tonatopia

Actually, the Demons ripped them apart in the second quarter. Then we got polaxed. Still, we had enough good players to rip them apart for one quarter at least. But still, we ripped gold coast and GWS apart for a quarter each this year. Wohoooo. Seriously, you people have rocks in your head, either that or the pied piper is still playing his merry little tunes.

Well done mate. Boy you have a short memory. Dosnt a couple of ripper games against the pies ring any bells?

But, we might be able to buy our way out of it. Good luck. As for the players not having a say, Look at Geelong. Bailey molded his coaching philosophy on Bomber Thompson. He believed that the players should not be forced into the game plan, but they should will themselves into the game plan. Ofcourse it took a bit longer than traditional methods, but the result was that the players, once self-driven, started playing for each other, and looked dynamic. Neeld on the other hand, is acting like a new king who has been given absolute authority to wield his power over a group of people that he has no faith in, and if the players are not buying into his methods, he just hires mercinaries to do the job. I think this strategy stinks. It is cold, it is spiritless, it is demoralising.

To illistrate my point, i remeber going to the rd2 game against Hawthorn when we were smashed in the first quarter. Then, in the second quarter, we blitzed them with the most exciting footy I have seen us play. Then we got belted by them in the last 2 quarters. What I learnt from that game is that our attacking footy is a good as the Hawks attacking footy, however, we needed a defensive structure. Now, what you people are trying to tell me is that we have a shite side. I still believe our attacking footy was as good as anyone in the league, because I saw it with my own eyes on many many occasions between 2010 and 2011. Our error is that we have killed our offensive flair. Now we a just stagnant rot. Don't blame the players, blame the gameplan.

this is an interesting post, because it highlights the fact that the players are not sure about Neelds ideaology. It raises the question about troops in war, if only our troops had not agreed to British orders to invade the Turkish coast in Gallipoli, we would have avoided the slaughter. Troops gave 100% but still got massacared. I wonder if the players are doubting Neelds game plan because even they can see that it is not effective, and they don't believe in him. Interesting times ahead. As for people who say that the players have not performed over the last 4 years, I think that up until rd15 last year, we definetly saw some good signs from our players. I thought our good footy was as good as anyone in the league. We looked daring and exciting and entertaining. This year, we have only had the occasional mark from Howe to keep us going.

I am not ready to put up my hand up due to my business being only 5 years old, and I am still nurturing it as a priority. Give me another 5 years when I can appoint a full-time manager of the business and I will enter the political fray, without an excuse in the world.

yes, but enough is enough. I can see what 2013 will bring. indirect football, defensive structures and constant second guessing due to an over-complicated game plan. Players being dulled down so they can implement a style of football that I think is already out-of-date. RangeRover, spare me with you questions, I think your a [censored].

Heard the term, 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' look it up.

I want to see Melbourne win. Neeld has given me nothing to suggest that he ever will do anything more than be mediocre. Now he wants to sack 1/4 of the team. Jesus Christ.

George W Bush spent $4 trillion on his troops that resulted in a disaster. Don't blame the soldiers, blame the boss.

I fear being led by you. My god, just imagine. having to take orders from a butt plug. No thanks.

As Kevin Sheedy said, 'Too much analysis leads to paralysis', and to recall my football days, I usually played best when I was simply hungry for the footy. Maybe, just maybe, it is not the players that are at fault, it is the coach that is derailing their hunger with an over-emphasised priority on structure, which is preventing the players to simply be hungry for the footy. in time, maybe the structures will become second nature and the players can focus on the footy again, but then again, maybe Neeld is a dud. Do we really want to get rid of a 1/4 of our list. Players like Petterd, Bennell, Gysberts and Blease will go to Sydney and absolutely dominate. You watch. Players lke Moloney, Rivers and Bartram will end up at Geelong or Essendon or Carlton and be fixed members of their team. I hope Neeld knows what he is doing, because like Prendergast, they can just leave and we get stuck with the mess. We must hold them accountable and consistently check their decisions. They are employed by us, the members.

Dangerous gamble with our future from a coach that is unproven. Too dangerous for my liking. If it works, well done. If it dosnt work, we are fcuked and no-player would want to join a disposable club culture. I am afraid Neelds may be overestimating his abilities and we may be the worse for it. Surely we can do a Sydney, use the players we have, get the most out of them and top up with good recruiting. Rebuilding again after a 4 year rebuild is disturbing. Couldn't we have just implement a methodogical defensive structure while embracing Baileys offensive flair and increasing our fitness base, so that we are at least winning games of footy. But, I am sure their is a good 'reason'.

If Neeld dosnt perform in 2013, dare I say, there will be a clean out of every position from the coaching staff up to board level. As the concensus has made it clear that Neeld is to be given another opportunity in 2013, he better perform or else nobody's position will be safe. Not the president, nor the board and especially the coaching department. The time for endless 'reasons' to justify our onfield rot is nearing a climax. 2013 will be very important indeed. As someone suggested about Primus, I think 2 years is ample time to get an indication of whether the right decisions have been made in recruiting key personell outside the playing group.

Mate, heaps of venom thrown at anyone who questions neeld. It is a little disturbing, especially considering his unacceptable results. I suppose some people need a messiah, and to question their messiah results in violent and often degenerate personal attacks. I just hope their beliefs in their 'new' messiah are based on more than just wonder lust. It is hard to be in a herd of sheep that are being led to stale pastures by an unenlightened Shephard. It is enough to make a black sheep out of me. But once there are enough black sheep, the new Shephard will emerge.

Go wood and yencken!

Ok, the Melbourne Reasons. Same shite, different smell.

Some more food for thought, Gold coast beat us last week in hard ball gets and inside 50's. Gold coast are a bunch of 19 year olds, and neelds objective was to make us contested ball winners. But I'm sure 'you' have an excuse for this. Nb. Gold coast nearly outscored us in the last 3 quarters. So much for a 'promising pergormance'. Quite poor actually, especially considering it was being played at the g.

Hawks 2008. No excuses there. That's what worries me about Neeld, excuses, excuses, excuses. You don't hear that from good coaches. We should change our name from Melbourne Demons to Melbourne Excuses.

Great move by Stynes and co. And if we can't train at the 'G', at least we are training as close as we possibly can. Now we have to become profitable, and good footy increases revenue. So really, it always comes back to good footy. Thats all I wanna see.

de cali, surely an alliance with the MCC can only be positive for the MFC. The MCC is the most powerful sporting club in the country and I do believe they have quite a bit of money and influence. Why would you sever the relationship?

20% is better than nothing. We get looked after with a good stadium deal, it is a positive.

Thanks Gonzo. Well, those figures suggest that the majority MCC members would not really want to help MFC, which is dissapointing.

Some people might just know. Sorry Rhino, I am sorry I offended you. I am not in the MCC and I dont know where to access the data. Really, do you need to talk to people like that?

Really, only 20% of MCC members are MFC supporters. Are you sure?