Jared Rivers interview on SEN

[CowboyFromHell]

Same here. Although I really want to see how the season pants out, I think there has been glimpses. That's not to undersell how important today is!

Or tomorrow for that matter syl...

 

[syl]

Or tomorrow for that matter syl...

Hmm, still struggling to return to normalcy after the sojourn abroad!

 

[Tulip]

We dont even miss Rivers.

Was an average player who would not be making 1 ounce of difference if he was in our current team.

I like this name, hopefully you get to stick around this time.

 

[Topkent]

We dont even miss Rivers.

Was an average player who would not be making 1 ounce of difference if he was in our current team.

Stupid comment , why would Geelong take him if he was average .. In hindsight I remember all the times he played on clone and the other big guys and got towelled , but he wasn't that defender and he still always tried his best , his missing presence would no doubt be hurting our backline

 

[stretcharmstrong]

We dont even miss Rivers.

Was an average player who would not be making 1 ounce of difference if he was in our current team.

Have to disagree with that. I think we are missing him. I think part of the reason that Frawley and Mcdonald have looked average this year is that they are a bit lost without Riv.

 

[00Stinger]

I like this name, hopefully you get to stick around this time.

He must be a cat because he has had close to 9 lives (profiles anyway) that have died so far

 

[Darksidepoints]

We dont even miss Rivers.

Was an average player who would not be making 1 ounce of difference if he was in our current team.

Absurd. He was a vital part of our defense. We were far better with him.

 

[AlDemonic]

We definitely miss Rivers. Was one of our best players last year IMO and better than the spuds brought in to replace him (Gillies)

 

[HankScorpio7]

Interesting to hear what he had to say. I've seen what Neeld did with the leadership group played out plenty of times in the corporate world. New guy comes in, spills leadership positions, says everyone will be considered equally yet none of the incumbents ever keep their positions because the new guy wants 'their people' in those positions as opposed to the best people (whoever they may be - incumbent or otherwise). I sincerely doubt selection of leadership group was objective & fair & Riv & Moloney likely never had a look in. Right or wrong, assuming most people in the organisation know who the leaders are within the group and when you see those guys not even get a look in, you question the motives of the new person & doubt that you'll be given a fair go, despite their claims and become disillusioned.

 

[blackcat]

Jared Rivers was on SEN prior to the Essendon vs. Geelong game tonight. I highly recommend that all Dees supporters have a listen, and I will endeavor to post a link as soon as it is loaded up. Jared explained how cut up both he and Moloney were after being removed from the leadership group by Neeld upon his entry into the club. He really felt disenchanted that as an older player he was so easily disregarded in place of youth, especially since neither was given an opportunity to prove themselves. He also suggested that Moloney was a great leader at the club, and did a lot of work with the younger players outside training. I don't want to paraphrase any more, but please have a listen if you want a real insight into the club from the perspective of a highly respected senior player. Mark Neeld's decision to demote senior players like Moloney and Rivers was as bad as Bailey's decision to move on Junior.

i would even go further than mcdonald and add in bruce, mclean, and woewodin. bear with me here.

one of the overlooked assets at the club was the legacy IP of your veterans. this has a close relationship to what you euphemistically call "the jumper". the culture and values of the club will never be shown up on a balance sheet or the annual profit and loss.

with the draft and sports science, and coaching departments of ten professionals, they often lose sight of the forest for the trees, and attempt to dial in every variable to a 100% degree. But then what is ignored, is the expense/loss column.

just assuming that a thirty year old veteran, is not going to win you a flag, and is just clogging up a position that a youth player could take advantage of and improve the future team.

if you took in a polymath consultant to assess the influence of the draft (re: drafting to a flag, bottoming out) and the "science" of drafting and scouting, the finding to come back would be the results of this theory are bunkum. draft position and future status are not a strong correlation. also, the alternative teams, like geelong and sydney, are unique, and exceptions to the rule.

my point is, even if woewodin will not take a pay cut, the ramifications are more than 50k in each of the two years remaining on a contract. so mclean might have been injury prone and slow(ing). but he has been able to turn around his career.

moloney and rivers, are the two most recent.

science and professional coaches and things in KPIs measured to an enth of their lives, have meant that the internal expertise professional coaches have a goupthink and are missing the forest from the trees. i do not think neeld is very intelligent. thinking one can extrapolate collingwood rules and model, thinking that was the key to success, is not smart.

melbourne will be right. but they have written off their most valuable asset, and need to start from scatch. just perhaps, if watts learnt his trade alongside neitz, he would be one of the young stars now. he will be alright. he just needs time. think of cooney and goddard, after three or four years, written off as the worst number one ever.

through the late 80s and nineties and early 2000s melbourne was always thereabouts, and made the grand final. ask a richmond fan about that period

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Cheers for your thoughts blackcat I mostly agree too.

 

[catman 71]

Interesting to hear what he had to say. I've seen what Neeld did with the leadership group played out plenty of times in the corporate world. New guy comes in, spills leadership positions, says everyone will be considered equally yet none of the incumbents ever keep their positions because the new guy wants 'their people' in those positions as opposed to the best people (whoever they may be - incumbent or otherwise). I sincerely doubt selection of leadership group was objective & fair & Riv & Moloney likely never had a look in. Right or wrong, assuming most people in the organisation know who the leaders are within the group and when you see those guys not even get a look in, you question the motives of the new person & doubt that you'll be given a fair go, despite their claims and become disillusioned.

Malcolm Blight took over the Adelaide Crows in 1997, and got rid of Tony McGuinness and Andrew Jarman, who were in the leadership group, and they got sacked from the club, and put in other players instead.

BTW, Adelaide won the flag that year (and the year after).

 

[blackcat]

Malcolm Blight took over the Adelaide Crows in 1997, and got rid of Tony McGuinness and Andrew Jarman, who were in the leadership group, and they got sacked from the club, and put in other players instead.

BTW, Adelaide won the flag that year (and the year after).

i think one team towns confer a big advantage to creating a unique culture. blight also had the score on the board, and was with ebert and robran and champion of south australia.

 

[HankScorpio7]

Malcolm Blight took over the Adelaide Crows in 1997, and got rid of Tony McGuinness and Andrew Jarman, who were in the leadership group, and they got sacked from the club, and put in other players instead.

BTW, Adelaide won the flag that year (and the year after).

I don't know enough about McGuiness but Jarman did NOT strike me as leadership material. It depends on who you replace people with. In an inexperienced squad if you replace seemingly well respected leaders with kids as happened at Melbourne you're likely asking for trouble. If someone told me I'd be retaining my duties but would now be lead by a graduate straight out of uni I'd move on at my earliest convenience. If I recall correctly Blight also tried to shake things up at St Kilda by trying to get rid of a number of experienced players & 3 wins in 15 says it didn't work out quite so well.

 

[Sprout]

We dont even miss Rivers.

Was an average player who would not be making 1 ounce of difference if he was in our current team.

This comment is so stupid it beggars belief.

 

[catman 71]

I don't know enough about McGuiness but Jarman did NOT strike me as leadership material. It depends on who you replace people with. In an inexperienced squad if you replace seemingly well respected leaders with kids as happened at Melbourne you're likely asking for trouble. If someone told me I'd be retaining my duties but would now be lead by a graduate straight out of uni I'd move on at my earliest convenience. If I recall correctly Blight also tried to shake things up at St Kilda by trying to get rid of a number of experienced players & 3 wins in 15 says it didn't work out quite so well.

It was McGuinness, Chris McDermott and Andrew Jarman, who were Adelaide three best mid-fielders at the time. The thought was that Blight removed them from the leadership group, and in fact, sacked them, because they allegedly had too much say and orchestrated the removal of previous coach, Robert Shaw. Blight took the "sack them before they sack me" philosophy. Supporters complained at the time, and thought he was mad. There was talk of Adelaide struggling to win a game because their three "star" midfielders were gone. Well, they won the next two flags, vindicating Blight's call.

Neeld got rid of underminers like Brent Moloney and others who caused problems behind the scenes, and had too much influence. If Moloney was at Melbourne today, he would be part of the band trying to get rid of him.

 

[The Professor]

Jared Rivers was also on the radio where he compared Melbourne training to Geelong's training.

Said both did the same amount but Dee's did a whole hell more running while Geelong did match simulation to build fitness.

Also said dees did skills and footy training after running which meant skills were down due to fatigue and it was hard to learn patterns/structures of play when the ball's on the ground due to bad skills.

Football is suppose to be fun and sometimes you need to bring out the ball then flog the players through running laps. (*editorial).

 

[PureFooty]

Positive: It's allowed Garland to play that 3rd tall role again, and I must say he is playing his best footy at the moment.
Negative: We're lacking some serious on field coaching out of defence, which Rivs offered. I know I'll sound like a broken record, but once again, we lose an experienced type, who are Terlich's meant to look up to? Frawley. So who does Frawley, and say Grimes look up to? No one. They now have added responsibility, and they're still learning just as much as the new kids on the bloke, really unfortunate he left.

 

[HankScorpio7]

It was McGuinness, Chris McDermott and Andrew Jarman, who were Adelaide three best mid-fielders at the time. The thought was that Blight removed them from the leadership group, and in fact, sacked them, because they allegedly had too much say and orchestrated the removal of previous coach, Robert Shaw. Blight took the "sack them before they sack me" philosophy. Supporters complained at the time, and thought he was mad. There was talk of Adelaide struggling to win a game because their three "star" midfielders were gone. Well, they won the next two flags, vindicating Blight's call.

Neeld got rid of underminers like Brent Moloney and others who caused problems behind the scenes, and had too much influence. If Moloney was at Melbourne today, he would be part of the band trying to get rid of him.

There's no evidence to suggest Brent Moloney or any of the other players (like Martin,Morton, Gysberts, Petterd) who left were so-called underminers. If Rivers was such a player I doubt the cats would have taken him on either (assuming you are calling him an 'underminer' too). From memory the talk was Blight wanted to get rid of the likes of Leowe & Bourke at the Saints - underminers from way back no doubt. To me it seems Neeld came in with an agenda & preconceived notions and stuck to those. I don't think there is a 'band' trying to get rid of him because he seems to have that covered by himself.

 

[master bate]

I can understand what Neeld did.

Our culture was crap, clearly senior players weren't up to standard on field or in leadership.

But what would've been better would be to have got the senior guys to lead the change instead of shunting them. Grimes and Trengove would've had more success with Moloney giving his all helping them and playing his best footy not sitting at Casey.

Neeld has plenty of good ideas but absolutely no clue in how to get them to work. It's why he had success at Collingwood where they players trust Mick 110% and therefore Neeld's plan can work.

No doubt the club would've been better on and off the field with a fired up Rivers and Moloney playing Neeld's style of footy.

I agree with the paraphrased comment about doing the skills work after heavy running sessions. I see them do that a lot. I'd rather see them do the skills work with pressure from a negating player at the start of the session when they are fresh mentally and physically. Then go do the running then go back to the skills to practice when they are tired.

 

[BETON5]

Have to disagree with that. I think we are missing him. I think part of the reason that Frawley and Mcdonald have looked average this year is that they are a bit lost without Riv.

They look average because opposition sides are having 120 inside 50's a game.

 

[Sanders]

Cutting out the cancer of people who care for the club, stopping the spread of that scourge passion & commitment - that's how you build a winning culture

 

[Sanders]

Malcolm Blight took over the Adelaide Crows in 1997, and got rid of Tony McGuinness and Andrew Jarman, who were in the leadership group, and they got sacked from the club, and put in other players instead.

BTW, Adelaide won the flag that year (and the year after).

I'm sure part of that was picking the right targets.

What if he axed ricciuto & mcleod instead, because they got too big for their boots

 

[manboob]

Sorry to intrude but is this up on SEN or anywhere else I can't find it Thanks.

 

[cynical]

Even if your older players are crap and have poor leadership skills they should only be dumped if you have suitable replacements.

Melbourne clearly don't have suitable replacements for Moloney, Rivers and all the other guys on the wrong side of 28 who were dumped to fast track kids.

It is unfair on 24/25yo players to be expected to provide on field leadership and coaching to younger players when they aren't that experienced themselves.

Whoever the next coach is I would hope that they'd keep as many of the older guys as possible even if they are maligned. You just need to build that culture back up before even considering a flag.

You can't rebuild a rebuild without seriously damaging the club and that is what has happened with Neeld