Analysing yesterday's game -

[rjay 24,852]

Game Plan: we had no structure and played like a lowly division suburban team. This was expected of EFC and not us...it was reversed, they were the better organised team by a long way. It's amazing we kept in the game for so long.

I'm pretty certain this is not the plan that Goodwin & Roos have been working on but that's what we got on Saturday. 

Some of the players reverted to selfish &/or emotional acts that screwed the team structures. l will single out 3 from the leadership group. Jones who went back to the old habit of "I will do it all myself" instead of using better placed teammates, Vince who followed Jones & Gawn who lost the plot on a few occasions and decided to see how far he could belt the ball from centre bounce downs putting all his mids offside.

From the team in general the bombing the ball into the forward line was Moloney like in it's execution and the taking of safe options rather than taking the game on was as I mentioned in a previous thread...they played to win and we didn't

The List: Is still a work in progress...I mentioned in an earlier preseason thread about best 22 that we actually don't have the depth we think we have, it's improving but still a long way off.

Off the top of my head..

Jetta: a credit that he turned his career around and goes all right. Downside, he lacks leg speed which can bring him unstuck and doesn't give us much going the other way.

Tommy Mac: still a work in progress and I reckon he's one that does get a bit ahead of himself, obviously needs a lot of work on decision making and kicking.

Dunn: coming towards the end, we might still get a bit more footy from him but don't expect him as part of future success 

Salem: good kicking skills but disappointing to date, behind in his development to where he should be. Slow to make a move, doesn't read the ball well enough at the mo to be a HB, his opponent gets a break on him too easily.

O Mac: a kid, not sure if he's got the composure but we can give him time. Shouldn't have played last week.

Garland: seems lost, not a part of the future on recent form.

Vince: been really good for us, probably really needs to play mid to half forward, I don't think HB is working for him.

M.Jones: depth at best, great battler and I love what he's done to get a game but doesn't have the tricks to be a good AFL player.

Kent: despite all the love for him on this site he's very lazy and at the moment is VFL level. He needs to work a lot harder and find some real tricks if he's to be a good forward in AFL football. The first trick he needs is to get the ball, another is to kick straight and not be wasteful.

Tyson: has dropped off a bit but is still an AFL footballer. Needs to work on his game, I see him as a Terry Wallace type. He's very strong in the contest but needs to give his first option. At times he is badly let down by teammates around him not making proper position for him.

Kennedy: going alright, looks like he will make the grade. Starting to show the promise from his junior years.

Oliver: a good kid who needs to settle. Must balance between handball and kicking, get that touch of Moloney bombing out of his game and get his endurance running up.

Bugg: Depth at best. heart in mouth when he has the ball, doesn't use it well.

Gawn: Great prospect but needs help. Will burn out by the 2nd half of the season if we're not careful. Lost the plot a few times on Saturday and needs to get that out of his game.

N. Jones: Heart & soul but as a leader can't afford to go back into his selfish game. Must work to bring his teammates into the game when things are going bad and not try to do it himself.

Hogan: sign the contract son, distracted at the moment and way below best

Pedersen: good VFL player

Dawes: finished before he came here

Garlett: like all good small forwards will have good days and bad but well worth his place and the price we payed.

Harmes: Depth, a lot of work to do or he's gone.

Watts: Going to have good days, some average, some not so great. Will never be the star player we hoped for but will be more than ok.

Brayshaw: Not worried about him, will be a really good to great MFC player.

Viney: Tough and hard, still learning the game. Like Brayshaw, not worried about him.

'H': Wasted trade, go into politics 'H'

Stretch: a kid, give him some time. He has a lot going for him young Billy, hope he makes it.

ANB: another kid, does have some tricks and knows how to get the ball so I would expect to see him ahead of Kent and Harmes soon.

Frost: would like to see him settle as a defender before I make up my mind on him. I think he is played unfairly out of position for the supposed benefit of the team. It's worked so well he got dropped from a winning side.

VDB: good story but overrated at the moment. Can't deny his endeavour but has a long way to go. Decision making an issue, concentration and kicking needs work although I think this is often linked with decision making.

JKH: can't see him making it, depth at best. Not enough leg speed and tricks for a player of his height.

Grimes: maybe the last year for Jack. I hope not but the FD don't seem to have faith in him. I reckon he lost his way a bit with the captaincy and injury prior. Not physically strong enough in the contest and his disposal and decision making lack.

Hunt: a kid with pace...we need a kid with pace (a couple of them) who can get the ball and kick it well. Get the ball kid and kick it well then there is a place for you..

Terlich: Final season I would suspect.

White: Liked the look of him at the end of last season. Good kick and strong at the contest, this is a make or break year for him.

Spencer: Back up for Gawn, a battler but he does give his all. Will stay until we can find that elusive forward/ruck.

Trengove: a class player, we better pray he gets back and soon. We need his class and leadership on the ground.

Some of the other kids have yet to play a game so hard to mark them but Petracca and Weideman need to fulfil their potential if we are to get anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

14 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

God bless a bloke who thinks their views are so much more important than the rest that they start their own thread, rather than sticking it in the post match discussion thread which is for... post match discussion.  Nice one Steve.

I also like how he felt the post match discussion thread had too many people going over the top, which it did, yet this thread is going over the top after 1 game.

The glaring problem that came out of yesterday was our midfield.  No run, no accountability, no leadership.  It was a poor effort and it made the job of our defenders and our forwards very difficult.  Hogan might sook a little, but it can't be an easy day out when the midfield continually kick the ball on top of your head with three blokes on you.  Daniher had 15 marks and made our backline look silly, yet when the ball is coming down without any pressure it's hard not to look anything else.

Our fortunes live and die by our midfield.  When they allow Essendon to do as they please as they did yesterday, then we know what happens.  If we fix this up then we are instantly a better side.

Well done also, Steve, for masking your potting of Garland by looking at our 'defence'.  You spent most of it having a go at a bloke who was never in with a chance yesterday. 

I'm not sure how to respond to you sometimes. You seem to be pretty calm generally and then at the drop of a hat you pipe up as if someone has attacked your identity.

I'm assuming I've upset you again, (as I have with others it seems) because of my words on Garland. I'll get to that later though.

I completely disagree that it was solely our midfield to blame and there are a plethora of reasons backing that view. Tom McDonald got us off to a flyer by gifting Essendon their first goal. He is a backman, a repeat offender of horrendous turnovers in our back-half and it allowed them to get their tails up early and it clearly knocked us about. 

The way our backline setup and executed on the weekend without a doubt worked to Essendon's favour. This 'rotating' on opponents nonsense was an enormous fail as I've said. Daniher was taking marks against several individuals, some of whom were 10+ cm shorter than him. Believing the midfield was the perpetrator of something like that simply doesn't make sense. Sure, some turnovers in the middle of the ground at times would've contributed to certain backmen being out of position but you are painting it far too black and white when everybody knows we're playing a 'Hawthorn style' of defence which simply isn't working.

Your comments about the ball coming in 'quicker' I also disagree with. I remember Essendon kicking plenty of long and high balls inside 50 which Daniher ended up marking. But again, it was a combination of the following: Essendon players kicking to the advantage of Daniher so that he could run and jump at it (unlike what we were doing with Hogan), the disorganisation and decision to stick with the 'rotating' backmen idea which saw Garland + others on Daniher at those moments and also our midfield's inability to really pressure Essendon's forward entries at times. Again, not just the midfield.

You like to place yourself in the 'optimist forever' camp. You consistently defend a backman who is providing SFA for us at the moment and you decide that posters are 'overreacting' after yet another loss to a rabble of a side. This is a trend. It's not a one off. It's been happening for years. None of my opening post suggested we sack or delist players, nor did I say I'd burn my membership or send a hate letter to the club. I offered a view on some of the core issues that I still believe exist at the club, in fact I don't believe. I know they exist. Because we continue to lose games like we did on Saturday. If you had the faintest clue, you'd see that it's not an overreaction. It's a sad reality. 

Teams simply do not switch on and off like that year after year because 'they had a bad day'. We are repeat offenders of this kind of display and it points to deeply-rooted issues that I'm interested in finding out. You are a bore mate. Contribute something. The amount of blind faith you have for a player like Garland is beyond belief. 

I am happy to talk about all players if I think they have fundamental issues in their game that are constantly holding back the side but at the moment I think Garland is the one who is offering the least. And these are the things you, Sat-man and others seem to consistently miss. Consistently!!!

McDonald, for all of the howlers he makes, generally provides more positive play for our side than negative. It's the same with many players in our side who are criticised (rightly) for areas of their game that need lifting. What are the positive sides of McDonald's game? Generally speaking it's his run, voice, aggression, spoiling, marking and link up play that can be really valuable. Lumumba is the same. Even though he makes the odd turnover, he provides the team a dimension that we don't have and that is relevant for modern day footy. Go through all players in the backline and you'll be able to make a similar list. Until you come to Garland. 

What does the list look like now? Tell me?

Did you watch the game at all on the weekend? Did you see the bloke's post with the images pointing out one of many issues that contribute to our backline struggle on the previous page? Garland's refusal to run. One problem of many. If you can't run as a defender in this day and age, you need to be elite in other areas. Is he elite in other areas? Kicking, defending? Spoiling? No. He is not relevant to modern day football. I'm pointing the finger at him because he is one of quite a few who are still problem players and who I will continue to single out until something changes. I'm pointing the finger at the club for signing him on a three year deal. I want change. I want this club to stop losing games like this. All of these things contribute to us losing these sorts of games.

Edited April 4, 2016 by stevethemanjordan

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

17 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Agreed but do you know the answer, who do we replace with?   We have been moving the deckchairs for the last 7 years

Yeh mate it's not as plain as that. We've had to rebuild the club from top to bottom the correct way and clearly they opted to target the midfield as the first point of call.

But in doing that, we've mismanaged other problem areas. Our backline being one. We need more run and skill there. It's the way the game is going and Roos needs to be held accountable just like anyone. He is not 'God'. He's done a great job in steering the ship, but there are still problems with our list. 

 

 

No matter how well they train....

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm not sure how to respond to you sometimes. You seem to be pretty calm generally and then at the drop of a hat you pipe up as if someone has attacked your identity.

I'm assuming I've upset you again, (as I have with others it seems) because of my words on Garland. I'll get to that later though.

I completely disagree that it was solely our midfield to blame and there are a plethora of reasons backing that view. Tom McDonald got us off to a flyer by gifting Essendon their first goal. He is a backman, a repeat offender of horrendous turnovers in our back-half and it allowed them to get their tails up early and it clearly knocked us about. 

The way our backline setup and executed on the weekend without a doubt worked to Essendon's favour. This 'rotating' on opponents nonsense was an enormous fail as I've said. Daniher was taking marks against several individuals, some of whom were 10+ cm shorter than him. Believing the midfield was the perpetrator of something like that simply doesn't make sense. Sure, some turnovers in the middle of the ground at times would've contributed to certain backmen being out of position but you are painting it far too black and white when everybody knows we're playing a 'Hawthorn style' of defence which simply isn't working.

Your comments about the ball coming in 'quicker' I also disagree with. I remember Essendon kicking plenty of long and high balls inside 50 which Daniher ended up marking. But again, it was a combination of the following: Essendon players kicking to the advantage of Daniher so that he could run and jump at it (unlike what we were doing with Hogan), the disorganisation and decision to stick with the 'rotating' backmen idea which saw Garland + others on Daniher at those moments and also our midfield's inability to really pressure Essendon's forward entries at times. Again, not just the midfield.

You like to place yourself in the 'optimist forever' camp. You consistently defend a backman who is providing SFA for us at the moment and you decide that posters are 'overreacting' after yet another loss to a rabble of a side. This is a trend. It's not a one off. It's been happening for years. None of my opening post suggested we sack or delist players, nor did I say I'd burn my membership or send a hate letter to the club. I offered a view on some of the core issues that I still believe exist at the club, in fact I don't believe. I know they exist. Because we continue to lose games like we did on Saturday. If you had the faintest clue, you'd see that it's not an overreaction. It's a sad reality. 

Teams simply do not switch on and off like that year after year because 'they had a bad day'. We are repeat offenders of this kind of display and it points to deeply-rooted issues that I'm interested in finding out. You are a bore mate. Contribute something. The amount of blind faith you have for a player like Garland is beyond belief. 

I am happy to talk about all players if I think they have fundamental issues in their game that are constantly holding back the side but at the moment I think Garland is the one who is offering the least. And these are the things you, Sat-man and others seem to consistently miss. Consistently!!!

McDonald, for all of the howlers he makes, generally provides more positive play for our side than negative. It's the same with many players in our side who are criticised (rightly) for areas of their game that need lifting. What are the positive sides of McDonald's game? Generally speaking it's his run, voice, aggression, spoiling, marking and link up play that can be really valuable. Lumumba is the same. Even though he makes the odd turnover, he provides the team a dimension that we don't have and that is relevant for modern day footy. Go through all players in the backline and you'll be able to make a similar list. Until you come to Garland. 

What does the list look like now? Tell me?

Did you watch the game at all on the weekend? Did you see the bloke's post with the images pointing out one of many issues that contribute to our backlines struggle on the previous page? Garland's refusal to run. One problem of many. If you can't run as a defender, you need to be elite in other areas. Is he elite in other areas? Kicking, defending? Spoiling? No. He is not relevant to modern day football. I'm pointing the finger at him because he is one of quite a few who are still problem players and who I will continue to single out until something changes. I'm pointing the finger at the club for signing him on a three year deal. I want change. I want this club to stop losing games like this. All of these things contribute to us losing these sorts of games.

Ah Steve.  Poor old Col, he must have really done something to you personally, as after every loss you seem to lay much of the blame solely at his feet.  But we'll get to that later.

Firstly, I do agree that the way our backline functioned in terms of their 'rotations' didn't work.  The players have spoken in press conferences about how different players will spend time on the key forwards, so seeing guys like Jetta on Daniher for small periods of time didn't come as much surprise.  But the lack of pressure up the field meant that often we weren't able to cover their key forwards properly, nor were we able to consistently have that extra man back to support like the Dons were able to do time and time again to Hogan.  Because of our slow ball movement through the midfield they were able to that to us.

Which brings me to the second point - their quick ball movement.  Because of our lack of pressure and run they were able to take the ball forward quickly, and often it was through the middle of the ground.  It had me pulling my hair out.  Where was our midfield?  Why weren't they pushing them wide and plugging those holes through the middle of the ground?  And sometimes the Bomber midfield bombed the ball long too, but that doesn't mean they weren't moving it quickly.  They could bomb it long to one on ones that Daniher would often win, although obviously that wasn't always the case.  What chance did someone like Garland have, one one one, with someone like Daniher when they move the ball quickly and there is no one to come over and give the chop out?  When they moved it quickly they bombed it long to Daniher who was too tall and marked the ball with ease.  That's not the backlines fault, that lies at the feet of our midfield.  Our backline couldn't cope with that, which meant our rotations looked completely our of whack.

I don't necessarily place myself in the 'optimist forever' camp, I just take a different view.  I'll admit I was angry and supremely frustrated when the final siren went.  It hurt.  Quite a bit actually.  But I refuse to drop my bundle.  Yet.

As for Garland... do you sit at games and curse him out when Hogan misses a shot for goal, saying he should have been in his ear before he kicked it, showing some leadership?  Do you shake your head when we lose a clearance, blaming Garland for not being at that contest?  You claim we have all these deep seated issues that need addressing, yet you seem to use Garland as the total scapegoat every single time.  What did he do so wrong for you on the weekend?  He lost some battles with Daniher, sure, but he lost battles he was never going to win with everything I mentioned above.  I do remember him showing terrific endeavor to lay a last second tackle on Daniher to win a holding the ball decision in the second term.  It works both ways.  I'm not going to waste more space going over things we have time and time again - we aren't changing each others view of him.  But you need to somehow get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems.  You say you want to analyse the game, yet you spend half the past waging war on Garland.  You did so again on the post I quoted.  It's all about him.  

You need to get over that aspect.  Until then, well, I don't know what else to say. 

[Ted Lasso 19,278]

On 4/3/2016 at 1:16 AM, rjay said:

Game Plan: we had no structure and played like a lowly division suburban team. This was expected of EFC and not us...it was reversed, they were the better organised team by a long way. It's amazing we kept in the game for so long.

I'm pretty certain this is not the plan that Goodwin & Roos have been working on but that's what we got on Saturday. 

Some of the players reverted to selfish &/or emotional acts that screwed the team structures. l will single out 3 from the leadership group. Jones who went back to the old habit of "I will do it all myself" instead of using better placed teammates, Vince who followed Jones & Gawn who lost the plot on a few occasions and decided to see how far he could belt the ball from centre bounce downs putting all his mids offside.

From the team in general the bombing the ball into the forward line was Moloney like in it's execution and the taking of safe options rather than taking the game on was as I mentioned in a previous thread...they played to win and we didn't

The List: Is still a work in progress...I mentioned in an earlier preseason thread about best 22 that we actually don't have the depth we think we have, it's improving but still a long way off.

Off the top of my head..

Jetta: a credit that he turned his career around and goes all right. Downside, he lacks leg speed which can bring him unstuck and doesn't give us much going the other way.

Tommy Mac: still a work in progress and I reckon he's one that does get a bit ahead of himself, obviously needs a lot of work on decision making and kicking.

Dunn: coming towards the end, we might still get a bit more footy from him but don't expect him as part of future success 

Salem: good kicking skills but disappointing to date, behind in his development to where he should be. Slow to make a move, doesn't read the ball well enough at the mo to be a HB, his opponent gets a break on him too easily.

O Mac: a kid, not sure if he's got the composure but we can give him time. Shouldn't have played last week.

Garland: seems lost, not a part of the future on recent form.

Vince: been really good for us, probably really needs to play mid to half forward, I don't think HB is working for him.

M.Jones: depth at best, great battler and I love what he's done to get a game but doesn't have the tricks to be a good AFL player.

Kent: despite all the love for him on this site he's very lazy and at the moment is VFL level. He needs to work a lot harder and find some real tricks if he's to be a good forward in AFL football. The first trick he needs is to get the ball, another is to kick straight and not be wasteful.

Tyson: has dropped off a bit but is still an AFL footballer. Needs to work on his game, I see him as a Terry Wallace type. He's very strong in the contest but needs to give his first option. At times he is badly let down by teammates around him not making proper position for him.

Kennedy: going alright, looks like he will make the grade. Starting to show the promise from his junior years.

Oliver: a good kid who needs to settle. Must balance between handball and kicking, get that touch of Moloney bombing out of his game and get his endurance running up.

Bugg: Depth at best. heart in mouth when he has the ball, doesn't use it well.

Gawn: Great prospect but needs help. Will burn out by the 2nd half of the season if we're not careful. Lost the plot a few times on Saturday and needs to get that out of his game.

N. Jones: Heart & soul but as a leader can't afford to go back into his selfish game. Must work to bring his teammates into the game when things are going bad and not try to do it himself.

Hogan: sign the contract son, distracted at the moment and way below best

Pedersen: good VFL player

Dawes: finished before he came here

Garlett: like all good small forwards will have good days and bad but well worth his place and the price we payed.

Harmes: Depth, a lot of work to do or he's gone.

Watts: Going to have good days, some average, some not so great. Will never be the star player we hoped for but will be more than ok.

Brayshaw: Not worried about him, will be a really good to great MFC player.

Viney: Tough and hard, still learning the game. Like Brayshaw, not worried about him.

'H': Wasted trade, go into politics 'H'

Stretch: a kid, give him some time. He has a lot going for him young Billy, hope he makes it.

ANB: another kid, does have some tricks and knows how to get the ball so I would expect to see him ahead of Kent and Harmes soon.

Frost: would like to see him settle as a defender before I make up my mind on him. I think he is played unfairly out of position for the supposed benefit of the team. It's worked so well he got dropped from a winning side.

VDB: good story but overrated at the moment. Can't deny his endeavour but has a long way to go. Decision making an issue, concentration and kicking needs work although I think this is often linked with decision making.

JKH: can't see him making it, depth at best. Not enough leg speed and tricks for a player of his height.

Grimes: maybe the last year for Jack. I hope not but the FD don't seem to have faith in him. I reckon he lost his way a bit with the captaincy and injury prior. Not physically strong enough in the contest and his disposal and decision making lack.

Hunt: a kid with pace...we need a kid with pace (a couple of them) who can get the ball and kick it well. Get the ball kid and kick it well then there is a place for you..

Terlich: Final season I would suspect.

White: Liked the look of him at the end of last season. Good kick and strong at the contest, this is a make or break year for him.

Spencer: Back up for Gawn, a battler but he does give his all. Will stay until we can find that elusive forward/ruck.

Trengove: a class player, we better pray he gets back and soon. We need his class and leadership on the ground.

Some of the other kids have yet to play a game so hard to mark them but Petracca and Weideman need to fulfil their potential if we are to get anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with basically all of this.

Tommy Mac will be fine imo

Hogan is suffering under the weight of media scrutiny and pressure of being the " Great white hope" club could do more to protect him.. he did three interviews last week.

Tyson i rate but don't think he works hard enough yet, when that clicks he'll be a good player for us

Salem, i see as a mid, i don't like him as a defender

Watts has been great all pre season but if we move the ball like we did yesterday we give him very little chance.

Gawn gets hitouts but not many to real advantage

[jnrmac 20,053]

14 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Well done also, Steve, for masking your potting of Garland by looking at our 'defence'.  You spent most of it having a go at a bloke who was never in with a chance yesterday. 

On 3/10/2016 at 9:21 PM, Wiseblood said:

You're fantastic at posting quantity over quality BA.

Garland's in the LG.  The players and coaching staff hold him in high regard, as do most supporters as well.  You can post paragraph after paragraph about, but it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Here's to another good year for Col.

 

On 3/9/2016 at 10:21 AM, Wiseblood said:

If you can pull up the stats on Garland getting beaten by a small forward then go for it.  I think it's rare that I walk away from a game feeling like he was beaten defensively.  He might make the odd mistake or miss a target but then I can forgive him for that.

Garland's job isn't to influence the result of a game - it's to shut down his man.  He does that regularly with minimal fuss or fanfare.  It's clearly what the players and coaches respect about him, as do I.

 

On 3/9/2016 at 9:43 AM, Wiseblood said:

I trust my own eyes, and I think you need to trust yours - the Garland detractors on here have blinded you to what he brings to our side. 

And Garland is not a 'substandard' player and I think it's pretty low of you to suggest as such.  Poor form Curry.

 

On 1/9/2016 at 2:42 PM, Wiseblood said:

Offensive drive is not his role.  Being a lockdown defender, something he does very well, is his role.  I agree, even as a Garland fan, that he is still prone to the odd brainfade but we have plenty of players who are prone to those as well.  We all love Tom McDonald but how often do we have our hearts in our mouths when he looks to switch play?

Garland has a role in our side and one he plays well.  

I thought you have always said Garland is a stay at home,one-on-one player who rarely gets beaten by his man?

LOL

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, jnrmac said:

 

 

 

I thought you have always said Garland is a stay at home,one-on-one player who rarely gets beaten by his man?

LOL

 

Thanks, again, for your contribution jnr.  

As you'll see above I haven't said that he NEVER gets beaten, I said rarely.  Yesterday was one of those days when he was beaten in a few one on ones.  Daniher beat everyone, taking 15 marks.

I don't know what your point is, but thanks for trawling back through my posts.

[Skuit 10,030]

17 hours ago, america de cali said:

I dare not say what I truly think.  The way we came out and played, surrendering so much possession to a game but semi VFL side tests my rationale of what is possible in an untainted way.

Access to Prestia is contingent on us delivering GC a first-rounder in an agreed upon range? Technically it's not tanking for draft picks.

You should start a thread of ridiculous conspiracies to counter the the numerous threads of ridiculous melt-downs. Double the entertainment.

[Chris 2,892]

16 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

46 point winners.

Bloody amazing.

Have the Hawks ever wasted money on Leading Teams?

What is it going to take for our players to get it.

Yes Hawthorn use leading teams, have done so for a decade. 

[nrc73 77]

16 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

God bless a bloke who thinks their views are so much more important than the rest that they start their own thread, rather than sticking it in the post match discussion thread which is for... post match discussion.  Nice one Steve.

I also like how he felt the post match discussion thread had too many people going over the top, which it did, yet this thread is going over the top after 1 game.

The glaring problem that came out of yesterday was our midfield.  No run, no accountability, no leadership.  It was a poor effort and it made the job of our defenders and our forwards very difficult.  Hogan might sook a little, but it can't be an easy day out when the midfield continually kick the ball on top of your head with three blokes on you.  Daniher had 15 marks and made our backline look silly, yet when the ball is coming down without any pressure it's hard not to look anything else.

Our fortunes live and die by our midfield.  When they allow Essendon to do as they please as they did yesterday, then we know what happens.  If we fix this up then we are instantly a better side.

Well done also, Steve, for masking your potting of Garland by looking at our 'defence'.  You spent most of it having a go at a bloke who was never in with a chance yesterday. 

Where's the dislike button? Agree or disagree, the OP was streets ahead of the effort being put into posts in the main post game thread.It resulted in those screen shots which were very insightful. The OP didn't mask anything, he called a spade a spade. Instead of making generalised statements like, why not dare to be more specific?

I haven't looked at Dunn lately, but Garland & H have worried me for some time, but Saty is quite right - who do you replace them with? Salem has been tried (with a lot of success), but from NJ to BV rotating through the back, it's pretty obvious the coaching team are worried about what's happening in the backline. The midfield is an incredibly complex area now with all the rotations they have, particularly with the new rotation cap. It can't be helping to have so many different people trying to run it out of half back.

Edited April 4, 2016 by nrc73
typo

[No10 459]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

As for Garland... do you sit at games and curse him out when Hogan misses a shot for goal, saying he should have been in his ear before he kicked it, showing some leadership?  Do you shake your head when we lose a clearance, blaming Garland for not being at that contest?  You claim we have all these deep seated issues that need addressing, yet you seem to use Garland as the total scapegoat every single time.  What did he do so wrong for you on the weekend?  He lost some battles with Daniher, sure, but he lost battles he was never going to win with everything I mentioned above.  I do remember him showing terrific endeavor to lay a last second tackle on Daniher to win a holding the ball decision in the second term.  It works both ways.

Turnovers are a big problem.  A TMac turnover from taking the game on still has the players holding their heads up because they know they're playing the game right.

The turnovers that hurt are these:

TMac intercept mark from a good low Ess I50.  TMac switches to Vince to MJones, switches back to Salem, Jetta, and TMac.

-Now TMac has the ball and Garland is standing flat-footed in a useless position, no?  Less than 2 minutes into Q3, why doesn't Garland run?

-TMac hits Bugg, Viney is making an option on the inside but is covered.

-Bugg actually moves to handball but sees Garland is JOGGING past.  Is called to play on.

-Bugg looks to go inboard but nothing on.  Gawn down the line, perfect linkup if Garland had been running past.  N Jones and Pederson further afield.

-Bugg kicks down the line to Pederson and Gawn, ball spoils.  Ess handball to the corridor, 2 rebounding kicks and goal.

Do we blame Roos for not demanding more intensity?  Garland is a leader, he was the only backline player not to make position and touch the ball in this play.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, No10 said:

Turnovers are a big problem.  A TMac turnover from taking the game on still has the players holding their heads up because they know they're playing the game right.

The turnovers that hurt are these:

TMac intercept mark from a good low Ess I50.  TMac switches to Vince to MJones, switches back to Salem, Jetta, and TMac.

-Now TMac has the ball and Garland is standing flat-footed in a useless position, no?  Less than 2 minutes into Q3, why doesn't Garland run?

-TMac hits Bugg, Viney is making an option on the inside but is covered.

-Bugg actually moves to handball but sees Garland is JOGGING past.  Is called to play on.

-Bugg looks to go inboard but nothing on.  Gawn down the line, perfect linkup if Garland had been running past.  N Jones and Pederson further afield.

-Bugg kicks down the line to Pederson and Gawn, ball spoils.  Ess handball to the corridor, 2 rebounding kicks and goal.

Do we blame Roos for not demanding more intensity?  Garland is a leader, he was the only backline player not to make position and touch the ball in this play.

 

The first picture has Garland giving an option for an outlet pass, something all the backmen do.  What did you want him to do in that situation?  Where in the world did you want him to run to?

You then complain that Garland was just jogging past, yet in the next picture we see that there was an Essendon opponent there and he would have been tackled immediately.  Bugg was right not to give it to him, although he was there moving past anyway.

Your example is not a good one at all in this case.  Garland did nothing wrong here.

[TRIGON 4,783]

17 hours ago, Akum said:

Great OP Steve. Should it be pinned, as a catalogue of all our potential trouble spots? They're all there - the only contention is the relative weight to give to them.

We need to look closer at this "starting as favourites" thing - it's about being "The Hunted". The side that's favoured to win is always "The Hunted", in that the team that's not favoured to win will always make plans to try to surprise them and strangle their game.

The statement that "a powerful side yesterday wouldn't have taken Essendon lightly" is perfectly true, because a powerful side is "The Hunted" every week! The Hawks, for example, are used to being "The Hunted", because every side they play tries to come up with a plan to beat them, and they need to overcome that plan every week.

The best sides - including Sydney circa 2005-2009 - can overcome being "Hunted" simply by being a strong enough team to take whatever anybody throws at them. Middle sides (Richmond, for example) MUST make adjustments when they're "Hunted", or they'll lose (which is why we beat them regularly by "hunting" them successfully). 

We're hardly ever favoured to win, so we're used to being "The Hunter", not "The Hunted". We never seem to expect the other team to "hunt" us and plan to shut us down and to take our best players out of the game. If we get "hunted", we're not good enough to just brush it aside - we have to make major adjustments. Roos never had to make adjustments when he was at the Swans (which, remember, is his only coaching experience at any level), but he has to make adjustments with us.

And if we're ever going to move up the ladder, we must work out what to do when the opposition successfully covers our main playmakers. We'll never be a good side until we can withstand being "The Hunted".

Not having a go at you Akum when I say this...good sides should always be the hunter. Hunt the ball, or if they don't have it then hunt the opposition player that does. A hunter mentality regardless of pundits and/or bookies expectations.

[TRIGON 4,783]

22 minutes ago, No10 said:

Turnovers are a big problem.  A TMac turnover from taking the game on still has the players holding their heads up because they know they're playing the game right.

The turnovers that hurt are these:

TMac intercept mark from a good low Ess I50.  TMac switches to Vince to MJones, switches back to Salem, Jetta, and TMac.

-Now TMac has the ball and Garland is standing flat-footed in a useless position, no?  Less than 2 minutes into Q3, why doesn't Garland run?

-TMac hits Bugg, Viney is making an option on the inside but is covered.

-Bugg actually moves to handball but sees Garland is JOGGING past.  Is called to play on.

-Bugg looks to go inboard but nothing on.  Gawn down the line, perfect linkup if Garland had been running past.  N Jones and Pederson further afield.

-Bugg kicks down the line to Pederson and Gawn, ball spoils.  Ess handball to the corridor, 2 rebounding kicks and goal.

Do we blame Roos for not demanding more intensity?  Garland is a leader, he was the only backline player not to make position and touch the ball in this play.

 

Can't see why he didn't kick it to Maxie anyway...

[monoccular 17,413]

TITUS GOT IT SPOT ON: 

Essendon (80) v Biggest Joke in the League (67)

Nice try Richmond but Melbourne see your ‘losing to Collingwood’ and raise it.

Can you believe the Demons lost to the Bombers? Of course you can. In fact, how did any of us not believe that, even for a second?

How bad were the Demons? Well Channel Nine called them the ‘Devils’ after this loss. Major news organisations don’t even know or care who Melbourne are. And why would they?

Essendon as a club are a lot of things but they’ve got pride. When the world is closing in on them they march on the ‘G and defeat a side despite half their seniors not being able to play.

You can argue their problems are self inflicted (they are) but so are Melbourne’s. At least the Bombers say ‘screw that we’re going to fight’. Melbourne’s players said ‘gee, this is all a bit hard’.

The thing I admire about the Bombers is they fight. They fight even when they sometimes shouldn’t but it does mean they never give up. It sort of the point of a footy team.

They really should have won by more too if Joe Daniher could kick straight. It wasn’t a fluke either, don’t buy the Melbourne excuses, which we’ll look at in a moment. Essendon just worked harder, wanted it more and played better.

That’s the beauty of footy. You have 22 all having a go and you’ll challenge anyone. If you’re lucky enough to be playing Melbourne you’ll win too.

Paul Roos offered three excuses after the loss, lets look at them:

Players were ‘tired’

So I just checked and it’s round two. ROUND TWO. No, not round 22.

Apparently these ‘athletes’ are too tired to beat a team who had 11 senior players suspended this year.

If only we had a highly paid senior coach who’d been there a few years to get the right fitness levels into them. How the media pack didn’t burst out laughing when he said this is beyond me. Beyond.

I must have also missed the bit where Essendon got a bye week in round one too and were fresh as a daisy.

Chose the wrong side

Sorry?

Roos said they chose the wrong side, conveniently throwing Angus Brayshaw under the bus while doing so.

Considering Melbourne currently have two senior coaches, I would have thought this could have been handled by someone.

Melbourne lacked ‘respect’ for Essendon

Why would the Demons disrespect anyone? They haven’t won two games in a row since 2011. They are the laughing stock of the league and have been for a decade. They don’t even respect themselves.

Paul Roos, ladies and gentlemen, worth every million.

It makes you wonder why Demons fans continue to spend our hard inherited on this club.

Brisbane (83) v North Melbourne (117)

North employed the old tactic here of sitting back and letting your opponent shoot itself in the foot and several other body parts too.

Brisbane’s midfield made more mistakes than the person who keeps giving Daryl Somers’ TV shows.

Their defence is bad too, making Jarrad Waite look like Wayne Carey at his peak, I know, that bad.

In fairness, the defence can only do so much when the midfield consistently hands the ball to the opposition.

The sad bit was the effort was there but the execution was just wasteful.

North fans should be pretty happy, they’ve started the season 2-0 and without really hitting top gear. For a club that’s known for being unpredictable they’ve won two games they should have won while the rest of the league has been all over the place.

He did say Melbourne didn't respect Essendon

Didnt respect their long suffering fans either, and absolutely no self respect. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

6 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Not having a go at you Akum when I say this...good sides should always be the hunter. Hunt the ball, or if they don't have it then hunt the opposition player that does. A hunter mentality regardless of pundits and/or bookies expectations.

If you've ever played a good team or a good player in any sport, the really good ones play the same way every time. They're all over you from the first second trying to score as heavily and frequently as they can.

It's almost mindless to see it in action and especially to experience it happening against you. As in, it's machine like.

They don't worry about if you're any good or if they "should" win, or anything really ... they just go about scoring as much as they can as quickly as they can.

It's demoralising and a feeling of helplessness can set in very quickly.

We should have scored the first goal against Ess, and as quickly as possible. A second one wouldn't have hurt either.

Instead we let them get the first one and took our sweet time getting it back.

We gave them heart and hope when we should have crushed them immediately.

[Kiss of Death 747]

8 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

We should have scored the first goal against Ess, and as quickly as possible. A second one wouldn't have hurt either.

Instead we let them get the first one and took our sweet time getting it back.

We gave them heart and hope when we should have crushed them immediately.

Yep.

Those kind of games need a bully mentality.

What do schoolyard bullies do? They wait for you on your own directly outside the school gate.

What does big Bully Melbourne do? Waits until the Bombers get out of school and  board the bus with their mates, and then gets laughed off the bus.

[loges 6,767]

On 4/3/2016 at 0:24 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

If the FD have faith in Garland then maybe its worth questioning it? because i am yet to see what he adds to this side. Leadership?? kidding yourself..

For example i dont mind Lumumba and thought his game was good for someone who has had no pre season. At least with him you know what your going to get. He is the only one that tries to take the game on and get it moving at all times. 

 

Can,t believe more people couldn't see what Lumumba was trying to do. No where near as bad as some of the critisism

[No10 459]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

The first picture has Garland giving an option for an outlet pass, something all the backmen do.  What did you want him to do in that situation?  Where in the world did you want him to run to?

You then complain that Garland was just jogging past, yet in the next picture we see that there was an Essendon opponent there and he would have been tackled immediately.  Bugg was right not to give it to him, although he was there moving past anyway.

Your example is not a good one at all in this case.  Garland did nothing wrong here.

Outlet pass?   Garland (walking) is too far for a handball and too close for a kick.   Given they've been playing together for years that's not very cohesive positioning after the ball has been switched twice already.

The Ess opponent is the guy on the mark, Garland still hasn't even passed him yet.  It's simple overlap run: Bugg releases to Garland, kicks to Max.  Teams commonly move the ball out of the backline this way, it requires the basic intent to move the ball forward.

Bugg should have gone to Gawn fast (perhaps the 'leader' should have instructed him to do so) but instead tries for the corridor, when that isn't an option he goes long down the line.  Turnover, goal.

I'd be fine if you blamed Roos for not giving Garland a clear role, but what the hell was he doing out there?  The forward Frost experiment was a mistake, Garland should've been made to compete for his spot with Frost.

Harmes was poor, Viney was off, Garlett fumbled everything... But Garland fails the most basic tests at the most important moments.

[rjay 24,852]

3 minutes ago, No10 said:

Outlet pass?   Garland (walking) is too far for a handball and too close for a kick.   Given they've been playing together for years that's not very cohesive positioning after the ball has been switched twice already.

 

Garland and Bugg have been playing together for 2 weeks...

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, No10 said:

Outlet pass?   Garland (walking) is too far for a handball and too close for a kick.   Given they've been playing together for years that's not very cohesive positioning after the ball has been switched twice already.

The Ess opponent is the guy on the mark, Garland still hasn't even passed him yet.  It's simple overlap run: Bugg releases to Garland, kicks to Max.  Teams commonly move the ball out of the backline this way, it requires the basic intent to move the ball forward.

Bugg should have gone to Gawn fast (perhaps the 'leader' should have instructed him to do so) but instead tries for the corridor, when that isn't an option he goes long down the line.  Turnover, goal.

I'd be fine if you blamed Roos for not giving Garland a clear role, but what the hell was he doing out there?  The forward Frost experiment was a mistake, Garland should've been made to compete for his spot with Frost.

Harmes was poor, Viney was off, Garlett fumbled everything... But Garland fails the most basic tests at the most important moments.

You're in la la land.

Garland is clearly 25-30m away in your first picture.  More than far enough away for a kick if he wanted it.  

As Bugg goes to kick there are two Essendon opponents there.  Handpassing off to Garland in that situation would have been suicide.

Was there any other option but to go long?  It seems to fit how we played on the weekend in that we didn't move the ball quickly enough to create those options.

It seems like you're keen to pot Garland, but you've chosen a very thin example of what he is supposedly doing wrong.  In this case he provided an outlet option, and once McDonald went longer to Bugg (right option) there wasn't a hell of a lot else he could do.  He could have continued to run past, but he would have been right on the boundary line and close enough to the man on the mark for that to be a problem.

Outside of this I don't see what the problem is.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

4 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Ah Steve.  Poor old Col, he must have really done something to you personally, as after every loss you seem to lay much of the blame solely at his feet.  But we'll get to that later.

Firstly, I do agree that the way our backline functioned in terms of their 'rotations' didn't work.  The players have spoken in press conferences about how different players will spend time on the key forwards, so seeing guys like Jetta on Daniher for small periods of time didn't come as much surprise.  But the lack of pressure up the field meant that often we weren't able to cover their key forwards properly, nor were we able to consistently have that extra man back to support like the Dons were able to do time and time again to Hogan.  Because of our slow ball movement through the midfield they were able to that to us.

Which brings me to the second point - their quick ball movement.  Because of our lack of pressure and run they were able to take the ball forward quickly, and often it was through the middle of the ground.  It had me pulling my hair out.  Where was our midfield?  Why weren't they pushing them wide and plugging those holes through the middle of the ground?  And sometimes the Bomber midfield bombed the ball long too, but that doesn't mean they weren't moving it quickly.  They could bomb it long to one on ones that Daniher would often win, although obviously that wasn't always the case.  What chance did someone like Garland have, one one one, with someone like Daniher when they move the ball quickly and there is no one to come over and give the chop out?  When they moved it quickly they bombed it long to Daniher who was too tall and marked the ball with ease.  That's not the backlines fault, that lies at the feet of our midfield.  Our backline couldn't cope with that, which meant our rotations looked completely our of whack.

I don't necessarily place myself in the 'optimist forever' camp, I just take a different view.  I'll admit I was angry and supremely frustrated when the final siren went.  It hurt.  Quite a bit actually.  But I refuse to drop my bundle.  Yet.

As for Garland... do you sit at games and curse him out when Hogan misses a shot for goal, saying he should have been in his ear before he kicked it, showing some leadership?  Do you shake your head when we lose a clearance, blaming Garland for not being at that contest?  You claim we have all these deep seated issues that need addressing, yet you seem to use Garland as the total scapegoat every single time.  What did he do so wrong for you on the weekend?  He lost some battles with Daniher, sure, but he lost battles he was never going to win with everything I mentioned above.  I do remember him showing terrific endeavor to lay a last second tackle on Daniher to win a holding the ball decision in the second term.  It works both ways.  I'm not going to waste more space going over things we have time and time again - we aren't changing each others view of him.  But you need to somehow get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems.  You say you want to analyse the game, yet you spend half the past waging war on Garland.  You did so again on the post I quoted.  It's all about him.  

You need to get over that aspect.  Until then, well, I don't know what else to say. 

Firstly, your ability to exaggerate what I said about Garland is amazing.

'Lay much of the blame solely at his feet'?  'Get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems'?

Are you ill? 

I'll try and put it plain and simply. Garland is nothing but a present example of the NQR MFC player. I called Frawley out for the same habits and game-day behaviours during his last years at our club and wanted him gone. Howe was in the same boat. 

Senior figures who are consistently having minimal if any impact on game-day. It has been a problem for years at this club. Do you comprehend? Do you understand the significance that that very fact has had on our club? Whether it's their fault or not, I do not care. You miss the point every time.

As a supporter and member of the club, I am entitled to point the finger at any senior figure if I do not feel they're contributing in positive change for our club. All you bang on about time after time is silly isolated incidents that are completely irrelevant from the point I am making. I am challenging a senior leader at our club to give more than a [censored] 'spoil' or 'tackle' on game-day. Look at the entire package Wiseblood. As a modern day backman who is playing in a 2 or 3 man rotational setup, do you really think his job is to only negate his opponent? What age are you living in? Why does McDonald as a KP player offer more? Why does Jetta, one of the most effective lock-down small defenders going around offer more? Why does Lumumba, (regardless of his odd turnover) offer more? All these players make mistakes. But they also OFFER positive and attacking elements to our team. They're consistently bringing effort, spark and willingness to take the game on. Passion, strong body language and an edge. Garland is running around like a shot Gazelle. 

I saw exactly the same in Frawley, Howe, Sylvia, Jamar etc. 

It becomes problematic when they're consistently bringing donuts on game-day.

Do you understand?

Edited April 4, 2016 by stevethemanjordan

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

Firstly, your ability to exaggerate what I said about Garland is amazing.

'Lay much of the blame solely at his feet'?  'Get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems'?

Are you ill? 

I'll try and put it plain and simply. Garland is nothing but a present example of the NQR MFC player. I called Frawley out for the same habits and game-day behaviours during his last years at our club and wanted him gone. Howe was in the same boat. 

Senior figures who are consistently having minimal if any impact on game-day. It has been a problem for years at this club. Do you comprehend? Do you understand the significance that that very fact has had on our club? Whether it's their fault or not, I do not care. You miss the point every time.

As a supporter and member of the club, I am entitled to point the finger at any senior figure if I do not feel they're contributing in positive change for our club. All you bang on about time after time is silly isolated incidents that are completely irrelevant from the point I am making. I am challenging a senior leader at our club to give more than a [censored] 'spoil' or 'tackle' on game-day. Look at the entire package Wiseblood. As a modern day backman who is playing in a 2 or 3 man rotational setup, do you really think his job is to only negate his opponent? What age are you living in? Why does McDonald as a KP player offer more? Why does Jetta, one of the most effective lock-down small defenders going around offer more? Why does Lumumba, (regardless of his odd turnover) offer more? All these players make mistakes. But they also OFFER positive and attacking elements to our team. They're consistently bringing effort, spark and willingness to take the game on. Passion, strong body language and an edge. Garland is running around like a shot Gazelle. 

I saw exactly the same in Frawley, Howe, Sylvia, Jamar etc. 

It becomes problematic when they're consistently bringing donuts on game-day.

Do you understand?

Exaggerate?  Most of your posts contain a large shot at Garland.  It's an obsession.

Not every defender needs to be an attacking defender in the modern game.  Every team has one that is generally a stay at home, negating type.  They don't get high levels of possessions, but they do their job.  Clearly that's Garland's role.  McDonald is also, clearly, told that they want some attack from him from the back half, as are others like Jetta or Salem.

Plenty of teams have them.  Ted Richards at the Swans.  Jamison at Carlton.   Lonergan at Geelong.  Merrett at Brisbane.  Frost at Collingwood etc. etc. etc.  Their job is to shut down a player, while others are given the task of providing that attack in the back half.  Why does Garland need to do more than the 'spoil', or 'tackle' on gameday?  Where has Garland shown he doesn't bring a willingness or passion to the club?  Just because he doesn't have the demeanor of a Viney also doesn't mean he isn't giving 100% on game day for the club.  

You seem to feel that every defender in the modern game needs to bring attacking elements, but what club has 6 attacking defenders?  What other sport has their entire team bringing an attacking aspect?  It just doesn't happen that way.  Soccer, Basketball, NFL etc.  all have players whose job it is to simply defend and contain a player.  Look at Man Utd last night - Daley Blind was tasked with shutting down Lukaku and do nothing else, which he succeeded in doing.  Their full backs, wingers and attacking midfielders provided that spark and attack.  Blind was in the side to defend, and just defend.  I think that's what you fail to understand - you want things from Garland that he isn't being asked by the coaches to provide.  That is being asked of others.  You're right - McDonald, Jetta, Lumumba provide run and attack from the backline and Garland doesn't - but that isn't his role.  His job is to contain, spoil, tackle and support.  He makes mistakes along the way, but so do the rest.  We saw that on the weekend.

And this lack of passion and so forth - if that's how he approached games, training etc. then the players themselves wouldn't elevate him to the leadership group.  They would have selected someone else.  As I've said before I think that's telling.  We interpret his demeanor on the field differently, and that's ok.  But his inclusion in the leadership group should be proof enough of his standing and respect within the club.

[jnrmac 20,053]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

The first picture has Garland giving an option for an outlet pass, something all the backmen do.  What did you want him to do in that situation?  Where in the world did you want him to run to?

You then complain that Garland was just jogging past, yet in the next picture we see that there was an Essendon opponent there and he would have been tackled immediately.  Bugg was right not to give it to him, although he was there moving past anyway.

Your example is not a good one at all in this case.  Garland did nothing wrong here.

You are hilarious. You mean the guy standing on the mark that Garland was running jogging past? Yeah, He would have tackled Garland immediately. Are you Col's mum?

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, jnrmac said:

You are hilarious. You mean the guy standing on the mark that Garland was running jogging past? Yeah, He would have tackled Garland immediately. Are you Col's mum?

I notice you didn't respond to my previous post where I made you look rather silly, instead you're closely analysing my posts and looking for something to pick at, no matter how petty.  How mature.

There are two Essendon guys there, plus he is running alongside the boundary line.  What is he supposed to do?  And at the time Bugg could have handballed it anyway, but chose not to.  That was his choice.  Gawn is on his own 30 metres down the line, which is where Bugg should have kicked it anyway.  If anything Bugg is to blame here - he waited too long and kicked it late, which by then saw both Gawn and Pedersen covered by the opposition and caused the turnover.

You can stop following me around now.