Demon Dynasty

Just look after yourself mate. I've been there twice and in the end this club has has given very little back on the field after decades of support, memberships and $ thrown at it. Let the club and players sort their own shyte out. The players, coach and many within the FD are getting well paid to dish up this crap so don't feel guilty if you cant contribute till you sort things. Hope you have something lined up.

Diablo your Poll Banner and the actual question are asking two different things. Might want to clear that up mate.

OD i know this is tongue in cheek, at least i'm guessing it is. But actually this should be seriously considered for those who refuse to tackle, chase and do the basic "effort" things expected of any footballer, even at amateur level. If Neeld truly followed through on his main "mantra" and "committment to the players when he first started.....which was..... "Everyone has a role in our structure and when it's their turn to go they must play their part!.... We will have a HARD EDGE". Followed by .... "You can trust me, if the bloke that you're sitting beside can't do that (meet the above mantra) to a level that i will set, HE WON'T PLAY". If Neeld was being true to himself and his original beliefs he MUST drop players who didn't meet his minimum KPI's. I suspect 1 of those would have to be that you at least get X number of tackles during each match as a tackle is the bare minimum that a player who is badly out of form should be able to still carry out during a match (ie., compete). I suspect that number would be around the 65 mark (minimum) as a team, which is what we averaged last year (hopefully aiming for higher this year). That's approx 3 tackles per player per match. Under that scenario, surely those who only had 1 tackle or none SHOULDN'T PLAY this week..... They include... Byrnes Frawley Tapscott Gawn Howe Evans Davey (sub doesn't really count as not on for entire match) Dawes (1st game back.... could be excused) Spencer Strauss Bail Nicholson M Jones I doubt we'd have enough replacements at Casey to cover everyone, but i think he should at least make a massive statement this week. Part of the trouble with our players (over many decades now IMO) is that we've never had the depth (or the gonads) to drop those that won't demonstrate a minimum effort and commitment towards the team and guernsey every week. They know we have no depth and their position is pretty safe.....so they just play to a base minimum and are generally happy (many players not all ... eg., exclude Clark, Jones & Howe in present group) to just take their pay and go home and enjoy the high life. TOO MANY PLAYERS AT THE DEMONS ARE JUST TOO COMFORTABLE....ITS BEEN THIS WAY FOR DECADES

Start by bringing back The Melbourne Demons. We all know how we arrived at that name via the great Frank 'Checker' Hughes However, The Melbourne 'Demons' and all physical references to it (the most recent material reference being "The Flame") was actually taken out of this club and removed from all marketing material, literally, by Gardner et al back in the mid 2000's and has never fully returned. We were hence forth referred to in all marketing and physical material (other than retro T-Shirts/Clothing) as The Melbourne Football Club. It is only recently (i think it was roughly around 2010 with the advent of Ronald ‘Dee’ Mann) that the Demon has made a bit of a come back at the Mascot level but the club still doesn't make any reference in any marketing material to us being The Melbourne Demons, nor is there a Demon on any marketing material other than a minor throwback via the trident on the coat of arms and references to 'Demons' in fund raising campaigns such as 'Bring back a Demon' and 'Dedicated Demon Payment Plan'. We are more likely to refer to ourselves in marketing material and club announcements as "The Dees". Personally i don't know what a "Dee" is and i hate that reference. Makes us sound wimpy and weak and that's pretty much how we play most of the time. I think 'Checker' would turn in his grave if he heard us using that term. I never use that term and never will for as long as i follow The Demons. I only wish we would bring back a decent Demon mascot on all marketing material and our general branding. This is how i fondly remember the club growing up. I would also like to see us return to our true red. Watching Michael Voss being interviewed the other evening i had to look twice at his shirt in the after match presser to make sure that wasn't us!! Probably another CS special. Looks like a dark pink on the TV too. Damn crappy colour IMO. I always take my 2006 scarf to the matches as it still has the Flame and proper Red in it and was the last one to maintain both before it was morphed. P.S. DeeVoted i like your Image/Logo !!!

Not while the current President (Board) is still in place. I think Paul Roos or any decent coach would be thinking the same. That's if they were asked to give it a thought and offered a massive contract. Can't see that happening anytime soon either. Not without a huge AFL bucket of $$. Then we'd be effectively run and owned by the AFL so they would anoint their 'preferred' option anyway and it may be someone other than Roos

Pretty good Frankie. Can i throw in Diamond Joe and also "Fabulous" Phil !! All 11 games and 23 goals worth

"IS" WYL.... just saying

Not unless there's an immediate "Quality" proven coach out there who's waiting in the wings. Even if there was we'd have to pay him massive overs. Money we don't have. In addition he would want to bring a new team of line coaches, development coaches and his own recruitment manager in. Plus he would probably want a financial commitment from the board (read AFL) on footy spend for the 3 years (or whatever) that he's contracted for so he knows the $$ for the FD and his strategy/set up/personell up will keep flowing and not be cut after the first year or 2. Peter Jackson hasn't been in the place long enough to handle something so mega either i would think. He would do better (and would no doubt be under some sort of soft instruction higher up the AFL chain) to complete his review of the club from the top down and put forth his recommendations. The rot starts at the top. Finish this part first before commencing a clean out and refurb of the FD. Neeld to remain till close to season's end IMO. I don't think anyone could salvage much from this mess if we were to appoint a caretaker between now and the end of year anyway. Although more damage could potentially be done i guess and we could see some senior (and less senior) players walking at year's end. I think this will happen regardless, it's just a matter of how many take up their bed and walk.

BUMP! I remembered this post as it stood out from the throng at the time. I wondered if you've seen enough now Old Dee

Not at all. Just trying to keep myself occupied and stay sane as i watch us self deestruct for the 5th straight year. Better than kicking the poor old cat. 80% of footy is above the head and nothing to do with experience. Players can do almost anything on the day, particularly against mediocre opposition if they are motivated to do so. Their performance on the field is a reflection of the coach and his ability off it, or lack thereof, to get the best out of a playing group each and every week. Neeld has so far proven he has no idea how to connect, motivate, plan, make the right match ups/selections for game day, make good moves/changes during a match as well as LEAD/MOTIVATE a young group of players to play for him or the jumper over a whole game, let alone week after week. The end is nigh for Mr Neeld. I was hoping he might turn things around this year but he's turned this playing group/list from woeful to totally shizenhausen.

More than likely now. But this present board appointed him and allowed a 2nd dip/input into the selection process after the first failed input/advice (Bailey) by one Mr G Lyon. IMO they are equally (or potentially even more) culpable than the coach right now having made the same mistake of allowing an outside adviser to suggest and then accept another untried coach.

Their top 5 most experienced players are better (overall) than our top 5. The most experienced in order of games played 1. Sylvia / Ablett 2. Jones N / Campbell Brown 3. Byrnes / Brennan 4. Frawley / Harbrow 5. Dunn / Murphy Our bottom 6 wouldn't get a game elsewhere either IMO (in no particular order) ...... Spencer Strauss Nicholson Bail Sellar McKenzie We also have 6 players (versus their 2) who have less than 10 games under their belt.... Kent Terlich Viney Jones M Gawn Evans And we also have ..... Neeld and his amazing line/development coaches

Demons by 6 goals (give or take a goal). Jones boy BOG.

Not really that bizzare Swooper. This is just another example of how this club lacks good governance and passionate football savvy leaders off the field. They are mostly corporate/lawyer/accountant types, willing to roll over in order to comply with "authority". We lack a passionate strong voice, a visible outspoken leader to make a stand on issues like this. They're also very silent on most of these issues without any feedback to the most important aspect of the club, its members. Poor communication. Lack of resolve. No representation. No outspoke voice or face at board level. Poor Governance. Change at the top is needed way before thinking of looking for a new coach, otherwise we'll just continue down the path of being the whipping boy of the AFL and a continual laughing stock on the field as well. Put real leaders in at the top who are passionate about the club and are willing to fight tooth and nail to protect its heritage & brand both on and off the field then we might start to see a resurgence of a once great club and start earning a bit of respect.

The Demons vs The Suns Round 7, 2013 – Team Stats Total Games Played Demons - 1,097 Suns – 1,325 Games Average Demons - 50 Suns – 60 Height Average Demons - 187.7cm Suns – 187.8cm Weight Average Demons - 88.7kg Suns – 87.4kg Age Average Demons - 23.5 Power – 22.9 Number of players by category 0-49 Games Demons - 14/19.5 (number of players/average games played) Power - 16/27.9 50-99 Games Demons - 3/72.3 Power - 1/73.0 100+ Games Demons – 5/121.4 Power – 5/161.0 Stats courtesy of footywire.com

5th or 6th!? WTF. You mean I missed plan B?

I think he works hard Adam but just isn't able to stay with the pace anymore other than when he's resting forward. Can still take the occasional grab and goal. I'd be playing him there as resting ruckman more often if he has to be played, along with Gawn. Not sure about Spencer just yet but worth seeing a few more games at this level. And you're correct. Rush is getting bowled over in the ruck contests far too often now. Might be an indicator that the end isn't all that far away i'm afraid. There were at least 2 classic examples of this in the first quarter against the Lions when Leaunberger (or however you spell it) jumped over him for the hit out and he lost his feet allowing quick clearances i50. Definitelly resulted in the first goal to Brown (Trengove's poor marking on Beamer didn't help either).and possibly 1 other goal later in the quarter.

I'd like to see us in more of an all in one real "Club" set up too deeluded. But where abouts and also how would we find the money for that now that we're such a basket case on the field? The club's coffers would hardly be expanding at a great rate at this point.

I'd put Grimes and Trengove on about a par development wise atm albeit Trengove's had a poor start this year through injury. I see your point though. Was mainly meant to highlight the new guys who haven't played enough games to really know and/or fringe players. In hindsight i should have included Grimes as well. I still don't believe either player has cemented themselves as a genuine AFL level/standard player. Well on the way to doing so but i think in a team placed somewhere within the 8 they would both be "fringe" players at the moment. Getting a few games here and there but having to fight tooth and nail to stay in the best 22. That's what i meant by still proving themselves at this level. Getting regular games at Melbourne is not a good reference point to where our players might be at as we are at the lowest end of pretty much all benchmarks atm and have been since Neeld commenced.

Excellent summary Dee. Very robotic (slow motion 80's style) once we lose possession, overly predictable once we do get it (mostly looking to head boundary side ) and gifting the ball to our opponents far too often which boosts their confidence, deflates ours and as you said it's effectively like gifting them 1 or 2 extra men on the field. Also we seem incapable of handballing 2 to 3 times quickly in succession around stoppages and congestion in order to escape that congestion and find an outside runner. Also there is some debate on here about zones. I'm yet to be convinced that's what Neeld is implementing. I need to review more matches before I'm convinced but from what I can tell so far, it's players just "thinking" too much or still not knowing their roles or incapable of manning up that makes it look as if they're guarding space when in effect they're just lost and not sure who they're supposed to be marking. There wae a moment in the 1st quarter against the Lions a few weeks back. Terlich marking Redden (I think) & Chip marking Brown. Both Lions players running through the top of the goal square deep in the forward line. For some reason Terlich decided to also mark Brown allowing his opponent to make an unmarked lead straight up the middle for the hit up. He marked, goaled and vavoom they were off again. Meanwhile poor old chip was left in Reddens wake having to leave Brown and try to stop the mark with no hope of getting there. If you didn't watch that piece of play carefully u wld swear we were guarding space or trying out some sort of wacky zone, and very poorly. But no. Was just confusion by 1 player in this case.

Yes i'm getting that vibe too PM. I think if we can hang on to one ray of hope it is that the players might be in the early stages of finding that belief. My only worry is that they've lost so many games now, and that Neeld has told them we are developing and not to expect much, that they've forgotten how to guts out a win against most teams unless they're up against another easy beat club (at present) like GWS or GCS. I'm not sure you can just click your fingers and start winning games of footy and become competitive. And as yet, Neeld's given no indication of when that point might arrive and neither has the President/Board given any indications of their expectations of Neeld during his 3 year contract. The president, the board, Neeld & the FD all give the impression that they're ok to just keep bouncing along the bottom at this point without any pressing time line.

Only chinese whispers but i also heard this from a source who has connections to a new player at the club. Stated that he noticed there were some players who pranced about as if they were king pins and wasn't overly praising of the general culture amongst some of the players. Said he couldn't understand the attitude given where we were on the ladder. Could be absolute rubbish and not sure how such a young player with little club experience could judge anyway, but FWIW that's what i heard.

In the team that played Carlton last week Roost (including emergencies) we'd have about 8 players that might make the grade at other AFL clubs (outside the 2 expansion teams). The ones you mentioned (highlighted) are yet to prove themselves as being AFL standard. Given enough games and time they may, but that could be said of many start out players in many clubs. Of those 8 players that could make other AFL lists, apart from maybe Clark and Howe, i would argue the rest will probably never be A graders. And yes i realise most other clubs don't have an endless list of A graders either. And I agree with you we might be only 4 players (or a few more) short of being competitive. However, where i beg to differ is due to the quality of those 8 players (and the rest of our list!). I would think from those additional 4 players (or so), at least 2 would need to be super star type players that could potentially turn some matches off their own efforts and the other 2 (or so) would need to be pretty damn good as well. We'll just dead cat bounce for the next decade otherwise.

That's a given i think OD. No arguments there. As to whether it's the worst list going around i guess we'll find out by about round 12 or so but i'm hoping the injection (yeah i love that term atm lol) of Dawes and hopefully the return of Grimes and Clark at some point will bolster our overall stocks and quality across the ground and place us just ahead of the 2 start up clubs. Maybe even the Doggies! We're living through the worst of the worst both off and on the field leadership wise that i can remember OD. About the only exciting thing happening this year that i can grasp hold of would be the speckies and form of Howe (apart from last week), the continual dogged efforts of Jones, the development of Evans who's starting to show some indications that we might have finally found a decent outside mid, Terlich's early efforts and the good form (so far) of Garland. I like Tappy's heavy hitting too and hope he keeps it up lol.

I posted this in response to a poster's comment on how we matched Carlton in the "Clearances" stat (almost) on Sunday....... ........."If you were thinking of using "Clearances" as a demonstration of where your team is at in the mid field then think again. The Demons are ranked 17th after 6 rounds. Yet guess who sits below us in 18th spot! You'd never guess....the Mighty Cats!! Yep. They're worse than us in that particular stat. And the Pies.....16th and Carlton 10th. And i'm pretty sure most pundits would rank the Cats mid field alot higher than us at present. A somewhat more telling stat in this area is (IMO) "Effective Disposals" which, as you would no doubt already know, is an indicator of how well you are using the ball when you do get it, ie., a reasonable indicator of ball usage & skills. On that stat you have the following results after 6 rounds of data...... 1. Essendon 2. Geelong 3. Hawthorn 4. Port 5. North 6. Collingwood 7. Sydney 8. Richmond 9. Carlton 10. Brisbane 11. St Kilda 12. Gold Coast 13. West Coast 14. Bulldogs 15. GWS 16. Adelaide 17. Freemantle 18. Melbourne " End Stats: Courtesy of Footywire