We could have had Neeld!

[ledge]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

That is true, but it does appear on the outside that he has handled things less than ideally.

In particular his ranting and raving in the coaches box, in post match interviews etc.
After the first game when they lost to lions after the emotional build up, he got stuck into the players very heavily, and hasn't really stopped.
Also add the promotion of inexperienced captains (voted by the players, surely the coach has the final say?), senior players on the outer, huge player turnover from week to week, public name and shaming, the list goes on.

Perhaps what the players need is someone to pat them on the back from time to time rather than a red hot poker up the behind.

There could be a huge firesale of players out of Melbourne during trading week this year.
Not sure that i can see any bargains for us.

Mathew Bate?

[Ghost Dog]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Mathew Bate?

I'd take that bald guy with the tatts, but he's the only decent player they have: suspect they will be hanging on to him.

[azabob]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I'd take that bald guy with the tatts, but he's the only decent player they have: suspect they will be hanging on to him.

Nathan Jones - has a dip and always honest. Not great by foot, not sure how quick he is either but he gives 100%.

[ledge]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I think they have a lot of good players if you give them a new club with a better environment and direction.
If they were to lose a lot at end of year I think you would get huge bargains.

[ledge]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Personally looking from outside I think Neeld has gone in thinking all players will respond to being hard at them, all players are different.
Our new coach is a peoples person, known for getting to know every player individually, family life etc
thus looks like he cares and also works for him in working out each players head space.

[Twodogs]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

You are right, the wouldn't be losing sleep. Just like we are not losing sleep about losing Harbrow or Ray, but they are handy players that can play a role for the team until a better player comes along.

Plays a bit on his own terms with a lack of accountability.
Seems to fit the GC recruiting mantra.
The downside is we miss his run and carry

Harbrow and Lake made a greater contribution than the sum of their individual parts. One just seemed to complement the other. It's a real shame he went. He's not half the player at GC he was with us.

It was a good financial decision for him but a lousy football one.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Personally looking from outside I think Neeld has gone in thinking all players will respond to being hard at them, all players are different.
Our new coach is a peoples person, known for getting to know every player individually, family life etc
thus looks like he cares and also works for him in working out each players head space.

Above all, three things are vital to grow motivation towards success in a team. self-confidence, experiencing success and satisfaction, and good player coach relationships as well as relationships between team mates.
Neeld's first address to the players was televised and it was jackboot stuff. I'm not sure if that's what they show on the TV only but it's a far cry from BMac's style. At the end of the day, I know who I would rather play under. Then again, Neeld may get it done. Bit early to tell.

[jeemak]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Something to keep in mind when we get fanciful suggestions here of trading out players like Cross

I've been as big a critic of Cross over the last year or so as anyone else. While he has played some good, if not excellent games of late I still think we erred in awarding him a 2 year deal rather than a one year deal.

While I might have been a little disappointed if he was moved on at the end of last year, mainly due to the inconsistent form of Wallis and the potential for Liberatore to suffer from 2nd year blues, I still think he's a good chance to be phased out towards the end of the season and early next season as these guys come through.

Delisting or trading players because they're old or slowing down isn't the way to go, particularly if you decide to do it en mass, though I think you need to be pragmatic about your list management and be very tight with the type of contracts you offer your senior players. Particularly if they have some potential replacements awaiting a chance to step up. The reality is, each of the alternatives I've mentioned is a very good chance to take a significant step forward over the next twelve months, and there's some other players on our list that might be well placed to change the look of our side over that period if they experience a solid run injury free (Tutt, Howard, DJ, Vesz, Wood etc).

Melbourne's approach was a bit off though, and any decision to release a player shouldn't be done solely on age.

I'm pretty confident Neeld isn't the only one to blame for Melbourne's predicament, though I don't think the media or broader football public (let alone the MFC) will be very forgiving with him. He's inherited a young list that has players who's heads would be extremely jumbled right now with mixed messages from a vast range of senior and middle rankes coaches and support staff. It's little wonder they're playing like they are at the moment.

No leadership, a change in message just at the time a previous one would likely to have been setting in plust the death of their club icon and president would make that club a hard one to play with right now.

[Remi Moses]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Trading cross or retiring him would be a massive mistake.
The blokes the heartbeat of the side, and he'll know when it's time as he is a selfless type.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

So let's continue to keep players passed their use by date?
Or are you happy to give loyal servants an extra
2 years and risk them playing for willi in year 2?

Problem is that there is no defined age that constitutes the "use by date" so how do you really know when it occurs. It is a delicate exercise and I favour caution. I absolutely am happy if they end up at Williamstown due to form issues before they are retired.
It is important to also value experience and the older players need to be retained to pass on that experience to the younger group.
That is not to say that senior players should be retaned until they wish to go.
I strongly supported the forced retirement of Scott West whenit occurred.
At the end of last year I would have retired Gilbee and Hargrave. Hargrave has been vital this year.

Melbourne just got rid of the older players without regard for the needs of the group.
You only need to look at the development at GWS to see that having a group of players assessed as being PAST the USE by DATE has been of benefit in the teaching aspect.

[Mofra]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I'd take that bald guy with the tatts, but he's the only decent player they have: suspect they will be hanging on to him.

Nathan Jones - has a dip and always honest. Not great by foot, not sure how quick he is either but he gives 100%.

Arguably been their best this season, and I'm pretty sure he's a FA.
Didn't want to go to Melbourne in the first place IIRC when traded from Geelong.

[Mofra]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Trading cross or retiring him would be a massive mistake.
The blokes the heartbeat of the side, and he'll know when it's time as he is a selfless type.

I think it's pretty easy to miss what guys bring to the table as a total package - leadership, an example of meticulous preparation - a kid who is assigned Cross as a mentor would have the perfect model for off-field professionalism. When the shit hits the fan on field, it's teh expereince of the leadership group that rally the troops and remind them to stick to the task at hand, positioning, gameplan, etc. If I was playing and looked across to see Cross pushing himself to absolute exhaustion, I'd have incentive to find that extra 1% to get to a contest I wasn't sure I'd make.

It's important to note the old leadership principle of "morale is a force multiplier" proven countless times in the military sense - trading out someone so impotant to the group is bound to effect the players as a whole. I wonder if Hahn's re-rookieing and coaching appointment at Willy was part of this strategy.

It's also very hard to preach loyalty to a club that shows no loyalty to senior players.

I think cutting McDonald was a mistake from Melbourne's point of view and at times their kids have looked lost but that's an obvious example. Ask how many North fans at upset at Brad Scott's "throw the kids in the deep end" approach to his midfield. They have drafted a group of inside mids who are right now getting smashed at contested ball & centre clearances. Leadership & experience matter.

[azabob]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Arguably been their best this season, and I'm pretty sure he's a FA.
Didn't want to go to Melbourne in the first place IIRC when traded from Geelong.

Jones was a first round selection drafted by Melbourne.

You are thinking of Maloney who didn't want to go to Melbourne as part of the Ottens trade.

[Maddog37]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Cross has been one of our best this year. If he continues to play the way he is now he can go as long as his body holds up.

I have suggested in the past that his time was coming to an end but if he becomes a role player in a broader system like he seems to be at present then his strengths can outweigh his weakness'. (I hope I have used that apostrophe correctly!)

[Murphy'sLore]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Cross has been one of our best this year. If he continues to play the way he is now he can go as long as his body holds up.

I have suggested in the past that his time was coming to an end but if he becomes a role player in a broader system like he seems to be at present then his strengths can outweigh his weakness'. (I hope I have used that apostrophe correctly!)

weaknesses

No apostrophe necessary for a plural.