bing181

Apparently, he has had off-field (personal) issues. There've been comments around the place, with no-one wanting to elaborate. Whatever it is, it has led to him having a less than ideal pre-season and getting up to speed. Presumably he'll be OK for next week, though we saw with Brayshaw the shortcomings of selecting players who are (still) underdone.

As Jack Viney said, we got ahead of ourselves, and didn't turn up to play. Essendon did. End of, and nothing else matters (except round the edges).

I'm in the Kent/Bugg/Harmes camp as well. Grimes is Grimes, but for the moment, would be a step up on all of these down back. Based on Casey form, either Stretch or ANB to come in plus, of course, Dunn - if he's fit.

They've already put their hands up re selection, but equally, from what i can see, most here were more than happy with the selection, and understood the reasoning behind it. Brayshaw was still underdone, though he did seem to get into it a bit more in the last quarter. Much of it still revolves around what's going on in the players' heads, and while we have plenty of talent, we don't have a lot of maturity and experience, and even less AAA-grade leadership. While I thought Jones and Vince were good, neither are the kinds of Big Game players who can turn a game or lead the way in the way Dangerfield did with Geelong last weekend. I felt Goddard played more of a captain's game today than anyone for the Dees. But the players today who most disappointed me were Viney and Gawn. When players like VDB and Hogan have an off-day, I can almost live with it, they're still only second year players. But Viney and Gawn are both further along in their careers and are in the leadership group. They needed to do more, and needed to step up and provide more leadership. To a lesser extent, same could be said for Jack Watts. But the game was lost in the midfield today - they were just left do what they wanted on the outside, and the ball spent much of the time in the Don's half of the field. So, big disappointment, I thought that these kinds of performances were behind us. But while so much of our success is riding on the back of comparatively inexperienced second and third year players, without a lot of real top end talent or leadership, I'm afraid that for a season or two, these kinds of results will continue to haunt us.

Yep, in a nutshell. This game had nothing to do with coaching or selection. The team we had out there was more than capable of winning this - if they'd wanted to. After all, we were leading half way though the last quarter. It was also a game that was lost between the arcs. The way the ball kept finding its way to Daniher had nothing to do with the backs, and everything to do with the mids. Essendon were ALWAYS going to be really up for this - first game in Melbourne, and they were playing for the club, the supporters, and especially, for their captain and the others who were banned. Too many of our players didn't come to play, with predictable results. As a footnote, about the worse game I've seen Viney play for a long time. I can only presume he was sick or whatever, difficult to explain it otherwise.

Thought this kind of performance was behind us. Just can't get going.

Petracca?

Petracca?

Petracca?

Meanwhile .... Jack Trengove has brought his own footy today, he's up to 13 possessions already, and has added a goal, 21 minutes into Q1. @melbournefc

Pedersen has been OK, Matt Jones, Bernie Vince. But drops away after that. So much for selection headaches, for a few of them will be pretty straightforward next week.

For all their shortcomings, Essendon are piling on the pressure. We just have to soak it up and work through it.

Under the circumstances, extremely.

And ... first Rising Star for 2016.

Isn't there someone we can call to be sacked because of that?

Lumumba and Brayshaw in.

True. But then again, you're always one of the first to stick the boots in.

Hogan simply outplayed by Davis, nothing to do with Roos. 1 goal in a half of footy is nothing to do with the coaching.

Someone's not paying attention.

Or the wheat from the other wheat. (Less and less chaff around these days.)

Have a look at Dunn's NAB cup games.

Perhaps - but then again, what did Dunn show? OK, injured against St Kilda, but with that plus the Port match, he still played 1 ½ games, but totalled 2 marks. Game against Port, only 6 possessions, though he played most of the game. Not disagreeing about Oscar necessarily, though his game against St Kilda was an improvement. But are we picking players on what they're actually showing, or on reputation?

Dunn is just as ripe as, say, Vandenberg, probably riper given his experience and age. It's not about fitness, even if that has been mentioned in passing. He wouldn't be named as emergency if he wasn't up to playing. Neither Lumumba nor Brayshaw are named as emergencies. Dropped from leadership group should have already set the alarm bells going, so is it surprising that he's out of the Round 1 team as well? Suggestions around the place that there's something going on off-field with him, but who's to know, maybe he's just not meeting the coaches' expectations? In the NAB cup match against Port, Dunn only had 6 possessions (and one mark) for 79% of game time. Tom Mac had 17 and 3 - a bit of a gulf there. Against the Dogs, Dunn played nearly a half of footy for 5 possessions and once again, one mark. And sure, stats aren't everything, but at least Oscar Mac had 6 marks (and 13 possessions) in his NAB cup game against St Kilda. Oscar also has his brother's endurance and fitness, and played 95% of game time against St Kilda, second only to Tom. Maybe more going on here than we know, but maybe Dunn just hasn't done enough and Oscar is simply next cab off the rank.

"intriguing" isn't the first word that comes to mind ...