Mega Thread Senior Coach Discussion - Neeld v the alternatives

[SpeciousArgument]

For two reasons

1. He chose to rebuild the list and radically change our game plan, rather than actually build on what had been a pretty decent couple of years before 186.
2. We lose games by 15 goals 75% of the time.

To me it looks like the club (i find it hard to believe that Neeld would make unilateral decisions regarding drastic changes) took a gamble that it was better to make those changes, cop the 15 goal losses in the short term in the hopes of getting a lot of games into younger players and building for the future than to continue with the status quo and have 5-10 goal losses for a longer period of time.

Obviously the list management decisions that were made were going to hurt in the short term and the board's expectations should have been managed in that regard.

Given that interpretation i dont see it as reasonable to sack neeld in the middle of the process. Of course i could be wrong and he could have pulled a 'trust me it'll be great, we'll have an awesome 2013' but if the club backed him and his plan to change the list and the game plan they should back him through the inevitable short term pain and wait for the upside.

On another topic I'd like to apologise for James Sellar.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

And nobody is even remotely surprised when we lose by 15 goals.

noone is surprised when GWS lose by 15 goals either. I agree its not ideal but i feel you guys are at a similar point in list development to them (although the AFL screwed you by giving them all the concessions at the time when you are rebuilding also)

 

[Theseventhhamster]

noone is surprised when GWS lose by 15 goals either. I agree its not ideal but i feel you guys are at a similar point in list development to them (although the AFL screwed you by giving them all the concessions at the time when you are rebuilding also)

We are at a similar point because neeld took over and wrecked the joint. Under Bailey we had a mediocre young team that struggled to run because of the amateur fitness budget. The players are now fit and we are somehow massively worse. We've gone backwards massively under him because of his coaching and his ******* moronic list management.

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Heard through the grapevine a current vfl coach may be meeting a un named club tomorrow. I hope it's wrong. I think run the year out or give Craig David the job

 

[Tulip]

Heard through the grapevine a current vfl coach may be meeting a un named club tomorrow. I hope it's wrong. I think run the year out or give Craig David the job

If it's Ayres as caretaker, I'm fine with that.

Ayres and Craig in the same box...

 

[Bojangles17]

Heard through the grapevine a current vfl coach may be meeting a un named club tomorrow. I hope it's wrong. I think run the year out or give Craig David the job

Gary ayres, would be a great choice if so

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Yeah I think this story is getting some momentum. I think it could be right. A story is a current vfl coach has a clause in there current contract that IF this person is offered a afl job he can walk.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

We are at a similar point because neeld took over and wrecked the joint. Under Bailey we had a mediocre young team that struggled to run because of the amateur fitness budget. The players are now fit and we are somehow massively worse. We've gone backwards massively under him because of his coaching and his ******* moronic list management.

By all reports Bailey has been a great asset in the coaches box for sando, meanwhile you might end up with Ayers assisted by Craig...

 

[CWaffles]

Yeah I think this story is getting some momentum. I think it could be right. A story is a current vfl coach has a clause in there current contract that IF this person is offered a afl job he can walk.

I don't mind it being as a caretaker, although don't think I would be too thrilled to see him as our new senior coach.

I would take Mark Williams before him.

 

[Ando727]

On a side note dean laidley was massively under rated IMO , I was spruiking him before Neeld was appointed ... He got an average Roos side with no money into the top 4 an the Roos were always competitive .

Worth considering, despite the many detractors he has for some reason. You could argue that Laidley did much more with an average side than Brad Scott has done with a much better side. I don't really understand all the negativity for Laidley, to be honest. The only downside for our group is that he doesn't have the instant shut up and listen factor that a Clarkson, Roos or Matthews would have.

 

[Ando727]

"Hey Neeld, we're dumping you as senior coach, but want to remain as an assistant?"

Sounds awfully similar to...

"Hey girlfriend, i'm dumping you, but we can still be friends?"

It just won't work.

I ended up friends with some of my ex's, but nah, won't work at a footy club.

 

[RedLegs#5]

Heard through the grapevine a current vfl coach may be meeting a un named club tomorrow. I hope it's wrong. I think run the year out or give Craig David the job

?????????

Ok.

 

[Topkent]

Could be Matty Knights as well , I think both knights and ratten were hard done by at there clubs and yes malt house is the king but I don't think essendon are any better than they would have been under knights

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

noone is surprised when GWS lose by 15 goals either. I agree its not ideal but i feel you guys are at a similar point in list development to them (although the AFL screwed you by giving them all the concessions at the time when you are rebuilding also)

The only reason this is open to debate at all is because GWS and Gold Coast have made it acceptable to lose games by 15 goals every week. We should have been a couple of years ahead of those teams, not trailing behind them.

Bailey, for all his faults, had the team developing in a fashion and Neeld should have been able to build on those foundations. We'd already been down the path of "getting games into the kids", so excusing Neeld on this basis is far too simplistic. We're a complete rabble on the field (and off) and there's no reason that had to happen post Bailey. If it is so, then Neeld made it that way.

 

[Topkent]

Listening to Neelds press conference with dawesy almost changed my opinion, it made me forget that we had lost by 100 points and have been doing so all bloody season, but i would implore anyone to watch the press conference and not just make judgements on word grabs.

I am now of the opinion that unless neeld is forcing players to judge whether they will stay or not, then he should be given until after the Stkilda and western bulldogs games, if we can be good against them and win one or both of them suddenly everything looks different, however if we are uncompetive and get done by 10 goals by them... He has to go

Also i love the way dawesy speaks, he should probably be captain and i just cant see trenners or franky being better leaders than him ..

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Neeld to get his three years, maybe what he's done has been for the good of the club - things didn't go his way with certain players (Morton, Moloney, Martin, Gysberts, Rivers, even Scully leaving), some of those were forced out due to a lack of compliance and that's something Neeld can't control.

I certainly thought that 95 points was an unfair reflection of our effort.

I've felt that at most times this year the media have used 'effort' as a cop out when our decision making and skill is what really costs us.

Essendon and Port were games where we showed a sustained lack of effort.

We've been set back - but honestly with the list Neeld was given last year I don't think we could have been a serious contender when reaching peak maturity.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Neeld to get his three years, maybe what he's done has been for the good of the club - things didn't go his way with certain players (Morton, Moloney, Martin, Gysberts, Rivers, even Scully leaving), some of those were forced out due to a lack of compliance and that's something Neeld can't control.

I certainly thought that 95 points was an unfair reflection of our effort.

I've felt that at most times this year the media have used 'effort' as a cop out when our decision making and skill is what really costs us.

Essendon and Port were games where we showed a sustained lack of effort.

We've been set back - but honestly with the list Neeld was given last year I don't think we could have been a serious contender when reaching peak maturity.

True, but we were able to win 8.5 games a year with that list. I had no issue with a step backwards last year in order to improve. But how can you justify another step backwards this year?

I like Neeld, I think he's got some good ideas, but he can't lead the team and the changes he's made have made it so difficult to win games, or even get within a bull's roar of the opposition, that the impact on the players' confidence going forward has been diabolical.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

True, but we were able to win 8.5 games a year with that list. I had no issue with a step backwards last year in order to improve. But how can you justify another step backwards this year?

I like Neeld, I think he's got some good ideas, but he can't lead the team and the changes he's made have made it so difficult to win games, or even get within a bull's roar of the opposition, that the impact on the players' confidence going forward has been diabolical.

It's just the way it is unfortunately, our midfield is way underdone - until we can get that up and running not much will change for us.

 

[Tulip]

Neeld to get his three years, maybe what he's done has been for the good of the club - things didn't go his way with certain players (Morton, Moloney, Martin, Gysberts, Rivers, even Scully leaving), some of those were forced out due to a lack of compliance and that's something Neeld can't control.

He can't control whether his players respect him? Maybe, rather the his drill sergeant routine with all that ridiculous stuff about the two desks in his office and angry pressers - he should have respected that different players need to be motivated differently to be successful. Gysberts showed plenty in his first two seasons with the club.

I certainly thought that 95 points was an unfair reflection of our effort.

Yesterday, or every game? Because our mean losing margin is officially over 10 goals.

I've felt that at most times this year the media have used 'effort' as a cop out when our decision making and skill is what really costs us.

If you have a team of players who know how to handball through the middle, and you tell them they can only punt the ball down the wing - you'd want to shoulder some blame for the losses. Didn't occur to him to have a transition period? To not play Mick Malthouse's gameplan a year after it was no longer valid.

Essendon and Port were games where we showed a sustained lack of effort.

Indeed. Can you think of a game with a 4Q effort? Me neither. Apparently this is good enough to some.

We've been set back - but honestly with the list Neeld was given last year I don't think we could have been a serious contender when reaching peak maturity.

Probably not, no. But we've been set back to the point that we are very unlikely to appeal to any quality prospective players, CEOs and sponsors.

 

[Tulip]

One thing I will say is that he is an absolutely brilliant speaker. He's managed to twist an era of disproportionately large losses into an acceptable thing for some supporters. The funniest part? It's the words 'future' and 'competitive' he's using as a cop out, when a finer coach and man in Dean Bailey got the arse for that. It was less than a year ago that we were laughing at the idea of a youth rebuild, and were tired of talking about the future but here we are.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Yes, but now we are here - and it's clear we are.

What do we have to gain from starting again? I think that Neelds made plenty of 'mistakes' in terms of the short term performance of this club, if we give him a chance maybe they'll prove to help us in the long run.

We've got nothing to gain from starting again, everything to gain from keeping Neeld on.

 

[Tulip]

We've got nothing to gain from starting again, everything to gain from keeping Neeld on.

Nothing and everything?

What if we go out there and start talking to Choco Williams, he takes the job and Viney takes over the rest of the year. Feel good factor is back, we win a few games and people come to watch the players again.

Are you SO desensitized to losing that you've forgotten why we even play this sport anymore?

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Nothing and everything?

What if we go out there and start talking to Choco Williams, he takes the job and Viney takes over the rest of the year. Feel good factor is back, we win a few games and people come to watch the players again.

Are you SO desensitized to losing that you've forgotten why we even play this sport anymore?

For that last part, simply - no.

Choco Williams won't bring any better results, Paul Roos wont - we just don't have the midfield to be anything other then where we are at the moment.

There's potential there, but inexperience and performance is costing us.

We're back to 2009 - Bailey and Hardwick were given their two years grace to shape the list, Neeld should be given that as well.

Yes, it's Neelds 'fault' that we are where we are - but I think where we are (though not as low as currently) is part of his plan after he discovered what was hampering our club.

We've gone backwards and there is no quick fix, unless we are in danger of losing talented players we keep Neeld on.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

One thing I will say is, that with a Choco or a Roos we might be able to land some good midfielders at the end of the year.

If we are to sack Neeld I wouldn't settle for anything bar a top line coach, there's little point otherwise.

 

[Tulip]

For that last part, simply - no.

Choco Williams won't bring any better results, Paul Roos wont - we just don't have the midfield to be anything other then where we are at the moment.

There's potential there, but inexperience and performance is costing us.

We're back to 2009 - Bailey and Hardwick were given their two years grace to shape the list, Neeld should be given that as well.

Yes, it's Neelds 'fault' that we are where we are - but I think where we are (though not as low as currently) is part of his plan after he discovered what was hampering our club.

We've gone backwards and there is no quick fix, unless we are in danger of losing talented players we keep Neeld on.

So you don't think that if we weren't playing a game plan that went out of vogue two seasons ago that we'd still be as bad as we are?

Our players play games with the mindset of not losing rather than winning.

It's a deadset disgrace.

Hardwick's average losing margin up to this point in his FIRST season at Richmond was about 20 pts less than Neeld's in his second.

Here is Melbourne 2008:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tg-melbourne-demons?year=2008

and

Richmond 2010:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tg-richmond-tigers?year=2010

Neeld's team is playing worse than both of those teams did.