Forensic analysis: What changed when Mark Neeld was sacked??

[fairbump_playon]

Essendon's 2-6 start to the year undoubtedly ruined our season. Win two more games in there and we would all be besides ourselves with hope right now.

Media seem to focus on the players for pulling things together after the Carlton loss. While it does seem like Heppell's leadership improved at that point, and the results started to stack up, the most definitive event at that time was the sacking of Mark Neeld.

I'm amazed that when journos ask Worsfold to reflect on the season (and in particular the Carlton loss) they don't ask about Mark Neeld's demise.

The most of us seem only to be able to say "Neeld leaving probably improved communication - either in the coaches box, or between coaches and players".

I want to know what really happened. What was the structure when Neeld was with us, and what changed? Why was the impact so immediate and strong?

Surely among the Big Footy world we have some inside info. So who knows what??

 

[DapperJong]

I'm amazed that when journos ask Worsfold to reflect on the season (and in particular the Carlton loss) they don't ask about Mark Neeld's demise.

Probably because it’s obvious there was a lot more to our turnaround.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

I take more stock in the fact during that week hepp and the other leaders went to the young kids and apologised for not leading well enough and they took responsibility.

Felt like we had a massive turnaround from there.

 

[fairbump_playon]

Probably because it’s obvious there was a lot more to our turnaround.

The other aspects are widely acknowledged.

I'm not saying Neeld's demise was the only reason for the turnaround.

I AM saying it's highly likely to have been significant and it's impact is poorly understood considering its potential importance.

 

[maskmcgee]

Essendon's 2-6 start to the year undoubtedly ruined our season. Win two more games in there and we would all be besides ourselves with hope right now.

If we had of won more games there we wouldn't of had the turnaround after round 8.

 

[Shane Heard]

It probably cant be explained in words what changed.

The vibe..mental mindset..whatever you want to call it..something clicked in the group as a whole and they went out against geelong like possessed demons.

 

[DapperJong]

The other aspects are widely acknowledged.

I'm not saying Neeld's demise was the only reason for the turnaround.

I AM saying it's highly likely to have been significant and it's impact is poorly understood considering its potential importance.

Yeah, I’m saying it’s not

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Neeld came from coaching a club with a pathetic losing culture and he brought his putrid head with him. While his sacking may have had next to nothing to do with our turnaround, his track record and his permanently etched expression of being on the verge of tears couldn’t possibly fill a group with a lot of confidence.

 

[Jesse Custer]

Better communication as soon as he left?

 

[the PILL]

I honestly think Woosha was phoning in his performances for a bit, not particularly by intention but by coaching structure...

Players got confused by breakdowns in communication across lines and mixed messaging which Neeld was trying to coordinate (badly).

Worsfold woke up real quick after some reviewing highlighted the system was a coaching issue.

 

[Doss]

I suspect the whole structure was a bit out, a bit top heavy, and a bit too constricted. Neeld was the choke point that was complicating things excessively, which is not necessarily because of Mark himself, but more because the very structure stifled the coaches from actually, you know, coaching.

Some of the pot shots at Neeld make me cringe. The change was needed but it's very easy to pin it on him, when the reality is that whoever happened to be in his position was surplus to requirements and a blocker in the chain, so to speak.

 

[doug85]

Neeld came from coaching a club with a pathetic losing culture and he brought his putrid head with him. While his sacking may have had next to nothing to do with our turnaround, his track record and his permanently etched expression of being on the verge of tears couldn’t possibly fill a group with a lot of confidence. View attachment 548948View attachment 548949View attachment 548950

 

[Burzum]

Ordinary to make fun of his facial tics.

 

[BrunoV]

Direct answer to the question: lots changed but almost none of it had anything to do with Neeld.

He was the scapegoat for a side and a football department that was trying to play football the way we did last year without the inside midfield to get close to pulling it off.

 

[ant555]

What Bruno said.
The change happened because the players and coaches all sat down and asked of themselves what they wanted to stand for. What was going to be their brand. The senior players put their hands up and owned up to playing selfish footy and the coaches put their hands up and took on board that the players could use some better feed back to get things correct.
What changed was a better buy in to the defensive side of the game plan.

 

[Pweter]

I think the leaders confronting themselves and admitting to the younger players they'd let them down was the catalyst.

All of a sudden nobody is bigger than anyone else, we're one team. Queue Smack taking charge, Ridley having a fantastic debut, Langford holding his own against Dangerfield, Stringer and Saad getting off the leash (Smith already was) etc etc. It then flowed.

Neeld leaving was maybe the right move but I think the turnaround was more player driven.

 

[Bombermania]

The one thing we seemed to do was cut back on the in close handball and instead looked to kick more, also we seemed to stop playing unfit guys, playing an injured Daniher and Walla wasn't a great idea. We also were more aggressive, thanks to the likes of Smith and Stringer being willing to get into other players faces.

 

[blitzer]

I've never believed that Mark Neeld was single handedly holding back our club and players from winning games of footy. The very idea of it was ridiculous. I have no doubt that all the coaches and the players were working very hard for weeks during our losing streak to get the team on track and it just happened to click at that time.

I don't like to admit it but I personally thought we started to show signs of more system in the Carlton game before the turn around but we were still off the level we needed to be at plus we couldn't kick straight. After that game our leaders really stood up which was a huge factor for us too. Merrett and Heppell pretty much didn't play a bad game after that.

No doubt there was a reason why Neeld got sacked so early in the season though. I don't think they just went "hey we're on a losing streak, lets scapegoat Neeld". There must have been something fundamentally not working either with him or the role. We'll probably never get more facts on this issue.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Wasn’t so much Neeld himself but the terrible structure that was put in place by Worsfold this season.

Neeld’s role was ridiculous. As soon as it was removed things changed.

 

[fairbump_playon]

I suspect the whole structure was a bit out, a bit top heavy, and a bit too constricted. Neeld was the choke point that was complicating things excessively, which is not necessarily because of Mark himself, but more because the very structure stifled the coaches from actually, you know, coaching.

Some of the pot shots at Neeld make me cringe. The change was needed but it's very easy to pin it on him, when the reality is that whoever happened to be in his position was surplus to requirements and a blocker in the chain, so to speak.

I agree - no need for the pot shots at Neeld. He was well regarded at Collingwood and has a lot of experience across the industry.
I'm most interested in what you're saying, Doss. It's not about Neeld's nature but his role in the structure.
Would love to know the specifics on how that structure was working while he was in there.
And who is accountable for that structure having been wrong in the first place?

As outsiders we can see the stats on contested possessions and tackles etc, but the actual reporting and management structure within the coaching group is largely invisible.

People who are saying Neeld's sacking was irrelevant or that he was a scapegoat.. you could be right, I wouldn't know.
But I don't really understand how you can be so certain.

 

[citizen-erased]

Neeld probably cops it more than deserved.
Hepp or Zaka on the weekend on friday night mentioned we moved away from trying to play contested football and went back to our Plan A, which to me is about quick ball movement and keeping the ball moving.

I think we saw a change in intent, effort and playing on instinct vs. trying to do something we weren't equipped for.

 

[yodellinhank]

Neeld probably cops it more than deserved.
Hepp or Zaka on the weekend on friday night mentioned we moved away from trying to play contested football and went back to our Plan A, which to me is about quick ball movement and keeping the ball moving.

I think we saw a change in intent, effort and playing on instinct vs. trying to do something we weren't equipped for.

And to think we all wanted to see plan B so much. Shows what we know.

 

[bombre-boy]

Wasn’t so much Neeld himself but the terrible structure that was put in place by Worsfold this season.

Neeld’s role was ridiculous. As soon as it was removed things changed.

This is spot on.
Whom ever put this bizzare structure in place had/has a lot to answer for.

 

[NAB777]

There's a repetitive theme surrounding Mark Neeld chatter, and it's that he was not the nicest bloke when it came to criticising players.
If it's true - then that model went out with Barassi et al.

 

[orco]

prob a combination of getting rid or neeld, dropping daniher, leaders taking accountability and noticeable increase in aggressive tacking from walla and smith. lets hope we dont have to repeat this learning curve again next year. we have a great team as we have seen and so there are really no excuses for not finishing top 6.