Lutz

I beg to differ. The international rules series is a Mickey mouse competition, and Green was the most experienced and senior player in a very green side, with an AFL club captaincy to lend credence to his leadership abilities, either rightly or wrongly. I think he was elected captain partly by default, and partly because of how he looked best on paper. Ease had little time with the players to make a proper judgment. That's why Neeld still hasn't made a decision on the captaincy, despite having coached the playing group for a lot longer.

Pretty sure I've read somewhere that Aussie was regarded as playing his best footy in the Back Pocket, according to a former indigenous star of the game whose name I can't recall. One of the blokes from the Marngrook show, I think. It's possible he was playing in the backline.

Even if the players in question were to be slightly embarrassed, or even humiliated, by Neeld's disclosure of their meetings, I'm curious to know what posters think this negative side effect could possibly be? Does anyone really think it will lead to them demanding a trade, or create disharmony within the playing group? Cos I don't.

Substitute it for a different word if you like - it doesn't really change anything.

Fair question, that I don't have the answer to. Partly as a PR exercise for the supporters, and those particular 2 chosen because they are bigger names and have already withstood public criticism before? Purely as an example of the way he is doing things, and chose those 2 randomly (doubtful since he comes across so deliberate in all his actions / statements). I think Neeld's philosophy involves open honesty and not hiding from criticism, so the idea of public humiliation was not a concern for him. I certainly think his comments on both players were very fair and not overly critical. Constructive, if anything.

The message to the playing group as a whole - no matter who you are, highly rated superstar-in-waiting coming off your best season to date, or highly respected senior member of the leadership group - you are not immune to criticism and you will be expected to improve. Every player on the list has been put on notice. There is nowhere to hide.

It's my understanding the club prefers supporters (and in regards to this site in particular) to not film training & post it on the Internet? I could easily be wrong - just asking the question.

The way I see it, Neeld is merely pushing different players' buttons in the ways he thinks they should be pushed. I've no problem at all with Neeld's public criticism of Watts, or anyone else. So far it has all been hard but totally fair. I'd be more concerned with how the players react, and if they feel they have something to hide.

Good post. I don't want to turn this into a "why Green shouldn't be captain" thread, but I really think he falls down in this area. In my limited experience with Green, and observing him, he is not a great communicator. Seems to say so little, regardless of how many words he uses. I'm a fan of Grimes for captain, for this reason and others.

You overexaggerate his injury record. And how can you state any player's body will not let them down?

No. Grimes would be the captain when fit, the vice captain would take over when not. Like all captaincy arrangements. Not complicated. Why would you expect Grimes to not play games? The idea of a player being injury-prone is a simple concept for simple people.

Irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I said Grimes could be our next captain, that doesn't necessarily mean 2012. Injuries are only an issue if you expect them to continue chronically. This is not the case.

Yes it was. The guy won the leadership award last year from the sidelines. Injury is a non-issue; that is the sole reason for having the vice captaincy.

Irrelevant.

Sounds great, thanks guys. No mention of grimes? (the forgotten man?) My favourite for the next captain. Also, good to hear about Strauss. He's growing into a mini-Frawley.

Hahahaha right... Sounds like something one would say when they suddenly realise they are thoroughly out of their depth when discussing a particular topic.

Can't agree with this. And do you recall a bloke playing for Collingwood by the name of Luke Ball? Don't see why McKenzie couldn't play a similar role.

So, you were wrong, but you still choose to focus on a small aspect of the post, one that is subjective anyway, and attempt to use that to make you sorta right? You were clearly wrong and you continue to be. McKenzie's skills aren't half as bad as you paint them to be. If anything, his at-times poor disposal in 2011 was by virtue of the places he gained possession of the football. Your use of a throwaway, unverified line from Malthouse lend little extra weight to your argument. Neil Craig was a clear fan. And more than anything else, Neeld has promoted the need to fill the side with competitors who win their own footy - McKenzie is nothing if not a competitor. Moloney will be gone from the list before McKenzie.

FYI: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-rookie-jordie-mckenzie-repays-faith/story-e6frf9jf-1225832609454

Fair bit of artistic license used in the above description of Jordie. I'm a fan, but I think that's way OTT.

Don't forget that after his 1st season on the rookie list, Adelaide tried to lure McKenzie away on a big contract but he wanted to stay and repay the club's early faith in him. Neil Craig is obviously a fan. Jordie's skills are better than 2011 indicated.

Bennell & Gysberts were both selected higher than expected according to the general consensus, from what I observed. And since we don't have access to clubs' IP in regards to potential recruits, we have no idea how other clubs viewed them. Just like with Taggert. There's no anecdotal evidence to say 6 clubs weren't waiting to pounce on Rohan Bail late in the draft, but recruiters rarely make comment on players they don't end up getting. Re: Bennell, iirc WestCoast were hoping to take him at their next pick, but didn't expect us or any other team to be interested so early. Re: Gysberts, he was being tracked by those other teams, but their picks were 14 & 17 compared to our 11, and anecdotal evidence would make it appear that no other clubs viewed him quite as highly (outside the top 20). Him carrying an injury on the DL through his final year of TAC cup could have contributed to this.

A very strange conclusion to come to, based on no evidence and seemingly not much thought. Some strange axe to grind? Not happy unless you have something to complain about or criticise? Picking players unexpectedly has been a theme since BP has been in charge, and it has worked out fairly well for us. Bail, Martin, McKenzie, Evans, Howe, Nicholson, Gysberts, Tom MacDonald, Bennell...

It's relatively clear to me, and just as clearly defined as any other role at the football club. Maybe the problem is with your comprehension?

Was about to post exactly the same thing.