it all - but that collapse was what Deemotivated called "mental fragility" (post #143). Is the coach not responsible for managing/building mental resilience? (Or in our case, perhaps undermining it?)

yes. when he was returning from Sorrento and journalists approached, one with a microphone, Neeld fended them away warning "if you stick that thing in my face..." He didn't complete the threat but he might as well have done so, because his attitude was clear enough: Neeld's own personal comfort zone and his own agenda were not to be violated. He spoke and acted without tolerance or understanding, offering the violence card before making the show of reining himself in. Tough guy, hey? Would young athletes choose to bleed for this man?

ye gods!!

"miracles"?

Last thing we'd want, surely? To remain stable? What we want is a total overturning of what we have got. "Continuity" - that does mean more of the same, doesn't it? Can you be serious?? He might get through it - but are we going to, is the MFC going to? Lot of casualties so far, while Neeld works his way through it. Add Jack Watts and Blease to the list this week - who next week? How far, Mark? I wonder does anybody remember learning about General Haig, the man responsible for the 1917 Battle of Passchendaele? A man of undoubted resolve, with a surefire battle plan, just pushed the men harder and harder, determined not to flinch in carrying out his ideas... In case you never did learn about this great warrior and leader of men, history has him as a man who did not succeed, but in attempting to, he put hundreds of thousands in their graves, many simply vanishing in the mud that he ignored in pursuit of his grand plan. The real question has to be, what was British Prime Minister Lloyd George's problem that he let it go on for so long? Who's going to break ranks down at the club, and declare the Emperor exposed?

dumb dumb dumb (sigh) next week outs: Neeld - that'll be a bit more like it!

"Did Abraham Lincoln balance the budget?" "No idea - he abolished slavery!" Lincoln's economic management is historically irrelevant, given the magnitude of what he did do. Sometimes, one issue is so big that it pushes everything else into irrelevance... Churchill was a disaster at everything he ever did, until he got into the right job at the right time - and suddenly he is the greatest Prime Minister ever. So, there are times when the full set of skills is not what's needed. In the big picture of where we are at, how much of what is most lacking would the Ox be able to bring?

more Neeld-speak

hmm. But if Tapscott is in form and aggressive and the team is out of form and insipid, what is it exactly that you are protecting by keeping him at Casey? Wary of the risk of breeding a bad culture you say? Good grief!

We do play a zone. You are wrong, Mark. I wonder how confusing it would be to play under the tight control of a man who calls black white?

I think Jack Watts gives every sign of "buy-in", the same as Jack Trengove. Both of them talents that Neeld should have left alone to do what they were undoubtedly good at. Play him on the wing or the forward line. Every defender is cursed at Melbourne, under the current "game plan".

that would have been after Neeld delivered THAT speech, wouldn't it?

that's not certain. the training drills may focus on particular manoeuvres, skills etc, whereas on game-day the deployment of the players, and the use they make of those drilled manoeuvres etc, will be under the direction of the head coach. As an example, against Port, Watts was positioned near the goal square when we took a kick-out (unless he was doing the kicking), presumably to cover a possible fast return into goal. Negative, and keeping him from being the link-man he was supposed to be, and presumably not what he'd done at training several times a week over summer. it is the game-plan stuff that has our players "zoning off" when the other side has possession - not what we would be practising at training you would imagine (if it were, our forwards and mids would by now have realised the possibilities that arise when you run to space on the lead - which is our other glaring game-plan deficiency). Craig almost certainly relates better to the players. With Neeld removed and it being ok to have the new coach make clear that Neeld's strategies are now ditched, Craig could be the man. What he would come up with as a game-day coach is not necessarily evident at this stage, no matter how much he has been running training. At training, no matter what he had in mind himself, he would surely have been obliged to follow any instructions set down by Neeld. Unshackle the man, I say - it's actually do-able, and not necessarily going to add vastly to the expense, and surely Neeld needs to be thanked as soon as possible. Unshackle Craig, with instructions to unshackle the talent.

Our midfield is our worst area, by a mile. But Neeld came to us credentialled as the great midfield guru from Collingwood. Surely then our experience proves the saying, "the players make the coach". Without the Collingwood midfield, Neeld has been disastrously unsuccessful - unprecedentedly, I'd say - so let's accept that we have learned something here, and let him go. Because it isn't just that the players make the coach; I say that on the other hand the coach has the capacity to destroy the players. Players who played on instinct and flair have not been valued or required at Melbourne, under Neeld. On the grounds of poor fitness levels, Neeld has imposed on Melbourne a very negative style of play, presumably to "limit the damage". Clearly it is a complete disaster. Near enough all players at Melbourne have gone into their shells under Neeld, and there is no creativity. Trengove is a clear example of someone who tried to buy in totally, and became a shadow of the player we knew him to be. And Jurrah - who threatened to become our marquee player... So, I am prepared to say that Neeld has destroyed the confidence and the potential success of our players. He knows it too, in my opinion - hence the defiant/almost annoyed tone when he said and repeated "we believe in you". Needed to get that message across, and knew it. And then - though he couldn't really bring himself to spell this one out - "mistakes don't matter". Too late, Mark - they know you too well, as the axe-wielding third-person-speaking absentee, for them to be convinced by your desperate (televised!) attempt to cuddle-up. No dignity left for these guys.. So how to restore some? Well, they did tear Sydney to pieces a couple of years ago, and Essendon less than a year ago. Most of the same blokes. They could do some things right. That's got to be a better starting point than Neeld's negativity and down-talking, now. One thing for sure - Paul Roos could be convincing if it was him telling them they are entitled to a lot more self-respect than they currently feel: he could speak with feeling about what he has seen in them, and their ability to take it on and tear teams apart. That's the first thing the players need to hear, and believe, when the change of coach comes. Whoever was guilty of tanking, it wasn't the players. They really are the victims in all this ongoing MFC mess; every fiasco is further psychological undermining of the players, who only ever wanted to play footy! Will they ever get a clear run at it, in this disfunctional club? Any hint of blaming the players for the club's current mess will resonate deafeningly, going straight back through Neeld to "the Schwab win" at Geelong, and to who knows how many disparaging remarks they have been subjected to while slowly disintegrating over the past couple of years or so. Let's see if this time we can put the players first for once, whatever their shortcomings, and make changes that prioritise supporting them in their potential and actual talent for playing footy. Without such a change in the psychological climate of the club, the players may be beyond saving sooner than we'd like. "Sticking together"? Someone will eventually publicly break ranks under the ridiculous pressure and scrutiny they are subject to at Melbourne, and the fallout may be unstoppable.

I will fly from Hobart next weekend, to watch the game. Not really expecting to see a win, and perhaps I won't see Jack Watts and perhaps not even Jack Viney - disappointments, if so. Really interesting stories those guys, regardless of the scoreboard. Also, interested to feel the mood. I think Neeld has to be a goner, and I'd be pleased to see other club employees turned over, just like players were turned over six months ago. Gotta try something. But, surely it's interesting times. Why would we not want to see it? Frontrunners? - like those players we have rubbished in the past? Actually, it's easy for us. You're not ambushed by it, it's not as though it's a huge surprise. Take off the scarf, and walk away. Catharsis for another week. It's still great being alive and in Melbourne and going to the G.

Have to agree with Colin B Flaubert. Neeld's voice was flat, except in the bit where he was telling them we believe in you. He repeated it, with an increasingly accusatory tone. Tone is inescapable, students know whether you like them or not, whether you are with them or not, whether you can see the good stuff coming. He told them off, by his tone, when he told them we believe in you. They could only walk away knowing that, somehow, they weren't getting this bit right. There are different types of teachers. He is allowed to trim his classlist each year - but nothing disguises his inability to to set off growth in his room. Maybe, as he found at Collingwood, when the students are on fire and good at the work, he is really skilled at maintaining the pressure, and preventing complacency from undermining their progress. But that ain't us, Mark...

um. our percentage will improve next week...

the frightening alternative possibility is that our players were doing what they were told to do

For me the biggest concern was just how easily Port moved the ball down the ground, chipping short passes to players on their own and basically moving the ball from one end to the other without us touching it. They sliced us wide open, it was hot knife through butter stuff and it was bloody embarrassing. You could maybe understand Hawthorn cutting open a side with their foot skills but Port? I've watched a fair bit of footy in Round 1 and what has stood out has been the pressure. In the first quarter of the Eagles Dockers game both sides were struggling to get a clear kick. Essendon mauled the Crows and worried them out of it. What do the MFC serve up? Not even a quarter, not even 5 minutes of intense pressure footy. Right from the opening bounce they got easy uncontested ball and it remained that way all day. There can only be two reasons for this. Either the players are lazy and put no defensive pressure on, which would add the word 'heartless' to a long list of adjectives that already describe them such as skilless and brainless. Or alternatively they are confused where to position themselves defensively, which comes down to game plan and is the coach's domain. I'm not sure what the answer is but it is one of the above. If the players were lazy and put no defensive pressure on, Neeld would not have been so much at a loss for any explanation. There are times for being blunt about what is wrong with the players, and Neeld has certainly shown he is willing to dump on his players when he feels it is appropriate. It looked to me like what Neeld couldn't understand was why his instructions did so little good. He persisted with them, despite what was happening, and it just didn't get any better. Small wonder he looked so stressed. (Where are the players going to get some confidence from, when they have a coach performing like that?)

Both Grimes and Watts were genuinely upset and unable to pinpoint what went wrong - "can't explain it, didn't see that coming..." So from all the things Neeld had been telling them, they imagined they were going really well. The facts of our NAB cup performance are different. Ergo, I say Neeld does get into their heads - as a coach should - but I don't have much respect fro the effect he's having on their thinking. Neeld gets it wrong - what he told them about their progress was wrong. And Neeld himself says he was taken by surprise yesterday afternoon, when reality hit. That is a worry. Asking reporters for suggestions! Neeld has no other ideas, apart from continuing to stress compliance. This is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Compliance is the language of building regulations and safety - not of excellence. Compliance ensures the authorities do not order the building torn town and started again - it is nothing to do with the language of architecture awards. Small wonder we look so unimaginative and conservative, so negatively minded. Perhaps I'll be banned for suggesting this, but it nags away in my mind that Liam Jurrah came to Melbourne loving football and celebrated for the flair and instinct with which he graced the game. So exciting! When he left he was struggling to meet compliance standards related to skills other than his own. No longer so keen to get out on the park. And he was, so it would appear from what has come out of him ever since, becoming confused and angry. Would he have left and acted as he did if the game had continued to embrace him as it did in the beginning? I wonder about this, and don't feel good about it. For all his natural intelligence and instincts for the game, Watts looked confused and lost yesterday. Neither he nor Grimes could come up with any insights into what went wrong. All of us who watched the game would have no difficulty telling them a few things, for a start (e.g., "man up", "get it out of there!", "spread!!" etc). So - what's happening to our players' minds under the present "compliance" regime?

It's the coach's job to re-programme the mindset. in the circumstances of our past couple of years, this must be the overwhelmingly top priority for the coach. Instil faith, individually, collectively. C'mon, Mark, you made the "hardest team to play against" comment - your own credibility depends on persuading these players to have some belief. And oh for some self-motivating players with flair and talent, to break out of this depression hanging so heavy over the club!

Watts hung around near full back whenever we were kicking out (unless he did the kicking) - he must have been under instructions to occupy this pointless position, or else the runner would certainly have been out to tell him to make himself useful - "get out there, and present!" Not having an effective centre half back left Watts in no-man's-land most of the game. Plus, didn't he miss the final training session? Maybe he was not 100%, too. In any case, if he can be usefully deployed next week, he's definitely a first 18 for mine. (But, for all his faults, I shake my head at how MFC have used him, ever since he arrived, and certainly again today.) We played negative, not defensive, once we were losing. It's different - negative is to go slow, look for the boundary, go backwards, act like you are scared of being told off for transgressing a team rule about "defence" [read negativity], rather than trying to achieve something good that might turn things around. Viney, Toumpas, Blease the exceptions. Too young or new to have gotten on the programme, I suppose. Defence of course has always begun with manning up and denying them easy possessions. I can't get away from thinking the coach is at least part of this.... It is the uncontested/unhurried possessions we give the opposition that plays them, one team after another, into confidence, and arrogance - and with no Melbourne runner going out to demand accountability, I can only conclude the coach is not upset by this absurd tactic of "guarding empty space" (Wake up Mark, it's not soccer: they just kick it over our heads...). Watts wasted his day guarding empty space - is that his choice, I wonder? There will always be somebody lacking confidence, but when about 18 out of 22 play without confidence, why wouldn't questions be asked about the way they are being coached?