Demon Dynasty

He tends to lead in that direction because that's where we direct our play, on most occasions, when transitioning off HB. And at present, with a few exceptions, our ability to hit a lead up through the middle from wide on the flanks is so poor he probably doesn't have the confidence to lead there as often atm. Plays in a more tradiotional CHF area when we win clearances from the center of the ground. But he also mixes up his leads regardless, like all quality forwards should be capable of doing. Is a little rusty with his ball handling atm having only been back at it for a few matches with a few costly basic turnovers in general play last week but once he gets his AFL level fitness, mojo and kicking strength back he'll be a brute and a fantastic leader for this club. At this point I'm willing to commit early and say I believe he'll be one of the great Captains the MFCs had IF given the opportunity.

Another good reason why we need to set up our own VFL team. We can also have the players practice what they train in a real match setting. Only watched Casey once this year, a few times last year, but from what I've witnessed their set up and style is quite different to the Neeld way.

As a back up for Frawley then yes. Frawley will be sorely missed this week obviously. Possibly a 2 to 3 goal advantage (additional one....like they needed it) for Cloke and Collingwood now he's out. Dunn isn't capable of matching up on most players in a one on one IMO. Lacks intensity and desperation at the contest eg, when hitting a pack to spoil/pressuring the ball carrier on a chase down. He reads the play ok at times when he's pushing higher up the field, tackles reasonably well when he gets near the opposition in congestion, capable of taking the odd mark in the clear (which most are capable of), has a great boot on him, can kick goals if he gets within 55 - 60. But his awareness of what's going on, his poor short game, lack of intensity (see above) and his general lack of awareness/footy smarts (eg., sometimes plays on when he shouldn't or holds on to the ball for too long after a mark) makes him a sub par performer for us at this point and puts us under further pressure when trying to transition through the opposition's press.

He would need another pre season and another roll at the draft/trade week before he could prove that convincingly UH. He's probably rolling through the entire list again this year to sort out the balance of who he wants to retain and the type of players needed for next season. How sold are you on at least seeing out the bulk of his contract through the most part of next season (subject to a threepeat!!) to see if he can prove he has what it takes at this level???

And here lies part of the problem. Fair enough, we have to address and entertain business sponsors (and/or potentials) and attempt to explain the dire situation we now find ourselves in. We need all the help and new sponsors we can get (and certainly have to encourage renewal from existing ones....good luck with that sell fellas!). But where are the great "Leaders" of this club? Backing Neeld, backing the direction, asking for support and faith and fighting the good fight? Giving some hope that we are on track and why "they" believe, as insiders and people in positions of control/power, that we (Neeld & the FD) are headed in the right direction and to stick it out. The tide will turn, and it will turn because/when etc!! Where are they? Fight for the club by getting in front of the footy media and spruik/sell/defend/explain why despondent and gutted supporters should continue to attend and not turn their backs. They might garner more respect, and possibly higher attendances from Melbourne members if they opened up, became more transperant and communicated/sold their/our position on the front foot and took the media circus head on for a change. Members, who IMO, would have to be one of the most loyal bunch of supporters. Who should be given a medal of honor for having stuck with the club through so many average or sub par performances for the most part of 5 decades now. Peter Jackson should be commended for his attempt to right the ship, albeit he will be getting well compensated for doing so, but the board and President have failed to defend/spruik/sell/communicate effectively to it's members IMO. Surely this is part of the President's role? To connect with the members, lead them and show some fight for the club during one of it's darkest moments. That's not going to happen with speaches to exclusive brethren at paid up lunches once a week and and a few trite summaries of "The President Speaks" on the Demon website. The attempt to connect (and method of delivery of its message) to the grass roots supporter base by this Board and its President have been dissapointing since McLardy took the reigns. Unfortunately, I've heard more passion to fight for the club's future success on mainstream press from an outsider in the last few days than i've heard from our own board/President since CS's sacking. It is always dangerous to assume, but from the way this Board/President has conducted itself in the last 3 months or so, they are leaving me a strong impression (rightly or wrongly) that they have lost the passion/will to fight for this club. As the great Bob Marley once sang and a late great of our club was heard to shout (unfortunately at another dire time in our checkered history)..... "Get up, Stand Up!!"

I'm not so sure. I think our defensive unit at this point is so tight they're capable of taking on anyone if enough pressure is on up the field. Garland can't match Cloke in a one on one if the ball's coming in from height i agree, so he'd need a chop out from Sellar, Pedo or Dunn. But what Garland can do effectively is run with Cloke on the lead, potentially spoil, then run off him. Pedo, Dunn and Sellar aren't so effective as too slow IMO. Better in the contested stakes i agree, but not in spoiling a lead and running off with the spills/putting tackles on afterwards once the ball hits the deck. Sellar has 4cm on Pedo so yes, an advantage on Cloke in a contest i'll concede that. As for being any stronger or more skilled at any apsect of the game vs Pedo, atm i think Pedo is a step or 2 above Sellar in most aspects of his game. Besides, not many are going to beat Cloke in a 1 on 1 contested situation anyway. The biggest worry for me out of all the match ups is whoever McKenzie is going to which will probably be either Swan, Pendles or Seedsman. Any of these 3 will be off to the races and will lose McKenzie in a heartbeat. Wouldn't be too bad if MckEnzie hurt them the other way, but he rarely does. Offers no value for us. Can't shut a player down and doesn't hurt the opposition the other way. The more pressure we place on Pie players like Pendles, Swan and Seedsman up the field the better our plight. If we can't or don't and also don't hurt them enough going the other way it'll get pretty ugly with Cloke, Pendles and others hitting the scoreboard fairly regularly.

Not necessarily. Just need a neutral outcome here and Sellar can at least kill the ball occasionaly surely? The outcome here will be mostly determined by the pressure we can put on their ball carriers up the field though Biff. If' it's half decent he gets less opportunity. If it isn't then you could be on the money. I'm not worried too much about our defense at this point Biff. I'd prefer to have Frawley in obviously but Pederson showed last week that he can fill a hole and was one of our better players down there. Sellar i'm not so sure. So maybe Pedo on Cloke to start and Garland as a 2nd option if that's not working? What is letting us down and is more damaging IMO is our ability to maintain and match the opposition's numbers at stoppage. We're allowing them to get +1, +2 and even +3 on odd occasions at some stoppages. We kept this to a minimum and had the edge on the Hawks for most of the first half last week, but it blew out a little in the 2nd half. Combine this with too many "Lack of Awareness Acts" (as i like to call them) from many of the youngsters during a match that result in us coughing the ball up, or missing obvious targets in better positions. And in the former this results in us handing the ball to the opposition in mid field with an easy run into i50 or into an open goal etc, and you have multiple goals from silly turnovers to add to our woes.

So going on this it looks like McDonald for Frawley and Sylvia for Strauss. This is a huge missed opportunity for this week to possibly get close to the Pies IMO. 1. I would have swapped Gawn in for Fitzpatrick. Gawn is learning the ruck and this is another great opportunity. His height alone would worry the opposition in the middle and offer us a neutral outcome and allow Jamar to rest occasionaly. Gawn to rest up forward out of the goal square when Jamar's in the middle or on ball. Fitzpatrick is a mile off anything like AFL level at this point. Gawn is probably half a mile but offers a better, and possibly a scoreboard damaging, alternative. Can't see Fitz getting near the pill very often at this level, let alone marking i30 and kicking a few goals. 2. Sylvia for Strauss (looking likely)? For me it should have been Blease for Strauss. We are in desperate need of run off HB and the ability to transition quickly through the press (zone) into our 50 is sadly lacking, especially considering we are mostly using the boundary to run the ball. Our opponents have way too much time to set up defensively in our 50, making it very difficult to isolate our forwards and find them i50 on a lead or kick to the fat side as the fat side aint there, the space is often well guarded by the time we get it in there. In addition our transistion out of the defensive square, while developing and improving in terms of disposal efficiency and finding targets, is still awfully slow and predictable. Quality opponents then just have to roll their press back further up the field or bring in further numbers and push us back with most outlets being closed off. Blease and Kent off either HB line might assist here. Kent has a huge roost and can find targets effectively via long kicks. Blease needs to tidy up his general disposal and decision making. However, both are capable of turning their opponents, creating space/time and running the lines THROUGH THE CORRIDOR, which = marking/goal kicking opportunities i50/! Blease also has goal kicking ability. Another gaping hole for us ATM. 3. Sylvia for McKenzie. Without being too harsh on Mckenzie, his time has come. His opponent only needs half decent leg speed (and/or agility) and McKenzie is easy to run off or lose in the stoppage. Can’t mark his opponent except in the clinches when the ball’s already tied up and in dispute (ie., there’s some tackling already happening with the ball or player carrying the ball hitting the deck and being contested). A good example of his ineffectiveness is the 1st quarter last week. His only impact on the contest were 2 effective handballs in close. He also had one opportunity to run into goal from 25 out and take a shot but hesitated for no particular reason, was quickly set upon from behind and we lost possession. A scoring opportunity lost. 4. Bail continues to get a game yet just doesn’t impact enough. Again, 1st quarter last week, and he only had 2 impact stats, 1 effective defensive act and 1 effective kick. Just not enough at this level to impact. Magner straight in for Bail. 31 possessions at Casey last week, enough said. 5. Taggert in for Watts. Watts is out of his depth at this level for now. Effectively a schoolboy still running around not doing much. Worth persevering with but allow him to develop an AFL body, aggression/desire and confidence at Casey for the rest of the year and give him another pre season. We need a “small” up forward and through the middle that can worry the opposition and provide some variety (ie., a small not another mid sized tall) when pushing up forward. Kicked 4 at Casey. Might equate to 1 or 2 max in the seniors but boy we need all the goal kicking players we can muster at present. Everyone’s playing their part, or trying atm. Unfortunately some just aren’t up to it at this level right now and may never be. We lack run off half back, we lack numbers in the mid rotations and we lack goal kicking power. We also lack 1 or 2 match winners and plenty of class in our finish and ball use, but that’s another story. Some or all of the above goes some way to fixing it (FOR THIS WEEK) IMO. Collingwood obviously offer a daunting prospect again this week, but nothing like last week. Average uncontested possesssion differential is about 45 compared to the Hawks, 62! Effective disposal differential is also closer (but still ugly enough) at 51 vs 73 at Hawkland. The kick to handball ratio is similar. Every stat, with the exception of Marks i50, i50 entries and bounces (run & carry) is closer against the Pies vs the Hawks. This is a gettable game IMO with the right personell, but yet again "Mad Eye" Neeldy (and the FD) manage to pull out the confounding at the selection table! The summary of average stats for those interested are below.... http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_comparison?team1_id=12&team2_id=5 (DEMONS v PIES) http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_comparison?team1_id=12&team2_id=11 (DEMONS v HAWKS)

Sam's gonna have a field day with this one tonight....so i thought i'd get in a little early..... [ youtube ] [ youtube ]

Early days. Would like to see the make up of the ticket first. Would need some quality "football" savvy/experienced club people with him in order to bring some common sense/smart football decisions and direction to the club. This board is difficient in that it doesn't speak openly or forthrightly to it's members and prefers to skirt around all the major issues, run and hide in the corners of the Green room and just throw out a few morsels to the members once in a while hoping this will keep the masses quiet. And not just this board. Been that way for decades now. Gardner was a little more out there in terms of representing but IMO never really stood up passionately for the club. Szondy...hmmm. While McLardy might be a nice bloke, he rarely steps up and represents on any issue nor does he defend us (or Neeld) when we/he are being potted pillar to post by every media scribe in the country. I cant recall the last time i heard McLardy front the media outside of a Melbourne presser. McLardy is no leader. There's no other "Melbourne" led ticket in the wings that I'm aware of. After 49 years of under performance I say bring it on. I'm all ears!

A neutral "hold the line outcome" ie didnt progress but didnt necessarily regress either from present sad state of affairs ; 10 to 12 goal loss Some signs of life and some of boys finally getting the message/playing for each other and the coach; 6 to 8 goal loss As above but the majority of players; 3 to 5 goals All players on board behind coach, penny dropping, some AFL standard skills beginning to form; 1 to 3 goals A mirical turnaround for the whole club; Win Going backwards at a steady rate of knots, most players not on board, another FD/Coach fail; 90+ loss

Sheedy was also asked a few weeks ago about his plans for next year re coaching. He said without hessitation he still wanted to coach and would be returning to Melbourne.Personally I think we (Gardner/Lyon et al) missed the boat on Sheedy in 2007. Choco's seen a bit now, including a premiership and a GF appearance 2 years after. He knows the game. Has seen the errors made at both a fully formed AFL club and a start up club under Sheedy. Now with a semi mature club that has passed us in the development stakes off and on the field. Knows how to handle the media. Got a reasonably good mix together at Port in the early days and developed many unknown players to a level that enabled the pinching of silverware off one of the all time great teams at the end of an amazing run. Will have the player's respect from day 1, delivers a simple message which even the slowest learners should be capable of getting. But on the other hand he plays the media game well with the us against them style. He'll be available and he doesn't need to relocate. I say Choco Williams all the way for 2014. I can only hope the new board is willing to cross the river Styx and slay Hades to get this man. P.S. I forgot to mention that my first preference is Bomber Thompson but he isn't listed. Still not sure why. Maybe I'm being unrealistic!

Depends.If all 22 have a red hot go for most of the 4 quarters and play team footy (& for each other) we should be able to keep this to a 10 to 12 goal thrashing, which is sad to say but that's what we have on the park for this game. If 1, 2 or maybe more of our AFL capable players drop off or decide to throw in the towel then yeh, we could be looking at another 148 special here. I guess it depends on how many of those AFL capables hang in there and for how long into the 4 quarters. I would be prepared to say that if it's the former, then the players have responded to Neeld. Not necessarily progressing but they've shown they're interested and something is clicking. If it's another 90+ blow out, well, I think you get the picture.

I don't even know what that means....Does Neeld? How the hell does he judge/measure if a player's been "Combative". I call bulldust on Neeld and double Bulldust on Slattery for using a Neeld term that even Neeld doesn't understand!! The Whole FD has gone to the Shizenhousen!!!

Here here Stuie. I think this is up there with the dumbest, harshest thread of the year. Give the bloke a break. We sold him up the river via CS's Red & [censored] Blue Print, the Board backed the Executive instead of the playing group during the 186 affair. The Board then sought the assistance of Lyon....for a 2nd time after his first attempt (under Gardner) FAILED (according to the present Board who sacked Bailey). The present board/CS are responsible for using Lyon, yet again, to appoint another untried coach! This started and will probably end with the present Board (and an ex CEO). If anyone should resign it is the presnt Board, not Neeld. Unfortunately there'd be no one running the club if they did lol. Neeld is probably going to be the pattsy (unfortunately not a very good one) appointed by the INEPT ONES and you want him to resign! At least let him see out the next 5 or 6 rounds (or so). In the end the players will determine his fate with their deeds on the ground. This club's been flailing and bouncing from one disaster to another for the last 7 years anyway. What's another 5 or 6 weeks going to matter to see if this bloke can deliver something or not. The club offered him the contract, he didn't come knocking. He'll get a nice payout if terminated early. If he resigns he gets SFA. Now that he's under no uncertain terms he's on notice, at least let him have a fair dip at it given he now knows he has much less time than first promised. If the outcome continues to be a complete disaster then the Board (if they have any competance remaining) will act. If it's something else then many on here, including myself, might need to take a deep breath and reconsider. Highly unlikely in my view but this is a guy's career on the line in the next month or so. As PJ said, give him a bit of clear air for Lucifer's sake and stop being so bloody nasty and small minded.

Neither have i Jack. Although i did see patches of some quick/decent ball use by hand, a little spread, as well as some blocking and protecting of players against the Tigers. I also finally saw some run and carry with successive clean possessions, again by hand, in that match. But it was patchy and mixed in with some atrocious passages of play and PW efforts too. We also have to be carefull about comparing our results against the Tigers in this regard as they are one of the worst tackling/pressure sides in the AFL atm and after watching them live that day, i wasn't overly impressed with them as a major threat to anyone who's aleady in the top 8. I didn't see the Dockers match, but i can only assume from what everyone is saying that the Dockers are a mile ahead in that tackling/pressure side. Hence the belting. In addition most of our boys "instinctively" look to roll out "away" from the corridor and look boundary side for the give off, instead of what most solid teams/instinctive AFL players do and look "seriously" inside as the first option before playing it safe up the line or towards the boundary if they can't. Not sure if this is "under instruction" as part of the Neeld way, or just lack of confidence taking the safer option as a 1st priority. Don't get me wrong, some players give a quick glance inside as their first option but i don't think they're willing to wait and actually go for a hit up lead inside or take a chance and run off towards the corridor. Very seldom anyway. Most just take the safer option even though, at times, the inside corridor is the better choice for the next passage of play and the team. This must be hell for attacking/running players like Evans, Blease, Rodan and M Jones as they work hard to get free/run forward calling for the receive, often to find the player they should be getting the quick give off from (or maybe the old 1 2 after they've just given it to that same player) instead stops in his tracks and looks to give it backwards or laterally to someone behind or on the outside (Terlich/Mckenzie have shown instances of this habbit in past games and moments). instead of giving it off quickly/instinctively to that player who's worked his arse off to get free. There's no basic understanding of just playing attacking, spreading/overlap style of football. Neeld must take some or much of the blame here. We're incapable of playing a fast moving, spreading/run/overlap game anymore for more than a few minutes, that will force our opponent to pay us respect when they haven't got the ball and CHASE our arses when we do finally have it. It's chicken and egg as well because i truly believe that some within our playing group just haven't been given the skills to pull off the fast 1/2 or 3 gives/receives in close without turning it over too often. It's a SKILL SET/BELIEF issue on one hand, combined with some dumb football (footballers) and a lack of "effort" from many. We are 2nd into the loose ball contest as well. Allowing the opponent to dictate, in some cases (eg Sellar in the last quarter against the Tigers) just letting the opponent leave the congested area (even though they are right next to them and CAN lay a tackle!) with the ball, without genuinly contesting. The penny finally sunk on Neeld a few weeks back that we need to start winning games. Hard to believe but i think true, and he's now trying to instill the SKILLS required to pull off fast ball movement and a run/spread/overlap style into the boy's play and psyche in order to finally hit the scoreboard (ie., attack) and win! I think it might be too little too late to save him but one never knows. If he can get some degree of aspects from this last para into them and get the belief/confidence up amongst enough of the players AND they can pull a win out against a big scalp like the filth..... you never know. If he can't and the players are just not capable of implementing Neeld's massive skill and quick ball movement emphasis (in training) into the game in the last 3 to 4 weeks, then he's toast IMO.

There aren't too many who would actually be capable of righting this ship leading from the top, but i must admit i have had similar thoughts about this bloke being a good helmsman for us WYL. At least he represents and gets out there and spruiks unlike our "invisible one". Not sure if he'd be willing though given his Hawthorn aliegiance is all i'm saying. Can you imagine the Collins Street set allowing a Kennett coup overseeing them at the top? Crikey, he'd also have to change his Yellow and Poo tweed jacket for our amazing blazer!

Bloody So & So

From where i sit Neeld appears to want the "whole" player group to be this ultimate "competitive"/defensive" unit, all trying to lock down on their opponents and cause as many stoppages as possible when things get ugly (the 2010 Collingwood style or something similar). The problem with this style/mind set is that creative/running players and outside mids (and even runners off HB to a lessor degree) then forget to do what they're best at, that's running/spreading away from the contest, creating overlap and taking risks to move the ball quickly down the field to leading forwards or forwards that are one out against their opponent because we've isolated them with quick ball movement and/or separation by our other forwards leading away from key targets. And once you fall behind (on the scoreboard) playing such a defensive style with such a defensive mentallity with most on ballers concentrated close to the contest, and you do this most of the time, you're attacking side (both quick attacks from congestion and counter attacks off HB) seize up even more as you're trying to lock down even harder ....it's all a downhill slide to oblivion from there IMO. Attack is one of the best forms of defense. Make the opposition chase us for a change and get them into a defensive mind set and fatigue them chasing OUR tail. And what happens when we do this? We hit the scoreboard more often (in theory) putting further presssure on the opponent to be accountable on us, instead of the other way around. Also most quality teams have a good "balance" of player types and skills and they allow their players to use those skils/talents, albeit within a particular game style and preferred structure. But they let them play and do what the Coach has recognised they do best. Neeld seems to want a particular "defensive/contested competitive" style from most players and expects them to change accordingly and morph into it, instead of playing them to their strengths whilst slowly but surely implementing a defensive side as they go over 2 to 3 seasons. Unfortunately for him, he appears to have skewed his focus way too soon and too overwhelmingly (for this group anyway) on an all out combative/defensive game style and mind set at the expense of attack, flair, quick ball movement....and most importantly,SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS in order to maintain possession....SCORE....and ultimately WIN.

Old Dee He'd keep the board well and truly focussed on the task at hand...... WINNING GAMES OF FOOTY!!!

Groundghog day Frankie. Speaking of Ology.... i was on there about 10 years ago. I know my user name but forgot my password. Any idea how i can retrieve that?? I've also tried to re-register a new name but won't let me in via that method.

Kennett has also overseen a club that acheived the ultimate.....However, as much as he might be an outspoken leader (some Hawthorn supporters might say too outspoken) ...isn't he Hawthorn through and through? And he has said some pretty negative things towards us over the years. That would be a complete 360 to jump in and role his sleaves up for us don't you think? We might also need to purchase some extra gaffer tape once in a while!

I have it on very good authority that the girl allegedly used words towards Goodes other than the word "Ape" on Friday evening guys. It would appear Goodes has gone the extra mile here in order to protect this minor. This guy is a true champion, both on and off the field. I only wish we had him at our club and he deserves to be commended for how he's handled this episode. Just as what was allegedly said (but reported otherwise) was completely unacceptable, so is The Sun's treatment of her here. A minor in this situation needs education and good guidance/counselling. Not shaming, naming and a front page spread. Disgraceful act by this paper and its editors.

Cant see him taking on such a massive challenge at this late stage TD. While I'd like to see his face back at the club in some role he's been away far too long and would be risking a heart attack trying to turn this wreck around. Doubt he would consider any AFL coaching role let alone this one. Williams seems like the best fit and most realistic chance for mine. Although my first preference would be Bomber Thompson. Why isn't he listed?

No present board members should be involved. They need to be moved on & the next coach and his preferred team of assistants selected by a footy savvy led board (president) and CEO