2009 EFC reviews, With a twist

Remove this Banner Ad

Ants

Ants

Premiership Player
Veteran
Sep 27, 2005
4,535
2,124
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
Ants Season Reviews

I posted these on Bomberblitz, so anyone who attends that, ignore. Mostly posting here since it will be around in 8 months for me to compare how I went!

Well, its the time of year for reviews. Those glossy, superficial canings by the media (recently) or flawlessly optimistic ones by the fans. And since I've got nothing better do waiting for the footy season, I thought I'd write one. But heh, whats the fun in a normal, average review?

So instead, I thought it would be interesting to write up two reviews, one trying to be optimistic and one pesimistic, and then compare them. Both will be a bit tongue and cheek, and both should be accurate as far as facts are concerned. Its just interpretation of those facts, and all the subjective issues surrounding footy, that should allow a pretty wide gap in potential results.

So, I'm posting the negative one first (should create more talk) and I'll post the positive one tomorrow night (London time). I will then also post my 'realistic' review.

Oh, I'm not letting the fact I saw limited games last year all on my computer screen (not exactly big) because I was in London reduce the viability of my analysis. Only seeing a handful of games never seems to hurt the media commentators. :p
 
Negative (Re)View

Injuries
2008 was a horror run. No doubting. But it’s also true the more often someone is injured the past, the odds are good that will happen into the future. Given their recent output, injury free seasons from Dempsey, Davey, Gumbleton, or Neagle appear far fetched. Just look at Winderlich - yes he had a good 2007, but again succumbed to the injuries in 2008.

Additionally, we've missed the bulk of the season from one of Lloyd/Lucas/Fletcher in each of the past few seasons. Given their older, I'd expect not only for this to continue, but the odds are good we'll miss two of them for significant chunks of time. With Gumby & Neagle's injury issues, this likely means one of McPhee or Laycock will fill the KP forward positions for long stints, roles they are not good enough to fill. So our forward line will likely once again not kick enough goals.

Backs
Let’s face it, this is a giant hole. Over the last few seasons we've conceded a lot of goals, and although this is partly due to midfield pressure, a good chunk is also the personnel. In the key positions Mal Michael - our main FB of the last two seasons - is gone. Ryder is still young and fades out of games, and Fletcher is 34. The odds are for a good chunk of the season we'll be playing Ryder + two kids as our KP, and if we're lucky we'll have the ageing Fletcher in the pocket instead of one of them. Opposition teams will be cringing at this prospect.

The smalls are fantastic for rebound, but not so good at defending. Neither Slattery nor Atkinson have nailed down the BP, while Nash, NLM, Dempsey are all good rebounders but have question marks on their ability to shut down the forwards. Dempsey is doubtful to even get on the field, while Myers apart from being a kid, is likely to be developed in the midfield.

Overall, this unit is just too weak not to see it leaking goals. NLM (85), Ryder (52) and Fletcher (294) would be the only players in it with over 50 games, and few of its members are shut-down players. Given NLM may not even be played, and Ryder has only 52 games, that is an awfully inexperienced defence. Likely to be out muscled and out thought.

One other thing that must be remembered, is that most top defences play together for a long time with the main players together before they get good. They need to know where each other is going to run, how and when to help out, and who can be trusted to do what. Beyond Fletcher & Ryder, we're not even sure who'll be playing in defence this year. So that cohesion is a long way off.

Midfield
The problem with the midfield is its made up of players with big flaws, or who are very young and have a lot of 'potential' added to their assumed ability, or are assumed to get over injuries, or assumed to continue on once-off form from 2008. Optimistic views also ignore the influence Peverill, and to a lesser extent JJ, had with their big bodies, crashing packs over the last two years.

Many here expect McVeigh to lead the midfield in 2009, replicating the form we saw over 5-7 games in 08. Why? McVeigh will be 28 years old next season. He never performed at the level he did in early 08 before, he may not in the future. And even if he begins to in 09, we have no idea if he'll be able to handle a tag. Quite frankly, putting this much expectation on a guy who's had one brilliant part of a season and never been a major tag target seems unfair and likely to result in personal pain to the viewer.

Watson, Stanton, Lovett have all got strengths, but do not work both ways. Lovett especially goes missing. We're assuming that Welsh and Hille can continue the form of last year when its totally based on 2008 (like McVeigh), and ignores they've both had plenty of time to produce at that level before and haven't. Odds are, one will fall back. And if that's Hille, then we've just got Laycock in reserve. Heaven help us if he needs to significantly contribute, let alone carry the ruck if Hille is injured. Lots of weight has also been given to the recruitment and addition to the team of Prismall. Don't expect much from him. He'll be coming back from a knee injury, getting fit, learning the game plan/players, and moving from being surrounded by Ablett/Bartel/Corey/Kelly/Enright to our midfield. By the time he's figured out what has hit him, the season will be over. And given Winderlich's injury history and current woes, it's a big gambler who thinks that 54 game player will have a significant impact in 2009.

Of course, then there are the 'young guns'. Lonnergan had a pretty decent 2008 (although he's a bit older as well), Houli, Reimers & Myers showed a bit, Jetta ran around a lot, did some good runs, and failed spectacularly to get much of the ball. But let’s face it - most sides around our position on the ladder have multiple young midfielders from the last three drafts, often with high picks. Port has Boak and Hartlett. Carlton has Grigg and Yarran. Brisbane has Rich and Proud. Just to mention their highest picks. Obviously like us with Houli & Reimers, they'll have later picks as well. So why do we expect to see our kids develop so much more than theirs? Probably because we've watched them more, so we're aware of the good bits they've shown. And given their kids, those good bits get projected up till the player is at a minimum AFL quality, and often "top" quality. The simple fact is these kids will probably improve, but so will other teams' kids. We've got more kids to do it, but they're filling more holes as well. This isn't really too much of an avenue to propel us significantly up the ladder.

There is also the size issue. When we won those games both last year and in 2007, Pevrill and often JJ were in the side (and Hird & MJ in 2007). Peverill gave strength around the packs that we've lost with him, JJ, Hird and MJ. Watson, Welsh & McVeigh are the only older, big bodied midfielders, and this doesn't leave us with a huge physical presence at the clearances. Pev will be missed, and Skip is not the same type of player, even if he "fits the age group".

Forwards
Lloyd and Lucas are good foundations to build around. Except of course one of them has missed the bulk of a season now for several years. Getting older, safe to say this will continue. We then have the injury plagued Neagle & Gumbleton to cover them - or according to Knights join them if all four are fit - plus support from McPhee. Ok, if everything goes perfect on the injury front, won't all five get in each others way? And if not, why do we really expect that much out of Neagle & Gumbleton who have 13 games between them, and although they've "shown something", have proved nothing? And McPhee proved last year he's not up to holding a KP slot. So we've either got a top heavy unwieldy forward line at best, or if injuries plague this group again (and history is repeatable) we'll be filling key positions with inexperienced youngsters, or McPhee. Either way, not exactly promising.

On the smalls, well if you can fit them in around the talls Monfries and Davey do a good job. But neither are huge goal kickers, and Davey seems to get injured a lot. He has an awfully light body. And our midfielders aren’t' exactly renowned for chipping in with the goals either.

Overall, the forward line looks a bit of a mess.

Experience
Putting Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher to the side for the moment, we have 4 players with over 100 games experience. That's, ah, not very many. Now, obviously the three oldies are damn experienced, but they're also old. Getting more than 30-40 games out of the three of them could be considered a bonus. And this is exacerbated by who is in this group. One is McPhee hardly the most impressive guy on the list, and another is Welsh who early last year was yet to cement a position, and still has to prove he can continue his current role.

Overall, we're not very experienced, and that hurts you on the field. We're also lacking older, harder bodies, and that also hurts.

Champions/Elite Players & Spine
Ok, we've got the declining three oldies, and Hille and McVeigh probably qualify IF they can replicate their 2008, once off form. Given how many games we'll probably get out of the oldies, this doesn't exactly leave us with much. And only one midfielder. That vaunted spine will have a newbie at FB, a 55 gamer at CHB, and probably a youngster at either CHF or FF once one of Lloyd or Lucas succumb to injuries or loss of form. Most top sides will have multiple elite players, which we simply lack.

Summary
With his decision to play Neagle & Gumbleton no matter what, Knights is pretty much conceding this is a development season. We need to fill Lloyd & Lucas's shoes, and start filling in the FB position left vacant by Michael. Fletcher will probably also decline. And across the board even the kids talented enough need games under their belts.

Pretty much, we're filling positions from the backline to the forward line with inexperienced kids, hoping a few will come on, and even moreso that a couple will show real evidence that they can become elite. And a few will, but not sufficient to cover the issues surrounding the side (at least in 2009), and other teams will have kids improve as well. Too many of our kids have also had injuries, and having happened, that is likely to continue.

Overall, I think we'll finish 11th to 14th in 2009.
That's the pessimistic (re)view. The optimistic one will follow. Let the abuse begin! :)

N.B. I'm sure ATE thinks this is spot on!
 
ATE for those non blitzers, Is a pessimist who regularly s**t talks Essendon, yet claims to support them. He'd consider 2000 a failure because we didn't win every game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

tigertiger said:
11th to 14th is a good call and anymore then 8 wins would be seen as a good year for the bombers this year IMO.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, in 2008 we won 8 and lost a couple by a narrow that we could have won if we had played 4 quarters of football. This was during a season plagued by injury, in which we had a new head coach and coaching staff, and the players were acclimatising to a new game plan even while Knights was experimenting with ideas and matchups.

12+ would be a good year considering the season consists of 22 games. 8 wins was OK last year given the circumstances surrounding the season but we weren't as reliant on LLoyd, Lucas and Fletcher as opposition supporters like to think so I'd expect continued improvement from a few of our younger players to help us.

That is not an opinion on how many I think we will win and it's possible we will have a horror season and win less than 8, however the statement "anymore than 8 is good" sets the bar incredibly low when we should be progressing as a team (and if I had less class I'd make a joke about Richmond supporters accepting mediocrity, but I won't).
 
Enki said:
No it wouldn't, in 2008 we won 8 and lost a couple by a narrow that we could have won if we had played 4 quarters of football. This was during a season plagued by injury, in which we had a new head coach and coaching staff, and the players were acclimatising to a new game plan even while Knights was experimenting with ideas and matchups.

12+ would be a good year considering the season consists of 22 games. 8 wins was OK last year given the circumstances surrounding the season but we weren't as reliant on LLoyd, Lucas and Fletcher as opposition supporters like to think so I'd expect continued improvement from a few of our younger players to help us.

That is not an opinion on how many I think we will win and it's possible we will have a horror season and win less than 8, however the statement "anymore than 8 is good" sets the bar incredibly low when we should be progressing as a team (and if I had less class I'd make a joke about Richmond supporters accepting mediocrity, but I won't).
Click to expand...

couldnt have said it much better.. there is simply no logic behind saying essendon would have a good season if they did worse then this season.

anyone who says we will decline doesnt have any logic... i mean if we have any more injuries then last year then we will have to forfeight matches. it would be near impossible to have a worse year injury wise. we have had the experience of a full season working with a game plan and experimenting, we are much more settled now. i completely understand someone saying we will only finish with around 10-11 wins and not making the finals, but to say we will do worse then next season shows no logic
 
some reasonably good points made & if it all goes to shite again injury wise some of the scenarios you present may well pan out

but i dont think so, glass 1/2 full & all that
 
How depressing. Don't see what the point of that was :thumbsdown:

The optimistic one is taking a long time...

I'll be disappointed and think we've underachieved if we don't make finals this year.
 
Jonesy1987 said:
I think you'll be disappointed...
Click to expand...

We need a dose of reality on this board.

We had 22 players have off season operation ( a staggering number ) which means that EFC will be probably be underdone in the early part of the season.

Secondly, we didn't get enough games into our developing players like Gumbleton, Dempsey, Neagle etc. They will be played most weeks ( injuries withstanding ), whether their form waxes or wanes.

I hope that I am proven wrong !
 
As promised. Joining the side of the angels. :cool:

Positive (Re)View

Injuries
2008 was a horror run. But a lot has changed - a new fitness team, no sand dune running, a new philosophy. A lot of kids got more time in the AFL than they might normally, so the injuries last year had a bit of a cascading impact. And lets face it, a few of those injuries were to kids who given how much they were growing wasn't totally unexpected. Also, no doubt some of those injuries later in the year would normally have been played through, but what was the point in that?

Between the changes and (hopefully) a little dose of Karma, then we can hope that 2009 might actually be a good year for injuries. It also helps that a lot of the kids have that extra year into their bodies, and another pre-season.

Simply getting more game time out of Lucas, McVeigh, Davey, NLM and Winderlich will significantly boost our side.

Backs
With Fletcher as the general, and Ryder going over 50 games despite his years, we've got a good foundation to build around. NLM adds more experience and a hard edge, while youngsters such as Dempsey, Nash, Myers and Atkinson hold the potential to give it a viscous edge as soon as the balls in our hands. Few teams will be able to match us for speed out of the backline. And personally, I think Atkinson will fix our BP issues. If not, we’ve got the T. Slattery and Zakharis options, plus H. Slattery has a bit more experience. We’ll fix that issue in my mind in 2009.

On FB, yes it's a bit of an issue. But Michael was on his last legs last year anyway, and we've taken 2 of the 3 most promising key defenders in the last two drafts. Hurley probably would have gone top 5 in 2007, he was such an outstanding prospect. Yes, he went #5 this year, but that's because other kids came on, not him going back. With Fletcher lending support, Hurley and Pears should be able to "pass" in this area, at least as well as a number of other teams do, and over the next few years surpass those other teams.

Another big boost from adding Hurley will be his ability to take over the kick out duties, where we suffered at times last year. With Fletcher and Hurley around, both capable of launching a ball with precision over 50m, and a bunch of speedsters to complement, our defence will masacre the opposition on the rebound. Lloyd and Lucas will be licking their lips over the quick supply they'll probably get everytime the opposition fails to score going into the forward 50. This unit will show off Knights plans to perfection.

Another big boost for the defence will be the midfield. An improved performance there (explained below) and that will mean opposition teams have less time and space to deliver the ball into the forward line, and will not do it as often. This will obviously be very beneficial to our back line’s performance!

Overall, probably our biggest weakness, but also a source of strength. A lot depends on one of Pears or Hurley doing a bit at FB, but fully trust these two talented kids.

Midfield
There was a period last year where we cut other teams to bits. And there is good reason for that. Look at our core midfield. It is Hille, McVeigh, Watson, Stanton, Lovett and Winderlich. Each brings a strength that is as good as anyone's in the league - Watson's clearances, Hille's work, Lovett's brilliance and Stanton's hard running. With Welsh and Lonnergan emerging to add a bit more strength in the clinches, our team can make an argument that after putting our injury woes behind us, we can and will match any midfield going around. Although a number have some weaknesses, these tend to have been exagerated. It was espescially pleasing last year to see Stanton work out handling a tag, and Watson continuing to win clearances no matter who he went up against. And although some elements of that group are not fast, Lovett, McVeigh and Winderlich add a speed edge that few teams can match. Espescially when you consider who will be flowing out the backline to assist!

One of the arguments about the team is that we're inexperienced and have a group of boys. But that unit actually now has a lot of years in it. McVeigh, Welsh, Hille, Winderlich, Watson and Lovett will be 24 and over next season. Stanton has almost a hundred games under his belt. And Lonnergan although young, has been in the system since 2004 and is pretty strong bodied. These guys will be able to take the physcial pressure of opponents and a full H&A season, and hit back just as hard. McVeigh returning will take the tag focus back off Stanton. We saw how Stanton improved and started handling a tag in the second half of 2008. Imagine how much better he’ll be if the tag is removed! It should also be remembered, that although some of these guys are light on for AFL games, they’ve been in the system a while, learning the game plans, interacting with Hird & Lloyd, are more mature, and so are very different from other teams young inexperienced players.

The real bonus of this is the quality of the kids who'll be fighting for the last spots in the team. A number of them bring real quality and an asset that can be chosen to suit our opponents. Houli's hard running, Hocking's negating, Reimers hard edge, Jetta's speed and Myer's disposal.

The real eye opener? We'll be adding Prismall to the mix. Someone who has already shown they can perform at the highest level, with a number of strengths. He should be hitting his straps about mid-season, so even if we have an injury or two, between him and the youngsters it should be covered.

Now, some people will scoff at this next point. But there are many (I think) fans who really expected Laycock to hit his straps in 2008. I believe this partially influenced the dissapointment in him last year. But this was based on real evidence, both his historical games, but also the way in 2007 he was providing our midfielders with first use of the ball in the middle. In 2007 he showed his ability when he was first ruck, and often performed better with the tap work than Hille. His development in 2009 will give us a potent offset to Hille, having the option to bully the opponents ruckmen with Hille as he runs them raggard, and then competing with the tapwork with Laycock. Few teams will be able to counter our 2009 ruck combination.

I believe this unit will match any in the league in 2009, continuing on from the form we saw briefly before injuries crippled us in 2008.

Forwards
The real weapon of the side. Only one or two other clubs can match the Lucas/Lloyd combination - either in their forward lines or with tall defenders! Add the mobile Gumbleton, and that's going to stretch opponents out even further. McPhee also last year showed what he could do when not in the two key positions. Quite simply, few teams will have the height to be able to counter every option. And although in the past the delivery into the forward line has been miserable, the new breed of midfielders should have the time and skills to vastly improve. Over the decade we've enjoyed one of the (or THE?) best conversion rates of forward entries into goals. Expect us to shoot right back up to the top of the table there.

In the smalls, we've got the fierce defensive pressure of Davey and Monfries. Davey was sorely missed last year - his ability to leave a defender in his wake and turn a 1 on 1 marking contest into a simple mark, the way he could cut the defenders apart with his run & carry, and with the fear he put into defenders to hurry disposal as he hunted them down. His inclusion will add more goals each week than he simply has against his own personal name. And Monfries really came into his own last year. As most teams create a quarterback who directs play out of defence, we found Monfries who could shut that man down, while still collecting 15 valuable disposals a year. He's still young, and with another pre-season under his belt expect him to become a real thorn in the opposition's side.

Stanton, Lonnergan and McVeigh are also all capable of chipping in with
goals. As are Prismall and Lonnergan.

We've also got the depth in the forward line. An injury to a tall isn't too bad, since we've got Neagle and Gumby to cover. With the smalls, Jetta can easily fill in for Davey while Reimers adds a hard edge and Lonnergan can also kick goals. Watson has the ability to out mark most mids, and improved kicking could see him become a dangerous option to float forward. And of course we've got the two rucks who are both capable of drifting or playing forward, and making an impact.

Overall, expect a deluge of goals.

Height & Speed
Finally, with the mobile McPhee and Gumbleton in the forward line, rotating with Lloyd through the half-forward positions, we'll have a set of strong, mobile marking targets moving through the midfield. Although this won't impact clearances, the ability to move the ball and control it when we have it should not be discounted. We could easily now move the ball from one end to the other via marks, leaving a wake of tired tall defenders behind us.

And if that's not working, we can rely on our speed. With Lovett, Winderlich, Davey, McVeigh, NLM, Dempsey, Jetta and Atkinson our ability to run and carry will be unsurpassed. And its not as if Stanton and Prismall are exactly slouches either. Hawthorn showed what quality speedsters combined with good talls can do with their win over Geelong in the Grand Final.

But its not just run and carry. Speed allows our players to shut down the opposition better, get to the loose ball first, or turn a contest of strength into an easy mark. Speed allows the user to have more time, to make better decisions. Our talls marking also gives the player the option of time, plus the ability to cool down if we need to. With the talls running and marking, the speedsters making options, it will allow us to build space into the midfield and transfer the ball quickly and effectively.

Champions/Elite Players
Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher are all still capable of turning a game. Hille should have been in the AA squad last year, and if McVeigh hadn't got injured he might have taken home a Brownlow. Add the emerging talents, and there is a lot of quality in the side. And we've got a lot of players who in their role are as good as anybody. Sydney showed you can go all the way without more than a handful of key elite players. We also have the players in the right positions to be influential beyond the pure number of elites we have, and we'll benefit from the strength of the entire 22. If we play the game to our style, and rely on our strengths, we can beat anyone.

Gameplan
Last year we clearly suffered as people had to learn a new gameplan. This was exacerbated as injuries forced players into roles they hadn't trained for, or weren't ready for. A year on, with familiarity of the game plan, and variations rolled out to handle more situations, this should become a strength rather than a weakness. Look to see the players perform better as a unit than they did last year, utilising the strengths of the team much better.

Also, on this I’ll touch on our drafting. Personally, I think it has been done very very well over the last few years. Both the individuals selected and the overall approach. With Hurley, Ryder, Pears, Laycock and Gumbleton we’ve selected the keys to our spine, and adding in Neagle, DD, Hooker & Still doesn’t hurt. Around these we’ve taken quality smalls with high picks such as Stanton, Dempsey, Monfries, Myers, Winderlich, Jetta and Zakharis. Along with the quality picks outside the top 25, I think we’ll be a force to come for a while.

Leadership & Culture
I believe we truly get something from our culture few other clubs can match. Culture is why I’ll always hesitate to rate St Kilda or Richmond. With leaders such as Lloyd, Hille and McVeigh around, I believe this is a strength that will help influence the youngsters and bring out the best in the club and the players.

Player development
One advantage that applies across the field is that our team is young and talented. Each of the last few years the main core in McVeigh, Watson, Stanton and Welsh have continued to improve, and many are of an age where we can expect it to continue. Stanton and Watson as good as they are, shouldn’t really be expected to fully hit their straps for a year or two. Lonnergan, Houli, Jetta, Davey and Monfries should all improve. This should have a marked impact in all facets of our play and on the ability of the opposition to cover all our guns. Look forward to giving lots of opposition coaches headaches!

Summary
This team showed briefly last year what it could do when the personel were actually on the park. With the youngsters having another pre-season behind them, and no significant players leaving beyond the tired Michael, this team will improve. The question is - how much? With the strengths this team can bring to bare, a midfield who matches anyone on clearances, is supperior on speed, and a forward line who can outmark and outrun the opposition, I believe there is a huge improvement in us.

Key players back from injury such as Lucas, McVeigh, Winderlich and Davey, the inclusion of Prismall, time into young legs, and a more ingrained knowledge of the game plan will all make us a headache for opposition teams. Although we'll still lack consistency due to youngsters, that will be less than it was and less of an issue. The pressure we'll have for spots will ensure we've got the depth and performance to challenge for the top four.

Overall, I think we'll finish 3rd to 5th in 2009. Ala Hawthorn in 2007. So bring on 2010! :thumbsu:

Hopefully everyone likes and agrees with that one moreso that the first
review!
 
Realistic Re(view)

I actually lean more towards the negative review's position, but not for the same reasons. It is my opinion that Knights is going to have to bite the bullet and do a lot of stuff in 2009 for development purposes over going all out for the win, and that will cost us on field in 2009. For example, even if Fletcher lasted two more seasons, in 2011 you'd have your tall defenders being Ryder on close to 100 games (tick), but then 2 out of our current talls, probably on about 20 => 30 games each. Ouch. Even worse of course for 2010 if Fletcher hangs up his boots at the end of this season. If you want them to have 30 => 40 games, you almost need to play both Pears AND Hurley every chance you can this year, even if it means an unbalanced defence. There is a similar story up forward.

Personally, I think two of my critiscm's of Sheedy in the post-2006 season are coming home to roost. One was drafting Mal Michael - it cost us two years of development in another young key back. Sure, whoever we drafted instead might not have been up to it, but they might at least have the frame and bit of experience to act as a stopgap. And we really needed to trade one of Lloyd & Lucas while they had value, just to open up spots in the forward line. We've now got the problem we need to play all of Lloyd, Lucas, Gumby & Neagle just to get games into the youngsters. As much as it would have hurt having say Lucas have that AA 2007 (it should have been :( ) in another team's colours, it would have assisted our development and probably given us another top 20 pick from the 2006 draft (imagine if we'd had one of the Brown's to fill that KP defender issue. Or Selwood!).
But we didn't trade either, and we drafted Heffernen & Michael. Two years later after finishing 13th and 12th, we've got to play an unwieldy team to get games into kids, while not being unfair to Lloyd & Lucas by retiring them early. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We also lost Bradley before we wanted to because we didn't have room up forward (plus Sheedy was an idiot with Johns).

On the other hand, I think our midfield is developing much better than other teams and some of our supporters give us credit for. Anyway, in detail:

Backs
A real problem. Most top teams' back lines have had a number of years to gell together. Look at Hawthorn's whose team is young, but most members of the backline had been together since the 2006 season (Brown, Croad, Hodge, Guerra, Birchall, with Ellis and Gilmore being more recent additions but still 2007). So they'd had 3 seasons together for most of them. We can't even name a backline yet. We're not sure if Atkinson or Slattery will be the BP. If Hurley or Pears will be FB - or will Fletcher return to the position after a 2 year hiatus? Who out of NLM, Nash, Myers, Dempsey will be the HB flankers? The only settled position is Ryder at CHB (who is still learning) and that Fletcher will play somewhere. Pretty much, this year will gain a tick if we simply determine who the backline is, and let them start building the cohesion they need to have in 2010 => 2012 as we start pushing up the ladder. This won't be helped if we're trying to force games into Hurley & Pears, unless one can ligitimately hold a HBF position (and Pears might be able to). In some ways, being able to play a line up of (say) Atkinson, Hurley, Fletcher, and then Pears, Ryder, NLM/Nash/Dempsey would be ideal, as then after 2009 Pears could move to the 3rd tall, or maybe McPhee could return and do that. However, puts a lot of pressure on Hurley & Pears to develop fast and well. Probably won't happen with both.

I'd also like to say I've a bit of a query on Ryder. He didn't exactly get a lot of possessions last year, and he can fade out. A lot of people are chalking him down to be a champion of the club, and although he has the tools, I think we need to recognise there is still a way to go. It is not certain he will make it. That said, he's still very young.

So overall, I see the defence as a very big weakness, and we'll probably leak goals. On the plus side, it should be good at rebounding once the ball is in our hands, and we've got a lot of talent down there.

Midfield
Fundamentally, I think this will be a strength. In my view McVeigh will continue his form, as will Hille and Welsh. I think Stanton, Watson, Lovett and the others still have development in them. I really rate Winderlich, and think his inclusion plus Prismall will more than replace the impact of losing Peverill. These are a bunch of guys who are starting to hit the years when they should be developed physically. So even if they haven't necessarily got the games experience, we should have the bulk, talent and strength over the ball to handle other teams. Add Lonnergan's bulk, and consider that we've got Hocking, Reimers, Myers, Jetta, Houli in reserve, and I think we'll have a lot of depth and a lot of pressure on places. We showed last year that if we have the guys on the ground, we can beat other team's midfields. A key strength of our team will obviously be pace, where Lovett, Winderlich, Prismall and Stanton are all reasonably quick or better. Myers & Houli aren't slouches, and Jetta, Dempsey, and NLM & Davey from either flank all contribute as well.

I should point out that although I think we have depth, its not necessarily reliable depth. In the sense that, I think we've got a lot of youngsters who can come on, contribute, and show a bit. Can they fill in one or more of the first 5 midfield positions for 22 rounds? Probably not. So we'd still suffer if we had multiple injuries to that core group of McVeigh, Stanton, Welsh, Watson, Lovett and Winderlich. Prismall & Lonnergan might be able to do it, but its always harder when the spotlight is on you.

Also, I don't think that we lack and out and out midfield champion is necessarily a problem. I've always rated elite talls more than midfielders, and I think we have the players and depth to create a midfield that is full of guys just below that elite threshold. I think McVeigh, Hille and Stanton are already there. If three or four more can join that level (and I think the talent is there), then we can compensate for a lack of sheer individual brilliance with team brilliance.

The biggest problem for the midfield will probably be run. If we're really playing all of Neagle, Gumby, Lloyd, Lucas, McPhee and two rucks, then it's the midfield rotations that will suffer. This will be mitigated to a degree if McPhee, Gumby & Lloyd can push down the flanks into the midfield, but it won't dissapear. It will also mean some of our small youngsters will lose the chance to get games and develop, but I'd prefer to concentrate on getting games into Pears, Hurley, Neagle and Gumby before our trio of elites move on and can't show them the ropes. Although it should be remembered that Lucas and Lloyd didn't have anyone to show them the ropes much with Hird playing as much in the midfield as the forward line.

One other thing, I do rate Laycock. I honestly believe we could soon have one of the better ruck combos going around. The biggest problem is that I see both as being honestly good at taking stints forward, for which there will be no room in 2009 due to the talls in the forward line. A real shame, and again having to play those 4 talls will cost us development and opportunity to use this weapon for the rucks.

Forwards
Frankly what could be a strenth will be a real variable in 2009. Lloyd and Lucas are still champions. Neagle and Gumby look very promising. Having Davey back in is a significant boost, as is the development of Monfries. Reimers, Lonnergan or Jetta add a different variable, and I rate McPhee in the O'Keefe role, although he does need to move the ball on quicker (NOT saying he's as good as O'Keefe, but saying he plays the role quite well).

The problem is structure. Lloyd & Lucas can still be one of, if not the, best tall combos going around. Complement with a third tall or resting ruckman, have two smalls out of Davey, Monfries and Jetta/Reimers at ground level, and McPhee pushing up in the O'Keefe role and it will be a headache. A real combination of movement, marking strength and the ability to lock the ball in.

However, if we go with that setup, then two out of the talls and rucks will be filling bench positions, significantly cutting down our midfield rotations (espescially as we're only playing two 'pure' smalls in Davey and Monfries, so they'll be of limited assistance in the middle). Taking those two talls off the bench and onto the ground will leaves us very tall and volatile. Capable of dominating the air one day, and running into each other's way the next. Now, if Gumby is as mobile as people are saying, and/or if we push McPhee up into the midfield or backline, it might mitigate this. If some of the players I'm designating as 'tall' can play through the midfield as a winger, it could help with the run in the side. However, not many talls are successful playing in the midfield, most of those who do are champions and not over 30. I'd question whether McPhee has the skill and if Gumby has the body (frankly no idea on talent either, but I'll assume that's covered ;) ). So I'm not sure if that technique will work across the year.

Overall, I don't expect this area to significantly improve on last year. Or if it does, it have been at the expense of the midfield rotation.

Gameplan
I'm going to hold off on the gameplan. I totally agree it takes time to implement a new one, and espescially so when it's a radical change and you've got a lot of youngsters. Injuries also didn't help Knights cause last year. So overall, I'm optimistic we'll be more effective next year.

Still haven't decided what I feel about the core elements though, need to see how the minor aspects work before I do. Worried that we might have a H&A plan, not one that works for finals. But the recruitment of Hurley, Still, Pears and Hooker seems to imply Knights rates talls, so hopefully he doesn't follow the Richmond & Bulldogs path and concentrate too much on speed.

Champions/Elite Players & Spine
I said earlier that it wasn't an issue that we haven't got elite mids if we can have a very high overall average, and elite talls. We do have those elite talls, but they are getting quite old. And we have invested the picks to get future ones (with a bit of luck), but they're a way off. This is generally a concern, as well as the age of our spine. Its either very old in the key forward & back positions, or very young. We'll probably have days when everything clicks and the midfield is dominating and its all gravy. And then days when we can't do a thing right and win a major position in either 50m zone. And if a few of the young talls don't develop, we could be in all kinds of strife. Good thing Knights has 'bought' coverage with later picks of Still, DD and Hooker.

Opposition Teams
I do think most of the teams around us will improve. If you look at the teams with a lot of older players, its Sydney, Adelaide, Port (at least in key talls) and was Freo (cleaned out last year). Two of those are above us, two below, and there will probably be at least one side (maybe two) struck by terrible injuries. So the room for automatic improvement isn't huge. Consider that most of the teams around us will improve, and a few below us, and you begin to understand that to keep 12th spot, let alone go up the ladder, we've got to improve. So when considering how much better we'll be next year, don't automatically translate all of that improvement into ladder positions. Richmond, Carlton, WCE, etc. will all be harder to beat next year.

Development & pressure
One advantage is that across the field we have young players pushing for spots, so that hopefully if they improve we might be able to get improvements across the ground. This may also translate into pressure on players in the 22 to improve as well. However, this will be mitigated to the degree that some spots may be 'given' to certain young talls to develop. Although, that will mean less midfield spots, so we'll see some hot contests to be selected!

I think this will be good, but it will also create pressure for kids to go elsewhere at the end of 2009 for game time. For example, if fit I think the midfield selects itself with one of McVeigh, Watson, Stanton, Welsh, Lovett, Winderlich, Prismall and Lonnergan MISSING OUT, with Monfries & Davey up forward. Doesn't leave any room for Houli, Myers, Jetta, Hocking etc. Now, there will be injuries, but still, we'll need to manage how we keep the youngsters so that once we go back to more smalls, the best ones haven't left.

Summary
Overall, I think my first few paragraphs sum it up. We'll sacrifice ladder position for development. I'd expect us to end up between 9th and 12th, depending on how other teams develop. :eek:

If we went all out for the grand final, it would depend hugely on key injuries (Fletcher, Hille, Ryder), and the degree a Fletcher + one of Pears/Hurley combination can fill FB & the 3rd tall. If the midfield really clicks and we play our best forward combination, we could simply outscore other teams and avoid some of the issues with the defence. I don't think we'd be a real premiership chance (I believe defences win premierships, and ours wouldn't have played together enough), but certainly we'd give the top 4 a shake. BUT, I do think this would hurt us for the post Fletcher, Lloyd & Lucas years, and might even see one of Gumby & Neagle leave to get game time. As Bradley did.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just putting my thoughts for 2010 down for perpetuity, since I quite like to come back 12 months later and see what I thought. No reason to open up a new thread for that, and if anyone enjoys reading this all the better. Can't be stuffed doing the whole pessimistic/optimistic/realistic versions again, so just one realistic view here.

I'll cover general concepts first, and then do a separate post on each of the areas of the ground.

Ins vs Outs
On a pure ins and outs view, we're stuffed. I was a big proponent of having Lloyd retire, but I never shied away from the fact it would hurt us short term. Interestingly, it feels like a lot of the people who were insulting me back in September now automatically feel Lloyd was "past it". Similar story with Lovett, who's gone from a controversial tradee to thank god we got rid of him - and not always seemingly just due to his off field antics.

So how did the off season really fare? Well, for 2010 it was just plain crap, thats how it fared. As much as I think Lloyd might need to go for our young tall forwards to get time, as much as Lovett was ill disciplined, as much as Skipworth was only decent mature depth, and as much as I don't believe McPhee should be best 22 for a premiership team, these players were all pretty useful in the short term.

We lost our 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th highest goal kickers. Which when you consider how many games McPhee spent back (7th) and Lucas spent out (3rd), is pretty bad. Sure, this doesn't look so bad on an averages basis, but its still pretty shocking. All four players have been automatic best 22 for years, and only Lucas ceased to be last year. More importantly, you can point to a number of games where one or more of those guys won us the match. Skipworth although hardly setting the world on fire, was quite useful for a patch in the first half of the season and was another mature body who contributed to a number of our wins.

Against that, we added a number of new draftees and Williams. For 2010 purposes, I'll discount the draftees - even with Hardringham getting anything from them in 2010 is in my view a bonus. Williams however is a great pick up. Classy, skilled and plays a position we've lacked, a true forward minded medium forward. Able to kick goals and set up play. Only issue is fragility - he's missed the bulk of 2 of the last 3 seasons - but both him and pick #23 for Lovett was a good deal even before Lovett's demolition act on himself.

Melksham is obviously the one we're pinning hopes on, but hopefully history will say we won the ins and outs. BUT - I doubt very much we'll win them in 2010. For this season, we have holes to fill.

The Draw and 10.5 wins
Lets be realistic. Very very seldom would 10.5 wins put you in the eight. Its unlikely to next year, which means even if we tread water replacing the outs from 2009, we'd probably miss the eight this year.

Then, have a look at the draw. The break up of our draw is:

8 games against last year's top 4 (in Melbourne)
3 games against last year's finalists in Melbourne (Carlton x 2, Brisbane)
2 games against the 2008 premiership side (Hawthorn in Melbourne).
3 games against teams interstate (Sydney, Adelaide & WC)
6 games against teams outside the 8 last year in Melbourne.

You would think we'd need around 12 wins to make the finals. Looking at that break down of matches, its a bit frightenning. Especially if our inexperienced team fluffs any against the weaker sides. On the upside, history says one of those top 4 sides will have a crap year due to injuries/form, while a poor side will improve, so we may with hindsight be slightly better than it looks currently. And Hawthorn have been pretty injury struck.

So between the fact that we've got a tough draw, and we will probably need to improve on last year's 10.5 wins, its a bit worrying and will be a struggle to make the eight.

2009 - the second half
Commetti made a damn good point in his comments pre the WCE NAB match - that we only won 2 of our last 8 games. The second half of the season was pretty crap, so how do we interpret that? Especialy given we lost games to teams like WCE and Richmond. There are a number of possible reasons, such as:

- the young players got tired.
- no Hille or Laycock meant Ryder and Hooker had to take the ruck. As Ryder got tired from his first full ruck season, Hooker took more time meaning for periods of the games we got killed out of the middle.
- the older players returned underdone and/or can't play our style, and it fell apart. Welsh, Prismall, McVeigh, Reimers all got games off limited preparation.
- we had no good key positions players as Lloyd stopped functioning and Lucas was dropped.
- opposition teams worked out our gameplan, except the Saints who after winning against everyone dropped their guard. Teams pressured the ball carrier more and clogged up our forward lines.
- injuries to key players - Ryder got tired, Stanton got injured, Winders could no longer play midfield, Lloyd could hardly move fast.

Personally, I think it was a combination of all those reasons. The degree to which we can overcome them will be telling tests of our outcomes in 2010. The key ones in my mind is the game plan, Hille/Laycock's return and the key positions. Injuries just must be managed - not too much to "control" there, and younger players get older and fitter. A fit Hille and Laycock actually means we should have a strong ruck division with Ryder, so hopefully a more consistent effort in the tap outs. But if we don't start finding key position players up forward, we're ****ed. This would also help mitigate the issue of teams dropping back spare men into the defensive 50. However, we need to fundamentally get the run and carry working or we're ****ed as well. Which leads me onto ...

Time together & the Game Plan
Do not under-estimate the time a solid team usually needs to play together before they are a premiership contender. I would say two years minimum, but often more like four with several finals campaigns under the belt. You can always slot in some class onto the edges (J. Selwood, Rioli, Misiti/Hird/Mercuri in 1993), but that core must have games together. On every line, midfield, forward and backline. Look at the cats. They fundamentally had the same midfield in 2005/2006 as 2007. It was rated nowhere near as highly in 2005/06 as 2007/08 though.

Our team has not had time to play together. Even some of the "older" players, like Winderlich and Dyson, have barely had two solid seasons in the first 22. Indeed, with Lovett going probably only Watson, Hille and Stanton have been clearly in our starting midfield for over 2 seasons. People will point to McVeigh & Welsh, to which I'll say "rubbish". With the exception of a brief stint in early 2008 for McVeigh and late 2008 for Welsh, neither have consistently performed in the midfield (although to be fair on Welsh, he wasn't played there prior to mid-2008). McVeigh didn't play consistently in the midfield until 2008.

So the midfield hasn't played together, what about defence. Nope. Last year we finally got a full season with four players together (Fletcher, Pears, Slattery & Dempsey), and so we have something to build with, espescially if they give Hooker CHB for all year. Its a good foundation, but they've had about one year of experience playing together.

Lets not talk about the forwards. At least Monfries has been there a few seasons! :rolleyes:

This is all part of the reason why losing McPhee, Lovett, Lloyd and Lucas will hurt. At least teammates knew them, how to play with them, and what to expect. And they knew what a lot of the players around them would do. Nobody knows how players will move, how they will lead, who can be trusted to win 1 on 1 and who needs support and when.

So, to the gameplan. First up, I've got my doubts. No team has won with a simple run and carry approach before. Its easy to say the WCE had that style, but Cousins, Judd, Braun, Kerr, Cox were as much about bash, crash and block as carry. Still they were close to that style, but had something we lack. 4 of the elite players in the game in the same midfield at the same time (Cousins, Cox, Judd & Kerr), plus other quality players (Braun, Embley). We don't have that, but we do have some potential in the tall forwards (Hurley, Gumbleton, Neagle). Can that overcome this deficit for the same general approach? Or will we be the first with a set of quicksilvers to turn Neasham's dreams into reality?

As I said, I have my doubts. I can't remember a premiership team who had a bunch of skinny dudes in the midfield. Even the ones with only good midfields. We've got Stanton and Watson who are reasonably big. And? Lets just say there is a lot of prayers on my behalf on a couple of Hocking/Lonnergan/Myers/Melksham/Welsh/Reimers making it and getting a lot bigger in the process. Faster skinny players like Dyson/Winda/Lovett/Dempsey/Houli(?) have their place, but we saw how the gameplan fell apart last year as teams pressured the runners. We need tough bodies to win contests and drive through, ala M. Johnson, Wellman, Hardwick and J. Johnson.

But to be fair, a big issue with the gameplan will again be how long the team has had together practicing it. I'm not convinced, but will let Knights try and woo me this year. If Hurley and one of Neagle/Gumby/Carlisle/Still/Darcy clicks up forward, it could all look a lot more potent.

Fan Expectations
Lets just say that fans can expect a little too much sometimes. Its very easy to see a little, and project a lot. The areas of biggest concern to me are:

Hille - Look, big men often don't come back well from knee injuries. Or at least, not straight away. Think Schwarz, Primus, Rehn, Gardiner or more recently Bailey. For a guy who's mobility is such a big part, frankly I'm doubtful he'll be able to come near his B&F season.
Also, don't project too much off 2008. It was a once off, with no guarantee that even without injury 2009 would have backed it up. I know the stats don't agree, but I did think Hille did not start 2009 off brightly. Its always dangerous to project that a player who's had one good year, got a major injury, will come back anywhere near as good. And lets face it, historically pre-2008 he wasn't particularly great up forward.

McVeigh - People have been talking about him as being a key ingredient in the midfield. Lets be honest here, prior to that patch in 2008 he had never been a consistent midfielder and he hasn't since coming back from injury either. He may never be. I personally think he will be a good contributor there this year (I actually thought he was good in the NAB cup match first half), but lets dampen the expectations a bit.

Prismall - Again, lets dampen the expectations. The cats have yet to let someone go who turns out to be A grade. Callan has fallen over. Maloney won't reach any great heights. Prismall looks like being a solid recruit, but I do feel people view him with a very biased eye. He has probably shown a lot less than Stanton had at his age - yet is being treated far more favourably. Don't be too sure he'll be the messiah - although he should at least be a very handy cog.

Hurley/Pears/Hooker/Dyson/Ryder in the ruck - All looked damn good last year. But don't forget 2nd year blues (and yes, I know several aren't in their second year). The point is, when players start showing something teams start paying attention, and planning against them. Do not be surprised if the rate of improvement on these guys drops a lot next year. They may improve, but as teams focus on negating our new spine and better performed 2009 players, they'll have to face and overcome new obstacles.

Fletcher's invulnerabilit to age - I see a lot of comments saying Fletcher can play on for years. I think this is true. But lets focus on the word "can" - in this context lets not forget it is "possibly". We were saying Lloyd would be able to play as a goal square warrior for years a little while ago - that proved false. So although we all hope and believe Fletch can keep being inspector gadget for years to come, don't be surprised if he drops off. Maybe even this year.

Injuries and pre-season
There is a flip-side to that last post. We had a pretty bad run with injuries last year, including in the pre-season. Welsh, Reimers, Prismall & McVeigh all came back mid-year with no pre-season under their belt. Davey was coming back from a knee-reco. Hille, Still, Laycock, Hurley all missed big chunks or all of the season.

By all reports, this year's pre-season has been mostly injury free. We actually had a game with Neagle, Laycock and Gumby in the same side! :eek: We changed fitness teams late 2008, and hopefully those benefits are now coming through.

It is fair to say with a decent run with injuries, and given the pre-season, that all else being equal we should get improvement simply from the lack of discruption and having players available and/or putting selection pressure on senior players.

Improvements
There are a number of players we can expect improvements from, either due to age, lack of experience or injuries last year. This is very fair.

The only problem is - so can other teams. Other teams had great 2007, 2008 drafts. Others had injuries. All can point at kids/inexperienced players they hope will step up and become major contributors.

Now, hopefully ours will have more impact. Good contributions from three of Hooker, Hurley, Gumbleton, Neagle and Still would not only be useful in and of themselves, but have a huge impact on our structure and game style. Hille, McVeigh and Welsh playing well would not only give us more quality, but more hardened bodies at the contests.

So I would feel we have more room for improvement because our holes are bigger. That is of course a double edged sword, in that the consequences of not getting improvement is bigger.

Summary
Overall, I feel this will be a learning year and we'll be back in the pack a bit. I expect a 8th to 11th placing - probably the same number of wins but slightly outside the eight. Simply put, all the skill in the world won't overcome lack of experience. With several teams outside last year's eight probably primed to push harder this year (WCE, Hawthorn, Port), I think we'll struggle a little bit. And say goodbye to the gimme games - no point in anyone tanking this year. Melbourne, Richmond, Freo and North will be going at it with far more purpose than they might in a "normal" year.
 
Backline
Arguably, if Fletcher can stick around for a bit this is in my view the most stable area, with some pretty good potential quality. I rate Pears and Hooker as a backline combination, since they can mix it against the athletic, tall and built forwards between them. Fletcher provides a chop out, and the ability to take someone smaller or taller as needs be. All provide drive, as does the next "lock" of Dempsey.

The question is the smaller roles. Slattery is a misere to get first go, although some of us have doubts. The other smaller role? Who knows. Could be Reimers, Atkinson, Houli, Hardringham or Myers. Whoever it is, they need to have a defensive side, and get some solid games playing the back 6 unit. If McVeigh doesn't impress in the midfield, I'd have him back as the 6th member ASAP. IMHO, McVeigh was an elite backman when played there.

This unit should only get better on last year, where for long periods we had no true CHB (injuries to Hille, Laycock, Darcy, Hurley and Still meant Hooker played ruck and McPhee back :( ). I think we can have a good mix here, the main thing is to get experience and stability.

Rucks
Mixed feelings here. There is obviously a lot of risk. Laycock stays injured. Hille doesn't come back well. Belly doesn't keep progressing.

But overall, I'm pretty hyped. I have a big opinion of Laycock, and I was saying last year I was impressed by Bellchambers. That said, he really needs another 12 months (at least) of development, but I think he'll be much better backup this year. With Ryder hopefully improving a tad, I think we should be able to field a strong ruck division for the year. In my view few sides have a 3rd ruckman as good as Laycock, even if some might have a better #1 and/or #2 than us. So the unit if it can stay fit is strong.

Ryder and one of Hille/Laycock is lightyears ahead of a tired Ryder & Hooker combo, and will allow the resting ruckman to become a forward option.

I'm ignoring Bock. He needs more pasta. :D

Midfield
As mentioned above, we need some harder bodies here, and time spent playing together and doing clearance work. What I took from the first NAB cup match wasn't that we didn't win first taps/get our hands on the ball. It was how often things fell down from there. These guys need a bit bigger bodies and a bit more time together.

I'd also say that Winders must be in there. Sure, he's good up front. But his midfield time reducing coincided last year with our decline (plus Stanton's niggles). We need him gut busting through the middle as our Cousins, because we desperately need quality in the middle if 2010 is to be more than a development year.

That said, a nucleus of Watson, Stanton, Winda, Prismall, with Welsh tagging and Dyson outside isn't too bad. Pity its only played together one year. And we really need one of Myers/Melksham/Zaharakis to become elite (looking beyond 2010), or become a top player and one of those afore mentioned move up to elite status.

Players must start making SMARTER decisions. Too often its bad decisions and turn overs that hurt us, and not necessarily failing to run the other way. Its just when a bad turn over happens we are so exposed.

But probably the biggest issue is a clearance player to help Watson. That might be McVeigh refinding his 2008 form, one of Myers/Lonnergan/Hocking stepping up, or a Howlett/Zaha/Melksham/Marigilani putting up a hand. Although having someone other than Hooker rucking will help, this is a weakness.

Probably the most pleasing thing with the midfield is how good in 2009 they were at kicking goals. Hopefully that will continue in 2010.

It should not be forgotten this team did make the eight with this midfield, have lost only Lovett from it, and have a lot of youngsters/players with a full pre-season so a lot of scope for improvement. There are weaknesses there, and its a long way behind a Geelong/Bullies midfield. But we also have other strengths, so it may never need to be at that level.

Forward Line
This was a shambles in the NAB vs WCE, and after that match I didn't have too many hopes this year beyond "reasonable" and "developing". But our performances have been better since, and against Richmond Gumby had a full game playing in the "Nick Riewoldt/Richardson" style. And of course, Hurley will play after Round 3. So what are my views now?

Frankly, more questions than answers. Heaps of potential. Neagle, Gumby, Hurley and even Carlisle and Darcy have all shown a bit at one level or another. We should be able to build a good set of talls from that set. Darcy may also be able to play off the HFF/FP in a Welsh/Robertson/Johnson style role, since he has the mobility and isn't quite as tall. Provides a medium height option.

A strength is that all 3 of our main rucks can play forward a bit, which gives the coach some flexibility and the ability to stretch teams via the resting ruck. It helsp also how different Ryder vs. Laycock/Hille play forward as well, giving more options.

On the smalls, Williams and Monfries are class. Davey fumbles a bit, but provides a lot of pressure. If he refind the cleanness he had in 2007 (and to be fair, he's missed a lot of games due to injury) he'll increase the potency a lot. If Winderlich is here he should not be under-rated. A really class player.

I also have high hopes for Rimers/Zaha. Both have a lot of potential. Jetta adds depth in 2010.

The biggest issues are inexperience, uncertainty over the best line up, and lack of games together (or in front of the midfield). The midfield's ability to chip in for goals will help.

On Jetta, I actually like him. I don't think he's shown much to date, but I suspect he's a slower developer. Lewis Jetta just got picked up remember, and the Davey's didn't impress until ages 22+. Smaller players sometimes take a bit longer. I really hope he steps up in 2010, but wouldn't be surprised if it is 2011.

Whoever is on the park in our forward line, expect it to take a while to get use to playing with each other, knowing when and where to lead, and for the mids to learn when and where to kick it. Hopefully we can exert a bit more defensive pressure this year without the slow coaches of Lloyd and Lucas around.
 
Ants said:
That said, a nucleus of Watson, Stanton, Winda, Prismall, with Welsh tagging and Dyson outside isn't too bad. Pity its only played together one year. And we really need one of Myers/Melksham/Zaharakis to become elite (looking beyond 2010), or become a top player and one of those afore mentioned move up to elite status.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading your post Ants. Really well thought through. :thumbsu:

Zaharakis, on yesterday's form. I really think he has the potential to step into Lovett's role. He's quick, he makes good decisions generally, he's a terrific kick, and yesterday he showed he knows how to kick goals (not phased about kicking after the siren either :thumbsu:)

Any of Watson, Winderlich and Prismall could improve and become elite. Stanton's kicking is haphazard at times. Watson's improved, which is promising... maybe the only thing keeping him from 'elite' (whatever that is) is that he lacks pace. What he lacks in footspeed though, I think, he makes up for in quick decision making and disposal, and toughness at the contests.

I agree with your comments re: team chemistry. It's something that takes seasons to develop. St Kilda are in the same situation with Dal Santo, Hayes and Montagna. I remember when they were on the precipice 05, 06, 07. So I'm optimistic re: Watson (who already has a keen understanding with Hille and will now be better off for his year feeding from Ryder's ruck work as well), Winderlich and Stanton.

I'm interested to know how you think NLM slots in. In spite of my misgivings about him at the beginning of last season I think he's shown a lot of improvement and has developed into one of our tough bodies... part of me reckons he should be playing midfield.
 
ghostdog said:
I enjoyed reading your post Ants. Really well thought through. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Thanks.

On NLM, I've been of the view for a while that when he gets pushed into the 23 => 25 slot on the list, we'll be a good side. He's very handy depth, but I don't think he should be automatic starting 22 for a premiership aspirant. Not to say there won't be games he shouldn't play, and as I said very handy depth at both ends. But too many issues and not enough consistency.
 
Ants said:
As much as I think Lloyd might need to go for our young tall forwards to get time, as much as Lovett was ill disciplined, as much as Skipworth was only decent mature depth, and as much as I don't believe McPhee should be best 22 for a premiership team, these players were all pretty useful in the short term.

Totally agree with this. We will miss Lovett and Lloyd who directly contributed to at least 4 of our wins last year

We lost our 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th highest goal kickers. Which when you consider how many games McPhee spent back (7th) and Lucas spent out (3rd), is pretty bad. Sure, this doesn't look so bad on an averages basis, but its still pretty shocking. All four players have been automatic best 22 for years, and only Lucas ceased to be last year. More importantly, you can point to a number of games where one or more of those guys won us the match. Skipworth although hardly setting the world on fire, was quite useful for a patch in the first half of the season and was another mature body who contributed to a number of our wins.

This is quite a daming stat. I feel as though we can cover this though, we have Williams who can kick 40-50 goals, Laycock up forward, and will get more game time out of Gumby. We'll also get more goals from Zaka, McVeigh etc.

8 games against last year's top 4 (in Melbourne)
3 games against last year's finalists in Melbourne (Carlton x 2, Brisbane)
2 games against the 2008 premiership side (Hawthorn in Melbourne).
3 games against teams interstate (Sydney, Adelaide & WC)
6 games against teams outside the 8 last year in Melbourne.

Very tough draw, which can't be under estimated.


Commetti made a damn good point in his comments pre the WCE NAB match - that we only won 2 of our last 8 games.

Wow, I knew we didn't finish that strong but that's a real worry. I put that down to injuries and a young team getting tired. We'll do better then that this year.


Time together & the Game Plan
Do not under-estimate the time a solid team usually needs to play together before they are a premiership contender. I would say two years minimum, but often more like four with several finals campaigns under the belt. You can always slot in some class onto the edges (J. Selwood, Rioli, Misiti/Hird/Mercuri in 1993), but that core must have games together. On every line, midfield, forward and backline. Look at the cats. They fundamentally had the same midfield in 2005/2006 as 2007. It was rated nowhere near as highly in 2005/06 as 2007/08 though.

You sound like you've played footy as well. This is very very true but I feel that we've had more game time together then you stat. Pears played half the games in 2008 as well and our forwards have had Monfries, Davey, Longergan and Winders in there for a while. We will be a lot more settled this year and hopefully see some results come through.

Fan Expectations
Prismall - Again, lets dampen the expectations. The cats have yet to let someone go who turns out to be A grade. Callan has fallen over. Maloney won't reach any great heights. Prismall looks like being a solid recruit, but I do feel people view him with a very biased eye. He has probably shown a lot less than Stanton had at his age - yet is being treated far more favourably. Don't be too sure he'll be the messiah - although he should at least be a very handy cog.

Very very true. This is another reason why I don't understand why Stanton gets so much abuse. All you who do this, you'll all be eating your words.


Summary
Overall, I feel this will be a learning year and we'll be back in the pack a bit. I expect a 8th to 11th placing - probably the same number of wins but slightly outside the eight. Simply put, all the skill in the world won't overcome lack of experience. With several teams outside last year's eight probably primed to push harder this year (WCE, Hawthorn, Port), I think we'll struggle a little bit. And say goodbye to the gimme games - no point in anyone tanking this year. Melbourne, Richmond, Freo and North will be going at it with far more purpose than they might in a "normal" year.

I'm a little more positive, I think we'll get into the eight. I'm predicting 7th-8th and quite a similar year in terms of wins and the winning pattern. I just hope that we'll beat the Pies and Blues again.
Click to expand...

That way a great review, to be honest the best one I've read for the year. It's important for the fans to not get a head of themselves, we have some really great positives (injures being one) but we have lost so much with McPhee, Lucas, Lloyd and Lovett all going.
Great point on Pris/Stanton. I've added some of my opinions in bold.
Keep up the great work and I look forward to your post again next year.
 
daffo said:
That way a great review, to be honest the best one I've read for the year. It's important for the fans to not get a head of themselves, we have some really great positives (injures being one) but we have lost so much with McPhee, Lucas, Lloyd and Lovett all going.
Great point on Pris/Stanton. I've added some of my opinions in bold.
Keep up the great work and I look forward to your post again next year.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Thats easy.

1. Everything goes well and they finish last.
2. Everything goes well, Melbourne has a horror injury run, and they finish 2nd last.

See, easy.
 
Sorry for the bump, but just posting this in for prosperity as it will disappear off BB. Like to be able to go back and see what I said. Original post found here: http://www.bomberblitz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60329&st=30#

Looks like I should have been more optimistic about how the gameplan would gell. Still the major test is can we beat sides lower on the ladder back to back to back, and do we tire in the second half of the season. Time will tell!

****************************************
I'm again going to skip the whole optimistic/pessimistic thing. Simply don't have time.

2011 pre-season view

Overall, I'm reasonably optimistic about this year. A lot depends on the coaches, if they play a lot of the older players, we may do worse. And if they push exclusively for development, we may do worse. But if they focus on wins, or blend winning with development, I think we can do quite well.

2010 In review
Firstly, lets just spend a moment on 2010. In the pre-season, we lost Lloyd, Lucas, Lovett, McPhee and Skipworth (which included our 1st, 3rd, 4th & 7th highest goal kickers), we got the draw from hell playing 5 finalists twice + 2 interstate games, and we'd finished off 2009 by winning 2 of our last 8 games. It looked worrying, and it turned out that way.

Ironically, at the mid-point it wasn't so bad. We had 5 wins, and had done alright. But the wheels then fell off, and Knights appeared to totally lose the players, resulting in a horrendous second half to the season.

Ins & Outs
Over the preseason we lost, um, ok so we lost Houli. He was vital. And Atkinson - what will we do without him? So its safe to say that unlike the clear out we had at the back end of 2009, the playing list has not lost anyone substantial this year.

And if you look at the ageing players, we aren't too badly placed either. Hille is moving into dangerous territory, but wasn't stellar last year, and Fletcher has to decline at some point. But although they would be losses, neither would be critical. And Fletcher still looks potent in the NAB matches.

The ins are mostly raw recruits. Obviously we have high hopes for Heppell, and Hibberd is a bit older, but I'll stick with what I said last year. Anything from the draftees is bonus, and shouldn't be planned for or counted on.

The Game Plan
This is the interesting one. I think its hard to say that how this will pan out. Knights had a gameplan that worked brilliantly against teams who played their own game, and failed spectacularly against teams who focussed on beating it. So a new game plan should be better against most of the teams. But it always takes time to put a new one in place.

However, it looks like rather than rebuild the game plan, instead we've tweaked it a bit. It will be interesting to see how this performs in real H&A matches where we'll be under far more pressure - which was historically our undoing. But

Injuries
Already they have taken away (Pears) and given (Williams). 2010 was a decent year for injuries. That could have been luck (or the absence of the bad kind), but I'd like to believe those investments in fitness staff, plus more bodies in the 21 => 28 range had more to do with it.

So touch wood we can generally have at least a decent run in 2011.

Playing together
I've harped and harped on this - teams with settled 22's who are familiar with playing with each other do better. There are exceptions, but usually to win a premiership you need a core of players who've spent several seasons together, learning off each other. This is especially true for the defence. Now, that said, we ain't aiming for a premiership in 2011 (except the night kind).

Knights was mixed in this area. The talls were reasonably consistent. For the bulk of the season, and for most of our wins we had a spine of Pears, Hooker, Ryder/Hille, Gumby and Hurley/ruck/Neagle. But Pears, Hooker and Gumby were kept in position, and will have benefited from that. Unfortunately injuries and club suspensions did cause a lot of disruption.

The rest of defence wasn't too bad, with Fletcher, Dempsey and Slattery being staples. But the other parts rotated fluidly.

Up forward, after the talls Monfries and Davey were there. But Monfries missed a chunk of games, and other than this it was a cocktail of players. Lonners, Stanton, Hardingham, Winders, Jetta and others all rotated through.

And the midfield was a complete mess. Other than Jobe, was there a single player who didn't spend considerable time playing elsewhere, playing for Bendigo, or injured? I can't think of one. No wonder they didn't have a clue what each other was doing!

This is still an area that will take some time, and Pear's injury doesn't help. But a more robust gameplan that everyone knows may mitigate this - and we do have the fact a good chunk of this list has now played together for 3-4 years. Especially the 23+ year olds. Of course not all of this happened at AFL level, but hopefully it will help with the knowing where everyone is issues.

Youngsters
It bears mentioning - this is a bloody young team. Watson, McVeigh, Hille, Winders and Fletcher were really our only dead set clear best 22 players who were over 24. That means we should expect at least 75% of our best 22 to improve! Plus fringe players, 2010 draftees, etc. That is quite incredible, for a team that to the half-way point last year was tracking just below 50% on wins.

I would expect the players to come out fitter, stronger, and are obviously more experienced than this time last year. It would be hard for them not to be mentally stronger after dropping the bundle last year. I expect a couple (cough Stanton & Hocking cough) to actually be played in their correct positions, and to be starting to hit their straps.

Frankly, I've been saying for a little while that the recruiting has been better, and the philosophy was good. It looks like we've got a spine who are pretty close to functioning at AFL level, and maybe better (give it another year). The midfield has some good quality coming through, and we've had some value later picks and recent picks have an impact.

I'm really hopeful in this area, and think the list is better than expected.

So why worse?
Its actually hard to make an argument why we'd be worse. If you simply take the draw we play 2 less finalists than last year. We've lost nobody of significance in the off-season, a young team has another pre-season under their belts, and although Pears is injured Williams is fit.

Positions
Defence
Losing Pears hurts, and even if he comes back a month or so in he'll have had no preseason. Fletch can fill in, but it does limit his ability to play that fantastic third defender role. Slattery and Dempsey have their flaws, although both add some consistency.

Its really hard to rate, because Dempsey had a poor year last year and Slattery has question marks. Overall you have to rate it down, but it can't be worse than last year and has a heap of room for improvement. Obviously the defensive gameplan will also be of benefit. And we recruited heavily for small and medium defenders in the off-season. It just takes one or two to step up or someone to improve (e.g. Myers) and its a different ball game.

Midfield
I think it will be better than expected. Watson and Howlett provide grunt, while all of Hocking, Winders, Melksham can assist and act outside. Stanton is one of the best runners in the league and should be used that way. Jetta looks like adding speed and more inside/outside help, and Zaha keeps the speed stakes high and adds some class. No champions beyond Watson, but it is looking far more even with a lot of flexibility. McVeigh is the big query - him stepping up to the form we saw in 2008 (and never before or since) would be a huge difference.

I think this is a midfield that will be able to mitigate even the better ones, and beat a lot of weaker ones. Through a good chunk of 2010 we were near the top of the contested ball charts - add the allowance by the coach to actually kick the damn thing and I think we'll do some damage. The speed we still have in their is also extremely pleasing.

Rucks
Jeckyll and Hyde. When they're on near the top of the ruck combo totem pole. When they're not on, their dogs. Probably do well as long as Hille & Ryder are around, and struggle a bit else. I think Belly has a future, but he's still very young for a ruck.

Forwards
In a sense we can easily fill FF/CHF, even if we're not sure which of two candidates gets CHF. Between that and rucks who are good pinch hitters, we're probably ahead of 2/3rds of the league in the talls department. Obviously they do need to start converting more goals.

The smalls aren't bad. Williams and Monfries are both absolute quality when fit, and Monfries and Davey add a hell of a lot of forward pressure. If Crameri or Hardingham perform well, or Winders spends time forward, we've got even more marking power with some good defensive work. Overall, I think if we actually kick it into the forwards more, we'll actually do quite well.

Depth
Its a funny one. Everyone assumes when you can't decide your last 4 players in the "best 22" it means you have depth. No it doesn't. But we certainly have options, and given their ages some have potential to fight for the best 22. Players like NLM, Welsh, will want to retain spots, and players like Colyer, Hardingham and Crameri, Heppell will be fighting for spots too.

Summary
Prior to the NAB cup, my expectation was that we'd have a poorer first part of the year as we got our best 22 and game plan sorted out, followed by a purple patch, before hitting that bad run of games near the end of the season and breaking even. So I expected an improvement on last year, but only by a few wins (a lot in percentage and development though).

Watching the NAB cup, it does feel like the game plan is coming together far faster than I expected, due to tweaking the old one (like Knights should have done) rather than replacing. If so, maybe we'll hit the ground rolling from the start. In which case, I do think we can make finals.

Note this is the first time I've predicted this since prior to the 2005 season!
 
Another one copied over from BB to keep a record. If people are interested in discussing could turn into its own thread as it was over there.
***********************************************

TRB, aka the coaching panel. So, I was one of the ones with a lot of doubts last year about Hird. I was of the view that no matter who he is, someone coming in with no coaching experience was a risk. Add the fact I'm not as big a fan of Thompson as many (especially match day) and that Goodwin had zip in the way of coaching experience, and unlike most I wasn't blown away. That said, I was thrilled to get Wellman, McCartney and Wallis (based on his involvement with the Freo kids). So, one year on, how did they go?

I think I would rate them a "C+".

Yep, average. Sorry.

Oh, you want to know why? :)

I'll freely admit to seeing the list as differently as others. I think Keane & Dodorro have done a great job recently, and there is a lot of talent. Especially with the youngsters. And I expected, and required them to keep developing. Getting Zaha, Melksham to improve isn't a plus for me - it is a minimum benchmark. This was a team who had been a bit of a giant killer while losing to the mob - so I believe the building blocks and talent is there.

So how did we perform this year? Well, we got 4.5 wins more than the previous year. Good. We had far fewer beltings. Good. Unfortunately both 2010 and 2011 were similar on the injury front. :censored: Whereas pre-season it looked like the draw would be more favourable than 2010 - that turned out about the same as well. :thumbdown:

However, an interesting thing is where both seasons were at the mid-stage. After 11 rounds we had 20 points under Knights. In 2011 we had 22. So actually, up until the injuries hit both sides performed similarly. Despite the 2010 side having lost 4-5 senior players over the off-season. Knights then lost the playing group and the second half of the season was diabolical - Hird & co pulled us out of the slump and we recorded another 6 wins for the second half of the year after a pretty bad stretch. This is obviously better than what Knights did (2 wins) but I think most would agree that Knights is hardly the benchmark for acceptable. And Hird did have a group who were all a year older, with some additions Knights didn't have.

So a question is - is 4.5 extra wins too much more than par? I think so which is why I added the "+" to the "C", but not by a huge amount to move to a "B". This side was a year older, with an extra pre-season. It had Heppell and Hibberd. It lost nobody of significance in the off-season. I expected, demanded that we should win more games. Did I expect 4.5 and finals? No. But I did expect around 3 more and finishing say 9th or 10th. So for me, yes they performed better here than expected, but not by a huge margin.

Now obviously TRB have had some successes. Crameri sticks out by a mile. The ability to turn a guy who was a Bendigo midfielder with potential into one of the AFL's best medium talls was bloody brilliant. Bellchambers took a big step up. I thought the 23yr old (young in ruck terms) Ryder started playing more consistent, and showed glimpses up forward. The way the transition of Zaha from a forward spending some time in the middle into a midfielder was, frankly, a joy to watch.

Youngsters don't always improve (no matter my expectations!) and they did get Zaha, Melks, Howlett, Reimers, Myers, Hooker all playing better and brought along Carlisle and Heppell. Hardingham was a vital component, although in an interview he mentioned it was him that pushed to play in defence. Jetta showed a bit but did trail off in the second half.

But against this, I did (and do) have some issues. These are probably the key components in keeping the rating a C:
  • They did play favourites a bit with the selection. Or at least odd selections. They way Slattery and Welsh came in a few times off limited performance (or none) for Bendigo. The way Dyson just couldn't get a game until there was nobody else, and then performed fine. It was a little strange at times. I would personally leave out the 3 rucks bit, since I thought it was a valid experiment and then when done again later in the season it was because of injury issues.
  • Sorry, but I just did not think we saw a box that was particular great on match day. With the exception of Hurley/Carlisle bouncing between one end and the other, and switching a few defenders around at times, I just didn't see much happening tactically on game day. Now, they might say this is because they were focussed on development and wanted to see who stood up/adapted on game day and to stick with the game plan over wins. But in that case...
  • What was with the pigeon holing? If this was a development year, why the hell wasn't there more experimenting? After Dempsey went down at times we were crying out for some ability to break lines off the HBF - yet Dyson wasn't played. Reimers performs well at Bendigo on the HBF and midfield, yet only plays FP for the seniors. I mean, god just imagine if he could replicate his midfield Bendigo performance at senior level? Surely that's worth sacrificing some plans to give him a shot at seniors in the guts? We all think Myers best shot is in the midfield - so when Hocking and Watson were out why not try him there? At least for a game or two? We all think the midfield needs to improve - so why not see if two of our guys with potential there can cut it or not? This feels like one of the biggests wastes of this season that we didn't even find out if they could cut it or not.
  • Jeckyll & Hyde. I will freely admit that our continued struggle to beat some of the weaker sides frustrates me no end.
  • Forward line disfunction. To be fair, this maybe a myth. We finished quite high up on the goal scoring. And I (obviously) don't get to the games to see the whole shebang. But it did feel like from the start to the end of the season there was no real improvement in the way the talls, smalls and midfield interacted. That the talls didn't lead right, the midfield didn't kick to them right, and we couldn't crumb. But I'm willing to admit this may be a bit of a misconception.
  • It was a little concerning in the second half of the year that an old bogey came back - the ability of some top sides to kick streaks of goals against us. Fast. This really really needs to be fixed.
So all up, I think TRB has performed a little better than average. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe Knights was a much better coach/developer than we give credit for. But I personally have some areas of concern, and hope to see Hird learn from his first season and come back a better coach next year.



BTW, here is my pre-season view. Ants 2011 Forecast
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ghostdog
Review 2023 Season Review: The good, the bad, the ugly. Where to next?
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
ant555
ant555
eth-dog
Review 2022 Player Review
Replies
12
Views
771
jmoo wan
jmoo wan
RedmanWasHere
AFLW Player #32: Paige “Bulldozer” Scott - EFC Rising Star 2023 - 7/12
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Lore
Lore
VelvetSledge
  • Locked
Game Day Round 13: 150 Years of EFC - Essendon v **** Carlton, Friday June 10, 7.50pm AEST - MCG
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
478
Views
9K
Harlequin
Harlequin
The Prosecutor
  • Poll
Review: Essendon's Strategic Plan 2017 - 2021
Replies
22
Views
646
Lore
Lore
Lore
  • Poll
AFLW Toast R10: Finish the year with a big win over Port
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Lore
Lore
boncer34
AFL Player #12: Will Setterfield - Out for at least 2 weeks with a knee - 11/4
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
554
Views
44K
ant555
ant555

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top