Not old enough.
Might help players with dodgy groins.
This off season is killing me.
Iām gonna remain sceptical whilst Neeld is at the club. Especially in a role that seems to be overseer of coaching co-ordination when the evidence suggests that he himself couldnāt coach or manage people at all. Win a flag and Iāll publicly back track.
Happy to have Kel involved at the club.
Reckon Johns gonna keep his job?
horse i mean
I like what he did st Collingwood though.
I would really have liked Hodge as a coach. Need some of that Hawthorn IP. Have we had anyone work for us who has spent time under Clarkson? Or Longmire?
Guessing Chris Scott is not looking like a genius this week.
Neeldās been involved with 5 flags as a coach, donāt think the rest of our coaches have been involved with 5 (coaching) between them.
Mark Harveyās been involved with failure after failure and seems to slip a long way under the radar.
Wonder how the two would be viewed if Neeld had played 200 in red and black and Harvey had been a bit part Geelong/Richmond dud.
Every time Dangerfield goes forward, Scott becomes a genius.
Couldnāt give a stuff who Neeld played for, tbh. He had that same premiership involvement - whatever level that was - when he embarked on an AFL senior coach gig. Clearly that involvement served him in no stead whatsoever. So get back to me when Neelds coaching record doesnāt include destroying an AFL club, totally losing his playing group and a 15% winning record.
If you told me he was in a development of 1st-3rd year players role, where he did (by all accounts) a very decent job at Collingwood, then Iād agree with you. But heās not. Heās apparently now one of the main strategy guys at AFL level, a level at which he appeared inept when he had the reins. Like I said, I remain unconvinced. But thatās looking purely from the outside.
fwiw, I actually thought Harves had freo going ok when he was sacked for Lyon. Which is relevant to not much, of course.
Good points, Sal.
Also Freo had a shocking run of injuries in that season before [Lyons was appointed before] Harvs was socked. Despite the injuries they suffered that year, he had managed them pretty well, I thought.
I should point out that Iām certainly not suggesting Harvey is a great coach or anything. But heās not head of whatever the hell "game performance " is, nor has he just been promoted to tactical whatever.
But hey, maybe we become strategic masters and Iāll happily look like a dunce.
game plan, ok boys use your pace to get it forward ASAP
Not really, he tried getting in all his mates, it didnāt work, they drafted gun kids, had 1 good year, the following year he knowingly pushed injured guys back out there against medical advice, some of them got re injured. Youād be ropable if some idiot coach endangered our players because they personally were feeling the pinch.
Neeld was the midfield coach of the group that outworked and dismantled the Geelong juggernaut at about this point. It boggles the mind that he lost whatever ability he had in 2 years at melbourne.
The injuries were exacerbated by some idiot coach pushing bruised and broken kids back on the field, from what I read.
HAP. I can verify this. I have a mate in Sports Science over here. Harvs reportedly battered them into the ground with running over preseason. Real bad.
Then overuled medical staff at the selection table leading to multiple re-injuriesā¦
Unbelievable
Neeld may well be complete poo as a coach. However, more than usual, I struggle that anyone outside the āsphereā of the playing group, let alone club could really know. Still, it is Mark Neeldā¦he just sounds ā ā ā ā , I get that.
Was Harvey not an assistant in our 2000 flag?
Sure, that was a long time ago, but āfailure after failureā isnāt really correct.
Reckon Horse is pretty safe.
People forget that Neeld (and all our assistant coaches who are former failed head coaches) were very successful assistant coaches - Thatās how they got the gig as head coach in the first place.
It doesnāt always work out for them all. Some because of circumstances at the club and some because of the Peter Principle.