Opinion Why we're shit...

[ThePuppetMaster]

Today, I thought about why we're shit.

Neeld's brought in players he wants, he's had another pre-season with the group, why are we still be performing so shittily?

Well, a start is that the 14 players Neeld has brought in have not 'had another pre-season' under Neeld.

We've turned over a third of the list, and a lot of those players are mature guys who we need to have an immediate impact.

Rodan, Byrnes, Pedersen, M. Jones, Viney, Terlich, Toumpas - none of these guys will have a firm hold on our structures/style of play.

Rodan, M.Jones, Viney and Toumpas have all been playing in the midfield, this is where you win or lose games - your forward and back lines are made to look good or average by your midfield.

I'll also add we haven't once had all our experienced midfielders on the park and fully fit at the same time - when McKenzie, Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Sylvia, Howe and Bail work their way into the season and replace some of the inexperienced players, we'll improve significantly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, as much as we don't want to realise it, last year wasn't the beginning of the ascent - it was the preparation.

This year is the beginning.

At the end of this season, Neeld will be adding to the list rather then hacking it to pieces.

What of the other players? What of the guys who were there last year and still look like they've stagnated?

I'd say that it's not easy to play with a third of the team still not understanding how the coach wants you to play or understanding how to play AFL footy (by virtue of being very inexperienced).

I'm calling it now, our second half of the season will be good.

 

[Crimson Azure]

Many of the high draft picks were also drafted for the Bailey game style, we are in the midst of a coach trying to make players fit a game style not a game style that fits players.

Watts is the perfect example, he would be perfectly suited to a free flowing game style with his pace, ability to read the play & foot skills but he hasn't had a lot of success so far. He did though when he was released to play loose man last year where we saw his best football.

For some reason either his role has changed somewhat to make him more accountable or task focused or hes just lost all touch with form.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Way more to it than that, but I generally agree with the sentiments.

We still have too many players on our list who don't work hard enough and don't do enough of the right things, particularly on game day. We can't seem to get the right mix, as some weeks we look quicker, other weeks slower, skills are very much hit and miss and so forth. There are too many gaps in our list. Yes, I think some of the new recruits need more time but they are only papering over some of the cracks that we need to cover long term.

I still think Neeld could be more flexible and tailor the game plan a little better to suit the players we have now. As he shapes the list he can continue to modify the game plan more and more. I think he is taking us in the right direction, but a little more flexibility wouldn't hurt.

 

[Persevering Saint]

At the risk of intruding, might Carlton support your argument here? Everyone expected them to jump out of the blocks with Malthouse, yet they've lost just as many games as you have. They're good players with a good coach with a good gameplan, it's just those three good things haven't aligned yet. Same for you guys.

 

[Crimson Azure]

I still think Neeld could be more flexible and tailor the game plan a little better to suit the players we have now. As he shapes the list he can continue to modify the game plan more and more. I think he is taking us in the right direction, but a little more flexibility wouldn't hurt.

Pretty much the point I was making, hes been too militant in his approach with no flexibility.

At the risk of intruding, might Carlton support your argument here? Everyone expected them to jump out of the blocks with Malthouse, yet they've lost just as many games as you have. They're good players with a good coach with a good gameplan, it's just those three good things haven't aligned yet. Same for you guys.

Constructive posting is always welcome & I was actually thinking the exact same thing today, however Neeld has had an extra pre season & also coached through a season & we still seem to be missing the point. We did though move on a huge portion of our list so all the new players need to adopt the game plan.

 

[PureFooty]

I accept all these points, they're all valid, but it still doesn't explain why Rodan, Brynes and Pederson are all going at about 50% work ethic.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

The problem is not that we're shit, nobody expected us to be any good this year, the problem is just HOW shit we really are. We're looking at probably the worst side since Fitzroy in the mid 90s. Neeld can make all the excuses he likes about pre seasons, structures and any other cliches he can think of but they are the facts. 3 games is too small a sample size but from what we have seen, this is the worst AFL team I've ever witnessed.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Way more to it than that, but I generally agree with the sentiments.

We still have too many players on our list who don't work hard enough and don't do enough of the right things, particularly on game day. We can't seem to get the right mix, as some weeks we look quicker, other weeks slower, skills are very much hit and miss and so forth. There are too many gaps in our list. Yes, I think some of the new recruits need more time but they are only papering over some of the cracks that we need to cover long term.

I still think Neeld could be more flexible and tailor the game plan a little better to suit the players we have now. As he shapes the list he can continue to modify the game plan more and more. I think he is taking us in the right direction, but a little more flexibility wouldn't hurt.

Sure, that's all true.

But as the players get the experience, get the cohesion, become predictable to each other - you'll find that the players with average skill will blend in rather then stand out.

Players will be working more 'efficiently' when they get the structures right.

How do you think guys from WCE (from 10' to 11') and Port (12' to 13') can change their fortunes from rabble to competitive over a pre-season.

Those teams were lambasted for work rate, skill, etc, etc. as well.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Sure, that's all true.

But as the players get the experience, get the cohesion, become predictable to each other - you'll find that the players with average skill will blend in rather then stand out.

Players will be working more 'efficiently' when they get the structures right.

How do you think guys from WCE (from 10' to 11') and Port (12' to 13') can change their fortunes from rabble to competitive over a pre-season.

Those teams were lambasted for work rate, skill, etc, etc. as well.

I'd be interested to see how many new players Port have introduced in comparison to us. Already off the top of my head I can think of a number of recruits who have already been playing senior football, not to mention the fact that Hinkley has come in with totally new ideas and structures and had only one pre-season with them.

You could argue that it means Hinkley has taught them everything at the same time, but that doesn't make much of a difference at all. West Coast might be a better comparison but I don't think Port can be used in this case. They make us look pretty poor really.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I'd be interested to see how many new players Port have introduced in comparison to us. Already off the top of my head I can think of a number of recruits who have already been playing senior football, not to mention the fact that Hinkley has come in with totally new ideas and structures and had only one pre-season with them.

You could argue that it means Hinkley has taught them everything at the same time, but that doesn't make much of a difference at all. West Coast might be a better comparison but I don't think Port can be used in this case. They make us look pretty poor really.

Port do have some new recruits, fortunately for them - they also had a promising midfield (Boak, Hartlett, Ebert, Broadbent all just reaching breakout stage)

A lot of their new recruits are bit part type players however, and all drafted by Port - they haven't had prior exposure to AFL tactics and structures - unlike many of our recruits.

Port do make us look poor; the way I was using them was that they're a team who have got their structures in place, and have confidence in the plan and each other - it can turn quickly.

It doesn't matter that it's happened so quickly for them, it's probably helped that they haven't been attempting to reverse a game style that had been played by the group for four years.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Port do have some new recruits, fortunately for them - they also had a promising midfield (Boak, Hartlett, Ebert, Broadbent all just reaching breakout stage)

A lot of their new recruits are bit part type players however, and all drafted by Port - they haven't had prior exposure to AFL tactics and structures - unlike many of our recruits.

Port do make us look poor; the way I was using them was that they're a team who have got their structures in place, and have confidence in the plan and each other - it can turn quickly.

It doesn't matter that it's happened so quickly for them, it's probably helped that they haven't been attempting to reverse a game style that had been played by the group for four years.

I don't disagree that it can turn quickly, although we've been holding on to that hope for years now.

I don't think the Port recruits are bit part players - there are at least 5 new players in their starting 22, all who have made a very good impact since Round 1. However, Stevenson, Heath and Monfries have been on other lists and have had to learn new tactics and structures, as has Wines. They have adapted much quicker than our recruits, although I'll grant you that they are younger and had less exposure as you mentioned.

Whatever Hinkley and his team are doing, along with the players, is working. Ours isn't and it's going to take major changes from ALL involved to reverse that.

 

[PureFooty]

WCE shouldn't be put in the same category as us or port. They've always had the list, they were just so riddled with injuries and lacked confidence and that's the reason that they were never going to have a good year in 2010. Waters, Embley, Cox, Glass, Kerr from memory were all injured that year, they didn't have the on-field leaders.

However, what Port has shown is genuine improvement. Hamish Hartlett, Travis Boak and Justin Westhoff have all promised to be guns, and this year they've all seemed to genuinely deliver. The art of 'going to the next level' is something we've lacked at Melbourne, I think of Nathan Jones, but that's it. Our recruiting has been rightfully subjected to criticism, full marks are given for the recruitment of Clark, it was bold, and showed risk, and was a brilliant move. However, again, apart from Mitch, I haven't seen a lot of promise from our other recruits.

Look towards the other side of the border, and you've got Brad Ebert, Angus Monfries and Lewis Stevenson who have come over and are playing a big role at Port Adelaide. Ebert has been there a year now and is providing run and carry, fitting the vision the power have. Monfries was recruited over this summer via the FA, played as a medium sized high-forward at the Dons, he's come to Port and is now another outside Mid, who's foot skills provide a weapon for forwards. He's also able to put damage on the scoreboard himself, the ability to go forward, a trait the majority of mids need to be able to do in this day and age. Lewis Stevenson is my favourite example. On West Coast's list, struggled to get a game over 5 seasons, comes to Port with a set role across Half Back, and he is now really fitting the mold this club has formed.

There are then the lesser likes, the guys perhaps you may have heard of, but probably can't even put a face to. I'm talking about Cameron O'Shea, Campbell Heath, Jasper Pittard, Tom Jonas and Matt Thomas. These sorts of guys. They don't possess the greatest skill set, but they give 100% to each and every contest and they have a genuine role at the club.

Throw in your leaders, your experienced campaigners, Kane Cornes, Jay Schulz and Dom Cassisi. Their getting on, but they are playing some of their best footy at the moment. They love the competitiveness, their playing their roles, playing Port Adelaide Football.

These are the guys who make the club, who provide a contest, who give the club a competitive edge and a will to win. You then add this next generation, the guys who add another layer to this club, the winning ability, the x factor, the premiership touch. Chad Wingard, Oliver Wines, Jake Neade and Jackson Trengove. All different players, Wingard has the class, the polish, Wines the hardness, the ferocity, the ball winning ability. Jake Neade, the X factor, the spark, passion and life of the club. Finally Trengove, a bloke who on first thought you probably wouldn't put in this group. But is only 22, and a leader, a teacher and a believer in the direction of his club.

I look at our list, and I see glimpses of this Port Adelaide way, but they are only that, glimpses. We have some leaders, Grimes and Trenners are the first to mind. We have one recruit who fits this Melbourne mold, in Mitch Clark. We have a only the one player who has 'taken it to the next level', in Nathan Jones. We have a couple of the role players, Jordie Mckenzie and perhaps Ro Bail. And we have a couple of 'experienced campaigners' but sadly none of which are playing there best football, none of which are showing the competitive nature this club should be.

So where are all these other players, those I haven't mentioned? Yes, some, like Viney, Toumpas, Barry and McDonald are the future. But there are those who aren't currently in any of these categories, those like Watts, Sylvia, Garland, Jetta, Tapscott, Dunn, Blease, Strauss and Macdonald. These guys must have some of the previously mentioned traits, they must, otherwise why wouldn't they be on the list? It's just about time they take it upon themselves to fit this mold, and if they can't, then like the Petterd, Bennell, Morton and the rest of them, they can leave the club, and go elsewhere.

So the real point I'm trying to make is, currently, yeh we're sh*t. But, this path back up the ladder, back playing competitive footy, it doesn't need to be as long and dull as is the general consensus. It just takes some of the current group of players, to find themselves, to identify why they are at the club, to find their role within the club and for once give back to the coaches and supporters who have put faith in them.

 

[Black Dynamite]

The problem is not that we're shit, nobody expected us to be any good this year, the problem is just HOW shit we really are. We're looking at probably the worst side since Fitzroy in the mid 90s. Neeld can make all the excuses he likes about pre seasons, structures and any other cliches he can think of but they are the facts. 3 games is too small a sample size but from what we have seen, this is the worst AFL team I've ever witnessed.

Only because its freshest in your mind. St.Kilda put out some really shit teams in the 70's and 80's as did we, and the Sydney side from 88-94 ( wikipedia it for details ) was possibly as bad as I've seen, they lost 20+ in a row and a decade later they won a flag.
I know it seems like there is no light at the end of the tunnel but I've seen worse times than these, eventually it will turn and the feeling when it does will be all the more amazing because we rode out these times.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

tl;dr PureFooty

 

[PureFooty]

tl;dr PureFooty

haha I nearly put a 'tl;dr' in, but I thought this was the Melbourne Board, not the Richmond Board.

 

[Blackas87]

We needed some list changes but I don't think we needed a total rebuild. Also don't think we needed a complete game plan change. We won 8.5 games in both 2010 and 2011 including big wins over sydney Brisbane Adelaide and being right up there against collingwood twice. Our strengths in these games were our run and pace, we were a quick side, our weaknesses though were that we were soft and out muscled by our opposition and we now know that we were way off the pace fitness wise. We needed someone to come in, toughen us up, get us fit, and keep using our strengths, our pace. Under Neeld we are now playing a slower brand of footy, our pace isn't been used, and we are now trying to be the toughest team in the league to compete against when that is our weakness. We've crossed out our strengths and are playing to our weaknesses.

I look at essendon for an example, under knights they were a high scoring team but were not accountable and their defence was weak, Hird came in and used their strengths and fixed up their weaknesses, made then more accountable, he did not flip the whole team upside down which is what we have done and it's why we are struggling so much more than we were before. Hird had an immediate impact on what many were calling a very average side.

We've basically started again and it's a long road from here

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Only because its freshest in your mind. St.Kilda put out some really shit teams in the 70's and 80's as did we, and the Sydney side from 88-94 ( wikipedia it for details ) was possibly as bad as I've seen, they lost 20+ in a row and a decade later they won a flag.
I know it seems like there is no light at the end of the tunnel but I've seen worse times than these, eventually it will turn and the feeling when it does will be all the more amazing because we rode out these times.

My first season as an AFL fan was around 1994, so a bit younger than you but still been around long enough to know just how bad our current plight is. I reckon there's even less excuses in 2013 with all the sports science, $$$ and the amount of work done on computers and preperation for drafts etc etc.. The sides you have mentioned were around in the days when footy was only what you'd call semi-professional.

To cut to the chase.. Neeld has (arrogantly) spoken about "rebuilding a rebuild" pretty much implying that this is all Dean Bailey's fault. Well under Dean Bailey we at least played an attractive brand of football and even longshots for finals action the year he was sacked. Neeld has taken a flaky team several kilometres BACKWARDS yet seems to get away pretty easily, as i said hiding under "It was all Dean Bailey's fault" arrogance.

He will not see out the season.

 

[bing181]

Well under Dean Bailey we at least played an attractive brand of football and even longshots for finals action the year he was sacked.

You're kidding yourself. We were going nowhere fast under Bailey, and would never have played in finals then or any year. Being flaky gets found out sooner or later (usually sooner).

Neeld hasn't blamed anyone that I've read or heard. It is what is, so why not call it that. Rebuild of a rebuild sounds about right.

 

[bing181]

It doesn't matter that it's happened so quickly for them, it's probably helped that they haven't been attempting to reverse a game style that had been played by the group for four years.

Don't necessarily disagree, but will be interesting to see how Port go over the whole season, or even a couple of seasons. They're up and about at the moment, but they've beaten 3 sides who aren't going to make the 8 (with one more to come next weekend). Perhaps revisit this down the track ...

 

[melbournemartin]

Don't necessarily disagree, but will be interesting to see how Port go over the whole season, or even a couple of seasons. They're up and about at the moment, but they've beaten 3 sides who aren't going to make the 8 (with one more to come next weekend). Perhaps revisit this down the track ...

Writing off Adelaide rather quickly don't you think?

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

I realise that I'm sounding like a broken record, and I can see that many of you are making some excellent points, but the key component we are missing is effort. As we saw this weekend, if we get a high level, consistent effort across the board we can lead a very good (though injury depleted and playing away) side like West Coast. Without that effort we are quickly put to the sword. That's the biggest change that I've seen with Port this year - they're actually hungry to perform, and that can change what appears to be a very ordinary list into a winning team.

The question is: Why is it so difficult to get our players to replicate that intensity for four quarters, let alone consecutive games? Obviously confidence is a part of it, but I think that Neeld has to modify his approach to the players. The players are not without fault or responsibility, but it's ultimately his responsibility to inspire and motivate. Ken Hinckley has got it right, but Neeld is definitely struggling. I think this has a lot to do with what I perceive as this faux tough guy thing he's got going on. Publicly he's been making all this noise about hardening the players up since day one. But, other than the odd spray here or there, his actions seem much more new agey and touchy feely than that. I think he has to be genuinely tough on the players by penalising them harshly for unacceptable levels of effort, or find a way to appeal to them on another level. I like Neeld and I'll be unhappy if we lose this week and he gets ditched, but I see this as a major failing that he needs to address.

 

[Viney]

Drafting, Development, Culture.....

I can't yet blame Neeld, he hasn't had long enough and the mess is bigger than probably even he expected

Drafting has been appauling. We should have a stack of experienced, mature players on the list helping the kids ease in. We don't.

Development, the picks who are left from earlier drafting (with Jones probably being the exception) have never reached the heights consistently they should / could. Then I still argue some of the drafting has targeted players incapable of being developed (and Neeld has recognised this and chopped them - Morton, Gysberts, Cook)

Culture, an overused word, yet and important one. We've all heard stories of Hollywood Boulevard, we all had suspicions the Bruces', Whites', Robbos' perhaps didn't set the best example for the new kids coming in, we all know there's been a tail-wag-the-dog mentality within the club

Neeld is trying to overhaul of these mentalities and he will make (and has made) mistakes.

He needs time to build HIS team, cause I can guarantee there are still players on our list he doesn't want

 

[Sylvia Saint]

You're kidding yourself. We were going nowhere fast under Bailey, and would never have played in finals then or any year. Being flaky gets found out sooner or later (usually sooner).

Neeld hasn't blamed anyone that I've read or heard. It is what is, so why not call it that. Rebuild of a rebuild sounds about right.

Bailey was not the answer - but 2011 we played some ripping games, and up until the 186 we were outside chance to play finals. We had a tough 4-week run towards the end of the year which killed off our chances but point is we were a competitive side.. albeit inconsistently.

Neeld came in and one of his first quotes was that our fitness level was at an appalling level. He had many subtle digs at the old footy department when he arrived, which he got away with at the time because we all thought "He's come from Collingwood. He must know what he's talking about!!" Well, Mark it would appear you have taken us even further back in that regard if our 3rd and 4th quarters are anything to go by.

Neeld is not the only part of our issues but he is certainly a big one. The cliches he spat out before 2012 may have won many fans over (including me), but he has proven absolutely nothing that would suggest he's anything more than a Damian Drum clone.

 

[PureFooty]

It's easy to make a judgement on a coach in regards to future success when they've already got the sack. How about some evidence to show why under Bailey we would never make finals?

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Is that directed at me? If so I am NOT supporting Bailey in my argument. I'm just attempting to paint a picture of just how far Neeld has taken this team BACKWARDS since taking over.