Demon Dynasty

I think there's a number of factors here DemonOx. Firstly no. I hate losing no matter what the margin. The margin this year has been too large and too often. Neeld might be trying to improve culture, defensive aspects, muscle/grunt and work ethic across the playing group or might have focussed on this early. Where he has failed to this point IMO is in the following.... 1. Insitilling and training SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS and hence belief into the playing group generally. By this i mean he didn't focus on this enough early in his tenure. By doing so it brings more confidence amongst those who are getting it and improving on this side to take the game on and attack when they have the ball at a much quicker tempo. We lack the skills to pull off run & carry, hitting up leads on a regular basis and the confidence/effort required to lead up, run & carry when the opportunity arises (including overlap handballing/running in waves off the back line and through the middle) and to keep doing this from the get go to the final siren. By focussing on a defensive/grunt/boundary biased game style too much too early i think Neeld has unfortunately left the bulk of the playing group inept in the skills/attack ability side. Instead most players sit back, on their back heel if you like, playing from behind. Instead of attacking the loose ball with confidence, knowing they have the skills to get out of trouble/congestion and find team mates by hand and foot, they hesitate a little, sit back and instead end up chasing tail most of the time and trying to tackle/worry their opponent off the ball. You can do this for a quarter or so but i would think this is a pretty physically and mentally taxing style of game which is bound to fail over 4 quarters againt all but the weakest of opponents who are also possibly as hesitant or physically just not up to a full 4 quarters. And no not all players have this mind set, some are taking the game and their opponents on like Terlich, Garland, Rodan and even in patches Kent, N Jones (no questionmark over his intent and intensity), M Jones and one or 2 others. But there just isn't enough of that mind set amongst enough players at present. I believe Neeld and Co. have tried to address the above with more intent since approx round 6, focussing on skill drills much more than previously, but the difficiency is very hard to correct mid season. We might start to see the effects of this over correction at times during the second half of this season following the buy. Let's hope so. 2. I fear he just isn't able to get the best mentally and spiritually out of some or possibly many of the players so far. I just don't think we are AS bad as what we've witnessed in most games this year. This is a motivational/connection/man management issue and IMHO probably just as important as the issues in the above point. Neeld has 2 critical games coming up. He has a chance to demonstrate that he can bring out the factors i've mentioned in point 2. The players will either respond to him or they wont. The games against Stkilda and the Dogs will determine his own fate i think. Must win at least one of these and hopefully the other or get awefully close. If he does this and the side shows a similar level of output for the remainder of the year, and assuming we can't obtain a super replacement premiership coach that we couldn't overlook between now and season's end, then i say we stick with Mad Eye. Also keep in mind, outside of Dawes when he returns, we have no fire power whatsoever up forward atm. The losses are always going to be uglier than usual when you aren't hitting the scoreboard very often, even if the team is somewhat competitive over 3 or 4 quarters. Of course, if the start of next year is anything like this one, with a season starting blow out and further ones following, then all bets are off. And i agree. I'm not sure we can afford to do this. But unless we find a super alternative coach.....can we also afford the $600k payout for an early settlement? And yes some would say we can't afford not to....but then what IF we don't find that super replacement and we ended up with Ayres/Eade/Laidley or someone like that who doesn't have true pedigree and who might also see us on the end of more blow outs? We would then start questioning his appoitment after 6 to 8 thrashings too. If we can't find an experienced premiership alternative before year's end and provided Neeld connects in the next 2 weeks.... and we don't drop off after that and keep improving....then i say he should be given at least till then end of the year. And then 2014, subject to certain non negotiables and no go zones set by the new Board together with PJ.

Captain - Dawes. The only premiership player in the team oozing leadership. Co Vc - Grimes (goes close to Captain material but prone to injury and butchers the ball too often) Co Vc - N Jones (the mid field man. Dont argue) Co Vc - C Sylvia (Needs the responsibility and might relish the challenge. Time to step up. Might go some way towards convincing him to continue on with us next year. Worth asking and offering). Co Vc - Frawley (As for Sylvia but has earned it IMO. Gets the big role almost every week and often comes away with the scalp. Great for his ego and a nice reward for many years of hard work and effort. Captain of the ship down back). Co Vc - M Clark (when he's finally fit)

This is correct in terms of being a decent switch man defensively or offensively at either end. But flanker only for mine. I agree, he could be one of our solid contributors. But he's so far off this level having missed the pre season Neeld is doing neither him or the team any favours playing him through the middle or iMO playing him at all atm. The only reason he's been given games at a senior level is that Mad Eye appointed him prematurely as the co captain and now he has no choice but to play him regardless of form. And whilst his form may have improved a little since his return, its still not AFL level in terms of impact and quality and its taken him almost half a season to start showing any improvement. With another 2 pre seasons he should start to show some of the return promised. Still a long way off the pace at this level right now though.

Certainly not putting Magner up as a template for a modern day mid fielder. Just saying he's a marginally better option through the mid at least until we work through the trade/draft period. The starting core midfield till then should consist of N Jones, Sylvia, Rodan, M Jones and Magner. McKenzie is neither a mid fielder or capable of carrying out a stopping/shut down role on anyone other than someone who's equally snail paced and stagnant at the drop of the ball. There are no other capable mid fielders in this team at present. Viney looks extremely promising and hopefully comes on in the next few seaeons. Pickles might grow into a decent outside mid who pushes forward at times. Jones is getting assistance. Just not enough of it and is being let down by too many who just arent up to it through here. Magner isn't a questionmark for the remainder of the season. He is a must addition until we trade/recruit better. While Neeld continues with the likes of Tappy, McKenzie, Pickles and Trengove through the middle, we are destined to be pummeled week after week. Whilst the addition of 1 slight improvement here in Magner wont save us from the same fate, it will at least make us a tad more competitive and maybe reduce the margins by a few goals each week. Better than the alternative.

Neither McKenzie or Trengove are capable through the mid field at this level either but Neeld keeps rolling them through there and pumping games into them. While only a slight improvement, Magner deserves to be given as much of a chance as these 2 for the remainder of the year to show if he can bring something. If you're willing to so easily dump the Magnet after 2 ok games then you should also be as eager to dump these 2 who have given us very little, other than some decent tackling this year. Both have no idea how to play mid field nor check their opponent closely at a stoppage. Both are slow as with leg speed and easily lost by their opponent soon after the ball is bounced. They are easily lost for 2 main reasons. 1. They are just sloooow and can't keep up. 2. They don't keep "touch" on their opponent for long enough after the bounce with Trengove in particular leaving his opponent too early to go ball hunting. This leaves his opponent unmarked for a resulting receive IF the opposition manage to pry or tap the ball free to their advantage. Watch the play more carefully and you'll often find that Trengove and McKenzie's opponents in the middle are often the ones running away with the ball, having lost them very early in the congestion (in the case of McKenzie he just cant keep up with anyone who has half decent burst speed) or these 2 losing the opponents themselves (Trengove often going 2nd man in when not needed freeing up his opponent on the outside waiting for the spill or receive). The above wouldn't be so bad IF they were able to get more of the ball themselves and use it effectively to damage the opposition. Unfortunately neither is capable of impacting on this offensive side either. And McKenzie by foot is a disaster. Hands are quite good in close but that's about his only positive. In almost every stat, Magner beat both of these 2 taking his 2 game average vs McKenzie & Trengove. This includes tackles, clearances, uncontested, contested, i50s, rebound 50s (meaning he's able to work harder back the other way as well and help out a little more) and effective disposals. He loses slightly on a few like marks (vs Trenners) and handballs (vs McKenzie, which makes sense as Mckenzie butchers the ball by foot) but that's about it. While agreeing he is not the savior, I would take him anyday anywhere over McKenzie and anyday anytime through the mid field vs either McKenzie or Trengove. Trengove is a flanker at best.

Too much playstation

Rodney Eade = Another MFC fail and possibly the last appointment prior to us being relocated against our wishes by the then Administrator (The AFL). Assuming Neeld is going to be axed before his contract finishes (and I dont think he should until he's been given the bulk of next year to see how things go after a 3rd pre season, subject to no further 148 type disasters), If we're to have any chance of resuscitating this comatose club the only acceptable replacement is a proven premiership coach... Thompson; and then in no particular order or preference Choco Williams Worsfold Clarkson By appointing a premiership coach the players have to step up or step aside. There'll be no more "Can this bloke coach" questionmark. Given enough time (ok this might take 5 years or so lol) I reckon Neeld would be as capable as Rodney "Uninspiring" Eade

Soidee how long have you been on this site mate? Old Dee saw it coming. Warned us infinitum. Even said he was non plussed with Neeld's appointment on the day he was appointed and believed it was a grave mistake by the club. No need for this thread. Just look to Old Dee mate. Word from the wise

Is anyone left at the club that would be capable? PJ maybe but he's so busy drafting Board Minutes recording "resignations and pending AFL payout assistance" he probably hasn't got time to scratch himself. Watched him play a number of games in the 2nd half of his career. Would rank for mine as the dirtiest player i've seen alongside David Rhys Jones and Dipper. No harm in asking I guess but I recall someone asking him this just after Bailey was sacked. He just laughed and said there was no way he would. And that was before we became the official basket case of the AFL. I doubt he'd want to jump into our frying pan at his fragile age. Might not survive the first month let alone the first year.

Sure has the right attitude. If he were to bring this attitude and ruthlessness to the Presidency, along with a decent (and more compact) team onto the Board i would be pleased. Some excerpts from a SuperFooty article after the opening loss to Port this year (6 April 2013) ...... "Wells, a successful businessman, was approached by a couple of his former teammates in an effort to get him to return to Melbourne in some capacity. But the 62-year-old dual best-and-fairest said it was "highly unlikely", saying it was time for the next generation of players after him to serve the club. "You would never say never, but I would say it is more unlikely than likely," Wells said. Wells said the Demons needed to start thinking with a winner's philosophy again. "To coin a phrase, you have to have a bit of mongrel in you - a bit of s--- in you," he said. "That has to start with the president and the CEO and then it comes down through the line...... And in reference to the sooky sooky la la from Watts after this match, which IMO should have been hit on the head straight away (publicly) by both McLardy and Neeld at the time and seen Watts banished to Casey for weeks to set an example......... "I don't want to set panic in motion, as it is only one loss, even though it was fairly pathetic," he said (referring to the opening disasterous loss to Port). "What they have to do is stop these players coming out and saying 'if we had a Joel Selwood' or 'if we had a Stevie Johnson'..... " The full article below for those interested...... http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/former-melbourne-great-greg-wells-urges-melbourne-players-to-play-with-mongrel/story-fndv8pdq-1226613794072

Whilst much of what you say RP is no doubt the "preferred" course of events and I u'stand the Club, PJ and the AFL would be eager for change but in a considered manner, the mandate that you say PJ has is not one granted to him by a vote from the members. Granted that members have very little direct say/input into what happens at an AFL club under normal circumstances, but this is far from a normal circumstance. Yes it might be continuation of a series of blunders, but as AD has already alluded, one more major blunder and it could be our last. Regardless of the apparant seamless changeover that you infer is already underway, I'm not sure the masses (members/ex members and potential sponsors) will buy it unless the ultimate direction and new heading are extremely well conveyed and transparent for all to make their own judgement, good, bad or indifferent. The members/sponsors may not be able to effect the Board's overall makeup in one vote but they have a significant input/influence over the long term success of the club's financial results via a vote through their hip pocket. My cloudy memory seems to recall the figure being changed from 100 to 1000.

Hopefully a reliable source. Ie, Not Caro

Arggh. I was rushin' to do sumthing. That's my excuse anyway. Oh, hang on...yeh Bloody Biiff's spelling didn't help!

Biffen fans you may wanna tune in for a trip down memory lane with The Biff!

Less pace and run than McKenzie and Tappy you mean? Both would lose McKenzie in an instant, and not just because they're half a yard quicker, albeit still slow by AFL standards.

Not aware of any connection with Bailey that you're referring to. According to Neeld this is his University. From 3:08 minutes to approx 3:44.......

How bout Greg Denham?? Ok ok...just kidding. David King then? He at least called the appointment of Neeld a disaster in the making very early! Anyone?

Hood a beautiful summary. Neeld's Footy University consists of "All in" lectures 3 times a week and tutorials where the players are split into 3 groups and tutored 4 times a week. Talk about theory overload and boring the players to death. No wonder they're so bloody flat on most game days. Some theory is a must but in the end you have to put them through as much drills and match day simulation as possible in order to bring them up to AFL standards. Neeld's Footy University = Permanent undergraduates who are all potential footy road scholars but who never pass the most important exam at AFL level...winning games on Match day. Oh, and guess who's being used as the bloody guinea pig for Neeld's Footy University idea? Oh shyte...it's us *_*

Gillies VFL standard? *_*

And I'm happy to give examples to back that BB. Just 4 off the bat... 1. Allowing teams to get too many +1 +2s and in some rare cases +3s at and around the stoppages. Occasionaly we have the advantage here but its rarely for more than a quarter. Oponnents often up the ante with numbers at the stoppage after quarter or half time but for some inexplicable reason, after 18 months under Neeld, Royal & crew we are either unwilling or unable to match top clubs at doing this for more than a quarter or so. 2. Our positioning of numbers around the stoppage is poor. Often standing either side of the throw in or ball up, allowing opponents to occupy or run through the contest towards the open corridor side. They then spread quickly corridor side for the quick transition straight up the middle with options to deliver directly in front or sideways to lead up targets who are themselves spreading in order to isolate their opponents. 3. We continue to allow at least one opponent to run free from the kick outs even though we are apparently playing a man on man defense. 4. In a 1 on 1 tackle situation with the ball on the ground and 2 players scrapping over the ball, too often a Demon hovering close by will leave his opponent and jump into the contest on the ground, leaving his opponent free to take the ball either directly or on a receive on occasions when it is prised or pops free from the contest.

And allowing O' Brien to match up from the get go and for most of the game on one our slowest and most under done players in Trengove. Buckley and his FD must have been smiling from ear to ear with that one. And laughing for the few minutes during other times when O'Brien was running loose and amok at will. Well done Neeld and FD. Did your homework well.

Get PJ to ask the AFL for the rest of the year off

A few other pics from yesterday.....

DEMON DOG!!! Finally worked it out LS lol. How cute is he. Demon Dog with Pal Gypsy. Eager for a run today off the bench! Lookin to chow down a few Maggies

I'm not saying Kennett's the right fit for us RP, and I think he would most likely divide the supporter base regadless, which is a worry in itself. However I don't accept that a continuation of a "quietly quietly" conservative style board is our best medicine from here either. I can recall it being that way for many decades now and look where it's gotten us. I think it's time for a change up to big, bold and daring. Dare to think big. Dare to achieve. Dare to dream. Dare to be one of the biggest and greatest football clubs in the land. It will take 1 or 2 big personalities and great business/football savvy people to lead us there IMO. I'm also not convinced that a little adjusting here and there to a disfunctional failed board is healthy either. The member base needs to see and is demanding drastic change at the top. Seeing is believing. I doubt shuffling the deck chairs a little will cut it. However, I'm not naive enough to rule out the likelihood that some shuffling and tinkering isn't what might be in store and already in train following PJ's review. The Collins St set/old boy's club aren't going to vacate their cozy arrangement anytime soon, and certainly not without putting up a rear guard action to protect what they would see as their rightful place of power at the G. And there's certainly no real and present danger to their tenure from a few mutterings by JK. Unless of course he (or an alternative ticket, led by a club legend such as Robbie Flower) manages to put together one helluva ticket. Some interesting times ahead