2 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Morning fellow DL's. I have to say I'm a lot more relaxed now that I was for most of last night. I'm looking forward to watching the replay later today as it's a lot harder to see what's going on from ground level at the Ponsford end of the ground. 

From what I've read on the thread this morning the main topic of discussion centres around the pros and cons of bringing Ben Brown back into the fold, fitness and form not withstanding of course. The advantage of having the extra almost 'stay at home' type forward taking up more of the opposition's defensive resources were evident last night. Historically he's also been a very accurate and reliable kick for goal which we're crying out for. I can equally understand though those that are worried about the lack of pressure and defensive accountability this might come with when trying to keep the ball locked into our forward fifty to help chew up the clock at crucial times, also very evident last night. 

This is why I'll be looking out for both if the game is televised on CH7 today. A couple of sausage rolls combined with a good defensive effort could be enough to see the big curly haired fella line up between the sticks at the 'G next weekend. 

 

Nice work Rab

Pretty sure Hunt was on Tippa most of the evening.  Zero goals from a bloke who usually tears us a new one most of the time.  I'll take that.  Thanks Hunty

Edited June 27, 20214 yr by Rusty Nails

13 hours ago, Webber said:

Not sure I agree about the extra tall issue, because too often tonight we were kicking to horrible height disadvantages in the forward fifty. We just ‘looked’ short up front. Luke Jackson, for all his impressive work and star quality, doesn’t yet have the forward craft to be an effective second tall. The worry, as you say, is that BBB or the Weid do nothing for stopping easier exits, and I agree, too often tonight they had the ball outside our attacking fifty before we applied effective pressure. Where that’s gone since the Bulldogs game, who knows? 

Well I think the player most likely to be out for a tall would have been Tom Sparrow and although he played limited 50% gametime I though he was very good and earned his keep.  He seems to be getting up to the speed of the game and was very clean in some handball chains, laid 5 tackles and kicked an important goal.

13 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

So you live with Carlton  and Essendon supporters and your boss is a Collingwood supporter. Boy, you must’ve done something heinous in a previous life. 

Every Carlton and Essendon supporter I know don't equal the amount of [censored] that my Boss is. Hated losing to the Filth last week. 

13 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Dees as first team… or move out. 
That’d be my household rule. ?

They pay their rent. They're not Collingwood supporters. 

The Scum have nothing to squeal about after watching a proper relay of that Jones goal instead of a frozen blurred blob. They were clearly gifted a goal for that. Poor call by the umpires to allow that.

16 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Nice work Rab

Right back at ya Rusty ?

15 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

Well I think the player most likely to be out for a tall would have been Tom Sparrow and although he played limited 50% gametime I though he was very good and earned his keep.  He seems to be getting up to the speed of the game and was very clean in some handball chains, laid 5 tackles and kicked an important goal.

100% DE as well.

48 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

We were mightily upset after the Adelaide game but nothing compared to the bomber fans.They are hysterically psychotic. The worst sore losers that I have ever seen. I fear much spouse, pet and equipment abuse has happened behind closed doors. 

Yep and unlike the Adelaide which could have well been won by us had the correct deliberate decision been called, Essendon did not lose because of the umpires. They lost because we were better. End story. 

I spy a lone Melbourne supporter among the ferals.

 

5 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The Jordon 100m was Def there. The Essplayer was way too late too stand the mark and the ump clearly calls for him to stay clear.  He doesn’t, and is about 3M over the mark.  Gotta be 50. Then that gob Smith is into the ump and another 50.  

Not that one, that was definitely there. The over the shoulder/chop one from Stringer just in half time. Very little in it. 

2 hours ago, Pipefitter said:

What kind of grown adult goes to the footy to boo? 

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Jordan was hit in the side of the head by Stringer, it wasn’t an arm chop. Stringer was crude it as they say clumsy, a few times in his tackling.

But did they pay arm chop Redleg? The commentary I was listening to suggested that. 

1 hour ago, brendan said:

The salt from bombers supporters tears today all over social media are delicious 

Links please

3 hours ago, Brownie said:

I watched three blatant pushes in the back to our players in the last quarter which weren't paid to us.

I didn't think the umps were too bad on the whole either. It was great to see the deliberate rule not paid like it has all season as well. 

#essenflogs

I’m tipping Petracca and Gawn were 2 of those you saw? Felt like out the whistle away moments late in the game but they were decent shoves. 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Is it just me or do these all look like paid extras acting?

With all the improvement we've made this year, one thing remains constant. The forward line connection needs to improve

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Rubbish.

We are going places in finals because of our defence.

Remember, we're 5-0 against the top 8 and 8-0 against the top 11. Our gameplan stands up when it matters.

Each of the Dogs, Brisbane, Essendon, Geelong and Sydney are top 8 for average points for per game (indeed, the Dogs. When they played us, they scored:

1. Geelong - 9.6.60, their second-lowest score of the season and lowest number of scoring shots
2. Sydney - 8.10.58, their second-lowest score of the season and third-lowest number of scoring shots
3. Bulldogs - 8.9.57, their second-lowest score of the season and lowest number of scoring shots
4. Brisbane - 11.9.75, their fourth-lowest score of the season and third-lowest number of scoring shots
5. Essendon - 8.9.57, their second-lowest score of the season and second-lowest number of scoring shots

No problem with all that, and our defence is currently the best in the AFL, which is the MOST important factor in finals success. I’m not sure we can get much better defensively, though. If the other part, the NEXT most important part in winning games isn’t better by finals, when we have to assume the other contenders will have raised their defensive game, there is no doubt to me that we’ll struggle. Exactly like we did last night against a team who probably WON’T make finals, let alone top 4. To our great credit, we seem to come up for the big games, of which there’s a bunch coming up. FWIW, I think we’ll get the forward 50 stuff together, but last night, the goals scoring part of our game was dysfunctional, and it won’t end well if it doesn’t improve. 

2 hours ago, wizardinoz said:

The Scum have nothing to squeal about after watching a proper relay of that Jones goal instead of a frozen blurred blob. They were clearly gifted a goal for that. Poor call by the umpires to allow that.

From the replay they showed at the ground it looked pretty clearly a goal to me. The entire ball has to cross the line before it's a score and on the replay looked relatively clearly like he got his boot to it before the whole thing had crossed.

1 hour ago, Webber said:

No problem with all that, and our defence is currently the best in the AFL, which is the MOST important factor in finals success. I’m not sure we can get much better defensively, though. If the other part, the NEXT most important part in winning games isn’t better by finals, when we have to assume the other contenders will have raised their defensive game, there is no doubt to me that we’ll struggle. Exactly like we did last night against a team who probably WON’T make finals, let alone top 4. To our great credit, we seem to come up for the big games, of which there’s a bunch coming up. FWIW, I think we’ll get the forward 50 stuff together, but last night, the goals scoring part of our game was dysfunctional, and it won’t end well if it doesn’t improve. 

Why do we have to assume that?

If our rivals haven't improved their defence after 14 games, why will it suddenly improve in the last 8?

Meanwhile our "weakness" forward of centre isn't that bad anyway. We still had 23 scoring shots last night. 9.14 makes the score a lot lower than it ought to have been. 14.9 and no one's complaining about our ability to score.

Did anybody read the match review from AFL.com?

Who writes this rubbish? You wouldn’t even know there were two teams playing, it’s just Essendon, Essendon, Essendon. 

2 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

I spy a lone Melbourne supporter among the ferals.

 

Nuffendon.

14 hours ago, Antioch said:

No. The booing might have made you think so. Try watching the game with no sound. They were equally fair to both sides. A lot of potential MFC frees were missed. Essendon fans are sore losers. But they sure are losers!!!

We could sit here and pick each free apart. I am more referring to a couple in the last quarter that woupd have supporters leaving the ground dirty thinking that the umpires manipulated the momentum of the game. 

Normally we are on the receiving end of such decisions be it that in the last 15 years we were pretty hopeless and it is easy to blame the umpires.

I'm not blind to the fact that Aussie rules is not easy to umpire, I can tell you from personal experience, I'm happy we didn't get the poo end of the stick last night. What goes around comes around.

34 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

From the replay they showed at the ground it looked pretty clearly a goal to me. The entire ball has to cross the line before it's a score and on the replay looked relatively clearly like he got his boot to it before the whole thing had crossed.

Why do we have to assume that?

If our rivals haven't improved their defence after 14 games, why will it suddenly improve in the last 8?

Meanwhile our "weakness" forward of centre isn't that bad anyway. We still had 23 scoring shots last night. 9.14 makes the score a lot lower than it ought to have been. 14.9 and no one's complaining about our ability to score.

Because finals usually defer to defensive contests, proving your own point about defence being primary. By saying we could have kicked 14.9 instead, like it’s a stat you can invert, ‘just like that’, is one of the most annoying, frustrating, pointless things I hear supporters say. We didn’t kick 14 goals because we weren’t able to. We kicked 9. If we had kicked 14, obviously no-one’s complaining. Isn’t that the point?

Was a good game but like so many  others.

Surge footy.

Slow start.

Missed goals.

Not a high score.

Great defence.

Great team effort.

Could have been a six goaler against an up and coming and in form team playing for a spot in the eight trying to knock off number one.

Great fightback after last weeks sleepy showing. Dees of old would have lost that off the back of pies loss.

If we can tweak our forward line it will be very exciting and further our run for a flag.

After five in the magoos please put bbb in at ff and give hime five games as well and see what happens.

He will free up Tmac at least and get the ball to ground. Fritta can have the pockets and jacko can go where he pleases.

A least we can have an excuse for just bombing it in?

Good and gusty win by the boys. 
 

We dominated that game and should have won by 8-10 goals but we have gotta kick straight. 
 

Imo we need bbb in to straighten us up and instruct the mids NOT to drop it on his head and honour the lead. 

I really think Tmac and bb will be a great forward pairing but need time together to gel (just like May and Lever).