We could have had Neeld!

[Maddog37]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Dagnamit. I always stuff them up!!

[Mofra]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

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.

You're right, my bad. Maloney is the free agent I was thinking of.

[GVGjr]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I'd stay away from Maloney. His best seasons are when the ruckman gives him first use of the ball.

[Twodogs]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I've been wondering why Neeld/Melbourne appointed co-captains this year? What do yu guys think of the co-captaincy model? I've never been in favour of it myself.

I have a strong belief that you need a consistant example and message from the top and the more voices you add to that mix the more confused the message becomes. I just dont know why you'd want to dilute the authority of the official team leader. The main message should come the senior coach and the example from the captain. You dont see a team with co-coaches, why co-captains?

I've got no problem with appointing a young captain and letting him develop with a young team. It can be a good strategy. But I dont know you'd appoint two 20 year olds.

[jeemak]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Agreed Twodogs.

I like the idea of shared responsibility throughout the leadership and broader playing group, though I think you need a single conduit between the coaching pane and the playing group is the way to go. If there's a breakdown in message, it's easier to determine where it has occurred.

The single captain needs to be a good delegator these days. AFL is too involved to have only one person covering all players.

[Bornadog]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Two Captains

[jeemak]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Two Captains

If you watch that movie backwards it's about a zombie that gets more and more racist.

[Mofra]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I've got no problem with appointing a young captain and letting him develop with a young team. It can be a good strategy. But I dont know you'd appoint two 20 year olds.

I prefer a single captain model, although multiple captains did work for Sydney.

The two 20 year olds is a good point - doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Neeld does seem to have a fair bit of work to do to take the heat off him.

[Twodogs]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I like the idea of shared responsibility throughout the leadership and broader playing group, though I think you need a single conduit between the coaching pane and the playing group is the way to go. If there's a breakdown in message, it's easier to determine where it has occurred.

The single captain needs to be a good delegator these days. AFL is too involved to have only one person covering all players.

I prefer a single captain model, although multiple captains did work for Sydney.

The two 20 year olds is a good point - doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Neeld does seem to have a fair bit of work to do to take the heat off him.

I think that the only worse idea than co-captains was that idiotic rotating of the captaincy that Grant Thomas used at St Kilda,

[LostDoggy]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

Well said. I really dislike the way the media have started on him already.

With few sex scandals going on, they need something to write about. The real issue is the length clubs are going to at the moment to satisfy the media. I'm not for a closed shop, but McLardy and co. should've come out firing, on the attack, instead of just circling wagons. As soon as the word "process" gets rolled out instead, in any context, you know something is amiss.

Supporters would have expected at least a couple of wins. Also the losses have been huge and the players seemingly have shown no heart.

Personally, I think Neeld has a game plan/style that he wants the players to play, but he doesn't have the type of players to suit that game plan.

If you look at Macca, he has emphasized contested possession from the start, ie you have to get your own ball, which wasn't a problem at the Bulldogs with players like Boyd, Cross etc. However, he has worked on other players who have not been known to get their own ball, such as Sherman, Grant, Higgins and turned those guys around a bit and also made the team more defensive.

What does Neeld do now? Does he change the game plan abit to suit the players or get rid of those players that can't execute his instructions?

He really has no choice. You can't implement a game plan and expect buy-in when you turn around in the next minute and say, "I'd better adjust this to Colin Sylvia's requirements." He's not an elected representative in a democracy — he's the senior coach, and it's his way or the highway.

Macca didn't just emphasize contested possession, he made it absolutely clear it's a non-negotiable. You want to play in red, white and blue, you buy in to the game plan and execute it. Simple.

Neeld dropping those players this week is the best move he's made in his time there. He can't just bring them back next week though, he must ensure that they buy in to the game plan, and prove it at Casey, before he even thinks about bringing them back. That's the only way to do it.

Unfortunately for Neeld, Melbourne's inept handling of this issue so far has somewhat undermined his authority to deliver that strong stance in any way other than at selection. Will be an interesting year for the Dees.

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.

Actually, with Melbourne's decision-making form so far, you never know…

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.

Great point!

[Happy Days]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I've been wondering why Neeld/Melbourne appointed co-captains this year? What do yu guys think of the co-captaincy model? I've never been in favour of it myself.

I took it as them wanting to pick Jack Grimes, but not having enough faith in his body holding up, so placed a bet each way.

Co-captaincy is an absolute cop out and a recipe for disaster if there is any difference of opinion at the top end.

[KT31]

Re: We could have had Neeld!

I took it as them wanting to pick Jack Grimes, but not having enough faith in his body holding up, so placed a bet each way.

Co-captaincy is an absolute cop out and a recipe for disaster if there is any difference of opinion at the top end.

Co-captaincy is about appointing one who deserves it and one who you are afraid to upset an lose.