Omissions this week [Archive]

The Dustbin

1 May 2005, 23:11

Surely it has to be Henneman, Bolton, Murphy, Reynolds and Bullen. I know with Haynes and Hird already out this would make up to 7 changes, which is alot for one week. How much patience does Kev have? Particularly with Henneman, Bolton, Murphy and Bullen.

Hille, Allan, Watson, Thomas, Dyson, Stanton, Lovett-Murray, Monfries, Winderlich and Bradley could be possible replacements.

Seems to me Essendon have alot of good VFL players but when it is their turn to step up to AFL level they are just not up to it. Bullen and Haynes is a good example of this where they will get 35 touches in the VFL and the next week in the AFL get 10.

Maybe we should just concentrate on winning a premiership for Bendigo with players better suited to that level.

thewhippersnapper

2 May 2005, 00:13

I like the changes, Getting rid of players who are consistently playing poorly and getting the youngsters in there. Really doubt it will happen though.

nonchalance

2 May 2005, 11:18

It's a team sport.
You need a team to play it.
That many changes, it's an entirely new team.
If we make all of them, we will lose.

Pevers-Legend

2 May 2005, 11:22

It's a team sport.
You need a team to play it.
That many changes, it's an entirely new team.
If we make all of them, we will lose.

We will lose anyway. And if we do do that, we might actually see some team work for once in the past 5 years. The reason Bendigo win is becasue they play as a team. Putting all of those kids in means we have more of a bendigo looking team which mught translate to some team work.

gothedons

2 May 2005, 11:49

henno, bolton and murphy will stay...expect to see bullen and reynolds dropped along with hird and haynes injured...comming in therefore is stanton, winderlich, monfries and dyson/allan/watson depending on fitness, if all 3 are fit i would have to say allan will come in due to our rucking problems

Daytripper

2 May 2005, 11:51

It's a team sport.
You need a team to play it.
That many changes, it's an entirely new team.
If we make all of them, we will lose.

Agreed.

Likely outs : Hird, Haynes (both injured), Richards, Bullen, Henno
Ins : Watson, Monfries, Bradley, Hille and either Stanton/Dyson/Winderlich

Henno unlucky but must go if Hille comes in for team balance.
Watson for Hird
Monfries for Haynes
Bradley for Richards
Stants/Dyson/Winderlich for Bullen

Jay Nash must be a chance soon. I reckon Bolts would be feeling the pressure most as they are similar types.

Reynolds one more chance. They won't drop Murphy yet. The side needs some class in the midfield.

go_the_bombers

2 May 2005, 11:59

Hille will properly have a couple more games in the 2's

InFlames

2 May 2005, 12:10

I hope Nathan Lovet Murray never comes back to the seniors.

We dont need him in the forward line were Lovett, Cupido and Rioli should do better jobs then his "efforts", and we dont need his "contribution" in the half back line.

dodgyJim

2 May 2005, 12:13

Henno won't be dropped, Sheedy loves his guts. Project player remember.

I reckon Bullen should stay in. Put him on the ball and get him to just break into the pack. He did some good things on Saturday night, he is not too good at playing a position down the field as he hesitates too much when deciding where to kick. He got a couple of good clearances from the pack on Saturday. He shows it in bits and pieces, play him all season and see what he can produce. If he doesn't then offload him, we aren't going anywhere this season so you have to try.

nonchalance

2 May 2005, 12:18

Out: Hird, Haynes, Bullen
In: Winderlich, Stanton, Bradley

Bradley does not require discussion.

You guys are ********ing hypocrites on Ted Richards. Last week it was all "oh, poor Teddy, gets dropped after one game, how's he supposed to find form, ********ing Sheedy" and now you're all dropping him. Give Teddy Tradebait a chance. Ditto Reynolds.

Winders and Stanton deserve in, and we need them in. Dyson and Monfries also have a case, but we shouldn't make more than three changes.

Watson gets another week of fitness. He couldn't run out a game in the VFL last week. Make no mistake, he will make it, but still unfit as yet.
Hille gets another week in the twos due to not wanting to run, chase, tackle, or bend over.
Allan gets another week in the twos for getting thrashed by Brick ********house.

Pevers-Legend

2 May 2005, 12:21

nonchalance

2 May 2005, 12:28

and Henno stays in the first for getting thrashed????

Henno got thrashed by an AFL ruckman.
Allan got thrashed by a VFL ruckman.
Hille couldn't even play ruck.
Make your own conclusions.

Watson and Hille are not fit, but Watson half fit is better than Solomon at the moment. he can;t do ******** all and it is because he is injured and has no real position in the team thanks to one K Sheedy.

You're not even thinking about what you're saying.
Come back when you're not drunk, okay?

whirl

2 May 2005, 12:43

Two or three weeks in the twos for Hille and then Henneman's career ends. Or maybe we play Allan for a couple of weeks and end Henno's career now.

Watson, maybe just one more game at Bendigo so that he's cherry ripe. He's been rushed before and it's been a mistake.

Winders, Stanton, Dyson, Monfries --- senior bound imo. Dyson has slight OP issues so I'll understand if they play him cautiously for the season. Nash and Slattery close to getting a chance as well.

NLM --- definately shows more as a back flanker or CHB than he does as a forward imho. Whether he's AFL level is the big question though.

Solly looks like he's playing injured to me, which is funny because I thought that Sheeds always likes to talk about the lessons of 2001. Struggling to have an impact because of it so it begs the question, why?

Bullen, Reynolds, Bolton, Richards are in trouble.

bartos

2 May 2005, 13:03

Out: Hird In: Stanton
Out: Haynes In: Winderlich
Out: Richards or Bolton In: Bradley
Out: Henneman In: Hille
Out: Murphy In: Monfries

Team for this week
FB: McVeigh, Fletcher, Zantuck
HB: McPhee, Bradley, Welsh
C: Winderlich, Bullen, Stanton
HF: Rioli, Lucas, Solomon
FF: Lovett, Lloyd, M Johnson
R: Laycock, J Johnson, Peverill
Bench: Hille, Monfries, Reynolds, Bolton or Richards

Longy413

2 May 2005, 13:05

In - Bradley, Monfries, Allan, Watson, Winderlich, Stanton

Out - Hird, Haynes, Henneman, Bullen, Bolton, Richards

I'm not one that likes seeing a lot of changes. However with two injuries and a number of blokes playing good footy at Bendigo I think it's time to reward good form.
Reynolds gets another chance, if he had of taken that mark I think we would have seen a different player. Effected his confidence and he had his tail between his legs for the rest of the game.
I would like to see Ted get another game, however with Bradley coming back in and Watson on fire there is no room for him, I don't care if he isn't 100%. If he can give us 3 quarters of quality we are better for it.
A midfield with J.Johnson, Mark Johnson and Peverill does not leave room for Marc Bullen. Sydney have a very workman like midfield (is Williams back?) and on the bigger Telstra Stadium, the likes of Monfries, Stanton and Winderlich along with Lovett could really exploit them. Dyson is close, would like to see him play one more game at Bendigo, would be happy for it to be him or Stanton to come in but went with Stanton. His leadership in the second half for Bendigo was outstanding.

Allan has to come back in. Henno has battled hard and all the credit to him. However Allan's smarts could be important considering they already Doyle, Ball and Jolley out. The only reason I may think of leaving Henno in is because he may be able to run with Goodes around the ground.

Get rid of Bolton. Doesn't have a position, doesn't have a role to play.
Nash still needs to do a bit more. If Solly isn't right, play Slattery.

nonchalance

2 May 2005, 13:37

The only reason I may think of leaving Henno in is because he may be able to run with Goodes around the ground.

Get rid of Bolton. Doesn't have a position, doesn't have a role to play.

You don't think those two statements have some correlation?
If Bolts is good at one thing, it's - tagging blokes like Goodes, Pavlich and Koutoufides.

Longy413

2 May 2005, 14:10

You don't think those two statements have some correlation?
If Bolts is good at one thing, it's - tagging blokes like Goodes, Pavlich and Koutoufides.

If a bloke has 4 or 5 potential matchups throughout the season then he isn't worth playing.
I admire Bolts, his work ethic, his commitment, but he isn't going to make us a better side. His best position is as a negating wingman or at HF. With Laycock and Lovett now in the side the HF role is redundant.
With Pavlich now playing at CHF and Bradley in the side, he has no job there.

Bolts could play on Goodes if he was playing HF, however he is more than likely to spend the most part of the game in the ruck. Bolts could run around the ground with him, but would be a dead weight when it comes to ruck work. Henneman aint much chop, but he is a better ruck option than Bolton.
Allan isn't going to be able to match it with Goodes around the ground, but Henno could.

Jaymin

2 May 2005, 15:01

Daytripper

2 May 2005, 15:51

B: McVeigh, Fletcher, Zantuck
HB: Welsh, Bradley, Solomon
C: Monfries, Peverill, Rioli
HF: Watson, Lucas, M.Johnson
F: Lovett, Lloyd, Laycock
R: Hille/Allan, McPhee, J.Johnson
I: Stanton, Dyson, Lovett-Murray, Winderlich

Thats the way i'd go...

Mate, you need at least 2 more talls on the bench. A tall defender in case Solly or Zantuck go down.
And a tall who can play key position or ruck in case one of Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Bradley, Laycock or Hille get injured.

Jaymin

2 May 2005, 16:03

Mate, you need at least 2 more talls on the bench. A tall defender in case Solly or Zantuck go down.
And a tall who can play key position or ruck in case one of Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Bradley, Laycock or Hille get injured.

I'd be happy just to see our midfield run and run and run.

ManWithNoName

2 May 2005, 16:33

Out: Hird, Haynes, Henno, Bolts, Bullen, Richards, Murphy.
In: Allan, Hille, Dyson, Bradley, Stanton, Monfries, Watson.

go team

2 May 2005, 16:43

Dropping senior players aint going to achieve alot, when we already have a young side out on the ground. Experience at AFL level comes not only from playing against experienced players, but also learning from your team mates - even if they are drastically out of form and ineffective.

pazza

2 May 2005, 16:54

We have to make 2 forced changes (and I am glad someone else has seen that Solomon isn't 100%).

I'd go this way:

Out: Hird, Haynes, Solomon, Henneman, Murphy and McVeigh (the last 2 don't seem to rate too many mentions in the worst!!!!)

In: Allan, Bradley, Dyson, Stanton, Winderlich, Thomas

Bolts survives to tag Goodes with Goodes spending a lot of time @ CHB (they get back Ball in the ruck this week I believe)

The team:

B: Welsh, Fletcher, Zantuck
HB: Thomas, Bradley, McPhee
C: Stanton, Winderlich, Dyson
HF: Bolton, Lucas, M. Johnson
F: Lovett, Lloyd, Laycock
R: Allan, J. Johnson, Peverill
Int: Bullen, Reynolds, Richards, Rioli

Tactics: When Allan needs to rest, he comes off and Richards comes on, to take Laycock's place as Chook goes into the ruck.

Bullen, Reynolds and Rioli to help out the centre-line speedsters

ManWithNoName

2 May 2005, 16:58

Out: Hird, Haynes, Solomon, Henneman, Murphy and McVeigh (the last 2 don't seem to rate too many mentions in the worst!!!!)

You didn't see my thread labelling him a total hack?

Cheer Red Blood

2 May 2005, 17:57

Well. Sydney have looked dreadful lately, and I hope, and most other Bloods supporters do (See RWO) that Roos brings in a few debutants for some struggling seniors. Hence;

Out; Buchanen In; Malkeski
Out; Bevan In; Moore

I want to drop Bevan, but we don't have anyone ready.

If Ball is fit I'd like to see LRT dropped. Jolly still has a match to serve on his suspension. Williams won't be back, Doyle is 'indefinite'. Mathews might be back, I hope not. Saddington might need some more match fitness. And gee I want Maxfield to retire, but we don't have anyone to bring in at the moment.

That makes the team;

B; Crouch, Schuable, Barry
HB; Kennelly, LRT, Dempster
C; Ablett, J Bolton, C Bolton
HF; McVeigh ,Hall, O'Keefe
FF; Spriggs ,O'Loughlin, Schneider
R; Goodes, Kirk, Davis
B; Nicks, Maxfield, Malkeski, Moore

ant555

2 May 2005, 18:08

The qusetion will be ,will either team kick more than 10 goals in this game?
As for Hille wont play seniors this week as he will need another hitout. Allen would be a chance to come back and ruck to relive Laycock .

Nonchalance not sure if you where at the same game as i was on saturday arvo but Hille did ruck in the third quarter and when he went into the ruck Bendigo played well. :D His first two quarters where nothing to write home about though , but that could have been said for the whole side.

Darealrath

2 May 2005, 19:05

In: Bradley, Monfries, Watson, Winderlich, Stanton

Out: Hird, Haynes, Bullen, Bolton, Richards

I'm not sure what the story is with Bradley, but if he isn't fit than Richards stays.

I'm not sure if Allan is ready formwise - i'd rather let Laycock ruck and get experience (he won't be physically worked over by Sydney's ruck). Sydney will probably have a mobile ruck that would exploit Allan too much, so Henno can stay until Hille is ready.

Reynolds or Dyson i can't decide. I like to see our young blokes get at least 1 week at a time so Reynolds can stay. Reynolds can play taller too, so might be better for team balance.

lufc618

2 May 2005, 19:57

In. Allan, Monfries, Stanton, Bradley

Out. Hird, Haynes, Bullen, Henneman

ManWithNoName

2 May 2005, 20:00

In. Allan, Monfries, Stanton, Bradley

Out. Hird, Haynes, Bullen, Henneman
Alright, justify for me why Justin Murphy or Mark Bolton should be in that senior AFL team.

Deadly Hedley

2 May 2005, 20:21

Monfries, Stanton, Dyson, Watson ,Hille, Nash are the future of our great club and need to be played in the seniors as much as circumstances dictate.Circumstance sure as #@#>> dictate right now. Hille obviously needs more time , maybe Watson as well. If Dyson is carrying an injury, rest him, if not put him in the seniors at Murphys expence (too soft). Stants for Haynes and Monfries for Hird ( i know he is a different type) but. Henno and Bolton survive only because of lack of fit taller types unless Watson comes in. No future in Allen, wait for Hille and then get rid of Henno.Im willing to give Reynolds one last chance but a repeat of Saturdays effort and I hope not to see him again in our Jumper. Have not seen much of Nash but some of you Guys seem keen.I hope you are spot on. Thomas may also come into calculations , maybe to replace Bullen.

Longy413

2 May 2005, 21:13

Based on the line-up above -

B; Crouch, Schuable, Barry
Lovett Lloyd Laycock

HB; Kennelly, LRT, Dempster
Monfries Lucas Watson

C; Ablett, J Bolton, C Bolton
Stanton Peverill Reynolds

HF; McVeigh ,Hall, O'Keefe
McPhee Bradley Zantuck

FF; Spriggs ,O'Loughlin, Schneider
McVeigh Fletcher Welsh

R; Goodes, Kirk, Davis
Allan J.Johnson M.Johnson

B; Nicks, Maxfield, Malkeski, Moore
Murphy Rioli Winderlich Solomon

Cheer Red Blood

2 May 2005, 22:39

In that case I'd move CBolton to play on Laycock, Barry on Lucas and Dempster onto the wing.

Darealrath

2 May 2005, 22:41

Sydney look worse than us on paper.

marcuz

2 May 2005, 23:39

Stanton Peverill Reynolds

Allan J.Johnson M.Johnson

[/B]

I can see Lloydy licking his lips at the thought of the sheer quality of delivery that will be coming his way from that classy midfield group. :D

Pevers-Legend

3 May 2005, 10:40

Henno got thrashed by an AFL ruckman.
Allan got thrashed by a VFL ruckman.
Hille couldn't even play ruck.
Make your own conclusions.
Hille needed the run no questions - but please tell me how our wonderfully mobile Ruck in Henno did nothign around the gorunds, and was basically giving Keating a free hit in the ruck. Surely allan would have been more competitive.

You're not even thinking about what you're saying.
Come back when you're not drunk, okay?[/QUOTE]
Watson is not aerobically fit - solomon is carrying an injury - does that clear it up for you or do you need everything spelt out. Do you really think solomon is of much use in the forward line? He has done squat - he has no real physical presence (when he used to playing the back half), and has no idea how to be a real target up forward.

Watson at least will comtest ,marking contests better and will bring team mates into the game if he gets the ball. he won;t just bash and crash through 40 opposition players.

Now do I still sound drunk - or are you goint o come up with some other smart arse comment.

nonchalance

3 May 2005, 11:27

Nonchalance not sure if you where at the same game as i was on saturday arvo but Hille did ruck in the third quarter and when he went into the ruck Bendigo played well.

I wasn't at the game, unfortunately. Watched it on TV.
Did Hille going into the ruck coincide with Watson going into the midfield? For me, that was the real turning point.

Hille needed the run no questions - but please tell me how our wonderfully mobile Ruck in Henno did nothign around the gorunds, and was basically giving Keating a free hit in the ruck. Surely allan would have been more competitive.

Maybe, but Allan got slaughtered by a VFL ruckman and did little around the ground until the last quarter, when he kicked a couple goals.

Watson is not aerobically fit - solomon is carrying an injury - does that clear it up for you or do you need everything spelt out.

That's not the drunk bit. The drunk bit is the bit where you think that's a good argument for Watson's inclusion in the side.
The drunk bit is where you think Watson is a similar player to Solomon.

Do you really think solomon is of much use in the forward line? He has done squat - he has no real physical presence (when he used to playing the back half), and has no idea how to be a real target up forward.

Yeah, actually, I think he's pretty good in the forward line. He's hamstrung a bit because he's not big enough to be a true KPP, but he leads well and takes a good mark. See the Carlton game for a good example.
Given Lloyd played a poor game as well, are you going to suggest that Lloyd has 'no idea how to be a target'?

Watson at least will comtest ,marking contests better and will bring team mates into the game if he gets the ball. he won;t just bash and crash through 40 opposition players.

If a bloke's capable of crashing and bashing through forty other blokes, he's worth including.
Watson's going to be great - don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that more than six changes is forfeiting the game.

Now do I still sound drunk - or are you goint o come up with some other smart arse comment.

Some other smart arse comment. I'll go with "Think before you type, please".