At the start of 2008 Melbourne and Essendon had new coaches. Both had old lists and began culling their older players. The football world expected both clubs to be down for a few years while they rebuilt their lists.

This year we've seen both sides heading in different directions to each other. The Bombers are rising, their young players kicking on, their middle aged players showing more maturity and consistency while their older players are still being phased out. They are displaying a system and attractive running game, are winning games and last night took another step up defying the odds and beating the reigning premiers.

By contrast, Melbourne remains at the bottom of the ladder with just one win. We're playing an ugly brand of football and, while our defence is improving, our mid age players are showing minimal improvement at best and we seem to be going nowhere. Already, after only six games, supporters are talking about and dreaming about the end of the year draft and priority picks. The coach talks of being "competitive".

Why aren't we even looking as if we're developing a winning culture like the Bombers are?

Excellent post, particularly your point of the minimal improvement of our mid age players. A majority of the posters on this site put our insipid performances down to youth and learning the game plan. Having a young list may translate to inconsistency of performance, however Essendon's inconsistent performances go from a rating of ordinary to excellent, whereas ours go from a rating of insipid to ordinary.

Our president comes out last week and states that he doesn't expect us to play in finals for 3-5 years. You wonder why we haven't got a winning culture at the club.

Mcveigh didn't play in their Premiership and had 2 touches in the Grand Final he played in.

What point are you trying to make?

McVeigh was in only his 3rd season in 2001. He is obviously a better player now.

I think both Melbourne and Essendon supporters should be relatively satisfied with where their teams are at.

Interesting talks about our [Essendons'] spine. Pears, Hooker and Neagle all made significant contributions against Hawthorn the other night, while Hurley, Darcy Daniher and Gumbleton [if he ever gets fit] are waiting in the wings. I'm not expecting brilliant results every week from this group right now, but I'm more than satisfied that when Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher have moved on, that our key position stocks are healthy.

All teams have injuries, but they do open up opportunities for others. Ryder has excelled in the ruck in David Hilles' absence. Perhaps if McVeigh and Welsh were fit, Zaharakis might not have got a chance to play. Fletcher out, Hooker plays on Franklin.

Our game plan is interesting. I doubt we will be able to sustain it for the entire season. It seems very taxing. When it comes off, it looks great. If it goes pear-shaped, it gets ugly. We haven't been able to beat the Hawks for a few years now, and although they are probably at their lowest for that time, we did make them look tired and slow. At least Knights has a game plan, and he has recruited to suit that plan, and is sticking to it. Time will tell if it is a long term success.

To be honest, I doubt either Essendon or Melbourne will be challenging for a flag anytime soon. At least both teams are heading in the right direction, unlike the Tigers.

I was interested in peoples perception that Essendon has had a "2 year head start" on rebuilding.

I think most people agree that 1st round draft picks are the best way to rebuild. Occasionally a gem might come from a rookie list or late pick, but if you want to get real quality onto your list, 1st round draft picks are the way to go.

Since the 2002 National draft, Essnedon has had 10 1st rounders while Melbourne has had 11. A couple of posters quoted 2005 as a starting point. Since the 2005 ND, Essendon and Melbourne have both had 5 1st rounders. It's very similar the number of 1st round picks both clubs have had in that period.

2002

Melb - D.Bell [14] & N.Smith [15]

Ess - J.Laycock [10] & J.Winderlich [11]

2003

Melb - C.Sylvia [3] & B.McLean [5]

Ess - K.Bradley [6] & B.Stanton [13]

2004

Melb - M.Bate [13] & L.Dunn [15]

Ess - A.Monfries [14]

2005

Melb - N.Jones [12]

Ess - P.Ryder [7] & C.Dempsey [19]

2006

Melb - J.Frawley [12]

Ess - S.Gumbleton [2]

2007

Melb - C.Morton [4] & J.Grimes [14]

Ess - D.Myers [6]

2008

Melb - J.Watts [1]

Ess - M.Hurley [5]

Where Essendon may have an edge is how early they have been getting their picks. Since 2005 ND, picks look like this in numerical order :

Melb - 1, 4, 12, 12, 14

Ess - 2, 5, 6, 7, 19

So Essendon has had 4 top 10's compared to Melbourne's 2. Obviously that will change this year. All of this is just facts and stats, the knack of course is picking the right players with those draft selections.

It's probably a valid point that Essendon started "rebuilding" a year or two in front of Melbourne. National Drafts 2005 & 2006 delivered the Bombers picks 7 & 2 compared to a couple of picks 12 for Melbourne. But Melbourne are coming from a fair way back. The Demons have only won 9 out of their last 50 games, and while the signs are better this season, I doubt Melbourne are stupid enough to win anymore than 4 games this season. Surely after adding 2 more very early picks, Melbourne must start to show improvement and win some games in 2010.

Melbourne lost it's FF focal point and drafted poorly from 2001-(you decide), and the one gun we drafted went back to Adelaide. But great post and I agree with it.

Interesting stats there Ash 30.

2002

Melb - D.Bell [14] & N.Smith [15]

Ess - J.Laycock [10] & J.Winderlich [11]

2003

Melb - C.Sylvia [3] & B.McLean [5]

Ess - K.Bradley [6] & B.Stanton [13]

2004

Melb - M.Bate [13] & L.Dunn [15]

Ess - A.Monfries [14]

2005

Melb - N.Jones [12]

Ess - P.Ryder [7] & C.Dempsey [19]

2006

Melb - J.Frawley [12]

Ess - S.Gumbleton [2]

2007

Melb - C.Morton [4] & J.Grimes [14]

Ess - D.Myers [6]

2008

Melb - J.Watts [1]

Ess - M.Hurley [5]

Where Essendon may have an edge is how early they have been getting their picks. Since 2005 ND, picks look like this in numerical order :

Melb - 1, 4, 12, 12, 14

Ess - 2, 5, 6, 7, 19

I give it 3-3 (all) with the 2008 draft to be decided who is better. My money is on Watts though. Which would give us a 4-3 edge.

My breakdown of draft winners at present b/w Melb/Ess early picks:

2002 - Ess

2003 - Melb

2004 - Ess

2005 - Ess

2006 - Melb

2007 - Melb

2008 ?

You've hit it on the head, 1858.

edit: Why did you pull your post 1858?

Excellent post, particularly your point of the minimal improvement of our mid age players. A majority of the posters on this site put our insipid performances down to youth and learning the game plan. Having a young list may translate to inconsistency of performance, however Essendon's inconsistent performances go from a rating of ordinary to excellent, whereas ours go from a rating of insipid to ordinary.

Our president comes out last week and states that he doesn't expect us to play in finals for 3-5 years. You wonder why we haven't got a winning culture at the club.

I agree with your observations Mo but you once again show a lack of acknowledgement or understanding of how the speed of the game has outgrown our current midfield. PACE IS CRITICAL in modern footy and Essendon is a clinical example of this. Last year they made clangers left, right and centre in an effort to run the ball and be as quick and potent as possible. This hurt them going the other way but Knights kept it simple to what their strength was and this year they are working on other aspects of their game. They were not favourites against Collingwood, Hawthorn or Carlton for the simple reason that people don't rate them as a footy side as far as individual talent goes. However all three teams were caught out because Essendon ran all day and had the pace from centre breaks or from half back. They are in tip top condition and now that some of their link play is coming off and their defensive pressure all over the ground is improving they are going to continue to be a hard team to beat.

We have a fundamental problem in that our midfield is a slow and one dimensional squad. It is certainly tough and they try hard but the lack of running speed is not just killing them it is killing our whole team. This is not Bailey's fault. Another issue which I think is worth considering is our conditioning resources for players and the size of our football department. Essendon would be in the top handfull of clubs at a guess with respect to these areas while we need to reinvest in our club deperately.

Ah, there it is....

You've hit it on the head, 1858.

edit: Why did you pull your post 1858?

I originally used the phrase "PACE IS EVERYTHIGN" but I knew I would be inundated with posters taking that too literally and argue other apsects of the game so I decided to change it to "PACE IS CRITICAL". Unfortunately the damn page kept timing out and I could only refresh it when opting to delete not edit so I did.