-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Retired #18: Matthew Lloyd - Diagnosed with Bell's Palsy - 15/3
- Thread starter DaSawx
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Wahooti Fandango
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 10, 2007
- 19,411
- 5,832
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Queensland Reds, Melbourne Rebels
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Who will play on Lucas? Although he has only been back two weeks he is very capable of kicking a bag on Friday night.
Who will play on Lucas? Although he has only been back two weeks he is very capable of kicking a bag on Friday night.
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
with lloyd i know his out of form at the moment and what i'm about to say is probly the reason
but i've noticed lately (except for that nice mark against hawthorn).that when he goes on a lead and jumps for the ball he bends both feet up behind him which is why he always lands on the ground and his usually just a little to far under the ball.now as i said this could be because his out of form....what i'm asking is do you think this is the reason or his picked up a bad habit?
btw 2 against west coast for lloyd
4 for lucas
with lloyd i know his out of form at the moment and what i'm about to say is probly the reason
but i've noticed lately (except for that nice mark against hawthorn).that when he goes on a lead and jumps for the ball he bends both feet up behind him which is why he always lands on the ground and his usually just a little to far under the ball.now as i said this could be because his out of form....what i'm asking is do you think this is the reason or his picked up a bad habit?
btw 2 against west coast for lloyd
4 for lucas
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
hunter will play on lucas. i reckon neagle is the wildcard if he plays. he'd get the worst defender and if we use him properly he could kick a bag
hunter will play on lucas. i reckon neagle is the wildcard if he plays. he'd get the worst defender and if we use him properly he could kick a bag
- Nov 28, 2006
- 28,821
- 11,847
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
An article from todays Herald sun by Mike Sheahan.
Lloyd, like Dons, a shadow of past
AT season's end in 2004, Matthew Lloyd was 26 years old with 695 goals to his name.
After 96 goals that year, he was more than halfway towards Tony Lockett's AFL record of 1360, and motoring.
With the totally reasonable expectation of another 7-8 seasons, Lockett's total seemed a realistic target.
After all, "Plugger" was 33 when his career effectively ended in 1999 (he played three games in 2002, kicking three goals).
Sadly, it has been downhill for both Lloyd and Essendon since 2004.
A broken arm in a practice game delayed his start to 2005 (59 goals), and the Bombers tumbled to 13th.
The following year, after 12 goals in the first two games, he ripped a hamstring tendon off the bone, his season done by Round 3.
He returned in 2007 with 62 goals in a team that finished bottom five for the third year running.
Now, midway through the 2008 season, Lloyd, on 855 career goals, and Essendon are struggling as never before.
After a month of indifferent form that has netted him just eight goals, the murmurings have turned into a roar.
Lloydy is "gone", they're saying. Not only has Lockett's record become the impossible dream, now the 1000-goal target might be out of range.
Given his fitness and form of the past 18 months and the current predicament of the team, 145 goals in the next 18 months -- the term outstanding on his contract -- is out of reach.
Lloyd will be 31 at the end of the 2009 season, having played 15 seasons, with a goal total in the low 900s.
On current indications, a contract extension would be a debatable proposition. For both parties.
So, where did it all go wrong?
Simple answer, he isn't the player he was; the Bombers certainly aren't the team they were.
Lloyd looks cumbersome, struggles to get clear on the lead, isn't as sure above his head, goes to ground more than he should, and has lost a little penetration in that once unfailing left leg.
He endured 54 minutes without a kick in the game against Hawthorn last weekend -- from the 23-minute mark of the first quarter to the 17-minute mark of the third quarter.
Then there are Essendon's problems. In Lloyd's case, the issue is the team's inability to take the ball inside the forward 50 with acceptable regularity.
The Bombers are averaging 44 inside-50s a week, 15th in the competition and down from 51.4 in his most recent outstanding year (2004).
In Rounds 5-11, they averaged 39.1, last and by a long way.
In the two games Essendon registered 50 or more entries - North Melbourne and Carlton - he kicked six and four goals.
The poor supply is a problem compounded by the quality of delivery. Midfield disposal efficiency of 71.9 per cent in that period also is the lowest figure in the competition.
Lloyd approached preparations for the 2008 season full of enthusiasm. He was fit, impatient and optimistic - it's an open secret he had pushed for a change of coach and endorsed Matthew Knights.
As it's turned out, Knights has been tough and uncompromising, and the man once known as the Velvet Sledgehammer hasn't escaped the coach's iron fist.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Lloyd has kicked 26.8 from 10 matches this year after a promising start (10 goals in the first three games).
A modest total by his standards, yet he is the only Essendon player in double figures. David Hille, Adam McPhee and Mark McVeigh are next with nine.
That's the issue: Lloyd isn't what he was, but he was a star. Surely his detractors aren't implying the team would be better off without him.
Better off with . . . ?
Lloyd's confidence is down, yet his history against West Coast is encouraging.
In 11 games in the 2000s, he has kicked 44.15. His most recent "bag" was eight . . . back in 2004
An article from todays Herald sun by Mike Sheahan.
Lloyd, like Dons, a shadow of past
AT season's end in 2004, Matthew Lloyd was 26 years old with 695 goals to his name.
After 96 goals that year, he was more than halfway towards Tony Lockett's AFL record of 1360, and motoring.
With the totally reasonable expectation of another 7-8 seasons, Lockett's total seemed a realistic target.
After all, "Plugger" was 33 when his career effectively ended in 1999 (he played three games in 2002, kicking three goals).
Sadly, it has been downhill for both Lloyd and Essendon since 2004.
A broken arm in a practice game delayed his start to 2005 (59 goals), and the Bombers tumbled to 13th.
The following year, after 12 goals in the first two games, he ripped a hamstring tendon off the bone, his season done by Round 3.
He returned in 2007 with 62 goals in a team that finished bottom five for the third year running.
Now, midway through the 2008 season, Lloyd, on 855 career goals, and Essendon are struggling as never before.
After a month of indifferent form that has netted him just eight goals, the murmurings have turned into a roar.
Lloydy is "gone", they're saying. Not only has Lockett's record become the impossible dream, now the 1000-goal target might be out of range.
Given his fitness and form of the past 18 months and the current predicament of the team, 145 goals in the next 18 months -- the term outstanding on his contract -- is out of reach.
Lloyd will be 31 at the end of the 2009 season, having played 15 seasons, with a goal total in the low 900s.
On current indications, a contract extension would be a debatable proposition. For both parties.
So, where did it all go wrong?
Simple answer, he isn't the player he was; the Bombers certainly aren't the team they were.
Lloyd looks cumbersome, struggles to get clear on the lead, isn't as sure above his head, goes to ground more than he should, and has lost a little penetration in that once unfailing left leg.
He endured 54 minutes without a kick in the game against Hawthorn last weekend -- from the 23-minute mark of the first quarter to the 17-minute mark of the third quarter.
Then there are Essendon's problems. In Lloyd's case, the issue is the team's inability to take the ball inside the forward 50 with acceptable regularity.
The Bombers are averaging 44 inside-50s a week, 15th in the competition and down from 51.4 in his most recent outstanding year (2004).
In Rounds 5-11, they averaged 39.1, last and by a long way.
In the two games Essendon registered 50 or more entries - North Melbourne and Carlton - he kicked six and four goals.
The poor supply is a problem compounded by the quality of delivery. Midfield disposal efficiency of 71.9 per cent in that period also is the lowest figure in the competition.
Lloyd approached preparations for the 2008 season full of enthusiasm. He was fit, impatient and optimistic - it's an open secret he had pushed for a change of coach and endorsed Matthew Knights.
As it's turned out, Knights has been tough and uncompromising, and the man once known as the Velvet Sledgehammer hasn't escaped the coach's iron fist.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Lloyd has kicked 26.8 from 10 matches this year after a promising start (10 goals in the first three games).
A modest total by his standards, yet he is the only Essendon player in double figures. David Hille, Adam McPhee and Mark McVeigh are next with nine.
That's the issue: Lloyd isn't what he was, but he was a star. Surely his detractors aren't implying the team would be better off without him.
Better off with . . . ?
Lloyd's confidence is down, yet his history against West Coast is encouraging.
In 11 games in the 2000s, he has kicked 44.15. His most recent "bag" was eight . . . back in 2004
Stretcher Boy
Rookie
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
He sucks he is too old trade him or make him retire
He sucks he is too old trade him or make him retire
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Stretcher boy... you are clearly what your name suggests - a boy. To say that the all time leading goalkicker at our clubs "sucks" is very simple of you. There is some fair debate about whether he is as good as he was, but your comment is so simple that most will hopefuly not take note of it.
Stretcher boy... you are clearly what your name suggests - a boy. To say that the all time leading goalkicker at our clubs "sucks" is very simple of you. There is some fair debate about whether he is as good as he was, but your comment is so simple that most will hopefuly not take note of it.
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
true true maybe it's just more noticable now since his a little out of form
but he'll come good i'm tipping he'll do great in the second half of the season he may have let croad get away a few times when it hit the ground but the pack mark he took showed his coming back
true true maybe it's just more noticable now since his a little out of form
but he'll come good i'm tipping he'll do great in the second half of the season he may have let croad get away a few times when it hit the ground but the pack mark he took showed his coming back
Rack Watts
Here's MASON
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Stood up today and really played well in a Richo-esk role!
Stood up today and really played well in a Richo-esk role!
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
+2=857.
Beautiful tonight, just beautiful.
+2=857.
Beautiful tonight, just beautiful.
- Banned
- #142
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
I'll do the honours.
+4 = 861.
Champion.
I'll do the honours.
+4 = 861.
Champion.
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Hitting form now. Should get a bag against Freo.
Hitting form now. Should get a bag against Freo.
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
+1 = 862
+1 = 862
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Was quiet today goal wise, but ahh well. We still won.
His delivery to players today was superb. Pin point accuracy.
Was quiet today goal wise, but ahh well. We still won.
His delivery to players today was superb. Pin point accuracy.
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
So was his leading/marking at CHF. That one over the freakshow was especially great
So was his leading/marking at CHF. That one over the freakshow was especially great
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
+4 = 866
+4 = 866
Re: 18. Matthew Lloyd
Does anyone still think he lacks leadership?
Just loving how he keeps sticking it up those who wrote him off.
Does anyone still think he lacks leadership?
Just loving how he keeps sticking it up those who wrote him off.
