Think the verdict could still be out on how much, at this stage, O'mac has earned his spot in place of Dunn not earning his.

If hes not injured he should be in the team.  Selection has been appalling to start the season.

Joe took 15 marks because we decided to choose Lamumba over our most experienced defender. Shocking decision, shocking recruit

Just now, olisik said:

Joe took 15 marks because we decided to choose Lamumba over our most experienced defender. Shocking decision, shocking recruit

What would Dunn have done differently?  He is no taller than Garland and McDonald, nor is he any bigger in body size.  Our midfield are to blame for allowing them so much easy ball going forward.  They were able to get it to him quickly and our defenders were helpless.

8 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What would Dunn have done differently?  He is no taller than Garland and McDonald, nor is he any bigger in body size.  Our midfield are to blame for allowing them so much easy ball going forward.  They were able to get it to him quickly and our defenders were helpless.

He is more experienced and knows how to put opponents off their game better then any other of our defenders for starters. TMac and Garland made him look like Wayne Carey. No one has done a number like that on Dunn before

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

What would Dunn have done differently?  He is no taller than Garland and McDonald, nor is he any bigger in body size.  Our midfield are to blame for allowing them so much easy ball going forward.  They were able to get it to him quickly and our defenders were helpless.

It is reasonably well known he is our strongest player.

If Dunn is not a better option than Garland then I will eat my hat. Stronger one on one, better runner, better kick. It really boggles my mind. He has obviously [censored] Roosy and the coaches off somehow.

Dunn knows how to use his body more and grapple with his opponents, Daniher would have still taken marks but not as many.

3 hours ago, Forest Demon said:

It is reasonably well known he is our strongest player.

If Dunn is not a better option than Garland then I will eat my hat. Stronger one on one, better runner, better kick. It really boggles my mind. He has obviously [censored] Roosy and the coaches off somehow.

garland on daniher was always going to be the worst match-up imaginable. who's eff'n smart idea was that?

Dunne should get a letter of apology this week.

30 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Dunne should get a letter of apology this week.

could not agree more

there is somthing not quite right about his omission

somthing must have happened for him not to be selected or it was just a massive balls up and roos got it clearly wrong

Dunn can read the play. Tmac and Garland seemed to struggle with what was an obvious ploy to sit the ball up for Danniher. You will struggle to spoil a 201cm player with spring. Putting body in him, working him away from the ball would have helped reduce his impact on the game.

 

Dunn not playing against Essendon is neither here nor there. He wouldn't have been able to stop Daniher given the way the game was played. The bigger surprise to me with selection was that Frost didn't play. Dunn has Frost covered for skill, kicking and marking. But Frost is taller and faster than Dunn and would have been a better match up for Daniher.

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Dunn not playing against Essendon is neither here nor there. He wouldn't have been able to stop Daniher given the way the game was played. The bigger surprise to me with selection was that Frost didn't play. Dunn has Frost covered for skill, kicking and marking. But Frost is taller and faster than Dunn and would have been a better match up for Daniher.

You are highly unde rating Dunns experience here. 

Dunn would prevent Daniher even getting a jump at the ball on a lot of occasions. Something TMac always fails to do.

On 03/04/2016 at 2:35 PM, olisik said:

You are highly unde rating Dunns experience here. 

Dunn would prevent Daniher even getting a jump at the ball on a lot of occasions. Something TMac always fails to do.

His experience wouldn't have been much help. It's his lack of height (compared with Daniher) combined with the ease with which the ball was delivered to the Essendon forward line that would have been the problem. I've never been much of a fan of Dunn, but I accept that he's played his best football for us as a key defender. Unfortunately, he's just not big enough to play on the really tall or really big forwards. He would be better suited to being the "third tall" and playing the role Josh Gibson does for Hawthorn. It's why the development of Oscar McDonald and Sam Frost are critical. 

On 4/2/2016 at 9:27 PM, daisycutter said:

garland on daniher was always going to be the worst match-up imaginable. who's eff'n smart idea was that?

I am no Garland fan but it would appear to me that it is not entirely his fault. We seem to be trying this rotation defence a la Hawthorn where players are guarding zones rather than one on one defending.

The problem for us was that Daniher would lead up the ground and then return to the fwd line trying to create mis-matches in our defence. The coaches haven't worked out how to combat this or if they have it hasn't filtered through to the players. Either way their fwd line functioned very effectively and our back line was abysmal.

Given mr Porn Mo kicked 5 against us last time to win the game you would think they had a better strategy to nullify him this time. Alas no.

 

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

His experience wouldn't have been much help. It's his lack of height (compared with Daniher) combined with the ease with which the ball was delivered to the Essendon forward line that would have been the problem. I've never been much of a fan of Dunn, but I accept that he's played his best football for us as a key defender. Unfortunately, he's just not big enough to play on the really tall or really big forwards. He would be better suited to being the "third tall" and playing the role Josh Gibson does for Hawthorn. It's why the development of Oscar McDonald and Sam Frost are critical. 

Not sure LDVC that Dunn being 2cm smaller than Tom Mac or Sam Frost makes a huge hill of difference. The club seems keen to continue with Frost in the forward line, and the lack of a quality second tall in the forward line currently (I don't think it's Frost, but that's probably another thread) leads to these calls for juggling/optimising the key three talls in the backline. OMac, whilst taller, is only 82 kg and needs some weight before he's going to be the long term second KPD. Therefore I still think it's Dunn with his experience (and weight), and length clearing the zone on kickins that is required as one of the three backline talls. I think fundamentally the match committee just got it wrong last week.

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.

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.

1 hour ago, 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.

Excellent post

 

1 hour ago, 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.

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. 

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.

 

I found it odd that Roos said that Dunn was not selected because the Essendung forward line was small.  (forgive me if this has already been posted)

23 minutes 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.

 

I think it was more the amount of ball he was getting as well. He took something like 15 marks!

I agree with you though our midfield was the reason we lost. They were smashed so badly the last time I can remember being that comprehensively beaten in the midfield would be the Neeld era or at least Roos first year.

4 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I think it was more the amount of ball he was getting as well. He took something like 15 marks!

I agree with you though our midfield was the reason we lost. They were smashed so badly the last time I can remember being that comprehensively beaten in the midfield would be the Neeld era or at least Roos first year.

Yeah took a lot of marks, but I think people are getting excited by his stats and how much he had the ball when really he didn't damage us that badly on the scoreboard.

 

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).

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Yeah took a lot of marks, but I think people are getting excited by his stats and how much he had the ball when really he didn't damage us that badly on the scoreboard.