Analysing yesterday's game -

[McQueen 17,864]

Wowee.

Looking forward to our next win.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,486]

5 hours ago, DeeMfc said:

Matt Burgan made an interesting point in his article yesterday. Although in no way is it excusing the performance of the team. 

"It’s interesting looking back at the Essendon team that defeated Melbourne by nine points last year and the one that pipped the red and blue on the weekend.

Nine of the Essendon players remained from that round 15 win last year. It’s a considerable turnover, but if you took out the six suspended Bombers to play in that match and replace them with another six names – it’s hardly disastrous.

Dyson Heppell, Michael Hibberd, Cale Hooker, Michael Hurley, Ben Howlett and Brent Stanton were the six suspended players to feature in that win last year.

If you replaced them with a combination of recruits and players back in the Essendon side, you’d could have James Kelly, Adam Cooney, Mathew Stokes, Ryan Crowley, Matthew Leuenberger and Darcy Parish.

There are five premierships, a Brownlow Medal, two All-Australians, a best and fairest and three top five draft picks among those players. Hardly shabby."

I could not bring myself to read Burgo's article as I'm sick of excuses. Everyone at the club, players, coaches, media should have said we played poorly and Essendon played well and we will rectify it. None of these excuses about being tired, or big headed- just accept the loss and work to get better.

[rjay 23,948]

1 hour ago, AdamFarr said:

I suggested something similar a couple of days ago. I think PJ is right to demand answers, but it's important he conducts this through proper channels (ie. demanding answers from Mahoney), lest he micromanage like the last bloke. As Head of the FD, Mahoney should be demanding theae answers anyway, but as our immediate success is tied to our football side's ability to become consistent and become winners, PJ's business plan is at stake here.

It's funny though that someone like Barrett suggests this sort of thing, because he was one of the 'journalists' having a go at Schwab for micromanaging. (Which we now know he was)

I think PJ stays out of the FD unless there is a major issue. Losing one game, albeit the way we did is not a major issue...

[frankie_d 1,408]

James Kelly reckons we didn't come to play

I hate that phrase, but I think I know what he means.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/james-kelly-sensed-melbourne-demons-were-off-their-game-in-essendon-win-20160404-gnyh60.html

Edited April 5, 2016 by frankie_d
removed quotes around <come to play>

[Skuit 9,290]

24 minutes ago, frankie_d said:

James Kelly reckons we didn't "come to play"

I hate that phrase, but I think I know what he means.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/james-kelly-sensed-melbourne-demons-were-off-their-game-in-essendon-win-20160404-gnyh60.html

Frankie - you need to delete those quotation marks less someone mistakes this for an actual quote.

[Demon Dynasty 15,684]

2 hours ago, rjay said:

I thinkinJ stays out of the FD unless there is a major issue. Losing one game, albeit the way we did is not a major issue...

You dont think he's entitled to an explanation? Beaten by a team put together over 6 to 8 weeks 

[Ethan Tremblay 28,468]

20 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

You dont think he's entitled to an explanation? Beaten by a team put together over 6 to 8 weeks 

There were only four top-up players playing. The rest were hungry kids. 

[Demon Dynasty 15,684]

A few interesting (but maybe meaningless) stats after the first two rounds.

Disposal Efficiency %  - team ave (Rank)

* League average up to Rnd 2 is 73.4

Rnd 1 / Rnd 2

Demons

77 (4) /  71.8 (15)

Bombers

74.9 (7) / 79.5 (1)

Hawks

69.7 (15) / 74.7 (9)

Eagles

79 (1) / 63.5 (18)

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Rusty Nails

[Satyriconhome 9,986]

22 hours ago, H_T said:

Damien Barrett last night on Footy Classified in 'analysing the game' suggested Peter Jackson order or conduct a review of the week. 

Included in this would be selection criteria and what unfolded during the week into the lead up.

You don't have to be blind Freddy to realise and pinpoint that the FD and selection committee went against their own philosophy of playing 22 x 100% fit players. 

And in the lead up was every box ticked in getting the players mindset right for the game?

Was the failure at coaching level and at the selection table as significant as the poor performance; did this contribute?

 

Oh right that well known AFL coach of many years standing, maybe he needs to do a refresher course in journalism, and actually write something instead of just following the crowd and inventing stuff

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,321]

On 3 April 2016 at 11:22 PM, jnrmac said:

Please what kind of pahtetic excuse making is this?

What excuses were I making?

i rightly pointed out that we were garbage. I then gave the opposition credit for playing very well and raised the question on how many other sides they may have beaten on the day.

Where was the pathetic excuse in that?

[jnrmac 19,131]

13 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

What excuses were I making?

i rightly pointed out that we were garbage. I then gave the opposition credit for playing very well and raised the question on how many other sides they may have beaten on the day.

Where was the pathetic excuse in that?

Posted Sunday at 11:22 PM · Report post

On 4/3/2016 at 4:29 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

We were garbage yesterday, but I reckon the Dons would've beaten a few other sides yesterday. They decided to play the perfect game given their current situation and playing list 

It came across as 'oh its OK, they would have beaten a few other sides yesterday' as if that was an excuse for our shizen performance.There is no excuse for our shizen performance and they wouldn't have beaten anyone else most likely.

[dee-luded 2,958]

On 03/04/2016 at 11:45 AM, stevethemanjordan said:

It seems the post match discussion thread is again full of the usual over-the-top comments regarding yesterday's loss so I thought I'd start a thread for those who wish to share some views on some of the deep-seeded issues that are obviously still with this club given yesterday's debacle. 

Couple of things to start. When you're up against a really proud side with an enormous supporter base who are hosting a 'stand by us' game at the MCG, it would be fairly obvious that as an opposition side, starting well and taking the crowd out of the game as early as possible would almost be dot-point numero one on the whiteboard... 

What happened? 

Here are two significant moments that contributed to the essendon snowball that quickly gathered speed pretty early on yesterday:

1: From as early as I can remember, they were running harder, tackling harder and executing their skills to a level above us. Why?

2: Tom McDonald's turnover directly resulting in Essendon's first goal. Crowd went up a gear and so did their side. 

After 10 minutes and even after the first goal for us, it was clear that they had us covered everywhere except at clearances and eventually that was the story of the entire afternoon. But before I go on to some more pressing issues I have about yesterday, I would like to say that these two points were the catalyst for Essendon to really believe that they were in with a chance. The crowd and their players lifted enormously.

As for point 1, I refuse to believe that this is a one off. Do we need reminding of the Nab challenge game against the Bulldogs? Was it not eerily similar early on? The young dogs side ran hard in numbers on the outside, were tackling more ferociously and were generally more efficient with the ball than us in that game and similarly to Essendon, had around 15 of their starting 22 players out. We almost had a full-strength side in. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that game for me was without doubt cause for concern and I made a point of it. What the dogs game and now yesterday has proved is the following: From our backline through to our midfield, we severely lack running power and speed, football smarts and disposal skills. It's alarming and enormously concerning. We're a really one-dimensional midfield. Almost all of our midfielders are contested ball winning players, most of them are one-paced and nearly none of them are damaging by foot. Also alarming. I completely understand that Roos and co wanted competitors but I recall saying a year or so ago that if we keep neglecting equally important attributes such as running power and kicking skills, we're going to stall. 

Evolutionarily speaking, has the Hawthorn model been completely forgotten? Contested ball winning isn't any more important than being efficient by foot nor being able to run hard both ways. All attributes are equally important and as a team there must be an equal balance if you're expecting to be a quality side which is why Hawthorn have been so dominant. The balance of attributes across their midfield is incredible and now the dogs are on the same path. Roos is still thinking Sydney 2005. Which brings me to my next point:

Paul Roos: I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I strongly believe he is past match day coaching. As posters have rightly noted, he was outmaneuvered yesterday. Embarrassingly so. Following on from my views about the way we've been drafting and recruiting, it's clear he is stuck in the 'Sydney of 2005' model of playing the game. His post-game pressers rarely shed light on anything. I think he's been huge for the club in regards to steering the ship, implementing elite behaviours within the club and assembling a great development coaching team but the sooner Goodwin takes over on match day, the better. 

Backline: Would love to know whether this is Roos or Rawlings idea, but this rotating of backmen on opposition players is simply a joke. I heard McDonald talk about it during the week. When asked if he was looking forward to getting redemption on Daniher, he answered something like 'the way we're playing defence this year is a bit different, it's not as much an individual battle'. McDonald has played his best games for this club when assigned a single opponent. Garland has played his best for the club when assigned a single opponent. Dunn has played his best when assigned a single opponent. What the [censored] is going on? Yesterday, Daniher took marks against Jones, Jetta, Garland and McDonald. There is absolutely zero organisation in our defensive group at present and it's contributing to poor performances. McDonald and Garland again played with an incredible amount of inconsistency. Jesus I hate to say it again, but will Garland contribute anything positive to the team again? Kicking, body language, aggression, run, leadership, anything? I'm becoming increasingly confused about his role at our club. He has no spark! Why we're trying to emulate Hawthorn's back six when we simply don't have the cattle I have NFI. If we want to improve our backline in a way that is going to be relevant for successful football next year we'll need to offload Dunn, bring in Hurley and another defender who can break lines and use the ball who can provide what Garland should be providing.

Forwardline: It will continue to suffer if the quality of the disposal going inside 50 remains the same. Kicking long to the disadvantage of Hogan and two opposition defenders. It simply comes back to my point about the types of players we have on our list and what their strengths are. I can deal with it from time to time as every supporter can. But game after game we're seeing it. It's deep-rooted. 

We have a long way to go. We're still broken in certain areas of the ground and the only way we'll see genuine improvement is through further list changes that contribute to a more 'balanced' team. We are missing far too many important attributes all over the ground.

 

on the Paul Roos commentary.  He is not coaching to make the finals.  He is coaching to teach & develop the players roles etc.   Yes they're trying to win,  but within the structures/roles they are applying. 

It would be mostly a learning imperative right now,  more than a 4 points imperative.Same with Goody learning.  they'll be allowed to make mistakes to learn from them.  So they see the outcomes from their mistakes. - - Practical experience  V  Theoretical experience.

 

So its difficult to slay the coach,  when this is misunderstood..