The 2013 storyline that refused to go away – Mark Neeld’s future – finally came to an end today when Melbourne showed their coach the door.
The timing of the move, both deservedly and undeservedly, has come under scrutiny.
It was awkward due to the fact Melbourne didn’t even play on the weekend. It was awkward due to the fact the club met with the AFL for assistance on Friday.
It was awkward and unfair due to the next fortnight bringing the club’s two most winnable games – St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs – in two months.
They were hardly going to show scoreboard improvement against the likes of Richmond, Fremantle, Hawthorn and Collingwood, their last four opponents.
But to be fair, there was a period in Melbourne’s history where they worried about things like awkward timing.
You may recall the comical decision to un-sack CEO Cameron Schwab after it was decided coach Dean Bailey needed to go.
In that light, it’s folly to be concerned with the timing of today’s announcement.
If it had to be done, there’s no point wasting time.
My point all along, outspoken it may be, was that it did not have to be done, or at least not on the evidence to date.
There are three potential outcomes for a club’s season. You can surpass expectations, you can meet expectations or you can fall below expectations.
Mark Neeld suffered because the public expectations – and judging by some recent comments, internal ones too – had grossly overstated his team’s potential.
For various reasons already explained, the key of which was losing over 1000 games of experience, the truth is that Melbourne were always going to fall below their efforts of last season.
And when you take a team that won four games – propped up by wins against expansion clubs – and accept they’ll struggle to back up, what are you left with?
At best, a 3-4 win season.
Given the Dees have had just two matches against the current bottom five to date – and had five against them in the second half of the year – Neeld was a fair to chance to meet such expectations.
In that light, it’s frustrating to see today’s events unfold. A second-year coach meeting expectations is not a sackable offence.
It’s especially frustrating when you consider we can all accept Melbourne’s problems extend far wider than just one position in the football department.
But all this is dependent on one man’s view on where expectations should have been.
There are those that hold an honest opinion Melbourne should have been a 5-10 win team, and it seems the Melbourne board may have been among them.
When we deal with this premise, everything changes. Under this criteria, Neeld has been a massive disappointment.
Such a disappointment, at a club that has disappointed for too long, cannot last.
The brutal truth is if you don’t see a future with a coach, it’s only fair to sack him. That’s what the Dees have done.
But the cruel irony is that if everyone accepted the first premise all along, things would’ve been so different.
Instead of seeing big defeats at the hands of Hawthorn and Collingwood, critics would’ve seen two of their best quarters of the year (winning the third term against the Hawks and that promising, high-pressure first against the Pies).
Instead of clinging on to those terrible, terrible games in the first two rounds, critics would’ve seen the fact triple-figure-losses – which were threatening to become a weekly occurrence – have been avoided, albeit narrowly.
Instead of jumping on the Dees’ back throughout the past month, critics would’ve seen the fixture for what it is and instead looked to the next two weeks as a fair judging ground.
None of these indicators are in any way sexy – winning a quarter, what a great achievement – but the reality is that’s what improvement looks like at a team like Melbourne.
That, though, was the problem for Mark Neeld. No one properly understood what “a team like Melbourne” actually meant.
Bayman
Guest
Cameron, Expectation is a killer. As an Adelaide supporter I wondered how they did what they did last year with essentially the same team as the previous year under Craig/Bickley. This year they've lost Tippett, and Walker, but that doesn't stop a midfielder tackling or hitting a target. If Sanderson made the difference, what about this year? Can a coach really make that much difference? Obviously, some coaches can - and others do not. It was only a couple of years ago, surely, that Melbourne drew with, and just lost to, Collingwood in a year when the Magpies were pretty good. And the loss would have been a win if the Melbourne player had taken a mark in the goal-square that he might have taken on another day. Where is that Melbourne side? Where is last year's Adelaide? The Crows are essentially back where they were under Craig a couple of years ago but, in reality, they are not a great team. Probably no team in the last few years has given up so many big leads to lose a game. Is it complacency? Fitness? Attitude? God knows what they could be complacent about? Melbourne's problem is certainly not complacency. Or maybe it is. Too happy to be called AFL footballers but not up to doing what is necessary and what the good teams do naturally. Money might be lacking, talent might be lacking, even on-field leadership might be lacking - but that's no excuse for pride, effort, character to be lacking. There's no doubt Neeld lacked charisma. He was simply uninspiring - to the media and to the players. But Melbourne picked him. How on earth did he get past the scrutiny of selection? I have no sympathy for Melbourne at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Let them burn, I say. Adelaide, on the other hand, is half as good as the supporters and the media here tend to think. And have been for awhile. At least they do occasionally do what they did last year but Melbourne have simply lost pride in themselves. If they don't care, why should we. I do agree, that on some level (maybe plenty of levels), Neeld will be relieved to be out of that mess. Hopefully, he can now sleep at night.
doubledutch
Roar Pro
It not about the off field behaviour any more for Melbourne peter. Games are what are going to matter, simple as that for Melbourne and Choko has as good a record as anyone out there at the moment. Lets not forget two things about that team which lost in the 2007 grand final. One that team wasn't even expected to make the 8, let alone the GF. Two that team got beatne by quite possibly the best team in the history of the AFL VFL. No team could have or did stand up to that great Geelong team, simple as that.
peter
Guest
Williams would be terrible.Look at his behaviour in the week leading up to the greatest GF defeat ever. In a professional game that relies upon sponsors to publicly attack a Major sponsor publicly after winning a GF shows the guy has no nouse.
Scottie
Guest
In my opinion the afl should just say to Melbourne fc. We'll give you this amount of money ( however much that may be) and the chance to relocate to somewhere such as Hobart or launceston with a relocation package of picks or whatever. If not they are on there own. Atleast there they would, over a short period of time gain fans and a lot of them. Those places are dying for the chance to get a team. This could help their financial woes. Unfortunately it won't change there on field performance. Mark neeld was right. It is a 5 year turn around for the club. Team rebuilding in the afl is slow depending on the club. Unlike others sports like the nba which you can trade numerous players nearly overnight, rebuilding can take years..
Connor
Roar Rookie
I think that there isn't any money left. I have pretty much run out of hope. I still love the Dees, and always will, but the situation is now hopeless after today.
big t
Guest
Mark neeld would be laughing rite now 500k pay out laughing all the way to the bank. He inherited a list from dean b whos development and drafting were a joke who played soft football mark neeld was appointed to change the direct ion of the club and play harder football yet gets the arse 18 months in. Melbourne you couldnt organize a chook raffle I wont be buying a membership next year cant trust your philosophy. Period
Helen
Guest
I agree with you entirely and I am sick of Neeld's pathetic excuses, the team has not improved at all in the 18 mths he has been with them. I also agree its not all Melbourne's problems though but Peter Jackson seems to be eliminating these people I am hoping he would stay on at the end of 2014. I also couldn't see what he was trying to get them to do,(Neeld I mean) and did stupid things like getting rid of the senior leadership team, not giving Maloney hardly a chance in 2012 and putting in 2 young kids who hadn't even proven themselves as co-captains, it doesn't take many brains to work it all out. He also was a 'no name' coach noexperience really at AFL level
Slane
Guest
I hope Choco doesn't take the job. They love him down at Punt rd.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
If the AFL didn't have to keep funding Melbourne when they decide they want to sack their coach mid-contract there wouldn't be all the whinging about funding the Giants...
doubledutch
Roar Pro
Michael, I can see your point on all of those issues, except the competitive part. Irrespective of the opposition, I do not think it is acceptable for even the bottom team to be this non-competitive in a competition that has both a salary cap and draft in place. This is gross mismanagement and yes Neeld is not soley to blame here. However, I believe this is what happened two years ago. Bailey was also next to useless, but everyone knew that Mick Malthouse was going to be available the following year. What the board of Melbourne didn't know was that Ratten would come under fire at Carlton because at the time he was going quite well. Todd Viney did not want to take the care taker job so they appointed Neeld. I have no doubt he probably had a short term contract and when Malthouse went to Carlton they then realised they were stuck with him with no better option. He was probably then given an extension and the rest is history. They need a coach who can after all coach. I've said it before and I will say it again. Choko Williams is waiting for the opportunity to shine again. He did very well at Port and the only reason he got shafted there was because of Fat ar....se Scott who didn't like him, who at the time was their major sponsor.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Given they went to the AFL last week to request financial assistance to implement a number of organisational changes, including sacking the coach, it's a fair bet that it has come from the AFL
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
My issue with sacking the coach - it means they have to find $500k to pay him out of his contract. Where's the money coming from? Sure hope it's not from the AFL...
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks Cam. Likewise with your piece, the issues at Melbourne are not confined to one, two or even three individuals, although you can't help but be impressed with Peter Jackson. Must have turned off before Darcy's comment, but "happy" isn't a word I'd have used!
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
doubledutch, I've done my best to reply point by point. 1. Mark Neeld does not have a game plan. When you listen to the most respected commentators in the land and they also have no idea where this club is heading then something is wrong. It seems like the ultimate 2013 AFL insult, "[Team] does not have a game plan". Heard it about a few clubs. The reality is with a young list, for most players their defensive capabilities are well behind their offensive capabilities. That makes it hard to stick to a comprehensive game plan and you also have to factor in improving their defensive side when designing a game plan, something older sides have the luxury of not worrying about. When I hear that a bottom 2 or 3 side has no game plan, I'm not too bothered. Typically there are reasons why it looks that way. Even if a coach of such an inexperienced team had a very specific game plan, you'd expect with their youth they'd struggle to implement it. 2. He had some pretty good players at hand, but it was his decision to get rid of a lot of that experience. You live and die by your sword and it is Neeld’s list, which in many peoples eyes is actually worse than when Bailey was in charge. Agree it was his decision and that he lives and dies by that. But the decision was a long-term one. It was not about improving in the short-term, in fact the short-term benefits were almost nonexistent. Yet, with only short-term evidence at hand, what right to we have to tell him to die by his sword because of that decision? The list has gone backwards since Bailey left, too. 3. This club has been rebuilding now for 7 years, when is enough enough? Agree. This rebuild has gone on for too long and unfortunately it will go on for a while yet. However, Neeld was only there for 1.5 of the 7 years, and a lot of the issues are separate from the coach (recruiting, development) so pinning all this on Neeld is unhelpful. 4. Neeld has zero charisma and zero confidence in front of a camera. He oozes weakness and just looks out of place as an AFL coach. Public appearance is maybe makes up about 5 per cent of the coaching job. But yes, I doubt Neeld would score top marks in that category. He seems very relaxed in more intimate settings but the all-in press conference after the game is not his domain. 5. HIs record stunk last year and it again sticks even worse this year! Could last year's record have been better? Probably, but the change he was implementing was not light, it was significant. As outlined in the article, it was supposed to get worse this year. 6. He appointed 2 captains that not only look 12 years old, play like 12 year olds. Since they have taken the captaincy their games have stunk also. Good call. Not that they play like 12 year-olds, but that was a lot of pressure to put on those two young men. Nathan Jones would've been a good choice if he wanted it. 7. Forget about the wins and losses. This club is just not competitive. Wins and losses aside, surely you can accept the fixture thus far has allowed only a few opportunities to be truly competitive? They've had two games against the bottom five, the only teams for a side this low we can plausibly expect them to have a chance of winning. It would've been nice to be able to have a wider selection of games against opposition they can actually beat when judging their competitiveness. Still, winning a quarter against the flag favourites (despite yes, being flogged) qualifies as competitive for a side like Melbourne.
Cameron Rose
Expert
A well articulated case as usual Michael, and I very much agree with you on the idea of expectation being a determining factor in how a club is assessed. For me the example is Adelaide. They over-achieved last year due to a number of factors, and were always going to fall this season. Yet now the wolves will be out because they'll drop from the top four to the bottom eight. Unfortunately, people only react to wins and losses. After the Collingwood game, Luke Darcy made a comment that made me realize just how far they've fallen. He said "Melbourne fans will be happy, they were competitive for a quarter". What an indictment on the entire organization that it had come to that. Being competitive is a minimum standard across four quarters for professional footballers. Neeld lost them in the early days, and I guess I've made my case in my piece why the decision had to happen. I certainly feel sorry for him, but some part of Neeld will be happy to get out of the abomination that he walked into.
doubledutch
Roar Pro
You obviously have a soft spot for Mark Neeld in the way you have written this piece, but I don't so I will point out the obvious reasons why he has been given the boot. 1. Mark Neeld does not have a game plan. When you listen to the most respected commentators in the land and they also have no idea where this club is heading then something is wrong. 2. He had some pretty good players at hand, but it was his decision to get rid of a lot of that experience. You live and die by your sword and it is Neeld's list, which in many peoples eyes is actually worse than when Bailey was in charge. 3. This club has been rebuilding now for 7 years, when is enough enough?He shot himself in the foot 3 weeks ago when he said it would take at least 5 years to turn this club around. No one in there right mind says this, unless you are GWS who have more money than GOD backing them up. Melbourne doesn't have this luxury and for this comment alone he should be sacked. 4. Neeld has zero charisma and zero confidence in front of a camera. He oozes weakness and just looks out of place as an AFL coach. He is a behind closed doors man at best, the lackey who gets the coffee for the real coach, something I'm sure Mick Malthouse misses from him. 5. HIs record stunk last year and it again sticks even worse this year! 6. He appointed 2 captains that not only look 12 years old, play like 12 year olds. Since they have taken the captaincy their games have stunk also. This is the real tragedy, because the next decision made will be to dump these two and if it isn't then that is the next big mistake the D's will make. Not only did it just not make sense, it alienated the senior playing group. I don't care if the player group voted them in. Why? Because AFL football is not a democracy and that is where Neeld went wrong the most. He is not a leader, he is a follower who allowed this idiotic decision to take place even when it wasn't his own idea. That alone again deserves a sacking! 7. Forget about the wins and losses. This club is just not competitive. For crying out loud, GWS has a better percentage and the only reason they have that one win is because GWS (an inexperienced team) allowed 11 goals in the last quarter). I don't think that is going to happen often, which means this club affectively has won nothing this year apart from record beltings. This is embarrassing for players, sponsers and supporters. It's one thing to lose, but 100 point floggings is not acceptable at AFL level consistently and for that he most go! I could go on and on at how pathetic this man has been as a coach. Let's now hope the AFL completely take over this club for the interim period or get rid of them entirely. It is not in the best interest of the game, so disband the club or get some pros in to fix it.