Analysing yesterday's game -

[jnrmac 19,310]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

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.

Yeah right.

 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Yeah right.

 

Exactly, I'm right.

Bugg could have gone down the line and there are two opposition players, one on the mark and one on the inside, who had both of them pretty much covered, or at least close enough to put off this supposed handpass.

Thanks for proving my point.

[jnrmac 19,310]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Exactly, I'm right.

Bugg could have gone down the line and there are two opposition players, one on the mark and one on the inside, who had both of them pretty much covered, or at least close enough to put off this supposed handpass.

Thanks for proving my point.

Ha ha comedy gold. So Bugg handballs to Garland and your second EFC player is going to dive 15m to catch him. I can see now why you form the opinions you do. 

You should try OPSM.

 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, jnrmac said:

Ha ha comedy gold. So Bugg handballs to Garland and your second EFC player is going to dive 15m to catch him. I can see now why you form the opinions you do. 

You should try OPSM.

 

No, the bloke on the mark, who is about 3 metres away, would be the one to tackle him.... because he is closest.  

What planet are you on?  Keep trying.

Edit - I still don't know what you're trying to achieve here jnr.  Nothing you've posted makes a lick of sense.  

Edited April 4, 2016 by Wiseblood

[dazzledavey36 49,207]

24 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Ha ha comedy gold. So Bugg handballs to Garland and your second EFC player is going to dive 15m to catch him. I can see now why you form the opinions you do. 

You should try OPSM.

 

In all fairness Jnrmac im in your boat in that i don't rate Garland at all and personally i think he should be dropped as he offers nothing, but if Bugg made that handball to Garland he would have gotten caught and it would have been a poor decision. We have to take into account the speed and intensity of the game instead of judging from a photo. Daniher is literally only about 2m away from him.

[Akum 2,660]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Yeah right.

 

This looks like another example of Watts making great position in metres of space for an easy 30m pass and then a dangerous kick into f50, but being ignored yet again.

[titan_uranus 22,731]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

No, the bloke on the mark, who is about 3 metres away, would be the one to tackle him.... because he is closest.  

What planet are you on?  Keep trying.

Edit - I still don't know what you're trying to achieve here jnr.  Nothing you've posted makes a lick of sense.  

I wonder if you've confused which player is on the mark.

In the photo above, Leuenberger is on the right. He is on the mark. Bugg could have handpassed to Garland if he was running past and could have avoided Leuenberger (who is stuck on the mark, otherwise he releases Bugg to run past him). Bugg goes in-board towards the second Essendon player (Parrish?).

Anyway, I'm not sure the play is a good example of Garland's flaws, but one of those flaws is that he's not a good runner (neither in intensity nor in positioning). I'm not sure I agree with your view that he isn't required to do this - someone with his physique and athleticism (he moves very well for someone of his height) ought to be able to move faster and with more intensity than he does. 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

17 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I wonder if you've confused which player is on the mark.

In the photo above, Leuenberger is on the right. He is on the mark. Bugg could have handpassed to Garland if he was running past and could have avoided Leuenberger (who is stuck on the mark, otherwise he releases Bugg to run past him). Bugg goes in-board towards the second Essendon player (Parrish?).

Anyway, I'm not sure the play is a good example of Garland's flaws, but one of those flaws is that he's not a good runner (neither in intensity nor in positioning). I'm not sure I agree with your view that he isn't required to do this - someone with his physique and athleticism (he moves very well for someone of his height) ought to be able to move faster and with more intensity than he does. 

Not at all titan - I know it's Leuenberger on the mark.  My argument is that the ball, at the time, is near the boundary line and that it allows him to be close enough to Garland to stop him - thus there is no handpass regardless of what Garland does.  Yes, Garland may get past him, but it's no sure thing.  If it's in the middle of the ground then it's given, or Garland hasn't done enough, as he has plenty of options.  In this case he has few and the margin for error is greater.  If it's not 100% in that situation then you don't give that handpass.

I'm not sure I agree with your second paragraph, although I see where you are coming from.  I've said my piece a few times on it though so I'll refrain from repeating myself.

[Earl Hood 5,811]

This is indeed a very detailed analysis of last weeks game. Well actually it's an analysis of one passage of play and two players, Bugg and Garland. I like analysis and detail but this is ridiculous!

I would propose that Garlands efforts were typical of most of the side, our inability, reluctance or refusal to run, spread, provide options for tje ball carrier. It has been a problem for years. Why, I have no idea, but it frustrates the shytes out of me. I look at the Dorks and every player who gets possession has multiple options and decision making becomes automatic and delivery  is not difficult because it is a handball or a 20 metre kick to someone who has made space. Contrast our guys who may win the ball in the back half and no one is providing an option, so it is the delayed kick up the line to a contest that is 50/50  at best. On Saturday we were kicking to one against 3 in the last quarter. I just don't understand what our game plan is. I see a system at training but come game day the system becomes a shambles. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Fer christ sake, can't we just shoot Garland and get it over with? Problem solved.

[Demon Dynasty 15,940]

Having watched the game live you tend to see "everything" unfold but often it unfolds in a way you can interpret poorly from afar. Supporters waving flags in front of you, scoffing down the remnants of a coffee/crumbling donut etc.

The 1st 10 minutes of that quarter are a disaster for a number of reasons and set the tone for the match.

The 1st is the BS free picked out to the bombers about the 12 sec mark lol. Against Bugg, who did drag it in for a split second but was just as quickly knocked out of his possession with the ball ending up in a bomber's players hands/gut as he was sitting on/over him. Bugg never even had possession of the ball when the free was called. What a joke. Watch as they get up, the bomber player doesn't have to be given the ball as he is holding it lol. So first entry forward for the Bombers is courtesy of the ump. Nothing to do with us and beyond our control. Good effort from Bugg....first at the ball but gets penalised for it.

The 2nd moment of ugliness was of course Tmacs insanity to play on (when he didn't have to) after receiving a short pass from Matty on a lead. Without assessing what was up the ground first (he almost always does this....looks laterally as first option instead of up the ground, possibly hitting up someone on the lead or clear) he automatically plays on and heads for the only place he looked which was sideways and goes for the switch. He of course then misses Garland not more than 25 meters away. The kick was one of the worst ive seen from a defender and went to the left of Garland straight to an Essendon player. We know the rest of this disastrous piece of play. To make such an error so early from a senior backman was a huge boost to the Bombers and a massive deflator for us.

So, the Bomber's first goal came about through a solid press and inept kicking/decision making on our part by one of our more experienced backmen.

Following this shocker we look to make ammends. After the bounce the ball spills towards 2 bombers. They run into each other clumsily, the ball spills out. We clean up nicely out the back through Salem, Gawn, BUgg and then Lumumba.  Back to Salem who has run on. He proceeds to pass to Clarry who marks just forward of the 50. Jones sort of runs past him (almost into him) and calls for the feed off. Clarry honors the call and hands off nicely. Jones has the option of Salem (although Salem's not really calling for it as he runs adjacent to Jones but Jones (if he looks up field) also has a very open option well inside 50. I cant make out who it is in the clear ...maybe Jeffy? Jones must not be capable of considering this as an option as it would need to come in on his left foot instead of his natural right. He then proceeds to attempt a pass to Tmac laterally (using his right foot of course). He misses the pass, it's knocked out of Tmac's hands by Daniher and the Bombers take it down the ground for an eventual Mark by Daniher over guess who... Jonesey! Luckily Daniher proceed to miss this shot at goal (as he did on a number of occasions).

The Bombers second shot at goal came about through a play that should have resulted in a 50 meter entry by us (quite deep) and potential mark/shot at goal, but instead was a pass that went lateral, missed its target and was turned over for a shot at goal by the opponent. This by very experienced Captain.

The third moment of ugliness is a piece of play at the 7:49 minute mark. Vandenburg gets a "chopping of the arms free" and after Lumumba calls on the run, VAnders handballs to him. Lumumba runs his usual pony method up the ground until he is about to get caught, handballs backwards to a stationary Garlo. Lumumba continues to run on and call for the overlap but a little out of range unless Garlo goes for an around the body trick kick up the field which may or may not hit Lumumba on the run. It's risky but that's the sort of play you need to break and run through presses to create opportunities and hurt the opponent the other way with sling shot style run & gun for the possible shot at goal/score to get on the board. Garlo doesnt even consider this an option and proceeds to straight away look in board (having a host of Bongers in front would have meant a hospital kick over the top or a banana in Lumumba's direction i realise but it would have at worst gained yardage for us and seen the ball finally forward of centre in our forward line). I'm not sure who Garlo eventually intended to kick to out of Clarry and Salem but again (like Tmac) his first instinct was to look lateral (this time inboard). He didnt hit either, with neither really being free of their opponent. The ball spilled and eventually Clarry saved the day with some assistance from Viney but only for a few seconds as the ball was eventually turned over under severe pressure by Jetta after his receive from Viney. The Bombers ran this one in and found Daniher on the lead again. Luckily he again misses (everything).

The Bombers 3rd shot on goal again came about through a poor decision and even worse attempt to pass (at best) or more likely a panicky kick inside (to no one in particular). Again by one of our more senior players in Garlo.

This got the Bombers off to a dream start through a combination of a reasonably solid press/zone by them (and reasonable pressure) but most importantly, 3 successive horrible pieces of play from 3 senior/mature players. We basically torched ourselves in the first 10 minutes of play which set the tone for the rest of the day.

P.S. I note with additional horror the blatant/biased special commentary of David King on Fox. He is rooting and willing the Bombers get the jump on us early! He must have a real hatred for us and/or Roos picked up somewhere in his travels. Did one of our blokes knock him out at some point? He is not a professional in any sense of the word and should not be allowed anywhere near a game call mic. What a disgrace

Edited April 4, 2016 by Rusty Nails

[Binmans PA 26,468]

11 hours 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.

 

Great post. I think this highlights not only Garland's lack of intensity, boldness and creativity, but it also does the same for Bugg. He obviously didn't believe he could hit Gawn and he didn't want to give it off to Garland and shepherd him through for fear of Garland being tackled. Instead, Bugg kicks to a contest. 

I remember Collingwood doing this handball and shepherd manoeuvre to get things going a lot in their premiership year, because they were constantly taking the game on. This passage you've highlighted here speaks volumes. We played safe, dumb footy and it meant we failed to move the ball fast enough. 

10 hours ago, loges said:

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

His disposal was very poor. He either kicked it too high or scuttled it along the ground, but the idea was right. He just couldn't execute it, which is a concern. I'll be interested to see how he goes in a team that actually gives him options though. He might look less like a 'headless chook'. In fact, I'm sure he will.

Edited April 4, 2016 by AdamFarr

[DeeMfc 621]

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."

[DeeMfc 621]

Why cherry pick moments of the game? 

Its simple, the players went in unfocused and unprepared expecting a win. They were being beaten soundly by a gameplan that was meticulously planned and executed. They were shell shocked, for the entire game, no less. You could see it on their faces. 

This game was lost in the coaches box. Game plan changes needed to be made but barely a change was made, all day.

No changes were made to enable the players to get their confidence back and we were duly pummeled as a result.

 

[Demon Dynasty 15,940]

On Sunday, April 03, 2016 at 4:36 PM, 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

I hear you Sart but Garlo has stalled and been In out bottom 6 (2nd only to Kentagainst the Bombers IMO) during the 2 opening games. Have to consider all options. Might be time to start blooding Frost here. Garlands gone under theradar for probably half a season now and Isnt Improving. Actually regressed on Sat from what was an ordinary game the week before.

[stuie 7,374]

On 02/04/2016 at 6:18 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Garland has been like for the last 3 years. But he apparently has good leadership so its all good..

 

12 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

i don't rate Garland at all and personally i think he should be dropped as he offers nothing

 

On 03/04/2016 at 0:09 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Your also wasting your time on Garland.. Been saying it for years what a liability he is to our team.. but apparently he has good leadership blah blah blah.....

 

On 03/04/2016 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..

 

GIve it a rest pal.

 

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,549]

Getting away from the result which was obviously a disgrace, not much has been mentioned of Brayshaw's first quarter goal. That was a snap from 50m of one step! He was obviously badly underdone and probably shouldn't have played but that goal shows just how talented that guy is. The only way for us to get better is for all these talented young guys to keep working hard and begin to take the reins of this club as leaders.

[Demon Dynasty 15,940]

8 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Great post. I think this highlights notinonly Garland's lac. k oleastensity, boldness and creatinvity, but it also does the same for Bugg. He obviously didn't believe he could hit Gawn and he didn't want to give it off to Garland and shepherd him through for fear of Garland being tackled. Instead, Bugg kicks to a contest. 

I remember Collingwood doing this handball and shepherd manoeuvre to get things going a lot in their premiership year, because they were constantly taking the game on. This passage you've highlighted here speaks volumes. We played safe, dumb footy and it meant we failed to move the ball fast enough. 

His disposal was very poor. He either kicked it too high or scuttled it along the ground, but the idea was right. He just couldn't execute it, which is a concern. I'll be interested to see how he goes in a team that actually gives him options though. He might look less like a 'headless chook'. In fact, I'm sure he will.

I agree on the Lumumba comment re options. We just dont lead or move enough. Too many players are stationary or sitting In the hole waiting for the ball to come to them. If u watch the best at the caper (Hawks) , as soon as they regain possession their up the line players (and those lateral) are on the move, stretching the field on leads and moving Into space.

Also with regard to the Bugg cretique up there. Havent watched this clip but Are we certain Garlo actually called for the handpass before Bugg decided to play on? Looks like he Is just jogging past there. Would have thought he could have seen Big M and hit him up from that photo though. It appears we are still pretty ordinary at our decision making, movement and disposal by foot (there are exceptions). Then there's our defensive side

 

[H_T 2,941]

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?

 

[Binmans PA 26,468]

8 minutes 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?

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)

[Skuit 9,378]

Casting back to the Roos comments on selection for Round 1: Lumumba plays if he self-assesses as fit and anything an enthusiastic Brayshaw says is considered with a big chunk of salt. Lumumba obviously reported he needed another run before being ready for Round 2. Brayshaw must have been assessed as not ready for Rnd 1 but ready for 2. Is this on Roos or Misson or just a result of the fitness biodata not translating for Brayshaw on game day? As to Dunn, Roos publicly stated Essendon had a short forward-line. This isn't untrue. Dunn has clearly slipped down the pecking order for whatever reason and our coaching staff thought we had a still developing Daniher covered. It may have been a selection error but who knows. Most people seemed reasonably happy on Thursday. I don't think it's time for an inquisition into the selection committee. Perhaps a review of our training loads and game-day rotation strategy in light of the new caps.

[H_T 2,941]

5 minutes 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)

PJ's (by extension the Clubs) business plan. If you tie the target of 40,000 members to a selection policy of only playing 100% fit players - which they have clearly stated to all in sundry in no uncertain terms. They have gone against their word, and against the FD/clubs policy at Round 2. And by extension they may have cost the club signing 1500-2000 members. 

Massive black mark.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

More than team selection & matchups, more than 100% fit players .... the game was lost between the ears.

That was the biggest factor by far.

[Binmans PA 26,468]

1 hour ago, H_T said:

PJ's (by extension the Clubs) business plan. If you tie the target of 40,000 members to a selection policy of only playing 100% fit players - which they have clearly stated to all in sundry in no uncertain terms. They have gone against their word, and against the FD/clubs policy at Round 2.  And by extension they may have cost the club signing 1500-2000 members. 

Massive black mark.

So who's at fault specifically and was it arrogance that lead to those selections? Surely, Mahoney and/or Roos must take the blame.

[H_T 2,941]

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

More than team selection & matchups, more than 100% fit players .... the game was lost between the ears.

That was the biggest factor by far.

And it wasn't just those ears on the field.