robbiefrom13

just like Liam would be welcomed back too, his time served...

goal-kicking wing, with 4 tackles per game.

there as in "here and there" their as in her and his they're uses an apostrophe for the letter left out (= they Are)

what are we gaining, trying to pigeonhole him into someone else? Remember the unique Jakovitch? Or etc etc etc ANB is ANB, and now we get to see our first instalment of something entirely new. On with the show! (woo-hoo - I made it to 666 posts. On here, that's gotta be good!)

Did you hear our Prime Minister with steely gaze explaining "we are too soft"? Thought of Demonland. From now on every time I read a poster complaining about this one or that one of our players being "soft", I'll be able to put the face to the comment. Picture it every time you hear it - "soft", in Abbott triplicate, complete with that manly tongue-flicking. Bring it on, fellas, there's vision now! Maybe I should find out how to do the gif. Meantime, others of us will listen to Paul Roos, valuing other attributes...

Riewoldt kicked 9 against us at the MCG one year, and we beat them by 50+ if I remember it right. A balanced team goes ok, even if there is a winner on the other side.

why do you have a "management policy"? Have I missed something - who is this No10?

some of us actually enjoy the game, more than or even regardless of the scoreboard. It is more fun, OD. Love the game, love seeing our players do good things in the game. if it adds up to a winning score, that's even better. Besides which, you have to agree, I imagine, that a player like Cloke always has the potential to pull one of wherever, and when he does the other team is going to be unlucky. Lots of other things in the game, sure, and nothing beats something like Hawthorn winning what is now known as Ablett's Grand Final - despite Cloke, we still might have won - yet, for all that, it's still known as Ablett's Grand Final. I think the collective memory honours extraordinary play higher than it does wins. (A bit like the question 'did Abraham Lincoln deliver a balanced budget?' - answer: 'wouldn't know - he abolished slavery".) Robbie Flower and Jimmy Stynes decorate our header. Over-focusing on the scoreboard may be causing you to miss some of what's going on on the ground - missing the main thing we were actually paying for when we paid the price of admission.

Whose kicks did Oxley mark? Who had I50's in the 2nd and 4th that Oxley didn't get on the end of?

ah, something else to add to the dossier - Watts is not "alert"! Well spotted Bikkie - those half-lidded eyes, dopey sluggish movement round the ball, snail-slow reflexes: dumb as a block of wood, of course! Sheesh, when will Roos get it?!!

that was not what you meant. If it was, your three word summary was that Watts has a head and feet. Well, come to think of it...

I figured you wouldn't. Last word merchant. Speaks for those who don't speak, too. Sees what others don't. Then explains they can't. Shlt it's lousy being me! Enjoy the footy, but what would I know? Like the players, like the grounds, I'm just rubbish. Should turn myself in to Chuck Norris and be done with it - if he'd just take the time to annihilate me. Sorry Prods mate.

And the legal drugs - are Essendon still administering them?

"Caused", I suppose? And of course yes, in one sense. But the "mess" now is just as much down to the stupid denial-decision of the tribunal, in my opinion. The AFL like Essendon could've taken their medicine and had life get reasonably quickly back to normal, but were too stupid/above the law to make such an obvious choice. As bad as each other, and on such a similar trajectory as to suggest that in this they were "thick as thieves".

Strange way of showing you "get it", proddy - when what you immediately say is to invalidate what you just said you got. "You'll leave it there"...?

It was 7. But not from the centre - we'd put him on the ball to try and quieten down Skilton...

Lance's "ha-has" and "I find it amusings" demonstrate either that he's a liar or a fool. A fool because he is still laughing while his club is up before CAS for doping infringements which they've defended by claims of having systematically ignored OHS and medical practice standards (looking good, Essendon!), or a liar because he recognises their predicament but still puts on the smug swagger when lecturing us about it. Pretending to be laughing at others when you are up to your armpits in it yourself is just as stupid as not realising what the smell is. Does Lance really think he's persuading anybody? Does he really not realise that out of all the Essendon people on the planet, him included, nobody is going to have any influence over what happens next? Batten the hatches, Lance, get off the deck and start praying, it'll do you more good than swaggering around our board flogging your dead parrot.

If I remember it right, it was generally thought at the time that our 1964 side was fairly ordinary for talent.

The criteria used by the match committee apparently are not those of some of Demonland's armchair selectors. Query it, why not - it's a forum; but bag it out - why? - it's supposedly a supporters' forum. Or are you calling for the sacking of the coach and the match committee? What I'd like to know is what are the criteria guiding team selection. That would inform us of the markers to watch for, to evaluate progress. Apparently it's not down to just tackling and grunt. What IS Roos doing with our team? - what is the way forward, in his opinion? His comments recently about Jack Watts were either deceptive or they were truthful; and Watts' continuing selection suggests Roos meant what he said, at least on that occasion. So he wants an intelligent team. Ok - and what is Matt Jones bringing? Or Howe? It would be nice to come onto Demonland and learn more about what's going on, rather than just having to wade through personal prejudices that clearly are out of step with the coach's views and those of the match committee.

"Lance Uppercut" - I tried to work it out. A lance is an oversized spike, and an uppercut is a kind of knockout blow. So what's he saying? At Essendon the "lance" obviously was a huge (number of) hypodermic(s), and we are now just waiting to see who's knocked out. I can just see that "lance" spiking upwards, over and over, into the Essendon jugular. But all the while, we have our visiting "Lance" swaggering about telling us they're fine, just fine, noone's going to get us, none of you know the rules not like I do, and so on. His name is spot on in this thread, a real guts-of-the-issue name. Because that is what it's about isn't it - that huge number of spikings. Argue till the cows come home, someone is going to have to get knocked out from this - you can't have that quantity of injections and it not end up delivering a knockout somewhere. So, who is it that LU reckons is going to be on the receiving end of the uppercut? What is he trying to hint at? Maybe the name itself's just a cypher for denial? Or intended to be a really clever ironic reference to huge spikings that he reckon won't actually hurt anyone? And, making his point via Demonland, as though that will help his cause... I just can't make sense of it, not the pitch combined with the name he chose. Uppercutting himself maybe?

Is AFL and footy bigger than club loyalty? What happened to Fitzroy supporters? South Melbourne? University? Sandy Bay? etc etc. I'm thinking Vichy government: you compromise for survival, but it's no survival at all - it's ultimately total and shameful capitulation, and loss of far more than you ever dreamt was at stake. And the barstards swarm all over you - you save nothing, you are inexorably obliged to accept - and then transformed into behaving in the manner of, and ultimately defending (fighting the opponents of) - the power you submitted to. It doesn't stop. I respect your posts no end, Dees2014, but I think differently on this point, and imagine that I am looking at a wider picture with ramifications beyond the legal and the maintaining of business-as-usual. Business-as-usual just isn't possible following Essendon's last three years, as I see it.

Go aWAYY!

The "he goes where the ball ain't" criticism used once to be applicable to what we would today see as a player who gut-runs/spreads. The game has changed, and "he goes where the ball ain't" is no longer a circumstance in vacuo - football has become a team game in a way it never used to be. Now "he goes where the ball ain't" can be a comment more critical of his team-mates. I know there are dumb places to lead to, but still, with our low UP stats, not honouring a lead into space seems particularly dumb. Watts has been recognised as one whose leads do not get honoured. He has been criticised for not demanding the ball. What is it we want - a display of testosterone, or a viable lead that could give us another UP? And of course, he is not the only one. MFC was drilled by Neeld to instinctively look for the 5 metres nearest the boundaryline - not the free player. Dumb, dumb, dumb - in effect, prioritising throw-ins over UP's! And now, we don't instinctively lead into open space, and we have low UP stats... If i could make up a new stat it would be "time spent alone". Ebert killed us last week on this stat, and greats of the past excelled at it - Robbie Flower comes to mind - as does Vagg, Jimmy Jess and a host of half forwards. The floaters and drifters, who made everyone on the other team just a little less sure of themselves - and who scored. I once saw Vagg kick 5 in a half, against Essendon. He got a couple, and Norm Smith opened up the forward line so Vagg had about a third of the MCG to himself. I don't remember who was on him, but Vagg just kept losing him and getting the ball. After half time Essendon pushed their other defenders into the space out there and crowded us out of the tactic. Robbie Flower in the 87 finals is an object lesson in losing your opponent - getting a bit flimsy right at the end of his career, and not as fast as he had been, yet he got alone again and again, and repeatedly racked up UP's and goals. Until we learn to pick out the guy making a break into space, we are not going to rack up the UP's. Encourage that player to keep doing it, by using his spread - never mind how aggro he looks - if he's out there clear, go for him! Until our players start picking out the player racking up "time spent alone", in context of our style of play we supporters will be missing the essential point when we condemn a player for not getting a lot of possessions. You can bag Watts out for not being a gorilla if you like, but there used to be this highly valued quality of being "elusive", and our players (and supporters) seem to have forgotten how important it was. It is one very important UP accumulator. I think it might well be the role in which Watts would finally deliver on his promise. At Melbourne, please...

Discussing Adam Goodes is not our strong suit. But then I remember the discussion of our own Liam Jurrah, too. Good thing Wattsy's blond... (just to get us back to our real targetopic).

i'm actually not at all thinking about MFC when I say I want Essendon totally closed down. Maybe it would be bad for the competition too - I don't care. i just want these ranks-closing scum gone. Had they not stuck so close together, protecting the liars and cheats, I wouldn't feel so vengeful. But they have arm-wrestled clean sport, "whatever it takes", and every man-jack of the Essendon crowd is complicit - "turf out your trash, if you want to save your brand, and stop this waste of everybody's time and money!" I said in my head. Beyond redemption. A brand that now stands only for one thing. Their choice - and so they have to be GONE. But I guess I am not winning this debate...