Opinion Where it has all gone wrong for Essendon

[GUMBLETRON]

You think we should've picked McCluggage?

Me and my fantasy keeper team have been on young Hugh from day 1 - but I also don't think he'd be anywhere near this good at Essendon.

There's more than one common denominator when it comes to consensus top picks stagnating at this club.

 

[ant555]

All of this is true, love him but yeah he's not quite there, same with most of our mids..

However that doesn't make him a let down for a first round pick as Bruno implied, saying he shouldn't settle for Heppell in the first round. I just posted on the MB about it but geez people still rate picks too highly and expect too much from them. There are no sure things with any draft pick and there's plenty of luck, guessing & development post draft involved. Pick 8 (or any first round pick) used on a bloke who ends up club captain, wins a B&F with a multiple top 3 finishes and makes an AA side is more than passable, as much as they're seen as rolled gold, most #1 picks over the years don't even live up to that. Dodoro only being able to name 3 quality mids he drafted though going back as far as 08 says a fair bit.

Fair enough. I think let down is too strong. He may not be totally A grade or the best number 8 but he is a pass.

 

[ant555]

What everyone knew about Parish in 2015 was that he was a small, predominately outside player with average speed and average disposal. Not much has changed there, except that we're trying to use Parish inside.

What I was lumping was the reality that nothing about the career of either player, and what I would say is my source of disappointment, has come as any form of surprise to those who drafted them.

You'd have to be in the industry to invest pick 5 in a mid like that because you're more concerned about the blow back from not take the 5th best performed junior player. It beats the shit out of me.

I suppose a contrast would be Dow, where there seems to be genuine surprise that the burst play that made him a top pick has not converted at all. There is probably no reason to anticipate that as a risk.

I guess not everyone shared your view.

27 days to the draft: Meet one of the best mids in the draft Darcy Parish

The classy ball user is looking like the best midfielder in the draft

www.afl.com.au

draftcentral.com.au

This domain may be for sale!

afl.draftcentral.com.au

2015 AFL draft prospects: Darcy Parish

Find out everything you need to know about the 2015 AFL draft prospects before they get drafted: Darcy Parish

www.zerohanger.com

Callum Twomey's 2015 phantom draft

AFL.com.au's draft expert Callum Twomey reveals his top 30 picks

www.westcoasteagles.com.au

Darcy Parish

Why not kick off the young kids' threads with this bloke [from Knightmare on bigfooty] Darcy Parish (VIC MID) Height: 181cm, Weight: 73kg, DOB: 25/07/1997 Recruited from: Geelong Falcons Player Comparison: Marc Murphy Range: 1-10 Best position/role: Midfield combination. Strengths: Inside/outside...

demonland.com

AFL draft preview: Players to watch on draft night

Grandstand looks at 12 players to keep an eye on ahead of Tuesday night's AFL draft as young hopefuls look to begin their career as full-time top flight footballers.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Oraaaaazio]

Fair enough. I think let down is too strong. He may not be totally A grade or the best number 8 but he is a pass.

yeah, I think any 200 game solid player is a pass for a first round pick. Sure, you can be a little disappointed if your pick was 1-10 somewhere and they don't ever make it to A grader status but 200 games & consistent top 10 B&F finishes across career is a pass when looking back at the average result of a first round pick. How many pick #1 end up the best in the draft? How many end up having better careers than Dys? probably not even half?*

Could do much worse. An AA selection/B&F and consistent top 3/5 finishes makes Dyson slightly better than a pass IMO but again, Dodoro listed him as one of his best wins of the draft. He was a good enough choice, not outstanding.

*First picks back to 1997
Rowell, Walsh, Rayner, McGrath, Weitering, McCartin, Boyd, Whitfield, Patton, Swallow, Scully, Watts, Kreuzer, Gibbs, Murphy, Deledio, Cooney, Goddard, Hodge, Riewoldt, Fraser, Headland & Johnstone

Spoiler: Not Spoiler, Link to Draft Study

Saw this on Reddit a while back, the value of a draft pick. Has worked out some numbers on picks between 1998-2015 drafts. This table below was the most succinct (whilst still being interesting) bit IMO. On average, at pick 1-5 only 1.61 players make an AA team at any stage in their career. You're far more likely to not pick an All Australian than you are to pick one with one of these picks. It's basic level of analysis but it's also why I'd almost always trade away a first round pick for a known quantity with enough quality footy left in them.. shouldn't trade away picks every year and it needs to make sense with your list age profile/needs etc and also depends on the draft quality too or quality of the players up for trade but in general, first round draft picks are so over valued and people don't seem to understand the risk involved, often see people saying they wouldn't trade pick 1 for anyone but Fyfe/Martin types but early draft picks really aren't the rolled gold that fans think they are. Hawthorn obviously the best example, they've had huge success shipping top picks off for quality players.

Draft Pick Range	Total Average All-Australians per Draft
1-5	1.61
6-10	0.67
11-15	1.06
16-20	0.61
21-25	0.22
26-30	0.44

 

[Oraaaaazio]

yeah, I think any 200 game solid player is a pass for a first round pick. Sure, you can be a little disappointed if your pick was 1-10 somewhere and they don't ever make it to A grader status but 200 games & consistent top 10 B&F finishes across career is a pass when looking back at the average result of a first round pick. How many pick #1 end up the best in the draft? How many end up having better careers than Dys? probably not even half?*

Could do much worse. An AA selection/B&F and consistent top 3/5 finishes makes Dyson slightly better than a pass IMO but again, Dodoro listed him as one of his best wins of the draft. He was a good enough choice, not outstanding.

*First picks back to 1997
Rowell, Walsh, Rayner, McGrath, Weitering, McCartin, Boyd, Whitfield, Patton, Swallow, Scully, Watts, Kreuzer, Gibbs, Murphy, Deledio, Cooney, Goddard, Hodge, Riewoldt, Fraser, Headland & Johnstone


Saw this on Reddit a while back, the value of a draft pick. Has worked out some numbers on picks between 1998-2015 drafts. This table below was the most succinct (whilst still being interesting) bit IMO. On average, at pick 1-5 only 1.61 players make an AA team at any stage in their career. You're far more likely to not pick an All Australian than you are to pick one with one of these picks. It's basic level of analysis but it's also why I'd almost always trade away a first round pick for a known quantity with enough quality footy left in them.. shouldn't trade away picks every year and it needs to make sense with your list age profile/needs etc and also depends on the draft quality too or quality of the players up for trade but in general, first round draft picks are so over valued and people don't seem to understand the risk involved, often see people saying they wouldn't trade pick 1 for anyone but Fyfe/Martin types but early draft picks really aren't the rolled gold that fans think they are. Hawthorn obviously the best example, they've had huge success shipping top picks off for quality players.

Draft Pick Range	Total Average All-Australians per Draft
1-5	1.61
6-10	0.67
11-15	1.06
16-20	0.61
21-25	0.22
26-30	0.44

geez didn't mean that, how do I make that Reddit link smaller/have to click it to expand?

 

[faible]

geez didn't mean that, how do I make that Reddit link smaller/have to click it to expand?

It's fine, don't worry about it. If you really wanted to though, spoiler tags.

Pick 6 is a weirdly terrible pick, it throws out the rest of the 6-10 block. There's no actual logical reason 6 should be so terrible though. Just bizarrely terrible.

 

[citizen-erased]

I think McGrath was the right pick at the time
Merrett & Parish were our only young mids on the smaller side at the time
What has made it unbalanced is the recruiting of elite competition in his spot (Shiel and Smith)

There's an argument with Parish, McGrath, Merrett and Smith on the list, Shiel was an exercise in excess.
But would you give him and mozzy up for Caldwell/Hately/Collier-Dawkins + Kemp without knowing whether they would be available or make it.

I think a lot of our draft ills are the picks we lost coming home to roost.
While i think AD puts a bit of revisionist mayo when he talks previous drafts (Selwood for example), lets say we did land Cripps, Lobb and Merrett in 2013.
We'd have had our gaps plugged in a single draft (Adding Fanta to the mix, it would be one of the better drafts for a club since 01 for Geelong and 04 for the Hawks)
But even if we had those 2 extra players onboard (i discount 2014 as a lost year for various reasons) in the form of a Jones, Dunstan, Acres, Crouch + Lobb, we'd be in better shape now balance wise.

As it stands, we are bringing in talent via the draft and trades, but have glaring gaps that are getting worse the taller the player requirement
KPF and Rucks will be in dire state in 2021 if Joe leaves.
Our KPD stocks are drying up too. Hooker can't have long left and Hurley surely isnt far behind

 

[Milanista28]

The our midfield is too small argument is silly. Richmond have a small midfield, Difference is they have a superstar in there.

I don't think we lose games because of size, we lose from gameplan execution, experience (which we are gaining) and mental application.

 

[Oraaaaazio]

It's fine, don't worry about it. If you really wanted to though, spoiler tags.

Pick 6 is a weirdly terrible pick, it throws out the rest of the 6-10 block. There's no actual logical reason 6 should be so terrible though. Just bizarrely terrible.

yeah the sample size is clearly not big enough for it to have evened out across time so it looks like pick 6 is genuinely cursed

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Hello Dons fans and pardon the intrusion.

I reckon there are 15 other Clubs whose BF fans take the glass half empty approach in assessing where their Club stands - mine included.

The narratives for the Tigers, Pies and of course the Blues are always of course about how they get things right.

I reckon the Bombers have got a lot of things right in what is still a recovery period for your mob. Tanner proved a terrific upgrade and your Board has put the cleaners through your admin. Worsfold has been an important calm steadying hand.

Of course you folk have holes on your list, but what mob does not? Yes, Dodoro can be justly criticised for some glory hound "big fish" chasing but he has assembled a reasonable import record. Devon Smith - if fit - is a star, others like Stringer, Shiel and Saad have proved to be decent role fillers.

Like you folk we Bloods' fans are looking forward to resumption of footy. Personally I cannot wait for our match which I think will be a decent test of two middling teams.

 

[ghostdog]

Hello Dons fans and pardon the intrusion.

I reckon there are 15 other Clubs whose BF fans take the glass half empty approach in assessing where their Club stands - mine included.

The narratives for the Tigers, Pies and of course the Blues are always of course about how they get things right.

I reckon the Bombers have got a lot of things right in what is still a recovery period for your mob. Tanner proved a terrific upgrade and your Board has put the cleaners through your admin. Worsfold has been an important calm steadying hand.

Of course you folk have holes on your list, but what mob does not? Yes, Dodoro can be justly criticised for some glory hound "big fish" chasing but he has assembled a reasonable import record. Devon Smith - if fit - is a star, others like Stringer, Shiel and Saad have proved to be decent role fillers.

Like you folk we Bloods' fans are looking forward to resumption of footy. Personally I cannot wait for our match which I think will be a decent test of two middling teams.

I think it'll be a very evenly balanced contest. Florent, Parker and Kennedy worry me in the middle, and Heeney ought to be given no space around half-forward. His ability to push up the ground and get forward again quickly is a bit scary. I'd like Clarke to be given a job on Parker, and while I'd prefer Redman on a wing, I do think he should go to Heeney.

...I think this evolved into being ill-placed for this thread.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think it'll be a very evenly balanced contest. Florent, Parker and Kennedy worry me in the middle, and Heeney ought to be given no space around half-forward. His ability to push up the ground and get forward again quickly is a bit scary. I'd like Clarke to be given a job on Parker, and while I'd prefer Redman on a wing, I do think he should go to Heeney.

...I think this evolved into being ill-placed for this thread.

Just trying to redress as an external observer what I perceived as unwarranted negativity.

 

[ghostdog]

Just trying to redress as an external observer what I perceived as unwarranted negativity.

My response to your post I mean...

 

[Ambrosia]

Just trying to redress as an external observer what I perceived as unwarranted negativity.

I agree negativity towards the list is fairly baseless. We have something like the most players in the comp in the 23-28 range and don’t have many important aging players. A lot of the “weaknesses” in our list present opportunities. For instance developing/recruiting better KPFs and ruckman better than Mckernan/Brown and Bellchambers shouldn’t be a difficult task.

 

[CBombers17]

Just trying to redress as an external observer what I perceived as unwarranted negativity.

Fair enough, though despite potentially being an accurate assessment of him i am not sure we brought in Shiel to be a 'solid role filler'.

There would also possibly be more positivity on here if we hadn't been smashed by you guys in a final 2 years ago and yet still not be far in front of you - despite Sydney now being in rebuild mode.

 

[faible]

I agree negativity towards the list is fairly baseless. We have something like the most players in the comp in the 23-28 range and don’t have many important aging players. A lot of the “weaknesses” in our list present opportunities. For instance developing/recruiting better KPFs and ruckman better than Mckernan/Brown and Bellchambers shouldn’t be a difficult task.

I'd think many coaches would look at the EFC list and be happy to take it on, there's certainly holes in it but there's also some good opportunity and young players to work with. We've also got limited faith in the club to actually develop them however.

 

[andon]

Leaving the MCG, the club has never recoverd from this mind numbing move.

How to take the strongest club in the league and turn it into a middle order team within a few years.

When we could get 75 to100,000 at our games, why swap for a concrete based ground under a roof getting 40k.

Dumbest move in global sport.

 

[brutus76]

1. Balls
2. Accountability
3. Leadership
4. Midfield(muchly improved last 2 years though)
5. Goalkicking - stats do not include rushed behinds 56% in 2015 (Haw 64.5% WCE 57.5%) 50.1% 2016 (WB 58.1% SYD 60.1%)
54.6% 2017 (Rich 56.8% ADEL 60.1%) 57.5% 2018 (WCE 60.1% COLL 60.4%) 58.6% 2019 (RICH 60.6% GWS 58.8%

 

[Bombermania]

I don't get the criticism of Parish, sure i don't think he is a damaging mid that will punish but his work rate has been good. I am more concerned with Lavarde and Langford than Parish.

 

[Bombermania]

Leaving the MCG, the club has never recoverd from this mind numbing move.

How to take the strongest club in the league and turn it into a middle order team within a few years.

When we could get 75 to100,000 at our games, why swap for a concrete based ground under a roof getting 40k.

Dumbest move in global sport.

I don't share much attachment to Essendon being home at the G because our real home ground was Windy Hill.

 

[BrunoV]

I don't share much attachment to Essendon being home at the G because our real home ground was Windy Hill.

The criticism is about the decision to move to a smaller home base and stifling of the club at the point that it was probably the biggest in the country (support tends to spike during periods of power and Collingwood and Richmond were struggling).

It all occurred during an era of conservative off field management.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

2004-2019 is similar in ways to another poor period between ‘68 GF appearance and ‘83 when we finally won our first final after 15 years and five elimination final defeats. Hopefully same ending but doubt it.

 

[ghostdog]

The criticism is about the decision to move to a smaller home base and stifling of the club at the point that it was probably the biggest in the country (support tends to spike during periods of power and Collingwood and Richmond were struggling).

It all occurred during an era of conservative off field management.

Membership numbers spiked in 2000 to around 34 000, coinciding with a premiership and the move to Docklands. In 01 and 02 it was at about 36 000 and
35 000 respectively, before slumping to lower than 34 000 again until 2007. In 2008 there's a membership spike of about 9000, coinciding with Matthew Knights' first season in charge. In that decade after the move to Docklands, the stifling of the club looks more like it has to do with perception of the coach and mediocre results than it does the move away from the MCG. That doesn't mean the move away had nothing to do with stifling the club, just that other factors are obviously at play.

These numbers are interesting;
1990 - 1999: membership increase by 23 232
2000 - 2009: membership increase by 6134
2010 - 2019: membership increase by 43 648

That's a cumulative increase of 74 014 memberships over three decades, in spite of the 1990 recession, global financial crisis of 2007-2008, and the saga suspensions in 2016. I'd say that points to success in spite of the move. They can probably feel more confident that they'll fill the MCG now, given last year's membership numbers topped 84 000; with only about 34 000 in 2000, perhaps the concern was over how many people could be relied upon to attend, and how that looks on TV. ie., Docklands would be easier to fill to capacity, they can close the roof to accelerate the game by taking weather conditions out of the equation, so the TV product is optimised.

 

[BrunoV]

Membership numbers spiked in 2000 to around 34 000, coinciding with a premiership and the move to Docklands. In 01 and 02 it was at about 36 000 and
35 000 respectively, before slumping to lower than 34 000 again until 2007. In 2008 there's a membership spike of about 9000, coinciding with Matthew Knights' first season in charge. In that decade after the move to Docklands, the stifling of the club looks more like it has to do with perception of the coach and mediocre results than it does the move away from the MCG. That doesn't mean the move away had nothing to do with stifling the club, just that other factors are obviously at play.

These numbers are interesting;
1990 - 1999: membership increase by 23 232
2000 - 2009: membership increase by 6134
2010 - 2019: membership increase by 43 648

That's a cumulative increase of 74 014 memberships over three decades, in spite of the 1990 recession, global financial crisis of 2007-2008, and the saga suspensions in 2016. I'd say that points to success in spite of the move. They can probably feel more confident that they'll fill the MCG now, given last year's membership numbers topped 84 000; with only about 34 000 in 2000, perhaps the concern was over how many people could be relied upon to attend, and how that looks on TV. ie., Docklands would be easier to fill to capacity, they can close the roof to accelerate the game by taking weather conditions out of the equation, so the TV product is optimised.

Did Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton have better late-90s membership numbers than Essendon?

We were routinely getting crowds of 70,000 plus for Carlton and Colingwood and even in excess of 60,000 for North throughout the 90s. I don't remember the Richmond crowds but I expect they were similar to Carlton and Collingwood crowds.

We went to Docklands because we got a deal which resulted in us getting a ton of cash with built in provisions indexing our deal to those of other clubs (meaning that we were continually getting a better deal as the others renegotiated).

I'd be amazed if we were spooked about our ability to have a viable existence the G (given that Collingwood was on its knees as was Hawthorn and Richmond was irrelevant). I'd be equally as amazed if the quality of the TV product was being considered in the late 90s.

 

[Bombermania]

Did Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton have better late-90s membership numbers than Essendon?

We were routinely getting crowds of 70,000 plus for Carlton and Colingwood and even in excess of 60,000 for North throughout the 90s. I don't remember the Richmond crowds but I expect they were similar to Carlton and Collingwood crowds.

We went to Docklands because we got a deal which resulted in us getting a ton of cash with built in provisions indexing our deal to those of other clubs (meaning that we were continually getting a better deal as the others renegotiated).

I'd be amazed if we were spooked about our ability to have a viable existence the G (given that Collingwood was on its knees as was Hawthorn and Richmond was irrelevant). I'd be equally as amazed if the quality of the TV product was being considered in the late 90s.

As I remember it with Docklands, it was first in best dressed so the club took the opportunity.