1 minute ago, Macca said:

The forward line is an issue but we were beaten all over the ground in contest after contest

Even with a functioning forward line we still lose the game yesterday.  Our players were 2nd to the ball, we often played from behind and we didn't hunt in packs.  Our pressure was ordinary

Teamwork was poor where as the Bombers did all the basics properly

Beaten in the overall rucking, midfield, stoppages, clean clearances, backline & forward line.  All phases.  We had a dirty day

The upside is that our best beats any team so it's not a disaster

We have to turn up fully motivated and fully prepared

Whilst I agree with you in general and the backline did not have a good day but when the pill comes in that many times, any backline will be in trouble, it's just a matter of when.

Grundy was up against it and throwing JVR is not the move to but thats the cards you are dealt with.

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

The gap between our best and worst is too big and we have a problem with regards to motivation and preparing well.  Lazy?  Certainly not switched on

Nothing that can't be sorted as we've got plenty of talent.  But we've got to turn up ready & able

We play the flanks and wings too much on occasions.  We've got the talent to use the corridor way more often as other teams do.  Essendon used the corridor and took chances and it paid off

We lacked dash & dare and played from behind and were 2nd to the ball all game.  Where as they had numbers at the contest, played as a team, chased hard and pressured us

Yesterday mirrored the Lions encounter.  By contrast, we were fantastic against the Doggies & Swans.  The Eagles game was a training run

Hard to argue with that. Goodwin backs us in to regain momentum mostly by depending on us to win back contested ball. Yesterday and the lions felt the same purely because they knew we were going to be predictable and were set up to absorb it. 
 

It’s clear now that teams have the blue print on how to beat us and will do it all year unless Goodwin can make it so we aren’t so  predictable which plays into opposition plans. Wouldn’t mind seeing us switch more to be honest just to make oppositions have to change their set up, up the ground. We kick it straight to a contest constantly in which Essendon was winning at ground level. I don’t understand the point in persisting with that when we are getting outworked around the ball. 

2 minutes ago, bluey said:

 Ring in Jefferson Airplane, Van Rooyen was underwhelming, 2 kicks and no grabs, not what was advertised.

As long as the white rabbit does not play.......

I still can’t get over how easily Essendon scored when they got it in their forward 50. The most significant feature of “that wasn’t us” (per Goodwin), was how easily they scored against us. Lever is the best in the business at knowing when to leave his man and we missed him badly. Even Hibbo does it really well. 

At one stage their efficiency was at 60% which is just outrageously bad for us. I have a feeling this will be a strong focus this week on the training track.

There were opportunities for May to kick down the middle and also shorter, but he didn't take them up.

Also around the ground Kossie took a few big leaps in some cases because it seemed non of our players could get near the contest which speaks again to being  stopped from getting to contests by shepherding tripping and lack of a bloke like Harmes at the contest.

8 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Wouldn’t mind seeing us switch more to be honest just to make oppositions have to change their set up, up the ground. We kick it straight to a contest constantly in which Essendon was winning at ground level.

I don't think not switching and kicking straight to a contest was deliberate.  We have switched a lot during our wins this year and used the corridor to go i50.

Yesterday, Essendon blocked the df50 exits and owned the corridor forcing turnovers or making us play down the line.

1 minute ago, demon3165 said:

Whilst I agree with you in general and the backline did not have a good day but when the pill comes in that many times, any backline will be in trouble, it's just a matter of when.

Grundy was up against it and throwing JVR is not the move to but thats the cards you are dealt with.

I thought a number of our backmen had off days even though we were under seige yesterday

May was down on his best, Rivers, Tomlinson, McVee, Bowey, Petty were average at best.  Brayshaw did well on Stringer

As for our rucking, if we are going to go with a 2-pronged attack in the starting 18 then we need a 3rd ruckman ready if one of the big 2 is our injured.  Otherwise, we lose our structure around the ground

We end up replacing an A grade ruckman with a stop-gap measure that doesn't really work.  T-Mac, JVR & Petty are bog average as the 2nd ruckman

Is our spare ruckman an 18yo kid?  I remember the days when clubs had 4 or 5 ruckmen on their list ... 6-8 spare midfield types who rarely play and no spare ruckmen? 

Scott saw our weakness and went with 2 ruckman ... Grundy tried hard but was outnumbered

It's such an underrated part of the game and Essendon took full advantage yesterday

 

Haven't read all the comments but will put my 2 bobs worth in. Agree with Goody it just wasn't us who turned up for the game. We were lethargic, slow and just had no up and go. All the young lads plus TMac and Tommo had ordinary games. HOPEFULLY WONT HAPPEN AGAIN.

Couldn’t believe how poor May and Tomlinson were.

Apart from our lack of run , that went a long way to us losing the game

Spargo ducking his head was really dangerous and the coaches need to get that out of his game

He's lucky he only got concussion out of the incident so he's a lucky lad.  Ducking your head into an oncoming hip is asking for trouble

Edited April 16, 20231 yr by Macca

The annoying thing is I thought these days were gone when we couldn't trust this team

Now I'm going to come to games not knowing what to expect 

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

I thought a number of our backmen had off days even though we were under seige yesterday

May was down on his best, Rivers, Tomlinson, McVee, Bowey, Petty were average at best.  Brayshaw did well on Stringer

As for our rucking, if we are going to go with a 2-pronged attack in the starting 18 then we need a 3rd ruckman ready if one of the big 2 is our injured.  Otherwise, we lose our structure around the ground

We end up replacing an A grade ruckman with a stop-gap measure that doesn't really work.  T-Mac, JVR & Petty are bog average as the 2nd ruckman

Is our spare ruckman an 18yo kid?  I remember the days when clubs had 4 or 5 ruckmen on their list ... 6-8 spare midfield types who rarely play and no spare ruckmen? 

Scott saw our weakness and went with 2 ruckman ... Grundy tried hard but was outnumbered

It's such an underrated part of the game and Essendon took full advantage yesterday

 

I think we got seduced with the Max and Grundy team and I agree with you on not having another ruckman on the list, I thought Petty was good after halftime, I give McVee a pass he's learning and will get better and better I just hope the coaches take stock and learn from it and adjust.

@demon3165

If one of our 2 main ruckman wasn't starting 18 then rucking depth isn't as big an issue as the main ruckman plays with the spare often not even in the 22

But our strategy is 2 top line ruckman in the starting 18 so we end up having to change our structure (instead of next man up) if 1 of the starting 18 ruckman goes down

One issue are taps to advantage ... without a front line ruckman last week the Pies maybe had 1 or 2 taps to advantage which limits the scoring power

Haven't seen the numbers but I'd be surprised if the Bombers didn't outnumber us with taps to advantage (and their midfield performed better than ours anyway)

Their 2-pronged attack in the ruck amounted to 26 possessions & 39 hit-outs.  Grundy battled manfully but was up against it

Edited April 16, 20231 yr by Macca

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

@demon3165

If one of our 2 main ruckman wasn't starting 18 then rucking depth isn't as big an issue as the main ruckman plays with the spare often not even in the 22

But our strategy is 2 top line ruckman in the starting 18 so we end up having to change our structure (instead of next man up) if 1 of the starting 18 ruckman goes down

One issue are taps to advantage ... without a front line ruckman last week the Pies maybe had 1 or 2 taps to advantage which limits the scoring power

Haven't seen the numbers but I'd be surprised if the Bombers didn't outnumber us with taps to advantage (and their midfield performed better than ours anyway)

Their 2-pronged attack in the ruck amounted to 26 possessions & 39 hit-outs.  Grundy battled manfully but was up against it

We have tried to recruit a young ruckman and it has not worked, watch how we allowed a man on his own at centre bounces cannot figure that out that whats Cripps and co do most of the time, the old saying when getting beaten stop the bleed, man up take control then get on with your game again but today, get beaten and wait for the break.

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

we didn't play well but i think we're under representing how well the peptides played

they dominated forward, mid, and back

their performance against us was more comprehensive than the bears imo

I tend to agree.

We'll done to Essendon. They fought harder, ran harder and worked for each other. They took risks through the middle and lowered their eyes. We were definitely outcoached.

No wonder they're premiership favourites 😜

11 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

We have tried to recruit a young ruckman and it has not worked, watch how we allowed a man on his own at centre bounces cannot figure that out that whats Cripps and co do most of the time, the old saying when getting beaten stop the bleed, man up take control then get on with your game again but today, get beaten and wait for the break.

Not necessarily a young untried ruckman

It's worth paying an extra established B grade ruckman as a spare than paying 6-8 midfield types who in all likelyhood aren't going to feature very often

For instance, we recruited Dunstan as a spare midfielder but even when one of our midfielders is out (Harmes etc) he doesn't necessarily come into the team

But lose a main player ruckman and we have to restructure our line-up because we don't have a spare.  By the way, the spare ruckman has to be a better player than a player like Pruess

We are lucky that in our next game the Tigers are experiencing rucking issues as well ... but by contrast, the Bombers took advantage

Edited April 16, 20231 yr by Macca

I haven't seen the full game so I'm not as qualified as others to comment on what went wrong.

There's no doubt IMO that covering for Gawn's absence every week is not straightforward and that the fact we were able to beat Sydney without him doesn't automatically mean we can beat everyone or anyone without him. Not having Lever makes us exponentially worse as well - Lever was in AA form and him out means our two best intercept marks were missing.

Then you add in that Petty's been thrown back and forward without continuity, and IMO hasn't actually been in much good form all season at either end of the ground, and May's still not close to his best, and all of a sudden the part of our game we've relied on being consistently good at for 2+ seasons, our back half, is now porous and weak.

Then there are the factors that you'll either think are a disgraceful unjust conspiracy against us, or are [censored]-weak excuses:

• We were playing in Adelaide off a six-day break from a (warm-ish) game in Perth
• This was our third road trip in five weeks (it was Essendon's first)
• We haven't played two consecutive games in the same State, let alone venue, all season
• We haven't played two games in the same timeslot all season - Sat night, Fri night, Sunday arvo, Sunday twilight, Saturday twilight (and won't next week, with a Monday night)
• We've already had two six-day breaks and have a five-day break coming up between Richmond and North Melbourne

To be 3-2 after these five opponents is probably no better than par (you could have budgeted losses to both Brisbane and Sydney but would have expected the win over Essendon). I'm still OK with that, as we know all too well we don't need to be in peak form in April, but I'm not OK with a defence that can't stop scores as well as it should be able to, nor am I OK with a midfield that doesn't seem to produce its best with any degree of consistency.

Not necessarily a young untried ruckman

It's worth paying an extra established B grade ruckman as a spare than paying 6-8 midfield types who in all likelyhood aren't going to feature very often

Yeah I get that, Schache could nearly have filled that role not that I truly believe he would have been the answer but he is a bigger body type to do the job.

 

20 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Not necessarily a young untried ruckman

It's worth paying an extra established B grade ruckman as a spare than paying 6-8 midfield types who in all likelyhood aren't going to feature very often

Yeah I get that, Schache could nearly have filled that role not that I truly believe he would have been the answer but he is a bigger body type to do the job.

 

Schache is a break-glass in emergency type otherwise he might have been brought into the team already

We have gone with T-Mac & JVR as the 2nd ruck but there's not much conviction there (if at all)

So is Schache a physical player?  That's the question as does he relish the contest?

Our weakness in the midfield is that we don't rove well to opposition ruck tap-outs.  That could be a legacy of Max's dominance but nonetheless, it's a weakness

So we can't concede the tap and when we do, we are conceding first use of the ball to the opposition.  Then we are compelled to win the ball back on the 2nd or 3rd possession that the opposition have going forward (which is easier said than done)

We are at our best when Petracca, Oliver or Viney get first use of the ball out of the middle.  Stifle that and we are quite beatable.  Maybe Brayshaw needs to go in there but he's playing an important role in the backline with the absence of Salem (Stringer was subdued by Gus yesterday)

Scott coached his team very well yesterday (in many aspects)

Edited April 16, 20231 yr by Macca

Our weakness in the midfield is that we don't rove well to opposition ruck tap-outs.  That could be a legacy of Max's dominance but nonetheless, it's a weakness

And that is Yze's area as a midfield coach and i do agree with you, We won't know about Schache as Goddwin always falls back to Tmac even though injuries have hurt him and is not the player he was, backup only for me.

 

32 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I haven't seen the full game so I'm not as qualified as others to comment on what went wrong.

There's no doubt IMO that covering for Gawn's absence every week is not straightforward and that the fact we were able to beat Sydney without him doesn't automatically mean we can beat everyone or anyone without him. Not having Lever makes us exponentially worse as well - Lever was in AA form and him out means our two best intercept marks were missing.

Then you add in that Petty's been thrown back and forward without continuity, and IMO hasn't actually been in much good form all season at either end of the ground, and May's still not close to his best, and all of a sudden the part of our game we've relied on being consistently good at for 2+ seasons, our back half, is now porous and weak.

Then there are the factors that you'll either think are a disgraceful unjust conspiracy against us, or are [censored]-weak excuses:

• We were playing in Adelaide off a six-day break from a (warm-ish) game in Perth
• This was our third road trip in five weeks (it was Essendon's first)
• We haven't played two consecutive games in the same State, let alone venue, all season
• We haven't played two games in the same timeslot all season - Sat night, Fri night, Sunday arvo, Sunday twilight, Saturday twilight (and won't next week, with a Monday night)
• We've already had two six-day breaks and have a five-day break coming up between Richmond and North Melbourne

To be 3-2 after these five opponents is probably no better than par (you could have budgeted losses to both Brisbane and Sydney but would have expected the win over Essendon). I'm still OK with that, as we know all too well we don't need to be in peak form in April, but I'm not OK with a defence that can't stop scores as well as it should be able to, nor am I OK with a midfield that doesn't seem to produce its best with any degree of consistency.

No wanting to make excuses, but this had to be a factor.

2 more games for Jake m, then put him out to pasture. 100 in red and blue.  He is not the future. Good for a cameo but that's about it.  

It's about getting the best team on the park to make sure you can get in the top four once that yeah give him the games but not now.

5 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

I guess there's always a positive. 

Speaking of which, did you stop at that servo on the way home and run over that old lady's feet?

That wizened old witch was the last person I wanted to see after such a disappointing day. She was hardcore smack talking before the game, can only imagine how insufferable she’d be afterwards. Besides, the coffee was unpalatable. 

56 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Not necessarily a young untried ruckman

It's worth paying an extra established B grade ruckman as a spare than paying 6-8 midfield types who in all likelyhood aren't going to feature very often

Yeah I get that, Schache could nearly have filled that role not that I truly believe he would have been the answer but he is a bigger body type to do the job.

 

except any b grade ruckman worth their salt wants to play in the team not in the vfl

look at peptides - phillips is a very capable body, and part of their regular best 22

there's not many of his type running around at second level and on afl lists; if they command a position in the squad then more often than not they're in the side