Lynden Dunn - A fall from grace?

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

3 hours ago, H_T said:

It was so easy for them to create the mismatch. They had Daniher and some other knitwit confuse McDonald and Lumumba a few times, making sure that Lumumba would go to Daniher where possible. 

The confusion between our defenders was so visible and annoying. 

What's over there

Edited April 6, 2016 by Devil is in the Detail

[In Harmes Way 7,617]

3 hours ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

What's over there

Love this picture Devil, this looked like our backline trying to work out who was playing on Daniher

[hemingway 7,608]

8 hours ago, stuie said:

Maybe it's just me, but seeing Daniher only kicked 2 goals, was he really our biggest problem?

Midfield is where the game was won and lost for mine.

 

But Daniher's efforts lifted the confidence of the whole team. Had a huge impact on Essendons performance.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

12 hours ago, small but forward said:

Love this picture Devil, this looked like our backline trying to work out who was playing on Daniher

Or working out where Daniher ran to.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

13 hours ago, small but forward said:

Love this picture Devil, this looked like our backline trying to work out who was playing on Daniher

Or they've been coached by Dunn and picked up one of his key techniques.

[jnrmac 19,336]

18 hours ago, Skuit said:

He provided a huge release valve up the ground as well. And managed to pop up at the right time to continuously stifle any momentum. I agree that the middle is where we lost it but Joe was the difference in the result (figuratively and as accumulation of scores).

 

And coaches votes suggest he was the equal most influential person on eth ground

 

Essendon vs Melbourne

9 Daniher (Ess)
9 Zaharakis (Ess)
6 Z. Merrett (Ess)
2 Gwilt (Ess)
2 Kelly (Ess)
2 Kennedy (Melb)

[Skuit 9,382]

Do you think Roos or Worsfold awarded Daniher the 5 votes?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

Do you think Roos or Worsfold awarded Daniher the 5 votes?

Yes.

[Skuit 9,382]

12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Yes.

That was my line of thinking as well. None of the Goodwin conspiracy business.

[P-man 13,277]

Roos in his latest interview refers to Dunn "responding well" as well as the importance of picking players in form, which runs contrary to the previous talk of fitness and match ups being the reasons for his non-selection. 

He'll be a welcome return this week, Dunn is an important player for where the team is at right now.

Edited April 7, 2016 by P-man

[Seraph 1,714]

Roos confirmed Dunn is in for Garland in his press conference. 

[jackaub 1,402]

On 4/6/2016 at 11:09 AM, Akum said:

First, there are a lot of mobile 200cm forwards these days, and the threat they pose will only get greater over the next few years as the likes of Peter Wright & Tom Boyd improve. We don't have an obvious physical match-up for them, since getting rid of Jack Fitzpatrick.

Second, shorter but stronger defenders have historically always been able to blunt the effectiveness of taller forwards in the air, but only by getting body-on-body contact and leaning into them & using their lower centre of gravity to stop them getting into the right body position. The only one we now have who can really do this (now we don't have Frawley) is Dunn, who's so good one-on-one because he uses his body so well in contests. 

But it sounds from what T-Mac said before the game that we were playing zone defence, with no defender assigned to any particular attacker. That might work overall, but there are times, with a particular dangerous forward (e.g. Betts) where he'll need a "stopper" all game (e.g. by Jetta and nobody else but Jetta) and if we play zone defence he's going to carve us up. We also need to have the flexibility that, if a forward that we didn't expect is carving us up in a particular game, we can make the change and put a "stopper" on him. But this didn't happen with Daniher, partly because we didn't have an adequate match-up against him, and partly because putting the "least-worst" option (T-Mac) as a "stopper" on him might have deprived us of a lot of attacking drive.

I'd like to think we won't make that mistake again, but I wouldn't bet on it. Clearly the coaches had no contingency plans in place to cover the possibility of Daniher carving us up, because they just didn't seem to anticipate how vulnerable we'd be if he did. Again, poor planning, poor responding to situations within a game.

The poor coaching is becoming an issue at this club 

Whats going on??