Roast A Target

[daffo]

Lloyd, Lucas and McPhee. We had plenty of targets last year but they have moved on. Neagle and Lovett were two of the other top six goal scores we had in 2009. It will take us a LONG time to replace that much tallet.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

it got to the point that it didn't matter - we either had to create something across half forward, or die by remaining the same and not trying to win it.

Look at the 3rd, it was only on the break (and a few aweful decisions and a bounce) which stopped our utter dominance - and on the break the slower Hurley isnt ideal. We were infinitely better off having him as a forward target. In fact, we were so dominant he did end up having a shot (or two?). But alas, we dominated yet couldn't put the score on the board (again). We broke down at half forward more than anywhere else.

NLM could have been used differently - even thrown across half forward for example. He could have gone to Jurrah, and Hurley forward (for example). Reimers out of the backline was seemingly the only positive move throughout the day.

A day where FINALLY Hurley's hands didnt feel like big claws, and we cant put him the forward line. typical.

That's nonsense. It always matters who's playing at full back.

NLM was a possibility, and was played there at times, but he was giving us so much in the middle it would have been robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I hate to say it, but I think we would have won with Fletch in the team - that's two games (Sydney) where I've thought that this year.

 

[Smokin]

That's nonsense. It always matters who's playing at full back.

well, thats not the point. Firstly, Jurrah was hardly playing as a traditional FF. It didnt need a Stephen Silvagni to go to Jurrah.

Id argue all day long that Hurley is hardly the perfect Jurrah matchup anyway, it no way was Hurley's position a must as the game went on.

Secondly, when you are x goals down, you have to try and win a game, not try and lose it by 2-3 goals less.

One of Hurley or NLM (at least) just HAD to swing forward. I was surrounded by Essendon supports all of which could see this before half time.

We had to try something.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I agree something had to be done, and I thought Reimers and Lonergan were both good moves.

I'm just saying it's not as easy as "move Hurley forward".

You simply can't neglect key match-ups down back.

 

[Smokin]

cant give credit for the Reimers move, as it only cancelled out the mind boggingly dumb move to try and make the guy a defender in the first place.

Even with Monfries out, he refused to use Reimers in the forwardline when we were screaming for more lead up targets.

This sorta stuff confirms to me Knights' either isnt worried about winning but teaching guys a lesson, or simply struggled too much on game day. I'll go with the later, as surely he knows (and the MC) that the whole coaching panel is on thin ice.

On Hurley - cant agree. It was the obvious move, all those around me wanted it, on the radio was saying it.

It was the wrong match up anyway, NLM is better suited to Jurrah to begin with. Hurley had to be used better, its not like Hurley hadnt been used as a kay forward all season anyway. It was nearly over at half time - how many more alarm bells could possibly be rung during the course of a game to make a move?

There are serious ???'s on Knights tactical nous. So many, that I am now worried that the further we go with him, the further we are actually going backwards, not just standing still.

 

[Beerfish]

Even if we had a decent target inside 50, we wouldn't have been able to hit them. Our kicking into forward 50 is probably the worst in the league.

Agreed.

I felt sorry for Neagle and agree with whoever said he was hung out to dry.

What good is a target up forward if nobody can hit him on the tit.. or get the ball within 5 metres of said tit for that matter.

If he gets dropped again I think I'll just cry in disbelief and frustration.

 

[footycool]

Again, who would you have put back?

I would of Chosen Atkinson/TSlattery at the selection table to fill the spots and this would of have avoided putting Stanton at CHB at the start of the game and would of enabled Hurley to go forward

 

[footycool]

I agree something had to be done, and I thought Reimers and Lonergan were both good moves.

I'm just saying it's not as easy as "move Hurley forward".

You simply can't neglect key match-ups down back.

You rectify this by picking quality young defenders at the selection table

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I would of Chosen Atkinson/TSlattery at the selection table to fill the spots and this would of have avoided putting Stanton at CHB at the start of the game and would of enabled Hurley to go forward

You're dodging the issue, which is Knights deciding not to move Hurley forward during the game.

I'll ask again, who would have gone back?

And Atkinson on Jurrah would have been funny.

 

[footycool]

You're dodging the issue, which is Knights deciding not to move Hurley forward during the game.

I'll ask again, who would have gone back?

And Atkinson on Jurrah would have been funny.

Dempsey or Dyson

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Both of whom were playing in defence...

 

[footycool]

I dont know, just i think in the game Hurley could of been better used as a forward i the match, we needed a target besides Jay.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Unfortunately, we haven't cloned him yet, so until then it's just hot air.

 

[Smyth94]

Unfortunately, we haven't cloned him yet, so until then it's just hot air.

The issue was not bringing a tall for Gumbleton - I reckon this was a fatal mistake by the MC.

Not having that extra tall robbed us of any flexibility we could've had RE: Moving Hurley to the forward line.

 

[Murph_S13]

Agreed.

I felt sorry for Neagle and agree with whoever said he was hung out to dry.

What good is a target up forward if nobody can hit him on the tit.. or get the ball within 5 metres of said tit for that matter.

While I thought he battled hard all day, he was caught behind his opponent too often, being lead to the ball. Allowances have to be made as it's a big step up in class from VFL to AFL, but his leading must improve and work in sync with the ball coming towards him. He has to know who has the ball and how they'll deliver it and adjust his lead to try to get the ball on his advantage side. The mids should then be placing their passes so he can run onto the ball.

 

[Beerfish]

I hear what you're saying, but that's never going to happen if he only stays in the side one or two weeks.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

The issue was not bringing a tall for Gumbleton - I reckon this was a fatal mistake by the MC.

Not having that extra tall robbed us of any flexibility we could've had RE: Moving Hurley to the forward line.

I agree. Slattery probably should have come in instead of Lonergan (as well as he did).

But to say Knights should have thrown Hurley forward without suggesting a viable option to play on Jurrah is pretty pointless.

 

[The Donners]

Seeing as though Welsh played back all day proves that you must have been watching the seagulls and not the game.

An easy thing to do, there was an absolute shitload of them!!!

 

[The Donners]

Got to say, Winderlich's kicks inside 50 and across half forward yesterday were absolutely pathetic. We're not going to get anywhere with Winderlich, I don't care how many touches he gets or what the statistics say about his disposal efficiency.

 

[yaco55]

You're dodging the issue, which is Knights deciding not to move Hurley forward during the game.

I'll ask again, who would have gone back?

And Atkinson on Jurrah would have been funny.

Ben

T.Slattery should have played-End of story.

If you look at our successful part of the year we played 7 talls

2 forwards
3 backs
2 rucks

What did we select against Melbourne

2 rucks
1 forward
2 backs

Watched a replay of the game and was more impressed with Neagle's game. Jay is not a strong contested mark and needs to spend time up the ground where he can lead up into the ball.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Ben

T.Slattery should have played-End of story.

I agree.

But once the game had started, there was nothing that could be done, but we still get comments like "should of thrown hurley forward".

 

[The House]

We definitely need to recruit good, consistant kicks for the next couple of years at least....

.....Watson is awesome and has improved his kicking, and his upside is obviously critical to Essendon and is being used perfectly.

However when you have H. Slattery, Dyson, Dempsey, Welsh and Stanton as regular players along side him, the inconsistancy in desposal is far too much.

Dyson, Dempsey and Stanton ALL missed the target with their first 3 kicks on the weekend. For those who need it spelt out, that's 9 kicks that missed the target in the first 40 mins, from just 3 players....and that's without Hank even playing.

Can have Watson doing it occasionally, Welsh is at least shutting down dangerous players, and maybe Stanton at times, but simply can't expect to be competetive with 6 regulars having low reliability in delivering a ball onto a fellow team mate's tit.

 

[Longy413]

Tyson Slattery should have played, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

I don't think selection here is the problem, nor really our kicking inside 50.
Whilst at times we are slow and we miss targets, all teams do and Melbourne were as bad for us.

However, Melbourne gave themselves a chance by creating space in their forward line, working for each other to get one out.

Regardless of the skill level, when you need to pinpoint passes or take a pack mark to take a mark inside 50, then you are fighting a losing battle.

Melbourne didn't have tall forwards on Sunday. Watts was their tallest and Green was their main target. Yet they created the better scoring opportunities.

Would have been nice to see Neagle or Reimers afforded the opportunity to operate one out agains their opponent.

 

[yaco55]

Longy

You may have made pertinent points as usual.

My argument is about structure

Our best period of success in 2010 was when we played 7 talls in the 22 - We need to return to this structure - We only played 5 on Sunday.

 

[Longy413]

Agree completely.

Still think we should have done better with what we had.
Even with those blokes in the side, how often do we see forwards isolated.

Sick of seeing our forward line look like the Bourke Street Mall at midday.