2 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I get what you're saying, but it's a pretty insensitive post.

I'm well against domestic violence & well for adequate healthcare but that's actually how it feels after all these years. 

Btw,

Every time the players are asked, "You have the chance to win two games in a row, is this big for you and the club", I cringe at the response.  The answer is always, "absolutely, we haven't done it during my time here".  It's akin to Queen's Birthday being labelled "our Grand Final".  If I hear that again I'll spew.

Try this response... Every game is important and every game delivers 4 points, whether it's two wins in a row or 10.  We expect to win every game and treat each on their merits.  We certainly don't reach for the calculator in the week leading up to each game and we'll let others analyse the record books.  

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

We can get to 8-10 wins but that's not much of an ambition - somehow, I feel the players and club would be somewhat satisfied with 8-10 wins too - and there lies the problem.  8-10 wins is a mediocre year in my eyes no matter where we've come from or how other clubs are faring.

The first minute of yesterday's game told us what we were going to get for the rest of the afternoon - forget the mistakes, we just did not come to play - in round 2.  Unacceptable.

It's above the shoulders with this playing group and with the club in general.  They all need to stop talking and start getting the job done.  I just wonder about our capabilities in that area though - they can all kick and mark to a certain extent but as for the rest of it, I'm not so sure.

Good post, mate. I know micro-managing isn't his job (and has been at the root of past poorly run administrations), but I just wonder if PJ should be putting a lock down on some of this FD speak? I get that the club has to run somewhat of a PR machine to entice supporters to sign up, but some of the chatter coming out of the FD on MelbourneTV was bordering on amateur, given we only stumbled over the line the previous week playing a quarter and a bit of footy. Particularly, as no one seems to able to back up their talk whenever we do have a win.

I'd be saying to Mahoney, "get your people in line. Make sure they concentrate on the game and prepare our players and ensure they win a couple in a row, before saying we're over our problems." To some extent, last week's final quarters wallpapered a lack of work rate in the second and third quarters, which is why I was quite negative after our first win on the season. Thrilled that we got the win, but I certainly didn't feel we'd turned the corner just yet. The fact that our FD seemed to think we had, shows they were either asleep at the wheel or their messages to vastly improve our performance from round 1 fell on deaf ears. Either way, it's not good enough.

Someone else said last night on this thread that we've basically played two quarters of footy this year. Staggeringly, they were right. It's quite possible we've played even less than that. The fourth quarter last week was how we want to play our footy. Take the game on with quick, divisive ball movement, coupled with hard contested footy and a top work rate. That combination will have us going close most weeks. But we were on and off in the first quarter last week, despite managing to play some hard-nosed contested, attacking footy. Ultimately though, it could be argued we've only played one solid, consistent quarter of footy in eight quarters. That is not good enough. Not only is that an indictment on the playing group, it's an indictment on the coaching team and the wider FD. If the players are getting confused by the conflicting game styles we want played, it's up to Mahoney and to a lesser extent PJ, to find a solution that enables this team to play how they want to play.

For example, some of the instruction and communication I've heard from McCartney is fantastic. It sounds as though he keeps things really simple for the players. That's what we need right now as we try to balance attack with defence. But it's as if the players are overawed by the amount that they are required to do.

Now it was always going to take a little while for our team to find the balance between hard-nosed, team-orientated defensive accountability and hard-running, bold, fast footy, but it's beginning to become evident that perhaps our players are not being coached in a way where communication is simple and they understand their roles.

To summarise, I think there are two glaring issues at play here and there is some complexity to them. 1) the communication from the coaching team is not good enough. 2) the lack of work rate from the playing group. The second issue either stems from a lack of confidence in seeing their plan come off or a lack of belief in their team mates to win the footy. This could mean that they don't work hard to get into space, because they don't believe their team mates will win the contests and get the ball to them, allowing their opponent to hurt them on the rebound. 

Finally, I want to use Geelong as an example again. When Geelong first started to play good footy under Bomber Thompson in 2004, they exhibited good team structures and a willingness to take the game on. They stumbled at the last few hurdles in the finals series. But in 2007, things really clicked. They had seen that the game plan worked and it was a matter of simply believing in each other and the game plan. It would work if they stayed the course. It had got them deep into the finals, but they'd lacked one or two elements on their list to take them on whole way (Ottens for one and they added Selwood in 07 and Taylor in 08). We know what happened in 2007 and in the years to come. The one thing that was a constant of the great Geelong sides were a knowledge of where their team mates would be and a belief that their team mates would win the footy. Occasionally they got hurt on the counter, but their belief in the game plan working was so strong that they would play bold attacking footy at all costs. This is what we need to do. We've got a strong defensive mind-set now established by Roos. Now we need to take this discipline and combine it with bold, running play.

I'm not saying we're at Geelong's level, but I think there's an apt comparison in there somewhere. Where we have to get to is consistently exhibiting solid team structures and a willingness to take the game on at all costs. When we get to this step, with good coaching, the next steps will naturally follow. My concern is though that we are struggling to believe at the moment and this is resulting in a lack of work rate that is being hindered by perhaps poor communication from the coaching group.

53 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Btw,

Every time the players are asked, "You have the chance to win two games in a row, is this big for you and the club", I cringe at the response.  The answer is always, "absolutely, we haven't done it during my time here".  It's akin to Queen's Birthday being labelled "our Grand Final".  If I hear that again I'll spew.

Try this response... Every game is important and every game delivers 4 points, whether it's two wins in a row or 10.  We expect to win every game and treat each on their merits.  We certainly don't reach for the calculator in the week leading up to each game and we'll let others analyse the record books.  

You're right, PD. We never hear these sorts of pathetic responses from other clubs. Just STFU and concentrate on being consistent and the results will follow.

Adam Farr - excellent post highlighting the complexity of the situation.

Above all else, I cannot fathom how any AFL player is not switched on - plug in and play should be a pre-requisite.  But sometimes it's best to keep things simple - Essendon yesterday were harder at the ball by a long way and that's why we lost.

If we don't "bring it", we lose (no matter who we're playing)  Surely the players realise that - or maybe they don't?  I understand that people want to point the finger at the coaching but the players set the standard - or at least, they should do.

Ultimately, our disposal skills are still going to be a drawback for us - we're miles off the standards set by the Hawks and now, the Doggies.

14 minutes ago, Macca said:

Adam Farr - excellent post highlighting the complexity of the situation.

Above all else, I cannot fathom how any AFL player is not switched on - plug in and play should be a pre-requisite.  But sometimes it's best to keep things simple - Essendon yesterday were harder at the ball by a long way and that's why we lost.

If we don't "bring it", we lose (no matter who we're playing)  Surely the players realise that - or maybe they don't?  I understand that people want to point the finger at the coaching but the players set the standard - or at least, they should do.

Ultimately, our disposal skills are still going to be a drawback for us - we're miles off the standards set by the Hawks and now, the Doggies.

Thanks mate. 

I don't think our disposal is necessarily the problem. Tommy Mac is a great example of this. In the game last week we worked harder for longer, so blokes like Tommy had options to kick to (as BB pointed out before). If the work rate is there to provide an option, the kick or handball for Tommy is a lot easier and he has less to bite off. That first goal he gave away yesterday was exactly that. He tried a ridiculously ambitious 50-55m kick across half back and ended up turning it over.

When we're playing good footy (and Tommy is playing good footy - usually the two are aligned) players like him have less risk involved, because the risk has been taken by the running player to get into space. But that hard running will pay off, because it means Tommy only has to hit a 25m target instead of a 55m one.

12 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Thanks mate. 

I don't think our disposal is necessarily the problem. Tommy Mac is a great example of this. In the game last week we worked harder for longer, so blokes like Tommy had options to kick to (as BB pointed out before). If the work rate is there to provide an option, the kick or handball for Tommy is a lot easier and he has less to bite off. That first goal he gave away yesterday was exactly that. He tried a ridiculously ambitious 50-55m kick across half back and ended up turning it over.

When we're playing good footy (and Tommy is playing good footy - usually the two are aligned) players like him have less risk involved, because the risk has been taken by the running player to get into space. But that hard running will pay off, because it means Tommy only has to hit a 25m target instead of a 55m one.

Disposal, as I see it, is one of our biggest issues. Watch the Bulldog St Kilda game: both sides were cleaner and much more precise that our boys. The obvious offenders are T.Mac and Tyson, but in the end, none of them have elite disposal skills, apart from Salem and he doesn't get the pill often enough.

6 minutes ago, dieter said:

Disposal, as I see it, is one of our biggest issues. Watch the Bulldog St Kilda game: both sides were cleaner and much more precise that our boys. The obvious offenders are T.Mac and Tyson, but in the end, none of them have elite disposal skills, apart from Salem and he doesn't get the pill often enough.

Aside from Murphy at the Bulldogs I don't think they have a slew of elite ball users either. They just work harder to give their team mates options and they also look to move the ball on as quickly as possible. You knew pretty early yesterday that we weren't looking to move the ball quickly. It was as if we thought we'd have mismatches that would allow us to kick to contests and we'd still come out on top. We've seen now that our game plan falls down sharply when we don't move the ball quickly.

1 minute ago, AdamFarr said:

Thanks mate. 

I don't think our disposal is necessarily the problem. Tommy Mac is a great example of this. In the game last week we worked harder for longer, so blokes like Tommy had options to kick to (as BB pointed out before). If the work rate is there to provide an option, the kick or handball for Tommy is a lot easier and he has less to bite off. That first goal he gave away yesterday was exactly that. He tried a ridiculously ambitious 50-55m kick across half back and ended up turning it over.

When we're playing good footy (and Tommy is playing good footy - usually the two are aligned) players like him have less risk involved, because the risk has been taken by the running player to get into space. But that hard running will pay off, because it means Tommy only has to hit a 25m target instead of a 55m one.

I don't disagree AF, but if you watch the Hawks and Doggies closely, their disposal skills and decision making is a cut above where we're at ... of course, we can get better but the main issue is still the players getting switched on for games.

Most of our senior players were found wanting yesterday (with the exception of Vince and Nate Jones) ... Pedersen, Matt Jones, Watts, T-Mac, Garland, Jetta, Lumumba & Garlett just didn't do enough - in fact, nowhere near it.  Gawn won in the ruck but our midfielders don't rove to him very well (Jones aside)  

I'm big on basic fundamentals - if they're not done well, you lose.  So, not having a collective manic attack on the ball means that you're making it hard on yourselves to win any game.  What we turned up with yesterday has a consequence.

Btw, it's always good to sleep on a loss like that 

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

I don't disagree AF, but if you watch the Hawks and Doggies closely, their disposal skills and decision making is a cut above where we're at ... of course, we can get better but the main issue is still the players getting switched on for games.

Most of our senior players were found wanting yesterday (with the exception of Vince and Nate Jones) ... Pedersen, Matt Jones, Watts, T-Mac, Garland, Jetta, Lumumba & Garlett just didn't do enough - in fact, nowhere near it.  Gawn won in the ruck but our midfielders don't rove to him very well (Jones aside)  

I'm big on basic fundamentals - if they're not done well, you lose.  So, not having a collective manic attack on the ball means that you're making it hard on yourselves to win any game.  What we turned up with yesterday has a consequence.

Btw, it's always good to sleep on a loss like that 

No doubt Hawthorn have better ball users and decision makers than us. I think the Bulldogs are very well coached and were well developed. They are also becoming a consistent side. This means they become predictable to their team mates, which enables them to really take the game on, because they know they'll have support. 

I absolutely agree we weren't switched on yesterday. I believe we went to sleep for vast portions of the previous week too. It is simply not good enough and we still lack two or three elite ball users. Do we have them on our list already? Maybe. I still think we're one or two short even if Salem and Oliver come on with experience.

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

I don't disagree AF, but if you watch the Hawks and Doggies closely, their disposal skills and decision making is a cut above where we're at ... of course, we can get better but the main issue is still the players getting switched on for games.

Most of our senior players were found wanting yesterday (with the exception of Vince and Nate Jones) ... Pedersen, Matt Jones, Watts, T-Mac, Garland, Jetta, Lumumba & Garlett just didn't do enough - in fact, nowhere near it.  Gawn won in the ruck but our midfielders don't rove to him very well (Jones aside)  

I'm big on basic fundamentals - if they're not done well, you lose.  So, not having a collective manic attack on the ball means that you're making it hard on yourselves to win any game.  What we turned up with yesterday has a consequence.

Btw, it's always good to sleep on a loss like that 

I certainly think Hawthorn's players are across the board better users of it than our players, but I'm not sure about the Dogs.

For the Dogs its all about running and space. It's easier to get by with a few mistakes by foot if your target is in open space. But that shows us something else we have to work on. The Dogs run hard, both ways, all 18 on the park - that's something we still don't get from our boys.

 

2 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

I get what you're saying, but it's a pretty insensitive post.

I get what you're saying but its good to see the PC police out in force...

7 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

 

With the Giants four goals clear of the Cats (who demolished last year's Premiers in Round 1) at 3/4 time, maybe our Round 1 effort wasn't too bad after all? Does this mean that we are theoretically better than Geelong and Hawthorn or does it mean that Esendon are not the basket case and may in fact challenge a few teams? There is always a positive spin (though I did not envisage one as I left the "G" yesterday)!

p.s. Remember that although the Gold Coast beat the Bombers in Round 1, they backed this up with a convincing win over Freo (at Subianco) in Round 2.

The thing that might hold the Doggies back is their experience in big games and big finals ... time will tell but it seems obvious to me that Beveridge is huge on actual kicking skills (he was at the Pies in '09/'10 and then at the Hawks from 2012-2014 - both those clubs exhibited great kicking skills whilst he was there)

Apparently the motto at the Hawks was to recruit players with excellent kicking skills and then teach them the "Hawthorn way" ... why not adopt that philosophy and take it elsewhere?

We've got a fair way to go at the Demons but to make up for not being super-skilled, we just have to be hard at the ball - in every game ... and yesterday, we got found wanting.  We were 2nd to the ball and our players did not fight hard enough for the front position - especially our forwards.

Well I didn't want to see all the hoo ha with the march, all the ex players and the waving of the jackets and to be honest I couldnt sit there and watch them beat us so I made the decision to not attend and go across the road and support the storm play and made the right decision. 

I was not surprised that we lost. We cannot handle being the favourites and I think Roosy was right. That players waltzed into yesterday just thinking it will happen. How many supporters thought yesterday was already a win? 

Anyway next week against nth I hope they show a lot more fight. I will be going to Hobart which may be a stupid decision and a waste of money but I expect a massive response and its time we beat nth. 

3 minutes ago, CBDees said:

With the Giants four goals clear of the Cats (who demolished last year's Premiers in Round 1) at 3/4 time, maybe our Round 1 effort wasn't too bad after all? Does this mean that we are theoretically better than Geelong and Hawthorn or does it mean that Esendon are not the basket case and may in fact challenge a few teams? There is always a positive spin (though I did not envisage one as I left the "G" yesterday)!

I agree that Essendon is the not the basket case in terms of on-field product that it was made out to be. We only lost by 13 points, 67 to their 80.

St Kilda only scored 36 points total last night and lost by something like 50 or so points. Essendon, although they lost by 10 goals last week has still outscored the Saints in both weeks. And Freo has lost both games as well. Those two teams should be due more criticism than either Essendon or us.

13 minutes ago, Maple Demon said:

I agree that Essendon is the not the basket case in terms of on-field product that it was made out to be. We only lost by 13 points, 67 to their 80.

St Kilda only scored 36 points total last night and lost by something like 50 or so points. Essendon, although they lost by 10 goals last week has still outscored the Saints in both weeks. And Freo has lost both games as well. Those two teams should be due more criticism than either Essendon or us.

As I pointed out in my edit, when the Bombers were beaten by the Suns, the Suns went on this week to beat the Dockers at home. Similarly, we beat the Giants last week who have gone on to beat Geelong today.

I said this before the season in one of those "what do you want to see this year" threads.

It's all about our worst, I think.

GWS just beat Geelong (led them all day, too) which shows you that we are good enough to match it with the good teams. I'm quite confident that we'l put in a good show against North, actually.

But we cannot climb the ladder until we raise the level of our worst football.

2 minutes ago, CBDees said:

As I pointed out in my edit, when the Bombers were beaten by the Suns, the Suns went on this week to beat the Dockers at home. Similarly, we beat the Giants last week who have gone on to beat Geelong today.

I agree with everything in your original post. The last sentence wasn't directed at you, rather at the supposed 'experts'.

And West Coast, which won last week, has scored only 2 points against a team that was solidly beaten last week.

29 minutes ago, Maple Demon said:

I agree that Essendon is the not the basket case in terms of on-field product that it was made out to be. We only lost by 13 points, 67 to their 80.

St Kilda only scored 36 points total last night and lost by something like 50 or so points. Essendon, although they lost by 10 goals last week has still outscored the Saints in both weeks. And Freo has lost both games as well. Those two teams should be due more criticism than either Essendon or us.

Don't let Essendon's poor kicking (read Daniher) wallpaper their complete dominance of yesterday's game. We were smashed in the uncontested possessions. There's always a way to spin a positive, but we can't keep doing that if we want to become a successful club again.

We did manage to step up in the final quarter last week, but that wallpapered the inconsistency earlier in the match. We need to find and demand consistency from our players 22 years and above, and we need to do it fast.

31 minutes ago, CBDees said:

With the Giants four goals clear of the Cats (who demolished last year's Premiers in Round 1) at 3/4 time, maybe our Round 1 effort wasn't too bad after all? Does this mean that we are theoretically better than Geelong and Hawthorn or does it mean that Esendon are not the basket case and may in fact challenge a few teams? There is always a positive spin (though I did not envisage one as I left the "G" yesterday)!

p.s. Remember that although the Gold Coast beat the Bombers in Round 1, they backed this up with a convincing win over Freo (at Subianco) in Round 2.

I don't care who you're playing, if you lose the possession count by 128 and have had 71 less marks (read that again) then your effort has been abysmal. 

The annoying thing is that you can absolutely bank on that being Essendon's best performance of the year.

They will play like balls next week. Watch it happen.

As for our mob, they've learned to compete with most sides.  They now need to learn how to cope with the "favourites" tag. They are so accustomed to being the underdog that being anything else seems to overwhelm them. 

Would struggle to recall a more lazy performance than that of the MFC yesterday.

Did I read correctly that we had over 120 fewer uncontested possessions yet still also managed fewer tackles.

We just expected it to happen - even after hitting the front twice. They ran harder for longer, looked to run into space and wanted it more all day long.