Bergly Sanders

I'm not a frequent poster by any means on the forum, but I do read it quite often, especially after matches. There's a common lament that's thrown around quite a bit each week; that we've lived through x years of rebuild, and we shouldn't be in this position now, but we should be playing (imagine!) finals footy. I don't disagree with the latter part of the statement, but I'm not sure I completely agree with the first part. I'm an unashamed supporter of Neeld (we'll get to that), and I'm generally optimistic about where we're heading, because I don't believe that this is a rebuilding period; instead, we're building. In other words, Neeld's (re)build is emphatically not a continuation of Bailey's, but is a completely different beast, and an ambitious one at that. Let me explain. The team under Bailey seemed to be constantly in a rebuild phase: it became almost an axiom of the team. I'm not sure whether Bailey was a bad coach, but he certainly wasn't an ambitious one. By that, I mean that he seemed to be rebuilding, while waiting (patiently!) for a finals opportunity to conveniently present itself. He had an aim, but no objective, the latter being a quantifiable outcome (like "improve kicking efficiency," "improve ratio of tackles to opposition possessions per game", etc.), and the former being the end-goal (which doesn't at all have to be realistic). The club under Bailey was reactionary, conservative; the only really great performances were when the game was on their terms, or when they were criticised of being mediocre (see for example the "bruise-free footy" win over Essendon). They never really attacked games, and I think this was the fault of the insidious "we'll get there one day (but we're not good enough today!)" mentality created by calling it a rebuild. We always had the talent, but never the desire. Neeld inherited a directionless team. A team that was waiting around to get into the finals, without fighting for it. A rebuild requires that there are some salvagable parts with which to work with. (Renevations à la Buckley's Collingwood are even easier! Just replace a coat of paint, and you're done! ). Neeld said pretty early on, and he has said at almost every opportunity since, that he is working towards something new. A new brand of football, a new intensity at the ball, all overseen by a new coaching staff. Neeld has an ambition, and he said it as soon as he was made coach: to make us the hardest team to play against in the league. I don't think I've heard him say anything about winning a flag, or playing in the finals (I could have missed something, of course). Every team wants to win the flag. Bailey wanted to win the flag. But you can't win the flag by simply saying that you're going to win the flag. Being a "good" team isn't particularly specific or helpful for any real course of action: many different teams are good at different things; even two "good" teams (e.g. Collingwood and Hawthorn) are "good" in different ways. Being a tough team to play against, on the other hand, has defined parameters, and a defined path to achieve it (improve contested possessions, restrict ball movement, etc.). Neeld is building from scratch, a new team with a new mentality. Neeld's Demons will be, in the future, a proactive team, have no doubt. We have had a shocking year. I'm not that naive. We've won less games than under Bailey. There's no denying that. But there have been few games where I've been disgusted by how the team looks like it didn't show up, whereas that was most of the time with Bailey. Three quarters of a season and a preseason can't erase completely that mentality of rebuilding. But it's going. It takes a hell of a lot longer to build a house from scratch than to rebuild one. Bailey's house was hideous sometimes, pretty others, but was always shaky, and there is no way it could have gone any higher, because the foundations (which I think are the ambition of the archetect) were always faulty. Neeld is laying new foundations. They don't look like much now, but the house built on them will be a hell of a lot prettier than Bailey's. Edit: spelling(s)!

I agree. Where are the heroics in this team? Where is the drive? What can this signify to potential sponsors? Do they want to suggest their brand is all about innovation and passion, etc., and then say, "PROUD SPONSOR OF THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB." I certainly wouldn't put my brand name near the team.

Perhaps the single aspect I was most impressed with from tonight's game was that we didn't run out of legs towards the end of the game. Our side didn't look tired, and that wasn't from a lack of effort. The players could have easily (we've all seen it before) given up because we were "well enough" out in front, or because of a lack of fitness & drive, but they kept on running, contesting, and, what seems to be quickly becoming Neeld's catchphrase, keeping their heads above the ball. Feels great to win, feels better that we can expect more performances like this in the season proper.

I went to watch a couple of matches at the Boundary Hotel in West End. Their sports-related gimmick is "a screen for every code," which means we'd be guaranteed a screen, at least. The screen they usually showed matches on wasn't the biggest in the pub (that screen was for League, of course), but it was a decent size, and there were tables and a bar in front of it. No sound, though... I'm sure we could ask them to turn it up. The food's decent, and pretty cheap. Should be central enough for people to get to, there's public transport close. Parking shouldn't be too much of a problem, provided you don't mind a short walk.