#5

[Longy413]

Oh, and Knights is trying to get Stanton to play in a different way than he did under Sheeds, he's working on a few new aspects of his game that will make him a much better player overall.

No he's not.

Sheeds did exactly the same thing with Stanton when he was getting tagged and was widely critisised for it.

I agree, the trade talk is a joke.

But Stants has opened him self up for critisism for failing to put his body on the line. Supporters have a right to expect more, his teammates (as Mark McVeigh has already stated) have a right to expect more.

It's a flaw in his game (I think his disposal is fine and underrated) and he needs to fix it.

Footy isn't all rainbows and butterflys, fans have a right to air their disappointment where it's warranted and in this case it is.

 

[OrangeCutter]

I have been pieved with Stants lack of courage, his down on form which i don't mind because i nkow he will come good, but he shirked it 3 times against Carlton and against Kangaroos 2 times, he will not stand there for a mark if he knows a player is coming from behind. If you want to do that Stants change your jumber number because its embarrassing to see that number skirk a contest

 

[lamaros]

Oh sure. Criticism is fine. It's just people don't leave it at criticism and start saying stuff like trades/never rated him/what a hack/softest player ever/etc when it's just hyperbole. No one is going to deny that he could be harder at it.

And I think Knights is playing him a little differently. He's trying to get him to work a lot harder on his inside and defensive game. Sheeds seemed much more content to have Stanton playing mostly outside. Just like with Dyson Knights is trying to make these guys more complete midfielders; with most of the run comming off half back through the middle there is less room for guys recieving the ball wide on the wing.

I watched the 'incident' with Fev again too and I don't think Stanton deliberatly avioded the contest from fear or anything like that, I think he was expecting a spoil from Mal and was making position to recieve if it fell down. I think he will put his body in there once it's made clear to him that it's necessary. He doesn't aviod body contact in other areas of his game so I think he just needs the instruction/confidence to put it in there in marking contests too, rather than zone off and expect someone else in the contest to win it.

 

[Smokin]

It's threads like these and make me wonder why I bother checking this forum from time to time. Nothing but idiotic player-bashing from people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Cr@p. We are all paying members, and we can comment on the team both good and bad. This isnt mindless idiotic bashing, it is fairly well structured based on pretty specific examples. If you cant handle that, that is your problem.

Talk of trading Stanton is indeed having a laugh. His disposal is much better than it used to be. So what if he missed one shot on goal and maybe one other kick, his other ball use was very good against Carlton, better than Houli, the guy half of you seem to be in love with (because.. well.. because he is a little bit faster? His kicking is slightly better than Stanton's and his handball is awful while Stantons is good.. and his decisions and composure are much worse than Stanton's).

1. Extremely few players in the comp are "untradeable" - everybody has a price. IMO, a good trade OPPORTUNITY is when you have a player who you feel the general competition and opposition MAY rate higher than his real worth, to the club. IMO I would EXPLORE this opportunity with Stanton as I feel he fits the bill perfectly. During the last trade week, it would not have been unreasonable to expect a first round pick for Stanton, probably top 10. Still to this day I reckon Stanton and Bradley packaged would have got us Freo's first pick who turned out to be Palmer. We will never know.

I would never trade Stanton for anything beyond what I feel is reasonable, to IMO he is a perfect canditate to put on the market and see who bites.

2. Stats show Stanton's effeciency last week was 63%, Houli's 86%. Sure, Stanton had 12 more touches, but if you think Stanton had "veryy good" disposal against Carlton, perhaps you should re-watch the game.

3. Houli is not god, nobody thinks that, but much of the hype is based on potential of the kid. He was a relatively late pick, and is showing much more than even many Essendon fans expected. He has played only a handful of games compared to the 50 plus of Stanton. You are not comparing apples to apples. The Stanton hype has been running for about 3 years now, yet he hasnt taken the next step, and has never addressed his softness which is borderline unacceptable in todays footy. That's a matter of opinion though. And Houli is much faster than Stanton, in fact I believe he has the fourth or fifth time for the 20m sprint, behind the likes on Atkison, Davey, Dempsey etc.

But I am the first to admit that I am a little concerned about Houli's shirking as well. This aint about him though.

Seriously, if you're so bored but insist on talking about Essendon talk about stuff that demonstrates some thinking; getting on the back of player x after they have a bad game or two and repeating yourself stupid doesn't do much good.

It's not that at all. Again, if you dont like something address it, but many here are basing opinions on precise examples, much of which have plauged Stanton's career.

If a leader of the club McVeigh, can come out and PUBLICALLY have a go at Stantons softness, you can bet your bottom dollar more than one person at the club is concerned by this.

You can whinge, yet you havnt addressed the key reason on why this thread exists in the first place. You seem to think everyone is bashing him for nothing, yet will not address the reason for many of our concern and disapointment.

This is AFL, not under 12's. You cant expect everyone to be bong smoking hippies in love with everything red and black.

Oh, and Knights is trying to get Stanton to play in a different way than he did under Sheeds, he's working on a few new aspects of his game that will make him a much better player overall.

Care to elaborate on this?

 

[The Donners]

Cr@p. We are all paying members, and we can comment on the team both good and bad. This isnt mindless idiotic bashing, it is fairly well structured based on pretty specific examples. If you cant handle that, that is your problem.



1. Extremely few players in the comp are "untradeable" - everybody has a price. IMO, a good trade OPPORTUNITY is when you have a player who you feel the general competition and opposition MAY rate higher than his real worth, to the club. IMO I would EXPLORE this opportunity with Stanton as I feel he fits the bill perfectly. During the last trade week, it would not have been unreasonable to expect a first round pick for Stanton, probably top 10. Still to this day I reckon Stanton and Bradley packaged would have got us Freo's first pick who turned out to be Palmer. We will never know.

I would never trade Stanton for anything beyond what I feel is reasonable, to IMO he is a perfect canditate to put on the market and see who bites.

2. Stats show Stanton's effeciency last week was 63%, Houli's 86%. Sure, Stanton had 12 more touches, but if you think Stanton had "veryy good" disposal against Carlton, perhaps you should re-watch the game.

3. Houli is not god, nobody thinks that, but much of the hype is based on potential of the kid. He was a relatively late pick, and is showing much more than even many Essendon fans expected. He has played only a handful of games compared to the 50 plus of Stanton. You are not comparing apples to apples. The Stanton hype has been running for about 3 years now, yet he hasnt taken the next step, and has never addressed his softness which is borderline unacceptable in todays footy. That's a matter of opinion though. And Houli is much faster than Stanton, in fact I believe he has the fourth or fifth time for the 20m sprint, behind the likes on Atkison, Davey, Dempsey etc.

But I am the first to admit that I am a little concerned about Houli's shirking as well. This aint about him though.



It's not that at all. Again, if you dont like something address it, but many here are basing opinions on precise examples, much of which have plauged Stanton's career.

If a leader of the club McVeigh, can come out and PUBLICALLY have a go at Stantons softness, you can bet your bottom dollar more than one person at the club is concerned by this.

You can whinge, yet you havnt addressed the key reason on why this thread exists in the first place. You seem to think everyone is bashing him for nothing, yet will not address the reason for many of our concern and disapointment.

This is AFL, not under 12's. You cant expect everyone to be bong smoking hippies in love with everything red and black.



Care to elaborate on this?

Although I couldn't be bothered reading everything, what I did read I agreed with 100%.

And as for Lamaros, I don't rate Stanton and never will. Our midfield was the worst in the competition last season, and the season before etc. and Stanton was in it... where has he improved? Toughness?

 

[Coach Bombay]

Stanton picks up alot of cheap possesions. Especially when he is struggling in games he will run across the back line to get the one-two off a teammate which i think is fair enough, trying to get into the game. It seems knighta isnt playing him properly, but if he is then stanton needs to lift alot because the way he is playing does not affect the game much apart from his poor disposal which aids the opposition.

 

[Bombermania]

I for one do not want to trade Stanton and yes I was disappointed with that third quarter incident with Fevola but given Stanton is only 21 I believe over time he will develop.

His Kicking as improved from two years ago which in itself gives me confidence that the other areas will also develop, I'm sure Knights will show Stanton where he needs to improve and I think he will react.

People talk about trading Stanton, I would suggest there are several players more worthy of going example Peveril.

People talk about how brave Monfries is and yes I think he is fantastic but the general problem with the Essendon midfield is that in general play it appears not to man up, Stevens had many uncontested kicks, Betts and Judd appeared at times to be given free range.

This is a side effect of us being a free hard running unit that is great with the Ball but without tends to be caught a little flat footed.

Windleich for one will be better for the run, hopefull Jetta is back soon and NLM returns soon along with Welsh, so while we might have liked to thump Carlton the main thing is we got the Four points, we are 2-1 and sittng in Eighth.

One player who appears to be down on past years is Flecter, several times in the third term he failed to throw a fist at the ball maybe this is a result of the rule changes but he doesn't seem as dangerous as in past seasons.

 

[lamaros]

Cr@p. We are all paying members, and we can comment on the team both good and bad. This isnt mindless idiotic bashing, it is fairly well structured based on pretty specific examples. If you cant handle that, that is your problem.

From some it is specific and focused, and I have no problem with that, I have also had a go at certain point with Stanton and other players. Don't assume I have anything against criticism at all; what I have is a problem with the criticism that is knee jerk unthought out stuff posted from people because someone has a couple of bad games.

1. Extremely few players in the comp are "untradeable" - everybody has a price. IMO, a good trade OPPORTUNITY is when you have a player who you feel the general competition and opposition MAY rate higher than his real worth, to the club. IMO I would EXPLORE this opportunity with Stanton as I feel he fits the bill perfectly. During the last trade week, it would not have been unreasonable to expect a first round pick for Stanton, probably top 10. Still to this day I reckon Stanton and Bradley packaged would have got us Freo's first pick who turned out to be Palmer. We will never know.

I would never trade Stanton for anything beyond what I feel is reasonable, to IMO he is a perfect canditate to put on the market and see who bites.

This is a fair point, if you were justified in your thinking. However you can't just say "I think he's crap and others don't, therefore he's over-rated and we should trade him". The fact is that Stanton is a young guy who has obviously impressed people at Essendon, and has many supporters as fans too. He was one of our most impressive midfielders last year, is young, and so any idea of trading him based on the fact that other teams value him higher than us is just stupid. You don't trade away key players from your starting 22, especially not young ones who have their best days ahead of them and are well liked and respected inside the club.

2. Stats show Stanton's effeciency last week was 63%, Houli's 86%. Sure, Stanton had 12 more touches, but if you think Stanton had "veryy good" disposal against Carlton, perhaps you should re-watch the game.

I watched the game just last night and I was much more impressed with Stanton's disposal than Houli's for the most part. There is more to a game than whether a disposal is effective or not.

Please don't take this as negative comment on Houli, I think he has a lot of potential and am glad we have him, but he is not as good a player in Stanton at this point, not at all.

3. Houli is not god, nobody thinks that, but much of the hype is based on potential of the kid. He was a relatively late pick, and is showing much more than even many Essendon fans expected. He has played only a handful of games compared to the 50 plus of Stanton. You are not comparing apples to apples. The Stanton hype has been running for about 3 years now, yet he hasnt taken the next step, and has never addressed his softness which is borderline unacceptable in todays footy. That's a matter of opinion though.

So what if he's been hyped for a few years? You don't make list choices and team choices based on what popular perception is. You pick players who you believe in who have shown the potential and skill you want in your team. Stanton has shown this, this is where the hype is comming from, and has improved every year. He is still a very young player and it is absolutly absure to think that someone has failed to deliver on potential simply because they aren't at their peak at 21. People who say rubbish like this are like those who constantly have a go at Bryce Gibbs, a player who I would love to have at Essendon.

On the hardness point, this has never cropped up as the serious complaint about Stanton's game before this. It used to be his disposal. And he's much better at that now. It is only now that he has improved in other parts of this game and is expected to be more responsible that he has had the pressure put on him to fix this issue. Given that Sheeds had him playing as an outside player before this it wasn't that big a deal. Now that it is he has the chance to show us what he can do; there is no point making out like this is some huge impossible to fix flaw in his game that he has never had before.

I mean, look at McVeigh. How many big flaws did he have in his game that he has fixed over time to become the player he is recently? Why doesn't Stanton deserve the chance to fix his issues without rubbish talk about them as if they are the end of him as a player?

It's not that at all. Again, if you dont like something address it, but many here are basing opinions on precise examples, much of which have plauged Stanton's career.

No, some are, most of the posts are just knee-jerk reactions to a few bad games that will turn to praise as soon as he hardens up a little bit and gets some confidence up.

If a leader of the club McVeigh, can come out and PUBLICALLY have a go at Stantons softness, you can bet your bottom dollar more than one person at the club is concerned by this.

As I said time and again, concern can be much better articulated than many of the people here. Rubbish about the fact he is wearing the #5 and the like is just having a go at him generaly, when what makes most sense is criticism on specific points.

You can whinge, yet you havnt addressed the key reason on why this thread exists in the first place. You seem to think everyone is bashing him for nothing, yet will not address the reason for many of our concern and disapointment.

I addressed it myself. It's a concern, but the hyperbole that goes with is is rediculous.

Care to elaborate on this?

Put above, but I will elaborate:

Knights is trying to get him to work a lot harder on his inside and defensive game. Sheeds seemed much more content to have Stanton playing mostly outside, running in to space and recieving around the wing and other parts of the ground. However with our new game plan most of the run is comming off half back and heading through the middle of the ground. Stanton is adjusting his game by pushing forward or back and leaving this middle area he used to inhabit much more often. Off the half back he is often a go to person to kick the ball upfield, acting a bit more like a quarterback. He is pushing back and forward at different times more often, depending who he is playing on, while he is getting 'inside' more at the stoppages than he used to. He often spends part of the game is a more tagging role running with the opposition; a move I think is as much of a learning experieence for him as it is a ligitimate defensive option. It seems to me that Knights is trying to get him to push forward, back, and into the stoppages more through the game, broadening his game from that of the outside runner; a role that he is not as suited to with our new style as he doesn't have the pace of others who do that role. The goal seems to be to get him to play the same role that McVeigh is doing so well this year.

 

[The Donners]

I for one do not want to trade Stanton and yes I was disappointed with that third quarter incident with Fevola but given Stanton is only 21 I believe over time he will develop.

His Kicking as improved from two years ago which in itself gives me confidence that the other areas will also develop, I'm sure Knights will show Stanton where he needs to improve and I think he will react.

People talk about trading Stanton, I would suggest there are several players more worthy of going example Peveril.

People talk about how brave Monfries is and yes I think he is fantastic but the general problem with the Essendon midfield is that in general play it appears not to man up, Stevens had many uncontested kicks, Betts and Judd appeared at times to be given free range.

This is a side effect of us being a free hard running unit that is great with the Ball but without tends to be caught a little flat footed.

Windleich for one will be better for the run, hopefull Jetta is back soon and NLM returns soon along with Welsh, so while we might have liked to thump Carlton the main thing is we got the Four points, we are 2-1 and sittng in Eighth.

One player who appears to be down on past years is Flecter, several times in the third term he failed to throw a fist at the ball maybe this is a result of the rule changes but he doesn't seem as dangerous as in past seasons.

• Stanton is still young story will only last 2 more years, then what?
• When was Monfries in the middle? Stanton did FA and has no defensive skills whatsoever
• Winderlich is no good.
• Fletcher has never been good one-on-one, hence I don't recall a full-forward for an opposition going goalless or even close. In fact, I can't name a full-forward that hasn't had a day out against Essendon! Kent Kingsley FFS!!! Don't get me wrong, Fletch is a great player but not one-on-one.

I'll be waiting for the abuse from everyone re: Fletch. However I am unfortunately right.

 

[The Donners]

The fact is that Stanton is a young guy who has obviously impressed people at Essendon, and has many supporters as fans too. He was one of our most impressive midfielders last year, is young, and so any idea of trading him based on the fact that other teams value him higher than us is just stupid. You don't trade away key players from your starting 22, especially not young ones who have their best days ahead of them and are well liked and respected inside the club.

Please don't take this as negative comment on Houli, I think he has a lot of potential and am glad we have him, but he is not as good a player in Stanton at this point, not at all.

Firstly, Stanton is in our best 22 because he's the best of a bad bunch or because our young players with far more potential are not ready. He was one of our best midfielders last season yet we had the worst midfield in the competition.

Secondly, it's ok for you to say Stanton is young, Houli is 2 years younger than Stanton and he doesn't shirk a contest and he also gets his own ball!

Put this on record, Houli is a far better prospect than Stanton!

 

[Bombermania]

• Stanton is still young story will only last 2 more years, then what?
• When was Monfries in the middle? Stanton did FA and has no defensive skills whatsoever
• Winderlich is no good.
• Fletcher has never been good one-on-one, hence I don't recall a full-forward for an opposition going goalless or even close. In fact, I can't name a full-forward that hasn't had a day out against Essendon! Kent Kingsley FFS!!! Don't get me wrong, Fletch is a great player but not one-on-one.

I'll be waiting for the abuse from everyone re: Fletch. However I am unfortunately right.

1) I would say this is Stanton's last year of using young as an excuse.
2) Monfries is talked about as being part of the midfield eventhough he is mostly in the forward line, I mentioned him because this thread is about being hard at the ball and Monfries is seens as being more hard than Stants.
3) I disagree with you regarding Windleich, this is one arguement I hope I'm proven right on.
4) I think Fletcher could go harder at the contest.

 

[Longy413]

• Stanton is still young story will only last 2 more years, then what?

He'll be a very good player having learnt his lessons.
Or, he'll be a handy midfielder.

• Winderlich is no good.

You're a fraud.

• Fletcher has never been good one-on-one, hence I don't recall a full-forward for an opposition going goalless or even close. In fact, I can't name a full-forward that hasn't had a day out against Essendon! Kent Kingsley FFS!!! Don't get me wrong, Fletch is a great player but not one-on-one.

Tony Lockett, Anthony Rocca, Alistar Lynch, Fraser Gehrig.

Stephen Kernahan rated him as the best defender he's played on.

He doesn't have the pace off the mark to play on a FF anymore, but the bloke is a champion.

Anyone who wins a B&F from FB in a Premiership year must have stopped the odd goal.

 

[Big Scottknowsall]

I have been pieved with Stants lack of courage, his down on form which i don't mind because i nkow he will come good, but he shirked it 3 times against Carlton and against Kangaroos 2 times, he will not stand there for a mark if he knows a player is coming from behind. If you want to do that Stants change your jumber number because its embarrassing to see that number skirk a contest

For all but a period in the third qtr, Mal was all over Fev - 12 spoils in less than three quarters and Fev got away form him for 2/3's of a qtr. Now, if I am an on baller and I know my full back is likely to spoil the contest, I am not going up for the mark - it is a split decision that needs to be made, and I agree, if the defender cant get there you must go - but Stants had every right to be confident Mal would spoil the strong majority of balls coming into Fev as he had done in the first half....

Why don't you mention the desperate tackles he laid in the last qtr deep in defence which surely resulted in saved goals?? Anyone can pull out incidents if they want to be completely negative - and as I said, I agree he needs to work on this part of his game - but he was good on Sat night and contributed far more than the majority of the team when the heat was on in that game!

 

[The Donners]

He'll be a very good player having learnt his lessons.
Or, he'll be a handy midfielder.



You're a fraud.



Tony Lockett, Anthony Rocca, Alistar Lynch, Fraser Gehrig.

Stephen Kernahan rated him as the best defender he's played on.

He doesn't have the pace off the mark to play on a FF anymore, but the bloke is a champion.

Anyone who wins a B&F from FB in a Premiership year must have stopped the odd goal.

Saverio Rocca, Garry Lyon, Barry Hall, Chris Tarrant, Quinten Lynch, Warren Tredrea, Trent Hentschel, Nathan Thompson, Tony Modra etc.... name any of the players you have mentioned that he's stopped. If he had then that would make him good one-on-one. He hasn't, hence, not good one-on-one.

I couldn't give a rats ass what Kernahan said! He's a knob!

 

[The Donners]

You're a fraud.

Winderlich is crap. Tries hard but is crap, doesn't have the skills to be playing at AFL level.

Tell me what he's good for? He runs hard granted but that's it. His disposal is ordinary if he ever kicks over 20 metres. He's your Bob Harvey 2008... not 1998!

His inaccuracy at goal has also cost Essendon games i.e. Carlton round 3 2007 - 2 simple misses.

 

[lamaros]

So who do you rate Donners? Guys who've played 5 games (if only we had palmer! he had some touches in a game, twice!--even if it was only 58% efficency)? Guy on the lists of other teams who we don't have? Guys who have retired? Yeah, solid basis for that thinking. If only we could get the youngsters to deliver on every bit of their potential, get any players in the comp of from our history, well then we'd be just fine and would be reasonable in writing off Stanton and whoever else we feel like. Pity we have to actualy deail with reality.

 

[The Donners]

For all but a period in the third qtr, Mal was all over Fev - 12 spoils in less than three quarters and Fev got away form him for 2/3's of a qtr. Now, if I am an on baller and I know my full back is likely to spoil the contest, I am not going up for the mark - it is a split decision that needs to be made, and I agree, if the defender cant get there you must go - but Stants had every right to be confident Mal would spoil the strong majority of balls coming into Fev as he had done in the first half....

Why don't you mention the desperate tackles he laid in the last qtr deep in defence which surely resulted in saved goals?? Anyone can pull out incidents if they want to be completely negative - and as I said, I agree he needs to work on this part of his game - but he was good on Sat night and contributed far more than the majority of the team when the heat was on in that game!

Do it for a full game. Sick of hearing shit about singular good plays from some of our senior players... do it the whole game, that's what separates a good player from a flash-in-the-pan!

I've said it before, compare Stanton to other midfielders in the competition and you'll see why our midfield is dubbed the worst in the competition.

Stop being so one-eyed! It doesn't help anyone blowing smoke up players' asses if its undeserved!

 

[The Donners]

So who do you rate Donners? Guys who've played 5 games (if only we had palmer! he had some touches in a game, twice!--even if it was only 58% efficency)? Guy on the lists of other teams who we don't have? Guys who have retired? Yeah, solid basis for that thinking. If only we could get the youngsters to deliver on every bit of their potential, get any players in the comp of from our history, well then we'd be just fine and would be reasonable in writing off Stanton and whoever else we feel like. Pity we have to actualy deail with reality.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying because we don't have the players we once did that I should take it easy on the shit players on our list?

Anyway, these are the core of our players that are reliable and do it every week:

Ryder, Mcveigh, Davey, Lovett-Murray, Welsh and Lucas.

As for the younger players, they are either are not consistent or haven't played enough senior football. The above players NEVER lower their colours to ANY of their opponents. They NEVER avoid a contest and can ALWAYS walk off the ground knowing that they did EVERYTHING the coach and their supporters asked of them.

There are other players that deserve a mention but I am just explaining that yes I do think there are some very decent players on our list!

 

[Smokin]

From some it is specific and focused, and I have no problem with that, I have also had a go at certain point with Stanton and other players. Don't assume I have anything against criticism at all; what I have is a problem with the criticism that is knee jerk unthought out stuff posted from people because someone has a couple of bad games.

Well, Ive been critical of Stanton (and had my theory about him being perfect trade bait) for at least 18 months now.

IMO Stanton's style is yesterdays style, and the game is chaning, I will address this on your final point.

This is a fair point, if you were justified in your thinking. However you can't just say "I think he's crap and others don't, therefore he's over-rated and we should trade him". The fact is that Stanton is a young guy who has obviously impressed people at Essendon, and has many supporters as fans too. He was one of our most impressive midfielders last year, is young, and so any idea of trading him based on the fact that other teams value him higher than us is just stupid. You don't trade away key players from your starting 22, especially not young ones who have their best days ahead of them and are well liked and respected inside the club.

That's your opinion, my opinion is that he isnt a real "key" at all. In fact, JUST makes my best 22, and in the short to medium turn I see him losing his place, in my opinion if something doesnt change. Why? I will address this with your final point below.

I watched the game just last night and I was much more impressed with Stanton's disposal than Houli's for the most part. There is more to a game than whether a disposal is effective or not.

Well, you specifically said Stantons ball use was better than Houli's. Thats the comment I addressed. Bag the statistics all you like when they dont agree with you, but it doesnt help your argument.

Please don't take this as negative comment on Houli, I think he has a lot of potential and am glad we have him, but he is not as good a player in Stanton at this point, not at all.

Never said he was.

So what if he's been hyped for a few years? You don't make list choices and team choices based on what popular perception is. You pick players who you believe in who have shown the potential and skill you want in your team. Stanton has shown this, this is where the hype is comming from, and has improved every year. He is still a very young player and it is absolutly absure to think that someone has failed to deliver on potential simply because they aren't at their peak at 21. People who say rubbish like this are like those who constantly have a go at Bryce Gibbs, a player who I would love to have at Essendon.

You commented about the fact Essendon fans "love" Houli, I addressed why I thought this was the case, ie Hype. The fans do love and hype him.

This has nothing to do with Stanton's peak at all, but you cant comment about the fans love/hype perception, then say it has ntohing to do with popular perception. You are confusing your opinion with the issue I addressed. It is your opinion Stanton has shown where the hype comes from, but more and more Essendon fans arent seeing this as time goes on.

That's why Houli is probably more hyped at this stage.

On the hardness point, this has never cropped up as the serious complaint about Stanton's game before this. It used to be his disposal. And he's much better at that now. It is only now that he has improved in other parts of this game and is expected to be more responsible that he has had the pressure put on him to fix this issue. Given that Sheeds had him playing as an outside player before this it wasn't that big a deal. Now that it is he has the chance to show us what he can do; there is no point making out like this is some huge impossible to fix flaw in his game that he has never had before.

Well, I have been luke warm on Stanton for at least 18 months now, and I also subscribe to the theory that once a cat, always a cat (to an extent). Softness are hardness is pretty much born, not developed. Stanton simply is that type. Sure, he can improve, but there will always be an element of softness in his game. That's the reality. The question that must be asked is that can his good outweight his downfalls, and time will tell.

I mean, look at McVeigh. How many big flaws did he have in his game that he has fixed over time to become the player he is recently? Why doesn't Stanton deserve the chance to fix his issues without rubbish talk about them as if they are the end of him as a player?

I have never said Stanton doesnt deserve a chance to fix anything, nor that he cant get better or that he is finished.

I started this thread stating he should be dropped due to a couple of specific incidents which have nothing to do with ability or form.

As I said time and again, concern can be much better articulated than many of the people here. Rubbish about the fact he is wearing the #5 and the like is just having a go at him generaly, when what makes most sense is criticism on specific points.

The number means nothing I agree, but very little critisim here is honestly about his number.

Put above, but I will elaborate:

Knights is trying to get him to work a lot harder on his inside and defensive game. Sheeds seemed much more content to have Stanton playing mostly outside, running in to space and recieving around the wing and other parts of the ground. However with our new game plan most of the run is comming off half back and heading through the middle of the ground. Stanton is adjusting his game by pushing forward or back and leaving this middle area he used to inhabit much more often. Off the half back he is often a go to person to kick the ball upfield, acting a bit more like a quarterback. He is pushing back and forward at different times more often, depending who he is playing on, while he is getting 'inside' more at the stoppages than he used to. He often spends part of the game is a more tagging role running with the opposition; a move I think is as much of a learning experieence for him as it is a ligitimate defensive option. It seems to me that Knights is trying to get him to push forward, back, and into the stoppages more through the game, broadening his game from that of the outside runner; a role that he is not as suited to with our new style as he doesn't have the pace of others who do that role. The goal seems to be to get him to play the same role that McVeigh is doing so well this year.

Now this is a more holistic approach to the sport in general. I have highlighted some comments which I found interesting.

There is no doubt the game has changed, even from 2 seasons ago. Traditional positions are fading to the point where they are only a few which honestly exist as they used to anymore.

Forget positions, the difference between forwards/mids/backs is eroding, to the point where many players of the future will play in many "positions" on the ground.

This can be seen by the coaching of clubs, a few years ago there were "forward coaches", "midfield coaches" etc - but now the trend has moved away addressing the fact that, from a general point of view, when we have the ball we are effectively 18 offensive players, and when we dont we have 18 defensive players.

The role of the "outside" midfielders, "inside midfielders" "small forwards" etc are blurring, to the point that only the absolute elite are truly defined as these, with 90% having to be both.

When you have to go, you have to go, regardless of your position. "Forwards" must be able to pressure in a defensive sense as much as the "backs", back line players now give as much offense as anyone else. Midfielders must get back and play like defenders and I can go on and on. Teams are now 'tagging' "defenders" etc

Simply put, versatility is not a bonus anymore, it is a requirement. The team now works as a unit of 18 players, not 3 bunches of 6 players in the traditional roles. Weak links get exposed like never before.

This gets to Stanton, IMO he has to change his game significantly to adapt to the changing game. He isnt quick, his skills are ok at best, I think we all agree his hardness isnt there, defensively he has more holes than swiss cheese, and that's when he actually forced himself to comit a defensive act.

Running around getting soft touches is yesterdays hero. Number of touches dont mean anything anymore. You have to be able to offer the team something defensively and offensively.

And it is this which IMO has been our biggest achiles heal - we have been slow to adapt and we have a few too many "traditional" types especially on the onball brigade, which makes our midfield unbalanced. Stanton, Watson, JJ, Pev etc are too traditional in their approach. They have their strengths, but the flip side is nearly non existant. You cant carry too many of these types before you look hopelessly unbalanced.

Stanton is struggling to go around getting the cheap stat around the bag, called "looping" back in the day (even Voss I believe commented on this on the TV). The games has moved on, it moves so quickly from a mark or stoppage that cheap stats like these are becoming less available, simply because they are not required.

You have actually addressed this in your post, highlighting how things are indeed changing. And you are right, you posted very similar thoughts. But you also posted that this doesnt suit Stanton, which has been my biggest concern for the guy.

The game is changing away from what intrinsicly Stanton is. Having a massive tank is fine, but even with rotations, being riddiculously long-distance type fit isnt as important as other areas all of a sudden. Running a million kms non stop is not better than being able to motor quicky for 2kms or so 8 times a game, with a break in between.

IMO one of the best quotes for life in general, and can be applied to us, is that "if nothing changes, nothing changes".

Because some think Stanton was our best midfielder in the past means he is good. Perhaps him being our best midfielder is the reason our midfield has been so bad?

Stanton must change him game to survive, make no mistake. I will be the first to praise him and ride his jock if he does in fact become a genuine elite AFL player. Im not convinced at all, though.

 

[The Donners]

Because some think Stanton was our best midfielder in the past means he is good. Perhaps him being our best midfielder is the reason our midfield has been so bad?

Stanton must change him game to survive, make no mistake. I will be the first to praise him and ride his jock if he does in fact become a genuine elite AFL player. Im not convinced at all, though.

Spot on! I like a supporter who doesn't simply talk up their own!

I think you've given an honest and real assessment of where Stanton is at. I too hope he does become an elite AFL player, along with the other 37 players on our list but that wouldn't be reality.

 

[lamaros]

Ryder, Mcveigh, Davey, Lovett-Murray, Welsh and Lucas.

As for the younger players, they are either are not consistent or haven't played enough senior football. The above players NEVER lower their colours to ANY of their opponents. They NEVER avoid a contest and can ALWAYS walk off the ground knowing that they did EVERYTHING the coach and their supporters asked of them.

This is all well and good, and I am also a big fan of those players you mention (though I would argue that McVeigh wasn't anywhere near as impressive early in his career; he played a bit more for himself and wasn't that disciplined. You couldn't say he has always done what the coach and supporters wanted of him) but there are other things than being hard at the ball 100% of the time.

Davey is great but there are things he can't do because he's too small, McVeigh gets 100% out of himself these days and he needs to, because his natural ability isn't as high as someone like Ryder. Lovett-Murray and Welsh are both solid players, but they don't have all the skills.

Lovett was a good example this weekend. He's not a big guy, would be stupid to get into a hard contest with a big guy like Hille, but his speed and skill is something that adds a lot to our team. You can look at Lloyd and say similar things; he can't play that well up the ground, etc, but he's great at certain things and a great player because of them.

I think Stanton has great skill. I think he has a good football brain, good composure, and is a guy who will get better every year due to his desire to get everything out of himself. I think players can change and work on things like toughness. I think Dyson so far this year has markedly improved his intensity on the footy and his willingness to get involved, he has a long way to go still but I think he's improved, I think all players can improve if they really want to, and Stanton strikes me as a guy who wants to make it as much as anyone, so I think he will.

I think the emphasis some people place on his running ability has overshadowed some of the other skills he has; he is a strong, composed, increasingly good user of the ball, who has a clever and quick thinking football brain who is steadily improving. The fact he has a big 'tank' is just a bonus.

 

[The Donners]

This is all well and good, and I am also a big fan of those players you mention (though I would argue that McVeigh wasn't anywhere near as impressive early in his career; he played a bit more for himself and wasn't that disciplined. You couldn't say he has always done what the coach and supporters wanted of him) but there are other things than being hard at the ball 100% of the time.

Davey is great but there are things he can't do because he's too small, McVeigh gets 100% out of himself these days and he needs to, because his natural ability isn't as high as someone like Ryder. Lovett-Murray and Welsh are both solid players, but they don't have all the skills.

Lovett was a good example this weekend. He's not a big guy, would be stupid to get into a hard contest with a big guy like Hille, but his speed and skill is something that adds a lot to our team. You can look at Lloyd and say similar things; he can't play that well up the ground, etc, but he's great at certain things and a great player because of them.

I think Stanton has great skill. I think he has a good football brain, good composure, and is a guy who will get better every year due to his desire to get everything out of himself. I think players can change and work on things like toughness. I think Dyson so far this year has markedly improved his intensity on the footy and his willingness to get involved, he has a long way to go still but I think he's improved, I think all players can improve if they really want to, and Stanton strikes me as a guy who wants to make it as much as anyone, so I think he will.

I think the emphasis some people place on his running ability has overshadowed some of the other skills he has; he is a strong, composed, increasingly good user of the ball, who has a clever and quick thinking football brain who is steadily improving. The fact he has a big 'tank' is just a bonus.

I didn't say the players I "hand-picked" were the most skilled, they get the most out of themselves and that's no. 1 IMO!

We agree on Dyson, Dyson has improved his intensity but I would question his delivery into the forward line, I haven't seen so many helicopter punts since Stephen Kernahan. Perhaps he runs too fast for him to deliver like Stevens would (Stevens obviously being slower but precise with the kick!).

As for Stanton, he makes it look like he's composed but the number of handballs and kicks that are intercepted suggests to me he is both inept at said abilities and he does not retain his composure. I can't agree with you saying he has great skill.

Although I'm a huge fan of Knights, he hasn't delivered on the improved skills that he was trying to sell.

Note I changed this post to add: It may take another pre-season or two before the skills are honed to a desirable level.

 

[lamaros]

We agree on Dyson, Dyson has improved his intensity but I would question his delivery into the forward line, I haven't seen so many helicopter punts since Stephen Kernahan. Perhaps he runs too fast for him to deliver like Stevens would (Stevens obviously being slower but precise with the kick!).

As for Stanton, he makes it look like he's composed but the number of handballs and kicks that are intercepted suggests to me he is both inept at said abilities and he does not retain his composure. I can't agree with you saying he has great skill.

Although I'm a huge fan of Knights, he hasn't delivered on the improved skills that he was trying to sell. As we've seen the skills go missing as soon as there is pressure... that's a matter of being well drilled to accommodate for said pressure.

Dyson needs to learn from Lovett and adjust his running stride a little bit in order to hit the ball correctly more often (Is he right handed? He runs with it in his right and kicks with the left, makes it hard to get it away quickly). However he is getting better; the kick to McVeigh from the pack outside 50 was great from him; read the ball off hands, quick burst from the pack and a great long kick that gave Judd no chance.

Stanton is down on confidence at the moment and is a little worse than he can be, but just look at the passage where he sets up Lloyd for the goal right near the end of the third quarter to show how skilled and composed he can be under pressure. (Compare to Nash, who is usually a great user of the ball but struggled under the pressure against Carlton).

I think the skills will come with practice. I think the fact it's a new gameplan has an effect on this. When you're trying to play a new style then you might drop your focus from your skills (during the game--as you're trying to think of a couple of things at once) a little bit. Once the new plan becomes more natural I think the players will have more confidence with their skills.

 

[The Donners]

Dyson needs to learn from Lovett and adjust his running stride a little bit in order to hit the ball correctly more often (Is he right handed? He runs with it in his right and kicks with the left, makes it hard to get it away quickly). However he is getting better; the kick to McVeigh from the pack outside 50 was great from him; read the ball off hands, quick burst from the pack and a great long kick that gave Judd no chance.

Stanton is down on confidence at the moment and is a little worse than he can be, but just look at the passage where he sets up Lloyd for the goal right near the end of the third quarter to show how skilled and composed he can be under pressure. (Compare to Nash, who is usually a great user of the ball but struggled under the pressure against Carlton).

I think the skills will come with practice. I think the fact it's a new gameplan has an effect on this. When you're trying to play a new style then you might drop your focus from your skills (during the game--as you're trying to think of a couple of things at once) a little bit. Once the new plan becomes more natural I think the players will have more confidence with their skills.

Fair assessment but 1 out of 5 isn't good enough for this level of football considering Dyson is on his last chance at this level of football.

I agree, Nash didn't have his best game in terms of execution by foot but has the penetration in his kicks Stanton has but the accuracy that McVeigh has. Nash will be a very solid small defender for years to come.

Lovett certainly has balance. I think that is one area in his game he has improved, he used to run as fast as he could without considering where the ball will go... he uses it much wiser now and could be a real threat IF he remains/becomes consistent.

Peter Burgoyne was a fine example of what Essendon don't need any more of, 40 uncontested possessions... probably worth 1 contested possession.

I'd like to see some defensive pressure in the middle, Lovett doesn't provide it, Stanton doesn't provide it... Watson's too slow to provide it.

That's our issue, hurry up Hislop!!! (I realise he's injured but would like him to fast forward his development!)

 

[Longy413]

Saverio Rocca, Garry Lyon, Barry Hall, Chris Tarrant, Quinten Lynch, Warren Tredrea, Trent Hentschel, Nathan Thompson, Tony Modra etc.... name any of the players you have mentioned that he's stopped. If he had then that would make him good one-on-one. He hasn't, hence, not good one-on-one.

He's beaten all the blokes I've mentioned.

Garry Lyon averages 2 goals against Essendon in games Fletch has played.
Chris Tarrant less than 2.
Hentschel had one good game against Essendon, Thompson two.

Hall, Rocca, Tredrea have all consistently had the better of him. No doubt.

Winderlich is crap. Tries hard but is crap, doesn't have the skills to be playing at AFL level.

Tell me what he's good for? He runs hard granted but that's it. His disposal is ordinary if he ever kicks over 20 metres. He's your Bob Harvey 2008... not 1998!

His inaccuracy at goal has also cost Essendon games i.e. Carlton round 3 2007 - 2 simple misses.

He has a goal conversion of 61%.
That's better than Lucas.

Last year he kicked a vital goal against Adelaide, from just inside 50 that turned the game.

He kicked three goals against West Coast last year, three straight. And with Lucas and Lovett was the catalyst in getting us back into the game.

Kicked a goal from outside 50 against West Coast the first time around.

He runs hard, wins the ball inside and out, has pace and is a very good kick of the football.

But hey, lets burn him because he missed two goals in one game. A game in which he had 24 disposals.