View Full Version : Who is our Forward Coach and do we need a new one?
Our forward line structure vs. the cats was absolutely non-existant today. About the only structure was having Neagle in the goal-square, but even then he was pushing up a lot of the time.
For those who actually went to the game, you'd understand the AMAZING vast empty space that confronted essendon midfielders when they actually got the ball and had no one to kick it to! You could not grasp it in its entirety viewing from the TV, you actually had to sit there and cast your eyes into outer realms of known space formerly known as essendon's forward 50!
Players like Lucas and Gumbleton may not be in the side for various reasons, but that doesn't mean you don't play a forward line AT ALL!
thoughts?
The Dustbin
31 May 2009, 21:10
Worked well against Richmond. We don't play Geelong every week. ;)
True we did struggle for targets but the delivery was very ordinary...... on the odd occasion we did get into F50. I thought Lucas could have been handy today. Maybe dragged Mackie to the square? Neagle dropped a couple of easy marks too!
Worked well against Richmond. We don't play Geelong every week. ;)
no i disagree
against the tigers our midfielders eventually found space and started kicking goals themselves! That's when we started winning. Neagle did alright and lloyd managed 4 but neither were great and no one else was rotated as a genuine target through the forward line.
Richmond are a world apart from the Cats lol
True we did struggle for targets but the delivery was very ordinary...... on the odd occasion we did get into F50. I thought Lucas could have been handy today. Maybe dragged Mackie to the square? Neagle dropped a couple of easy marks too!I only noticed one in the last quarter. I'd say he'd have the safest hands in our side.
Angus Monfries has a lot to answer for IMO. He can't expect to keep his spot in this side by playing 1 good game on 5 ... or whenever we play Carlton. He has to get dropped. Doesn't work anywhere near hard enough, often enough. He should be at the feet of Lloyd and Neagle today ... instead he was nowhere to be seen. Unless he was chasing the arse of his opponent that ran off him all day!!
The Dustbin
31 May 2009, 21:49
no i disagree
against the tigers our midfielders eventually found space and started kicking goals themselves! That's when we started winning. Neagle did alright and lloyd managed 4 but neither were great and no one else was rotated as a genuine target through the forward line.
The movement in the forward line was good, it functioned well against Richmond - Zaka found plenty of space and looked dangerous.
Again, what space there was Geelong quickly closed it down.
I only noticed one in the last quarter. I'd say he'd have the safest hands in our side.
True he has great mits. I thought there was another during the game? Or maybe it was one the umpy didnt pay? Anyhow i think he shows plenty and can kick the pill too!
Skeeta Olly
31 May 2009, 21:50
The midfield really determines the success of the forward line. Also, the link between midfield and half forward, which today should have been Lloyds and Monfries role.
When the link is non existent, and the midfield is under pressure, the forward line doesn't function in our case. When we bombed it long, we barely hit a target.
The Dustbin
31 May 2009, 21:54
Richmond are a world apart from the Cats lol
That's right. We'll be playing more teams similar to Richmond then Geelong.
Calling for a new forward coach after playing one of the greatest teams of all time, is a bit of a knee jerk reaction. Don't you think.
ghostdog
31 May 2009, 22:04
I only noticed one in the last quarter. I'd say he'd have the safest hands in our side.
Llloooyyyddd!
George Washington
31 May 2009, 22:24
I think the midfield kind of defines the forward line structure, if Geelong continously get the ball and lock it in there forward half, which they did, our forwards have no choice but to run up and man up the Geelong defenders trying to get some easy kicks. Hence, when there is a quick turn over there is nobody home. You can't expect Neagle or Lloyd to sit in the goal square whilst the ball is locked in Geelong's fifty for 5 or 10 minutes. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, but not in todays game.
Bombermania
31 May 2009, 22:35
There has been a problem all season and I have previously commented on it and that is our Forward line appears to have little to no movement.
The number of times I have seen our midfielders bring the ball across half back into the centre to look up and see no one leading.
the delivery was shocking today - how many times did passes to lloyd go metres over his head...geelong completely stifled essendons game plan forcing them to go wide and not thru the corridor. neagle was very good from limited opportunities today - have a look at the inside 50 stats...we were smashed in that area. In all our other games we've been quite reasonable with that but the midfield copped a belting today.
Hopefully replacing lonergan with prismall will improve that area.
BringBackCransberg
1 Jun 2009, 00:55
Angus Monfries has a lot to answer for IMO. He can't expect to keep his spot in this side by playing 1 good game on 5 ... or whenever we play Carlton. He has to get dropped. Doesn't work anywhere near hard enough, often enough. He should be at the feet of Lloyd and Neagle today ... instead he was nowhere to be seen. Unless he was chasing the arse of his opponent that ran off him all day!!
Knights has singled out Monfries more than once this year for his selflessness and team-oriented work rate. I dunno who you are watching cos he jumps into packs, uses the ball well, takes contested marks and can shut down an opposition attacking defender. However, I do agree he's inconsistent, results-wise. But I think he's improving in that respect. I just don't think he deserves flak for effort/attitude, cos if you go to the games you'll see that he works his arse off.
And, no, he shouldn't be at the feet of Lloyd and Neagle, at least not by default -- he's a hit-up forward flanker taking marks outside 50, up near the wing, delivering to Lloyd and Neagle (for the forward approaches that aren't the run'n'carry through the corridor). Jetta/~Davey/~Zaka/~Lonergan are the main crumbers.
bipolarbeaR
1 Jun 2009, 09:20
Monfries works VERY hard, but the kid has no brains and no clue where to position him self.
The AFL these days draft athletes not players with brains.
Strike Swiftly
1 Jun 2009, 10:19
My problem with our current gameplan is that we continually play Lloydy too far up the ground. We have plenty of run and carry from the HBF, our midfielders run through the middle looking for targets but end up having to bomb it long to a one on one contest in the square. Lloydy is often too far up the ground to be a target, and if Neagles lead is ignored (which it regularly is, and he is too slow to double back), the one on one ends up being Davey which always results in an opposition mark and counterattack. Has happened all year. The gamestyle looks better with Lloydy and Neagle playing close to goal.
My problem with our current gameplan is that we continually play Lloydy too far up the ground. We have plenty of run and carry from the HBF, our midfielders run through the middle looking for targets but end up having to bomb it long to a one on one contest in the square. Lloydy is often too far up the ground to be a target, and if Neagles lead is ignored (which it regularly is, and he is too slow to double back), the one on one ends up being Davey which always results in an opposition mark and counterattack. Has happened all year. The gamestyle looks better with Lloydy and Neagle playing close to goal.
yesterday we couldn't find a lead-up option to get the ball past the wing. that's why lloyd gets up the ground.
Strike Swiftly
1 Jun 2009, 11:42
what about the other weeks?
Monfries works VERY hard, but the kid has no brains and no clue where to position him self.
The AFL these days draft athletes not players with brains.
Correct. Work rate good, decision making not so good.
Slattery_20
1 Jun 2009, 11:53
It's Alan Richardson. Bit stupid to try and sack someone whose name you don't know
Forward line needs work. But give the guy time ffs
It's Alan Richardson. Bit stupid to try and sack someone whose name you don't know
Forward line needs work. But give the guy time ffs
i never said sack him, as his primary role at essendon is as a development coach. which is why we pinched him from collingwood in the first place. i don't mind him as an assistant coach, but clearly there's no structure whatsoever to our forward line.
our midfield speed and fitness has got us over the line against weaker oppositions but the forward line has been lacking all year. where are we ranked now for points scored???
Don't forget that McPhee has been forced to play in defence because of injuries.
He is a consistent lead up forward.
I don't think it is the forward lines fault. No doubt we would be a whole lot better with Gumby/Lucas fit and firing. Most of the time it is about the delivery into the forward line. You see that if this is good, we are quite damaging.
i never said sack him, as his primary role at essendon is as a development coach. which is why we pinched him from collingwood in the first place. i don't mind him as an assistant coach, but clearly there's no structure whatsoever to our forward line.
our midfield speed and fitness has got us over the line against weaker oppositions but the forward line has been lacking all year. where are we ranked now for points scored???
To start with he is on board as the forward coach and not as a development coach.
Secondly it is funny how the forward structure seems to come up when sides lose. It is bloody hard to have the forwards firing if
a) the ball is not coming inside 50. At one stage in the game there was a 10 minute period when the ball only came inside out 50 when Geelong kicked it backwards.
b) the midfield is so loose that it allows players to push back into the space and create two on one contests.
The other problem we hav is Lloyd is not the player he was. He has something to offer but his output is around 30% less than 4 seasons ago. He is going to struggle some weeks when he runs into the better defenders.
The rest of the forward line is either young and inexperienced or makeshift.
To start with he is on board as the forward coach and not as a development coach.
Secondly it is funny how the forward structure seems to come up when sides lose. It is bloody hard to have the forwards firing if
a) the ball is not coming inside 50. At one stage in the game there was a 10 minute period when the ball only came inside out 50 when Geelong kicked it backwards.
b) the midfield is so loose that it allows players to push back into the space and create two on one contests.
The other problem we hav is Lloyd is not the player he was. He has something to offer but his output is around 30% less than 4 seasons ago. He is going to struggle some weeks when he runs into the better defenders.
The rest of the forward line is either young and inexperienced or makeshift.
i agree that delivery into the forward line has been ordinary so far this season, but i've disappointed with the forward line all season.
it doesn't answer the question as to why the forward set up was as abysmal as it was on sunday... it is absolutely inexcusable for midfielders to be running the ball up the field, looking to deliver into the forward 50 and not have a single target with 40m of goal. Lloyd might be ageing, Neagle might be inexperienced but that doesn't change the fact there are others in the team (like zaharakis and monfries) who can provide a small-forward option out of the goal-square.
this is not something that happened once or twice... it happened for a large proportion of yesterday's game. And all season it's been wishy-washy.
The only problem with the forward line is that we were in denial over loosing Gumbleton, Lucase being out of sorts and Neagle not being fit enough to play AFL at this stage.
There was a lot of talk at the start of the season about the four tall targets with Lloyd up the ground more. Without Lucas and Gumbleton as targets I am not sure that we can always justify having Lloyd up the ground. The fact that he is the captain should not determine where he plays.
On paper there is still a good enough balance between Lloyd, Neagle, Davey, Monfries, McPhee (in stints), Lovett Murray (when he is there) and Jetta.
Every key prospect keeps going down which means that we are going to have to get creative like the Bulldogs to ensure that the forward remains potent. I would like to see more of Monfries and Lovett-Murray deep in the forward line with Nagle and Lloyd up the ground. If not deep for Monfries (leaving NLM out because of suspension) maybe he could play like a Robert Murphy style CHF. Monfries is supposed to be very fit (I am not convincing myself with this one).
Even Winderlich could be damaging out of the square because not many would be able to keep up and he is strong overhead.
Seriously it is a bit of a joke. Gumbleton (the young gun), Lucas and Hille (as proven forwards), Laycock and Hurley (potential forwards capable of playing a role), all of which has robbed us the chance of trying Ryder there as plan C.
Lucas must play this week 1) so he can help Ryder in the ruck allowing Hooker to stay back and 2) and more importantly so that there is another presence in the forward 50 so that Lloyd can go up field.
As much as Neagle has had me creaming myself over some of his marks and that beautiful kick he is just not covering enough ground at the moment.
stay true
2 Jun 2009, 02:44
The best forward coach in the world wouldn't have made a difference against the cats. We were completely overwealmed in the midfield.
It was ****ing frustrating having to listen to some muppet behind me have a go at Lloyd every time the ball was kicked over his head when he was leading.
Think about this stat !
Even if EFC was super efficient and got goals from 50% of Inside 50 entries, they still would have only kicked 10 goals, and been down by 6 or goals at three quarter time.
The best forward coach in the world wouldn't have made a difference against the cats. We were completely overwealmed in the midfield.
It was ****ing frustrating having to listen to some muppet behind me have a go at Lloyd every time the ball was kicked over his head when he was leading.
not necessarily. yes, i agree we wouldn't have won the game, but **** we would've come close. We were winning the hardball gets and clearances at quarter time, and i think it was still close at half time! Sure we made a number of errors delivering the ball inside 50, but the forward structure only exacerbated the problem.
Think about this stat !
Even if EFC was super efficient and got goals from 50% of Inside 50 entries, they still would have only kicked 10 goals, and been down by 6 or goals at three quarter time.
as i said earlier ... this has been a problem ALL year. not just vs. the cats. it just so happens when we play a top side we can see how easily exposed that structure is to good defending.