Neeld sacked

[Faz 2000]

Any catch Neeld on Footy Classfied last night? Painful viewing. Dodged every question, shirked any responsibility. Said he regretted nothing. Felt there was inference to and regret that the Board hadnt allowed him to see out his contract. Strangely he came off as likeable (because he was placid and unable to be baited) but completely delusional. They all agreed he was still in denial once the interview was over.

Was pretty interesting. They were a firing squad, too, all looking for Neeld to say something headline worthy. It was a bit of an ugly feeding frenzy that Neeld didn't play into, and you're right, he came off pretty even and sensible.

Still, you can't go 5/28 and regularly get pummeled and then say you did nothing wrong, so Neeld IS kidding himself. He must have been awfully tempted to start pointing the finger around, too. It's always the coach that gets sacked, but far out every single person at that club has a role to play in the success and/or failure, but only he pays with his job.

Someone made a comments that (I think) Frawley and Sylvia (and others I'm sure) will now have been through 5 coaches or something. Clubs love knifing the coaches saying they failed, but seriously, how many coaches is this group of players going to take out? They're approaching bonafide coach-killer status aren't they? Not meaning to spray everyone or make enemies here, but I do feel for Neeld. The team was and still is in disarray, but he was given 3 years to turn it around, then fired after 1.5. Doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Bluelegs]

Five coaches is sensationalism. The players have seen three coaches if you discount interim which you really should.

 

[rines]

I have, like many outsiders, watched the Neeld drama with interest and with sympathy as the Bombers made a similiar, if not as bad, mistake in appointing Knights.

I am not here to gloat but to offer some encouragement that if the club is prepared to change, implement a strong coaching board and recruit well then there is light at the end of the tunnel.

What scares me most is the level of denial Neeld had about so many clearly, especially in hindsight, incorrect calls. Mistakes can be easily forgiven but to defend those choices just seemed laughable. You can't argue that it was 'everybody else' when in fact, it seems, that a lot of it was 'you'. Maybe the Melb senior players did need a push or maybe they did need to change their training methods but to basically lose all your senior players, leaders and skilful proven performers all within the space of 18 months seems unforgivable.

Also at least Bailey had a game plan (even if you didn't like it) and seemed to be working towards that.. I still have no idea what the game plan has been from Melbourne for the past season and a half. I know you beat the bombers.. but that shouldn't be held up as an example of a winning formula or proof of system.

All I can say is good luck and I very much hope that your club begins a rebuild in the same fashion as Geelong or Port or even EFC and that your proud club rebounds from these dark days.

I wonder if any of us could have predicted the last twelve years when we sat and watched the 2000 grand final... with so much hope for the future and belief that success was destined for both our clubs.

 

[Tulip]

Still, you can't go 5/28 and regularly get pummeled and then say you did nothing wrong, so Neeld IS kidding himself. He must have been awfully tempted to start pointing the finger around, too. It's always the coach that gets sacked, but far out every single person at that club has a role to play in the success and/or failure, but only he pays with his job.

McLardy-Schwab-Neeld

All gone.

 

[Major Colvin]

Not meaning to spray everyone or make enemies here, but I do feel for Neeld. The team was and still is in disarray, but he was given 3 years to turn it around, then fired after 1.5. Doesn't feel right to me.

I feel for him too, and a very, very small part of me regrets he didnt get to at least see out the season. But the other big part of me knows that he was not going to our coach going forwards. Last nights flat out denials validated my view that he had to go - in that we are getting flogged every week and he wouldnt change anything.

 

[00Stinger]

The same Maloney that had 0 touches during 186 that led to Bailey's sacking? Poor form

The same Moloney who won our b&f that year?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Also at least Bailey had a game plan (even if you didn't like it) and seemed to be working towards that.. I still have no idea what the game plan has been from Melbourne for the past season and a half. I know you beat the bombers.. but that shouldn't be held up as an example of a winning formula or proof of system.

Hit the boundary, kick it to a tall bloke, some sort of a strange defensive 50 zone, let the opposition run through the corridor in waves while our blokes are on the wings. That's what I got from the game plan. Bailey's plan seemed to be North's minus the competent fitness levels to pull it off.

 

[captain cotch 9]

How many coaches has David Roden played under? Danny frawley, terry Wallace, Choco Williams, Matthew Primus, Mark Neld and now Neil Craig then possibly another next year haha

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

How many coaches has David Roden played under? Danny frawley, terry Wallace, Choco Williams, Matthew Primus, Mark Neld and now Neil Craig then possibly another next year haha

Oh double shit!!

 

[catman 71]

How is that attitude going to work? Ever?

New coach comes in 'Oh-ho-ho, you're not worthy of respect - you are ******* worthless, but play your heart out for me lads! Play with intensity, blah, blah, blah'

Yeah, I'm sure that's what Hinkley did with last years basket case, Port.

No. Instead, just cater to the players' whims, wipe their tears and kiss and cuddle them instead. Because that got Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey to get Melbourne to a flag (oh, that's right, it didn't).

Maybe they need a coach who can encourage when needed, and chastise when needed. But it doesn't matter what the players think of the coach. Many people work in jobs where they hate their boss, but they are still expected to perform. Can't players still play their best for personal pride, or to prove a disbelieving coach wrong?

Why couldn't some players look at Neeld's criticism as a spur to do better and win his praise instead? Why not try to "stick it up" the coach through your performance, instead of sooking and not performing, because they are not just playing for a coach, but for the members and fans too, so they should at least do it for them.

The players either aren't good enough, or don't care enough. There is no excuses to play bad just because the coach doesn't bow at their feet.

 

[PerfectFooty]

I, for one, would like to see him survive, purely to prove Caroline Wilson wrong.

looks like it is a sad day for football, when Caro gets air to her wings

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

No. Instead, just cater to the players' whims, wipe their tears and kiss and cuddle them instead. Because that got Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey to get Melbourne to a flag (oh, that's right, it didn't).

Maybe they need a coach who can encourage when needed, and chastise when needed. But it doesn't matter what the players think of the coach. Many people work in jobs where they hate their boss, but they are still expected to perform. Can't players still play their best for personal pride, or to prove a disbelieving coach wrong?

Why couldn't some players look at Neeld's criticism as a spur to do better and win his praise instead? Why not try to "stick it up" the coach through your performance, instead of sooking and not performing, because they are not just playing for a coach, but for the members and fans too, so they should at least do it for them.

The players either aren't good enough, or don't care enough. There is no excuses to play bad just because the coach doesn't bow at their feet.

Where am I suggesting they should have a coach bow at their feet?

You don't have to like your coach, or your boss - but you have to respect them in the working environment.

Where as you basically said our players deserve no respect from their coach - which is rubbish, and never going to work.

Okay, I've done a some management subjects at uni (so forgive this w***ery) and the recurring theme in all the research is that the managers are wholly responsible for the performance of their workers; they motivate them - believe it or not players aren't just machines, if they are in a shit environment their performances will suffer.

Neeld made the mistake of getting too many of the list off side at the same time, that allowed groups to turn against him.

If there were only a couple who were pissed off but the rest were happy to work hard then those couple would have been told to stop being whiny bitches by the rest of the players.

 

[Major Colvin]

No. Instead, just cater to the players' whims, wipe their tears and kiss and cuddle them instead. Because that got Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey to get Melbourne to a flag (oh, that's right, it didn't).

Maybe they need a coach who can encourage when needed, and chastise when needed. But it doesn't matter what the players think of the coach. Many people work in jobs where they hate their boss, but they are still expected to perform. Can't players still play their best for personal pride, or to prove a disbelieving coach wrong?

Why couldn't some players look at Neeld's criticism as a spur to do better and win his praise instead? Why not try to "stick it up" the coach through your performance, instead of sooking and not performing, because they are not just playing for a coach, but for the members and fans too, so they should at least do it for them.

The players either aren't good enough, or don't care enough. There is no excuses to play bad just because the coach doesn't bow at their feet.

Let me speak for many of us when I say I don't care about your opinions (which are persistent no so thinly veiled-trolls). If I wanted to read the ramblings of shitkickers I'd view the main board.

But in response this sh!te, I doubt its ever (if often) a matter of the players not trying. Its the the coach (Neeld) hasnt tapped into how to get them playing to their best abilities - or playing cohesively - has overly-complicated everything so that noone appears to be playing with any confidence or flair. Of course a lot of the players are not up to AFL standard but I'd venture to say in a decent side with decent development more of them would be.

 

[catman 71]

Where am I suggesting they should have a coach bow at their feet?

You don't have to like your coach, or your boss - but you have to respect them in the working environment.

Where as you basically said our players deserve no respect from their coach - which is rubbish, and never going to work.

Okay, I've done a some management subjects at uni (so forgive this Mooy) and the recurring theme in all the research is that the managers are wholly responsible for the performance of their workers; they motivate them - believe it or not players aren't just machines, if they are in a shit environment their performances will suffer.

Neeld made the mistake of getting too many of the list off side at the same time, that allowed groups to turn against him.

If there were only a couple who were pissed off but the rest were happy to work hard then those couple would have been told to stop being whiny bitches by the rest of the players.

I have always thought that it is stupid that managers are wholly responsible for the performance of their workers. Does that mean that it is the employer's fault when an employee steals from the till (I doubt the police will see it that way)? Of course not.

It is just another case of society creating scapegoats, because no-one can ever taken responsiblity for their OWN actions. If a player REFUSES to listen to a coach and do what he is told, then what can the coach do.

I prefer the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Or maybe "it isn't the coach who gets kicks and lays tackles.

My point is, when do the players start to take responsibility? They played patchy with Daniher, they played bad under Bailey, and they played bad under Neeld. Like I said, either they can't win, or don't care enough about winning.

There are a lot of problems that have happened at Melbourne, which occurred before Mark Neeld walked through the doors.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I have always thought that it is stupid that managers are wholly responsible for the performance of their workers. Does that mean that it is the employer's fault when an employee steals from the till (I doubt the police will see it that way)? Of course not.

It is just another case of society creating scapegoats, because no-one can ever taken responsiblity for their OWN actions. If a player REFUSES to listen to a coach and do what he is told, then what can the coach do.

I prefer the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Or maybe "it isn't the coach who gets kicks and lays tackles.

My point is, when do the players start to take responsibility? They played patchy with Daniher, they played bad under Bailey, and they played bad under Neeld. Like I said, either they can't win, or don't care enough about winning.

There are a lot of problems that have happened at Melbourne, which occurred before Mark Neeld walked through the doors.

Managers create the environment, do employees feel the need to steal from a place they enjoy working at?

No.

Mind you, a lot of employees don't feel the need to steal anywhere - we've seen great improvement from some of our senior guys.

Most of the players weren't here under Daniher, all of them that were very early in their careers.

And really, 'bad' under Bailey is a bit revisionist - we should never have sacked Bailey, 186 was a product of a shit club with fractions everywhere, not the players not respecting the coach.

 

[Klyntonius]

I have always thought that it is stupid that managers are wholly responsible for the performance of their workers. Does that mean that it is the employer's fault when an employee steals from the till (I doubt the police will see it that way)? Of course not.

It is just another case of society creating scapegoats, because no-one can ever taken responsiblity for their OWN actions. If a player REFUSES to listen to a coach and do what he is told, then what can the coach do.

I prefer the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Or maybe "it isn't the coach who gets kicks and lays tackles.

My point is, when do the players start to take responsibility? They played patchy with Daniher, they played bad under Bailey, and they played bad under Neeld. Like I said, either they can't win, or don't care enough about winning.

There are a lot of problems that have happened at Melbourne, which occurred before Mark Neeld walked through the doors.

Bringing Daniher into the argument is a bit of a long bow to draw. It didn't help him that the board would spontaneously combust every couple of years.

I get your point and the players do have to carry some of the blame in all of this. And you're right, if an employee steals from the till then it's not the employers fault. But what if 80% of the employees are stealing from the till? That would be bad management and that is where Neeld and his posse are at.

 

[catman 71]

Let me speak for many of us when I say I don't care about your opinions (which are persistent no so thinly veiled-trolls). If I wanted to read the ramblings of shitkickers I'd view the main board.

But in response this sh!te, I doubt its ever (if often) a matter of the players not trying. Its the the coach (Neeld) hasnt tapped into how to get them playing to their best abilities - or playing cohesively - has overly-complicated everything so that noone appears to be playing with any confidence or flair. Of course a lot of the players are not up to AFL standard but I'd venture to say in a decent side with decent development more of them would be.

So, Neeld couldn't bring out the best in these superstars. Neither could Bailey, Daniher (to some extent) or Balme get the best out of this team either, going by your reasoning. So, either you are constantly picking the wrong coaches, or you are picking the wrong players.

It isn't the coach who doesn't decide to fall into space, to chase and tackle, to make a second effort.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

So, Neeld couldn't bring out the best in these superstars. Neither could Bailey, Daniher (to some extent) or Balme get the best out of this team either, going by your reasoning. So, either you are constantly picking the wrong coaches, or you are picking the wrong players.

It isn't the coach who doesn't decide to fall into space, to chase and tackle, to make a second effort.

Balme? Daniher?

You must be joking.

 

[catman 71]

Bringing Daniher into the argument is a bit of a long bow to draw. It didn't help him that the board would spontaneously combust every couple of years.

I get your point and the players do have to carry some of the blame in all of this. And you're right, if an employee steals from the till then it's not the employers fault. But what if 80% of the employees are stealing from the till? That would be bad management and that is where Neeld and his posse are at.

Neeld didn't recruit 80% of the players, though. He probably had a hand in the youngsters over the last two years (Viney looks the goods, so does Hogan, and a lot of the others, it is too early to say), and the players from other clubs (Byrnes and Rodan have been disappointing, Dawes has been okay, and Neeld got Mitch Clark, who has been very good, when he is on the park). The rest, like Jack Watts, are simply the list Neeld was given.

The recruiters are responsible for what players come to the club ultimately. Maybe replacing the recruiter and development coach may give the next coach a decent list to work with.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Neeld didn't recruit 80% of the players, though. He probably had a hand in the youngsters over the last two years (Viney looks the goods, so does Hogan, and a lot of the others, it is too early to say), and the players from other clubs (Byrnes and Rodan have been disappointing, Dawes has been okay, and Neeld got Mitch Clark, who has been very good, when he is on the park). The rest, like Jack Watts, are simply the list Neeld was given.

The recruiters are responsible for what players come to the club ultimately. Maybe replacing the recruiter and development coach may give the next coach a decent list to work with.

No coach gets a list they have put together unless they get 10 years in the job... so that's a massive bow to draw.

Never mind the fact that we've already replaced the recruiter and Neeld brought in all his own coaches to develop players...

Plzz leave.

 

[Major Colvin]

So, Neeld couldn't bring out the best in these superstars. Neither could Bailey, Daniher (to some extent) or Balme get the best out of this team either, going by your reasoning. So, either you are constantly picking the wrong coaches, or you are picking the wrong players.

It isn't the coach who doesn't decide to fall into space, to chase and tackle, to make a second effort.

Can't imagine this one giggling to himself "OMG im totally trolling but they dont know im trolling lulzzz" Noone said superstars. Noone said the players aren't part of the problem. Can you stop pretending you're not trolling, get a life you colossal d!ck!

 

[Klyntonius]

Neeld didn't recruit 80% of the players, though. He probably had a hand in the youngsters over the last two years (Viney looks the goods, so does Hogan, and a lot of the others, it is too early to say), and the players from other clubs (Byrnes and Rodan have been disappointing, Dawes has been okay, and Neeld got Mitch Clark, who has been very good, when he is on the park). The rest, like Jack Watts, are simply the list Neeld was given.

The recruiters are responsible for what players come to the club ultimately. Maybe replacing the recruiter and development coach may give the next coach a decent list to work with.

No he didn't but it wasn't the dud list that it's being made out to be. That same list had won 8 games the previous two years running and needed some adjustment and direction to move forward further. On paper the list looks stronger under Neeld but the way he went about it alienated the group and the performances were embarrassing and the buck stops with his direction.

 

[Crimson Azure]

So, Neeld couldn't bring out the best in these superstars. Neither could Bailey, Daniher (to some extent) or Balme get the best out of this team either, going by your reasoning. So, either you are constantly picking the wrong coaches, or you are picking the wrong players.

It isn't the coach who doesn't decide to fall into space, to chase and tackle, to make a second effort.

Thanks for the input but I think you've probably had enough air time for a non Dees supporter.

I'm sure you can continue this discussion on the main board.