With CEO Cameron Schwab’s resignation those baying for blood at Melbourne got their wish yesterday, but you still feel coach Mark Neeld isn’t out of the woods.
In fact, another big loss this week to West Coast will give the Neeld sacking story further legs.
One thing is clear. If proper evidence emerges that he has lost the players, obviously that’s it. He’s done.
But it’s mystifying that the foundation of every triple-figure loss has to be the coach ‘losing’ his players.
Those games seduce you into thinking these notions are accurate. When effort is so plainly lacking, we yearn for an comprehendible explanation.
To get that, though, we lose a sense of perspective.
What cannot be denied is that Saturday night was a massacre. A massacre that Melbourne contributed to significantly.
They laid 35 tackles despite Essendon having 452 disposals. That means the Bombers had at least 417 touches that were not contested by a Melbourne tackle.
After a week of complaints about a lack of effort, those numbers are unbelievable.
Across their two games this season, Melbourne are averaging 36 less inside 50s than their opponents. They are averaging 31 less contested possessions, an amazing 22 less than the next worst side.
They have the worst forward 50 efficiency in the comp and by far the worst defensive 50 efficiency.
Then there’s this stat: Saturday’s loss was Melbourne’s worst ever in 1,133 games at the MCG.
This is a team playing terrible football, and the numbers certainly back it up.
Now, to the perspective.
Melbourne were always going to go backwards this year. Always.
Many commentators have been trying to paint the club’s off-season moves as a recruiting spree. But it wasn’t that. It was a clean-out.
The players Melbourne lost last season racked up 6147 Supercoach points in 2012 (we can use this as a rough measure of their contribution across the season). The AFL-level players they gained had only 2765.
The players Melbourne lost last season had 1050 AFL games to their name (we can use this as a gauge of their experience). The players they gained had only 384.
Repeat after me: clean-out, not recruiting spree.
When you combine this with the fact the teams that generated three of the Dees’ four wins last year – Gold Coast and GWS – are almost certain to improve, the idea of Melbourne going forward this year was always going to seem far-fetched.
To be fair, you might have been optimistic on the basis of an easier draw or the fact Jack Grimes, Jack Trengove and Jack Watts are all at a stage players of their quality typically ‘break out’.
But to view Melbourne being destined for a bottom two finish as unexpected is wrong.
Of course, that’s not to say last year’s exchange period hasn’t been brought under the microscope the past two weeks.
“The same mistakes have been made again,” said David King on AFL 360.
I’d argue the complete opposite of that.
They traded pick 20 for Chris Dawes, which on the surface sounds like a rough deal. But what can we honestly expect the Melbourne footy club to extract from pick 20?
I asked the question last year and got a surprising answer.
In the top ten at Melbourne’s best and fairest last season, only one player was drafted between picks 15 and 32. That draft was in 2002 and the player, Jared Rivers, is no longer at the club.
Even inside the top 20, they’ve struggled. An article by Jon Ralph this week pointed out that of the 12 top-20 picks the Dees have had since 2006, half are already gone.
Without any major changes to the club’s investment in recruiting and development, hanging on to pick 20 would’ve meant a minuscule chance of finding even a decent AFL player.
It’s at this point you might ask: why don’t they address the issue of recruiting and development?
To that I’d say, absolutely. What a good point! You’ve hit the real issue!
Just don’t try and sell me the idea that the off-season moves were irresponsible.
Those moves, given the circumstances and past evidence and no indication of change to recruiting or development, were right and pragmatic choices.
None of this puts Mark Neeld’s job under any less scrutiny, though. It’s all about the performance that’s dished up on weekends and by that measure, 2013 thus far has been an absolute failure.
Last year certain performances put another coach under pressure. That coach was Matthew Primus.
Port Adelaide, like the Dees, had their very existence questioned after major losses. One truly embarrassing loss ended the coaching tenure of Primus.
So it’s interesting then to look back on what Port faced when looking for a new coach.
As it turned out, no one wanted to go there. Port were keen to get an experienced coach such as Rodney Eade or Brett Ratten.
When those two pulled out of the race, it was on to Leon Cameron. He promptly signed up to be Kevin Sheedy’s successor.
None of this is to say that Ken Hinkley doesn’t deserve his opportunity to coach senior footy. He does. There’s a warning in this story, though.
The grass may look greener on the other side, but it’s a tough gig convincing the coach standing on that grass to come to a club that is widely considered a basket case.
Ask yourself: Who would want to coach the Melbourne footy club as it currently stands?
Their recruiting and development record means that unless major changes take place, even if you coached to the highest of your abilities, the chances of dragging the club out of the dirt are minimal. Who would want to sign up for that?
Mark Neeld may not be the next Melbourne premiership coach. Right now you’d get very long odds on that ever happening.
But taking the emotion out of it, and disregarding any overly-optimistic expectations for 2013, and taking the half-baked opinions on last off-season out of it, sacking him would achieve so very little.
If we can give Neeld credit for one thing, it’s that at the end of the last year he did what others around that club have a glaring track record of not doing.
He made the hard calls on those who were clearly no longer a part of the club’s future.
He gave up 1050 games worth of AFL experience and put his job firmly on the line in the process.
Right now, the Melbourne Football Club needs more men like that, not less.
Bayman
Guest
Frankly, whether Neeld is the right man or not is largely academic given what he's got to play with at Melbourne. Having said that, he's not done much with it. Hinkley has clearly had an immediate impact at Port Adelaide, Hardwick is clearly impacting at Richmond, the Scott brothers at Geelong and North. Some of them had something to work with and some slightly less - but they are making a difference. The concern for me was Jack Watts coming out and saying Melbourne are missing on-field leadership. He's right, of course, but he's also a number one draft pick of (now) several years standing and his contribution to on-field leadership has been squat, nought, nada, zilch, none. Barassi used to famously say, and probably still does, "If it is to be - it's up to me". There's not much of that at the Demons - ironic given that's where Barassi made his name. Neeld was probably wrong to make two kids his co-captains - but that doesn't mean guys like Watts should be standing around waiting to be told what to do. Get out there and lead. Watts complaint was as much an indictment of him as it was his captains and senior players (of which he should now be one). Impressions are key. The Scotts, Hardwick, et al, look menacing and combative even when sucking on an orange. Neeld always looks like a deer, or a rabbit, caught in the headlights. Shocked, surprised, frozen with fear and looking like he has no clue what to do next apart from getting run over - or shot. I'm sure his players watch television and see the replays. If I was a Demon player the coach I see on television would not be giving me confidence. There is no way this guy can survive - he doesn't know how to. Watching Neeld and Melbourne is like watching a car crash in slow motion - equal parts shocking, horrendous and fascinating. Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton are loved only by their supporters. However, these clubs are continually competitive. In recent years add Geelong and Sydney to that mix. Hell, even St Kilda although they are about to suffer for awhile I suspect. The point is that these teams have been up, and down, and up again. Collingwood played in GFs in the 70s, the 80s, won in 1990, played off in the early 2000s, won in 2010, played off in 2011, are still about. The Saints played Adelaide in 1997 then Geelong in 2009, and the Magpies in 2010 for the title. The Bombers and the Blues have been around the finals for most of the past twenty years and both have won a flag or two in that time. Melbourne, meanwhile, have done sfa. Beaten by Hawthorn in 1988 and hardly noticed since. Last flag in 1964 when Barassi was still playing. It was his last game for the Demons and, apparently, it was theirs also. They've been largely a head case ever since. They have had their good years - but that's one of the problems. They have good years. Other teams have good eras. It can not be just a coincidence that while some teams have been to the top, been down, then back to the top, Melbourne have just been down. All the interstate teams that have come into the AFL since 1987 - except the two latest teams, and Fremantle - have won flags already, most more than one. Fremantle will be in the mix this year in all probability. Melbourne, meanwhile...... It's not just Neeld and this year - it's Melbourne FC. The draft and the salary cap help and hinder all teams equally - perhaps not GWS and the Suns in recent times, but generally speaking and certainly in the years to come - but Melbourne remain rooted to the bottom of the AFL. Maybe that's it - they're just rooted.
Joe
Guest
I think Garry Lyon has a bit to answer for , why do Melbourne continually go to Lyon when looking for a coach, his record is poor , he won't stand up for a position at the club and bags them out. Lyon obviously approached eddie and asked for assistance Tom find the so called desired coach, McGuire has then seen a get out of jail free card for collingwood and unloaded neeld , as for the players they are definitely not playing for neeld they don't agree what's happened to the players cut from the list and that goes all the way back to junior McDonald.
Steele
Guest
I disagree, Neeld has been given an ordinary list, but what he's done with it is worse. One win last yr, not including the new clubs and the disastrous start to ths yr, suggests to me he is not a decent senior coach. Knowone is expecting miracles but some form of improvement would of been expected by now, instead we are going backwards.
Kev
Guest
Calling for the coach to be sacked after losses as bad as the two Melbourne have had is easy and predictable. The issue is that Melbourne's problems were there long before Neeld arrive and they aren't going to disappear if you replace him. Yes we're only 2 rounds in and yes Melbourne are going to be in for a long tough season with plenty more heavy losses, but the reality is that building a good side takes time and even if you appoint staff that you think are right for the job, the results of their work won't be seen this season. Suck it up and grin and bear it because that's all you can do for now and only once the season is done and dusted, can you go over the entire club with a magnifying glass identifying key weaknesses that need to be fixed.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Tom, Bartram adds another 100-odd from memory.
daniel p
Guest
Calm down everyone its two games into his second season as head coach. I personally wont judge him until his fifth year in charge.
TomC
Roar Guru
I had a quick look through to see what the breakdown was for those 1050 games, but I can’t get that number. Green, Moloney, Rivers, Jurrah, Morton, Gysberts, Martin, Petterd, Bate and Bennell makes 937 games by my maths. Who am I missing? Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. It’s still a huge difference. I think you’re right to say that losing experience and continuity will make it harder for them to compete. I just don’t really see why that’s something Neeld wanted to do, why he thought it would be good for this team’s development if they were even less competitive in 2013 than in 2012. Personally, I don’t see how Neeld is creating an environment that will develop good footballers.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I actually love playing Supercoach myself, it was more that the players coming in hadn't had the chance to score because they weren't getting a senior game last year - which has been part of the criticism of bringing them in. Sound argument about it being more about what they'd lost, although Moloney was a long way from his best form last year. Neeld clearly rubbed him the wrong way, and he wasn't man enough, or professional enough to give his absolute best anyway. Enjoyed the piece, even though I don't necessarily agree with all of it!
Australian Rules
Guest
Less than 2 years ago, Melbourne went through an exhaustive, quite public, recruitment exercise to hire the best possible coach and map out a path forward. After 1 season and 2 games, is the club really going to say "oops, got it completely wrong, let's start again...again". I'm not sure Neeld's the right man, but they'll give him more time.
peter
Guest
The malaise at the Demons began sometime before Neeld was appointed. When Daniher was sacked following a poor start to the 2007 season the team (with a good deal of experience) did not improve drastically. In the intervening years the poor performances have continued (notwithstanding priority picks). Ultimately it is the back office that needs to be accountable - particularly the recruiting and retention personnel who have been caught napping for several seasons. If Neeld were sacked it would not result in the improvement that many are hoping for. He has an inexperienced list that may return dividends in 3 to 5 years and any but the most one eyed supporter should be aware of this.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Hey Cam, I think what the Supercoach and games played examples say is more about what left the club last year and how significant the losses were, rather than play down the importance of what arrived (absolutely those guys were intended to have an impact straight away). The numbers are there to point out the impact that those who left the club had in recent times, as well as how much experience they had. After reflecting on those numbers, when you compare them to what came in it becomes obvious that the new players - whether they have an instant impact or not - weren't going to be enough to fill that void. 1050 AFL games versus 380 ... that's a clear gap. I would also add that purely looking at the value of what was gained and lost doesn't account for something else that gets lost along the way: continuity. I'd assume Melbourne had the highest (or close to) turnover of players. That means everyone at the club has to get used to playing alongside a number of new team mates. The trust, the knowledge of how they play, where they're going to be, etc. is yet to develop. So you have to add that in too. As an aside, I understand Supercoach points aren't for everyone. Indeed, there are flaws in using them - midfielders get overrated, defenders underrated, that sort of thing. This is why I'd never bring them up without being presented in conjunction with a more traditional measurement (in this case games played).
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Good idea in theory. But they won't and can't afford a complete player turn over! Neeld is the one who decided to go down the recycled path. He's put the club a further 3-4 years behind! He's just as responsible this debacle!
Ahmed
Guest
Dream Team gives points for every action by a player (mark, goal, kick etc.) Super Coach only gives points for effective use of the ball and takes points for turnovers, ineffective passes etc. It is a quite comprehensive way of analysing how well a player has performed.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Geting rid of Schwab was the right move. McLardy should be next. Basically everyone on the board must be turned over too. The cancer is embedded to deeply at that club for more than a few to survive. You don't just cut out a bit of cancer, you cut it all out, right to the bone.There may be some good people in there who get choppd in the cull, but they'll just be casualties of war, tainted by association. Life isn't fair sometimes. I think to some degree Neeld saw all of this, but his mistake was probably going too hard, too early. He might be looked back on as the man who started the cure, but he won't be the one seeing it through. It might just be that he doesn't have senior coach qualities. Not everyone can. He would have made a fantastic second I sense, coming into this club behind the right coach.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I agree with most of what TomC is saying above. Reaching for the Supercoach points was a nice way to make a point Mick, but there is no doubt these players were picked to come in and have an immediate impact in regard to having more experienced players on the field to ‘stem the bleeding’ so to speak, which is to be competitive for longer and reduce 12-15 goal losses to 6-8 goals instead. Clearly, the opposite has happened. I was in favour of the strategy to be honest, I thought it would work okay, and combined with their friendly draw, I had Melbourne in for 6-8 wins. No-one could have predicted the first two rounds though, and there is clearly a massive disconnect between coaches and players. If the rumours are to be believed, Moloney and Rivers were gone from halfway through last year. Clearly Neeld upset a lot of senior players when he walked into the club, sacking most of them from the leadership group etc. It was the right move, because they were probably part of the cancer. The simple fact is Neeld simply won’t be there when Melbourne are successful again. Fair or not, right or wrong, he’ll be gone soon enough. Very , very rarely do coaches recover from this sort of crisis. He’s in a hopeless situation. He came in to weed out the cancer that had overtaken the club, but instead it has got him too. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a commanding media presence about him, which is what a struggling club needs. He doesn’t have the required gravitas that all successful coaches have, even from their early days. Richmond’s on-field performances were being compared to Fitzroy in 2009, but no-one ever accused them of not having a crack like we can clearly see the Demon players aren’t. But Hardwick had their respect, and always looked in control. He always had the answers, and was consistent in his responses, confident in his message. Mark Neeld has none of that right now. He’s a dead man walking, whether next week, next month or next year. It’s just a matter of how many miles he’s allowed to cover before he gets it in the neck.
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
They chopped a coach already. When you chop players, chop coaches and it still works, you have to clear out the top. The CEO is gone, that is a start. These are the people that determine an organisation's culture and obviously under Schwab and McLardy it has gone toxic. When a new President and CEO come in, they may want to get a coach of their own choosing, which would be their prerogative. But until then, keep Neeld and let him do what he can to stem the tide. Better than paying out two contracts.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Michael, Neeld might not be the best coach in the AFL, but right now the playing group, coach & players, all need to accept responsibility for their failings & man-up. The mess that Melbourne FC has degenerated into, is usually not the fault of one man, or a few, but by many men & a complete breakdown in structural systems, from administration right down to the playing group. What everyone at Melbourne FC needs to understand is that they are part of a club that is the oldest football club in Australia in any code & the oldest in Australian football. Everyone at the club needs to 'suck it up' & recognise the heavy burden they carry representing the oldest football club in Australia. Those who went before deserve better. By necessity, any changes to coaches & players are best left to the end of the season.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
LK, the article from October was from during the exchange period and therefore before the final list lodgement, hence why at that point in time it wasn't being described as a "clean-out".
iambunney
Guest
Hang on - if the Dees are seriously bad, is it all that bad that Neeld has lost them? Maybe Melbourne need to stick by Neeld and exchange every player on their list and start again that way- by means of players, not coach. Be interesting to see what result they got if they delisted every player they've got...
Matt P
Guest
They need Paul Roos but they would never get him... Hell they wouldn't get Brett Ratten, so they would end up with another untried coach an Allan Richardson or alike but there is no guarantee that this move would put them any further forward then 2 years down the road in time. I would look at moving on Chris Connolly, having this man anywhere near your footy department is a recipe for failure in my opinion. There are also other football brains in that box, Neil Craig was meant to be helping Neeld in to the ranks of an AFL coach. Tactics in the modern game are down to more then just the head coach, so clearly the whole Melbourne football department had no idea how to stop Essendons run or they knew how to do it and but players just weren't up to executing the plan. I tend to believe it was the latter